The passive of Strength (referring to the HP gain per point one since Strength has two passives) is too potent. It's a pretty massive benefit and sort of detracts from the allure of Ironflesh (though, of course, stacking both is most effective); you can already get pretty good to great HP @ 24+ STR without ever even investing in Ironflesh. I'd like to see the passive HP benefit changed to be similar to Agility's passive gain (which is like, the equivalent of 1 ath every 3-4 agi or something?) while simultaneously buffing Ironflesh. This would hurt those who haven't invested very heavily into Ironflesh but instead rely on Strength for the bulk of their durability (like me, 18 STR, 3 IF; 6 HP from Ironflesh, 15 HP from STR). I don't feel like Stat investment should contribute to a build's effectiveness as much as skill allocation.
I would rather see a buff to the passive gain by agi then nerfing strengths passive skills.
How about wpf/wpp formula reworks that could look something like this:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I have played with 1 wpf several times in the past, it's certainly not impossible, especially for a skilled player, it just takes more awareness of you and your opponents footwork and chosen swing directions. Hybrids won't really be affected by this, unless you try to hybrid with 3 WM. This would make WM and AGI more rewarding than they currently are, and only penalizes the most extreme str builds. A 15agi 1 wm build could get 105wpf for example.
WM should not give such big numbers.It's not until 4 WM that you will start to get more wpf, and even then, the most you gain in comparison to what we have now, is about 15-20 wpf. While you can say wm shouldn't be any bit more rewarding for archery(which I would disagree with), I think a lot more is required in balancing str vs agi, than simply moving the passive wpp gain from levels to agi. Again, 24/15 with 1 WM would result in 105 wpf, and a 15/24 8 wm build would only give you a net gain of 87 wpf, where as under our current system, you're looking at a difference of 53 wpf. A mere 10 or 15 wpf change in this scenario isn't going to make even the slightest of differences.
the idea is something close that I would make, it's a very coold idea. But the numbers are bullshit. WM should not give such big numbers.
But the numbers are bullshit. WM should not give such big numbers.
4-9 WM doesn't look like too much of an increase compared to what we have, now ~10 points. I think 10+ WM probably deserves something compared to 10+ PS, so the high numbers there seem justified. Right now, there's little incentive to go higher than 27 agi without purposefully gimping yourself. A little testing is required to see how high one can increase wpf before it becomes too unfair in terms of weapon speed. I think the first few points are still pretty powerful, I would make it a little tougher for 1-5 WM.
I would agree with san that 1-5 WM shouldn't give that much wpf.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I had my lvl35 xbowman with 100 wpf in 2h and 180 wpf in crossbows. The build was 15-30 with 5 PS, 1 IF, 10 ath and 10 WM. I retired on lvl35 almost instantly after I tried it out. I put my arbalest in the chest, took a longsword and had scores like this:(click to show/hide)
MW longsword which is very fast itself + 10 athletics made it extremely effective even though I didn't have a lot of PS or wpf. The numbers which you suggest will:
1) Kill the entire balance in ranged. Ranged with 200+ wpf is what we need, right?
2) Make fast sword users even better than now (longsword with a million of wpf FTW)
I suggest to tune WM bonuses by just moving it down like if you had 1 less WM according to your graphic.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I had my lvl35 xbowman with 100 wpf in 2h and 180 wpf in crossbows. The build was 15-30 with 5 PS, 1 IF, 10 ath and 10 WM. I retired on lvl35 almost instantly after I tried it out. I put my arbalest in the chest, took a longsword and had scores like this:So you were able to have a perfect arbalest build while also having a decent melee build thanks to being level 35. It's not often that you see a crossbower admit that crossbows are overpowered in that you literally don't lose any real effectiveness by 'hybriding' with them. Anyway, this is why the crossbow was made 2 slots, so that you can't have the best of both worlds. Furthermore, you took the most extreme case for this, one that really isn't as much of an issue after the recent xbow nerf. You can't do that build with any other ranged weapon because they all have skill point requirements.(click to show/hide)
MW longsword which is very fast itself + 10 athletics made it extremely effective even though I didn't have a lot of PS or wpf. The numbers which you suggest will:
1) Kill the entire balance in ranged. Ranged with 200+ wpf is what we need, right?
2) Make fast sword users even better than now (longsword with a million of wpf FTW)
I suggest to tune WM bonuses by just moving it down like if you had 1 less WM according to your graphic.
I disagree. There are a number of reasons why the Tydeus' proposed schema is a good one:
1.) As Malaclypse said, there is an imbalance between extreme strength and extreme agility builds in terms of usefulness. There is currently no point in having an extreme agility build (ie 27 or more agility) for a melee character unless you are either very high level, a rageball alt, or someone who enjoys being dead most of the time. Extreme strength builds (ie 27 or more strength), on the other hand, are very rewarding to play on both duel and battle as long as you know how to block and have good awareness. Something that makes them of more equal effectiveness is a plus in my book.
2.) As it is currently implemented, there is little reason to get a lot of WM over converting the extra skill points you would save or allocating them somewhere else. With the free 111 wpf he gets from leveling, a straight 1 weapon melee build usually only wants about 3 WM to offset the penalty from his armor. This would be fine except that even hybrids don't get as much out of WM as they do with a similar investment in other skills. 7 WM is currently not enough to use even 3 weapon classes at 110 wpf (before armor penalty), whereas 7 riding is enough to use nearly every horse better than the majority of the population.
3.) From the standpoint of game design, it makes agility and WM parallel with strength and IF. With a change in the vein of what Tydeus has suggested, you would be able to get decent wpf with sufficiently high agility and no WM in the same way that you would be able to get decent HP with sufficiently high strength even with no IF, although you would get a greater benefit in both cases by actually investing skill points.
The specifics of it may need some tweaks, but the general idea of it is definitely sound. Some people have raised concerns about excessively high weapon speeds coming out of a wpf rework, but I do not think that will be a major issue because cRPG now has an absolute level cap of 36 and no wpf carryover on retirement. It is unlikely many people would be able to get more than 200 wpf in one weapon class without either being very high level or sacrificing everything else to do so, and the requirements of specific items can be adjusted if a problem arises.
Maybe a small reduction to wpf penalty from armor.
Just remove the free HP from STR. That alone would actually be a gigantic buff to IF, even if keeping it just the same (+2 hp per level). At the same time, reduce armor weight by a percentage for all armors. This would have the effect of nerfing str+plate crutching and buffing armor globally at the same time.I think this would actually be one of the most terrible things that you could do. If you remove the passive HP from str then you're going to have a lot of people running around with only 35 hp, and that's not going to make for a very fun crpg experience. If you lower the weight on all armors by a percent, then you're giving everyone more reason to use higher armor equipment. Even if you were to say that this in theory was good, you'd still be guilty of not acknowledging that the heaviest armors would get the largest benefit out of this. But that's not the only issue I have with it. Anything that results in a higher average armor value per player than what we have right now, without rebalancing many other facets of this game, is going to come with a heap of negatives.
I think this would actually be one of the most terrible things that you could do. If you remove the passive HP from str then you're going to have a lot of people running around with only 35 hp, and that's not going to make for a very fun crpg experience. If you lower the weight on all armors by a percent, then you're giving everyone more reason to use higher armor equipment. Even if you were to say that this in theory was good, you'd still be guilty of not acknowledging that the heaviest armors would get the largest benefit out of this. But that's not the only issue I have with it. Anything that results in a higher average armor value per player than what we have right now, without rebalancing many other facets of this game, is going to come with a heap of negatives.
For starters, higher average armor values directly harms the effectiveness and variety of certain weapons/builds. We recently buffed the swing damage on low tier polearms specifically because the amount of armor that the majority of infantry gets, can make for a very one sided fight. You have to have a high str build if you want to minimize the likelihood of your swing bouncing off your opponents armor on a perfectly legitimate swing, and thus getting yourself cut in half because your opponent was simply spamming. An increase in the average armor values would undo this change, and further polarize one handed sword effectiveness.
Whether directly or indirectly, increasing armor values is the last thing that we should be doing right now. A better proposal, would be to lower the effect of weight on runspeed as athletics increases. But as someone who often plays 15/30 and 12/33 stf builds in very heavy/plate armor, I don't think it's necessary. Those stf builds of mine aren't ineffective for any reason other than the fact that they do such tiny amounts of damage. That build is perfectly viable against a 35~ body armor opponent.
tl;dr version: It's armor values and free wpf that cause str to be so much more effective than agi.
So by nerfing str health arbalest, rus bow etc... will start to onehit these people with 18/21 builds etc? Well thats a great idea! everyone will have a base health on 35 hp ish (real smart). And after a month ranged will get nerfed even more than before. yay! fuck the nerfs, buff something instead... I've been playing mercenaries for a while now, i find it much more fun than crpg because of these whiners who fucks up the balance by "nerf that its too OP omg nerf nerf nerf"... Simply crpg isnt fun in melee/ranged anymore, everything is so damn slow + the turn nerf a while back ruins my beloved mauling. ruined the stabs etc... I really miss the old crpg from 2010 (not the way the gold/xp system worked, but the combat system).Vex. You got 1 or 2 IF and 82 health. Do you really not see the problem with this?
Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf
People who are calling my idea a nerf to Strength builds aren't getting the point. It's a nerf to the Stat, a buff to the Skill, so it works more like Athletics and Agility (you gain speed from agility, but you gain more speed from athletics). It ought to be the same way with Strength/Ironflesh. You invest more, you get more returns.
Right now, if you make a 21 STR/7 IF character, you have a total of 70hp. 18 of that comes from Strength, which you need to get PS anyhow, and 14 of it comes from Ironflesh which is maxed out.
But on the other hand: the archer with 18 str and 0 IF has a total of 53 HP, so the difference between them is ~33%, if you remove any bonus from strength without buffing IF the difference will be 40% (35<->49 hp) which we don't need. So basically it will be just a regular buff to high strength 2handers, enough said.
Also it will require weeks of hard work to balance things, while it's hard to balance what we have now at least.
My suggestion is simplier. Options what to do (pick one or maybe suggest something else, or even mix them):
1) Remove the wpp per level. The only way to get wpf is to use WM. Scale WM bonuses to what we have now at 6-7 WM, so those who have less WM will have less wpf in future, more WM - more wpf
2) Give much less wpp per level (like 2-3 points -> 55-75 wpf at level 30 without any WM at all), scale WM bonuses
3) Make AGI giving wpp (lets say medium agi is 18 or 21, it's from 11.5 to 13.5 wpp per agi, lets take 12 wpp per 1 agi). So the guy with 18 agility and no WM will have 216 wpp (105 wpf) (18 agility x 12wpp), the guy with 30 agility will have 360 wpp (129 wpf), the guy with 3 agi will have 36 wpf (58 wpf with 1 WM). Sounds fair to me.
There will be no need to nerf strength bonuses, or to nerf IF, people will have to sacrifice at least something from it to get agi or WM
Only if there's some sort of respec or ability to change some points around.
It's just as easy to make the argument that a build without IF suddenly loses many HP points, and people demand respecs because the way they built their character is all of a sudden drastically changed.
In general, I think the relative value of all the skills needs to be reassessed. So many people just max Power Strike and Athletics, neglecting all other skills. So you end up with lvl 34+ builds like 30/18, which is totally ridiculous.
-Ironflesh is totally useless for an archer or light armor player, but a huge boon to the Strength-heavy builds in plate. There has to be a way to equalize its effectiveness for everyone (maybe switch it from HP bonus to post-armor-soak mitigation bonus?)
-Weapon master does woefully little compared with spending those points on more str or agi. Maxing weapon master should make someone a "master of their weapon", not allow them to swing a whole 2% faster and do 4% more damage. It should allow cool duelist features that go beyond damage and speed.
-Shield skill doesn't affect much (only durability, and slight improvements to speed and ranged coverage). Why can't it affect crushthrough resistance, block stun resistance, shield weight encumbrance, bolt penetration, shield bash cooldown (oh, add shield bash please), etc etc
-Athletics should reduce fall damage (this matters to me, since I get at least one fall death on every siege round), and maybe reduce the wpf penalty from armor
-Riding doesn't do much beyond the requirement for riding a particular horse. How about riding above the requirement allows moving dismounts, higher jumps, faster mounting/dismounting, faster rear recovery, etc?
Basically, buff the skills so their bonuses are on par with the huge passive bonuses from Strength.
Vex. You got 1 or 2 IF and 82 health. Do you really not see the problem with this?
My previous suggestions
Rebalancing IF (http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-balance-discussion/high-str-if-armor-combo/msg195842/#msg195842)
Rebalancing Armor+Weight heirlooms (http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-balance-discussion/idea-about-armor-heirlooms/msg231666/#msg231666)
Buffing WM (http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-balance-discussion/weapon-master-buff-less-wpf-reduction-from-armor/msg523261/#msg523261)
Making shield skill more useful than a gear requirement (http://forum.meleegaming.com/suggestions-corner/shield-requirement-overhaul/msg643947/#msg643947)
Rebalancing wpf discrepancies (http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-balance-discussion/linear-wpf-reduction-balancing-str-builds/msg703322/#msg703322)
Been making my own suggestions since 2011 in order to try to make skill points more valuable compared to Athletics and PS. There's tons of room to improve a lot of skills in the game.
The Devs need to just make San and Tydeus the official "character stat/skill balancers".
It's not that easy, skills are one of the least moddable aspects of Warband.
Hit detection and damage begins with the animation. However it should start 1/4 into swing and max at 3/4. The last 1/4 is deccelearation to start the next swing. I do not think the engine can control this?
Should a 12/24 have the ability to do as much damage as 24/12.