Summary of Profession Rebalancing: Round 1

I can see why root/snares should be reduced in pvp, but pvm? :confused:

Thanks for the sum-up Reid!

Great initiative. =D Added in links to the main discussion threads, altered the title slightly (as this is just the first round of information going out), and stickied the thread. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kintaii

Great initiative. =D Added in links to the main discussion threads, altered the title slightly (as this is just the first round of information going out), and stickied the thread. =)

---

Thanks for the sticky and adding of the links Kintaii, guess I shoulda thought about that part :p

Fresh intel's out, Reids, you might wanna browse the forums and update your tl;dr thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reids

Doctor
Cyberdeck: Potential non-offensive Doctor 'weaponry' which allows the Doctor to choose between maximum healing/debuff/nuking capabilities, or whether they wish to go fully-offense by choosing a weapon.

---

omg, please don't implement this nonsense. The diversity of early NTs was completely destroyed when they got their cyberdeck, don't do this to docs as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looke

omg, please don't implement this nonsense. The diversity of early NTs was completely destroyed when they got their cyberdeck, don't do this to docs as well.

---

What's nonsense about giving choice? It clearly states right there that if implemented it would be possible to use it to go full nano focus, or focus more on damage and offensive capabilities without using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mastablasta

What's nonsense about giving choice?

---

You mean... Like NT "choices" that emerged after introducing their nanodeck?

Read: all would go with nanodeck option (if poorly implemented, which most probably would be the case - NT nanodeck), which is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klod9001

You mean... Like NT "choices" that emerged after introducing their nanodeck?

---

NTs were locked to the cyberdeck after it came out because so many nanos also appeared that directly correlated with the cyberdeck, plus it was free. You got your best DD and CC tools from the deck and so yes, they were stuck with the deck.

Doctor cyberdeck doesn't have to be like that; it can be a good way of doing moderate DD with nukes, etc, without needing to spend (much) on weaponskills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saetos

Doctor cyberdeck doesn't have to be like that; it can be a good way of doing moderate DD with nukes, etc, without needing to spend (much) on weaponskills.

---

Yes lets dumb down the game even more, making choices and putting effort into a toon is getting old.

A cyberdeck for a doc would turn us into nothing but a belamorte with legs, so lets just put someone on follow and set click.exe to cast heals, no one will notice the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saetos

NTs were locked to the cyberdeck after it came out because so many nanos also appeared that directly correlated with the cyberdeck, plus it was free. You got your best DD and CC tools from the deck and so yes, they were stuck with the deck.

Doctor cyberdeck doesn't have to be like that; it can be a good way of doing moderate DD with nukes, etc, without needing to spend (much) on weaponskills.

---

So, you are saying... That's what would happen to docs, because it would, in fact, be exactly like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saetos

NTs were locked to the cyberdeck after it came out because so many nanos also appeared that directly correlated with the cyberdeck, plus it was free. You got your best DD and CC tools from the deck and so yes, they were stuck with the deck.

---

Actually we had to wait a few years to get deck-based cc tools.

In the meantime, mobs were given insta-heal ability when "out of combat", which not only made CC tools useless in combat, but actually counterproductive. (calmed mobs are obvious, but mobs rooted out of melee range while within nano range are also considered "out of combat", regardless of how frequently you nuke them.)

I believe we even had a GD who stated that the purpose of CC was not to make NTs viable for PVM or PVP, but to let them avoid both altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kintaii

Also, on the topic of cyberdecks, I want to say that it's really important that you guys not think of "cyberdeck" and instantly think the current NT implementation. In hopes of clearing up a little bit of the confusion I'm gonna do something I really hate and double-quote myself here - Once from a thread in the Engineer forums, and again from a post made elsewhere; hopefully this will help show off our intents a little bit better. =)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kintaii

Something I really should start clearing up a bit - When we talk about adding a "cyberdeck" to certain professions, we mean in a "basic intent" form; not necessarily the form that the current NT cyberdeck takes (which may also very well be changing).

The base concept of a "cyberdeck" in the context we talk about it now implies a profession-specific item which is utilized as a weapon (ie: held) and negates or diminishes their weapon-based damage for differing options in other areas; As examples: Increased nuking capabilities, increased attack options for their pets, differing modifiers on nanos being cast, and so on.

So yes - Focus on the core concept, not any current implementations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kintaii

I'll go ahead and say this - We haven't finalized exactly how we're altering/implementing cyberdeck functionality, BUT it is highly likely that very few nanos will be cyberdeck locked. That said, that doesn't mean there won't be any - Just like you have to wield a weapon to get Aimshot or Burst, you may have incentives for wielding the CDs.

On the whole, while there may be diminished returns for utilizing certain nanos while not wielding a cyberdeck, they will most likely still be functional in some fashion or form - I don't like the idea of removing an entire part of a profession's toolset over their weapon choice.

Note: This doesn't apply to NTs. We have other plans for you guys. =)

---

This was posted on doc forums. Please read the Prof forums re-balancing threads before you decided to go psycho :p Doctors were worried about the same thing and its been talked about already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazeren

This was posted on doc forums. Please read the Prof forums re-balancing threads before you decided to go psycho :p Doctors were worried about the same thing and its been talked about already.

---

It's all fine and dandy...

But, I would rather see fix of old stuff (surely, it must be easier to do - yay for less time needed to finish balancing!!!) then introduction of radically new stuff that needs much, MUCH more polishing to work properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klod9001

It's all fine and dandy...

But, I would rather see fix of old stuff (surely, it must be easier to do - yay for less time needed to finish balancing!!!) then introduction of radically new stuff that needs much, MUCH more polishing to work properly.

---

Wow, I actually agree with this ...

There are lots of good concepts that are poorly implemented in AO. Reworking those could be a heck of alot easier than new nanodecks for everyone to keep them distracted from the fact that the other half of their toolset isn't useful. I'm not sure I'm convinced the devs have the bandwidth to fix old stuff and make new stuff as well. Guess we will see.

one thing i noticed which was kinda strange...dunno if its been touched on yet but a few of the Nt perks require nt to be "fighting" target before use. imagine my surprise when testing out a perkline and i miss the chain because i didnt hit "Q" lol

hope that gets fixed or looked at also~

Can't you give Adv's something else than a Tree form for healing?
I know funcom did it first and that it got ripped off in wow, but when you are first changing it can't you do something else than a tree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psikie

one thing i noticed which was kinda strange...dunno if its been touched on yet but a few of the Nt perks require nt to be "fighting" target before use. imagine my surprise when testing out a perkline and i miss the chain because i didnt hit "Q" lol

hope that gets fixed or looked at also~

---

I hope it stays like that. I'm sick of getting hit by someone without getting attack message first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klod9001

It's all fine and dandy...

But, I would rather see fix of old stuff (surely, it must be easier to do - yay for less time needed to finish balancing!!!) then introduction of radically new stuff that needs much, MUCH more polishing to work properly.

---

Sometimes when stuff have been getting more and more out of whack for far too long, the easiest and best way to clean up is to throw out whatever you have and get/make something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klod9001

You mean... Like NT "choices" that emerged after introducing their nanodeck?

Read: all would go with nanodeck option (if poorly implemented, which most probably would be the case - NT nanodeck), which is bad.

---

Choice? There was not meant to be a choice. Why bring in something that's not meant to compare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mastablasta

Choice? There was not meant to be a choice.

---

Exactly. Choices are stupid anyways. I mean, why shouldn't we kill the unique part of this game. :rolleyes: