Originally posted by Cz
We had a meeting today involving several people from different departments, and basically we agreed that LLTS itself is not the main issue, but the critical chances that people are able to attain. Due to this I would like to ask a bit more about some of the suggestions players have brought up; making so that you can't efficiently stack all crit increasing stuff in the game.
Could you ask them for the approximate crit percentage limit that they are looking for? This would help in providing better feedback.
How about saying that Flurry of Blows and the MA self crit buffs won't be usable with ranged weapons (except bows) due to a big Ranged Init penalty, and the LLTS won't be usable with close combat weapons, bare handed attacks and bows due to a big penalty on Melee and Physical Init?
Who will be the losers in such a deal? How much will they lose? What would be a reasonable compensation (in e.g. IPR points)?Will balance be better or worse?
MA - I've said before that I think SG/VS/LMA/UVC should be MA/bow-only. These buffs are unreasonable for ranged weapons that you are attempting to balance outside of these buffs. MA damage output right now is incredibly high with just bow/MA.
Enforcer - Again, their damage output is pretty high right now. Where I see this hurting them the most is in aggro management, but this is something that should be fixed with their taunts. I saw a thread a couple days ago regarding this, and I think it's something that needs to be fixed alongside any reduction in their damage output.
Adventurer - This would hurt... and I really don't think adventurers need any setbacks. Perhaps some damage adjustments on their melee weapons to compensate? I'm not sure here, as I don't know a lot of adventurers.
Engineers - just plain need some attention, with or without the LLTS adjustment. I think most engineers would be happy to sacrifice this battle for a few fixes from their forum.
Aside from those points, this is exactly the kind of change I'd like to see.
I wouldn't call it "compensation" so much as a "correction opportunity" -- another 1-patch full IPR opportunity would be the safest and most fair option in my opinion.
Let me have your feedback, and I'll compile it and add it to the feedback on other suggestions and ideas, and we'll see where we end up.