Push Your Product

[-XeI20-]

More damage=Crack for a Shade. Gief.

[lostlife]

I'll translate: Shades are known for their immense damage that has, by comparison, became less noticable as the years have passed. The shade community would appreciate more damage threw any means possible.

what im adding to it: add to something that isn't just perk actions, decrease BS timer to 20 secs, but require some sacrifice (at current time) to maintain, so as things are added, the sacrifice becomes less and shades grow at a more acceptable rate.

[Chrazy]

Would you want more damage even if it meant less survivability? Have to balance it after all..

[Ciex]

Even less survivability? I dont mind having negative NR values, ive never seen it work anyway.

[Kinkstaah]

I'll translate: Shades are known for their immense damage that has, by comparison, became less noticable as the years have passed. The shade community would appreciate more damage threw any means possible.

You have gained considerable survivability relative to before. This is the tradeoff and it came to be due to the shade community screaming for more survivability in the days when your DPS was second to none

[lostlife]

Survivabilty increased across the board, while other profs increased in damage more noticably when compared to the shade increases. Also, dont blaim the translator, blaim the OPer :P

[-XeI20-]

Well first off: I stated the OP in the method I did b/c I didn't feel like repeating the same sound arguments for why shades should have more dmg. Since some are unfamiliar with these, and my own opinions on the matter, I'll outline them a bit.

As to receiving more survivability at a cost to dmg...What exactly did crats give up to achieve near/same/greater then shade dd? Did they lost any teamability? Did their survivability go down? Improvements all around with the only notable nerf being one that improved the challenges within pvm.

Now, I'm not saying I want to be a tank with the maddest dmg IG. I'm just wanting to be able to viably be The Top Dmg Prof. The problem with an increase in dmg though is that no enfo can keep agg then. Even the best enfos have serious difficulty maintaining agg when a Shade is running 12man/db buffs. I've repeatedly asked for increases to dmg coinciding with some form of significant detaunts.

I'd personally like to see these options for Shades:

Performance as they are typically now, able to tank while doing nearly the best dmg IG.

Be as much a dmg prof as a doc is a heal prof while lacking the ability to tank, yet having the tools to allow other profs such as soldiers the ability to tank. Significant detaunts. (perhaps edit our dmg procs to 10k hit with 100k detaunt)

[Gatester]

Im just gonna be honest and say I do not see any problems with my damage. I notice a lot of shades losing damage trying to conceal mid fight to sneak, and taking a few tries at it, and even worse they are trying to use the first two Piercing Mastery perks at tl7, at which time you will always have a perk to use and the damage from those two perks as well as them being the only ones you have to frantically run back and forth to land when you have aggro make them a waste of DPM.

TR 10, PM 10 and SP 10, running DoT proc from LE and wearing some crit and damage add gear, I am almost always top DD, and recently my only competition was a shade who had more piercing skill but I had nearly 300 more damage add than he did. If I gave up acrobat and CiB, I could perk for even more damage, and there is still room for improvement with more crit gear. You get several mobs at once you can also stack SHD on each of them, which is even more DPM ticking away.

As far as comparing our DD to Crats, well they need a bit of a nerf in my opinion but I doubt many others would want that. Only a few crats can honestly OD a shade in most cases anyways, and the few times they have a nice pet doesn't really count.

I have a choice between high survival and moderately high damage, or incredibly high damage and I better have a tank. I can debuff mobs inits and AAO+AAD, helping both support profs and tanks, and I have enough def that I can offtank some nasty mobs if needed. I have been playing a 220 enf for a long time now, and if shades aren't useful or doing enough damage then I am seriously lost as to how much I should be doing.

[keitelo]

You have gained considerable survivability relative to before. This is the tradeoff and it came to be due to the shade community screaming for more survivability in the days when your DPS was second to none

What crats, what NT, what traders, etc etc
What did advys loose exactly when they got 80% check for perks AND an AS pistol?

this last one will never get old lol, FC keep on cracking me up!

[Axtilmor]

I'm right with you guys on crats. In PvM they have very high damage, very high soloability/survivability, and very, very high usefulness to a team. It's unfair that they get all of it at the same time.

To be more self-centered, I've yet to hear an argument as to why shades deserve to do better damage than NTs, though NTs are always listed in the "classes that OD us." Foremost, NTs don't clearly OD shades in the first place. If you pit an NT in full %ND gear versus a shade in a full DD perk setup, it's not obvious who will come out higher.

In the hypothetical future, then, the question is which class *deserves* to do better DD. The only thing an NT really has over a shade is a bit of nano regen, which is *nice* but not necessary for anything in game (to be clear, I'm talking about 215+, the only level where NTs are decent damage dealers). Shades, on the other hand have much better solo capabilities than an NT, and can act as a solid replacement tank in many situations where an NT would insta-splat.

I'd be fine with shades solidly occupying the #2 DD spot, but I really don't think it's fair for them to demand #1 DD along side their other PvM capabilities.

[lostlife]

the "who should OD who" isn't really a arguement that players can determine, only fc and what they perceive as what profs should be. if some documentation on what fc thinks we're supposed to be this could potentially stop a few arguments (while starting other, more relevent and informed ones)

[Axtilmor]

the "who should OD who" isn't really a arguement that players can determine, only fc and what they perceive as what profs should be. if some documentation on what fc thinks we're supposed to be this could potentially stop a few arguments (while starting other, more relevent and informed ones)

While I agree with this sentiment, I typically see any arguments for more shade damage accompanied by a list of people who OD them (usually of questionable accuracy, as well). You haven't argued this way, but too many other people have. If being ODed by people is supposed to be an argument for more damage, then they have to justify why they deserve to be top damage.

[Saetos]

Most games have their mage classes as top or close to top DD. Problem with AO is that it threw level-locked "spells" at the NT class, meanwhile almost no weapon in AO is level locked. If NTs lost their level locks on their cyberdeck nukes (which would make them love Traders more ) and/or had access to mini-DMs, then perhaps the problem would be alleviated.

[Towerblock]

Adding damage to all profs is going to happen. It's one of those things you can bank on. Even comparatively, in regards to the proposed documentation, to the current state, its pretty obvious shades are getting some.

Why this needed to be a Balance post, seems a bit redundant.

[lostlife]

i had a thought

with specials capping, aren't professions getting close to there damage limit? because specials are capped, prof damage can only increase threw wep damage (which every one should get evenly in the future, hopefully), nano damage, and perk damage (which fc doesnt touch very often). so after this rebalancing of everything it would be difficult to give such 1 sided boosts (unless directly intended).

[Venachar]

Closed, please present a proper and constructive reasoning with your post. This is not Life on Rimor, you really require at least a paragraph in this forum.