Low Level Trader(s) Drains

[Pomidor]

Imho, drains should criple target, not RUIN it. Current state its: target is useless punchbag or killing trader.

There was idea to LVL lock drains and - as far I can see - its best one. I could add some more nano costs too...

[bitnykk]

Imho, drains should criple target, not RUIN it. (...) I could add some more nano costs too...

yap ! cripple but not ruin i totally agree. but i'm against nanocost approach cause that ruins trader PVM & make few effect on noobsticked twinks (wich are the trend at the moment).

The problem at lower levels is not *that* powerful drains are accessible via twinking+ob's+laddering, it's that the debuff portion of the drains don't have any built in scaling limits to govern how far a player character can be debuffed by drains in pvp proportionate to their level. (...) Sure, level locking drains *could* address lower TL issues. The problem with that approach is that it creates more problems to be dealt with as there will be a ton of other things that will have to be addressed as a result of taking this approach which in the long run makes it in reality a more difficult approach.

totally agreed on your analysis : i don't see where's it's bad to let traders unlimited in PVM/Twink but for fair PVP unlimitation is an issue. so far, i only see the PVP target level locking on drain line as the simplest & most efficient to control the balance. anyway as far the issue is recognized (that's been a struggle ^^) and fixed (hopefully soon TM) i'll be happy.

[Obtena]

It's not the drains that are the problem, it's the OSB's.

[lusthorne]

yap ! cripple but not ruin i totally agree. but i'm against nanocost approach cause that ruins trader PVM & make few effect on noobsticked twinks (wich are the trend at the moment).




totally agreed on your analysis : i don't see where's it's bad to let traders unlimited in PVM/Twink but for fair PVP unlimitation is an issue. so far, i only see the PVP target level locking on drain line as the simplest & most efficient to control the balance. anyway as far the issue is recognized (that's been a struggle ^^) and fixed (hopefully soon TM) i'll be happy.

A target level lock is completely the wrong approach; that leads to the trader having to keep several sets of drains handy just in case they run into a specific level opponent (I mean literally, a trader that can cast their best twinked drains on a mob but not use the same drain on a pvp opponent because of a target level lock? Oh great, let me dig through my back catalogue of nanos to find the pair that works against this target... no thank you).

A debuff cap across all drains for lower levels keeps the ability for the trader to use their best drains while not hitting opponents with otherwise obviously overpowered debuffs.

To oversimplify this:

Level locks = bad.
% caps on total debuffs = good.

Level locks will create more problems than they will solve. Stop thinking in terms of level locks.

[sultryvoltron]

You said major changes, not one nano. (because Tl2 MPS do VERY well at TL2)
and who the hell steals pets at TL2?

Use your toolset maybe? Roots and snares work at lower levels you know. Maybe even try kiting, range ftw?

Assuming mass pvp, there are no rules against bringing friends, can't expect to do amazing against everyone.

Have you ever played tl2? Or even observe a good TL2 doc?

Missing the point ftw. These profession's TOOLSETS suck balls at low levels. Sure, you can make do with OBs and a can do attitude, but the first two profs suffer from level locks and weak self-buffed/cast nanos. Docs on the other hand simply suffer from weak HP buffs and DoTs.

A target level lock is completely the wrong approach; that leads to the trader having to keep several sets of drains handy just in case they run into a specific level opponent (I mean literally, a trader that can cast their best twinked drains on a mob but not use the same drain on a pvp opponent because of a target level lock? Oh great, let me dig through my back catalogue of nanos to find the pair that works against this target... no thank you).

A debuff cap across all drains for lower levels keeps the ability for the trader to use their best drains while not hitting opponents with otherwise obviously overpowered debuffs.

To oversimplify this:

Level locks = bad.
% caps on total debuffs = good.

Level locks will create more problems than they will solve. Stop thinking in terms of level locks.

The problem with % drains is it punishes people who twinked better. If you can only get 500 in a certain skill while I can get 600, a 10% drain hurts me more than it does you.

[Genie]

The problem at lower levels is not *that* powerful drains are accessible via twinking+ob's+laddering, it's that the debuff portion of the drains don't have any built in scaling limits to govern how far a player character can be debuffed by drains in pvp proportionate to their level.

Why would you need to complicate things like that when the same thing can be acheived by a simple level lock?

You don't fix a pvp oversight by crippling tools that are needed to be effective elsewhere, you fix it by doing the *smart* thing, not the seemingly *easiest* thing. Sure, level locking drains *could* address lower TL issues. The problem with that approach is that it creates more problems to be dealt with as there will be a ton of other things that will have to be addressed as a result of taking this approach which in the long run makes it in reality a more difficult approach.

Wrong. You are not crippeled, you are limited in power by necessity. There is a big difference. And I dont need to remind you of the complexity of how nanos work in AO. They still havent been able to fix NR propperly yet. What do you thing are the odds of succesfully implementing your suggestion without adding an untold amount of bugs and unexpected results? You dont need to answer that, because when you look at the history of updates in AO, you know they are very slim at best.

Its not the best solution because it is the easiest (nice attempt of putting words in my mouth btw), but because it is the simplest. Simplest != Easiest. In any complex code that you dont fully understand, you risk the entire system if you mess around with it to much. Thats why you choose a simple solution rather than a complicated one, so that the risk of contamination will be minimal.

[lusthorne]

The problem with % drains is it punishes people who twinked better. If you can only get 500 in a certain skill while I can get 600, a 10% drain hurts me more than it does you.

Go back and read my proposal for %debuff caps on drains and then reread what you replied to. I'm not suggesting that drains be modified to drain a flat % of the targets skills AT ALL.

I'm proposing that there be a debuff cap that drains cannot debuff PAST (ie; drain X number of skills OR this capped %), so even if some level 40 trader is casting nanites thanks to twinking, outside buffs, and laddering, they can't debuff MORE than say, 50% of the targets skills with combined drains (25% cap per drain) at that level range.


----------------------
On an entirely separate note, while I'm not advocating flat % drains, I would point out that your twink vs non twink example is a little flawed.

While technically a flat % would "hurt" more on a twink vs a non twink, you still come out ahead of the non twink. Using your example of 500 vs 600:
10% of 500 is 50, 500-50 = 450
10% of 600 is 60, 600-60 = 540
540 > 450
You still come out ahead.

[MassDebater]

Bump for capping drain amount to 3x the targeted players level to level 100

15=45
21=63
49=147
60=180
74=222
100=300
====== then 1.5x from here on
101=302
165=398
174=411
200=500
======= then 10x for sl
207=570
215=650
220=700

-Nano damage
-Heal efficiency
66% at 220(33% each drain)
+interupt chance
I dont know exactly how -interupt stuff works, but with both drains, I think a 25% chance to interupt is acceptable
+nanocost
Double, although nanocost changes are apparently inc too.
-nanoinit
-1000(500 each drain)
-nanorange
Halved

Bump for this

[Darkirbiska1]

Bump for this

Your table is level lock on drains or how much you can drain if target is level XX.
If it is level lock then it means twinks cant kill noobs with higher level, because this noobs can drain more while lower level cant, event when he has more nanoskills. If yes, then you need remake level locks. 15 is in range with 21 and 49 with 60,...and you made next reason for thinking about range. Disadvantages against higher players will be bigger than now.
e.g. 174 enf can attack level 150 trader, but his better drains are from level 165 and level 150 is good only for sec10. 101 trader is in range with tl3s. They can use higher ai armor and another only tl4 items, now add better drains and where do you have balance?

edit: I like idea of weapon plunder/divest and nano plunder/divest drains, you can run only one type from each and it doesnt stack.

[MassDebater]

Your table is level lock on drains or how much you can drain if target is level XX.
If it is level lock then it means twinks cant kill noobs with higher level, because this noobs can drain more while lower level cant, event when he has more nanoskills. If yes, then you need remake level locks. 15 is in range with 21 and 49 with 60,...and you made next reason for thinking about range. Disadvantages against higher players will be bigger than now.
e.g. 174 enf can attack level 150 trader, but his better drains are from level 165 and level 150 is good only for sec10. 101 trader is in range with tl3s. They can use higher ai armor and another only tl4 items, now add better drains and where do you have balance?

edit: I like idea of weapon plunder/divest and nano plunder/divest drains, you can run only one type from each and it doesnt stack.

You said it right first, then explained why another way im not suggesting it to work, would be bad.

You cap the amount drained to the TARGETS level, so that a 15 will be drained 45 points whether its by a level 8 or a levle 21 trader,

[bitnykk]

my comments over the proposals.


- the % debuff solution : i think that's a hell to implement (would need dev's confirmation) as skills are solid number and debuffs solid substraction (recall : borrow reflect is substracting % on a % amount !). even with a cap of original skill/AR %, higher twinked would be disavantadged over gimps on that system. also i want to see the trader receive what he debuffs his target from, no more no less. that means i'm for the pre-drain option with OSB (moch wrang + mob drain then run to fight) for crazy AR and easy landing BUT cannot refresh on PVP target : 3 min of megaboost @max. i only like the capping part idea, wich is needed for balance.

- the separation solution : two for nano, two for weapon, that makes not less than 4 lines to deal with ... implement the non-stackability/replacibility looks even more complicated than play with these lines, as much in PVM then PVP. also what you didn't consider is that it's a nerf for twinking (agent mainly, trader also) as you cannot cast an higher buff and take advantage of simultaneous weapon buff to wear one. the final result would be unequal for nano opponent compared to weapon opponent, as the trader can go higher to debuff nano side, as he buffs his own requirements laddering it. so the balance efficiency is halved & the gameplay ackward.

- the target level solution : this idea is so far the best i've seen, but i think your numbers are a little under what trader need to cripple ENOUGH on every title except low TL3. as presented it's not a balance but a nerf. let see what trader pros say. also on healing efficiency, the idea is cool but we must wait to see how rebalance will affect them first, same about nanocost wich could ruin PVM. for nano init, i'm not sure if you want to add this to trader drains but i'm strongly opposed : let each profession specific, we don't need bureautrads nor solpers around !


for now, i agree level locking sucks but that's the simplest implementation and the most efficient PVP side control for balance i've imagined. anyway thanx all for those proposals, this debate is getting more interesting every page (wich is a rare case !).

[lusthorne]

Why would you need to complicate things like that when the same thing can be acheived by a simple level lock?

It's not complicated at all, it's simple math that someone in grammar school could do.

Eg:

Divest Skills, Nanite Improved: -250 wep/nano skills, let's call this X

Target: Highest skill that can be affected by a drain, counting selfbuffs and not counting debuffs, let's call this Y

If X > Y, Debuff the target for (Y*.25)in skills + (150*.25)in aao (or possibly a flat -aao debuff scaling to level), else debuff the target for X

Not complicated.

Wrong. You are not crippeled, you are limited in power by necessity. There is a big difference. And I dont need to remind you of the complexity of how nanos work in AO. They still havent been able to fix NR propperly yet. What do you thing are the odds of succesfully implementing your suggestion without adding an untold amount of bugs and unexpected results? You dont need to answer that, because when you look at the history of updates in AO, you know they are very slim at best.

Wts reading comprehension.

I didn't claim traders WERE crippled. I said that the way to address the low level drains being overpowered issue was not *TO* cripple tools that traders currently rely on for much more than just pvp. If anything, what I am suggesting actually puts in place limits to the power of drains that are necessary, yet currently missing.

The issues with how NR works (ie; landing/resisting nanos) vs the effects of nanos once they land are unrelated. Further, there are *already* nanos in game that work with % rules which function just fine.

You're essentially arguing that this approach shouldn't be implemented because it "might" experience some bugs. If we were to follow that logic for everything we'd get nothing added/updated/changed because just about everything that could be done "might" experience some bugs.

Its not the best solution because it is the easiest (nice attempt of putting words in my mouth btw), but because it is the simplest. Simplest != Easiest. In any complex code that you dont fully understand, you risk the entire system if you mess around with it to much. Thats why you choose a simple solution rather than a complicated one, so that the risk of contamination will be minimal.

I believe you'll find that "simple" and "easy" are synonyms. In this case, simple and easy are alike in that they both refer to something non-complicated, thus, for the purposes of this discussion, simple == easy.

As I previously stated, throwing level locks on the drains only gives the illusion of being simple. The issue is that by putting level locks on the nanos, a void is immediately created drastically affecting the viability of traders that would then need to be addressed by implementing other tools to compensate, which is not simple.

The alternative is a simple math check with a pvp debuff % cap rule in place, the basic rules of which I just spelled out for you above. This is the simplest path because it requires adding one check that prevents any drain from being overpowered at lower levels vs the alternative of level locking nanos, then adding new tools to compensate for the problems caused by the level locks (particularly in pvm), making sure *those* are balanced, etc.

[Genie]

Your assumption of how nanos work in AO are flawed. A simple math check with a pvp debuff % cap rule is simple only because you assume that the way nano checks are done is simple and straight forward. They are not. They are complicated beyond your comprehension. AS was supposed to check against perception of target, a supposedly simple implementation. Yet still they couldn't make it work. NR is a defence check that is supposedly a simple math check, but they still havent been able to make it work correctly. Im sorry to rain on your parade, but the code of AO is vastly more complicated than you assume.

Level locks does not give an illusion of being simple. It is simple. What you dont seem to understand is that your suggestion, even though it is sound, is still to complicated to be implemented in the AO code. I would very much like to see a complete rework of all nano lines, and how the skill, offensive and defensive checks work, so that we dont need level locks. But that isnt realistic, and neither is your suggestion. They couldnt make something you're suggesting to work even back in the glory days of AO, and you expect them to magically do this now? You're dreaming, they dont have the resources for that.

[Hacre]

Your assumption of how nanos work in AO are flawed. A simple math check with a pvp debuff % cap rule is simple only because you assume that the way nano checks are done is simple and straight forward. They are not. They are complicated beyond your comprehension. AS was supposed to check against perception of target, a supposedly simple implementation. Yet still they couldn't make it work. NR is a defence check that is supposedly a simple math check, but they still havent been able to make it work correctly. Im sorry to rain on your parade, but the code of AO is vastly more complicated than you assume.

Level locks does not give an illusion of being simple. It is simple. What you dont seem to understand is that your suggestion, even though it is sound, is still to complicated to be implemented in the AO code. I would very much like to see a complete rework of all nano lines, and how the skill, offensive and defensive checks work, so that we dont need level locks. But that isnt realistic, and neither is your suggestion. They couldnt make something you're suggesting to work even back in the glory days of AO, and you expect them to magically do this now? You're dreaming, they dont have the resources for that.

NR works fine what on earth are you talking about?

[bitnykk]

NR works fine what on earth are you talking about?

at least Notum Repulsor perk line need lowering readjustment.

[lusthorne]

Your assumption of how nanos work in AO are flawed. A simple math check with a pvp debuff % cap rule is simple only because you assume that the way nano checks are done is simple and straight forward. They are not. They are complicated beyond your comprehension. AS was supposed to check against perception of target, a supposedly simple implementation. Yet still they couldn't make it work. NR is a defence check that is supposedly a simple math check, but they still havent been able to make it work correctly. Im sorry to rain on your parade, but the code of AO is vastly more complicated than you assume.

Level locks does not give an illusion of being simple. It is simple. What you dont seem to understand is that your suggestion, even though it is sound, is still to complicated to be implemented in the AO code. I would very much like to see a complete rework of all nano lines, and how the skill, offensive and defensive checks work, so that we dont need level locks. But that isnt realistic, and neither is your suggestion. They couldnt make something you're suggesting to work even back in the glory days of AO, and you expect them to magically do this now? You're dreaming, they dont have the resources for that.

NR checks are an influence of chance, rather than a flat check. As such the comparison does not apply in this case. Not to mention discussions over the malfunction or function of NR are very subjective.

In regards to AS vs perception, I couldn't tell ya why they never got it working, as the mechanics to do such a check are obviously in place, evidenced by perks checking against specific skills. I'd wager it's more likely the devs at the time just gave up in lieu of other concerns and never bothered to go back and work on it again.

Player shops were "too complex" and devs "couldn't get it to work" as well, yet today we have them. A mail system was "too complex" to implement, yet today we have it. Hell, it was also once claimed that a social tab could never be implemented because it was too complex, not to mention a number of other things that have ended up inside AO over the years, and yet we have them, so don't try to tell me it can't be done. That's a load of bull and speaks more to your pessimism towards the devs than anything else.

In fact, since the "glory days" where such things were "too complex" to the present, there have been numerous occasions where the newer devs went back and updated/replaced/cleaned up code from the older devs that made a lot of things possible and/or fixed various issues. I believe the favorite term being thrown around regarding those updates was "de-spaghetti-fying."

Further, don't presume to know what I do or do not "assume" about the complexities of AO, or the capabilities of the developers, much less "assume" yourself that such things are too complex or beyond said capabilities to be implemented. How would YOU know the intricacies of AO's code, are you one of the devs? I didn't think so. You have absolutely no idea what is or is not too complicated to be implemented as a result, much less how realistic it would be to implement, so don't try to pretend you do.

Level locking drains as a singular action in and of itself is simple. Level locking drains as a solution in this case is not. As a solution it doesn't stop at just level locks. Level locking drains creates drastic holes in trader progression and capability both in pvp and pvm that would also have to be addressed as a result of taking the level lock path.

With debuff caps rather than level locks you change one thing: the drains in pvp. This approach addresses the problem of drains being too powerful in pvp and preserves drains in pvm.

[Yesiamstoned]

Missing the point ftw.

The problem with % drains is it punishes people who twinked better.

The problem with level locks and % drains is it punishes those who twink better while those who run half assed toons into battle(I am guilty of that at times and have still won but that is besides the point) still get pwned by good players who are at maximum or near maximum.

you could always screw with the chance to break, treat it like a root etc etc.

[bitnykk]

Level locking drains creates drastic holes in trader progression and capability both in pvp and pvm

Man before sending out loads of text can you simply READ what we suggested ? and may be even try to UNDERSTAND it, if that's not too much asked ?

we suggested level check & lock on TARGET for PVP only, leaving PVM/Twink exactly like now. so far that's the simplest implementation (i'm a coder myself so i know a little about dev) that doesn't deeply modify the drain line, it's also the best control (defined amount of drain is capped for each level) according to what's reachable in AR/skill, & the less nerfy for traders as PVM/Twink (& CL laddering) is exactly the same.

with that solution, no outside buff nerf, no PVM/Twink change, no blurry % amount, no nanoline multiplying : just solid numbers, caps and balancing.

of course along with that, a set of others changes are needed (enfo procs/nanos, notum repulsor, other profession bump), but they were needed anyway for as long time as drains.

[lusthorne]

Man before sending out loads of text can you simply READ what we suggested ? and may be even try to UNDERSTAND it, if that's not too much asked ?

we suggested level check & lock on TARGET for PVP only, leaving PVM/Twink exactly like now. so far that's the simplest implementation (i'm a coder myself so i know a little about dev) that doesn't deeply modify the drain line, it's also the best control (defined amount of drain is capped for each level) according to what's reachable in AR/skill, & the less nerfy for traders as PVM/Twink (& CL laddering) is exactly the same.

with that solution, no outside buff nerf, no PVM/Twink change, no blurry % amount, no nanoline multiplying : just solid numbers, caps and balancing.

of course along with that, a set of others changes are needed (enfo procs/nanos, notum repulsor, other profession bump), but they were needed anyway for as long time as drains.

Actually both kinds of level locks were brought up, and both still introduce problems.

If you put level locks on drains, then not only does the trader need to keep their best drains handy for draining up in the first place, they also need to keep sets of drains handy for the level ranges they might face in pvp. The trader toolset is already cluttered with nanos we use for pvp already without having to add an extra set for every level range we might run across.

This will lead to situations where target A can receive one set of drains, but target B is too low, so the trader will have to use another set. Then of course the trader has to use yet another set to drain off this mob to keep up their best drain buffs... etc. Not to mention the even sillier bit of having to check every opponents level before fighting them just to know which set of drains can be used on them (wasting time and opening the trader up for more pain while waiting for info to show up), and heaven help you if they show up in a team of mixed levels where different members of the opposing force have to be hit with different drains because of stupid level locks.

Incidentally, if you had read my earlier posts in this very thread yourself, you would have seen I already addressed this method of level locking as well. It was even a reply to one of YOUR posts. Way to practice what you preach there. How about you try reading and understanding first before you start instructing others to do so, k?

How easy or difficult it is to implement in code has no bearing on how appropriate of an actual solution to the problem it is. You're hardly the only one on the forums with coding experience.

[bitnykk]

if you had read my earlier posts in this very thread yourself (...) Way to practice what you preach there

please stop that tiny attempt of failed "ethical lesson" right away : i'm the kind of guy applying what he says to himself first. you were simply stating biaised stuff, intendly or not, saying what i quoted last :

Level locking drains creates drastic holes in trader progression and capability both in pvp and pvm

wich is false when we are several to propose something not nerfing PVM nor Twinking process as i RE-explained for you upper. if you like honesty, admit it !

so : i perfectly read & understood what you posted earlier, that's a fact the "shortcut sets" a trader would have to use would depend on if he want to debuff a mob, an higher player or a lower player. so what ? interface options are now wider than ever ! & anyway a capable trader already has a full-load of nano shortcuts for laddering drains in the right order. that would be question of minutes to get used to send these nanos on green players, these 2 on orange ones, and those other 2 on red mobs. 6 nanos in all ! big deal ! plz consider granted that any good trader once faced another and had to try different versions according to how many his opponent debaffed him (or i suspect you ignore howto play traders ??).

so where was your issue, again ?

that solution is still the most equal in PVP terms (solid caps), easiest to implement (compared to %, division, or level rate proposed), efficient to control the amount cap for every title. at worse, the PVP target could still receive the max debuff determined for his level no matter if the trader throwed a bigger drain on him. that would completely fix the fake issue you're trying to state, and still make no change in PVM like i asked from the beginning.

also, to be very clear, for me, a trader shan't be able to refresh his max debuffs (obtained legitely by hard work : twinking, mocham/wrangle buffing & pre-drains) on players of his range. so if he comes pre-drained, he goes with 3 minutes of insane AR BUT a cap on debuffing his targets according to their level. that's what i envision for balance.

to be quick for you : same PVM/Twink, same OSB/laddering/AR but 3 minutes of max drains & drain cap on target.