Nerf the NT strong roots

[-Klod-]

In no way am I saying they suck, but melée advies are totally different than the FOTM ranged advies

In what way?

and a lot of people group them together when you really can't.

Why exactly we can't?

AFAIK, both are heavily OP'd, when compared to anything else. With the exception of ranged ones, that are OP'd beyond and above, while melee ones are just plain OP'd.

[Cryfreman]

Enf's and Sold's(with a adv chucked in) arguing who is the nerfest. Awesome.

[erozc]

I group shield MPs and Zset MPs together all the time. Oh, wait...

[Obtena]

You say "OP too", so you acknowledge Enforcers are OP.

Not only that, but it looks like it's your definition of "Balanced".

I don't think I need to prove my point any further.

That's just a reading comprehension problem on your part. I haven't said anything about or reference to enfos yet, but I did show how contradictory your expectations are. You're not going to get what you are after or anything near what your definition of 'balance' may be, despite how awesome you were to proving your point..

[sultryvoltron]

SO you don't want PVp that amounts to some i win buttons, but you likely don't want everyone running around with counters to all PVP situations. That's a contradiction and while you think it's 'reasonable', fundamentally, contradictions are not.

Not a contradiction. Both sentences boil down to their simplest forms of:

A) No I-Win buttons.
B) No infinite counters to I-Win buttons.

If you fulfill point A), then B) becomes unnecessary. Getting rid of I-Win buttons is key. That's certainly no contradiction. In fact, that's what I would call balance.

[Obtena]

There are always I-win buttons, they just change when stuff gets fixed. But of course, your going to argue with me. In the end, I doubt you will get your 'balance' you are looking for anyways. Someone is always on the top and the bottom and people like Ocene will say FC 'failed' to balance stuff. Oh well. That's what people get for having unreasonable expectations.

[Marinegent]

There are always I-win buttons, they just change when stuff gets fixed. But of course, your going to argue with me. In the end, I doubt you will get your 'balance' you are looking for anyways. Someone is always on the top and the bottom and people like Ocene will say FC 'failed' to balance stuff. Oh well. That's what people get for having unreasonable expectations.

Being on top is different then "i win with no skill".

Naturally there has to be a food chain, not every person will be balanced in its purest form of definition.

The point of the changes are to hopefully "level the playing field" and shorten the distance between the strongest profession and the weakest profession, while perhaps tightening the gaps with everything in between.

[sultryvoltron]

There are always I-win buttons, they just change when stuff gets fixed. But of course, your going to argue with me and maybe I am wrong there.

In the end, I doubt you will get your 'balance' you are looking for anyways. Someone is always on the top and the bottom.

There's no such thing as top and bottom. Really, there is difficulty to play and be successful.

Some professions are harder to play than others. The problem of balance doesn't lie in how hard each prof is to play, as they can generally compete on the same level, probably excluding MPs, in different ways. The problem with balance is when you start making encounters into I-Win situations. When you take away a profession's ability to defend itself, or it's ability to put up a fight against you, it is simply not balanced. Let people use their tools. Let them try to win, against the odds if necessary (Crat vs. Enf). Don't let people steamroll other people with a single nano (RI, NSD), an undefendable alpha (1hb/1he), crazy OP nukes (LE nukes), while being unkillable (Ranged Advys), etc.

[Obtena]

There's no such thing as top and bottom. Really, there is difficulty to play and be successful.

That's not true obviously. There was a state of the game where it was widely acknowledged, even by FC that traders and NT just plain sucked. Even the best players in those professions knew their was professions they couldn't touch.

[Obtena]

Being on top is different then "i win with no skill".

Naturally there has to be a food chain, not every person will be balanced in its purest form of definition.

The point of the changes are to hopefully "level the playing field" and shorten the distance between the strongest profession and the weakest profession, while perhaps tightening the gaps with everything in between.

Well, that's my point really. If you fill the gaps, your just giving people tools to counter their disadvantageous situations. Eventually, you get to a point where the only way to die is to hit someone with a large volume of damage in a very short time. We already have situations in AO like and you know ... people don't like that. I don't see a difference between that and say, an AO where only advy's exist and PVp is all about how has more of them. Being on the top isn't only about I-win stuff, but it sure as hell helps. Tell me a prof on the bottom that has Evade perks? complete heals? SA/FA/AS hotswap? Nukes that peirce reflects? None? OK, point made.

So people don't want i-wins but people don't want no-wins either. The middle of that is what? Everyone being the same.

[Ocene]

Nope, the middle of that is not that everyone is the same, the middle of that is people that opt to use particular tools against specific attacks, and counterattack with potentially other tools, in other words: use your brains, and build a skill.

Today in AO's PVP, there's no skill. There's OP versus gimpness. There are I-win buttons, and nothing to counter them.

It's all based on rock-paper-scissor and nemesis, which is the worst possible design ever in a PVP game.

[sultryvoltron]

That's not true obviously. There was a state of the game where it was widely acknowledged, even by FC that traders and NT just plain sucked. Even the best players in those professions knew their was professions they couldn't touch.

Applicable how?

Currently against the I-Wins there is no counter. Fixers/MAs have practically no way to defeat a good NT. Similarly, Docs have no chance to beat an Enf. Agents have no chance against Soldiers. Soldiers have no chance against Engis. Etc. etc.

The middle of the ground is to change those encounters so that anybody can have a reasonable chance to put up a fight, to use their toolset, to make an attempt even at a bad situation and possibly come out on top. It doesn't have to be an even fight, just needs to give the underdog a chance at defending themselves, or a chance at doing some damage.

[Obtena]

Currently against the I-Wins there is no counter. Fixers/MAs have practically no way to defeat a good NT. Similarly, Docs have no chance to beat an Enf. Agents have no chance against Soldiers. Soldiers have no chance against Engis. Etc. etc.

And it's completely irrelevant because AO PVP isn't balanced 1 vs. 1, ever, even if FC tried to do it, as much as you would like it to be. There will always be a toolset that takes advantage of holes in others defenses, unless you make AO stupid PVP where no one has any gaps, leading to the situation I described of Advy online.

The middle of the ground is to change those encounters so that anybody can have a reasonable chance to put up a fight, to use their toolset, to make an attempt even at a bad situation and possibly come out on top. It doesn't have to be an even fight, just needs to give the underdog a chance at defending themselves, or a chance at doing some damage.

That's easy to say isn't it but really, that happens now and if it doesn't, it's because people aren't using their full range of tools, including teaming. I don't think that FC should placate players that 'don't like teaming' with gap-filling i-win defenses either, based on the same principle that people don't like seeing professions with gap-exploiting i-win offenses. If you guys are advocating removal of 'OP things that hurt you', anyone in the same way can advocate the removal of the OP things that save you as well. It's a double edged sword. You only want to see the part changed that gives you an advantage.

[Genie]

Proper "profession" balance have to be based on 1 vs 1, and scale up as much as they realistically can scale it up to a group.

AO already has a perfect 1 vs 1 balanced fight situation. Its called mech fights, and its boring as hell. But that is in fact perfect balance. I dont think we should have perfect balance. There should be some inbalances, because that is part of the game making it fun. What funcom should focus on is the extreme cases, where one profession has complete domination over another. This is already in progress, and so far so good.

[Gatester]

And enforcers feel like they just have a "little" more than medium in all attributes.. they come off as the second in line to the totem pole of greatness we call advys..

Like evades? If 2650 static evades is above medium, then that means more than half the professions have less evades than an enforcer.

Many things are hard to see as a "little" more than medium because you have to be better than half the professions, but some things enforcers do excel at though. However, when the main forms of defense are either massive damage mitigation (reflects or DTN), massive healing, or unperkable levels of evades, enforcers being below all three of those does not allow them to compare to any of them.

You cannot compare enforcer bio cocoon to soldier reflects or engineer reflects+blockers or NT NBS/NBG+NS.

You cannot compare enforcer healing to adventurers or doctors, even agents.

You cannot compare enforcer evades to MA's, shades, fixers, crats, or adventurers.

The areas enforcers excel at are perk alpha, runspeed, nano resist, and max health. Being a C+ profession everywhere else makes a profession annoying, not overpowered, and is the reason why taking one of those areas an enforcer excels at away also leads them to failure.

2hb, 2he, pure 1he, or pure 1hb enforcer loses the perk alpha, he becomes an average profession.
Remove the runspeed benefit and an enforcer is easily kited and eventually killed (DB essence buff).
Remove the nano resist and enforcers are easily debuffed or rooted and will die.
Remove the max health and the lack of evades gets the profession alphad.

Balancing has to nerf what is working too well (alpha and runspeed), while balancing out the abilities that make the profession unique (nano resist and max health).

[Djiax]

You cannot compare enforcer bio cocoon to soldier reflects or engineer reflects+blockers or NT NBS/NBG+NS.

You cannot compare enforcer healing to adventurers or doctors, even agents.

You cannot compare enforcer evades to MA's, shades, fixers, crats, or adventurers.

The areas enforcers excel at are perk alpha, runspeed, nano resist, and max health. Being a C+ profession everywhere else makes a profession annoying, not overpowered, and is the reason why taking one of those areas an enforcer excels at away also leads them to failure.

Flaws when comparing enfo's defensive toolset. Enfo has a bit of everything. Compare enfo's average evade + decent healing + the small advantadge they get form high HP + NR & quasi CC/debuff immunities + run speed (kiting ability) + fear & stun (which have both a def and off role) + layer.

Only makes sense, if your coon would equal " soldier reflects or engineer reflects+blockers or NT NBS/NBG+NS", or if your evades were comparable to "MA's, shades, fixers, crats, or adventurers's", what about all the rest of the defensive toolset you got then ?

[Marinegent]

You cannot compare enforcer bio cocoon to soldier reflects or engineer reflects+blockers or NT NBS/NBG+NS.

You cannot compare enforcer healing to adventurers or doctors, even agents.

You cannot compare enforcer evades to MA's, shades, fixers, crats, or adventurers.

It's not that any ONE of these things is too much.. infact just one or the other make enforcers kind of.. weak.

It's the fact that you have substantial healing over time, from perks, heal delta, and hots. Toss in spamable absorbs + cocoon to soak up some of the damage, huge NR to protect you from debuffs, dots, drains, etc, and the decent defense rating that does actually make enforcers unperkable to low AR professions (though these are slightly more situational and depend on profession / if wit/highway etc is up or down / player setup, etc) but coming from a soldier, supposedly the enforcers nemesis, it takes an endgame soldier and some stratagy to actually hurt an endgame enforcer.

That's to be expected of course, but the point im making is that not only are together your defenses quite formidable when applied together, but your nemesis is a lot less noticably crippling than say.. NT/Engi vs soldier, Soldier (using RI) vs doc'd agent, NT vs Fixer, Enforcer vs. Crat, you name it.

[Gatester]

That's to be expected of course, but the point im making is that not only are together your defenses quite formidable when applied together, but your nemesis is a lot less noticably crippling than say.. NT/Engi vs soldier, Soldier (using RI) vs doc'd agent, NT vs Fixer, Enforcer vs. Crat, you name it.

You have it backwards, if anything enforcers are the nemesis of NT's. Our nemesis are shades, MA's, and soldiers.

The ones complaining about the roots are no different than MA's complaining about UBT, but a doctor is not the MA profession's nemesis. It is not to say NT's are overpowered against enforcers but that they have an advantage some feel is unfair.

The only unfair advantage I think NT's have against enforcers is the lower levels, because that NT you see in my signature absolutely dominates any enforcer one on one.

[sultryvoltron]

And it's completely irrelevant because AO PVP isn't balanced 1 vs. 1, ever, even if FC tried to do it, as much as you would like it to be. There will always be a toolset that takes advantage of holes in others defenses, unless you make AO stupid PVP where no one has any gaps, leading to the situation I described of Advy online.



That's easy to say isn't it but really, that happens now and if it doesn't, it's because people aren't using their full range of tools, including teaming. I don't think that FC should placate players that 'don't like teaming' with gap-filling i-win defenses either, based on the same principle that people don't like seeing professions with gap-exploiting i-win offenses. If you guys are advocating removal of 'OP things that hurt you', anyone in the same way can advocate the removal of the OP things that save you as well. It's a double edged sword. You only want to see the part changed that gives you an advantage.

No. You're just simply wrong here. If there's no consideration of 1 vs 1 then we're balancing around a slippery slope where you make teams of all 14 professions to counteract the other team of all 14 professions. That's retarded.


Also, teaming is not a toolset. That's also retarded.

[whitey]

It's ridiculous that an NT has to rely on being out of range of his attacker in the first place. It is not the case of OP'd roots needing to be addressed, but the NT's reliance on them.