Quickie Explanation of New Trader NanoSheet (Summary Open to Criticism)

[Gatester]

I didn't notice any OFFENSIVE drawback on either morph, so what are you talking about? Most will still use wolf.

It is the significant amount of lost survival that is important, and every form gives up a significant portion for its use. If you want an offensive drawback for adventurers, it would be their moderate AR and nerfed perks post balancing that leaves them offensively weak in general.

So in other words, traders got dumbed down to a joke, while advys are going to actually be kill-able now without a zerg ?

Pretty much, yes. Traders still need a working defense and probably a bit reworked stat levels, such as 2x the AAO draining but reducing skill draining a bit or giving traders an automatic weapon OEing nano without actually nerfing their AR. Adventurers will have a form that does ok against everyone, but they will have no defense that can allow them to last indefinately against anyone from what I can see.

[Hometown]

It is the significant amount of lost survival that is important, and every form gives up a significant portion for its use. If you want an offensive drawback for adventurers, it would be their moderate AR and nerfed perks post balancing that leaves them offensively weak in general.

You are making assumptions, these are not facts. The moment you can say about future gameplay, is when rebalancing will hit test.

[Gatester]

You are making assumptions, these are not facts. The moment you can say about future gameplay, is when rebalancing will hit test.

Well then the same can be said for this entire trader thread couldn't it, and in fact all of the balancing discussions in general? Although if you want to argue that removing an adventurers ability to use single heals is somehow not a nerf to survival, then losing 900 points of drained skill is barely even noticeable for traders. To disagree would be making an assumption based on opinion and not relative information.

Can you see how that line of reasoning is rather counter-productive?

[Hometown]

Well then the same can be said for this entire trader thread couldn't it, and in fact all of the balancing discussions in general? Although if you want to argue that removing an adventurers ability to use single heals is somehow not a nerf to survival, then losing 900 points of drained skill is barely even noticeable for traders. To disagree would be making an assumption based on opinion and not relative information.

Can you see how that line of reasoning is rather counter-productive?

Okay, why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Wondering, I only said there is no drawback on OFFENSE using any of the morph ( parrot hah. :P ) based on the docs. Nor did I do any assumptions about future gameplay, though honestly I am slowly stopping to care myself, and you can be 100% sure there is ****load of more people who think this way. Personally giving the rebalance 1 month after release,, then decide to reacc or not.

Imo things would be balanced with some MINOR adjustments to toolsets, not a freaking overhaul man, you have to admit that.

[Bonghigs]

I didn't notice any OFFENSIVE drawback on either morph, so what are you talking about? Most will still use wolf.

The loss in AR is a bit subtle between the AR morph and others, but here are the key points:

- AR morph grants 100 AR, 15 crit and 100 damage. Obviously, while in other morphs the adventurer would not be granted these benefits.
- AR morph grants access to the new version of the cat-fury lines which grants another 100 AR. While not in AR morph, this is not accessible to the adventurer.

I also thought i saw somewhere that the top pistol/1he buffs would only be usable in the AR morph (assuming advy could still use the second down, that's another -20 AR and -25 burst/fling/as), but i can't see anything in the Excel itself that depicts this requirement so i may be remembering incorrectly.

Either way, this is 200 points of AR that only the AR morph gets. I would consider that (and all the damage/other modifiers) an offensive drawback



That said, can we please get back to discussing traders. Making comparisons between traders and adventurers does not benefit the trader profession and only serves to derail this conversation so that FC can ignore it more than they already are

[Hometown]

stuff

Well, that is not a drawback, that is a choice you can make. Drawback is meant as in an AR debuff/pistol debuff when using the non AR morph (kitty in this case) so no, there is no offensive drawback.

[sultryvoltron]

The loss in AR is a bit subtle between the AR morph and others, but here are the key points:

- AR morph grants 100 AR, 15 crit and 100 damage. Obviously, while in other morphs the adventurer would not be granted these benefits.
- AR morph grants access to the new version of the cat-fury lines which grants another 100 AR. While not in AR morph, this is not accessible to the adventurer.

I also thought i saw somewhere that the top pistol/1he buffs would only be usable in the AR morph (assuming advy could still use the second down, that's another -20 AR and -25 burst/fling/as), but i can't see anything in the Excel itself that depicts this requirement so i may be remembering incorrectly.

Either way, this is 200 points of AR that only the AR morph gets. I would consider that (and all the damage/other modifiers) an offensive drawback

That said, can we please get back to discussing traders. Making comparisons between traders and adventurers does not benefit the trader profession and only serves to derail this conversation so that FC can ignore it more than they already are

No, that's the perfect example of benefits of morphing something else.

It is not, however, a drawback.

[Gatester]

Okay, why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Wondering, I only said there is no drawback on OFFENSE using any of the morph ( parrot hah. :P ) based on the docs. Nor did I do any assumptions about future gameplay, though honestly I am slowly stopping to care myself, and you can be 100% sure there is ****load of more people who think this way. Personally giving the rebalance 1 month after release,, then decide to reacc or not.

Imo things would be balanced with some MINOR adjustments to toolsets, not a freaking overhaul man, you have to admit that.

I never said Offensive drawback, I said loss in survival. I am having trouble understanding where you made that assumption in my post.

The fact is either an adventurer will choose survival but lack the ability to kill a trader based solely on these perk and nano docs, or the adventurer will choose offense with almost no survival. Choice yes, but the drawback is in survival not really offense.

[Syyceria]

I never said Offensive drawback, I said loss in survival. I am having trouble understanding where you made that assumption in my post.

Bonghis said that advies loose AR/heal in evade setup, and the loss of AR seems more to be something like "Well, they get some more AR but not as much as if they pick the AR morph" if i read this page correctly. This rebalancing is so cruel...

[Bonghigs]

Well, that is not a drawback, that is a choice you can make. Drawback is meant as in an AR debuff/pistol debuff when using the non AR morph (kitty in this case) so no, there is no offensive drawback.

No, that's the perfect example of benefits of morphing something else.

It is not, however, a drawback.

Can we please not play on semantics... losing 200 AR by being in a different morph is an offensive drawback to using another morph. Yes it is a choice the advy would make and it is also a benefit to using the AR morph, but to say it's not a drawback of other morphs is playing a troll-tastic wording game that some of us would like to avoid in an effort to have a fruitful discussion.

Having -200 AR by being in a different morph is a drawback to those other morphs. Just like the evades lost by not being in wolf is a drawback for non-wolf morphs.


For the grammar-police, according to dictionary.com a drawback is "a hindrance or disadvantage". I would certainly considering losing 200 AR "a hindrance or disadvantage"; it may be one we chose to live with and one that we all consider balanced and fair, but it's still "a hindrance or disadvantage" nonetheless.


----

Bonghis said that advies loose AR/heal in evade setup, and the loss of AR seems more to be something like "Well, they get some more AR but not as much as if they pick the AR morph" if i read this page correctly. This rebalancing is so cruel...

My comments mean nothing like that at all; please don't put words into my mouth. My comments allude to the (i think more than obvious fact) that a advy has to make sacrifices no matter what form he is in, with each form having their own relevant sacrifices. No one is saying this rebalancing is cruel, i think most advies actually like this and most of the buuhuu's are from people so conditioned to cry "nerf advy" that nothing would please them; this is very similar to the trader discussion in that respect as people are so used to crying "nerf drains" that nothing would ever appease them from their battlecry.

Also, comparing rebalance numbers to current-state numbers is a folly in its own. The reason being that EVERYONE is getting changed... so maybe advies not in AR form get a modicum more AR than current state (which they don't based on the docs alone, though this does not include hereto unannounced items and perk changes related to advy), but you are comparing that AR gain to current-state defensive modifiers. What if after the rebalancing is final most professions see a gain of an average 50 defensive rating, then the gain of 10 AR is really a net loss of 40 AR considering the larger picture. of course, i can't know what these numbers will hold either, but that's exactly my point: no one can.

[Hometown]

stuff pointed at me

Does it even have a point in arguing with people that cease to listen? Once there was a person back in 2005, that I cannot find the quote of, but it sounded like this : " You are an adv, you are biased by nature, so awaiting from you to look at something with insight, is too much to ask "(this works on many others, but it fits here perfectly)

Also, why don't you use kitty over wolf currently?! ITS an offensive drawback afterall!!!

Nvm. Have fun
PS. oh using dictionary makes your point sure more valid ( the first paragraph man, the first paragraph )

Ontopic. : It was a wild dream getting traders nerfed, but this is a bit too harsh.. not even CC will work, hence of cooldown & duration, break chance and freaking resistances/countering. This is what bugs me the most atm, even from the crat perspective.

Making em basicly cannon fodder is not the way to go imo.. atleast push those NR checks to 75%.

[Drakeep]

Omg i lost the Obtena vs Gatester threads death match!

It worth wearing 3D glasses, sitting and watching it with a good cocacola can + popcorns!

Sadly all these threads regard pathetic considerations on what trader should wear/do in future. While all tl7 traders are considering stripping + reroll (and tl5 too ;p).

Good work!

[Hometown]

Omg i lost the Obtena vs Gatester threads death match!

It worth wearing 3D glasses, sitting and watching it with a good cocacola can + popcorns!

Sadly all these threads regard pathetic considerations on what trader should wear/do in future. While all tl7 traders are considering stripping + reroll (and tl5 too ;p).

Good work!

And thats a fact, some are clever enough not believe that rebalance hits until 21.12.2012 :P, so they are not stripping.

[Drakeep]

You can belive it, but anyway these proposed changes, pwned moral of many of the tl7 traders i know.

Pointing em as OP and cause of the game unbalance, wasn't fair, expecially when most of ppls have this idea
of the OPness truth .

PS: and don't say me that even enfos got a similar nerf!

<TROLL>
Yes but still

Obtena and Gatester did their best to shutdown everyone whining about traders rebalance

The fact that they ended kicking each other in the groin... like noisy kids... ITS TOO FUN!
</TROLL>

[Larafina]

"Obtena and Gatester did their best to shutdown everyone whining about traders rebalance "

good summary !

[Sunny-D]

has there been any word from fc on changes that are/might be made to the nano doc? It's been about a month since it was originally posted, was hoping there might be some news. . .

[Syyceria]

I guess we can only sit and wait for the 2nd draft of the document. There are still a few professions out there that needs to be done and I can only assume there are a lot of more interesting and funnier things to do than to incorporate the feedback from this thread into something that both tl7 trader and non tl7 trader will see as fair and balanced...

[Gatester]

PS: and don't say me that even enfos got a similar nerf!

<TROLL>
Obtena and Gatester did their best to shutdown everyone whining about traders rebalance
</TROLL>

We both have traders (not referring to my level 1...) so we both have different opinions about this document. Needless to say, I tried to quell the limitless whining about EVERYTHING in the document while pointing out the flaws, but few of us can truly take the consideration to understand each other and our actual meaning so much of these discussions are lost, similar to soldiers always thinking I want to nerf their profession because I play an enforcer, and despite having a soldier myself never believe I have proper intentions.

My comments were more pvm focused and based on the most grueling leveling I experienced because trader evades are simply not viable leveling and people arguing for it are simply misleading players who are trying to maintain their current playstyle over one more beneficial to new players.


As for the enforcer thing, everyone looks at things differently, but there is one key difference between the enforcer changes and trader changes. The trader changes seem to make traders more viable for teams, almost the most desireable team choice, and give them an easier time leveling. Enforcers on the otherhand, although remaining necessary for raids, lose a great deal of their ability to level. A new enforcer will struggle greatly if they can only cast their heal two or three times and have no runspeed to escape from mobs.

While traders have likely been ruined for tl7 pvp, enforcers are ruined for leveling and will hamper the new player experience with the profession. Rather than us balancing around endgame and pvp, we need to work from the leveling experiences and work our way up, and unfortunately the enforcer changes completely ignore the new and leveling enforcers.

Can you imagine a newly rolled enforcer asking you "hey I am having trouble with my super strong brute guy here, what should I do?"

The reply being "Sure, max intelligence, psychic, nano skills, and ofc nano pool. Enforcers cannot perform without twinking their casting abilities, you can worry about a big sledgehammer later, if you have the IP for it."

[Kintaii]

For you guys asking about the reworking of the doc: What we're leaning toward at the moment is finishing the rest of the outstanding documentation first (IE: getting through NTs, MPs and Agents) and then going back and doing more work on the documents we've already released, including Traders. As I've noted before, these 'first run drafts' are more about getting the design principals right; numbers can be tweaked all day long, and those are easy to mess about with - If we get the design direction wrong, though, we're boned, so that's the first and most important step we have to take.

Once we've gotten the remaining documents taken care of, we'll be going back and putting the existing docs through the wringer again, this time focusing more on numbers as the majority of the design changes we've presented have been met in a more or less positive fashion; most of the complaints have really been focused around the numbers game, which is again easier for us to alter than base design principals, so once we have the rest of the documents out we can begin the process of ensuring that things are more numerically balanced than the current implementations.

So after everybody else is taken care of, we'll see further work done to the Trader document and released to you guys. =)

[Wrangeline]

Kintaii, personally I have to say that the current "direction" is one that I don't like or even understand. I feel certain that the numbers on our remaining debuffs wont be high enough and that the durations on them wont be long enough either, because of the general philosophy that FC seems to have for future traders. I can see the wheels turning behind FC's eyes on this one and I just know how it's going to end up. In one word, frustrating.

But forgetting all the potential problems from numbers for now, I still see problems.

1. AS is going to get 3s "cast time". If that's still the plan.
2. Trader can augment damage with health-plunder nuke (at the expense of some debuffing)
3. Trader can't self heal at all.
4. Trader have to cast plunder on an enemy and land it every time the trader wants a heal.
5. Trader have to land every single other nano there is on every single person they meet every single 15 seconds because of low durations, counters, low effect (meaning you need all of them, all the time)
6. Trader have to juggle nano-regain nanos as well in this mix I guess because of high nanopool costs.
7. Roots wont last long and some classes (like adv) still can completely resist them a lot.
8. Trader has less omni directional defense now that we don't even have the +300 AAD from corporate.

And so on and so on.

Now, when you combine all these things, we end up with a profession that I have no interest in playing at all. Every single part of the trader toolset from AS to general DD to roots to debuffs to nanopool management to defense to heals.. sounds annoying. I just can't see the fun in there >.<

On top of that I also (atm) can't see any effectiveness.

So at least for me personally, I hope we're not close to only having to deal with numbers. I still want a complete redraft when it comes to how we're going to play the trader profession. Because it really doesn't sound fun.