Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Itemization balance: Weapons

  1. #21
    Bow's are obviously martial arts weapons, not ranged.

  2. #22

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Gatester View Post
    Bow's are obviously martial arts weapons, not ranged.
    Nop ranged stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnBvfVJu8-U

  3. #23
    I like this idea a LOT! Interesting and easy-to-understand solution to a long-standing "problem" - well it's not really a problem, it's just illogical how it is done now. This actually makes the combat mechanics easier to understand and tailor depending on game play, in essence creating more freedom to players.

    I can only imagine what this would do to PVP

    One thing I'd like to add: MELEEEEEEEE.

    Is there a way we can extend this to incorporate the same mechanic to melee weapons? The enfo forums in particular are filled with improvements to the melee system, in particular the challenges with melee are more focused around distance-to-target.

    Eg: Melee has a drastic limitation on distance and currently it does not cater for this effectively, especially when enforcers are getting rage nerf too. But if melee were rebalanced correctly, I actually would like to see more professions using it than just enfo/advy/shade/keeper/ma. (5 out of a dozen or so profs). I know in EVE for example, the gallente-specific damage items (blasters) do the most damage, but require getting up close to the target first, and that's why they do the most damage and have the most hp (to mitigate the damage taken on approach), and they are supplemented with toolsets to slow the target down from getting away. That is the correct balanced approach - doesn't happen here.

    Many (including myself) have offered they should incorporate (at least in the enfo's case specifically) stun or snare specials and effects in the enfo forums. The brawl stun is just not reliable enough to counter and well, the hp, pretty much prof has had their hp increased over the past few patches, with the exception of enfos (they CAN, but at the cost of even SLOWER time-to-target speeds with the sl-ess range which is a mute hp bonus in terms of pvp at least).

    I'm going to have a think about it some more, but generally speaking, as a starting point, 1hb = small weapon template (which makes sense and I like it). It would be interesting also to extend the idea to additional specials range for melee (what do we have? fast attack, brawl, dimach, riposte, sneak attack=aimed shot, then shade perks which are unique...) .. most of these except FA and brawl are general purpose specials used by any melee proff but the rest are fairly profession-specific.

    Furthermore it would be nice to see specials that incorporate the melee disadvantage of ttt (time-to-target) in the form of stuns or snares for this purpose.

    Last note, whilst on topic of melee whines, and trying not to get too far off-topic, I don't care if they leave the current amount of swords in game *grumble* but bring back the beamer or other big large blunt objects as a weapon!!

    Anyhoo thanks and awesome idea +1 and I'll continue to think about what this would mean for melee types.
    Shadow Ops
    Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.
    They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war.
    Tired of little elves with bows? Fed up with spell-flinging goblins? Bored to death by the solitary world of linear games? Despair not. Freedom is on its way, and its name is Anarchy Online.
    Web: http://www.shadowops-online.org | Twitter: @ShadowOpsOnline | AO: Milestones & History


  4. #24
    A lot of thought and effort was put into these suggestions, which is something I wanted to commend you for. Rather than comment on specifics, I wanted to mention and expand on Otansaanpas' statement by referencing 'the big picture'.

    My biggest concern with a rebalancing effort aimed solely at weapons (as an example) is that you're likely to create new situations of unbalance as professions that benefit from lower damage become stranger with the 'balance' changes.

    The example I'll use here is my own primary profession of Doctor. How would Doctor PvP change if player specials could not be cast simultaneously? I suspect we would become a lot more difficult to kill as the balancing changes made to weapon damage were made in a vacuum, without considering the impact they would have on profession toolsets.

    To continue with my Doctor example, if the plan was to implement changes such as the ones outlined above, then changes would need to be made to the Doctor toolset to lower burst healing in PvP to ensure Docs don’t become immortal gods. However, any changes made would need to be carefully considered, as even a simple change would massively affect the viability of Doctors elsewhere in the game.

    The point I’m trying to make here is that considering ‘balance’ and ‘unbalance’ in a vacuum for a game the size of AO can be dangerous. Keep in mind that I only used Docs as an example because that is the profession I am most familiar with; I am sure there are similar situations that would occur with other professions.

    As a potential point of discussion, perhaps professions could be more closely linked to their weapons by tying ability use into weapon speed? How would a Doctor feel to play if the viability of their heals was affected by the size of their weapon? A heavier (higher damage) weapon might have a negative impact on the ability of a character to perform additional tasks, as an example. I’m basically just throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks, but you get my point.

    Food for thought
    -Trony-
    Doctrony - 220/30 Doctor
    Neurix - 100/10 Nano-Technician

    "The best of leaders when the job is done, when the task is
    accomplished, the people will say we have done it ourselves"
    - Lao Tzu

  5. #25
    I think that any block of information this big needs some kind of thesis statement. Agreeing or disagreeing with the overall drive makes one interested enough to read on and determine whether they are interested in agreeing or disagreeing with the specifics.

    However: This reads more like a "total redesign" than a rebalance.

    That said, having just skimmed a bit, it seems that adding a bunch of new specials would make IP rather tight and eliminate the admittedly cookie-cutterish "you must do this in PVP" (but smart, for whoever first figured it out) hotswapping options due to the IP being unaffordable, and it would probably leave some professions accidentally privileged in this department, unless multiple specials were translated from some kind of master skill. It wouldn't make any sense from a game design perspective, though, because the kind of personal skill you need for better full-auto and burst attacks alike is the ability to hold your barrel in place and keep it from jumping around too much. That, somewhat, is a skill you need to quickly acquire, aim, and fire at targets, and so it would logically be linked to your ranged initiative, as well. Right now, an energy weapon having a "full auto" attack doesn't seem to make much sense logically, but it works from a game design perspective, whereas, if we did something that made sense logically -- all specials and initiatives are tied to a master "How Good At Guns I Is" skill (you don't train pulling the trigger without training to aim while you're at it), while damage is tied solely to "How Good The Gun Is" stats -- would be rather bland from a game design and player gear customization perspective.

    Doctrony said something about some professions being more closely linked to their "intended" weapon type. I don't think this is a good idea. It may make sense for soldiers to have an affinity for assault rifles, but it also makes sense for them to have an affinity for sub-machine guns, pistols, grenades, launchers. In fact, it makes no sense that any other profession that currently has affinity for pistols, except for maybe adventurers, to have that affinity. It also makes little sense that agents don't have good pistol skill, as a rifle would be hard to take under cover, and sniping is more an "assassin" thing -- so hey, why aren't sniper rifles an option for a shade? Point is: Driving things further in the direction of logical bonuses for professions toward weapon skills becomes the same thing as penalizing people who want to try off-the-beaten-path options.

    Just so I'm not posting disagreement without proposing what I think would be a better option:
    A weapon rebalance, at this stage, so late in the game, should be somewhat of a shake-up, but not a total redesign of the system. It should consist of:
    - Removing split weapon skill requirements. It seems to me that the original intended purpose of this was to provide some better, but harder to equip, weapons, but all the nicer weapons introduced with expansions are single-skill. Designing a piece of software to crawl through the database and strip out the lowest required weapon skill from every weapon that has more than one weapon skill requirement would be the quick way, which AO devs would be able to afford to commit to accomplishing. The more interesting way, however, might be a more considered approach, since the quick way would leave us with fewer SMGs, rifles, and ranged energy weapons.
    - I set out as if this was a list, but really, that one thing would make so many weapons more interesting and viable, perhaps such that only that one thing could be changed, and then any further changes could be on an "as needed" basis. I suspect that just removing split skill requirements would be enough to satisfy a lot of people.
    - Item the third.

  6. #26
    I feel you have misinterpreted my intended statement, vitriolic-v. I suggested that it may be worth considering having weapon ‘type’ affect other areas of profession performance. An example off the top of my head would be heavier weapons that make other actions slower and vice-versa with ‘lighter’ weapons. The intention would not be to limit professions to their ‘intended’ weapons (if AO has such a thing), but to provide a series of pros and cons for weapon choice that could potentially impact playstyle.

    It was just an idea, but for a lot of professions at the moment it appears as though Xan/DB/Dreads are king, with the primary exceptions being ye-old ‘craphander’ and the occasional hotswap special.

    2c
    -Trony-
    Doctrony - 220/30 Doctor
    Neurix - 100/10 Nano-Technician

    "The best of leaders when the job is done, when the task is
    accomplished, the people will say we have done it ourselves"
    - Lao Tzu

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctrony View Post
    I suggested that it may be worth considering having weapon ‘type’ affect other areas of profession performance. An example off the top of my head would be heavier weapons that make other actions slower and vice-versa with ‘lighter’ weapons.
    Oh, okay. So, kind of like how vanilla AO tank armors behave (reducing nano efficiency, run speed), except doing it with weapons. It would have been interesting to have this from the start, perhaps, but everyone expects weapons to be 1/1 now without putting anything into initiatives, so the net effect of this kind of a change would be strictly a nerf, regardless of whether you're using a fast or a heavy weapon.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by vitriolic-v
    so the net effect of this kind of a change would be strictly a nerf, regardless of whether you're using a fast or a heavy weapon.
    Oh, definitely. A system as I described would be pretty terrible in today's game, but I was using it as an example to illustrate that it could be an interesting mechanic that adds interesting choices for players when choosing a weapon for their character, provided the rest of the game's systems were designed to support it.

    That's why I feel that discussing large rebalancing efforts on the forums like this is so difficult. We can't see the bigger picture, and the more we feel needs to change, the less likely it is to be implemented. While this is not always the case, I feel you get my point.

    Cheers
    -Trony-
    Doctrony - 220/30 Doctor
    Neurix - 100/10 Nano-Technician

    "The best of leaders when the job is done, when the task is
    accomplished, the people will say we have done it ourselves"
    - Lao Tzu

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •