Low Level Trader(s) Drains

[Pomidor]

Hmmm, how about cooldown on Drains?

I.E: Drain A lands. Lasts on target Player for 3 minutes.
Cooldown A on traders NCU is for 3 minutes.

Same apply for Drain B. Only if target is player.
It would prevent on laddering and total cripple targets.
I repeat - only on Players, not NPCs!

I dont know, how much you have tested setups and proffesions vs trader, but myself, I did many proffesions and setup to test, whats good whats bad ect. We all know that tl2 enf (at 49) can get 1k NR (1150 at max buffed OS)which works, but its luck dependant too. Other proffesions are just borked. When it comes to BS/Duels/NW - most cases (95%) first drain does not much for dmg (it stops most from healing, raging, TMSing ect - takes all must-have-important-toolset), but weapons work - so there is always figting chance. Second drain (plunder for that case) stops most from being NanoUsable, and left them with some dmg - still, in that case, they can do dmg (not mentioning Engis/MPs, since they are petless there...) But problems starts on any (!) ladder, where trader gets 100% chance to drain (due attack nanoskills) and drains around 25-50% more in all skills.

Haveing in mind, I dont want them to be useless, I think its a good option. None target will be crippled in DMG like its in current state, and trader will need to use trick (root/some kite) to win its fight.

Once i watched few fights enforcers vs traders. I saw 47 lvl trader won 49 twink with AI gear, fully twinked in good stuff, and that trader was fr00b with silly Trainee. Fight took like 3 or 4 minutes, but you should see how this ENF was useless when hits with tigs were for 25 or something like that.

I will back for ladders. My enf can fight good traders from 0 point. I would say its 50/50 - skill and some luck involved too. But on BS, NW or any mass pvp, this very same trader with any predrains is just instakiller for me, and not me only. I bet none of you (!) was on tl2 BS, where there is 5 neutral traders camping lifts. There is NO FORCE in world, that they can be beaten - on this particular case, we (clans) had 4 v good enfs, 3 Jamed soldiers and we could'nt manage to win them (even if 2 were killed). Even on lvl 15, trader can easly ladder so much drains (while target is rooted), that most weapons are rendered useless (not mention about any nano skills).

And I dont care about one thing: 90% twinks traders that will whine "Omg, I am not wtf pwn anymore" - this issue needs to be balanced.

You should seen my face, long time ago, back in 2003 when I first time went on NW. There was lowbie Trader, around lvl 35 with Frost Scythe (just right after TOTW was opened), and my adv and friends soldier at lvl 45ish were pwned. Not only we died, but like 10 other ppl from West Athen Rangers - I asked myself... How the heck its possible? Then I checked NCU, saw drains for 250 skills and I was amazed, how the hell its (seeing req on it) possible.

[bitnykk]

Hmmm, how about cooldown on Drains?

imo, the cooldown won't solve the OE & unbalancing problems.

but i got one new implementation in mind to avoid traders to search (wich is a question of 2-3 seconds but let's admit it's an "issue" for the demonstration & to please lusthorne) what exact nano version they can throw on mob & PVP higher, equal or lower player. i'll call this "version cap" solution instead :

0 - the trader can go with any drain he can, thanx to outside buffs + 3 minutes pre-drain from mob (high AR & nanoskills),
1 - when he throws high drain(s) on a PVP target, if the drain landed, the target got the max debuff version permitted for his level/title popping in his NCU or refresh if already got it (except when a higher drain than the one trader casted was running ofc),
2 - if the trader NCU version is higher than the one landed on target, trader isn't resfreshed.

that way if trader want to get high AR he got 3 minutes only on highest version before needing redrain on mob/drainpet. if he want refreshing option on PVP target he has to stay on the "balanced" versions.

///

"how ?" would you ask ? i'm simply introducing a Debuff layer like the one already existing for Transfer (here & there). we keep the same stacking order than original lines (wich are this & that), with new conditions like illustrated next paragraph and following the caps canvas i proposed on a previous post (< rough values, i admit it need tweaking, it's just a talk about basis).

for example a nano like Divest Skills (Average) would keep exact same requirement than now, with NO level lock added (< yes i mean it !), same school & nanoresist settings but with this new effect instead :

Effects
On Use
Self Cast Deprive Skills (Average) Transfer
Target Cast Deprive Skills (Average) Debuff
if Title level == 1
Self Cast Deprive Skills Transfer
Target Cast Deprive Skills Debuff
if Title level == 2
Self Cast Divest Skills (Minor) Transfer
Target Cast Divest Skills (Minor) Debuff
if Title level == 3
Self Cast Divest Skills (Average) Transfer
Target Cast Divest Skills (Average) Debuff
if Title level >= 4
Self Cast Divest Skills (Average) Transfer
Target Cast Divest Skills (Average) Debuff
if NPC type >= 1

(we can use "Level" instead of "Title level" for more accurate tweaking on drain lines but it's a longer work for devs).

as you see using drain is still possible on any target of any level for any trader reaching requirement. in PVM/pre-drain case (= on a mob) that changes nothing compared to now : mob is fully drained and trader got the full Transfer popped or refreshed in his NCU like now. same for a correct level PVP target (fictive example here : tl4 or more). but for "lower than balanced" PVP target the trader is NOT refresh and the target get a lower debuff version determined to be balanced.

description shall need little change also :

Drains all attacking and nano skills of the target up to X points, and up to Y points of offensive ability. This transfers up to Y points back to all attacking and nano skills of the caster.

important sidenote : i'm positive to see the -AAO debuff apply on PVP target (atm only applies to NPCs except for the 4 nanites) to counter enforcers but ONLY IF their AAO nano/procs are NOT readjusted in rebalance, ofc. that said i still think notum repulsor perkline need lowering from nowadays values. that out of subject but related, hope those precisions make more sense to debaters.

///

now let's illustrate this with a numbered example. we got level 21 Tradertwink (T) that got lotta NCU & outside buffs reaching 437 PM/TS. he's warped near a field under attack in his range. he finds a green mob :
- Divest Skills (Weak) (+88) lands on mob he now got 525 PM/TS
- Plunder Skills (Weak) (+97) lands on mob he now got 622 PM/TS
- Divest Skills (Average) (+124) lands on mob he now got 658 PM/TS
- Plunder Skills (Minor) (+115) lands on mob he now got 676 PM/TS
- Plunder Skills (Average) (+132) lands on mob he now got 693 PM/TS
(in this example he'll be one point short to next Divest so he goes with nearly 3 minutes of Divest Skills (Average) + Plunder Skills (Average) transfers running).

he now rushes notum war field nearby and crosses hostile level 21 PVT toon killing towers, let's say Enfortwink (E). T engages fight by debuffing E :
- Divest Skills (Average) lands on E, but E's TL2 so he gets Deprive Skills Debuff instead. also Divest Skills (Average) Transfer is NOT refreshed on T.
- Plunder Skills (Average) lands on E, again E's TL2 so he gets Ransack Skills Debuff instead. also Plunder Skills (Average) Transfer is NOT refreshed on T.

Now T still has +256 AR/nano buffing running from pre-drain exactly like before this "cap version" fix but with lower timeleft (= 3 minutes MINUS time to be on field, meet target & debuff it ... so may be 2 minutes left or so).
For E the situations changed a lot : instead of -325 in skill/nano (with no -AAO debuff) like in the past, he now got -129 only in skill/nano and -65 in AAO, so a total of -194 on AR ; representing 60% of the AR debuff previous to this "cap version" fix.

sidenote : for other professions (less reliant on AAO buffing) the OE would be less drastical as only skill/nano would be really affected, & in a less unbalanced way than now. also TL5 & over PVP is unchanged.

///

short conclusion : with no addition of any nanocrystal, no complexity of gameplay added for trader, simple & limited implementation based on usual conditionning for devs, intact possibilities in PVM/Twink/Pre-drain for agent/traders, no levelock/nanocost/OSB/NCUclean/duration nerf, we now got a totally balanced debuff landing, reasonnable insane AR timeleft to avoid "godmode", enforcer balancing on AAO especially for TL2/3, and the end of other professions totally ruined on OE/requirement wich is the main issue at the moment.

what else ?

[Obtena]

I have to say it's a bit complex but complexity can't be avoided if we are thinking about clever ways to reign in traders at the lower TL's that are sensible.

Personally, the problem is much more difficult than it appears ... it's not only the amount that a trader can drain for, but the amount he gets back. Many people forget that there isn't a 'shotgun' buffing line so traders, at their worst, have rather average, if not poor nano and weapon skills until they can drain up.

My own opinion is that there should be only 2 drain nanos (low and high NR) and the amount they drain for and give back is based simply on some percentage of the player's level (if you apply the current drain values achieveable at 220, that's about 150%). If that's not enough to compensate for skills at certain levels, the percentage can be a more complex function that varies for some ranges.

[Genie]

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."

Shops or mail system were never a complicating issue. They just hadnt thought about it before another MMO came along and gave them the idea. All of your examples are of new stuff added after, not reworks of existing code. You cant apply the term "de-spaghetti-fying" to newly added stuff, because it is just added, not a rework of an existing system. Why do you think they add new stuff all the time instead of fixing or modifying what is already in the game? Answer to that is because the existing code is way to complicated to mess around with. Its safer/simpler to add new code. Hell maybe its even too complicated to add level locks. But chances are better that this will work, since level locks are a mechanism that has been around for a long time

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.

You make a lot of assumptions yourself to complain about mine. Sticks and stones.

[Darkirbiska1]

that way you control max PVP target level for each drain but don't change PVM nor Twink. simpler than % debuff isn't it ?

So it will drain same amount on mobs like now, but it should be reduced in pvp e.g. like Rdord posted:

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

It sounds really good, twinking isnt nerfed and others arent drained so hard and they have bigger chance against traders at low level. Really good.

[lusthorne]

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 :

Failed ethical lesson? The fact is you accused me of blatantly ignoring one variation of a level lock suggestion when in fact I had not, and then had the audacity to suggest that I should be reading/understanding and replying to those ideas (which I did in the first place).

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 !

My arguments don't rest purely on nerfs to pvm or twinking, particularly in the case of your version of the level lock suggestion which was target level locks on the drains.

Further, if you prefer a healthy debate, try not being so hostile. I believe you'll find far less backlash in response.

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 ??).

Do you even play a trader, or do you just enjoy trying to be a back seat driver and telling everyone else how to play their profession? The fact is that traders already have several nanos to contend with in pvp, and the issues that arise from target level locks, causing traders to be required to keep more drains quickly accessible, not to mention the extra time lag in fights spent figuring out which drain to use on their target.

More food for thought: What happens when that target level lock falls right in the middle of the pvp range you're fighting in, where a pair of greens are on either side of the lock? Your green/orange/red method doesn't work quite so well then does it?

so where was your issue, again ?

Let me spell it out for you:
"Unable to execute nano program, target level is not less than X!"

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.

There is no fake issue at all with the effect target level locks would have (while admittedly milder in scope vs flat level locks on drains). It is a fact that as a result of target level locks, MORE drains would have to be kept quickly accessible to use on different level opponents. The annoyance factor alone warrants looking into better solutions.

Also interesting to me is that here you've shifted from a level lock solution to a tiered debuff table solution that is more of a compromise to the style of debuff cap I proposed (hard numbers vs %). I should also add that in my opinion this is a much better solution than target level locks, even if it's not quite what I envisioned.

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.

While I can see where you're coming from in regards to the self buff component of drains here, I gotta ask what's the point? If the trader can come laddered up off a mob with top buffs, why shouldn't the buff be the same from using the same drains? The tiered debuff approach is simply a pvp cap to prevent the debuff effect from being ridiculously overpowered. If the trader can cast a high drain, they should get the benefit of the high drain.

[lusthorne]

Shops or mail system were never a complicating issue. They just hadnt thought about it before another MMO came along and gave them the idea.

I'll grant you the mail system one on that, but tell me, what MMO might have given them the idea for player shops back when FC announced them as a feature for the AI expansion? (I'm not saying it isn't quite plausible that another MMO did give them the idea, I just can't think of any offhand that had them back then) I still have my retail copy of the AI expansion from 2004 even, and it has player controlled shops listed quite clearly as a feature on it, yet they weren't in the game until around 5 months after the expansion released (released in Sept 2004, player shops finally added Feb 2005).

What about the social tab? I seem to recall Silirrion (when he was game director) saying many times it would not happen because it could not be done, and then a way was found.

All of your examples are of new stuff added after, not reworks of existing code. You cant apply the term "de-spaghetti-fying" to newly added stuff, because it is just added, not a rework of an existing system. Why do you think they add new stuff all the time instead of fixing or modifying what is already in the game? Answer to that is because the existing code is way to complicated to mess around with. Its safer/simpler to add new code. Hell maybe its even too complicated to add level locks. But chances are better that this will work, since level locks are a mechanism that has been around for a long time

As I recall, one of the main points of the "de-spaghetti-fying" was to make a lot of things possible that came later (in fact, I *think* that the social tab was one of the direct results of this, but don't hold me to that).

My issue is not whether or not level locks *can* be used, it's about level locks being the appropriate solution for the issue, a solution which I vehemently disagree with.

You make a lot of assumptions yourself to complain about mine. Sticks and stones.

I never made any assumptions about how easy the idea would be to implement. I simply put forth an idea. You're the one that sprang forward with assumptions and a know it all demeanor telling me that it just can't be done, when you yourself have no idea what can or can't be done, given that you are not an AO dev.

As I have pointed out earlier, there were many things that at one point or another were said not to be possible, yet managed to be implemented at some point. Hell it was even said for a long time that an effort to update the engine for AO would never happen because of the difficulty (among other things) and yet we're nearing the day when we will have that engine. So like I said before, don't tell me it can't be done, you are not in a position to make that determination.

Further, you can spare me the condescending mannerism that has been laced throughout your replies to me. You are in no position whatsoever to gauge what I can or can not comprehend, much less how I supposedly think things work.

If you want to disagree with an idea, that's fine. I'll be happy to debate solution ideas with you. If you think an idea might be too complex to implement easily, that's fine as well, but don't try to pass off your opinions as fact.

[bitnykk]

Further, if you prefer a healthy debate, try not being so hostile.

i always do with honest debaters facing me. but for a moment i thought you were b***sh**ing the debate with a false statement. that's the kind of moment i get passionate ...

Do you even play a trader, or do you just enjoy trying to be a back seat driver and telling everyone else how to play their profession?

... so don't start on me again !

not to mention the extra time lag in fights spent figuring out which drain to use on their target. (...) What happens when that target level lock falls right in the middle of the pvp range you're fighting in

"Unable to execute nano program, target level is not less than X!"

not with the newer approach i posted just upper.
(sidenote : "extra lag time" to figure out wich drain can land, exists also for other professions facing a trader ; they got lost time to find wich heal/root/debuff they still can throw once drained. think you know it but was good to recall it.)

you've shifted from a level lock solution to a tiered debuff table solution that is more of a compromise to the style of debuff cap I proposed (hard numbers vs %).

i shifted nothing, you were among those thinking that standed for a defined & final proposal.
my "level lock" post wasn't a solution in itself (as i said inside it), just canvas/steps of debuffing to discuss/agree on for balancing each titles and avoid senseless gaps (e.g. nanites on level 40 opponent). as you see with my latest proposal, wich is now an assumed solution in itself with implementation canvas, there was a lot of different ways to programm it once defined.
people stop on words too much, personnaly i try to get the ideas first to make debate go forward.

I should also add that in my opinion this is a much better solution than target level locks, even if it's not quite what I envisioned.

i'm honestly pleased. the % solution isn't bad either but i like it less because even capped it disavantadge the better twinked, makes uneven amount of drain among skills and cannot mirror in trader NCU or it would open to new cheats.

If the trader can come laddered up off a mob with top buffs, why shouldn't the buff be the same from using the same drains? (...) If the trader can cast a high drain, they should get the benefit of the high drain.

i agree for PVM only. in PVP i think the trader has the legit right to come with pre-drain AR deserved from his hard work on NCU/implants/buffing, but i'm wanting to limit the duration of it to 3 minutes for balance need. i might be wrong but i'm convinced 3 minutes of big AR is enough.

beside that i want the AAO debuff apply in PVP (wich is not the case until nanites now) so the enforcers are started to be balanced too. i'd like your opinion on this, like i asked obtena & saetos.

[Darkirbiska1]

beside that i want the AAO debuff apply in PVP (wich is not the case until nanites now) so the enforcers are started to be balanced too. i'd like your opinion on this, like i asked obtena & saetos.

With nerfing drains in pvp, you CANT forget change notum repulsor line.
It gives really a LOT of NR and Zap Nano drains a lot at low level pvp, it can drain 1/2-1/3 of your nanopool with nasty nanoskill debuff. Lock is shorter than duration so you can keep it running nonstop.

[Genie]

My issue is not whether or not level locks *can* be used, it's about level locks being the appropriate solution for the issue, a solution which I vehemently disagree with.

Well then, that is ok. I think it is an appropriate solution to the issue, given the complicated nature of the AO code. You do not, and that is perfectly ok.

I never made any assumptions about how easy the idea would be to implement. I simply put forth an idea. You're the one that sprang forward with assumptions and a know it all demeanor telling me that it just can't be done, when you yourself have no idea what can or can't be done, given that you are not an AO dev.

That my firend is an assumption. And that you assume that my statements about the AO code is an assumption on my part, is also an assumption. But Im not interested in splitting hairs.

I feel that level locking the drains is the best way to balance traders at low levels. I dont think they have the resources to implement a suggestion of a percentile cap for the target. Therefore level locking is a more likely scenario.

[delsabre]

Honestly I think the best option for changing drains would be to have percentage-based debuffs instead of static-amount debuffs

Indeed, I suggested this way back when traders were at the rock bottom (no nanite drains / GTH) Seemed as if noone else wanted this then though. Guess people were to afraid to lose their pvp twinks...

[bitnykk]

level locking the drains is the best way to balance traders at low levels

how about what i proposed ? it doesn't have side effects of pure level lock (aka requirement lock), but result a controlled balancing without trader having to grope on shortcuts in action.

you CANT forget change notum repulsor line.

did i ?
http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...3&postcount=34

[Genie]

how about what i proposed ? it doesn't have side effects of pure level lock (aka requirement lock), but result a controlled balancing without trader having to grope on shortcuts in action.

The suggestion is fine. The problem is implementing it. The reason I suggest a simple level lock is because this is a method of control that has been in place for a long time, and thus have a better chance of being succesfully implemented. To do something like your suggestion Im afraid they would need to rework the entire nano system. It's great if they do that, but I doubt they have the resources.

[bitnykk]

To do something like your suggestion Im afraid they would need to rework the entire nano system.

i don't think that would require a totally rework of nanos. check these :
BI http://auno.org/ao/db.php?id=223299 (check Effects part with conditionnal HP buff)
DM http://auno.org/ao/db.php?id=275692 (see how complex the break tree is)

i don't think mistaken saying these items workout show the solution i proposed is apparently implementable with current system.

[AGPEcko]

bump

[Wyoming]

Or... just make a toon, for towers, designed to fight Traders. Traders are squishy.

[sultryvoltron]

Or... just make a toon, for towers, designed to fight Traders. Traders are squishy.

There isn't one under level 30.

[Wyoming]

There's more to this game than you know. Care to look up how many NR buffs there are?

[sultryvoltron]

There's more to this game than you know. Care to look up how many NR buffs there are?

That are castable on others at lvl 30: 1

That can be used on self at lvl 30: 2

[Wyoming]

Oh, selfed? Well, selfed traders suck. Also, +142 is quite enough to counteract the +140 of mochams, and the first drain is all you need to stop.