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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatester

Are you sure it is best that traders, or any profession, use their absolute best tools without having to put forth effort to do so? There are lesser health drains which are still quite strong, but the more nanoskills you have the better the health drain you will have.

If anything, this seems to be a move in the right direction where entire toolsets are not available to all setups. A trader devoted to casting should cast nanos a weapon or evade devoted trader cannot. If we have all professions make similar choices we would see a great deal more variety. You do seem to somewhat feel this way as well, but if the sacrifices are not extensive enough then it will work.

---

My point is exactly what you have mentioned here. Even in a max nano skill setup it is still required to land both drains to use this nano. Furthermore the fact that this nano is out of reach for most balanced setups is further proof in my opinion that the skill requirements should at least be looked at.

I agree that some sacrifice should be made to use top nanos but I feel this is a far stretch when you still need both drains with all Nano Skill buffing Hud/Util items and full Combined Scouts with the Nano Skill buffing Alb Bracer as well full Alpha Symbs.

As I mentioned above I am even fine with needing to land at least one drain to cast this nano but needing both is a bit much in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larafina

"Are you sure it is best that traders, or any profession, use their absolute best tools without having to put forth effort to do so?"

it is not about effort, but you cant take away our debuffing power and force us to totally gimps us for nanoskills. Hud 3 and utils for nanoskills beside ncu is just too much to ask. Full cs, alphas, conc should be enough as there is not a single other proff that has to equipp that much nanoskill buffing items to cast their top nanos. Or do you want enfos to be forced to wear cs to cast their nanos too ?
Btw gatester you keep talking about that we gain crit increase and still you promote nanoskill requs that force us to give up on amor with crit incr., snipers friend, scope usw. i dont see any increase here, i only see a massive losses.

---

agree with you ^^, just gonna add a couple points of my own. yes, granted there are many profs (keeper comes to mind) that tend to hot swap a bunch of stuff to cast endgame nanos, but like you say, the difference lies in the fact that as traders we buff ourselves as we fight (besides iQU), so we are forced to keep the nano buffing stuff equipped (i feel sorry for an endgame atrox trader). with the proposed changes, some profs (like my soldier) will get nano requirements lowered, making eoe's, ado brain etc.. the smarter choice regardless if you are wearing duel envies or not.

on the other hand, the drains are 10mins on self now which means less time looking for targets in pvp to drain, which i am very, very happy about. one because its a pita, and two because it narrows the scope in pvp of what traders can really do. this means being able to land top heal should be doable most of the time, as long as you drain a pet every now and then. and the possibility of draining, then swapping gear for the 10mins you dont need to drain again is also a possibility, as long as youy still have nanoskills for health drain.

my 2 half-awake cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larafina

it is not about effort, but you cant take away our debuffing power and force us to totally gimps us for nanoskills. Hud 3 and utils for nanoskills beside ncu is just too much to ask. Full cs, alphas, conc should be enough as there is not a single other proff that has to equipp that much nanoskill buffing items to cast their top nanos. Or do you want enfos to be forced to wear cs to cast their nanos too ?

---

Atrox enforcers are already forced to make several nanoskill buffing sacrifices to cast end game nanos. A bigger difference is that without those improved nanos a 220 enforcer would be unable to tank because they would be unable to hold aggro. Additionally, any decent enforcer is forced to sacrifice for nano regain gear or they end up being unable to spam their nanos which is also necessary to tank in most cases.

An enforcer sacrificing for nanos does not do it to be slightly more effective, they do so because they are forced to or they will be unable to perform. Traders are not the same. Traders do not need to cast the very best health drains to perform, they cast them to do better. There is no valid argument for a trader requiring full access to the top tiers of their casting ability with minimal sacrifices allowing for non-nano devoted setups to cast as well as nano-devoted setups.

If it was a matter of having only one health drain with a 2700 req then it would be absolutely stupid, but that is not the issue here. The more nanoskills a trader has the better it performs, which is not the same for enforcers. To counter the foolish argument about forcing enforcers to wear CS (I suppose you failed to click my signature?), how would you feel if traders were forced to wear full Combined Mercenaries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larafina

Btw gatester you keep talking about that we gain crit increase and still you promote nanoskill requs that force us to give up on amor with crit incr., snipers friend, scope usw. i dont see any increase here, i only see a massive losses.

---

Well, if you do not fret over the minor improvement in the health drains and just cast the 2530 nanoskill req drain instead of the 2730 req drain:

Previous critical chance % after drains = 24%
Balancing document critical chance % after drains = 30%

There is only one nanoline that is even offering any casting difficulties at all, and it is the absolute highest nano in the line which means you have alternatives which you can cast for a very minor decrease in effectiveness. You see only losses because you are focusing only on what you want to see and not what has actually been presented.

Is there anyone who will actually sacrifice their entire toolset just so they can heal 200 more points and do 400 more damage in pvm (200 more damage in pvp)?

I think the enfo/trader comparisons are a bit unfair. The question isn't IF you need to make a sacrifice to cast endgame nanos, it's WHAT sacrifices you need to make. For an atrox enfo, I would argue that the sacrifices are minimal (you should be able to cast them with CM or wrangle, without making ANY equipment swaps) and have little impact on the kinds of things that make an enfo successful in PVP/PVM. For a trader, that impact is alot more. It's not only a piece or two of gear or maybe a buff. It's every drain AND buffs AND full casting gear to cast the top health plunder. IMO, that's not reasonable to force a SINGLE equipment option on traders to cast their nanos. That just doesn't happen to enfos. The have to sacrifice, but their options to achieve that are not limited to just one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatester

Is there anyone who will actually sacrifice their entire toolset just so they can heal 200 more points and do 400 more damage in pvm (200 more damage in pvp)?

---

The answer is no, and thus the reqs should be reduced.

Or the gains from the nano should go up 10 fold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obtena

I think the enfo/trader comparisons are a bit unfair. The question isn't IF you need to make a sacrifice to cast endgame nanos, it's WHAT sacrifices you need to make. For an atrox enfo, I would argue that the sacrifices are minimal (you should be able to cast them with CM or wrangle, without making ANY equipment swaps) and have little impact on the kinds of things that make an enfo successful in PVP/PVM. For a trader, that impact is alot more. It's not only a piece or two of gear or maybe a buff. It's every drain AND buffs AND full casting gear to cast the top health plunder. IMO, that's not reasonable to force a SINGLE equipment option on traders to cast their nanos. That just doesn't happen to enfos. The have to sacrifice, but their options to achieve that are not limited to just one.

---

No one is forcing traders to make gear sacrifices to cast "their nanos", they are being forced to make choices to cast "one slightly better nano". Again, you are not gimping yourself to cast the nano anyways, you are strengthening your casting proficiency which benefits the profession. Boosting enforcer weaponskills is closer to boosting trader nanoskills.

I would also be willing to rely on CM or umbrals to cast Imongo if it was not the only way to heal or survive on a 220 enforcer. My raid nano is also the key to solo survival and I will be damned if FC forces me to find an MP to do solo content when no one else has to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SultryVoltron

The answer is no, and thus the reqs should be reduced.

Or the gains from the nano should go up 10 fold.

---

Or we could just delete that final 2730 nanoskill req version entirely.

The nano does not need to be stronger, maybe give the final one an 85-90% NR def check instead but certainly not more powerful.

Again my issue is not so much the fact that a sacrifice has to be made in the way of casting this nano so much as the level of sacrifice. I feel that in a full max nano skill setup this nano should be castable with only Divest running and not Divest and Plunder.

Lowering the requirements by 30 to 50 points accomplishes this while still maintaining the sacrifice needed to cast the nano. Furthermore it makes little sense to only apply this logic to one particular nano line when that nano line is intended to be a Traders primary means of defense.

Now if there were some other means to justify the increased nano skill requirements such as a lower resist check then the current requirements would be a tad more palatable. However in their current state it seems unnecessary to have the current requirements as high as they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatester

Or we could just delete that final 2730 nanoskill req version entirely.

The nano does not need to be stronger, maybe give the final one an 85-90% NR def check instead but certainly not more powerful.

---

Opinion based on no acutal testing alert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatester

No one is forcing traders to make gear sacrifices to cast "their nanos", they are being forced to make choices to cast "one slightly better nano".

---

That's what I call spin and it's not being very genuine IMO. It's not hiding the fact that that there is only one setup that will allow traders to cast ALL their nanos, unlike most (or ALL) other professions that have multiple options in buffs/setup that allow them to do the same thing. On top of it, it's not a buff, it's an on-demand nano, so the option for swapping is not there, like it is for keepers and engis, etc... FC already acknowledged that some of the profession nano reqs are too high and it was fixed for them. So why is it that traders get increases in requirements to the point where some can't even cast them, though they are at the intended level to do so? I don't care if it's only one nano .... it's a double standard and it's unjustified. The fact that it is only one nano is even worse. It shows that double standard is intended and not just some misunderstanding of trader skills on the part of the developer.

Isn't this the same thing as me going NR2 on keeper? I can't cast highest auras even with 14 parts of swapping but I gained 1.2k Nr to deal with debuffs more effectively.

Balance I think they call it?

How is going NR2 on a keeper the same sacrifice as not being able to cast nanos as a trader? A whole new level of woeful logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manaas

Isn't this the same thing as me going NR2 on keeper? I can't cast highest auras even with 14 parts of swapping but I gained 1.2k Nr to deal with debuffs more effectively.

Balance I think they call it?

---

The difference here is we are not effectively being allowed to make the decision here. Using a full max nanoskill setup is nonviable for any profession including Traders and being forced to use a nonviable setup to cast our defensive nanos is unrealistic at best.

I acknowledge that some setups these nanos will still be out of range. I personally intend to use one such setup. However the point still needs to be made that forcing a person into unrealistic setups to gain access to their full defensive toolset is unrealistic.

As for a similar comparison it would be the same as forcing you to use the full NR Perk line as opposed to just the first two perks in the line to be defensively viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manaas

Isn't this the same thing as me going NR2 on keeper? I can't cast highest auras even with 14 parts of swapping but I gained 1.2k Nr to deal with debuffs more effectively.

Balance I think they call it?

---

Sure, if FC was the one deciding that all keepers have to use NR2, then your analogy would be valid.

Being forced into a single setup to cast all nanos isn't a sacrifice. A sacrifice is a decision the player makes, not one that FC imposes on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obtena

Sure, if FC was the one deciding that all keepers have to use NR2, then your analogy would be valid.

Being forced into a single setup to cast all nanos isn't a sacrifice. A sacrifice is a decision the player makes, not one that FC imposes on them.

---

This... i couldn't say it better so i'll QFT it.


Are there ANY other professions that require nanoskills this high to cast combat nanos? Any nanos? I'm too lazy to look and i'm sure others already have :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obtena

That's what I call spin and it's not being very genuine IMO. It's not hiding the fact that that there is only one setup that will allow traders to cast ALL their nanos, unlike most (or ALL) other professions that have multiple options in buffs/setup that allow them to do the same thing.

---

Your bolded statement completely shuts down your argument and you do not even realize it do you? That only one setup that can cast all nanos is a nanoskill setup designed to cast all nanos. Do you realize how stupid it is to argue that a nanoskill setup should not be able to cast more than any other setup?

Arguing that traders are now unable to access all of their nanos in full CSS or full evade gear and that that is somehow a crime against the profession is even worse. We are talking about increased effectiveness not direct access to the toolset.

Requirement: 2730
Health 2528
Health: Energy -5056

Requirement: 2530
Health 2328
Health: Energy -4656

This is what all the crying is about, a small increase that is very comparable to something we call perk action tiers. So, I will push you to defend your argument in a manner that compares similar toolsets for a change rather than this weak garbage you have been setting up to take down.

If you want to argue that traders must be allowed to cast every nano even if they are in a setup with minimal nanoskill buffing, then I would ask you to prove it. Prove how traders, as a nanoskill reliant profession, are entitled to full access to all levels of casting in every setup. However, you cannot stop just there, because you will have a second duty that follows entitlement by professions. You must also prove why enforcers, adventurers, fixers, soldiers, agents, shades, MAs, and keepers are entitled to all reach 3000 points of weapon skill, even in setups without weapon skill buffing armor or hud/utils, so that they too can access their full toolset. How many professions do you think can even reach 3000 weapon skills?

If traders are justified in having full access to all top nanos in every setup, then weapon based professions are justified in having full access to all top perk levels in every setup as well. If traders are justified in having full access to all top nanos in a nanoskills devoted setup, then weapon based professions are justified in having full access to all top perk levels in weapon devoted setups. There is no other argument that is fair for all professions.

Gatester, nothing I have said isn't true. Traders are being FORCED into a single setup to cast all our nanos while no other profession experiences that restriction which in fact is the opposite direction FC has taken to reduce nano requirements for many other professions to enable them to cast their nanos and give them more gear options. I don't care what you call it or some academic argument about contradiction in terms regarding nano casting setups. No other profession currently in re-balance is being told indirectly by FC "Here is your setup to use this toolset" except traders (I wouldn't be surprised though if this BS was applied to MP's and NT's too. I think it's their perception of casters).

No profession at endgame should have only 1 option in gearing themselves to access their toolsets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obtena

No profession at endgame should have only 1 option in gearing themselves to access their toolsets.

---

OH! I am too lazy to find your quotes, but here is some of em : " You are not in a position to judge what professions SHOULD do, that's FC's part " or " If they did xyz, they did it on purpose " or " If they did xyz , they are showing with direction they want prof xyz go "

So, now you are actually against your own agenda. Cool, keep it up.

Have a nice day.

Good troll. Unfortunately, I'm still right. /shrug This isn't a 'direction', unless the direction is giving profs tools they can't access. I'm quite aware this was done on purpose as I already stated and finally, FC are actually contradicting the direction they have taken for every other profession in the game so far, as I already stated as well. Got any more 'gems' where you think I have contradicted whatever you think my agenda is? If you do, state them, and if you are right, I will gladly acknowledge, if not, you're just making yourself look like you have nothing to say on the subject of the topic. Unfortunately for you, the examples you provided haven't proven anything except that I have a stance and it's consistent. Thanks for that. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stompbox

OH! I am too lazy to find your quotes, but here is some of em : " You are not in a position to judge what professions SHOULD do, that's FC's part " or " If they did xyz, they did it on purpose " or " If they did xyz , they are showing with direction they want prof xyz go "

So, now you are actually against your own agenda. Cool, keep it up.

Have a nice day.

---

Obtena is a troll. If there is anything posted ever, Obtena will find an angle to argue against it.

On the topic of "his nano is uncastable:
I like it.
No one says you HAVE TO cast it.

if it was a +10k heal and the last one was 2328, sure, then it would be a slap in the face.
More nanos is good, not bad.

Look at the Agent +dam nanos, -for years- it was the advice to not spend the IP to cast the higher ones..
Why? Because that was the balance, you got more from spending the IP in evades
It is a choice. and choices in games are good.

Personally I would like more choices, and the decision on breed to be an important one.
A nanomage should have a noticeable easier time casting nanos than an Atrox, currently the factor if you have AI armor or not means more than breed.

Deprives/divests extended to QL 300 would be the optimal as I see it, and a continuation of the current theme: You need drains to cast, without you are a glass-tomato (you can only go splat).
Therein lies the choice: rely on always having 4 laddered drains up, and casting better nanos, having a better gun equiped, or play safe and only build your setup and hotbars around nanos and weapons that will be useable without drains.

People have gotten used to nanos being overpowered; that each and every nano is "needed", because it is more powerful to put IP to nanoskills, getting that nano, than putting IP in evades or anything else.

This is the re-balancing, so -ofcause- there should be nanos that gives you the choice to use it or not.
If you want it, you have to make sacrifices, if you deem those sacrifices to great:
You have a balanced game, that gives you choices
Which is good.

This should apply to all professions ofcause, and not just Traders.
"unreachable"(without special setup) nanos, that you actively say "that is too hard to get, I would rather have more health", then it no longer is FC's fault for having no more nanos, being endgame and not having anything to do, because you have it all, then you will have people going for the reward just to show it is possible, and some leaving it alone.
Diversity was one of the things wanted in the balancing, and introducing nanos at a lvl where they are not MUST have is a part of that.

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

*edit*
PS. Obtena you are -clearly- contradicting yourself, you (should) know this, and we have been through this before, to a point where the thread almost got locked..
Please have a look at your last crusade in this thread, you can find it by looking for the admin-coloured post, it is just before that.
There you indeed praised FC for being right, and this forum for not understanding the divine and unfailing logic of FC. Now you contradict that divine unfailing logic.

Now I hope this is the last time we need to talk about your behaviour in this thread, but return to balancing again.