Weapons FYI

[Hacre]

It's not an argument. It's advice or at least my opinion in the form of advice. If you are unhappy with how pets perform AND you have given up on having them changed, then something else has to change. It just so happens that I think someone that haven't given up on pets should provide feedback on how the crat profession is and should perform.

Pets should not "be all and end all of damage". Pets should also not be a laughing stock that people gave up on years ago. How much of your char is made up of pet-power and how much is character-power should depend on the person playing it. At no point should pets be less than 33% of the damage output or so (in a boost-character while neglecting-pets-setup). In my book that is, that's just how I view pet professions. In a pet-centric setup, you would do 66% damage with pets and 33% damage with your character. (these numbers are just used as examples)

The actual problem with leaving pets at 33% and less no matter what setup you have, because you have given up on pets, is that the only way up is through your character's power and when you start walking down that road, you are ruining the flavor and whole point of the pet profession. I want someone else to provide feedback because they might have a better ideal in their mind than simply saying "pets are useless so it makes sense to boost my char instead". I don't see that going anywhere good.

I guess I'm just an idealist.

An idealistic view is an admirable one, but one that rarely gets fulfilled by FC.

Whenever pets have been that powerful, people have kicked, whined and screamed that they be nerfed, so they have been.

Pet issues dpn't just centre around pathing. They centre around Pet AR, Pet survivability and how easy it is to debuff pets.

As things stand, any decent power in pets has been nerfed (Carlo standing heal delta and heal delta in combat, to name just one).

Pets are wickedly easily debuffed. Be honest, in your time of playing a Trader, how many times have you spotted a pet and used it as a free drain pet? I bet it's a lot. I cannot count how many times my Crat died, then appeared in decon, with a load of drains, UBT and god knows what else sitting in their pet's NCU.

If pets made up too much of a profession's damage people would be screaming for nerfs. If pets never missed, people would be screaming for nerfs. As things stand, with pets as they are and with Crats having 80% check perks, no one is screaming for nerfs. STun procs have gone so Crats have been pretty safe lately.

Like I said, it's not just about "combat" slots or "support" slots, it's also about what that given profession can do, as a whole. As things stand, Crats -finally-, after years have pistols as a viable damage output. Now because Ranged Advies are OP, that viable damage output is being nerfed not only for Ranged Advies but for everyone else as well.

Do you think the changed of Easy Shot to 100% check is right? I don't. That's without me even playing a Trader.

All too often people defend nerfs/attack boosts when really, they have no place doing so. You're surprisingly in this list, currently.

[Eseb]

Not being able to hit people with 3.5K AR is a fallacy, stop exaggerating. I can count on one hand the number of professions you cannot dodge debuff then annihilate with 3.5K AR.

Evade whoring advs, fixers, MAs, well equipped crats, shades, decent shield MPs... there, more than 5! :P

And ofc I've come across agents and even docs... yes, docs that I couldn't land my evade debuffs on with 3.5k+ AR.

And even after landing the debuffs, advs need a hell of a good alpha including AS and RE perks (so no chance post-"rebalancing") to take down and a coon in the middle of it all will completely **** us over, Agents and docs both need a very strong alpha with both an AS hotswap and RE perks, good enfs can outlast AMS these days, NTs do too much dmg, defensive kippurs can outlast AMS as well. Fixers, MAs, shades, engis, traders aren't even worth mentioning.
So no, we don't get to rip everyone to shreds even after we debuff them and it'll only get worse after they mess up our dodge debuffs.

I've seen enough Soldiers gank pets to make this statement false. Or you can just AMS and continue about your business with pets posing no threat at all, or no threat your HD can't take care of.

Why are you making this about solds? Other profs can't "just AMS and continue about their business with pets posing no threat at all", you know. Pets actually do dmg to others.

Except Crats/Docs/Engies do get their ~3K AR (Docs still don't hit this number) with lots effort and sacrifice. Advies do not.

Yet again, engis and crats have pets. Docs have nano dmg that's easy to dish out, plus it's not as if they're meant to do good weap dmg anyway. Crats have a 1.5k easy-enough to land nuke too.
You can't expect to reach the same AR or dmg as easily as advs when you have all these extras. You claim "advs are OPd" yet you want even more than they have.

[Sterva]

Sterva please stop posting this crap once and for all and use your brain .

Crats have the ability to reach about the same Ar as a advy . But some of em them CHOSE NOT TO . Theres a big difference betwen what you pick and what is possible if you dont pick that option since its not the best then IM SORRY FOR YOU , but that doesnt make the OPTION go away for others .

End of story if you dont do something doesnt mean it has to be changed .

Uh, yeah, I have pretty good AR for a crat, but I sacrifice a lot to get to it. I don't know why you would assume that I don't get as much AR as I can, but anyways.

My point, although it is apparently way beyond you, is that despite being able to get similar main AR through sacrificing a lot of other skills, there are many more ways that advs outshine crats using pistols.

It isn't all just about main AR and whether you can land a set of perks. Advs are already way ahead because of everything else: AR template, more add dmg, higher special AR, higher AS multiplier.

"Support" professions (at least crats) would use the pistol perks with superior ability. Why is that merited? Because their regular/special damage is lower?

You again failed to say where Advys with 100% checks would do better than support profs with 80% checks.

No I didn't. I outlined it quite clearly. You failed to read it.

[Wrangeline]

An idealistic view is an admirable one, but one that rarely gets fulfilled by FC.

Whenever pets have been that powerful, people have kicked, whined and screamed that they be nerfed, so they have been.

Pet issues dpn't just centre around pathing. They centre around Pet AR, Pet survivability and how easy it is to debuff pets.

As things stand, any decent power in pets has been nerfed (Carlo standing heal delta and heal delta in combat, to name just one).

Pets are wickedly easily debuffed. Be honest, in your time of playing a Trader, how many times have you spotted a pet and used it as a free drain pet? I bet it's a lot. I cannot count how many times my Crat died, then appeared in decon, with a load of drains, UBT and god knows what else sitting in their pet's NCU.

If pets made up too much of a profession's damage people would be screaming for nerfs. If pets never missed, people would be screaming for nerfs. As things stand, with pets as they are and with Crats having 80% check perks, no one is screaming for nerfs. STun procs have gone so Crats have been pretty safe lately.

Like I said, it's not just about "combat" slots or "support" slots, it's also about what that given profession can do, as a whole. As things stand, Crats -finally-, after years have pistols as a viable damage output. Now because Ranged Advies are OP, that viable damage output is being nerfed not only for Ranged Advies but for everyone else as well.

Do you think the changed of Easy Shot to 100% check is right? I don't. That's without me even playing a Trader.

All too often people defend nerfs/attack boosts when really, they have no place doing so. You're surprisingly in this list, currently.

Hm, well I'm talking from a somewhat general point of view atm. I agree with the stuff you just said. So I guess something important must have fallen between the cracks somewhere for me.

I agree that crats aren't OP atm. I wouldn't even suggest it.
I agree that advs are OP atm. I wouldn't even suggest otherwise.
I agree that pet problems stem from a million different things a lot more crippling than pet pathing.

The only thing I picked up on in this whole debate that I disagree with is that advs and pet professions should have different def checks on their perks. That's all.

For various reasons, that I have explained, perhaps poorly so far, I think everyone should have same def-check on perks but that other factors such as attackrating for individual professions or a more scaling DD-system for perks instead of the on/off-system we have atm would be much better.

Basically, if FC were to nerf advs by making their perks 100%, and thus taking every other profession down the drain because of that very general change, then I feel the better option would be to move perks to 100% BUT compensate support professions for the loss by boosting their AR a bit on a case to case basis.

It's just specifically the scenario where some classes have lower def checks than others that I object to.

[sultryvoltron]

Bump for better pets and working Crowd Control.


Oh wait, Sterva doesn't want to be a Bureaucrat... Sterva wants to be a pistol wielding Artillery profession.

[Hacre]

Evade whoring advs, fixers, MAs, well equipped crats, shades, decent shield MPs... there, more than 5! :P

And ofc I've come across agents and even docs... yes, docs that I couldn't land my evade debuffs on with 3.5k+ AR.

You couldn't land Tracer on docs and Agents? Come on...dude, seriously, come on. There's got to be some serious Crat+OSB stuff going on for that to happen. In which case, we're talking about NW PvP, get Crats and others to OSB you too. In fact even with that, I call bulls**t on you not being able to land Tracer on Docs.

Yet again, engis and crats have pets. Docs have nano dmg that's easy to dish out, plus it's not as if they're meant to do good weap dmg anyway. Crats have a 1.5k easy-enough to land nuke too.
You can't expect to reach the same AR or dmg as easily as advs when you have all these extras. You claim "advs are OPd" yet you want even more than they have.

Doc nanodamage isn't that easy to dish out. DoTs are pretty much shrugged off unless you're a profession that doesn't have much HP. Malpractice is ridiculously heavy on nano and only guaranteed on those with crappy NR. Oh look you're a soldier, perhaps your point of view is skewed? Which is why, to answer another question of yours, I brought Soldiers into this. Also who said Docs aren't supposed to have good weapon damage?

Lol @ you still bringing pets into it.

I've said time and again that Advs are OP'd because they can concentrate -nothing- on AR, while concentrating on def and HP, and still land their perks. The other professions you're crying about have to, HAVE TO, sacrifice things to get the AR and thus the perks that you're talking about. Why are we going in circles on this?

It's just specifically the scenario where some classes have lower def checks than others that I object to.

Why? You're yet to quantify this. This is AO after all, not la la land where everything is perfect and pistol perks are a bonus for the other non advy professions using them.

Bump for better pets and working Crowd Control.


Oh wait, Sterva doesn't want to be a Bureaucrat... Sterva wants to be a pistol wielding Artillery profession.

Are you having some RL issues atm? Because your posts lately have been a bit sensationalist.

PM me if you need to talk to someone. Seriously.

[IHaveHugeNick]

someone that haven't given up on pets

No such people exist.

If FC announced they've given up on fixing pets and will perform huge revamp of current pet classes to petless, only thing you would hear on these forums, is a huge **** YEAH!!!111ONE.

Too many years have passed with promises promises promises promises promises promises promises promises and pets are stil as bull**** to use as they always were.

As far as majority of pet users is concerned, when Voyager I will circle around the Milky Way and come back to Earth, pets in AO will still be broken.

[Hacre]

No such people exist.

If FC announced they've given up on fixing pets and will perform huge revamp of current pet classes to petless, only thing you would hear on these forums, is a huge **** YEAH!!!111ONE.

Too many years have passed with promises promises promises promises promises promises promises promises and pets are stil as bull**** to use as they always were.

As far as majority of pet users is concerned, when Voyager I will circle around the Milky Way and come back to Earth, pets in AO will still be broken.

Which is why I just forgot about my Crat in the first place. Perk balancing can't be done around ideals, but rather around what the real world presents us with currently.

When usually opposing forum trolls combine in agreement you can take it as read that what they're agreeing upon is correct, since the point itself has completely bypassed any troll points++ on disagreeing for trolling sake.

[sultryvoltron]

Are you having some RL issues atm? Because your posts lately have been a bit sensationalist.

There's too many people losing sight of the profession distinction because of some shiny group perks. I don't see a single Crat post (well really Sterva is the only one that makes Crat posts) that is asking about the improved pets and working crowd control. All I see is "pistols pistols pistols". Until we know at least some marginal details about pets and CC/nano casting I wouldn't give up on my prof distinction.

I'm still bumping Kink's idea: different perk actions for pistol wielders based on prof.

[Sterva]

There's too many people losing sight of the profession distinction because of some shiny group perks. I don't see a single Crat post (well really Sterva is the only one that makes Crat posts) that is asking about the improved pets and working crowd control. All I see is "pistols pistols pistols". Until we know at least some marginal details about pets and CC/nano casting I wouldn't give up on my prof distinction.

I'm still bumping Kink's idea: different perk actions for pistol wielders based on prof.

http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...d.php?t=522875

[Wrangeline]

Why? You're yet to quantify this.

It's somewhat hard to explain

On one side it's because of "book-keeping"
This game is convoluted enough as it is without starting to break down perks into profession-dependent variations. I know that this is a very tiny point to make and one that perhaps will prove not to be an issue in the future at all. However, being an "idealist" or "purist" or whatever I could label myself, I would rather go for a more straight forward and basic solution if such a solution exists, and I do think there are better solutions in this specific case.

The other side of it is that I want this to be a skill-based game, not a game based on larger things like classes. To give an example, WoW is based mainly on classes and secondary on stats. What you do and how you perform in various scenarios in WoW is based largely on what kind of class you are, not on how you set up your skills, as WoW doesn't really have a skillsystem like in AO. I want perks in AO to be based purely on skill-system. If we start dividing perks into a profession-dependent system then professions in AO would have taken a step towards becoming WoW-classes.

You might say that it doesn't matter if crats have 100% def checks and higher AR or 80% def checks and same AR as they have now. Well, when it comes to crats chance at landing perks in PvP, no it doesn't matter. The key difference for me though is that the first option is based on crats needing special assistance because they have gimp AR, while the second option is based on crats not needing any special help with their perks because they have good enough AR to deal with 100% def checks. Basically, the first option is based on what type of profession they are while the second option is based on how the individual profession performs. It boils down to me wanting to avoid officially classifying a group of professions as "support professions" by giving them a handicap-entry into perks. That handicap-label is only going to come back to haunt these professions again and again. Instead of labeling them as handicapped and giving them a motorized wheelchair, I say remove the handicap if you can, and it's easy to do so in this case.

I just want stuff in AO to be based around individual professions stats or individual characters stats. I don't want anything to be based on groups of professions being put in a box and labeled as something or another.

I guess I'm scarred a bit from traders being denied good damage back in the day because of labels. Be it support profession labels or "shotgun don't work like that"-labels.

[Hacre]

It's somewhat hard to explain

On one side it's because of "book-keeping"
This game is convoluted enough as it is without starting to break down perks into profession-dependent variations. I know that this is a very tiny point to make and one that perhaps will prove not to be an issue in the future at all. However, being an "idealist" or "purist" or whatever I could label myself, I would rather go for a more straight forward and basic solution if such a solution exists, and I do think there are better solutions in this specific case.

The other side of it is that I want this to be a skill-based game, not a game based on larger things like classes. To give an example, WoW is based mainly on classes and secondary on stats. What you do and how you perform in various scenarios in WoW is based largely on what kind of class you are, not on how you set up your skills, as WoW doesn't really have a skillsystem like in AO. I want perks in AO to be based purely on skill-system. If we start dividing perks into a profession-dependent system then professions in AO would have taken a step towards becoming WoW-classes.

You might say that it doesn't matter if crats have 100% def checks and higher AR or 80% def checks and same AR as they have now. Well, when it comes to crats chance at landing perks in PvP, no it doesn't matter. The key difference for me though is that the first option is based on crats needing special assistance because they have gimp AR, while the second option is based on crats not needing any special help with their perks because they have good enough AR to deal with 100% def checks. Basically, the first option is based on what type of profession they are while the second option is based on how the individual profession performs. It boils down to me wanting to avoid officially classifying a group of professions as "support professions" by giving them a handicap-entry into perks. That handicap-label is only going to come back to haunt these professions again and again. Instead of labeling them as handicapped and giving them a motorized wheelchair, I say remove the handicap if you can, and it's easy to do so in this case.

I just want stuff in AO to be based around individual professions stats or individual characters stats. I don't want anything to be based on groups of professions being put in a box and labeled as something or another.

I guess I'm scarred a bit from traders being denied good damage back in the day because of labels. Be it support profession labels or "shotgun don't work like that"-labels.

You'd have a valid point, IF we didn't have a Group profession tab.

On that group profession tab, Crats, Docs, Engineers and Advies have access to Pistol Mastery. The odd one out is Advies being OP'd with 80% checks.

The lower common denominator is Advies, as they're the only one OP'd by the checks. So you remove Advies from the equation by giving them the same perks on their Profession tab, but making them 100% check. There's still Crats Docs and Engineers still functioning just fine in a non OP state with 80% checks on the Group tab.

3 > 1. Logic dictates this is a valid suggestion.

[sultryvoltron]

http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...d.php?t=522875

Yeah you're right. My bad.

[Wrangeline]

You'd have a valid point, IF we didn't have a Group profession tab.

On that group profession tab, Crats, Docs, Engineers and Advies have access to Pistol Mastery. The odd one out is Advies being OP'd with 80% checks.

The lower common denominator is Advies, as they're the only one OP'd by the checks. So you remove Advies from the equation by giving them the same perks on their Profession tab, but making them 100% check. There's still Crats Docs and Engineers still functioning just fine in a non OP state with 80% checks on the Group tab.

3 > 1. Logic dictates this is a valid suggestion.

Well, that's one way of looking at it but I personally don't look at it like that. I do think advs are OP and while making adv perks 100% rather than 80% would make them less OP, it's not the area that I find to be truly OP and in need of attention. The truly OP part of advs is their huge bag of defenses. If I had to choose, I would definitely nerf their defenses rather than their def-checks on perks. Having that said, something has got to give and while I think defenses are in need of nerfs first, offense can be reevaluated after those defense-nerfs. Offense nerfs don't have to come in the form of higher def-checks either. Offense nerfs don't have to involve perks at all.

Pistol perkline is in group perks window but it's not labeling people as support or combat. It's only labeling people in the terms of having support for pistols or not. Both "combat" professions and "support" professions have access to the pistol line. So that's not really the kind of "grouping" of professions that I'm worried about. I am often an advocate for letting things be open to everyone but in some cases, it has to be restricted a bit so that unbalanced setups wont emerge. As long as this grouping is based on overall balance and not on labels like "support" and "combat", I'm fine with it.

I do agree overall with what you guys are saying. I'm just not a fan of your specific approach to dealing with it. It is, as you say, a valid suggestion. It's just not the "optimum" solution in my eyes. Now that I have fully explained myself I guess there's no need for me to go any deeper into this topic. While you may not agree with my point of view on the suggested solution, we can at least agree on the underlying topic. Something which is refreshing on these forums

[Hacre]

I would definitely nerf their defenses rather than their def-checks on perks. Having that said, something has got to give and while I think defenses are in need of nerfs first, offense can be reevaluated after those defense-nerfs.

Ok, I agree fully, this is another way of going about it.

But this would also heavily nerf Melee Advys unless as a result you propose they get 80% checking melee perks also. In which case what happens with Enforcers, who also have access to the same perks? 80% checking 1he perks in the hands of Enforcers would be ridiculously silly. Which would again promote the changes you're fighting against.

I personally think that Advies, who have access to Acrobat and Bio Shielding as well as on demand healing, should give up something. Access to bio or access to Acrobat? Maybe. Access to on demand healing? Less maybe as they've had that even pre SL.

Which leaves Acrobat and Bio Shielding. As well as Pistol Mastery and Edged Mastery. So, where should the nerf come? 100% check on pistol perks? Removal of access to Bio Shielding/Acrobat? All are tantamount to removing advantages that they otherwise hold with other professions.

It's not as cut and dry as you hoped, is it?

[erozc]

Except Crats/Docs/Engies do get their ~3K AR (Docs still don't hit this number) with lots effort and sacrifice. Advies do not.

Give a setup for ranged advie with no sacrifices and little effort that accomplishes 3k AR self and without towers and contracts.

What's that? Full CSS, full alphas, alba offensive hud or 2, alb+db bracer, igoc+alappa shoulder, improved nanodeck, ancient froob cloak? And that's probably with offensive hud in depending a bit on breed etc. or hopefully you have a ACDC to boot.

So, I can understand you saying "sacrifice" even though that might not be so clear cut, but there's no way in hell you can say "without lots of effort". You make it sound like advies just need a bunch of OFAB and some beta symbs, and they're at 3.1k AR.

[Hacre]

Give a setup for ranged advie with no sacrifices and little effort that accomplishes 3k AR self and without towers and contracts.

What's that? Full CSS, full alphas, alba offensive hud or 2, alb+db bracer, igoc+alappa shoulder, improved nanodeck, ancient froob cloak? And that's probably with offensive hud in depending a bit on breed etc. or hopefully you have a ACDC to boot.

So, I can understand you saying "sacrifice" even though that might not be so clear cut, but there's no way in hell you can say "without lots of effort". You make it sound like advies just need a bunch of OFAB and some beta symbs, and they're at 3.1k AR.

Postulate all you want. Full defensive setup Advies can perk people. End of.

[Kopecz]

I appologize in advance for the wall-o-text incoming ...

As it turns out, in an average endgame setup, advs. have:

1. More main AR. (Support profs must sacrifice a lot to compete here).

2. More specials AR. (Not even a competition here, really).

3. A higher AS multiplier, and at less of a sacrifice.

Ok, so in response to all this nonsense about who should have what perks and what % those perks should be based at I have to ask a stupid question:

Did anyone think that Ranged Advys were OP before 80% perks and AS pistols?

I would argue the answer is -no- because Advys couldn't reliably land FA from JEPP and PM perks were a joke.

In today's AO PM perks have been fixed and are usable by all the professions that have access to them. That great, way to go on this one FC.

What that leaves us with is that stupid pistol that advys never wanted in the first place.

If Advys were not OP before LoX changes and the only 2 things that have been added are PM perks that work and Troa'ler pistol, then one or both should be taken away.

I don't think that anyone will argue that Engis/Crats/Docs/MPs deserve access to PM. On the flip side, it's been argued that copy/pasting PM perks with 100% checks to Advy Profession tab isn't really a good solution.

Since this thread is titled "Weapons FYI" then I think it's fair to suggest removing access to that pistol for advys (it was only meant as a band-aid anyway).

Despite what Genele and other Devs believe "fits" the advy profession it's obvious that PM perks + AS pistol makes Ranged advys OP. And since the advy professionals apparently aren't interested in pvp (or balance for that matter, based on other threads) I think it's worth looking back into giving advys access to upgraded FA weapons that were suggested for so long, though I would argue that JEPP + 300 Peregrine + 80% PM perks + the damage type change to Beckoning is damage enough.

/discuss,flame,rant

[Kopecz]

Postulate all you want. Full defensive setup Advies can perk people. End of.

General statement is general. substitute practically any prof in there and that sentence works.

F.E. "Full defensive setup Enfos can perk people" or "Full defensive setup Agents can perk people" or "Full defensive setup NTs land nanos on me"

That last one is really semantic to say the least, but you get my point. This shouldn't be about whether advys are landing their perks or not. Nor should it be about crats landing their perks or not, even though they do.

[sultryvoltron]

Give a setup for ranged advie with no sacrifices and little effort that accomplishes 3k AR self and without towers and contracts.

What's that? Full CSS, full alphas, alba offensive hud or 2, alb+db bracer, igoc+alappa shoulder, improved nanodeck, ancient froob cloak? And that's probably with offensive hud in depending a bit on breed etc. or hopefully you have a ACDC to boot.

So, I can understand you saying "sacrifice" even though that might not be so clear cut, but there's no way in hell you can say "without lots of effort". You make it sound like advies just need a bunch of OFAB and some beta symbs, and they're at 3.1k AR.

Hacre means sacrifices in terms of defense. Also nanoskills probably.