Gaute's word on LLTS and criticals

[________________Empx]

Originally posted by Phione
"Enf you have how many freakin hp's?! "

Enough to take 4 extra hits more than you guys.

4 extra hits? Last I spoke with Athx he could self buff @12K HP (I believe this is with all buffs, MKII Armors and other special items). I can self buff into 5.7K.

In what world does the different between 5.7K and 12K equal 4 hits?

Empx
200/Fixer/RK2

[Zerosignal]

I like this idea, gets a big thumbs up from me

[AkodoReign]

New sig to bring to light something that was said.

[Darkbane]

Originally posted by LittleSlayar
2. Give Martial Artists Self Crit buffs a massive decrease on Long Range Initiative. (This does not affect bows, as they use Physical Prowess Initiative - same as the martial arts attack).

Quoted From Gaute

Um, are you blind? Everyone knows that no bow, oter than pow bow (which sux) does not use physical inits...

As all known 'wrong' inits are supposed to be being fixed in 14.6, and the LLTS change won't happen before then... he may just be thinking about a different version of the game...

[Krabbus]

Hehe, this threads is starting to be funny But one thing I read over and over again. The notes from Gaute will only affect melee users, and won't touch ranged at all - is this the intention?

You can't come here and nerf non-Ranged users like this, you have to complete point 4 if you are going to "fix" the critical chance. No way a Martial Artist can teach a ranged user to hit better.

And making MoP non-ranged and TTS non-melee won't help either because it doesn't balance out (also PvP) .

Ranged will have: 3% + 8% (VE) + 4% (TTS) + 7% (Cratspeech) = 22%
Non-Ranged will have: 3% + 7% (MoP) = 10%

Oi, this was a huge difference... To make this up, cratspeech need to stack with MoP, and increase MoP from 7% to 12% then it will be like this:

Ranged will have: 3% + 8% (VE) + 4% (TTS) + 7% (Cratspeech) = 22%
Non-Ranged will have: 3% + 12% (MoP) + 7% (Cratspeech)= 22%


People that says VE/LLTS should be ranged only have to consider that MoP will only be melee then... it's the logic. Either you have to complete the "fix", otherwise will I call this a NERF TO MELEE USERS

[Krabbus]

Gaute and Cz, this is getting out of hand. Can't you just do this and everyone will be happy instead if this init penalty here and there...

1. Implement a huge ranged init penalty at MAs selvonly crit.
2. Nerf LLTS down to 8% and give a extra bonus for the loss of crit.
3. Everyone happy

If you still is going to do what Gaute said, then you have to complete it. If you don't complete what you are going to do then I will call this one of the biggest nerf done to a melee professions.

[________tavumebottes]

everybody is forgoting that Llts and VE will be nerfed in next patch with the init fix
CHS and other slow weapon will be impossible to use in 1/1 speed with any scope
LLts are very good cause it do not affect recharge time yet
after the fix u won t see any nova + 15% and fixer won t be able to set to full def with a scope


Give mellee user some new weapons ( make the blood bat easily available for enf, make the EOT drop every time)
i don t know very well adv weapon.
Mellee user deserve to do better dmgs than ranged one (actually MA does not the other close combat profs)

Fix init on schuyler before changing UVC

[Phione]

Self buff, yes, but what about getting outside buff??? Don't tell me every single one of you ppl out there do selfbuff duels

Solitus Enf, lvl 200, base HP 4567
Solitus Fixer, lvl 200, base HP 3987

The ONLY hp buff Enforcers may get that a Fixer can't is Mongo Crush, which gives 2.3k HP... that's 4 hits, isn't it?

[Phione]

Ok, maybe not 4 hits, but 6 hits??

[Cz]

Originally posted by Necessity
Engy's don't use bots later on. They can't keep up, they get lost, and you spend more time looking for them then they spend fighting at the pace you set post 150.

Do you think is should be that way? I was trying to suggest that maybe Engineers should get better bots instead of relying on their own damage output. If you don't like it, just say so.

Originally posted by Arinia
What is the reasoning behind the statement that Melee users should have less of a chance to crit?

I made that statement? Or do you mean that the difference between LLTS and FoB is that statement?

Originally posted by Mega^|3io
If I'm not mistaken, it was /flip, not "F... you"

Nah, wasn't you then. Some other reason, I'm sure.

Originally posted by LittleSlayar
Everyone knows that no bow, oter than pow bow (which sux) does not use physical inits.

Will be fixed in 14.6. I posted quite a while ago that this is a bug.

[Phione]

Well, from the given number provided in eariler posts, there WILL be a major difference between the crit chance of Melee Users and Ranged Users IF this Melee Player nerfing does occur... this is what Arinia is asking about, that without compensation, you're just going to take away 8% crit from Melee users?

[____________Corianin]

Someone suggested earlier that in order to make this discussion constructive, make the devs (or Gaute) state a preffered maximum Crit-% for MAs, non-MA melee and ranged.

If you provide this, I think it will be possible to get a couple of decent suggestions on how to distribute the crits (without having to recode the entire game)

[______________DocNec]

Originally posted by Cz

Do you think is should be that way? I was trying to suggest that maybe Engineers should get better bots instead of relying on their own damage output. If you don't like it, just say so.

You can give them Jugs if you want, if the pathing doesn't work they're still useless.

[Vdpmeat]

Originally posted by Cz

Do you think is should be that way? I was trying to suggest that maybe Engineers should get better bots instead of relying on their own damage output. If you don't like it, just say so.

Tack in improvements to exisiting bots, expand the transference line, make a serious statement about it and then maybe I'd like it.


edit:
Oh, and I still dont see where the fact that all melee-init/phys-init users getting hit hardest by these changes is addressed.

[iDerrien]

Originally posted by Elbo

I feel the very very small minority who wants to lower the level of LLTS's to a max of 8% might as well give it up. You must have missed that part about "MASSIVE negative feedback".

i guess you forget one thing, there is a server rk3. there are not a single llts on it because it went live after llts stoped to drop.
why should they get nerfed? they do Not have those [censored] llts and do pretty nice without them, Why should they get nerfed with - inits on different items like fob? they dont care a sh.. what happens to llts , and i guess there are more player on the server then all the player with llts over 10% on rk1 and 2 together.
so just nerf the damn thing , make llts 10% or even 8% but dont change the whole system! i mean Noone i mean really NOONE over lvl 150 will belive that FC will be able to "fix" all those things without introducing 10000000 bugs to us. i mean such things as fob lowering Alle your inits and not only ranged, uvc only castable on others, ranged weapons critting with each shoot and so on...
so just nerf llts down to 8 or 10% and dont make any major changes.

[Darkbane]

From looking at the numbers, I'd guess FC are aiming for a maximum of +25% chance for non-MAs and non-Agents. This would be the result for the ELLTS being degraded to +8%.

A ql150 FoB currently adds (about) another 17% for 15 seconds on top of that.

If the ELLTS (and VE) was effectively made a ranged-only device, then melee and ma users would be reduced to a maximum of 17% rising to 34% for 15s every 150s, or an average of 19%.

OK. I'd suggest going ahead with the init changes on the scopes a put forward, and on FoB.

However, add a new item to the game equipable by everyone except Agents and MAs, with large ranged init penalties that adds up to 8% fixed crit-increase and goes in any util slot. This gives a maximum of +25% rising to +41% every 15s in 150, or an average of +27%. This is deliberately slightly higher than ranged users would get (except people with the ELLTS), but FoB has disadvantages too.

Whilst it might be logical to change some of the nanos also, I suspect that this would introduce too many other problems, so they shoyuld be left as they are.

[Cz]

Originally posted by VdpMeat
Tack in improvements to exisiting bots, expand the transference line, make a serious statement about it and then maybe I'd like it.

Seems like you're missing my point a bit.

I said that I would consider it more correct that Engineers rely on the bots for damage, not themselves. I think we agree on that. I never said this is how it currently is. Neither did I attempt to start a "how to fix Engis" discussion. This is not the right thread for that.

Necessity, pathing problems goes for all pets, and is something we will look into regardless of changes to pets or not.

[____________Greystar]

Originally posted by Cz

Necessity, pathing problems goes for all pets, and is something we will look into regardless of changes to pets or not.

Yeah you say that since the release of AO, refuse to put in a /pet warp to make it all good in 5 minutes development time, say months ago its No 2 on your priority list right after reimbursment tools and then suddenly bracer nerf is No 1, and now Crit nerf is No 1 priority...

Do yourself a favor and don't mention pets at all until you actually are about to do something, hearing the same sentence about pathing since day 1 of release gets real old.

[Bionitrous]

Damn FunCom and their 'Vision'. I think Engineers want to be 'Engineers'. They don't want to be 'Robot-controllers'. They want to build things. Robots are one of them. Fix 'em and make 'em path right. That's the problem with this game. You look at an Engineer and say 'oh, that's the guy who relies on his robots' rather than 'oh, that's the guy who can make all kinds of gadgets'.

If I played an Engineer, I sure as hell would be trying to create one hell of an exo-skeleton mech-warrior type thing for me to climb inside and crush stuff from in relative safety. But, then again, I would be playing an Engineer. Looks like Funcom is trying to force them to be 'a pet class'.

Deep-rooted problem with the game designers here that shows through in all it's glory. And you wonder why the game gets boring after 150 levels of doing the same damn thing over and over. An Engineer builds his first robot at lvl1. One year later of playing the game, he's still building stupid robots. Only now they are big and white. *Yawn*.

The one thing they have to look forward to is graduating from grad school and building an exoskeleton they can climb into to fight along side their robots and now FunCom wants to Nerf it because they think the player who has been playing this game for over a year wants to continue doing the same damn thing they were doing in the newbie backyard. Can you wonder why people quit?

Every engineer I know who finally got Transference said it breathed new life into the game. Something 'different' finally happened. They were 'evolving'. And now you want to take that away from them.

Don't you understand why people get so god damned bored after a year. It's because what you do in the newbie ground you will be doing 12 months later. Hardly any profession learns anything new ever. The Engineers had one thing to look forward to. And you think that's somehow 'wrong'.

Damnit, I got a friend to finally sign up and he wanted so bad to be an Engineer. He wanted to build cars and cannons and planes. He wanted to build a hi-tech helmet with night vision (newbie without floating torch). He said 'can I make a rocket pack'. I'm not kidding. The guy wanted to be an 'Engineer'. I had to tell him to forget it. I had the sad (honestly, I felt bad) responsibility to tell him that all an Engineer is good for is hiding behind a robot. You don't want to know how disappointed he was. He's playing an MA now by the name of Xhain. Look him up.

STOP thinking about professions as 'pet classes', 'crowd control', 'tanks', etc. and start adding life and a maturation process to 'professions' so that people actually feel like they are the profession they are supposed to be playing.

[____________Psiraven]

If "simplicity" was their aim, I can assure you the initiative changes suggested in the inital post are anything but that...its an even bigger nerf by several orders of magnatude than the initially proposed llts nerf in terms of how many people it affects.

And to top it all off its a messy solution that doesn't even accomplish their stated purpose which is to reduce the maximum crit percentage capable on things like River specials. And it opens the game up to some possible game mechanical exploits as well as ruins the MA classes clear cut superiority in Crit ratings.

One of the PRIMARY reasons Funcom nerfed reflect bracers was because it gave other classes reflect ability too close to Soldiers.

As several players have pointed out, MA's lose much of their uniqueness if Scopes and VE's become Ranged Weapon only items. Does Funcom seriously believe that the existence of a 15% crit scope will NOT be a revisited issue in the future if these initiative nerfs are applied.

Funcom, stop dancing around the issue. You're not going to get your cake and eat it too. You are going to displease people, its just a matter of how many. All of this could have been avoided by removing the LLTS completely back when it was a valueless item, not something that went for 200+ million credits.

So, now the choice is to either do a simple and DIRECT crit nerf like one previously proposed by yourselves, me and other players...or to do an overly complicated nerf that tries to hit Crits indirectly through initiatives but hits a lot of others things directly and squarely on the head.

Why are we going through all these game mechanical contortions to nerf crits.