Weapons FYI

[Sterva]

It has occurred to me that perhaps some of the confusion regarding why support profs should get 80% checks on pistol perks, while advs should have 100% checks, comes from a general ignorance about how weapons work.

"Advs are pistol experts, they should use them the best!" you say.

Right, well let's take a closer look at how pistols actually work and see how that claim pans out.

1. Weapons have a main AR, this determines how often you hit and whether perks land.

2. Weapons with specials also have a specials AR, determined (loosely) by the amount of skill you have in the weapon special (fling, FA, burst, etc), and this determines how well specials hit.

3. AS works on a multiplier system.

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.

So as you can see, advs. WILL out perform support profs wielding the same weapons in a similar setup, even if advs have 100% checks on perks and support profs have an 80% check.

On top of that, advs have a far superior AR template (this effects how much extra damage you get for additional AR after 1k), and they have more add damage in general, which also significantly boosts how well their pistols perform.

[Wrangeline]

Why didn't you write this in the thread you already have on this subject?

While you are listing such things though, you could add that advs probably have a better general damage modifier than "support profs" above 1k AR. It doesn't affect perks but it does affect weapon damage.

Having that said, I'm against some professions having lower def-checks on specific perks than others. The only real problem is that perks either land or they don't. I would support the suggestion of a system where DD-perks scale based on how successfully they landed on the target. I would not support lowering the def-checks for some professions and not for others because it messes up the whole point of one profession being full pistol and one profession being only partly pistol. Also, when trying to balance such things, it's important to find out what the actual problem is and then deal with it in a proper manner.

Advs are OP with 80% dd-perks? Ok, make sure that the 80% def-checks are the actual problem and then suggest that they get raised to 100%.
Crats are underpowered because their perks are 100%? IF crats really are underpowered, are you sure the 100% def-checks are the real problem and not something else in the basic toolset of the crat?

So far I have seen you make loads of threads that concentrate exclusively on crats. In these threads the general theme seems to be to present a premise that is based on your own logic, hoping that you can squeeze as much good (or reasonable) stuff out of these changes for the crat profession as you can. I'm not saying that all your points are wrong or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that you have a very specific agenda atm and that it might be wise to take one step back and think about what the crat profession is supposed to be, not how you want it to handle in PvP.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought of crats as requiring powerful pistols with good specials and easy-to-land perks with high DD on them. There are so many tools in the crat toolbox that would make more sense to "fix" than to simply turn you into a semi-adv with pets and CC.

[Kinkstaah]

You shouldn't be anywhere near as close to an adventurer using their weapons. If anything, having access to the DD perk specials at all is an abhorration.

Why not ask for Slice and Dice.

Support classes simply should not have it easier on perk checks than weapon specialists, unless you want to hand out pets, nukes etc. The only reasoning that makes sense for crats to have perks in the same line, but land easier - Is different effects on landing them, other than damage.

[Hacre]

Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought of crats as requiring powerful pistols with good specials and easy-to-land perks with high DD on them. There are so many tools in the crat toolbox that would make more sense to "fix" than to simply turn you into a semi-adv with pets and CC.

Premise:

The tools you speak of haven't changed.

Before the pistol perk improvements, how many PvP Crats used pistols?

Now take that number and subtract the number of pistol using PvP Crats that stopped using pistols when Stun procs got nerfed, because now they're not just a special smashing stun monkey.

Now compare that number to the total of Crats that used the Remod and the number of Crats that crowbarred some AS bow setup into the mix.

Roots, init debuffs, snares etc don't kill people. They only facilitate killing people. Damage still needs to be inflicted. Otherwise we're back to "Nerfy Support prof stands around debuffing the enemy/buffing friends" while everyone else gets to do the killing.

Also, as good/bad as Crats are with pistol AR (3-3.1k in a high sacrifice setup) other professions tagged with access to Pistol Mastery are a lot worse.

Except for Advies.

Especially seeing how Advies aren't a 100% evade reliant profession, unlike Crats, so can even go the route of using CC for even more add damage.

I'm yet to have an Advy not cap my NT with AS. Plenty of Crats have not capped my NT with the same AS pistol.

As much as I disagree with Sterva on some things, namely what he thinks is best for the NT profession, he does know the Crat profession very well and what he's saying here is true. Don't let my signature fool you, it'll probably be some time between a cold day in hell and never that my Crat is re-equipped to PvP again. As fun as it was, the crowbarring in of bows and the unreliability of crowd control and the annoyance of pet ineffectiveness got the Crat mothballed. The shiny new pistol perks didn't convince me to spend billions on re-equipping him again.

Sterva also kicks my ass with the pistol perks as they are right now. I still think they're fine as they are for all but Adventurers.

Because Adventurers have -far- more defensive capabilities at their disposal than any of the other pistol using professions do and because of their innate weaponry support and their post 1k AR damage template, are still way better with pistols and these perks than Crats are.

It isn't just about RP reasoning and it can't be just about RP reasoning. Advies shouldn't get 80% checks because of what they're capable of defensively and because of how good they are with pistols and specials. So it's also about balance. A 100% perk checking Advy will still be better overall with pistols than Crats/Docs/Engineers.

Arguments like the one Kink proposes would be great in an ideal world but this is not an ideal world. It is Anarchy Online where perks at TL7 are the crux of most profession's killing power. The argument "you're not an Adventurer" isn't good enough an argument to justify Crats/Docs/Engies being screwed out of perking people, period.

[Sterva]

You shouldn't be anywhere near as close to an adventurer using their weapons

A) Pistols are crat weapons too. It isn't logical to say that because one profession has them, another can't. Pistol's our only supported weapon skill, and we do have fairly decent support for them, so terming pistols "their weapons" is a load of crap.

B) The entire point of this thread is demonstrating that even if perks stay at 80% for support profs and go to 100% for advs, advs will STILL use pistols much more effectively that support profs ever will.

In other words, I have now thoroughly refuted the idea that we should all be overly sympathetic to advs, and that life would just be oh so unfair for them if support profs kept the 80% checks. They would still do quite well, better in fact, that support profs would even with 80% checks.

[Greleal]

A) Pistols are crat weapons too. It isn't logical to say that because one profession has them, another can't. Pistol's our only supported weapon skill, and we do have fairly decent support for them, so terming pistols "their weapons" is a load of crap.

B) The entire point of this thread is demonstrating that even if perks stay at 80% for support profs and go to 100% for advs, advs will STILL use pistols much more effectively that support profs ever will.

In other words, I have now thoroughly refuted the idea that we should all be overly sympathetic to advs, and that life would just be oh so unfair for them if support profs kept the 80% checks. They would still do quite well, better in fact, that support profs would even with 80% checks.

After all thoses years of complains and big cries from you, you still havent understood the concept of "support prof". Wold be a SHAME if "support prof" could use weapons more effectively than "combat prof". I know it's not so hard to understand, and t i'm sure even you could, if you try a little harder and stop beeing so narrow-minded.

[Hacre]

After all thoses years of complains and big cries from you, you still havent understood the concept of "support prof". Wold be a SHAME if "support prof" could use weapons more effectively than "combat prof". I know it's not so hard to understand, and t i'm sure even you could, if you try a little harder and stop beeing so narrow-minded.

No, what's narrow minded is slotting professions into "support" and "combat" roles then using the word "support" as a reason for justifying that "support" professions shouldn't be killing anything.

[Wrangeline]

A) Pistols are crat weapons too. It isn't logical to say that because one profession has them, another can't. Pistol's our only supported weapon skill, and we do have fairly decent support for them, so terming pistols "their weapons" is a load of crap.

B) The entire point of this thread is demonstrating that even if perks stay at 80% for support profs and go to 100% for advs, advs will STILL use pistols much more effectively that support profs ever will.

In other words, I have now thoroughly refuted the idea that we should all be overly sympathetic to advs, and that life would just be oh so unfair for them if support profs kept the 80% checks. They would still do quite well, better in fact, that support profs would even with 80% checks.

I don't think the problem people have is rooted in what would happen to advs if their perks were changed to 100%. Most people agree that advs are OP atm. The potential problem lies in what happens when crats get 80% def-check on their pistol perks and this is not just restricted to balance. It is also completely unrelated to advs as far as I am concerned.

The way I see it, everyone should have SAME def-check (100% in this specific case) and then let individual professions AR dictate how effectively they can make use of the perk specials. If things are a bit unbalanced then change the AR, not the perks. Changing how the perks work based on profession is, as I see it, the most clunky and drama-fueled way of fixing this problem, if it indeed even is a problem (I haven't formed an opinion on that yet as I have a lot bigger problems to think about with traders and soldiers atm. Only so much time in a day ). If you dislike the term "support prof" then you would have to live with that label for the rest of your life if FC gave crats a lower def check than advs.

What a crat is supposed to be is a topic that can be debated until the end of time. Especially in a game where nothing is really set in stone because of the open-ended skill-system. However, if any crat here feels that pistols + pistol perks should be largely the main sources of damage for killing someone in PvP, then something is wrong in my book. FC have said that they will change how pet pathing works. I have no idea how that will pan out but it sounded like the pets would be a much more dependable damage source after those changes. This to me sounds like a much better approach than simply turning crats into mini-advs with cheerleader-pets and CC.

I also think people are thinking about these perk changes all wrong. Many perklines have been opened up so more professions can train them. This does not automatically mean that anyone who chooses to max those perklines will be "effective" with them. It's an option, not a signed contract for assured effectiveness. Some classes will get more use out of certain perklines than others.

Having that said, pistol is very much a weapon for crats, in the same way that it is a weapon for advs. I would never suggest that pistols should be less supported for crats. I am however suggesting that while crats gain access/support to the same perks as advs do, crats should be way less effective with them than adv. This is simply because crats do have pets and pets are supposed to make up for the things you lack in effectiveness from your pistols. Advs don't have pets, so they make much better use of their perks and pistols. If crats feel they need to do more damage then there are many different ways of doing it. Lowering def checks to 80% is not the best way in my book. It's not even in third place. If people feel advs have too much defense with the kind of offense they have, then maybe focus on their defense with your feedback instead of their offense.

[Eseb]

If you want to compare yourself to advs, then consider how advs only have pistols while most pistol support profs also have pets and, in your case, nukes.

Engis have pretty decent AR with pistols from what I hear so they don't need an 80% check, and they have pets too.
Docs have DoTs and malpractice so they're not in desperate need of dmg that's easy to land, plus they're not meant to deal a lot of dmg anyway.
MPs... well, let's skip them :P

[Sterva]

After all thoses years of complains and big cries from you, you still havent understood the concept of "support prof". Wold be a SHAME if "support prof" could use weapons more effectively than "combat prof". I know it's not so hard to understand, and t i'm sure even you could, if you try a little harder and stop beeing so narrow-minded.

After all those seconds of reading my post, you still have no idea what I'm talking about. Try again!

I'm actually defending the idea that crats should use pistols less effectively than advs. I just disagree on a detail of it, namely, I think perks _need_ to be an 80% check or they'll be pretty useless for support profs.

I don't think the problem people have is rooted in what would happen to advs if their perks were changed to 100%. Most people agree that advs are OP atm. The potential problem lies in what happens when crats get 80% def-check on their pistol perks and this is not restricted to balance.

News flash, crats ALREADY HAVE all 80% check on pistol perks. It clearly isn't OP. There aren't massive pages of nerf rants anywhere about how ridiculously OP crats are with pistol perks.

And why aren't there? Because as it turns out, it's already pretty well balanced (for support profs).

[Wrangeline]

News flash, crats ALREADY HAVE all 80% check on pistol perks. It clearly isn't OP. There aren't massive pages of nerf rants anywhere about how ridiculously OP crats are with pistol perks.

And why aren't there? Because as it turns out, it's already pretty well balanced (for support profs).

I failed to complete that sentence. I meant to say:

"The potential problem lies in what happens when crats get 80% def-check on their pistol perks while others (advs) does not."

(and by "get" I mean however it all ends up, not that crats will get something that they don't currently have)

[Hacre]

If you want to compare yourself to advs, then consider how advs only have pistols while most pistol support profs also have pets and, in your case, nukes.

Engis have pretty decent AR with pistols from what I hear so they don't need an 80% check, and they have pets too.
Docs have DoTs and malpractice so they're not in desperate need of dmg that's easy to land, plus they're not meant to deal a lot of dmg anyway.
MPs... well, let's skip them :P

No. Engi Pistol AR isn't great at all. They get better AR on their tradeskill+pistol AR pistols. That's all.

When has anyone ever died due to just pets wailing on them?

Speaking of which, @ Wrangeline, FC have been "fixing" pet issues for years. They're still broken. To use "FC are gonna fix pets" as an argument in this thread is a complete fallacy.

I failed to complete that sentence. I meant to say:

"The potential problem lies in what happens when crats get 80% def-check on their pistol perks while others (advs) does not."

(and by "get" I mean however it all ends up, not that crats will get something that they don't currently have)

The point still stands. The only profession ridiculously overpowered by 80% checks is Adventurers. There's no threads whining and complaining about Crats, Docs or Engineers having 80% check perks. Just Advies.

Bear in mind, again, I'm posting as someone that good Crats can kill with these new perks. It's about time Crats and Engineers could give me a good fight, instead of me finding them and thinking "lol, this is gonna be an easy kill".

You cannot root an Adventurer to kite out their continual damage output as a result of the pistol improvements. You cannot blind an Adventurer to hopefully dodge at least some hits/specials if not perks, as a result of the pistol improvements allowing Advies to wear all defensive equipment/utils/huds and make sure they have 110% blind resist. You cannot just alpha the problem away because Advies have BoL, Lick/Slobber, Cocoon and Regrowth. Something has to give. If not the 80% checks then the defensive tools Advies have but then you're nerfing Melee Advies which still have 100% checking perks.

[iolanda]

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 .

[Wrangeline]

Speaking of which, @ Wrangeline, FC have been "fixing" pet issues for years. They're still broken. To use "FC are gonna fix pets" as an argument in this thread is a complete fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Means haven't been working on pet pathing for years. Opting for the more difficult but higher quality option rather than the quick easy and dirty approach is not a fallacy. I think giving up on your pets and turning your profession into something else that suits your current desires is a fallacy.

If crats here have given up on their pets then they should step down from their soap-box and roll a different profession more to their liking and let someone else provide the feedback.

[erozc]

A) Pistols are crat weapons too. It isn't logical to say that because one profession has them, another can't. Pistol's our only supported weapon skill, and we do have fairly decent support for them, so terming pistols "their weapons" is a load of crap.

B) The entire point of this thread is demonstrating that even if perks stay at 80% for support profs and go to 100% for advs, advs will STILL use pistols much more effectively that support profs ever will.

In other words, I have now thoroughly refuted the idea that we should all be overly sympathetic to advs, and that life would just be oh so unfair for them if support profs kept the 80% checks. They would still do quite well, better in fact, that support profs would even with 80% checks.

"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. Because while it can be in using pistols, I don't think it's exactly in killing people.

Btw, anyone checked what equip is needed on ranged adv to get 3k to 3.1k static self AR? 3.1k is not really a very balanced equip.

[Eseb]

No. Engi Pistol AR isn't great at all. They get better AR on their tradeskill+pistol AR pistols. That's all.

When has anyone ever died due to just pets wailing on them?

I said decent, not great. ~3k+ is what I've heard engis run around with and that's definitely not bad for a support prof.

Pets do pretty good dmg. You can't expect to have pistol dmg that's on par with that of advs and have pets on top of that as well.

[Hacre]

It's not a fallacy. Means haven't been working on pet pathing for years. Opting for the more difficult but higher quality option rather than the quick easy and dirty approach is not a fallacy. I think giving up on your pets and turning your profession into something else that suits your current desires is a fallacy.

If crats here have given up on their pets then they should step down from their soap-box and roll a different profession more to their liking and let someone else provide the feedback.

There have been at least 2 pet "fixes" under Means reign that failed completely when it comes to PvP.

The best Means team has managed, is pets not getting lost on long journeys where PvP isn't an issue.

Why should someone reroll an entirely new 220 end game toon because the dev team has failed? This is just a ridiculous "get off scot free and keep paying FC money" argument.

Pets are supposed to be an accompaniment to the damage output of a player, not the be all and end all of it, otherwise no pet profession would have any weapon support at all.

I said decent, not great. ~3k+ is what I've heard engis run around with and that's definitely not bad for a support prof.

Pets do pretty good dmg. You can't expect to have pistol dmg that's on par with that of advs and have pets on top of that as well.

3K AR instantly sucks if your perks have 100% check. Try dropping your Soldier to 3K AR, not using dodge debuff perks and you'll see what I mean. Remember that duel we had that you narrowly won due to me not being able to blind you and you getting lucky on that first nuke being resisted? Imagine that being a complete forget it can't perk me ever, most of your stuff misses and I annihilate you without trying.

You have a problem with Pet damage? Kill the pet or move around and watch the pet damage disappear into a black hole.

People are also completely failing to understand what a Crat gives up, completely, to attain 3-3.1K AR on pistols, whereas Ranged Advies give up nothing to sit around 2.8-3K AR, enjoy lots more def and HP, while still perking everyone but Fixers behind their heals, cocoon, perk heals and root immunity.

[Eseb]

3K AR instantly sucks if your perks have 100% check. Try dropping your Soldier to 3K AR, not using dodge debuff perks and you'll see what I mean. Remember that duel we had that you narrowly won due to me not being able to blind you and you getting lucky on that first nuke being resisted? Imagine that being a complete forget it can't perk me ever, most of your stuff misses and I annihilate you without trying.

I had 3k AR once, you know... when I was 216... and it worked out fairly well. Well, sure I couldn't hit half the people but that's still true now with 3.5k+ AR :P

You have a problem with Pet damage? Kill the pet or move around and watch the pet damage disappear into a black hole.

Yeah , I mean it only takes half a min to kill each pet. Not like that's important time or anything :P

People are also completely failing to understand what a Crat gives up, completely, to attain 3-3.1K AR on pistols, whereas Ranged Advies give up nothing to sit around 2.8-3K AR, enjoy lots more def and HP, while still perking everyone but Fixers behind their heals, cocoon, perk heals and root immunity.

Again, you can't expect to have pistol AR/dmg on par with advs without effort and still have pets and, in the case of crats, a 1.5k nuke with a low check.

[Hacre]

I had 3k AR once, you know... when I was 216... and it worked out fairly well. Well, sure I couldn't hit half the people but that's still true now with 3.5k+ AR :P

Your 216 would be eaten alive by any well set up 220 now. This isn't pre LE or even pre LoX anymore.

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.

Yeah , I mean it only takes half a min to kill each pet. Not like that's important time or anything :P

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.

Again, you can't expect to have pistol AR/dmg on par with advs without effort and still have pets and, in the case of crats, a 1.5k nuke with a low check.

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

[Wrangeline]

Why should someone reroll an entirely new 220 end game toon because the dev team has failed? This is just a ridiculous "get off scot free and keep paying FC money" argument.

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 pet-performance and reliability, 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. Specifically why rolling a different profession might be a good idea, well if you try to do most damage with your character and you have given up on pets being viable, then it would simply be more fun for you to roll an adv or whatever. That's all.

I guess I'm just an idealist.