@Darosh, Questions/thoughts:
1, Do you mean just remove the extra mastery points from RR40/50etc all together, or simply giving all 5(do you get 1 for 80 here?) at RR40?
2, I have a feeling that would be a nightmare to code, but maybe not. Regardless, it would pretty much garuntee that no pug tank would ever use guard. Do you believe Guard is too strong?
3, Were you on the server when Aza tried that for like a week? Based on that failure of a test, how would you alter this differently?
4, Very interesting. Are you not worried about simply increasing the tendency to morale bomb over every other strategy?
5, **** Brilliant Idea. Radical as hell, but me likey... Would take a lot of balancing amongst various tactics and abilities though. But good idea.
Revolution here I come ...
1. Allow instant Level 40 characters
2. Remove chicken mode
3. Only open one tier at a time but open all pairings of active tier
4. Cycle through the tiers in a 3 days rotation; t1 will be a brainless slaughter fest for the lolz
5. Adjust rewards and renown gain in each tier accordingly; even in t1 people shall progress towards end gear
The biggest problem in the fight that is the basis in this game is the RDPS. They are too powerful compared to the classes fighting close to what can be seen from the statistics in the scenarios. They do not have such good results because they are good players, just because attacking the enemy from a distance that can not cast and between you is standing 10 other enemies is something totally unjust. And I say this as RDPS.
I was thinking of reducing the damage done by distance. For example:
100 feet = 10% of the damage
90 feet = 20% of the damage
80 feet = 30% of the damage
70 feet = 40% of the damage
60 feet = 50% of the damage
50 feet = 60% of the damage
40 feet = 70% of the damage
30 feet = 80% of the damage
20 feet = 90% of the damage
10 feet = 100% of the damage that deals skill.
Tamarlan wrote:
3. Only open one tier at a time but open all pairings of active tier
4. Cycle through the tiers in a 3 days rotation; t1 will be a brainless slaughter fest for the lolz
5. Adjust rewards and renown gain in each tier accordingly; even in t1 people shall progress towards end gear
terrible idea, forcing people to play shitty t1 and midtier will make even more people quit.
@Darosh, Questions/thoughts:
1, Do you mean just remove the extra mastery points from RR40/50etc all together, or simply giving all 5(do you get 1 for 80 here?) at RR40?
2, I have a feeling that would be a nightmare to code, but maybe not. Regardless, it would pretty much garuntee that no pug tank would ever use guard. Do you believe Guard is too strong?
3, Were you on the server when Aza tried that for like a week? Based on that failure of a test, how would you alter this differently?
4, Very interesting. Are you not worried about simply increasing the tendency to morale bomb over every other strategy?
5, **** Brilliant Idea. Radical as hell, but me likey... Would take a lot of balancing amongst various tactics and abilities though. But good idea.
1.) Yes, giving all of them at once for a week, to see how the meta and such shifts [Abbd.: - certain classes play COMPLETLY diffrent at RR70 compared to their sub70 iterations]. Its rr40,50,60,70 - the one you have in mind at 80 was Sov and other sets granting mastery points.
2.) I don't think guard is too strong, no - you can strip it just fine if you deploy CC properly or force a swap [Abbd.: Alternatively, bring a SLA/CHO for the NS and equiv. to have guardbots implode...]. It'd just be for testing purposes, essentially.
3.) I haven't been around for that, RL forced a break on me. If you can point me towards a thread featuring a discussion or alike, I'd be very thankful. I heard about the test, but I didn't find more elaborate informations about it.
4.) Well, that is the question. It, too, would be just for testing purposes. I'd imagine it to work in favor of small groups, rather than warbands and alike - thinking about it, I'd not bind it to AAO but rather targets affected, to up the requirement of positioning and such. [Abbd.: Note: It wouldn't worsen the situation much, I think ~ mildly if at all alleviate the issues or not tangibly change anything, at all].
5.) It arguably would be an ABSOLUTE nightmare to code and balance. One would have to approach it slowly and setup a proper framework, before even touching anything ability related. Its utopian thinking that could horribly backfire essentially.
Last edited by Darosh on Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:49 pm, edited 5 times in total.
