Return of Reckoning

So, do you actually have any numbers here to prove this, because if you want to make this claim of telling the developer to not mess with formulae, you could at least back it up with a bit of math or something? I mean this system has only just been brought in so perhaps waiting to test it on a larger scale would be best before jumping to immediate conclusions.

Otherwise I'm just thinking this.

simtex wrote:haters gonna hate

bloodi wrote:

Ninepaces wrote:He's wrong about that too. He didnt even read what I wrote.

Is telling others what you should do in the first place your specialty?

Were did he tell anyonee what they should do???

roadkillrobin wrote:Were did he tell anyonee what they should do???

The part where he goes and tells everyone to run the M4 as archmage paired with infuse essence where the thread he posted it is full of reasons why you should not do it, ever.

If he wants others to read what he says, he should start by doing that himself.

Hell, he is now posting Slayer specs in it.

adei wrote:So, do you actually have any numbers here to prove this, because if you want to make this claim of telling the developer to not mess with formulae, you could at least back it up with a bit of math or something? I mean this system has only just been brought in so perhaps waiting to test it on a larger scale would be best before jumping to immediate conclusions.

Ehm, they made a game intended to be ballanced around excatly those factors, it's very very obvius that you shouldn't mess with something that probobly took years to get about right in the first place. Especially when you have dps classes that look like this
A: medium damage + good utillity + god surviability
B: high dps + medium utillty + low survibaillty
C: very high dmg + medium utillity + very low survialbillity

what happens when you mess with thesee ballances is that you get a monster of a C class and a really really poor A class as it can end up looking like this with dmg multipliers C: extreme damage + medium utillity + good survivabillity.
Now why would you bring any other dps class???

So you have no math, and your only argument is "well this company, who was known for making horrible balance decisions, and didn't give 2 flying f**** about their players except for their money, worked for years to get the RvR system "right", therefore nothing should be changed".

K.

He has bullet points though.

Bullet points are hella strong.

roadkillrobin wrote:

adei wrote:So, do you actually have any numbers here to prove this, because if you want to make this claim of telling the developer to not mess with formulae, you could at least back it up with a bit of math or something? I mean this system has only just been brought in so perhaps waiting to test it on a larger scale would be best before jumping to immediate conclusions.

Ehm, they made a game intended to be ballanced around excatly those factors, it's very very obvius that you shouldn't mess with something that probobly took years to get about right in the first place. Especially when you have dps classes that look like this
A: medium damage + good utillity + god surviability
B: high dps + medium utillty + low survibaillty
C: very high dmg + medium utillity + very low survialbillity

what happens when you mess with thesee ballances is that you get a monster of a C class and a really really poor A class as it can end up looking like this with dmg multipliers C: extreme damage + medium utillity + good survivabillity.
Now why would you bring any other dps class???

I'm seeing a fancy way to construct an argument that still has no depth, again if you can provide me some numbers that actually prove this with the new system I'm all ears.

What do you mean no depth???
Mythic had alogiritms for this, it was brought up probobly around 30 times on the live forums that they had specific formulas they needeed to follow to make changes to classes or else the whole ballance would get messed up. I even heard some of the your own staff saying on Github that the orgirnal devs were allowed to make alot of changes to the game but the dmg formula was something they were strictly forbiden to alter. Since both live forums and the Github posts been closed I can't really prove this. Bit it's so obvius i don't even know why i need to prove it.

I really am with roadkillrobin on this one:
High damage classes do profit much more from a percentagewise damagebonus than low damage classes.

I am really uncertain about doing a math example here because I dont want to seem like a troll.
A certain percentagewise damagebuff against enemies with that debuff will be a much higher damageboost for already highdps classes. Because it is not an absolut damage bonus, but rather a percentagewise damage bonus.

I know it has already been decreased but I still think it is too strong...

On a side note, I absolutley approve of trial and error. I am here to try anything you have in mind for Warhammer.

The team listened to feedback regarding the patch that introduced this OP, it's no longer zone wide and only present around keeps. You are free to still participate in RvR without dealing with the debuffs by fighting around/for BO's or just roaming around.

With the lowered timers on BO's they turnover and are open faster as well, chances are there is gonna be one ready to fight for.


It's doing exactly what it is designed to do, which is stopping keep bunkering/funneling whatever you want to call it. Putting greater emphasis on organized RvR and punishing players who refuse to adapt.