[DEVELOPER PREVIEW] Armor Set Redesigns

[Tesq]

Half of me agree on the point that sovereign/sc weapons ( more the second one) bring a not needed change, regard the old sets patter. It was more a hybrid system before and that was his fun components, it was more hard build your own class regard itiemization but i have to tell that for me sov let you play all classes better and fix also some issues.

When you play with sov you feel that class is really that class and ye it's true there is a lot of difference with warlord.
For me the problem lay in the tyran set, it is better than warlord and worst than sov only due armor value appart form the sov skill set.
Tyran should be put in line with warlord and then later sov stats could be scale down a little and better, BUT i will support always the fact that sov set bonus are perfect and well thinked: the dps set bonus are less trong than tank but they increase damages also aoe which make them on the par with the strong single def bonuses of tanks,( less strong bonuses and armor stack prevented the 1.4 melee train we faced later on with tanks crap set bonuses and dps broken bonus); healers also have ap recharge and soul rec which make them all equally able to spam.
If what was done for these lower sets could be re done for sov maybe all those hybrid/subpar classes would find their place one day.

[blackout]

Initiative is the stat we are most lacking at this level. Removing Initiative would be a mistake.

Because +36 will really help

[Lileldys]

Initiative is the stat we are most lacking at this level. Removing Initiative would be a mistake.

Because +36 will really help

It's about 3% less chance to be crit, its not bad.

[noisestorm]

This person also doesnt really seem to understand, that 3% less crit with 150% crit dmg is actually a stronger nerf for BW/Sorc than for ppl that only have 'only' crit tactics or no crit dmg at all : o

[lator]

This person also doesnt really seem to understand, that 3% less crit with 150% crit dmg is actually a stronger nerf for BW/Sorc than for ppl that only have 'only' crit tactics or no crit dmg at all : o

Sorcerer with 10% chance to critical hit from gear, 5% critical hit from renown and 35% critical hit from dark magic:
50% to critical hit = critical hit every 2 spells
50% to critical hit - 3% to critical hit = 47% critical hit = critical hit every 2.12 spells (~6% less critical hits than before)

Marauder with 10% chance to critical hit from gear + 5% critical hit from renown:
15% to critical hit = critical hit every 6.67 hits
15% to critical hit - 3% to critical hit = 12% critical hit = critical hit every 8.33 hits (~25% less critical hits than before)

And these calculations do not even take into account that your opponents more often than not have positive to be crit values from their initiative meaning that in practise the comparative nerf to sorcs/bw's is even more favourable.

[Karast]

Well the problem when they split sov and introduced the new sets was that they went a little overboard.

The 8 pieces bonuses abilities were extremely good on some sets and not on others, and honestly some of the procs were ridiculous as well.

They over buffed them, and it changed the whole dynamic.

The same thing happened when ever they released new stuff. It was always way over the top. This goes for lotd / scenario weapons as well.

When Tyrant first came out, sov was still very rare on a lot of servers few had more than a few pieces and there were not a lot of RR80's. The proc's on a few of the sets in particular were ridiculous as well.

[Bretin]

Good morning, community!


I wanted to share something with you that I've been working on the last couple of days, before it goes live. This is an opportunity to collect some feedback, but more importantly, this is a large change that would be unfair to spring on people with no warning.

In short, I've designed new sets for Tiers 1, 2, and 3 to complement the existing RvR sets in the same way that Sovereign had two different sets for each class. Additionally, the existing RvR sets have been redesigned to eliminate useless stats, and make their intended playstyles more clear.

Good morning,

before going deeper into details and my personal opinion about the new sets, i want to say thanks. It's great to see you guys putting so much dedication and effort into this game and i think we can't give you as much back as you give to us on an almost daily base. Keep up the work, your team is doing great

That being said, let's start:

A brief history lesson: There was once a huge outcry as the first players slogged their way to RR75+, and started learning that Sovereign gear was underwhelming, and favored some specs more than others. There was a larger outcry when Land of the Dead revealed the Tyrant set, a "lesser" set which worked much better for some classes than Sovereign did for others. Mythic responded by completely redesigning the sovereign set for every class, and also introduced a second set that supported an alternative specs.

Personally i think the old Sovereign sets were really really nice, a lot of ppl did just not realize how good they could work and what a impact those old 8 piece activations had. While Sovereign was overall really balanced, Tyrant was not. That's why everyone used Tyrant over anything else. The stacking 25% Haste for mdps, the Moral dmg proc, or basically Focus Mind on a proc chance for casters were by far the most gamebreaking bonis the game ever had and Mythic did in some cases never understand why they were. Proof? When they changed the Sovereign Sets you had the same stupid proc you had on Tyrants mdps set on a def set with an increased Tooltip Damage.

The relative power of those Sovereign sets aside, the decision to support multiple specs with sets that are equal in power was a good one.

I'm sure it's a great idea to make the game more complex and to get away from those one trick pony style but the way Mythic did it, was actually retarded because somehow they managed that the def sets became the best off sets and what we did end up with, was a completely changed meta game and another one trick pony which made the game - especially PvP - just more easy.

The problem in the lower tiers is that there is only one top set, the RvR sets, and those have the same issue Sovereign used to - little flexibility to play your class how you want. Tier 3 has Stalker, Mayhem and Redeye, but the itemization on those sets is distinctly inferior to Devastator. Stalker, case in point, has almost 50% the stat points and armor values of Devastator. There are arguments to be made that these sets should be less powerful, because they are "easier" to get, involving varying degrees of PvE. So instead of buffing these sets (which may still be an option in the future), I made alternate sets for every class at the same power level of the RvR sets.

great idea

Once I started though, it became very obvious that some of the existing sets needed a complete redesign altogether. Runepriests for example, did not get their gear adjusted after they were given the ability to convert all Intelligence to Willpower, or vice versa. Bright Wizards and Sorceresses have more Willpower on their gear than Slayers have Weapon Skill. Speaking of Weapon Skill, why do Archmages need it? Etc. Etc. Etc. I decided to just redesign the existing RvR sets for every class too.

i agree with all of that

Blah blah blah, what did you actually do?
I designed new PvP sets for each tier. They will be bought with scenario emblems:
Tier 1 : 110 Recruit's Emblems : "... of the Braggart"
Tier 2 : 220 Scout's Emblems : "... of the Challenger"
Tier 3 : 490 Soldier's Emblems : "... of the Duelist"
The new sets are designed to allow alternative specs and playstyles to the existing RvR sets:

Tanks: DPS
Healers: [RP/ZE] Survivability; [WP/DK] Melee Healing; [AM/SH] DPS
MDPS: Survivability
RDPS: Close-range encounters
I also redesigned the existing RvR sets for each tier. These sets have had less-useful stats merged into more useful ones, and they have become more focused toward the playstyles they promote. That focus is generally:
Tanks: Defense
Healers: Healing
MDPS: DPS
RDPS: Long-range encounters
EDIT: There may be an exchange merchant to swap your already purchased RvR sets for the new sets.

sounds good,i like that you get them via scenarios. this will probably force people to form groups and increase the overall small scale competition since people are not longer forced to zerg the **** out of oRvR while getting rewarded for basically no effort with influence and medals. really looking forward to it

now let's go into the details about the new sets (i will focus on T3 sets New Devastator / Duelist:

IB / BG / BO / SM / CO / Kobs:
Devastator: seems fine for me
Duelist: seems fine for me


Slayer / Choppa
Devastator: change 5 piece bonus to clarity, stat steal is garbage and those classes have AP issues. at this point i recommend to test if clarity procs on reckless gamble / hurtin time or auto attacks. if yes, change it so that it only procs on abilities!
Duelist: The duelist seems a bit too good for me. The 4 piece bonus is already superior to Devastator and basically you lose 47 str (14,1 tt) and 19 ws while you gain 66 toughness. Crit stays the same and the 5 piece bonus of duelist is broken. A slayer in group usually runs both stat tactics + flanking at this point (situational option is the racial armor tactic) so he is at the soft cap anyway and would definitely not sacrifice his dmg (47 str are ain't worth anything when it comes to dmg imho). Moral dmg procs such as Pilfer or even worse Siphon Vitality are gamebreaking and shouldn't be implemented in RoR. Change it to a moral heal for 87 on being hit without dealing damage or remove it from the game and take Preservation. I also suggest to remove around 30 WS and 20 Str and add them to Wounds and Initiative.

RP / Zealot:
Devastator: seems fine for me
Duelist: seems fine for me

Engi / Magus:
Devastator: seems fine for me
Duelist: seems fine for me

Mrd / WL:
Devastator: Domination is more or less useless since the Marauder provides both a higher toughness buff and debuff for himself and his enemy, also you're usually grouped with a tank who buff/debuff those stats permanent and it has literally no impact. I suggest to swap it with Corrosion because that would allow those classes to spec something different than Savagery / Hunter which are atm the only real viable options. For those who think it will be too good, both mrd and wl are providing a 1400 armor debuff at this point. They will still run Hunter/Savagery in a competitive group and drop you to almost no armor but for the viability of other trees and solo play Corrosion would be a good addition.
Duelist: Way too good. 5% crit and 47 Strength which is equal to 14,1 tooltip damage is all you have to give up for 66 toughness 6% parry and the best defensive proc ingame on the already hardest to kill classes (highest mobility and defense for order on WL - highest defense and utility for destru on Mrd). The set itself as it is will also benefit the marauder even more than the WL. About the Proc: It's basically a free QE proc for those classes who are already (almost) impossible to kill through guard. Change Elusive to reactionary and tune down the strength on this set and it will be fine.

Also change WL resistance to Spirit as well.

WE/WH:
Devastator: seems fine
Duelist: seems fine

BW/Sorc:
Devastator: seems fine
Duelist: seems fine

AM/SH:
Devastator: seems fine
Duelist: seems fine

SW/SQ:
Devastator: seems fine
Duelist: seems fine

DoK/WP:
Devastator: seems fine
Duelist: seems fine

In addition of that: i really beg you to not implement anything which is as stupid as Elusive, Pilfer or Siphon Vitality. It would probably make sense to give something equal to Elusive on a T4 set to the WH/WE exclusively if we won't see Odjira or QE but that again has to be tested and implemented really careful. The thought behind is the lack of a charge (the WE got one via tactic), without testing i would definitely not implement anything like this cause it will be for sure gamebreaking.

About stat procs such as Domination or Overwhelming, they are useless.

[lator]

The proc's on a few of the sets in particular were ridiculous as well.

Corrosion - On Hit: 10% chance to lower target's Armor by 900 for 10 seconds (Engineer only)

[Genisaurus]

I want to again thank everyone for providing feedback up to this point. I have been making a list of suggestions and concerns, and I will keep adding to that list as more feedback comes in. That being said, not every bit of feedback will be addressed - only those with some degree of consensus - lest this become a design-by-committee effort and therefore doomed.

The consensus that I've seen so far hovers on a few points:

1. Many of the passive bonuses are either too strong, or carry a strong negative stigma, particularly those currently found on some defensively-oriented sets. I will take a look at shuffling some of these around. It's also worth pointing out again that procced effects will not stack with abilities. While this was used to determine relative power levels and whether a proc might be appropriate for use, there was admittedly a blind spot regarding the buffs or debuffs a class already has, and how much benefit they would receive from some passive bonuses. As I said, these will be re-evaluated.
2. There has been a lot of cheering and booing over the fact that these cost emblems, and thus require doing scenarios to acquire. Originally this was done because the new sets were designed for the new sets and the reworked RvR sets was switched - the RvR sets would be for specs better in large scale combat, and the new sets for skirmish level combat. This was changed for other reasons. Nonetheless, there are good arguments to make that adding a reward to one or the other either incentivizes playing SCs over RvR - at least in the short term - or the other. There are a couple solutions that have been suggested and considered:
   1. An exchange merchant that would allow players to swap whole pieces of gear once purchased. Players could play whatever way they liked best, and ultimately receive the reward they want. Unfortunately, my endorsement of this suggestion was based on an incorrect understanding of what vendor behavior has actually been coded so far. I apologize for this mistake on my part. As-is, vendors can sell items for any other item that is a specifically a currency (and thus cannot be equipped). Vendors have the ability to exchange items as proposed - a little pop-up confirmation window appears and everything - but the actual functionality is not coded yet, and will likely not be ready when the new and reworked sets are complete. Additionally, this exchange would not refund slotted talismans (and it was decided after internal discussion that it should not).
   2. A shared currency, or a means of converting medallions to emblems or vice versa. Both of these run into problems I've addressed in a previous post - finding a conversion rate that is fair and balanced is difficult, and while it is a solvable question (and likely will be in the future), it is not something we are devoting time/resources to right now.
   Because each of these issues have their own problems, the new sets will likely remain purchasable only with emblems initially. An exchange merchant may be implemented in the future, once the functionality has been implemented.
   
   In any case, it's worth mentioning that the same complaints about being "forced" to do scenarios to receive the new sets can be made about being "forced" to do RvR to obtain the current sets. Granted, while the kill quests that reward medallions can be completed in both RvR and scenarios, and thus it is possible to get the RvR sets entirely through scenarios, this is due to the absence of a check when a kill is made. It should not be expected that the quests will always operate in this manner.

Over the next few days, the proposed sets and purchasing system will be adjusted with these concerns in mind. Itemization and set bonuses may change, as may the prices and purchasing method. The spreadsheet in the first post will not be updated until the changes are finalized.

Thanks again.

[Ade]

Because each of these issues have their own problems, the new sets will likely remain purchasable only with emblems initially. An exchange merchant may be implemented in the future, once the functionality has been implemented.

In any case, it's worth mentioning that the same complaints about being "forced" to do scenarios to receive the new sets can be made about being "forced" to do RvR to obtain the current sets. Granted, while the kill quests that reward medallions can be completed in both RvR and scenarios, and thus it is possible to get the RvR sets entirely through scenarios, this is due to the absence of a check when a kill is made. It should not be expected that the quests will always operate in this manner.[/list]

Its nice to know that a change will happen in the future, however I can't help but feel a little disheartened to know that doing scenarios over ORvR now provides even greater rewards for the time being. ORvR isn't all zerg vs zerg and easy medals, a lot of skirmishes happen out in the lakes, and if you want to optimize your character for this you will need these item sets.

Would it be possible to add 2 vendors, one for emblems and one for medallions? This way people could use either currency for the item sets until a full change is implemented? Even if the medallion cost is increased it would still mean that we could exclusively play ORvR to attain the sets.