My Skill Analysis: Blades

I originally wasn't going to comment on blades as I feel the tree is pretty solid and few things really stick out but having thought about it there is one thing I feel really needs improvement.

Parry: I find I often avoid using this skill. In fact, I usually avoid dodge as well unless it's just before the right. The reason for that is the fact that it only lasts for one incoming attack and the effect is gone before I even notice it.

I don't see the result of using parry. There's no animation that comes with actually parrying an attack either. usually the effect is used up even before the animation finishes.

In terms of defensive value, Riposte is the same.. BUT.. at least when I riposte I do damage. That I can see.. and with riposte also doing defense on next hit.. it makes parry pretty obsolete.

Another problem with Parry & Riposte is that in reality they should be used together. Parry sets up for riposte. The riposte itself doesn't afford any defensive value.. but has a much higher chance to get past someone's defenses.

You also normally associate parry & riposte with fencing.. such as with rapiers. Though technically it can be done with any weapon in principle.

Ok the point being that you can't riposte without the parry. These should not be two skills.. but one skill. Where at low levels you parry.. at higher leverls whenever a parry is successful you execute a riposte.

Parry should not increase your defense.. it should have a chance to negate a physical attack altogether.. while the riposte should be a free attack if the parry is successful.

Parry should be skill vs skill. The balance here is if the parry isn't successful.. you still take the hit and gave up an attack.

 

The trouble with blades is that it is pure unfiltered MMO. All of the skills are DPS modifiers of one kind or another. The entire skill tree could be replaced by +X% damage per level, +Y% defense per level and a bonus AOE attack at level Z without significantly altering its function.

 

I would say that Parry should be a passive. Simply put, when I'm fighting with a sword I don't "watch for the right moment" to parry, I execute some sort of parry on every strike that I think will hit me. I don't take five hits and then try to parry the sixth. That is an excellent plan for DIEING.

I think that parry and riposte should be % chance effects that become more likely as you spec into them, just like blocking and dodging are. If someone trains hard at using that technique, it becomes second nature and they respond almost without thinking. So much so that they may actually strike a killing blow on pure impulse.

 

yeah but you can make a similar argument for all melee. The problem here I think is that combat isn't set up to account for executing moves on impulse.. If it were, all we should really need to think about is whether we're focusing on offense or defense and where to move and our character would do the rest. Even if you're thinking "I want to do X".. you don't have to put a lot of concentration into looking for an opening. The trained eye will see it when it happens.

Anyway.. not disagreeing at all in principle.. Just making those skills passive doesn't fit the current system unless you give all the other skill trees an offensive passive to balance it out.

 

Ok, to rephrase the issue.
Portalarium has chosen to go with a "one skill at a time" model. When you use a skill, it eats a big chunk of focus, and most put out some sort of "global cooldown" effect intop play, just try mashing all your buttons at once, you'll see what I mean as they turn red and fail.

Now, it's quite true that I cannot be simultaneously swinging with my sword, thrusting with my sword, smashing a face with my pommel, and lining up a charge. But there ARE things that can be done simultaneously, or close enough that a human eye would be fooled. Things like parry and riposte.

I think that attacks that we actively use, tactics that change the battle, should be active abilities. I think that constant defenses, like parry, should be automatic, or be available AS automatic functions (such as with the option to keep auto-attack).

Now, there are certain things that cannot passively do simultaneously. For example, constant parrying is a feature of defensive stances. When one goes to aggressive stances, like the berzerker stance from the Tactics tree, well... there goes your parry chance. And with it your ripostes.

 

In a more modern combat system this might make sense, but SOTA is sticking with the old school number race model.

 

It still makes sense in the old number race model. You just get a random proc chance to parry incoming attacks. The chance is calculated from your talents and stats vs your attacker's talents and stats, with maybe some gear or enchants that mod it. It works out in the long run as a form of damage reduction.

 

The game already has one damage negation trait, damage avoidance, which tend to be extremely powerful in number race games. 25% chance to proc a sword parry, 25% to proc a shield block, 25% to proc a dodge ... in a game where 3-4 sword blows will kill a target that might work, but when it takes 20-30, you just created an invincible tank.

 

That's making assumptions about combat balance that can change at any time.

 

Having played a tank in a number race game who had even better % chances than that, I can tell you that it wasn't INVINCIBLE. Hard to take in toe to toe combat, yes. But if someone is specced, equipped, and trained in parry, dodge, and block and is wearing the most protective armor and enchantments they can get, shouldn't they be really hard to kill? What does it say about the game if the best defended tank that I can build goes down to a few quick thrusts from an equal level opponent in open, face-to-face dueling?

 

Fiddling with damage negation skills to balance combat is like adjusting the reserve rate to tweak the economy. A little goes a long way, and will have unexpected consequences.

I agree that it isn't a problem in PVP, opponents can adapt, but in PVE it creates the uncomfortable situation where the developers either let optimized characters curbstomp everything or the AI curbstomps nonoptimal characters.

 

But that is the case regardless. A character optimized for damage will do far more than a non-optimized character. A character optimized for healing will heal far more. There is no way to balance for one person being skilled at a thing and another person NOT being skilled. This is inherently an unbalanced state, and should remain so. When someone excels, "balancing" that against those who do not excel is incredibly destructive.

 

I hate to say it, but I have been playing blades every build so far, and I just click on whatever blade skill pops up/cools down first. No skill, just a hotbar minigame.

 

I imagine most skills can be played like a whack-a-mole min-game.. but I do recall Chris saying something about being able to activate skills another way. Like how we now have the manual attack.. I'm not sure exactly how he plans to do that but I'm interested to see what he's come up with.

 

Hopefully it will be innovative, but not so "innovative" as to be silly. My money is on the former. Let's see.

 

My only concern is it sounds like we're heading more towards twitch combat.. which is fine with me really so long as lag isn't a major issue.

 

Before the era when anyone with an inkling could look up an optimal build order on a wiki? Sure. But these days... "If you're a level 52 tank and you can't achieve a damage reduction percentage of at least 82% you are a hopeless noob that needs to learn to read". I agree that "optimal" build should be better, but I prefer systems that don't treat you like an idiot if you choose to grow organically.

Personally, I support any Blades skill layout that promotes non-Trinity based play. It is my opinion that making Parry a flat defensive buff turns this into the required skill for tanks, especially as other skills lack a counterpart.

 

My biggest complaint with blades that I have experienced has more to do with range than anything else. Testing earlier today I noticed that even though I am using a two handed sword, which should give me a range advantage, that skeletons with long swords and bears both will move towards me, and begin striking me and they will still be out of range for me to hit. Part of why I chose the two handed sword was so I would be able to force opponents to move into my range in order to strike me. Its something I hope is fixed.

 

I clicked like on them all but was in a hurry so i don't mention at the time.. i love your recent feedback posts.

 

Range on blades does seem pretty busted right now. (R20) I might be tempted to go back to polearms for R21.