Community Hangout ~ Recap and discuss COMBAT

Well, not all spells are ranged... and I think that mages should pay much more focus (to compensate for the lack of physical item).

The thing is, I would prefer regeneration of focus and health to be much slower (e.g. day for focus, week for health). You could speed up the process with potions (or spells, but it would cost you either life or focus, so the spells would not solve your problem). Thus giving alchemist a job to do. I agree that with Focus regenerating so quickly there is need for something else to be consumable, but I do not like (fast) regeneration much.

 

Fairly sure the current regen is for testing only and it will be heavily waited on rest for focus and foot for health...

 

Good job working to put multiple points of view into the hangout. That's a very healthy and valuable approach to providing feedback. Although I totally disagree with Golem Dragon regarding combat, hats off for him showing up and providing his feedback.

The one critique I have is that you seem to have a lot of people on from your guild. To keep the conversation truly balanced, when possible, it would be great if you could get a wider variety of people.

 

We had two people from the guild and I would have gladly taken others if they would have come... would you join us next time?

 

Sure, if I have time.

Both the guys from your guild made good points and kept the discussion moving. It's just probably a good policy to rotate people.

Also, if you can find females, that would be of value too. The more diverse the perspective the better. Maybe start actively recruiting people now.

I'll nominate Vendetta Beretta and majoria70.

 

For spells only requiring one reagent, I would say ok, no spell if you don't have it.

For spells requiring multiple reagents, I would be fine with it requiring at least one of them, but efficacy of the spell drops drastically if you don't have ALL of them.

 

The first hangout and second hangout were almost all new people (my brother Sciamano and I will likely always be there). We also had ?two ladies? in the first hangout with us.

I cannot control who comes... I'll always make the post here and attempt to keep things balanced. I know several ladies watched and one actually pm'd and commented on things in IRC while it was going... sometimes they just don't want to be live and on air.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

Fireball/fire arrow. and Focus.

 

The question was in regards to what the reagent cost is not what the spell is that works like the arrow. IE: When I "shoot" someone with a "Crippling Shot" using archery... it consumes 1 arrow. When I "shoot" someone with a "Fire Arrow" it consumes nothing.

 

Just a reminder. Those are two separate issues. One is a macro economy issue (i.e. what's the cost?) and the other is an "in the NOW" issue (i.e. how much damage, how fast can it be cast, etc...)

The two things have nothing to do with each other in terms of balance. We'll have a much better combat system if this is how we look at balance.

 

Very confused with this reply... did you mean to quote/reply to Galiwyn? I was pointing out the fact his reply was a separate issue than a reagent "cost"... which is what he quote/replied to...

 

I'm doing too much multi-tasking.

Sorry. That was a general response to the overall context and was semi-unrelated to what you were specifically talking about. I too often see people bring up balance comparisons using a thought process like this: "R8 fire arrows were not balanced because they didn't require a reagent". As if to say if they had a reagent they would be balanced compared to arrows shot from bows. I know you weren't saying this directly...I understand why you're confused by my reply. Again, sorry.

I'd just like to hear our conversations about balance (even in the abstract) be more inline with things that are comparable. We should never be talking about damage and regents in the same sentence. They're not comparable.

 

Yeah, I really don't get into "balance" yet because I think it's too complicated to plan. I'd rather see them make the game and see what NEVER gets used and what ALWAYS gets used... then adjust those things accordingly. Way too many things are involved in "balancing" that aren't even in the game yet to start talking about it. That's my two cents at least!

 

That's the path the devs are taking, so it's the one we're stuck with. But the reason there's no balance is because of the path taken, it's not because balance is impossible. The devs could've put in a system where players could only hack at each other with a sword and shield. We could've balanced that rather quickly and then added more stuff after we balanced. But the devs chose to do what most teams do...add a bunch of stuff then try to balance, but also add a bunch more stuff stacked on top of that.

We're never going to balance the game doing that. Never.

That's my two cents. We'll have to agree to disagree and we can both hope that I'm wrong.

 

Honestly !
We need to have so much more testing even if its just in a single room supported by the server With logs kept or a test server with no content or generic content with logs kept due to other areas of the game that need to be worked on, it wouldn't be interrupted by a static zone or place created for testing ..
As it stands I Can Think of 4 Scenarios that would give my group a win every time and most often against multiple groups . 100% No but mid 90's lol .... Its just round one of combat so practicing such things would be moot and everyone would just gravitate to them for a win instead of thinking outside the box and working on balance. It would be nice to talk about such things but, I'll be honest way too many competitive people 100 percent of the time .

As Long as @Violaton continues to enjoy hosting the fun events it will continue to be a huge asset ..... But , I'm afraid we need more in order to reduce the potential for 2 steps forward one step back Ping Ponging balance transfers.
Lor

 

I appreciate your two cents and I get where you're coming from; however, in a game like SotA it cannot be unbalanced because it's a classless system... if you elect to play a weaker build that's your choice. I know that sounds harsh and slightly retarded but what I'm getting at is this: when WoW patched and buffed up Class XYZ then all the other classes got rolled for 2-3 months because no one wanted to reroll and regear a new class... until later when we all had every class but I digress. In SotA that won't happen because you can simply release and train new skills or add a new deck and... boom you're balanced! This is why I like the "classless" system. This is also why I hate the "perks to races" that they're suggesting for elves.

 

I think the hangout is of value either way. But your ping pong description is very accurate. In my mind, that's exactly what we're doing, taking a step forward (in R8) and then adding new stuff in R9 that takes us backwards two steps.

I know the devs have a schedule to keep, but this only gets worse, not better in my mind. It's going to exponentially unbalance (just as most games do) the more we add, and then less we fix.

 

Correct , It's not intentional , but more of a nature of the beast imho... Thats why I hope we can assist more ..... I know they watch this stuff and I know they take it to Heart and will most likely come to the same conclusion.

 

You make valid points.

1) Classless System beats Class System for balance. That's true, but only when you compare it to a class based system. Don't mistake having an unbalanced system for being "good". It would be like saying "yeah yeah, I know we give you the choice between Queens and Pawns in this new game we call 'chess' but it's a classless system so it's balanced!" Uh, no...

2) I love the perks for races because it allows people to gravitate towards a race that (in the case of Elves) is traditionally a shealthy bow using type. I completely agree with you that on the surface it's "unbalanced" from a design standpoint. I think this is a fair argument to make.

But that brings me to the point of view of the roleplayer. You see, I'd never play a Cleric. I hate clerics and I don't care if Clerics are the best "build" to play over the first five years of the game, I'm not playing one. Whereas, other people could care less, they'll just play whatever is "best" and dominate. This reality leads us back into point #1 (see above), you have to balance the game for more than one play style. So in a way, a classless system is only more balanced for people that don't mind playing different classes.

 

I did enjoy R8 and even if nothing changes towards what I prefer... I enjoy playing devils advocate and pushing buttons and trying to get ppl to think about other mechanics and options and styles... helps force ppl to defend their thoughts but also forces us as a community to look at other things and decide what would be more fun as well as if such things would be a "deal breaker" or not for the game to have or not.... I like that there are those who disagree with me... I wouldn't want it any other way.... I have always kept my online actions along these lines for streams and so forth because I think it is good to always be analyzing and reviewing what is done, what is being done, what is being proposed, as well as what your own beliefs are... I can say with confidence, my beliefs on ame development have changed over time in the past 30 years.... and I am glad it has....