The Official GreaterMUD Forums

GreaterMUD Discussion => GreaterMUD Ideas => Topic started by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 06:30 AM

Title: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 06:30 AM
This is a sort of boom, several changes at once aimed at tackling balance issues in the game.  I am aware that some of it is odd and changes classes quite a bit..like Paladins as combat-3



ClassHealthCombatWeaponArmorExp %MagicOther
Witchunter6-10   5AllScale140NoneAnti-Magic1, Smash2
Warrior6-10   4AllAll140NoneSmash2
Paladin5-9   3AllAll220Priest-1Smash2
Cleric4-8   3BluntAll180Priest-2Smash2,Meditate3
Priest3-6   1BluntCloth140Priest-3Meditate3
Mage3-6   1StavesCloth140Mage-3Meditate3
Warlock6-10   31hdScale160Mage-2Meditate3
Gypsy4-7   31hdLeather170Mage-2Dodge +10, Stealth, Locks, Traps, PP,Meditate3
Bard4-7   31hdLeather150Bard-3Stealth5, Locks, Traps
Ninja4-8   3AllNinja160NoneDodge +25, Crits +10, Stealth5, Locks, Traps, Tracking, Accuracy +10
Mystic4-8   3StavesCloth210Kai-3Dodge +25, Crits +10, Stealth5, Martial Arts
Thief4-7   31hdLeather80NoneStealth4,5, Locks, Traps, PP
Missionary4-7   31hdLeather150Priest-2Stealth5, Locks, Traps,Meditate3
Ranger5-9   4AllChain200Druid-1Stealth5, Tracking
Druid3-6   2BluntLeather170Druid-3Meditate3
Wardancer5-9   4AnyCloth190Mage-1Stealth5,






















#RaceExp %HPStrIntWillAgiHealthCharmAbilities
1Human-10%040-10040-10040-10040-10040-10040-100None
2Dwarf30%050-11030-9050-12030-9050-12030-85M.R. +10, Illu +75, Encum +20
3Gnome20%035-9045-11040-10045-11040-10035-90M.R. +5, Illu+65, Picklocks
4Halfling25%-120-6030-9040-10060-15040-10040-100Stealth, Dodge +10
5Elf45%035-9050-12040-10050-12030-8050-120Illu+50, Stealth, MaxMana +10
6Half-Elf15%040-9045-11040-10045-11030-8050-110MaxMana +10, Illu +25
7Dark-Elf45%040-9050-12030-10050-12030-9040-110Illu +80, Stealth, Crits +1, Accuracy +3
8Half-Orc0%045-11030-9030-9540-10050-12030-80None
9Goblin35%030-7045-11540-10055-12540-10040-100Illu +65, Stealth
10Half-Ogre30%170-15020-6025-7020-6060-15025-60M.R.+15, DR+2
11Kang35%055-12030-9045-11030-9050-11030-85ImmuPoison +100, Dr +1, AC +5
12Nekojin50%040-10040-10030-9060-13030-8050-110Stealth, Illu+50, Tracking, Rfir+10, Rcol-10
13Gaunt One20%040-10060-15050-10050-11030-7030-80Illu +200, Percep +10
14Vitterfolk35%040-11040-12010-4020-8050-13030-70Illu+75, HPrgen +300, rfir-50, rwat-50
15Pixie-20%030-9040-12040-12040-12010-4030-100Illu +50, Dodge +50
16Frogite40%-135-9040-10050-13040-12030-9035-100Illu +25, Stealth, Swimming6, PoisonImmu +100


1Antimagic will have its cap removed, meaning (at 200 mr)100% resist of damage and 100% resistance of Resist type Yes spells(Yes type spells are the direct damage and curse type spells, meaning that it is normal for a player's MR to be applied). Resist type No spells(no type spells are healing and bless spells, a player wouldn't normally resist these spells) will resist at 1/2 the rate of Yes type spells.  Never spells(Never spells are like quest spells and Non-magical type spells) will not be effected by antimagic.
2Witchunters at level 20, Warriors at level 22, Paladins and Clerics at 25, rangers will be removed from this quest.
3Mages, Druids, Priests at level 20, Clerics, Warlocks, Gypsies, Missionaries at level 22, Rangers, Bards, and Paladins are removed from this quest.
4Thieves will get enhanced stealth(+5 per alignment quest and +5 at level 1), enhances backstabs (+5 min/max per alignment quest and +5 at level 1). Also their 2nd quest bonus will be enhanced from 10 max/min to 15 max/min and from 2 stealth to 25 stealth.
5Includes access to superstealth quest.
6Swimming will be implemented with a Asitem {item number} ability.  It will be as though the swimmer has the item wooden skiff and gnomish fishing helm in their inventory for resisting spells and item checks.
Health: Warlocks and thieves are both upgraded
Armour: Rangers and Warlocks are both upgraded
Combat: Paladins become combat-3, all hybrid classes are now combat-3
Other: The pickpocket command(rob) is now restricted to gypsies and thieves.


As part of the balancing scheme the player ACC formula should be changed.  The stats from the equation should be changed from ((Strength - 50) / 3) + ((Agility - 50) / 6) to ((Agility - 50) / 3) + ((Intellect - 50) / 6) + ((Charm - 50) / 6)

If we make this change, perhaps it would be best to not change the AC vs ACC formula for players, and only update the monster formula(Or I could manually adjust every monster's ACC).  Currently we are using AC/ACC=Missrate...I believe that AC/2ACC=Missrate would make our current setup the same as current mmud.  I could be wrong on that, these formulas remain a mystery to us. :(

I'd like to install an adaption of the NMR addon, seen here (http://nmr.mudinfo.net/add-ons/spell_mod/index.html). At the same time this update goes in the monster database will updated with adjustments on every mob that uses effected spells so that they do not gain upgraded damage.

QND bonus should be changed from 20/10 to 10/5(light/medium), also maximum swings adjusted from 5 to 6.

Dodge wil be adjusted from a raw percentage to Dodge/Acc=Dodge rate.  This is more intune with mmud, But it may have dodge rates still being too high and Might need to be adjusted to Dodge/2Acc=Dodge rate.


Crits should be adjust to begin scaleing at 40% and to not just randomly cap out at 65%.  With proper scaleing the maximum crits a player will be able to pull will be around 70%..but that will be with some crazy bonuses.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: PTERY on Sep 14, 2010, 08:12 AM
Seems like a very thorough and balanced overhaul. I don't know if this is concrete or if things are still open to debate. I will assume the latter.

-Gypsies seem a little overpowered with the dodge addition and only a 170 chart.
-I won't called thieves overpowered but a pixie thief, for example, would have a crippling backstab and only a 60% chart. Could be abused on pvp realms unless pvp caps are made more liberal (unlim after lvl 40) or removed altogether.
-Wardancers casting sped can be full qnd with the wbs before level 50. I always liked how speed spells were restricted to 1h classes...
-Elves: 45% chart and 80 health is still a hard sell...
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 09:23 AM
Quote from: Ptery on Sep 14, 2010, 08:12 AM
Seems like a very thorough and balanced overhaul. I don't know if this is concrete or if things are still open to debate. I will assume the latter.
Its not concrete and I'll happily discuss any of it.  I just ask that if you disagree with me you try to make a clear argument as to why.  It doesn't help me to understand something if I just get a response like "I don't think missionaries should be 150%." Two different people could say this to me and mean two entirely different things, for example one person could say Leather armour is aweful they should be lower, while another says GRHE owns! they should be higher.  Either way you'd like to argue the more support you can give the more likely I'll change my mind.

Quote-Gypsies seem a little overpowered with the dodge addition and only a 170 chart.
Oh man..I like the way that sounds.  The idea here is to make each of the classes stack up against each other better.  Now, I really don't want to make a class overpowered and gypsies are jumping from combat-2 -> combat 3 and gaining 10% dodge...AND having a lowered chart...but they were really under powered before and the numbers speak to that, as only 2% of the characters listed on turbo are gypsies. First it was Mystics...then bards, then mystics, then Paladins and Warriors....would this usher in the era of Gypsies?  Probably not ;).  I guess I could be making a mistake here, and I'm certain that if I am any mistake that has been made will be shown to me(one way or another) by players.
Quote-I won't called thieves overpowered but a pixie thief, for example, would have a crippling backstab and only a 60% chart. Could be abused on pvp realms unless pvp caps are made more liberal (unlim after lvl 40) or removed altogether.
The only issue with thieves isn't that they are powerful, its mostly that they are a sort of no risk kinda character when they can be power-leveled.  I suppose with that low chart you could simply out lives someone else in pvp.  There are options to help control power leveling if that became a noticeable issue, also thieves may be at too low of a chart after these changes.  I'm willing to bet that after playing pixies they'll either be removed are redone altogether.  I remember them from dreamscape and they were really fun and enjoyable, but this was mod-2.

Quote-Wardancers casting sped can be full qnd with the wbs before level 50. I always liked how speed spells were restricted to 1h classes...
Weapon: wicked bone scythe (876)
Swings: 4/5/4/5/5/4/5/5/4/5
Energy Remaining: 140/65/205/130/55/195/120/45/185/110
Energy per swing: 215, Raw swing: 4.6512, QND Crits: None
Combat: 4 (Good), Level: 50, Agility: 100, Strength: 110, Encumbrance: 1000/5640 (17%), Speed: Fast (85)
Yeah..thats pretty mean..It might become necessary to make speed mage-2 and fill in with a weaker version of the spell. I'd like to point out that extending max swings from 5 to 6 will make the larger weapon hit QND at later levels.  If I have something wrong with my swing calculation lemme know..the numbers are pull from my ass.
Quote-Elves: 45% chart and 80 health is still a hard sell...
With the change of ((Strength - 50) / 3) + ((Agility - 50) / 6) to ((Agility - 50) / 3) + ((Intellect - 50) / 6) + ((Charm - 50) / 6), Elves will actually be pulling more ACC than they were before the 1.11m changes.  Prior to 1.11m Elves were considered one of the best races both in terms of combat and spellcasting.   When the high health, high str races became king in the acc department using a low health race just became ridiculous.  Hopefully this won't remain the case with that change.  It is exactly this change which prompted to not make alterations to the charts of Dark-elves/elves.  Of course, prior to 1.11m extreme high level characters were far more rare, and lower acc races can begin to catch up...but unless someone else has the desire to really dissect it and dive into the math we'd have to run it in a realm to find out for sure.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: PTERY on Sep 14, 2010, 09:50 AM
Re: Gypsies. I think gypsies are a decent class even now, chart aside. To me, as they stand, a 140% chart would be reasonable, i.e. choosing between class stealth (gypsy) or better spells (mage). A 170 chart with combat-3 and 10% dodge isn't ridiculous or anything, it just seemed a little much at a glance. Maybe 170, 10% dodge and combat-2? Then again there could be much worse things in mud than an influx of gypsies.

Re: Thieves, a human thief would be a 70% chart and could still be really annoying as a script killer. I think the real aim of my original remark (now that I think about it) is pvp caps in general. The current 14-level range is too restrictive, especially at higher levels.

Re: Sped/wardancers...it slipped my mind that the whole qnd system would be significantly altered with a move from 5 to 6 swings. Still, sped+2h might be risky business. I like your idea of making sped mage-2 and creating a weaker mage-1 version. As an aside,  the current mage-2 offerings need some work...a room spell stronger than bliz but weaker than the current 5th-quest mage spells would go a long way to providing balance there imo...

Re: elves...that makes more sense. I'm glad str is being taken out of the acc calculation altogether.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 10:34 AM
QuoteRe: Gypsies. I think gypsies are a decent class even now, chart aside. To me, as they stand, a 140% chart would be reasonable, i.e. choosing between class stealth (gypsy) or better spells (mage). A 170 chart with combat-3 and 10% dodge isn't ridiculous or anything, it just seemed a little much at a glance. Maybe 170, 10% dodge and combat-2? Then again there could be much worse things in mud than an influx of gypsies.
I moved alot of the combat-2 classes to combat-3 based entirely around the way player ACC is calculated. At low levels the ACC difference is drastic while at higher levels...I wouldn't say insignificant but certainly not as pronounced.  As the purpose here was balance I felt that these combat-2 classes needed to be able to contribute to fighting bosses(or even solo bosses).  They just don't right now, at least not at the same levels other classes can.   I wouldn't be opposed to making a combat-2.5 which would calculate ACC as combat-3 but calculate swings as combat-2.

*There is a large issue with the creation of higher level content and the way ACC is calculated. In order to make a "Level 50+" area you've got to make the mobs have more HP, more AC etc..But if you're going to make a level 50+ area that combat-2 classes could ever play around in, you'd have to make the AC low enough that they can hit the mobs.  Which means that the Combat-4 classes will be playing around in the Level 50+ area earlier than you intend.  This is a major flaw in MMUD that can't really be fixed but this change helps.

QuoteRe: Thieves, a human thief would be a 70% chart and could still be really annoying as a script killer. I think the real aim of my original remark (now that I think about it) is pvp caps in general. The current 14-level range is too restrictive, especially at higher levels.
I favor unlimited PVP.  I think that to make that work in a realm with as many players as we support we'd need a few more lower reward but safe for scripting areas(such as ivory golem and zealots).  I dunno if I'm seeing where this is going with thieves because you weren't too clear, but if you mean that they could be powerleveled and that would be annoying...Yeah, its not really changing that much, I'm really only adding about 30ish damage to that incoming backstab.  Although if the realm becomes rampant with thieves because these changes are imbalanced the nerf stick is always an option and charts or bonuses could be adjusted.

QuoteRe: Sped/wardancers...it slipped my mind that the whole qnd system would be significantly altered with a move from 5 to 6 swings. Still, sped+2h might be risky business. I like your idea of making sped mage-2 and creating a weaker mage-1 version. As an aside,  the current mage-2 offerings need some work...a room spell stronger than bliz but weaker than the current 5th-quest mage spells would go a long way to providing balance there imo...
I'm kinda in the opposite camp and thinking that more access to direct damage spells might help out.  For speed I was thinking that the spell could be altered(same cost) to be Speed +90.  Then a second party effecting long lasting spell would be speed +94.  These spells would be stackable and in combination would give the same bonus as Speed does now.  The Speed +94 spell would be made affordable for Magic-2s to cast.

QuoteRe: elves...that makes more sense. I'm glad str is being taken out of the acc calculation altogether.
Yeah thats always bothered me.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Void on Sep 14, 2010, 10:46 AM
I think ptery kind of nailed the stand outs.  Overall it looks much better than default balance.  Warlocks look a bit more interesting with more hp and armor.  Combat 3 1h or combat 2 for gypsy/thief/Missy has a greater impact on levelling solo imo.  At higher levels the difference will be slight on acc I think?  Will give greater weapon selection at midlevels.  I know how dependent I am (gypsy) on speed for all weapons other than
rapier until maybe level 40ish.  The dodge bonus fits nicely with the gypsy mystique mirroring their custom set of eq.  I could see a higher chart than 170.

Along the same lines I anticipate a lot of wardancers just for the pure physical combat power.   4 and speed and all weapons - but then again the modification to qnd bonus will reduce the benefit there... I like that.  I think that works for me.  :)

I still see that if you can tangle or hold a thief even with combat 3 and slightly higher hp - it will still die.  Take away the high bs and it still go squish.  Scripts will be easier to bs to death but then again it's easy as hell to kill a script as is.  Same 80 chart but this makes thieves a little more interesting for purposes other than vault robbing... Works for me too.

I feel like bards are a little lacking as they already had combat 3 and losing med and pp.  (not the end of the world). Chart has come down a lot. Maybe 4-8 health to re add some appeal?  Same combat and songs but a tad more survivability unless there is a concensus they are overpowered now.

Ps I love the acc redesign.  :). I've only been back in the mud for a month now so I'm pretty rusty but just adding my thoughts.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 10:59 AM
Quote from: Void on Sep 14, 2010, 10:46 AM
I think ptery kind of nailed the stand outs.  Overall it looks much better than default balance.  Warlocks look a bit more interesting with more hp and armor.  Combat 3 1h or combat 2 for gypsy/thief/Missy has a greater impact on levelling solo imo.  At higher levels the difference will be slight on acc I think?  Will give greater weapon selection at midlevels.  I know how dependent I am (gypsy) on speed for all weapons other than
rapier until maybe level 40ish.  The dodge bonus fits nicely with the gypsy mystique mirroring their custom set of eq.  I could see a higher chart than 170.
I played gypsies fairly often and they were always close to having a nice defense but never quite got there for me.  This +10 dodge does alot to help them out at lower levels and some minor content for them would give them a solid defense.  Missionaries have access to large amount of prev to stack with leather AC and minor dodge abilities..Its always seemed to me that gypsies could use a little bonus defensively.

QuoteAlong the same lines I anticipate a lot of wardancers just for the pure physical combat power.   4 and speed and all weapons - but then again the modification to qnd bonus will reduce the benefit there... I like that.  I think that works for me.  :)
I personally have always felt that when I look at dancers on paper they seem powerful.  But when I see them in realms(normally at combat-5) they don't really pull off the overpoweredness I expected.  I dunno though.  It is 2010 though, its about time dancers were part of the game.

QuoteI still see that if you can tangle or hold a thief even with combat 3 and slightly higher hp - it will still die.  Take away the high bs and it still go squish.  Scripts will be easier to bs to death but then again it's easy as hell to kill a script as is.  Same 80 chart but this makes thieves a little more interesting for purposes other than vault robbing... Works for me too.
Ya know the increased HP on thieves can be dropped..Its really not a huge difference its something like .4 extra hps per level. I'm going to change them back to 4-7 now.

QuoteI feel like bards are a little lacking as they already had combat 3 and losing med and pp.  (not the end of the world). Chart has come down a lot. Maybe 4-8 health to re add some appeal?  Same combat and songs but a tad more survivability unless there is a concensus they are overpowered now.
Bards are seriously more powerful in Gmud than they are in MMUD with the removal of 10 spelling. With that in mind, do you still feel the same way?

Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Void on Sep 14, 2010, 11:07 AM
Actually nope bards are fine lol I forgot about the removal of spell cap.  Bring on the dancers!
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 11:39 AM
My 2 cents worth:

No player should ever be able to get higher than a 75% resist 75% damage reduction when it comes to spells.  If you can't survive being hit 25% of the time for 25% of the damage others take perhaps you need to pick a different class to play or umm quit.

If you go from 5 max to 6 max on swings, the entire concept of qnd crit bonuses should be thrown out the window.  Once you hit qnd you get that 6th swing and that's it.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Prescience on Sep 14, 2010, 11:59 AM
I think Witchhunters should be given +X Accuracy too. OR, just +X vs caster-3 classes.

X = 10 or 20 or something along those lines.

As previously stated, combat-5 has no real benefit over combat-4 because hunter +accuracy items are limited. I think they should be given +accuracy to compensate for poor item choices. You can justify it with the following text, "Witchhunters intense concentration and training allows them to resist spells and provides an advantage in combatting magic casters."

I think this simple improvement would dramatically improve the hunter class.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: PTERY on Sep 14, 2010, 12:00 PM
Quote from: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 11:39 AM
No player should ever be able to get higher than a 75% resist 75% damage reduction when it comes to spells.  If you can't survive being hit 25% of the time for 25% of the damage others take perhaps you need to pick a different class to play or umm quit.
WH's need something though. What about a mana dampen ability? It could either be something they invoke themselves or something that is automatically activated when they're attacked. Something like the jeweled viper death spell.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 12:02 PM
Quote from: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 11:39 AM
My 2 cents worth:

No player should ever be able to get higher than a 75% resist 75% damage reduction when it comes to spells.  If you can't survive being hit 25% of the time for 25% of the damage others take perhaps you need to pick a different class to play or umm quit.
I'm also purposing an increase in spell power for casters, so in theory, from a caster's POV they would probably elect to allow the 100% resistance on hunters over not gaining the spell upgrade.  That said, this upgrade isn't intended to balance out against the caster's upgrade, its intended to help with balancing hunters.  I imagine magic immunity as the natural progression of a hunter's abilities.  I feel like it makes hunter's more attractive, and I don't see it really hurting anyone else..I mean 75% really is good enough, but 100% thats purdy. Also it makes room for adding in some -MR curses.

QuoteIf you go from 5 max to 6 max on swings, the entire concept of qnd crit bonuses should be thrown out the window.  Once you hit qnd you get that 6th swing and that's it.
I think that for the most part players tend to like QND until the issue of 1 round PVP comes up.  I've purposed scaling down the QND bonus somewhat, and I know that isn't what your looking for, but its a step inbetween.  Anyone else have any thoughts or feelings on this?  I personally am not too attached to QND, but I feel like alot of the player base would no favor removing it from the game.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 12:08 PM
Quote from: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 12:02 PM
Also it makes room for adding in some -MR curses.

That would be resisted 100% of the time...........................................................................................

Quote from: Ptery on Sep 14, 2010, 12:00 PM
WH's need something though. What about a mana dampen ability? It could either be something they invoke themselves or something that is automatically activated when they're attacked. Something like the jeweled viper death spell.

Now this I could get behind.  This is a reasonable change.  I don't think it should be something they invoke as that implies magic. 
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 12:15 PM
Quote from: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 12:08 PM
That would be resisted 100% of the time...........................................................................................
Right..because thats how I'd build a spell designed for this...
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Prescience on Sep 14, 2010, 12:28 PM
'Now this I could get behind.  This is a reasonable change.  I don't think it should be something they invoke as that implies magic.'

Outside of the +Acc suggestion I make above. I suggested something the other day I'd like to reiterate here.

Give Hunters the ability to purge caster-buffs? Like an 'energy' based skill to remove X buffs from target player. This ties in with the witchhunter theme and would make them fun/useful.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 12:31 PM
Quote from: Prescience on Sep 14, 2010, 12:28 PM
'Now this I could get behind.  This is a reasonable change.  I don't think it should be something they invoke as that implies magic.'

Outside of the +Acc suggestion I make above. I suggested something the other day I'd like to reiterate here.

Give Hunters the ability to purge caster-buffs? Like an 'energy' based skill to remove X buffs from target player. This ties in with the witchhunter theme and would make them fun/useful.

I see where this idea comes from, I'm not really a fan of spell-esce abilities for hunters.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Void on Sep 14, 2010, 12:38 PM
[ quote]
I think that for the most part players tend to like QND until the issue of 1 round PVP comes up.  I've purposed scaling down the QND bonus somewhat, and I know that isn't what your looking for, but its a step inbetween.  Anyone else have any thoughts or feelings on this?  I personally am not too attached to QND, but I feel like alot of the player base would no favor removing it from the game.
[/quote]

Qnd is something that everyone gets.  Eliminating it completely will create a larger gap I think at high levels between the geared and not?  Does that sound accurate?  My concern there isn't that the geared will get too powerful but that the lesser geared will have an even harder time killing them?  Not sure if my thinking is off here - speaking of pvp of course.  Ideally qnd would give you a minimum bonus which depreciates as your own stats and gear surpass a barrier?  Just thinking out loud...
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 12:51 PM
I just don't think given the changes we've already made to the game that anyone should be able to get a 100% defence against an attack type.  It's not all that different from allowing someone to hit 100% dodge IMO.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 01:10 PM
Quote from: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 12:51 PM
I just don't think given the changes we've already made to the game that anyone should be able to get a 100% defence against an attack type.  It's not all that different from allowing someone to hit 100% dodge IMO.
Well If we went through and made it so that 50% of the monsters in the game were exclusive spell casters then yes, then it would be the same as allowing 100% dodge.

Since we aren't going to do that, it isn't the same. Also in the grand scheme of things it constitutes a very small change to the over all game.  This all seems rather arbitrary, we could cap accuracy at 75% using your argument..hehe.

I'm honestly not sooo into this idea that it would bother me to no put it in, but I've yet to see an argument at isn't about other classes..when this particular ability isn't about them, its about adding to WHs.  If there is a particular issue with having 100% res your against or just the idea in general?

Also, what changes are you refering too?
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 01:25 PM
I'm looking at it from the pvp perspective more than the pve perspective and my objection is based on that viewpoint. 

As to changes, my God man have you actually played on GreaterMUD??  And by play I don't mean sys set  yourself to lvl 75 with pimp gear, I mean just play like a normal player would.

Most classes here seem to do far better than they ever do in regmud.  I'm sure the removal of the 10 spell limit (boo!) and the changes to the way encumberance affects your combat have a lot to do with that.  I have no doubt that some of it is also due to bugs that have not been addressed but I think at this point that is a minor contribution to the way characters perform here.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 01:42 PM
QuotePaladin   5-9      3   All   All   220   Priest-1   Smash2
Cleric   4-8      3   Blunt   All   180   Priest-2   Smash2,Meditate3

Okay, I really don't understand this.  A paladin gets access to edged weapons, but a full level lower of magic ability, without access to meditate, and pays 40% more for it?  Combat 3 completely marginalizes the class into obsolescence.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: PTERY on Sep 14, 2010, 01:55 PM
Quote from: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 01:42 PM
Okay, I really don't understand this.  A paladin gets access to edged weapons, but a full level lower of magic ability, without access to meditate, and pays 40% more for it?  Combat 3 completely marginalizes the class into obsolescence.
Sharps are much better and more readily available, both lim and unlim. You are severely limited by weapons as a cleric. Basically you need a TSM or hope you get a 2h questor (and even those are weak relative to their 2h sharps counterparts). The heaviest-hitting unlim weap that a cleric can get (besides questors) is a gargantuan stone maul. Eep. Compare that to a WBS.

#: 1207, Name: gargantuan stone maul, Type: 2H Blunt, Damage: 18-45, Speed: 3600, LVL: 40, Str: 110, Enc: 400, AC: 0/0, Acc: 7, BS: No, Limit: 0, Dmg/Spd: 17.5
>> Abilities: Quality +5, HitMagic +5, Del@Maint

#: 876, Name: wicked bone scythe, Type: 2H Sharp, Damage: 20-65, Speed: 4400, LVL: 40, Str: 90, Enc: 250, AC: 0/0, Acc: 0, BS: No, Limit: 0, Dmg/Spd: 19.32
>> Abilities: Magical +4, Quality +4

Personally I think the game could use another unlim 2h blunt weapon, something that hits for 20-50ish. As it stands, you're almost better with a stormhammer (vs. a GSM). The stormhammer hits for a little less but it's faster, has the lightning extra and allows you to equip a shield. So really, unless you get a TSM or that 2h questor, a cleric holds no real weapons advantage over the 1h classes.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 01:58 PM
Quote from: Gardner Denver on Sep 14, 2010, 01:25 PM
I'm looking at it from the pvp perspective more than the pve perspective and my objection is based on that viewpoint.
The players whom were arguing against this idea already pointed out that it is "impossible" to kill a WH with spells anyway so if that argument is correct...then this kind of upward migration doesn't change anything for them.
Quote
As to changes, my God man have you actually played on GreaterMUD??  And by play I don't mean sys set  yourself to lvl 75 with pimp gear, I mean just play like a normal player would.

Most classes here seem to do far better than they ever do in regmud.  I'm sure the removal of the 10 spell limit (boo!) and the changes to the way encumberance affects your combat have a lot to do with that.  I have no doubt that some of it is also due to bugs that have not been addressed but I think at this point that is a minor contribution to the way characters perform here.
Its not like I didn't know changes have been made, I'm just failing to see what changes are incompatible with this one.  Or any that are even related?

Since we are talking about changes that have been made, I'd like to point out that  4 second combat rounds negatively impact the game, as well as the encum changes negatively impact the game.

The 4 second combat rounds make everyone's exp/hr askew, and drastically change the relationship between spell and combat round. Unless you've changed spell rounds to be 2.4 seconds. I had a level 25 human warrior I was working with and with standard plate he was running at 95% enc...How slow is he moving at that point? Making changes to game play based of realism is almost always a bad idea. :(.  I wasn't a fan of removing 10 spelling to begin with, but its kinda just a personal choice what we wanna do with that, and I can live with either way.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 02:11 PM
Quote from: Ptery on Sep 14, 2010, 01:55 PM
Sharps are much better and more readily available, both lim and unlim. You are severely limited by weapons as a cleric. Basically you need a TSM or hope you get a 2h questor (and even those are weak relative to their 2h sharps counterparts). The heaviest-hitting unlim weap that a cleric can get (besides questors) is a gargantuan stone maul. Eep. Compare that to a WBS.

#: 1207, Name: gargantuan stone maul, Type: 2H Blunt, Damage: 18-45, Speed: 3600, LVL: 40, Str: 110, Enc: 400, AC: 0/0, Acc: 7, BS: No, Limit: 0, Dmg/Spd: 17.5
>> Abilities: Quality +5, HitMagic +5, Del@Maint

#: 876, Name: wicked bone scythe, Type: 2H Sharp, Damage: 20-65, Speed: 4400, LVL: 40, Str: 90, Enc: 250, AC: 0/0, Acc: 0, BS: No, Limit: 0, Dmg/Spd: 19.32
>> Abilities: Magical +4, Quality +4



That's an itemization issue and not a balance issue.  We're talking about adding classes and races to the game, a hammer that's better than a garbage trash drop to compare with a garbage chest drop doesn't exactly seem beyond the pale.

On purely level grounds in an ideal situation, a cleric is objectively better in every way than a paladin.

120 Agility, light encumb, and combat 3 will not be QND with a wicked bone scythe until level 77.
Gargantuan Stone Maul is QND at level 59.

A paladin with a scythe will lose in damage to a cleric with a maul.  In the meantime, the cleric will have better healing spells which completely nullifies any scant hp advantage the paladin may have over the cleric, while paying less experience for the whole package.  This is not a compelling change for the paladin class, or the diversity of class selection on GreaterMUD in general.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 02:12 PM
Quote from: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 01:42 PM
Okay, I really don't understand this.  A paladin gets access to edged weapons, but a full level lower of magic ability, without access to meditate, and pays 40% more for it?  Combat 3 completely marginalizes the class into obsolescence.
Ptery has my theory on the matter sumed up pretty well

Quote from: Ptery on Sep 14, 2010, 01:55 PM
Sharps are much better and more readily available, both lim and unlim. You are severely limited by weapons as a cleric. Basically you need a TSM or hope you get a 2h questor (and even those are weak relative to their 2h sharps counterparts). The heaviest-hitting unlim weap that a cleric can get (besides questors) is a gargantuan stone maul. Eep. Compare that to a WBS.

#: 1207, Name: gargantuan stone maul, Type: 2H Blunt, Damage: 18-45, Speed: 3600, LVL: 40, Str: 110, Enc: 400, AC: 0/0, Acc: 7, BS: No, Limit: 0, Dmg/Spd: 17.5
>> Abilities: Quality +5, HitMagic +5, Del@Maint

#: 876, Name: wicked bone scythe, Type: 2H Sharp, Damage: 20-65, Speed: 4400, LVL: 40, Str: 90, Enc: 250, AC: 0/0, Acc: 0, BS: No, Limit: 0, Dmg/Spd: 19.32
>> Abilities: Magical +4, Quality +4



In general, access to all type weapons is pretty big when compared to blunt.  I'd consider lowering paladin's exp chart from this, but I'd prefer to have that justified by game play rather than conjecture. I am fairly confident that paladin are far from obsolete like this, but obviously not the power house they were before. Not to sound crass, but the idea is balance..not to placate every class.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 02:19 PM
Quote from: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 02:12 PM
Ptery has my theory on the matter sumed up pretty well

Again, it's an itemization issue, not a balance issue.

QuoteIn general, access to all type weapons is pretty big when compared to blunt.  I'd consider lowering paladin's exp chart from this, but I'd prefer to have that justified by game play rather than conjecture. I am fairly confident that paladin are far from obsolete like this, but obviously not the power house they were before. Not to sound crass, but the idea is balance..not to placate every class.

The whole point of balance is that every class has a compelling reason to be picked and to be played.  These changes to the paladin class are not in balance, it just marginalizes them.  There's no compelling reason to pay more for less with the paladin class at combat 3.

Clerics get more tools in their kit and they pay for it with less experience and the only concession that they make is to lose access to an edged weapon that really isn't that great to begin with.  Do you not see the flaw here?
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: PTERY on Sep 14, 2010, 02:23 PM
Quote from: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 02:11 PMA paladin with a scythe will lose in damage to a cleric with a maul.
The paladin can smash with the wbs from level 40, but I see your point. The proposed changes certainly limit the paladin's abilities, but the paladin has long been the strongest class in the game. It's just something different from what we're used to. And really if we see fewer paladins over time that's not so bad is it?

In re: your point of edged weapons not being that great to begin with, I think they are...I think it is a pretty massive advantage, even if paladins are reduced to combat 3.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 02:30 PM
Quote from: Ptery on Sep 14, 2010, 02:23 PM
The paladin can smash with the wbs from level 40, but I see your point. The proposed changes certainly limit the paladin's abilities, but the paladin has long been the strongest class in the game. It's just something different from what we're used to. And really if we see fewer paladins over time that's not so bad is it?

And the paladin pays with it in the experience penalty of 220%.  The only classes that paid more are Mystics and Rangers, but both of those classes are now below the Paladin in costs.  The Ranger is at 200%, keeps Combat-4, and gets upgraded to chainmail armor.

So, let's recap:

Most expensive class in the game. 
Fights like a cleric. 
Heals worse than a cleric. 
Less mana pool than a cleric. 
Less mana regen than a cleric.
Can use a sword.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 02:31 PM
Quote from: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 02:19 PM
Again, it's an itemization issue, not a balance issue.
I don't think.....your using that word right??  If you're trying to say what I think you're trying to say then you're just not getting it.  Blunt weapons are weaker because they are suppose to be, they have intentionally been made that way, it isn't by mistake. Sharp weapons out damage Blunt weapons...by design.

QuoteThe whole point of balance is that every class has a compelling reason to be picked and to be played.  These changes to the paladin class are not in balance, it just marginalizes them.  There's no compelling reason to pay more for less with the paladin class at combat 3.
Thankfully now that I've explained it you can see that the Paladin isn't necessarily less, because having access to Sharp, is more than access to Blunt.

Quote
Clerics get more tools in their kit and they pay for it with less experience and the only concession that they make is to lose access to an edged weapon that really isn't that great to begin with.  Do you not see the flaw here?
You're manipulating the truth in an attempt to justify your argument. 
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Prescience on Sep 14, 2010, 02:41 PM
Not that I played Paladins much to begin with (I have hard time role-playing as a Jewish Paladin), but changing Paladins to combat-3 means I will never play them.

I understand that Pally's can wield edged weapons but Clerics can out-heal Pally's. In essense both classes are even with the combat-3 change, but a Paladin is more expensive to level. I'd play a Cleric if I ever wanted to play an underpowered priest class :P

Make Rangers combat-3 and I'm switching to Wardancer :P
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 02:52 PM
Quote from: Prescience on Sep 14, 2010, 02:41 PM
Not that I played Paladins much to begin with (I have hard time role-playing as a Jewish Paladin), but changing Paladins to combat-3 means I will never play them.

I understand that Pally's can wield edged weapons but Clerics can out-heal Pally's. In essense both classes are even with the combat-3 change, but a Paladin is more expensive to level. I'd play a Cleric if I ever wanted to play an underpowered priest class :P

Make Rangers combat-3 and I'm switching to Wardancer :P
The paladin's chart is higher because he will gain experience and level faster that the cleric.  The upgrade to All weapons is significant enough that the increased healing from Priest-2 will not overcome the damage difference.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: tab on Sep 14, 2010, 03:21 PM
Quote from: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 02:31 PM
I don't think.....your using that word right??  If you're trying to say what I think you're trying to say then you're just not getting it.  Blunt weapons are weaker because they are suppose to be, they have intentionally been made that way, it isn't by mistake. Sharp weapons out damage Blunt weapons...by design.
Thankfully now that I've explained it you can see that the Paladin isn't necessarily less, because having access to Sharp, is more than access to Blunt.
You're manipulating the truth in an attempt to justify your argument. 

Quote from: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 02:52 PM
The paladin's chart is higher because he will gain experience and level faster that the cleric.  The upgrade to All weapons is significant enough that the increased healing from Priest-2 will not overcome the damage difference.


No, it's an itemization issue and this is incorrect.  Non-limited blunt weapons are extremely competitive, and outright better, throughout the the level tiers.  At the high end it kind of falls apart, but while leveling?  A cleric will be able to use similar to superior weapons, fight the same, heal better, and pay less experience for it the entire way through.

But, just in case you don't believe me, let's break it down.

Level 20:

1h's --
Runic Warhammer - 10 - 18, 1675 speed, +9 acc
Spectral Sword - 5 - 18, 1700 speed, +3 acc

Runic Warhammer is better if you are 1h + shield.  And at level 20, you probably should be 1h + shield.

2h's --
Etched Adamant Greatsword - 10 - 34, 2400 speed, +2 acc
Dwarven Craft Hammer - 8 - 30, 2350, -10 acc

Dwarven Craft Hammer is worse than the greatsword, but not really by a lot.  -10 acc hurts, but on GreaterMUD, it hardly means a thing.

Level 30:

1h's --

Etched Adamant Warhammer - 10 -25, 2000 speed, +15 acc
Starsteel Mace - 11 - 26, 2300 speed, +5 acc

Sunsword - 8 - 25, 2300 speed, +8 acc (25% chance to cast 6-30 fire damage, which I think works out to ~4.5 extra damage per hit)
Starsteel Scimitar - 7 - 25, 2000 speed, +10 acc

The Sunsword's proc might edge it ahead of the Starsteel Mace, but it's a real narrow margin.

2h's --

Giantwood Club - 12 - 40, 3000 speed, +5 acc
Dragontooth Trident - 14 - 45, 3500 speed, +3 acc

Pretty close there, again.  Giantwood will swing 3's, Dragontooth will swing 2/3.  Advantage might go to the Giantwood because of casting breaking combat rounds, etc.

Level 40:

1h's --
Stormhammer - 15 - 40, 3200 speed, +4 acc, (25% chance to do 5 - 20 damage)
Vorpal Sword - 10 - 30, 3000 speed, +10 acc, +10 crits

Close match.  It would require more than what I have at my disposal to see which is better.

2h's is the Gargantual Stone Maul vs the Wicked Bone Scythe.  Which we already discussed.  But there's also the Sharktooth Trident, 15 - 55, 3300 speed, -15 acc, lacerate proc.  Which is a lot closer in comparison with the GSM.

Special Level 45!

Jewel-Encrusted Warhammer!  11 - 32!  2200 speed!  +5 acc, 100% chance to proc 5-15 damage on hit!  This is better than any non-limited, non 5th quest, 1h weapon.  Therefore it'll be the last 1h weapon for a sword and board cleric OR paladin.  This is even ground.  This is the paladin losing.

Level 50 opens up 5th quest weapons, and a Cruel Bone Greatsword, which is 22 - 43, 3500 speed, disease proc.  Which isn't a clear step up from the Sharktooth Trident, but at least now you'll swing your Wicked Bone Scythe 3 times, but the Cleric will swing his TSM 4.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 05:47 PM
I appreciate the effort here, but its not a great picture of whats going on. If my paladin really doesn't get access to ANY lim weapons then I can always hit up a heavy spear/dtt/wbs and start smashing at 25. And keep that up until I can swing my weapon of choice better.  That said I would consider lowering the chart a bit if it does play out the way I'm picturing it. 

One thing I hadn't considered is that with removing STR from the ACC equation races choices do change quite a bit. Lemme think about what to do with Paladins...just not sure.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: kalus on Sep 14, 2010, 07:03 PM
This whole discussion is completely pointless. The biggest problem is the combat system and the formulas. They need to be revised and TESTED and then revised and TESTED and TESTED again and then tested some more. Not changed and left broken for a year.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 07:18 PM
Quote from: kalus on Sep 14, 2010, 07:03 PM
This whole discussion is completely pointless. The biggest problem is the combat system and the formulas.

No offense DeathCow, but you don't even play and have no idea how current GMud is working. Paladins in the current GMud are under powererd if anything. The massive enc you need to get decent AC kills their combat and they get owned by light dodging classes (like dwarf druids.... )

IMO the way they've handled ENC is aweful, that said thanks for your constructive input.  

Btw is the "whole" discussion pointless or just the parts you don't like?  Are the parts discussing the combat system and formulas pointless?  Do I not know what going on because things change so much? OR
Quote from: kalus on Sep 14, 2010, 07:03 PM
left broken for a year.
not getting changed?
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: kalus on Sep 14, 2010, 09:07 PM
Quote from: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 07:18 PM
IMO the way they've handled ENC is aweful, that said thanks for your constructive input.  
Btw is the "whole" discussion pointless or just the parts you don't like?  

You can't balance classes without deciding what fundamental changes you are going to make to the combat system.

Its like.. designing a race car without first knowing if it will be racing on dirt, tarmac, drag strip, hill climb....

Quote from: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 07:18 PM
Are the parts discussing the combat system and formulas pointless?  

Admittedly I didn't get that far, its a start.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Thergin on Sep 14, 2010, 10:02 PM
Cleric VS Paladin, well as playing a cleric this push, and also in the old combat system.

I have to say that I agree it doesnt look right, I will take a cleric over a paladin, most of the issues are as above much more weapon selection, I think combat 3 for paladin is a good move, to give someone access to the best armor, a little healing,cure and combat 4 was very overpowered especially low level.

Cleric have very low spell differences in healing until greater healing at level 15. I realise that level 1-15 is much faster to get these days and most people dont care about it and skip through but on a fresh restart it makes a big difference.

Gypsy   4-7      3   1hd   Leather   170   Mage-2   Dodge +10, Stealth, Locks, Traps, PP,Meditate3
Bard           4-7     3   1hd   Leather   150   Bard-3   Stealth5, Locks, Traps

I played a gypsy last push, and the whole time I wished I was a bard, because the spells are very similar, where the bard lacks some damage spells compared with gypsy, I didnt really use them and out leveled, them the bard gets much better party spells, and they are all very similar.

Bumping the combat 3 is good, and adding dodge is good. Bumping bard-2 to Bard-3 will increase the natural mana regen, and a bard doesnt want to sit around meditating.

I guess what i am getting at is maybe bard should goto 160% exp table.

Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 14, 2010, 11:19 PM
Quote from: Thergin on Sep 14, 2010, 10:02 PM
Cleric VS Paladin, well as playing a cleric this push, and also in the old combat system.

I have to say that I agree it doesnt look right, I will take a cleric over a paladin, most of the issues are as above much more weapon selection, I think combat 3 for paladin is a good move, to give someone access to the best armor, a little healing,cure and combat 4 was very overpowered especially low level.

Cleric have very low spell differences in healing until greater healing at level 15. I realise that level 1-15 is much faster to get these days and most people dont care about it and skip through but on a fresh restart it makes a big difference.
I'm becoming less opposed to adjusted paladins chart downward a bit...I'll think about the options with that...
Quote
Gypsy   4-7      3   1hd   Leather   170   Mage-2   Dodge +10, Stealth, Locks, Traps, PP,Meditate3
Bard           4-7     3   1hd   Leather   150   Bard-3   Stealth5, Locks, Traps
Bard-3 was actually a mistake on my part, should be bard-2.  I'm not sure how a feel about adding meditate back to bards...I feel like I'd be happy putting back if shockwave was nerfed....
Quote
I played a gypsy last push, and the whole time I wished I was a bard, because the spells are very similar, where the bard lacks some damage spells compared with gypsy, I didnt really use them and out leveled, them the bard gets much better party spells, and they are all very similar.
Bard has a better bless set, while gypsy will have better damage from spells(spell mod as well)
Bumping the combat 3 is good, and adding dodge is good. Bumping bard-2 to Bard-3 will increase the natural mana regen, and a bard doesnt want to sit around meditating.

Quote
I guess what i am getting at is maybe bard should goto 160% exp table.
Hurm...Gypsies, which you're comparing them to, are getting quite a bit of spiffying up....hurm.

Quote from: kalus on Sep 14, 2010, 09:07 PM
You can't balance classes without deciding what fundamental changes you are going to make to the combat system.

Its like.. designing a race car without first knowing if it will be racing on dirt, tarmac, drag strip, hill climb....

Admittedly I didn't get that far, its a start.

As a fan of House, I do appreciate your use of metaphor.  The idea is to put all the ideas out there at once so that when a decision is made in one department the others are considered as well.  Its like a tampon commercial.  You could have the blue water, or the girl jumping around seemingly period free...or you could find a way to get that bitch to pour the water herself while jumping.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Thergin on Sep 15, 2010, 01:43 AM
I forgot to comment on combat accuracy being back to agility, as much as I did used to love agility being the most powerfull stat, I dont like how str has not become that, so we need a balance, in real life str does effect accuracy as you are able to hold the weapon easier. Maybe only for heavier weapons like 2 handers or something. Either way I wouldnt like to see str not effect accuracy, I just want to see the formula more balanced, and having int and charm effect is a good idea.

Hog need 150 str and 150 health reduced, and its other stats balanced a little more, its too extream. 140 str, 130 health or something
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Gardner Denver on Sep 15, 2010, 06:50 AM
Rather than remove strength completely from the acc formula how about this

Let's say that a weapon requires 80 str to wield

If you are < 80 str - 1 acc to a max of - 9 (based on your str vs str required for weapon)
If you are = 80 str +/-0 acc
If you are > 80 str then +1 acc up to a max of +9 (based on your str vs str required for weapon)

So with the above example:  75 str would be -5 acc, 80 str = 0, 85 str = +5 acc  Nothing over 89 str would count and nothing below 71 str would hurt as far as acc goes.  That gives strength the ability to add 19 acc to any class providing they pick the proper weapons.   i.e. no halflings using weapons that require 90 str ect....
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Thergin on Sep 15, 2010, 07:38 AM
great idea gardner I really like it.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: schwagg on Sep 15, 2010, 08:11 AM
Quote from: Gardner Denver on Sep 15, 2010, 06:50 AM
Rather than remove strength completely from the acc formula how about this

Let's say that a weapon requires 80 str to wield

If you are < 80 str - 1 acc to a max of - 9 (based on your str vs str required for weapon)
If you are = 80 str +/-0 acc
If you are > 80 str then +1 acc up to a max of +9 (based on your str vs str required for weapon)

So with the above example:  75 str would be -5 acc, 80 str = 0, 85 str = +5 acc  Nothing over 89 str would count and nothing below 71 str would hurt as far as acc goes.  That gives strength the ability to add 19 acc to any class providing they pick the proper weapons.   i.e. no halflings using weapons that require 90 str ect....

This is a much better idea than removing str from the formula altogether, which I think would be overcorrecting the problem.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Excarkun on Sep 15, 2010, 08:52 AM
1   Human   30%   str40-110   int40-100   wis40-110 agil 40-100   health40-90 charm40-100    Tracking   
an idea

wardancer mage 1? why not druid 2 and make some spells for them
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: kalus on Sep 15, 2010, 09:31 PM
Some high level ideas about how I would go about revamping the combat system

Nothing is static. +5 dodge doesn't give you 5% dodge across all classes at all levels until you hit an arbitrary cap

Formulas need to take into account class, race and level and current stats.

A +5 dodge item will give a ninja who already knows how to dodge, more raw dodge % than it will give a druid. A halfling will get more raw dodge out of the same item than a dwarf, and a char with 130 agil more raw dodge than a 90 agil char.

So the end raw result  in terms of dodge % of wearing the same +5 dodge item might look like this:

halfling, ninja, 150 agil - 5% dodge
neko, ninja, 130 agil - 4% dodge
dwarf, ninja, 90 agil - 3% dodge
dwarf, druid, 90 agil - 2% dodge
dwarf, druid, 40 agil - 1% dodge

The 2nd major change is, as you increase in level, there is a diminishing returns system on all modifiers.

level 10 - +5 dodge = +5% dodge
level 20 - +5 dodge = +2.5% dodge
level 30 - +5 dodge = +1% dodge
etc....

This makes it possible to put ever more increasingly powerful items in the game without high level characters becoming uber powerful. And a level 75 running around wearing platinum bracers is just insanely stupid. Mud badly needs better and more powerful high level items.

One more thing, there MUST be a +spell power modifier added to the game just like there is +max damage. Spells should also crit. (healing spells too)
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: PTERY on Sep 17, 2010, 03:59 AM
Was just gonna say re: cloth/silk armour changes, I like cloth for priests and mystics since they are strong enough already, but I think mages need the advantage and should remain a silk class.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: DeathCow on Sep 17, 2010, 05:08 PM
Um...you have the armor option of natural/robes/padded/soft leather/soft studded leather/rigid leather/studded rigid leather/chain/scale/plate.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: pentagruel on Sep 20, 2010, 01:06 PM
Some of the changes are totally horrendous.  
Paly should stay combat 4, no questions.  If you want to tweak its exp, fine, but lets not have 2 priestly classes with combat 3, one of which is priest 2 and one which is priest 1.  
Wardancers should get some dodge, and I would get rid of stealth.  
That race with 40 max wisdom is ridiculous, as you will get ubber raped by any spellcaster.  maybe 20-60 wisdom, to make it more in line with halflings/hogres, and then drop its int max to 120.
Who the fuck gives warlocks as many hps as a warrior or witchy, while clerics still have 4-8hp <--maybe this is a typo, else its retarded.  
Rangers should stay Leather, else they will be absolutely insane with lunar chainmail.
Warlocks are fine in chainmail, no need to up them.  
Mish/Gypsy will be way overpowered at a 3combat.  They are combat 2 for a reason.  I do like the lowered exp charts on them though.  
Mystics should stay 250 exp, ranger at 200 isnt too unreasonable.  
I think that trying to change too many things at once without actually testing is stupid.  Run a test realm where you tweak a few things, and see how it goes.  For example, I bet if you just lower the exp on mishy/gypsy, you would get alot more people playing them.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Thergin on Apr 22, 2013, 02:04 AM
bump
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Stalkerr on Apr 22, 2013, 03:02 AM
Quote from: Thergin on Apr 22, 2013, 02:04 AM
bump

Lots of random info in this post, anything in particular that made you remember it?  (its almost 3 years old)
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Thergin on Apr 22, 2013, 06:45 AM
Well I figure that page one will be close to what you will be aiming at, and I just wanted to bring it back open for discussion. I think Deathcow had it on the money already.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: mad on Apr 22, 2013, 07:35 AM
I think it's pretty good too, looking at the original post.

I don't agree with everything, and those new races seem a bit specific to some classes,

IMO, warlocks hp should be downgraded .. and it sucks there's so many items out there, but they are ALL basically leather/silk ..  how many actual 'studded leather' items or 'chain' items are there, really.. there's a small number

Witchy's have a decent go with scale and I still argue if you restricted clerics to scale only then that would give them a more unique role

Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Stalkerr on Apr 22, 2013, 08:20 AM
I'm pretty sure those charts were built with late game(level 45+) major mud realm in mind.  There are some gross disparities between gmud and mmud that makes some of those numbers unreasonable.  Also, I was intending some ability changes along with those numbers.

I've got the whole of content open to make changes and since I fully intend to go with the spell-mod I've got a lot of options for balancing.  I'm hoping that with the spell mod and new content classes like gypsy and missionary might be competitively viable.

The new races and classes might be off the table, I'm not sold one way or another on them.  Yes, they do seem somewhat class specific.  But that is because they are intended to fill gaps like Willpower/Stealth, Tanky with Int.  Either way adding new variables rarely makes an equation easier to solve.

I need to find out if a couple bug fixes are possible.  If they are I'll let the current realms run on them for a few days to get feed back then I'll make a meta post with everything wrapped up and easy to read.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Torque on Oct 27, 2013, 08:21 AM
I just skimmed through Miles's RotMUD creations an they looked really fun to try out, although it was a bit much. Then I hit this thread and was super interested in it. I was wondering, Gardner do you have an interest in this topic?



Maybe start a third Alpha board with level capped at 20? I'm trying to meet you in the middle of "GreaterMUD needs an unmoderated Realm" and "too much crap to mudop". If it's 20 hard limit, a lot of people won't play and there's no political ramifications of ignoring it or juicing it up
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Gardner Denver on Nov 12, 2013, 07:42 AM
Quote from: Torque on Oct 27, 2013, 08:21 AM
I just skimmed through Miles's RotMUD creations an they looked really fun to try out, although it was a bit much. Then I hit this thread and was super interested in it. I was wondering, Gardner do you have an interest in this topic?



Maybe start a third Alpha board with level capped at 20? I'm trying to meet you in the middle of "GreaterMUD needs an unmoderated Realm" and "too much crap to mudop". If it's 20 hard limit, a lot of people won't play and there's no political ramifications of ignoring it or juicing it up

Well you'd have to ask Vitoc first since he would have to make a code change to allow a level hard cap.  As for me, I have no desire to op another realm so from a sysop perspective it would be ignored.  Twogirlz can mudop it if he wants to but there are certain things he can not do.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Vile on Nov 13, 2013, 05:48 AM
What exactly is the point of a level 20 limit mud?
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Torque on Nov 14, 2013, 08:11 AM
Gardner always claims 'he doesn't want to mudop another realm', despite pleas for them to put up an unmoderated realm. I figure his reasons are that he needs control of the population to streamline Q&A about debugging, so he wants everyone in his moderated realms, and level 20 top limit would reduce population hemhorraging. Perfect world: make PVP go unmoderated fully a la no mudop. The only thing they should be doing is making sure the board is up and taking advice on what to fix (and of course fixing it). That is, if they aren't playing like they say they aren't. A third realm would also allow new content without "ruining" the original realms

It was just a bargaining chip.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Gardner Denver on Nov 14, 2013, 09:08 AM
Well yeah there is that but my reasons are much more basic.  Remember the unlimited dupe push?  Not many people will want to play in another realm like that so what happens?  "Gardner come knock out the dupes"

People will hoard up all the limited items on holders and rooms nobody goes in.  "Gardner come do something about the limited items"

Next thing you know, I'm moderating a 3rd realm.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: Torque on Nov 15, 2013, 02:11 PM
It's a good point, and I realize that you (plural) simply have no interest in a solution about a third realm, etc. But, I'm happy that I got feedback about it, so I will humor myself a bit more. I'll create a fictional 'new third realm settings list':

-Unlimited lims
-Limited max connections from an IP to equal max when adding all legal connections (realm 1 + realm 2 + realm 3), and further throttling max IP to 3rd realm to 1
-Full realm sweeps every night, to include all rooms and items. The only way to keep any items is carry them
-No alignment change, retrain, sys gotos, or any interference from a mudop
-Reset every 6 months unless voted to not reset by a simple majority
-Hang penalties at 25%, with a two unique item drop
-Universal Trainer trains 1 to 75

-----------------------------------------
-Increase drops to a minimum of 10%
-Halve boss regen times

There are a lot of good things that can come out of this realm. I believe the second biggest is that it is a tool to isolate IP usage / duping. Because you're not trying to moderate teh 3rd realm dictatorial like the 2nd realm, you are able to simple analyze the data (if you wish) and identify trends. Trends like connecting/disconnecting, etc. can be cross-referenced with your information about realms 1 & 2 to streamline critical thinking on who's actually duping. This is all assuming you do enjoy catching the bad guys. The biggest reason for the realm is to seperate politics from yourself and *some* aspect of this GreaterMUD system while implementing a way to include new content.
Title: Re: Tackling Balance issues, ATTACK
Post by: mad on Feb 19, 2014, 02:09 AM
I would actually suggest the 3rd realm gives players enough exp for level 65 so the chars can be tested out properly (you can train to whatever level), realm resets weekly, to stop anyone taking it seriously, it's just a testing realm, for S&G & posting bugs without having to create a char/get to a certain level, etc and the insta level 65 would allow people to see what any race/class combo would turn out like end game, or near to it.

Don't allow duping, players can simply re-roll another level 65, it could also be a fun pvp for sng realm.

Unlimited lims and no sweeping, the weekly reset will take care of it.

We need a testing realm. We really do. Making changes live without people having a clue how they will reflect in reality opens up things like .. mage spells being modified to gypsy's.. (lol) & other weird shit, during a live push, these aren't bug fixes, they are major changes, do them on the 3rd realm, place a vote (where people need to post a reason, not a voting button) if it's going to affect the game majorly, or change the mechanics of any class