Page 25 of 29
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:49 pm
by RagingPeace
chad878262 wrote:QC does not fear nerfs. We discussed it in the QC forums much as we did here. However, if I take anything from both discussions its this:
If we nerf FS in any way, lots of players will be pissed off...If we don't nerf FS other players will be pissed. So in the end what's best for the server as a whole?
Well, on the plus side, if we take the time to properly nerf FS, they could no longer ROTFLMAOSTOMP the server and would be leveled somewhat with other high end classes, or removed all together. Server balance is served and all is right with the world...
Except that on the negative side, we use our dev resources to nerf a class instead of doing other things that (hopefully) enhance everyone's time in game, making things fun and engaging for various reasons. And then what do we do about bard, druid, Dwarven defender, and any other "top of the heap" classes? I originally argued for the nerf and changed my vote not because I don't think it would overall be a good thing...But because it's a very divisive topic and I feel it is low priority in comparison to adding new things, fixing bugs and giving people more options.
Some may think FS is so OP that our should be a top priority to nerf or remove the class, but you don't have to play one, nor are you in any way required to spend your time rp'ing with them (if they effect your fun, why would you?) I think barbarian being improved upon, as well as other classes to come (after bug fixes) are way more fun and add more to the server than talking a class away or making it weaker so the next in line can have is pave on the chopping block.
You're right, then other classes would have to be nerfed as well. What's so bad about that? Why is boosting other classes a better thing than nerfing them? Rather than having to boost all other classes, only three or four classes would have to be nerfed. If all classes are brought to a higher level, then we'd also risk having to rework all creatures to meet those new high standards?
But again you guys have a better overview and better knowledge of the various classes than I do, but now I've shared my opinion, and I felt like I had to, even though mrm3ntalist doesn't seem to approve. :p
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:55 pm
by AlwaysSummer Day
Thank you for responding in a mature and civil manner Chad. I do still ask though what about monk/druids? It is my understanding that there is no dev time required since there is no program in place to prevent it. Why not allow it? Or allowing intuitive attack without the 2/3 monk rule? There are many such balance rules in place already. Either we should lift these rules, go back to balancing, or make this class application only. Making it application only would not upset the PowerBuilders and would slowly reduce the negative impact they have on the server. As new content is released they might rcr. Some might stop playing. Eventually FS will be only vastly more powerful than everything else.
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:56 pm
by Mallore
In all things. It is always better to add then take away.
You'll find people agree more to added things then taken away. I believe there was a very awesome sociology study done on a similar topic when it came to choices in the market place. They even wrote about this when it comes to people physical rights in the world.
Less hurt all around.
Just what to add and how long and could it be enough, after all does it get to the point the other side screams unfair because they feel less special or victem.
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:05 pm
by Eclypticon
Mallore wrote:In all things. It is always better to add then take away.
You'll find people agree more to added things then taken away. I believe there was a very awesome sociology study done on a similar topic when it came to choices in the market place. They even wrote about this when it comes to people physical rights in the world. . .
I studied social science, and this is generally true in different cultures. I suppose this applies to standers and trade systems as well. PM me that study if you can find it.
Back on topic: I doubt any of us wants to nerf anything unless it is absolutely needed. This is one reason it seems easier to add content because it can go through a review process. We were given FvS in its current form and did not get to review it before it was made. Good luck balancing that class now. It is easier to remove and I do not think most people desire that, so, here we are.
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:07 pm
by mrm3ntalist
RagingPeace wrote:but now I've shared my opinion, and I felt like I had to, even though mrm3ntalist doesn't seem to approve. :p
You dont need my approval...
If we are to nerf everything... lets see
Expose weakness
Death attack and manyshot
Shapechange
Bards
Clerics
Druids
Hips
Abilities with extremely high DC
Monks flurry
Palemaster summons
Dwarven Defenders
Wizards
Warlocks
Sorcerers
CE/ICE and Casting
... the list goes on
So you want us to spend the next year(s) nerfing things instead of implementing new content, new areas, fixing bugs etc?
No thanks!
AlwaysSummer Day wrote: I do still ask though what about monk/druids? It is my understanding that there is no dev time required since there is no program in place to prevent it. Why not allow it? Or allowing intuitive attack without the 2/3 monk rule? There are many such balance rules in place already.
There is absolutly no reason to do this
Either we should lift these rules, go back to balancing, or make this class application only. Making it application only would not upset the PowerBuilders and would slowly reduce the negative impact they have on the server. As new content is released they might rcr. Some might stop playing. Eventually FS will be only vastly more powerful than everything else.
Making a class application only doesnt mean it will prevent players from getting the class. Any one who makes an application can get it. This will just add more work for the DMs and more accusations of favoritism
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:12 pm
by RagingPeace
mrm3ntalist wrote:RagingPeace wrote:but now I've shared my opinion, and I felt like I had to, even though mrm3ntalist doesn't seem to approve. :p
You dont need my approval...
If we are to nerf everything... lets see
Expose weakness
Death attack and manyshot
Shapechange
Bards
Clerics
Druids
Hips
Abilities with extremely high DC
Monks flurry
Palemaster summons
Dwarven Defenders
Wizards
... the list goes on
So you want us to spend the next year(s) nerfing things instead of implementing new content, new areas, fixing bugs etc?
No thanks!
I guess I just don't understand why nerfing is any less valid than adding new content. It's all a combined process to improve the overall content. I can't comment on the list you made, as I don't know enough about it, but I always wondered why Expose weakness hadn't been nerfed, but I guess the situation for expose weakness is kind of the same situation favored souls are in? If one believes they should be nerfed. Not nerfing content seems like a workaround to me. It's not to sound like I don't appreciate your work, I do.
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:17 pm
by mrm3ntalist
RagingPeace wrote:I guess I just don't understand why nerfing is any less valid than adding new content. It's all a combined process to improve the overall content. I can't comment on the list you made, as I don't know enough about it, but I always wondered why Expose weakness hadn't been nerfed, but I guess the situation for expose weakness is kind of the same situation favored souls are in? If one believes they should be nerfed. Not nerfing content seems like a workaround to me. It's not to sound like I don't appreciate your work, I do.
Yes, you dont konw why EW wasnt nerfed. Let me tell you.
Rasael spend many hours making a brand new feat.
Valefort adnI spent many hours testing it, which we could use doing anything else
The end result, there are bugs with custom feats that would ruin the purpose of EW.
All this time for nothing.
The same goes for FSs. We can nerf them back to stoneage. Then what? Some wil lcomplain about druids, bards etc.
So we go in circles nerfing things for no reason. You dont like a class, dont play it. Simply as that.
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:18 pm
by chad878262
The best thing I can say is this... There are many classes that, especially with dispel fix decreasing the usefulness of UMD, are unable to go many places on the server. Mundane classes will never be as powerful as spellcasting classes in this environment, and that is totally ok. However, in order to have a server that caters to those who prefer to play the 'true' melee (as in, doesn't spend 20 rounds buffing, then become melee) it is important to consider ways we can make these classes better and more enjoyable within the content we have. Well built and played caster classes can solo almost all of the content on the server, as can Dwarven defenders. However, many non-caster melee classes have to stick to sub-epic content even in high epic levels or take a very big risk of potentially losing 2-3,000 XP to Myrkul. So buffing these 'lower tier' classes does not cause a balance issue with the server and adds things that (hopefully) encourage players to try these lesser utilized classes.
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:23 pm
by AC81
One of the best possible solutions I've heard so far is simply changing the real time to game time ratio and increasing the rest timer.
This would have the double benefit of buffing fighters and melee types and nerfing casters. I would go so far as to dramatically increase the rest timer. That way casters are forced to choose their moments carefully - or if they want to grind, bring a meatshield.
Great suggestions Munin and Neg!!!
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:26 pm
by Steve
As for EW, most of its OPness could be fixed by increasing the Timer to 12–15 seconds.
What is the reason for not just removing the Favored Soul? Players can still get the Spellbook as a Cleric, and considering the non-Canon-ness of the RP, besides "forcing" a handful of Players to RCR, would it hurt the Server anymore than the proposed hurt that will happen after the 25th?!?
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:31 pm
by mrm3ntalist
Steve wrote:What is the reason for not just removing the Favored Soul? Players can still get the Spellbook as a Cleric, and considering the non-Canon-ness of the RP, besides "forcing" a handful of Players to RCR, would it hurt the Server anymore than the proposed hurt that will happen after the 25th?!?
Remove it for what reason?
Shall we remove everything from the list above?
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:46 pm
by Selande
mrm3ntalist wrote:If we are to nerf everything... lets see
Expose weakness
Death attack and manyshot
Shapechange
Bards
Clerics
Druids
Hips
Abilities with extremely high DC
Monks flurry
Palemaster summons
Dwarven Defenders
Wizards
Warlocks
Sorcerers
CE/ICE and Casting
... the list goes on
Epic Divine Might
Divine Power
Maecius
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:51 pm
by Thorsson
mrm3ntalist wrote:Yes, you dont konw why EW wasnt nerfed. Let me tell you.
Kaedrin nerfed it by putting it on a longer cooldown; I've heard of no complaints that this caused issues.
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:52 pm
by chad878262
Selande wrote:Maecius
I hope this was in jest... If not it is against server rules and really uncalled for.
Re: Possible QC change - Community input appreciated
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:53 pm
by mrm3ntalist
Thorsson wrote:Kaedrin nerfed it by putting it on a longer cooldown; I've heard of no complaints that this caused issues.
A cooldown is not a custom feat. T
he exploit, or the OPness of the feat is the stacking AC debuff. Thats what we tried to fix