Previous
>>> I believe Raesh said that he's intending to make the prep times similar to TM spells; in other words, like 1-2 seconds.
Actually, as someone who frequently rebuffs in combat, I can safely say the prep time isn't really the issue. The time involved in casting the spell comes from strategies to reduce mana consumption through harnessing or using cambrinth. Consequently if you want to reduce cast time you need to reduce the mana cap of the spell. If you want to reduce the percentage of time spent buffing you could also increase the spells duration.
GNIKOLEYCHUK
HABERLEJ
Re: Damage Barriers
05/10/2015 10:56 PM CDT
The thing is, MAF isn't enough to stop you from dying if you're overhunting, even now in its overpowered state. Everyone who's played around with it ought to know that. But letme outline what I see its current niche is.
Right now, it's rather nice to just have on you at a high duration if you're hunting somewhere that you get hit very seldomly, particularly if you're wearing lighter armors. Because those once in a while hits, if they take down your health enough, can lead to the downward spiral of doom. Let's say you've skinned something and brought your burden up a bit, or blown out your nerves, or just did something dumb and lost balance. MAF can keep those slightly more frequent hits from getting past the point where it's past the natural damage reduction.
No. I don't NEED that. And I understand that a lot of people don't use it. But I see it this way - the spell is available, it's a nice thing to spend slots on, and I can get it up there at a high enough duration that I'm really not worrying about it falling off or recasting (40 minutes at my cap). It adds a significant percentage chance of survivability to your character in certain ranges of threats, and it's worth spending the time and effort to cast. It may be too powerful right now, but if we want barrier use to be a part of the PvE game, it's in a good zone there.
For me, it's very hard for a battle spell buff to be in that zone of "worth casting" at all. It's just not worth the time to cast, the mana (probably the biggest objection), the roundtime if I'm using cambrinth, or the opportunity cost of the other spells. Because, again, I'm not looking for something to bail my butt out when I'm overhunting. I'm looking for something to raise my survivability overall by dealing with the rare hits, or to give me a larger window to react if something goes wrong that I haven't noticed. EVEN IF the spell is really outstandingly good at protecting me, I still won't bother to cast it with a 2-5 minute duration.
To me, it would have to be probably in the realm of "really crazily overpowered" to make it worthwhile to cast at that low a duration in PvE. In PvP, I might cast it before going into combat because every little bit helps, but I probably won't recast it, or even worry about my opponent having it up unless it's crazily powerful. If anything I'll just stall and wait for it to go away. And I'm not sure that "minor inconvenience" is a space that we'll want to see barriers in, so that will probably be a tough balance.
As a side note, if barriers are going to be intended as primarily a PvP thing, can we please not have the spells cost very much? From a game design perspective, I really would not like DR to turn into a game where characters are "PvP specced" or not.
Right now, it's rather nice to just have on you at a high duration if you're hunting somewhere that you get hit very seldomly, particularly if you're wearing lighter armors. Because those once in a while hits, if they take down your health enough, can lead to the downward spiral of doom. Let's say you've skinned something and brought your burden up a bit, or blown out your nerves, or just did something dumb and lost balance. MAF can keep those slightly more frequent hits from getting past the point where it's past the natural damage reduction.
No. I don't NEED that. And I understand that a lot of people don't use it. But I see it this way - the spell is available, it's a nice thing to spend slots on, and I can get it up there at a high enough duration that I'm really not worrying about it falling off or recasting (40 minutes at my cap). It adds a significant percentage chance of survivability to your character in certain ranges of threats, and it's worth spending the time and effort to cast. It may be too powerful right now, but if we want barrier use to be a part of the PvE game, it's in a good zone there.
For me, it's very hard for a battle spell buff to be in that zone of "worth casting" at all. It's just not worth the time to cast, the mana (probably the biggest objection), the roundtime if I'm using cambrinth, or the opportunity cost of the other spells. Because, again, I'm not looking for something to bail my butt out when I'm overhunting. I'm looking for something to raise my survivability overall by dealing with the rare hits, or to give me a larger window to react if something goes wrong that I haven't noticed. EVEN IF the spell is really outstandingly good at protecting me, I still won't bother to cast it with a 2-5 minute duration.
To me, it would have to be probably in the realm of "really crazily overpowered" to make it worthwhile to cast at that low a duration in PvE. In PvP, I might cast it before going into combat because every little bit helps, but I probably won't recast it, or even worry about my opponent having it up unless it's crazily powerful. If anything I'll just stall and wait for it to go away. And I'm not sure that "minor inconvenience" is a space that we'll want to see barriers in, so that will probably be a tough balance.
As a side note, if barriers are going to be intended as primarily a PvP thing, can we please not have the spells cost very much? From a game design perspective, I really would not like DR to turn into a game where characters are "PvP specced" or not.
DR-RAESH
Re: Damage Barriers
05/10/2015 11:01 PM CDT
Part of the problem with the whole PvP vs PvE thing is that, as Kodius has mentioned, for an assortment of reasons creatures tend not hit very hard, even when they do connect - which makes the chronic underhunting (Which then requires 4v1 spawns) even worse.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
BADGOPHER
Re: Damage Barriers
05/11/2015 07:07 AM CDT
>creatures tend not hit very hard, even when they do connect - which makes the chronic underhunting (Which then requires 4v1 spawns) even worse.
It's basic game theory. Death equals loss of time (significant if you can't dispel death's sting or boost spirit recovery), as well as loss of filled pools. Players in any game look for ways to maximize power gain per unit time (whether that's exp, money, etc.). Making critters hit harder certainly wouldn't change that.
It's basic game theory. Death equals loss of time (significant if you can't dispel death's sting or boost spirit recovery), as well as loss of filled pools. Players in any game look for ways to maximize power gain per unit time (whether that's exp, money, etc.). Making critters hit harder certainly wouldn't change that.
JULIAN
Re: Damage Barriers
05/11/2015 08:12 AM CDT
It's just not worth it to hunt "at level" when you have to expend so much more energy and ingenuity to get similar exp. =( Like, I could hunt Cabalists but it's so much easier to hunt Lava Drakes and not have to work as hard to land hits.
Anyway, barriers.
1) Cool, barrier review is happening!
2) What will happen to Ethereal Shield? Right now it's an elemental-damage-only barrier. Would be neat if it could become a general damage ward instead.
2.5) Warrior Mages only have one intro warding spell, which is ES. If that becomes a Barrier and has a cool down, how will WMs (and other guilds in the same situation) train Warding at low skill levels?
Mazrian
Anyway, barriers.
1) Cool, barrier review is happening!
2) What will happen to Ethereal Shield? Right now it's an elemental-damage-only barrier. Would be neat if it could become a general damage ward instead.
2.5) Warrior Mages only have one intro warding spell, which is ES. If that becomes a Barrier and has a cool down, how will WMs (and other guilds in the same situation) train Warding at low skill levels?
Mazrian
DR-RAESH
Re: Damage Barriers
05/11/2015 08:34 AM CDT
>game theory stuff
That just means we're rewarding the wrong behaviors. But that really is outside the scope of this discussion.
>Warrior mage stuff
All guilds will get their barriers reviewed and new ones created as needed. I see no reason warrior mages shouldn't have a physical damage barrier of some flavor or another.
I just wouldn't count on ES becoming a general damage barrier - that's exactly the reverse of what were doing where most existing barriers are far too broad.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
That just means we're rewarding the wrong behaviors. But that really is outside the scope of this discussion.
>Warrior mage stuff
All guilds will get their barriers reviewed and new ones created as needed. I see no reason warrior mages shouldn't have a physical damage barrier of some flavor or another.
I just wouldn't count on ES becoming a general damage barrier - that's exactly the reverse of what were doing where most existing barriers are far too broad.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
JULIAN
Re: Damage Barriers
05/11/2015 09:22 AM CDT
>>All guilds will get their barriers reviewed and new ones created as needed. I see no reason warrior mages shouldn't have a physical damage barrier of some flavor or another.
I just wouldn't count on ES becoming a general damage barrier - that's exactly the reverse of what were doing where most existing barriers are far too broad.<<
Cool. Maybe that could become Yntrel Sechra's thing, then. It would fit with the original concept of the spell.
Is it your intention that each guild should more or less have access to one Ward and multiple Barriers within their native packages?
Mazrian
I just wouldn't count on ES becoming a general damage barrier - that's exactly the reverse of what were doing where most existing barriers are far too broad.<<
Cool. Maybe that could become Yntrel Sechra's thing, then. It would fit with the original concept of the spell.
Is it your intention that each guild should more or less have access to one Ward and multiple Barriers within their native packages?
Mazrian
DR-RAESH
Re: Damage Barriers
05/11/2015 02:01 PM CDT
We'll see what the mix ends up being. I'd expect at minimum a barrier and a ward in the AP spellbook to supplement each guild's native selection.
We want to offer choices after all.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
We want to offer choices after all.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
ORBITAL303
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 08:15 AM CDT
A decent compromise on duration would be having them be long, and then swapping to the short duration on the first hit they protect from IMO.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
OLSONM6
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 08:51 AM CDT
Or having them be long duration with a shorter cool down? So if you're using them to soak up a lot of damage you'll be in trouble, but if you're using them sparingly then you should be OK until you can re-cast? Or have them be re-castable but have integrity decay over time and have proc % be based on integrity, so more and more hits get through without being reduced at all as time goes on?
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
DR-RAESH
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 08:53 AM CDT
Slightly annoying to do mechanically... But it could be an option. It would make getting dispelled a fairly awful experience.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
KUYKEND9
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 09:15 AM CDT
>> It would make getting dispelled a fairly awful experience.
Shouldn't it be?
I
"[A]ll PC necromancers are now redeemed good guys..." ~ GM Raesh
Shouldn't it be?
I
"[A]ll PC necromancers are now redeemed good guys..." ~ GM Raesh
ORBITAL303
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 09:15 AM CDT
Reasons to dispel, yay.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 11:12 AM CDT
>>Slightly annoying to do mechanically... But it could be an option. It would make getting dispelled a fairly awful experience.
Mechanical nightmare aside, it would be cool if the integrity of your spell stance helped determine how short the cooldown was.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Mechanical nightmare aside, it would be cool if the integrity of your spell stance helped determine how short the cooldown was.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
OLSONM6
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 11:14 AM CDT
>Mechanical nightmare aside, it would be cool if the integrity of your spell stance helped determine how short the cooldown was.
Umm, doesn't your spell stance just determine the integrity of the spell?
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Umm, doesn't your spell stance just determine the integrity of the spell?
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 11:39 AM CDT
>>Umm, doesn't your spell stance just determine the integrity of the spell?
Integrity, potency, and duration.
My understanding (and own experience, even) is that no one really cares about integrity, because how often are people getting their offensive spells hit by barriers, let alone their barriers being hit by dispels. I think the GMs acknowledge this, and are trying to figure out ways to make people care about that more.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Integrity, potency, and duration.
My understanding (and own experience, even) is that no one really cares about integrity, because how often are people getting their offensive spells hit by barriers, let alone their barriers being hit by dispels. I think the GMs acknowledge this, and are trying to figure out ways to make people care about that more.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
OLSONM6
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 12:14 PM CDT
Right - so why not just base it off of the integrity of the spell, rather than the casters spell stance at the time?
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
DR-RAESH
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 12:41 PM CDT
>>I think the GMs acknowledge this, and are trying to figure out ways to make people care about that more.
Integrity is a nice in theory. In practice, it hasn't worked out that well. For it to work as intended we'd far broader adoption of dispel mechanics (Specifically, creatures armed with them) as step one. Not sure yet what direction we'll go here. I thought about basing barrier HP off Integrity, but then dispels vs thwacking someone are no longer two different axis to approach breaking a barrier.
>>Right - so why not just base it off of the integrity of the spell, rather than the casters spell stance at the time?
A spell's integrity is derived from a combination of mana + stance, just like potency and duration.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
Integrity is a nice in theory. In practice, it hasn't worked out that well. For it to work as intended we'd far broader adoption of dispel mechanics (Specifically, creatures armed with them) as step one. Not sure yet what direction we'll go here. I thought about basing barrier HP off Integrity, but then dispels vs thwacking someone are no longer two different axis to approach breaking a barrier.
>>Right - so why not just base it off of the integrity of the spell, rather than the casters spell stance at the time?
A spell's integrity is derived from a combination of mana + stance, just like potency and duration.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
JULIAN
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 12:54 PM CDT
>>My understanding (and own experience, even) is that no one really cares about integrity, because how often are people getting their offensive spells hit by barriers, let alone their barriers being hit by dispels. I think the GMs acknowledge this, and are trying to figure out ways to make people care about that more.<<
Possibly. It might be worth considering how worthwhile it is to tweak things so that people care about integrity. The magic system is already complex enough that it's hard to take advantage of all the variables in the heat of the moment. For instance it's pretty hard to discern fine variations in an enemy's casting. In a game with graphics for instance a target's low-integrity barrier could be represented with a different color so a canny player could take advantage but in DR that kind of information is hard to get across. Players are left to guess and generally will have a hard time figuring out if they guessed right. Same deal with TM spells. They use different damage templates and the variations do matter, but with the many layers of randomness involved and the actual numbers obscured it's hard to appreciate that.
TLDR, I think DR magic would benefit from simpler systems where the choices are less nuanced because the nuance tends to be hard to appreciate or take advantage of.
Mazrian
Possibly. It might be worth considering how worthwhile it is to tweak things so that people care about integrity. The magic system is already complex enough that it's hard to take advantage of all the variables in the heat of the moment. For instance it's pretty hard to discern fine variations in an enemy's casting. In a game with graphics for instance a target's low-integrity barrier could be represented with a different color so a canny player could take advantage but in DR that kind of information is hard to get across. Players are left to guess and generally will have a hard time figuring out if they guessed right. Same deal with TM spells. They use different damage templates and the variations do matter, but with the many layers of randomness involved and the actual numbers obscured it's hard to appreciate that.
TLDR, I think DR magic would benefit from simpler systems where the choices are less nuanced because the nuance tends to be hard to appreciate or take advantage of.
Mazrian
2DUMBARSE
Re: Damage Barriers
05/12/2015 12:59 PM CDT
>Slightly annoying to do mechanically... But it could be an option. It would make getting dispelled a fairly awful experience.
My issue with dispel being an answer to anything is it's still not possible to "cast (target) MAF." Some guilds can put up a ton of buffs and guaranteed dispels are essentially 100 mana casts. The chances I'll dispel a barrier or ward on the first or second or third attempt are statistically unlikely. Dispel is still good sometimes, not great. That might be different if dispel targeted barriers first, but I dunno. There's also the issue of: can't dispel NMUs.
Is it intended that people can keep up barriers throughout an entire hunt for new-barriers? I mean, that's really what it boils down to for me. Is it balanced such that they're still pretty powerful but can't be kept up for an entire fight, or have they been nerfed in effectiveness to the extent at it doesn't really matter if you can keep up wards and barriers for nearly the full duration of a hunt or spar.
Keep in mind, I'm in the camp that thinks damage mitigation, especially through spells and abilities, is too high across the board. I'm going to test new barriers with that in mind.
My issue with dispel being an answer to anything is it's still not possible to "cast (target) MAF." Some guilds can put up a ton of buffs and guaranteed dispels are essentially 100 mana casts. The chances I'll dispel a barrier or ward on the first or second or third attempt are statistically unlikely. Dispel is still good sometimes, not great. That might be different if dispel targeted barriers first, but I dunno. There's also the issue of: can't dispel NMUs.
Is it intended that people can keep up barriers throughout an entire hunt for new-barriers? I mean, that's really what it boils down to for me. Is it balanced such that they're still pretty powerful but can't be kept up for an entire fight, or have they been nerfed in effectiveness to the extent at it doesn't really matter if you can keep up wards and barriers for nearly the full duration of a hunt or spar.
Keep in mind, I'm in the camp that thinks damage mitigation, especially through spells and abilities, is too high across the board. I'm going to test new barriers with that in mind.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Damage Barriers
05/13/2015 10:52 AM CDT
>>Possibly. It might be worth considering how worthwhile it is to tweak things so that people care about integrity. The magic system is already complex enough that it's hard to take advantage of all the variables in the heat of the moment.
IMO, the spell system isn't that complex at all, but I also don't really pay attention to the spell stance system that much.
That said, my own view is that integrity is ignored with spells as much as durability with gear, which I consider pretty dumb.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
IMO, the spell system isn't that complex at all, but I also don't really pay attention to the spell stance system that much.
That said, my own view is that integrity is ignored with spells as much as durability with gear, which I consider pretty dumb.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
DAMIAN98
Re: Damage Barriers
05/13/2015 03:58 PM CDT
>2-5 minutes
I personally like the shorter duration, but this is quite extreme. I was thinking they would be brought down closer to the lay ward duration of 9-10 minutes. Despite the spell being overly powerful it feels like a good duration.
>COL
Is this going to apply for the shortened duration etc? And will the Celestial's still receive a bonus to the time allotted? We literally just finally got our sect bonus to the spell like a month ago when you fixed it lol.
Mmmmm...pie
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
I personally like the shorter duration, but this is quite extreme. I was thinking they would be brought down closer to the lay ward duration of 9-10 minutes. Despite the spell being overly powerful it feels like a good duration.
>COL
Is this going to apply for the shortened duration etc? And will the Celestial's still receive a bonus to the time allotted? We literally just finally got our sect bonus to the spell like a month ago when you fixed it lol.
Mmmmm...pie
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
DR-RAESH
Re: Damage Barriers
05/13/2015 07:58 PM CDT
We'll see where the durations end up needing to be. It's entirely possible 2-5 minutes is too short or we'll need a different model to work from - that's why I want this to spend some serious time in test before I start converting spells.
CoL... we'll see what happens with it. Most likely the Compact will keep their perk, but it'll be something different than duration (Sort of like Monks and Moonblades).
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
CoL... we'll see what happens with it. Most likely the Compact will keep their perk, but it'll be something different than duration (Sort of like Monks and Moonblades).
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
BADGOPHER
Re: Damage Barriers
05/13/2015 08:40 PM CDT
Question about thief (sagacity) barrier from another discussion in the thief forums.
Sagacity apparently takes 700-800 ranks in magic to use, at all.
Any chance on a base difficulty down tweak, so people with 100-200 ranks could use it? Or is something like that outside the scope of your current project? I understand if so.
Sagacity apparently takes 700-800 ranks in magic to use, at all.
Any chance on a base difficulty down tweak, so people with 100-200 ranks could use it? Or is something like that outside the scope of your current project? I understand if so.
DR-RAESH
Re: Damage Barriers
05/13/2015 08:57 PM CDT
That's something that could get looked at during this.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
BADGOPHER
Re: Damage Barriers
05/13/2015 09:07 PM CDT
Yay! I know you didn't say 'will' get looked at, but the chance it might is good enough for me.
NINEVAH1
Re: Damage Barriers
05/13/2015 11:10 PM CDT
>>Sagacity apparently takes 700-800 ranks in magic to use, at all.
Heh, that's a bit misleading to what I was meaning. You can start it up and use it with 200-300 IM/Utility, but the duration is so short and concentration drain so much for the average Thief with those ranks that it's just not useful in everyday use and the slot is better spent elsewhere. I could get it up and running for about 4-5 minutes with delay/kneeling with my grandfathered ranks, but I found it to be too much work for what little it helped. I can get a 6 minute duration with instant start while standing at my ranks now plus I've increased my concentration pool so I added it into my hunting script now. I would say it takes a lot of ranks to be useful as an everyday use barrier, not to be used at all.
Heh, that's a bit misleading to what I was meaning. You can start it up and use it with 200-300 IM/Utility, but the duration is so short and concentration drain so much for the average Thief with those ranks that it's just not useful in everyday use and the slot is better spent elsewhere. I could get it up and running for about 4-5 minutes with delay/kneeling with my grandfathered ranks, but I found it to be too much work for what little it helped. I can get a 6 minute duration with instant start while standing at my ranks now plus I've increased my concentration pool so I added it into my hunting script now. I would say it takes a lot of ranks to be useful as an everyday use barrier, not to be used at all.
BADGOPHER
Re: Damage Barriers
05/14/2015 07:18 AM CDT
>Heh, that's a bit misleading to what I was meaning. You can start it up and use it with 200-300 IM/Utility, but the duration is so short and concentration drain so much for the average Thief with those ranks that it's just not useful in everyday use
Oh. Well. It would still be great if it was functional as low as 200 ranks in magics, honestly. Thieves don't have a ton of defensive combat functions aside from 'hide', or 'make hiding better' or 'dodge' and the associated 'make dodging better', so having completely new toolsets at a middling level (50ish) would be great.
So despite my (honestly completely accidental) misleading initial post, I still hope the difficulty gets reviewed a bit.
Oh. Well. It would still be great if it was functional as low as 200 ranks in magics, honestly. Thieves don't have a ton of defensive combat functions aside from 'hide', or 'make hiding better' or 'dodge' and the associated 'make dodging better', so having completely new toolsets at a middling level (50ish) would be great.
So despite my (honestly completely accidental) misleading initial post, I still hope the difficulty gets reviewed a bit.
NINEVAH1
Re: Damage Barriers
05/14/2015 07:28 PM CDT
>> I still hope the difficulty gets reviewed a bit.
Me too.
Me too.
BRYCOLE83
Re: Damage Barriers
07/02/2015 02:16 PM CDT
>> Integrity is a nice in theory. In practice, it hasn't worked out that well. For it to work as intended we'd far broader adoption of dispel mechanics (Specifically, creatures armed with them) as step one. Not sure yet what direction we'll go here. I thought about basing barrier HP off Integrity, but then dispels vs thwacking someone are no longer two different axis to approach breaking a barrier.
One of the problems I have with spell stance on my moon mage is that it doesn't matter at max mana. So for all of my buffs, I ignore spell stance. (I think I can cap everything.) This leaves... debilitation & Tm and then any snap casting like shear. Debilitation is already insanely low duration from diminish returns, integrity doesn't matter that much right now, (especially since you can just put more mana in to get past barriers), so naturally goes into potency. TM, well doesn't have duration so I guess that doesn't matter.
But I guess you couldn't really have 130% potency at spell cap because it would likely break global cap. I wouldn't need extra duration from max cap spells either. So it would just naturally go into integrity. Which is nice but not much of a choice.
On the other hand, for my low level necromancy, I use duration 130% for all my DO spells which is a huge asset. For non DO spells I use potency 30%. Haven't needed integrity yet, and hopefully not for a long time!
Alright, there's no easy solution! Haha... forgive my ramblings.
Also... maybe this isn't the right thread. Where did the other one go?
One of the problems I have with spell stance on my moon mage is that it doesn't matter at max mana. So for all of my buffs, I ignore spell stance. (I think I can cap everything.) This leaves... debilitation & Tm and then any snap casting like shear. Debilitation is already insanely low duration from diminish returns, integrity doesn't matter that much right now, (especially since you can just put more mana in to get past barriers), so naturally goes into potency. TM, well doesn't have duration so I guess that doesn't matter.
But I guess you couldn't really have 130% potency at spell cap because it would likely break global cap. I wouldn't need extra duration from max cap spells either. So it would just naturally go into integrity. Which is nice but not much of a choice.
On the other hand, for my low level necromancy, I use duration 130% for all my DO spells which is a huge asset. For non DO spells I use potency 30%. Haven't needed integrity yet, and hopefully not for a long time!
Alright, there's no easy solution! Haha... forgive my ramblings.
Also... maybe this isn't the right thread. Where did the other one go?
