Discussion Index


1998 Topic Index

Posted by Rufus on 12/15

Okay, seeing as how the last round of 'tweaking' which was mostly drawn from discussion and suggestion from the discussion board came to even more complaints, I think we're at the point where the tweaking will slow down to a near halt. I really hate to say it, but...

'Sorry, wait for skilltrees' will be the game-balance question's default answer.


From: North Saturday, December 12, 02:06PM

Hehe, couldn't you have stopped before the change to fishshape =P


From: Rufus Saturday, December 12, 02:21PM

expect area tweaks (especially where mob stats are concerned). I'm exclusively referring to code tweaks in the above post.


From: Darkheart Saturday, December 12, 05:29PM

Had you realized which changes were thought necessary and which changes were thought irrelevant or superfluous through talking to the people actually involved in dealing with game balance everyday, the tweaking woul not have met with a response you've received now. Might as well stop area tweaking too, I don't see anyone rejoicing over it.

From: Marlow Saturday, December 12, 09:42PM

does that mean the absolutely horrid changes get to go back out?

From: Rufus Sunday, December 13, 01:32PM

Well, seeing as you have posted a reply to this, you know where the discussion board is, know how to post to it... why, when said things were suggested above did people not respond disfavorably?

Many of the things were taken directly from the discussion board, some from bug reports, others direct suggestions from players, and near as I can tell, the people who post, put in bug reports, and talk to imms are the ones who are 'dealing with the balance on a daily basis'.

again, I stand by the 'damned if we do, damned if we don't defense.' irregardless, not everyone's going to be happy with any given change, and in terms of vagueness, when someone reports something as 'being wrong' we're going to fix it in the best way we feel possible. Perhaps the changes aren't always right (cf the bind thing above, and it's forth- coming correction).

If you see someone posting a suggestion or a problem you don't disagree with, don't assume your silence means that we know you disapprove.


From: Darkheart Sunday, December 13, 04:40PM

Tell me exactly which of the changes were taken from the discussion board, as I hardly recall people complaining about stun being overpowered, that item damage should only be lessened for 3rd circles, and that bind was overpowered and given a chance to break simply by moving.

If you read these suggestions, you must've been on something, because the only suggestions that I've read was regarding item damage for all char types, stun being relatively worthless due to its high mana cost, that 100 mind mages needed more of a boost rather than a reduction (a boost in bind, if anything) and such.

You have no right to stand by "damned if we do, damned if we don't" since you only qualify for the first statement. Damned if you don't. I personally don't see much wrong in that.

From: Sandra Sunday, December 13, 05:06PM

You hardly remember people complaining about item damage from firestorm? I think the question is what are YOU on? There are two posts on this board regarding item damage and 3rd circle fire spells. Not to mention the chat conversations on the same.

There's also some about stun being over powered that are now archived on the web pages. And again, many discussions on chat about the same. And if I'm not mistaken I remember it may have been a Q&A where someone suggested the bind change.

There are also some posts about stun's change(previous to this last one), and 3rd circle needing more incentive to get 100 mind.

From: Darkheart Sunday, December 13, 05:59PM

Item damage, yes. Limited to 3rd circles, NO.

Stun being overpowered -- not brought up after its cost was raised.

More incentive to get 100 mind yes, but through weakening bind, no.

More incentive to get 100 mind yes, but through imposing arbitrary lines such as 10 mind diff (which makes it impossible for creates to worse for wear 100 mind mobs -- well, not impossible, but much harder to do) or a 60 mind req (if anything, it should have been higher, because 60 mind IS the bare minimum for 3rd circles, so no NEW incentive was added other than disadvantaging those of the 2nd circle).

More incentive to get 100 mind yes, but making it less appealing for 2nd circles (since their chance of wfw got reduced) no.

From: T-Bone Sunday, December 13, 09:41PM

I commented on the stun change b4 it was implemented in that the 60 mind req wasn't required and it even seems the original poster agreed. Why? one gives up a lot for even 50 mind 35 spirit and stun is the main reason for being a low mage at all. We can spam for sink, str, bless, armor & spells for prepping mobs leaving just stun & blind for cause, stun & blinding flash which is rarely used for create.

One with lower than 60 mind will backlash against 25 mind every other fight anyway.

From: T-Bone Sunday, December 13, 09:48PM

I'd also better mention once again that I do agree that higher mind should wfw more often, I just don't agree with the pre-req.

Backlashing on str fighters & wfw's being rare seems enough to me.

From: North Monday, December 14, 04:35PM

Actually, I'm kinda happy with the changes, I don't think it would be very fair that low dex can't kick high dex, but low mind can stun high mind.


From: T-Bone Tuesday, December 15, 10:08AM

?? low dex kick can land on higher dex, low mind will backlash enough at equal mind for even that to not be worthwhile. Anyway, whos saying low mind should stun higher mind?


1998 Topic Index