Astralporing.1957 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > This doesn't really solve the issue of active defense being overpowered and requiring little to no player investment to be good. True, it requires no investment. Instead, it requires _skill_. That's what your proposals are all about - you'd rather the system rewarded investment than skill. While i agree that the difference between skill floor and ceiling effectiveness is probably too big, i don't really want this game to get dumbed down. Also, how are you going to solve the issue of _passive_ defence being overpowered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 25, 2019 Author Share Posted July 25, 2019 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > This doesn't really solve the issue of active defense being overpowered and requiring little to no player investment to be good. > True, it requires no investment. Instead, it requires _skill_. That's what your proposals are all about - you'd rather the system rewarded investment than skill. > > While i agree that the difference between skill floor and ceiling effectiveness is probably too big, i don't really want this game to get dumbed down. > > Also, how are you going to solve the issue of _passive_ defence being overpowered? Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrigginPaco.4178 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 I do feel certain changes could be made to improve combat. One for example, could be to have Toughness be a _negative_ multiplier to an enemy's ferocity. Here's how I mean: Every X amount of toughness over the standard 1000, lets say 100 for now, Removes Y% of an opponent's critical **damage multiplier**. So, if Player A has 200% crit damage, and player B has toughness modifier of 20%, Player A (or even a monster) needs to get through the toughness AND suffer reduced amounts critical damage to a final calculation of 180% critical damage, which is THEN applied to the base damage. I feel this could be most helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Unless the formulas for damage have changed, the work that was done to characterize the DPS for various prefixes is as relevant now as when the game was released. Other than some group engineering or permabuffs you can grant yourself, you either take berserker or Vipers if you want to max your DPS. The question is WAY more complicated if you want to mix in defensive traits ... basically, you take enough for it be effective, not too much to degrade your DPS. No easy analysis there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 26, 2019 Author Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. People already use proper positioning the right abilities at the right time (dodging are one of those abilites btw) and understanding their limitations to then work around them so why were those boost to passive defences needed again? As others have already said relying more on passive invested defence would lead to less need to use your head aka less skillfull play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. Nerfing active defences to punish poor play is one thing. Compensating this change with making passive defences more potent is another. You are not tying the skill component to passive defences. That's ludicrous. You are tying the survival aspect of the game play to passive stats which by their very definition are passive. Thus they do not contribute in any way to the combat while it is happening. You still fail to understand the basic design of this game combat system with active defences. It can be summarized as follows: **Use as little defensive stats as needed, use as much offensive stats as possible.** Every build in all game modes can be summed up and explained that way. PvE uses almost no defensive stats since fights are scripted. Competative game modes use more defensive stats since players are not scripted (and even go as far as setup defensive builds to protect party members in charge of damage, like berserker scourges or weavers who are covered by thei parties Firebrand and Scrapper supports). With your desire to make defensive stats more important, all you are doing is altering the minium requirement for defensive stats. That's not enaging gameplay nor does it make more stat combination viable. At best it simply shifts the used stat combinations to something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 26, 2019 Author Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Linken.6345" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > > > Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. > > People already use proper positioning the right abilities at the right time (dodging are one of those abilites btw) and understanding their limitations to then work around them so why were those boost to passive defences needed again? > As others have already said relying more on passive invested defence would lead to less need to use your head aka less skillfull play. Gosh it's really clear I'm talking over heads here. But, that's okay, keep defending something that clearly isn't tuned right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 26, 2019 Author Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > > > Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. > > Nerfing active defences to punish poor play is one thing. > > Compensating this change with making passive defences more potent is another. > > You are not tying the skill component to passive defences. That's ludicrous. You are tying the survival aspect of the game play to passive stats which by their very definition are passive. Thus they do not contribute in any way to the combat while it is happening. > > You still fail to understand the basic design of this game combat system with active defences. It can be summarized as follows: > > **Use as little defensive stats as needed, use as much offensive stats as possible.** > > Every build in all game modes can be summed up and explained that way. PvE uses almost no defensive stats since fights are scripted. Competative game modes use more defensive stats since players are not scripted (and even go as far as setup defensive builds to protect party members in charge of damage, like berserker scourges or weavers who are covered by thei parties Firebrand and Scrapper supports). With your desire to make defensive stats more important, all you are doing is altering the minium requirement for defensive stats. That's not enaging gameplay nor does it make more stat combination viable. At best it simply shifts the used stat combinations to something different. I understand it perfectly well, and am saying, unequivocally, that it's a flawed design that is harmful to the game and always has been. This is especially true, given PvE at least, that passive defense does virtually nothing to improve your survivability because the minor gains you make in ability to absorb damage are _more than offset_ by the reduced effectiveness in neutralizing threats, meaning that Toughness and Vitality are red herring stats that trick you into making yourself less effective. This is exacerbated by the dodge system, which works well without requiring any stat investment or trade-off. It doesn't make sense, and neither do any of the arguments opposed to revamping it to work better. If it had not been designed or tuned this way in the beginning, literally nobody would be suggesting it be changed to work this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > > > > > Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. > > > > Nerfing active defences to punish poor play is one thing. > > > > Compensating this change with making passive defences more potent is another. > > > > You are not tying the skill component to passive defences. That's ludicrous. You are tying the survival aspect of the game play to passive stats which by their very definition are passive. Thus they do not contribute in any way to the combat while it is happening. > > > > You still fail to understand the basic design of this game combat system with active defences. It can be summarized as follows: > > > > **Use as little defensive stats as needed, use as much offensive stats as possible.** > > > > Every build in all game modes can be summed up and explained that way. PvE uses almost no defensive stats since fights are scripted. Competative game modes use more defensive stats since players are not scripted (and even go as far as setup defensive builds to protect party members in charge of damage, like berserker scourges or weavers who are covered by thei parties Firebrand and Scrapper supports). With your desire to make defensive stats more important, all you are doing is altering the minium requirement for defensive stats. That's not enaging gameplay nor does it make more stat combination viable. At best it simply shifts the used stat combinations to something different. > > I understand it perfectly well, and am saying, unequivocally, that it's a flawed design that is harmful to the game and always has been. > > This is especially true, given PvE at least, that passive defense does virtually nothing to improve your survivability because the minor gains you make in ability to absorb damage are _more than offset_ by the reduced effectiveness in neutralizing threats. This is exacerbated by the dodge system, which works well without requiring any stat investment or trade-off. It doesn't make sense, and neither do any of the arguments opposed to revamping it to work better. If it had not been design this way, literally nobody would be suggesting it be changed to work this way. See, you keep repeating that but I fail to see any proof. Go and tank a raid with 1050 toughness, 1300 toughness, 1500 toughness, 1800 toughness and 2400 toughness. I guarantee you you will notice a difference between all of those values. You are basing your opinion on face-roll easy content, mostly open world I would persume. It is simply not applicable for challenging content or non-scripted content (Spvp+WvW). It's not even applicable for medium content like fractals where 2-3k life more can make a huge difference or some toughness. Go play a Heal firebrand with Minstrel gear and harrier gear. You WILL notice a difference. EDIT: oh and those values for toughness are not randomly chosen by me. They are or have been break points in the past or present for toughness for tanks. I have tanked literally every raid boss in this game multiple times with a variation of those values or very close to them (with my Full Minstrel chrono with toughness infusions hitting 2.4k). I know what I am talking about in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 26, 2019 Author Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > > > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > > > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > > > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > > > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > > > > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > > > > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > > > > > > > Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. > > > > > > Nerfing active defences to punish poor play is one thing. > > > > > > Compensating this change with making passive defences more potent is another. > > > > > > You are not tying the skill component to passive defences. That's ludicrous. You are tying the survival aspect of the game play to passive stats which by their very definition are passive. Thus they do not contribute in any way to the combat while it is happening. > > > > > > You still fail to understand the basic design of this game combat system with active defences. It can be summarized as follows: > > > > > > **Use as little defensive stats as needed, use as much offensive stats as possible.** > > > > > > Every build in all game modes can be summed up and explained that way. PvE uses almost no defensive stats since fights are scripted. Competative game modes use more defensive stats since players are not scripted (and even go as far as setup defensive builds to protect party members in charge of damage, like berserker scourges or weavers who are covered by thei parties Firebrand and Scrapper supports). With your desire to make defensive stats more important, all you are doing is altering the minium requirement for defensive stats. That's not enaging gameplay nor does it make more stat combination viable. At best it simply shifts the used stat combinations to something different. > > > > I understand it perfectly well, and am saying, unequivocally, that it's a flawed design that is harmful to the game and always has been. > > > > This is especially true, given PvE at least, that passive defense does virtually nothing to improve your survivability because the minor gains you make in ability to absorb damage are _more than offset_ by the reduced effectiveness in neutralizing threats. This is exacerbated by the dodge system, which works well without requiring any stat investment or trade-off. It doesn't make sense, and neither do any of the arguments opposed to revamping it to work better. If it had not been design this way, literally nobody would be suggesting it be changed to work this way. > > See, you keep repeating that but I fail to see any proof. Go and tank a raid with 1050 toughness, 1300 toughness, 1500 toughness, 1800 toughness and 2400 toughness. I guarantee you you will notice a difference between all of those values. > > You are basing your opinion on face-roll easy content, mostly open world I would persume. It is simply not applicable for challenging content or non-scripted content (Spvp+WvW). > > It's not even applicable for medium content like fractals where 2-3k life more can make a huge difference or some toughness. Go play a Heal firebrand with Minstrel gear and harrier gear. You WILL notice a difference. > > EDIT: oh and those values for toughness are not randomly chosen by me. They are or have been break points in the past or present for toughness for tanks. I have tanked literally every raid boss in this game multiple times with a variation of those values or very close to them (with my Full Minstrel chrono with toughness infusions hitting 2.4k). I know what I am talking about in that regard. Okay... none of that changes what I stated above for 99% of PvE content (and 100% for anyone who isn't a chronomancer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endaris.1452 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 Just like offensive stats have hardly perceivable advantages if you don't stack them very high, defensive stats work the same in that regard. You can faceroll most content on stuff like Soldier or Wanderer gear with eating almost all the damage, never dodging and pressing your heal off cooldown. The other day I was stuck between 3 Veteran Earth Djinn when doing the skyscale collection in Crystal Oasis with Wanderer gear and I never got below 50% health and eventually killed all 3 of them although I was effectively playing onehanded (no hand on my mouse) and played a low dps spec with suboptimal utilities. Yes, it took longer, but on Zerker gear I would have died with a onehanded no-dodge approach (trivia: my dodge button is on my mouse). Defensive stats do work. They are not fun to play because every enemy in level 80 areas has ridiculous amounts of health but that very low risk should definitely have its downsides. Active defense is a way more fun concept gameplaywise because it forces you to actually interact with your opponents. If you think that dodging out of or through a ticking damage field is boring then how boring is it to just stand in that and keep attacking with no regards to what the enemy does. If you have fun that way, you can already play like that. Now I can agree with OP's impression of champions in events basically consisting of oneshot attacks and that glass cannons can easily be ressurrected while even defensive build aren't able to sustain the outgoing damage of such champs. Yeah, that is kind of true and I don't enjoy it either. However this seems to be partially a problem inherent to scaling enemy stats up in an attempt to keep Group Events challenging. Although I have also met champions that would oneshot me on solo attempts as well. In the end I would not attribute this problem to defensive stats being too weak. You're not supposed to solokill these champions in the first place and if you still manage it, a near flawless execution of your build should be mandatory. Despite everyone apparently saying that defensive stats are irrelevant in PvE this really only seems to be true for endgame PvE content like Raids and FotM CMs where filling dedicated DPS roles is actually desired AND toughness tanking might be a relevant factor. I've ran T4 fractals for months on a Celestial Staff Tempest. The optimal allround PvE Weaver build presented by Cellofrag uses Marshal, Celestial and Crusader stats. Personally I enjoy playing Marauder on my Guard and Celestial on my Necro in Open World. Wanderer Scrapper is a lot of fun in explorable dungeons for me. These builds require arguably less awareness to get their job done and they're accordingly slower. It's fine. High risk from going glass cannon should yield a high reward if you manage to exploit your active defenses to the fullest. And let's be realistic, on endgame PvE content, especially fractals, it's not like you'll easily have a dodge for every attack of the enemy. Just doesn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > > > > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > > > > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > > > > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > > > > > > > > > Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. > > > > > > > > Nerfing active defences to punish poor play is one thing. > > > > > > > > Compensating this change with making passive defences more potent is another. > > > > > > > > You are not tying the skill component to passive defences. That's ludicrous. You are tying the survival aspect of the game play to passive stats which by their very definition are passive. Thus they do not contribute in any way to the combat while it is happening. > > > > > > > > You still fail to understand the basic design of this game combat system with active defences. It can be summarized as follows: > > > > > > > > **Use as little defensive stats as needed, use as much offensive stats as possible.** > > > > > > > > Every build in all game modes can be summed up and explained that way. PvE uses almost no defensive stats since fights are scripted. Competative game modes use more defensive stats since players are not scripted (and even go as far as setup defensive builds to protect party members in charge of damage, like berserker scourges or weavers who are covered by thei parties Firebrand and Scrapper supports). With your desire to make defensive stats more important, all you are doing is altering the minium requirement for defensive stats. That's not enaging gameplay nor does it make more stat combination viable. At best it simply shifts the used stat combinations to something different. > > > > > > I understand it perfectly well, and am saying, unequivocally, that it's a flawed design that is harmful to the game and always has been. > > > > > > This is especially true, given PvE at least, that passive defense does virtually nothing to improve your survivability because the minor gains you make in ability to absorb damage are _more than offset_ by the reduced effectiveness in neutralizing threats. This is exacerbated by the dodge system, which works well without requiring any stat investment or trade-off. It doesn't make sense, and neither do any of the arguments opposed to revamping it to work better. If it had not been design this way, literally nobody would be suggesting it be changed to work this way. > > > > See, you keep repeating that but I fail to see any proof. Go and tank a raid with 1050 toughness, 1300 toughness, 1500 toughness, 1800 toughness and 2400 toughness. I guarantee you you will notice a difference between all of those values. > > > > You are basing your opinion on face-roll easy content, mostly open world I would persume. It is simply not applicable for challenging content or non-scripted content (Spvp+WvW). > > > > It's not even applicable for medium content like fractals where 2-3k life more can make a huge difference or some toughness. Go play a Heal firebrand with Minstrel gear and harrier gear. You WILL notice a difference. > > > > EDIT: oh and those values for toughness are not randomly chosen by me. They are or have been break points in the past or present for toughness for tanks. I have tanked literally every raid boss in this game multiple times with a variation of those values or very close to them (with my Full Minstrel chrono with toughness infusions hitting 2.4k). I know what I am talking about in that regard. > > Okay... none of that changes what I stated above for 99% of PvE content (and 100% for anyone who isn't a chronomancer). I've tanked on multiple classes and yes it does (the comment about chrono was in case people were wondering how I got to 2.4k since full minstrel stops around 2.3k toughness), because balance is done around challenging content. The fact you want to balance this games combat around some insignificant content is illogical. Obviously defensive stats will be of less value when enemies are less dangerous... For antying else, people can go more defensive (just not bad defensive sets like soldier) and work with that. See the poster above me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackarps.1974 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 I just don't like the power creep. Firebrand and Scourge both hitting so many targets in AOE is not skilled play. Its button mashing. It has also made things like combo fields absolutely useless because every field just gets overlapped by the next. The amount of boons and condis you can throw around is just too much even after they tried to tone it all back. In some settings, you pretty much have a full boon bar 24/7. That's not abusive, its just how the game plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > This is especially true, given PvE at least, that passive defense does virtually nothing to improve your survivability because the minor gains you make in ability to absorb damage are _more than offset_ by the reduced effectiveness in neutralizing threats, meaning that Toughness and Vitality are red herring stats that trick you into making yourself less effective. This is exacerbated by the dodge system, which works well without requiring any stat investment or trade-off. That's true only for some very narrow ranges of offensive and defensive stats. Yes, going from a build fully specialized for dps into one that sacrificed some of the offensive stats for defence is going to cost you a lot of damage for a negligible defence increase. In the same vein, sacrificing some defensive stats from a full bunker build for some offense is going to cost you a lot of survivability for negligible damage gain. Go from full dps builds to a full bunker however, and you will easily notice how those defensive stats visibly improve your survivability. Go from full bunker to full glass, and you will notice that you suddenly started dying way more often, because hits that you barely noticed before now hurt like kittens (and believe me, kittens can hurt a lot). Yes, full bunker builds can already facetank most of the content. In Open World they can solo tank practically anything short of world bosses, and they can do that without using any active defenses at all. The only reason why people do not use those builds more often is because almost noone wants to sacrifice a lot of time for that sense of security. So, please, do say how do you want to make those builds that rely on only passive defence and heal skill to be practically unkillable stronger than they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zin Dau.1749 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 This thread is all kinds of wrong and looking at the wrong mentality. * The goal of combat is to kill/defeat the opponent. Most games and sports, really, have the offense be more dominant attraction than defense. It's a natural conclusion with many competitive events, because you can't win without offense, but you can without (great) defense. * A designer's priority shouldn't be "I want a game that has all these stats and they must all be equally useful for every player at every point of the game." No good designer chases these vapid, unwanted design goals. * Rather, games are meant to be played and consumed for player enjoyment, and a good designer should understand what the playerbase desires. Vast majority of players prefer to be offensive rather than defensive. This is true for most action games. * That is to not encourage entirely removal of defense. Since GW2 does have many forms and layers of defense. It's just hyperbolic for you to claim that the lack of one type of defense and disuse of certain stats among long list of stats, is toxic. Nevertheless, a huge amount of players are enjoying the combat. * There's always some idealist who think they can perfectly balance all the stats. Fact is, when players have to choose a select few out of many, obviously some things will be left behind and neglected. * Furthermore, as players gain more skill and experience, they will learn what stats and game actions they need and don't need. In PVE, usually passive defense is the first to go, because players prefer more proactive skills and stronger offense. That's just a natural behavior in any game where players desire to overcome opposition. * Even in RPGs with so-called "trinity" where defense is highly required, yet vast majority of players will still desire to play the damage dealer role rather than defensive or healing role. No amount of boosting defense and armor can change human behavior. Even if all players only deal a measly amount and had huge armor, players will find ways to try to boost offense at the expense of armor. * IIRC the metagame of berserker gear really took off when players got better and better at beating fractals as they got more skilled and experienced. Such that they can do it better, faster, as they learned to survive with less armor and toughness and health. In fact, you can see the same trend in many games. It has nothing to do with the utility of passive defense in any given game. It is merely people willing to accept the risks for greater efficiency and time-savings. Where such risks can be overcome by personal skill despite their (virtual character's) defensive flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 The question isn't if changing something is an enormous benefit ... it's about for who. I see almost no business case for doing what the OP suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I and many others, based on the other responses I've seen, agree it would be more boring. I could just as easily say that you're previous statement that current gameplay is shallow is a hollow statement. Passive defenses are currently fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a classic case of status quo bias. The fact that about half the people in this thread agree with me despite me suggesting radical changes to the current state is a huge indicator that something is actually wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the sake of argument, I went back and read most of the posts in the thread and I'd have to say...no, most people don't necessarily agree with you. Just cause you yourself have made a bunch of posts doesn't mean a ton of people agree with you. And most of the ones that you could argue a maybe with didn't necessarily agree with your solution, but rather offered a different one or didn't agree it was worth the overhaul. > > > > > > > > I'll concede that some active defenses are probably a little too overtuned, but that doesn't require an overhaul of the system...it just requires those skills/traits/whatever they are being tweaked. As for passive defensive stats currently being useless. They aren't. I see that as a fallacious statement. Plenty of builds use them to great effect in PvP modes as I've stated numerous times. Are there tons of available stat combos that are arguably useless? Yeah, but I feel like many of them are because the stat distrubutions are > > > > > > > > The only "status quo" I guess I'm biased toward is that...who gives a kitten about it in PvE. I'm perfectly fine with it not taking forever to kill trash mobs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, they do, based upon the likes of my posts as well as posts stating similar things throughout the thread. They may not perfectly agree with every suggestion I've made, but more people than not recognize that there's a problem with the way things are tuned today. > > > > > > > > > > > > Go re-read the thread. > > > > > > > > > > I've read through it numerous times. > > > > > > > > Then you're the one suffering from a confirmation bias. > > > > > > Every single highly rated post in the thread is critical of the status quo. So, no, that isn't me. > > > > And not all of them necessarily agree with you. > > You are being pedantic to try to cover the weakness of your argument. Virtually nobody has ideas on how to fix problems that are in perfect alignment with each other. The point is that players disproportionately see there's a problem with how things are balanced with the stats. > > Ultimately, it doesn't even matter. The entire player base could be against my proposed changes and that wouldn't actually be telling at all regarding the quality of the ideas. This is something you see all the time out in the real world. New idea faces extreme criticism until they are implemented and everyone actually realizes it was a good idea. Just as common as the opposite. > > Literally all the opposition I see in this thread is some variation of "no it's fine don't change it" or "you want to make combat boring" - arguments that hold no water whatsoever, especially in light of absolute dominance of berserker in the game. When you condense other people's arguments down to nonsensical statements like "you want to make combat boring", then it's easy to say that they don't hold water. Nice straw man. Berserker dominates because if you can survive adequately using the highest damage stats, then you gain best advantage by doing so. Changing that necessarily requires shifting the balance away from active defenses in favor of passive defenses so that you can't survive adequately using the highest damage stats. That is exactly what you're suggesting and, if you prefer active defenses over passive defenses, then that will "make combat boring." How is that not a valid criticism of your suggestions? Speaking of your suggestions, I see a lot of generalizations and not a whole lot of specifics. When pressed, you say that the details are up to ANet. Are you sure you actually have an idea here? Because I'm not seeing much in the way of ideas. Just a lot of logical fallacy and mental gymnastics to claim that you're right and everyone else doesn't have a defensible position. If all you do is force players to use passive defense stats on their gear, you've changed nothing. The devil is in the details here. Specifically what is going to change for the better if we do this? Or are we simply going to have the same system, but with monsters dealing more damage intended to be countered somewhat by passive defense? Presumably, the bar will still settle at the point at which competent players can maximize damage and that will be the meta. Where is the game changer here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > > > > > Hitting v to dodge more /= more skill. Skillful playing involves proper positioning, using the right abilities at the right time, and understanding your limitations and working around them. So, yes, nerfing active defense and tying it to a stat would further emphasize both investment needs for defense and skill while playing. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. It's not the most complicated thing in the universe. > > > > Nerfing active defences to punish poor play is one thing. > > > > Compensating this change with making passive defences more potent is another. > > > > You are not tying the skill component to passive defences. That's ludicrous. You are tying the survival aspect of the game play to passive stats which by their very definition are passive. Thus they do not contribute in any way to the combat while it is happening. > > > > You still fail to understand the basic design of this game combat system with active defences. It can be summarized as follows: > > > > **Use as little defensive stats as needed, use as much offensive stats as possible.** > > > > Every build in all game modes can be summed up and explained that way. PvE uses almost no defensive stats since fights are scripted. Competative game modes use more defensive stats since players are not scripted (and even go as far as setup defensive builds to protect party members in charge of damage, like berserker scourges or weavers who are covered by thei parties Firebrand and Scrapper supports). With your desire to make defensive stats more important, all you are doing is altering the minium requirement for defensive stats. That's not enaging gameplay nor does it make more stat combination viable. At best it simply shifts the used stat combinations to something different. > > I understand it perfectly well, and am saying, unequivocally, that it's a flawed design that is harmful to the game and always has been. > > This is especially true, given PvE at least, that passive defense does virtually nothing to improve your survivability because the minor gains you make in ability to absorb damage are _more than offset_ by the reduced effectiveness in neutralizing threats, meaning that Toughness and Vitality are red herring stats that trick you into making yourself less effective. This is exacerbated by the dodge system, which works well without requiring any stat investment or trade-off. > > It doesn't make sense, and neither do any of the arguments opposed to revamping it to work better. If it had not been designed or tuned this way in the beginning, literally nobody would be suggesting it be changed to work this way. That really depends on what sort of PvE you're talking about. It's certainly true in challenging group content, where players can utilize support from other players to supplement their ability to survive. You dodge the big hits, take the small hits, and let area heals/boons do the work of keeping you alive. But what about solo content? If a boss deals heavy damage and you can't lean on other players for support, passive defenses can allow you to play more aggressively, thereby compensating for the damage lost by dropping some offensive stats for defensive stats. For example... Viper Mirage vs. Champion Mushroom Queen Trailblazer Mirage vs. Champion Mushroom Queen By trading out power/precision for vitality/toughness, this fight goes a lot more smoothly. I'm not pressured and I'm able to spend more time up close using axe for better damage whereas in Viper I am forced to play more defensively and spend more time at range using staff, which deals less damage. This wouldn't be a factor in group content where I have support. But playing solo, those passive stats can actually make you more effective in some situations. There also a number of bounty bosses that I can't beat using Viper stats that I can easily beat using Trailblazer. Such as... Trailblazer Mirage vs. Legendary Starcaller 9.3k DPS isn't great, but it isn't bad and, as you can see, it's more than sufficient to beat the timer on a legendary bounty. The point is that you can find all sorts of areas where passive stats are useful. Solo PvE, PvP, and WvW all find a place for passive stats. That you don't use them in group PvE is not necessarily a failing of this game. The argument could be made that it's simply part of cooperative play. Your support/healing classes have a place because your damage dealers are too fragile to survive on their own. If that weren't the case, who is to say that the dynamic would change to be less varied, with more classes focused on playing the role of maximum DPS with no real need for cooperation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 27, 2019 Author Share Posted July 27, 2019 delete this post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 27, 2019 Author Share Posted July 27, 2019 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I and many others, based on the other responses I've seen, agree it would be more boring. I could just as easily say that you're previous statement that current gameplay is shallow is a hollow statement. Passive defenses are currently fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a classic case of status quo bias. The fact that about half the people in this thread agree with me despite me suggesting radical changes to the current state is a huge indicator that something is actually wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the sake of argument, I went back and read most of the posts in the thread and I'd have to say...no, most people don't necessarily agree with you. Just cause you yourself have made a bunch of posts doesn't mean a ton of people agree with you. And most of the ones that you could argue a maybe with didn't necessarily agree with your solution, but rather offered a different one or didn't agree it was worth the overhaul. > > > > > > > > > I'll concede that some active defenses are probably a little too overtuned, but that doesn't require an overhaul of the system...it just requires those skills/traits/whatever they are being tweaked. As for passive defensive stats currently being useless. They aren't. I see that as a fallacious statement. Plenty of builds use them to great effect in PvP modes as I've stated numerous times. Are there tons of available stat combos that are arguably useless? Yeah, but I feel like many of them are because the stat distrubutions are > > > > > > > > > The only "status quo" I guess I'm biased toward is that...who gives a kitten about it in PvE. I'm perfectly fine with it not taking forever to kill trash mobs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, they do, based upon the likes of my posts as well as posts stating similar things throughout the thread. They may not perfectly agree with every suggestion I've made, but more people than not recognize that there's a problem with the way things are tuned today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go re-read the thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've read through it numerous times. > > > > > > > > > > Then you're the one suffering from a confirmation bias. > > > > > > > > Every single highly rated post in the thread is critical of the status quo. So, no, that isn't me. > > > > > > And not all of them necessarily agree with you. > > > > You are being pedantic to try to cover the weakness of your argument. Virtually nobody has ideas on how to fix problems that are in perfect alignment with each other. The point is that players disproportionately see there's a problem with how things are balanced with the stats. > > > > Ultimately, it doesn't even matter. The entire player base could be against my proposed changes and that wouldn't actually be telling at all regarding the quality of the ideas. This is something you see all the time out in the real world. New idea faces extreme criticism until they are implemented and everyone actually realizes it was a good idea. Just as common as the opposite. > > > > Literally all the opposition I see in this thread is some variation of "no it's fine don't change it" or "you want to make combat boring" - arguments that hold no water whatsoever, especially in light of absolute dominance of berserker in the game. > > When you condense other people's arguments down to nonsensical statements like "you want to make combat boring", then it's easy to say that they don't hold water. Nice straw man. No - that's literally the argument he and some others have made. You're applying bias because you think the system is fine and dislike my dogmatism to the contrary, which is why only people who disagree with me are still following the thread. It's the emotional entrenchment effect. > If all you do is force players to use passive defense stats on their gear, you've changed nothing. I like how you condensed my argument down to a nonsensical statement like "I want to force players to use passive defense stats on their gear." Nice strawman. If you "didn't see much in the way of ideas" you must not have read my first post, which was a detailed layout of what I thought was wrong and how to fix it. Maybe try reading that first before posting. What you **actually** aren't seeing is any detailed analysis or ideas in my response to my suggestions - just random dead-end arguments about how it would make combat more boring. There were, eventually, a few questions that I should take the time to respond to, but it's difficult when posts like this keep interfering. I have given plenty of detail. It is not up to me to figure out the precise numerical values that would result in the greatest balance, and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise - that is done through ongoing tuning and balance updates. There's a ton of analysis in this thread, especially on page 1, about why the current status quo harms the design of PvE encounters and how nerfing active defenses or requiring players to invest in it would not only improve attribute parity, but would create an opportunity to significantly improve and streamline combat in general. Hannelore's post sums it up rather well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 27, 2019 Author Share Posted July 27, 2019 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. You, again, commit a logical fallacy right out of the gate, here. Investment + skill into some zero-sum paradigm. And, to prove this point, can you do 34K DPS with either alone? That's why investment and skill should both be seen as important, and not in conflict with either other. There's nowhere else in the game where they are. > @"Astralporing.1957" said: >Or, to phrase it differently: is your intention for survivablility to rise, go down or stay the same as currently? Same question for player dps/mob survivability. >And how that would look for differnt stat sets? For berserker, for soldier, for nomad? There are a few problems that I'm trying to solve in a specific way. There are other ways they might be solved - a.) there is nothing resembling parity between different stat sets. Damage is nearly always more desirable for a variety of reasons, so the stats need to be balanced around that reality - meaning that defensive stats needs to carry more weight than offensive stats. Imagine a hypothetical where 10%-20% loss in DPS gets you 20-40% increase in survivability, and realize that should be a rough benchmark for Soldier vs Berserker. Maybe they are even weighted differently in PvE vs PvP since combat dynamics differ between the two. b.) passive defense is rendered mostly pointless by the over-emphasis on active defense. It is not my suggestion to remove active defense or even really to nerf it per se, it's to make it require investment the same way both offense and passive defense do. In doing so, it's also worth attempting to make passive defense and active defense complementary instead of redundant, which is why I suggested giving Armor a different formula that hybridizes division and subtraction so that it has a greater effect on smaller sources of damage than it does on larger sources of damage. c.) damage is too high for attrition kind of across the board, which might be solved dynamically with adjustments to defense (i.e. requiring players to invest in a stat to be good at active defense), but this would be a matter for subsequent tuning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > Again, you're using fallacious reasoning. > > > > > > a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well. > > It's not a false dichotomy. If 100% = X+Y, then he higher X is, the lower Y must be. If you increase importance of investment on something, you automatically decrease importance of skill for that. > > Also, i would heavily disagree with your baseless claim that active defences do not reward skill. > > > > > b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing. > > They _can't_ increase rewards for skilled playing. Not without increasing dependency of survival on active defences, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do. > > > > By the way, one of your proposals was ramping up on unavoidable damage - something that would be countermanded not by skill, but by gear. How that can be called increasing rewards for skilled play? How that can be even called leaving rewards for skilled play as they are now? > > > > No, in the end, what you want is to increase rewards for preparations done before combat, _at the cost of skilled play_. > > You, again, commit a logical fallacy right out of the gate, here. Investment + skill into some zero-sum paradigm. And, to prove this point, can you do 34K DPS with either alone? That's why investment and skill should both be seen as important, and not in conflict with either other. There's nowhere else in the game where they are. > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > >Or, to phrase it differently: is your intention for survivablility to rise, go down or stay the same as currently? Same question for player dps/mob survivability. > >And how that would look for differnt stat sets? For berserker, for soldier, for nomad? > > There are a few problems that I'm trying to solve in a specific way. There are other ways they might be solved - > > a.) there is nothing resembling parity between different stat sets. Damage is nearly always more desirable for a variety of reasons, so the stats need to be balanced around that reality - meaning that defensive stats needs to carry more weight than offensive stats. Imagine a hypothetical where 10%-20% loss in DPS gets you 20-40% increase in survivability, and realize that should be a rough benchmark for Soldier vs Berserker. Maybe they are even weighted differently in PvE vs PvP since combat dynamics differ between the two. > > b.) passive defense is rendered mostly pointless by the over-emphasis on active defense. It is not my suggestion to remove active defense or even really to nerf it per se, it's to make it require investment the same way both offense and passive defense do. In doing so, it's also worth attempting to make passive defense and active defense complementary instead of redundant, which is why I suggested giving Armor a different formula that hybridizes division and subtraction so that it has a greater effect on smaller sources of damage than it does on larger sources of damage. > > c.) damage is too high for attrition kind of across the board, which might be solved dynamically with adjustments to defense (i.e. requiring players to invest in a stat to be good at active defense), but this would be a matter for subsequent tuning. No you cant just the the investment is diffrent instead of defence stats you focus on offense stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seis.4736 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 With all honesty and sincere respect, this looks to me like a git gud issue. Just to share where i am coming from, i played power classes with soldiers stats before. From soldier i went to berserker, then marauder, and now back to berserker. Why? Because i found, the more i get familiar with the mechanics the more defense i can trade off for power. Active defense is not something you don't invest on. You invest on it with time, practice, and skill build selection. And even with all that you can still fail and lose to other people. So in my opinion, active defense shouldn't really be an argument vs. passive defense. You shouldn't nerf active defense just because passive defense isn't cutting it out for you (no offense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now