I would also be more happy with OF RA system because it would reflect old classic style in a better way, but I have the feeling that most people would like to change the RA system because they see or think that something is OP and forget that even the old system is not perfect or balanced.

The result would be the starting of new complains.

Imho this issue should be solved in another way.

Ramsia wrote:I would also be more happy with OF RA system because it would reflect old classic style in a better way, but I have the feeling that most people would like to change the RA system because they see or think that something is OP and forget that even the old system is not perfect or balanced.

The result would be the starting of new complains.

Imho this issue should be solved in another way.

/salutes original thinking

Zippity wrote:Like i said, you take the bad with the good. Any system implemented will have its faults. My point is over consistancy, which there is a lack of at present. Sticking to a standard (whatever that standard may be) would demonstrate consistancy. Doing whatever the hell you feel like it whenever you feel like it = not consistant, and imo not a good way to begin any rational discussion over what should/shouldnt be changed.

Sticking to a standard leaves no room for improvement whatsoever.

Zippity wrote:/salutes original thinking

Original? Hmm.. he's just saying OF RAs might bring other problems with it. Solving it in another way means customising, ie nerfing viper 3 and fixing archery dmg.

Does that still sound so original?

Standards can be revised, and updated to fit the current circumstances. The importance here is to KEEP consistant to the standard set until you change it. Setting a standard and then implement things that are contrary to what the standard is or ambiguous just makes for a lot of problems...


And about the previous poster's comments...

I was complementing them on making a proposition that we think of something else here instead of getting bogged down into an "old frontiers vs new frontiers" discussion, and for the reasons previously mentioned by myself and apparently, this person as well. Customizing is fine PROVIDED that the server has a clear direction and umabiguous standard set for what/how changes will be made.

Zippity wrote:Standards can be revised, and updated to fit the current circumstances.

This is customising, whether you like it or not, it's just a different way of saying it. Everyone can call for a revision or update to this or that standard due to circumstaces, but in the end it's all still customising regarding to one standard. If the standard can be customised, you can hardly call it a standard anymore.


Sorry Zippity but I don't think that's a viable way to create the balance there should be on Uthgard.

I don't see how you are going to set a standard (besides OF, which also isn't good if I read ur posts ) that fixes the viper 3 issue without customising it outside of the standard.


Imo, the only standard should be: balanced gameplay in a classic setting (with 1.80 as a border). I don't see what you have against this standard. In the end it's the staff that determines what's getting changed and what not. However I think it should be perfectly possible for the players to lay out a problem and argument clearly why it is destroying the balance and should be customised.
After all this server is far from perfectly balanced and I believe the players should try to help bring issues to the staffs attention instead of having a standard as a dictator to determine whether something is right or wrong, while in reality the standard is wrong.

Of course you can say: what is balanced gameplay? Well I don't think there's a clear answer to that in DAoC, however I do think it's possible, but only by customising. There's no given standard that offers a perfectly balanced setting. The only one (regarding RAs) that comes close on this server is Old Realm Abilities. But then again for some reason it's not good enough.

I share your concerns the already opened pandora's box of a neverending nerf&complaints-cycle, Zippity.

Clearly defined rules in a standard should be best suited to prevent that.
BUT from what i have heard, it always has been policy of the Uthgard team to adjust grossly imbalanced things.

Salbei mentioned in a posting the huge PA/BS-dmg, that there initially was for assassins on Uth, that has been toned down. Then recently e.g. the critshot-nerf. Animist-nerf.
In the case of critshot it is clearly not a bugfix like it says in the changelog(2.3.2009), because it doesn't only take away the ability of a crit to crit in itself also, but it took away the ability to fire critshots in a row(crit followed by crits) by making it a toggle-button.

So i guess pandora's box has been opened already a long time ago and i personally share Zarkor's view here.

Fresa.

Balancing healer with merc is what?
Right: to polemize.

In this particular thread it's about balancing the stealthwars, so yes we discuss that here and not 8vs8 issues.

Then i have to ask you:
Do you think, that players, who love playing a stealther instead of a grpchar don't deserve a balanced playing experience? Are these players of minor value than grp orientated players?

There is no priority for any class to be fixed first imo. It should all come down to the size of the impact of the imbalance. If you meant that, i am with you there.

Fresa.

p.s.: obviously vangonaj has deleted the posting i was referring too.

Fresa wrote:I share your concerns the already opened pandora's box of a neverending nerf&complaints-cycle, Zippity.

Clearly defined rules in a standard should be best suited to prevent that.
BUT from what i have heard, it always has been policy of the Uthgard team to adjust grossly imbalanced things.

Salbei mentioned in a posting the huge PA/BS-dmg, that there initially was for assassins on Uth, that has been toned down. Then recently e.g. the critshot-nerf. Animist-nerf.
In the case of critshot it is clearly not a bugfix like it says in the changelog(2.3.2009), because it doesn't only take away the ability of a crit to crit in itself also, but it took away the ability to fire critshots in a row(crit followed by crits) by making it a toggle-button.

So i guess pandora's box has been opened already a long time ago and i personally share Zarkor's view here.

Fresa.

They changed the critshot mechanic to work like rapid fire. But that caused another bug. You were able to make critshots with rapidfire without any known requirements for critshots. I think this is the changelog fix. But why did they change it anyway?

@that nameless inf user that posted bow damage on his char
That is even low to mid damage on Assassins. They and Casters without PD are the only targets I do good damage.

Next time you should inform yourself about the delay of bows. Most of the Archers use a 5.5 Bow, that means 3.4 seconds each normal shot with 250 quickness.

ronian

low to mid dmg?

ever played NS/SB/inf? xD

200ish is NICE dmg to assasins

unless ofc u count, 2 weapons hit, PA, dot, and crits


i hit 100ish mainhand anytime style

200 damage every 3.4 seconds compared to 100 every 1.5 seconds with chance to dualwield, poisons and cannot be interrupted as easily as bow can.

bow dmg = 58 dmg/s
100dmg/swing = 66 dmg/s (btw im at 1.8 speed not 1.5 so should be 55)

ur pwned

EDIT: put in smiley so people would get the sarcasm

nixian wrote:ur pwned

/clap

U're so great and cool mighty moderator!



/sarcasm off
..Seriously, wtf, is this how to act as a mod?

check the edits and please be less serius on the boards - this is a game we are all here for fun not for OMFG wtf is that im serius kinda thing


my point was that 200 dmg from bow aint bad (but tbh comparing dmgs wont help anything since dont know resists, targets, etc) my 100 dmg can be heavy tank and his 200 can be unbuffed caster.. who knows


and theres differences between being a mod and being a player when typing

when im being a mod - look for red posts

nixian wrote:bow dmg = 58 dmg/s
100dmg/swing = 66 dmg/s (btw im at 1.8 speed not 1.5 so should be 55)

ur pwned

You tried to make 200 damage appear like a lot when even a measly nightshade with anytimers will outdamage that easily.

I don't get where I got "pwned", nor the attempted sarcasm.

u were saying 200 dmg was low dmg for assasins simply stating that the dmg itself even when considering time to perform it isn't its actually decent/good


thats where you got "pwned"