|
Post by TZ- on Jun 17, 2011 17:35:20 GMT
Just curious, will the monk edits be going in soon? (mostly worried about the weapon buffs on gloves and innate survival ability).
TZ-
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Jun 17, 2011 17:36:37 GMT
Just curious, will the monk edits be going in soon? (mostly worried about the weapon buffs on gloves and innate survival ability). TZ- Those were suggested edits I don't know that the dev team has released any definite list of class edits such as those.
|
|
|
Post by gandoron on Jun 17, 2011 17:58:31 GMT
Cata UUU (and to a lesser degree HMR) is one of the primary issues that the dev team is looking to fix, from changes with storm of heralds pet, PDK, Warchanter, proposed paragon feats, and other ideas. Bard song fixes are separate and also need to be addressed. -G
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Jun 17, 2011 21:29:51 GMT
Gandoron, yes I know, and that was the reason I stated I wasn't complaining about them, in fact I am actually quite happy about them I was simply stating that I didn't think they would do anything to alleviate the 'necessity' of Bards on End Game runs, which imo is the more important of the bard issues. However, since I am not on the Dev Team I'm certainly not going to argue about where the Dev Team should be spending their time, I'm just happy to know it's being looked at and will wait till such time as the proposed fixes to help alleviate bards being required are put in place Cata
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Jun 17, 2011 21:52:05 GMT
Not a bad update, but I have to agree with cata. Until there is an alternative to UUU/HMR, or less of a need for those 2 nothing will change in regards to needing bards on runs. Unless you want to make assist a medium radius pickup? Might help fix the UUU issue anyway This was such a logic fail that I didn't bother to respond when cata advanced it. Life is not binary. The fact that this will not completely resolve all issues regarding the need for bards, does not mean its effect is nulll. Think outside the dichotomy, people. Where exactly was the logic fail? I picked at one aspect only that you mentioned. Easing the 'necessity' of bards on End Game runs. How it effects soloing ability, etc, I made no comment on. People aren't treating bards as a 'necessity' on runs because of their song and curse, there is other options that will do, and in fact I have seen people do without bards on runs when they have been able to get a Chanter, PM, Shifter. I've even done hell runs myself without a bard, once you get to Malbolge however no one wants to try it. Not because of the song but purely and simply because of UUU. People are already more than willing to go without song n curse if it means not having to wait hours, what they aren't willing to do is go without UUU. Seems quite logical to me that nerfing bard song whilst UUU remains unafected and no replacement is in place that nerfing song will have little to no effect on bards being 'required' on End Game runs. I never said it's effect was null, I simply dissagreed with you that it's effect on one of the things you mentioned was null. However, since the update isn't even in place yet and not being part of the Dev Team and the play testing I am quite happy to wait and see if I am proven wrong. Considering the information I am presented with however, doesn't mean I am being illogical, lacking all the information perhaps, but logical enough with the in game experience I am working from. Cata
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jun 17, 2011 22:06:46 GMT
This was such a logic fail that I didn't bother to respond when cata advanced it. Life is not binary. The fact that this will not completely resolve all issues regarding the need for bards, does not mean its effect is nulll. Think outside the dichotomy, people. Where exactly was the logic fail? It's called a false dichotomy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaAs for the rest, I understood precisely what you said. Succinctly: You advanced the notion that reducing bard and curse song potency would have no effect on demand for bards in runs. This is so patently false it doesn't really bear discussion, but I could rattle off a dozen different characterizations of the problem with this logic. Suffice it to say that, just because something is not the major incentive/disincentive, does not mean it has no effect on decision-making. Values are not binary, with the only two choices being worthless and worthwhile, though I understand the impulse to simplify them in such a way. Until you grasp that precept, you really don't stand much of a chance at understanding much of what we do with respect to game balance. But, apparently you DO realize this on some level, since you already backed off this claim at the end of your post, changing your claim to the infinitely more sensible ' little to no effect'. Behold! Non-dichotomous thought! Funky
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Jun 17, 2011 22:32:22 GMT
Actually in my original post if you care to read it again Funky, I did not state that reducing Bard Song would have no effect on reducing the need for Bards in the end game runs.
What I did was question you as to how it would, stating that I couldn't see the effect it would have. I don't claim to be perfect and understand everything and sometimes a little clarification is nice to have. Perhaps I should have worded it better, but I didn't.
In fact I even explain in my last post on this thread my reasoning behind me being unable to see how nerfing bardsong will effect the necessity of bards on end game runs, since already there are perfectly good alternatives for bardsong in game.
And yes I understand what a false dichotomy is. What I don't understand is why my lack of understand how you think nerfing bardsong will ease end game run formation constitutes ignoring the question I posed and instead waiting for some one else to agree with me before you post a comment I felt was nothing short of arrogant.
Sorry if my dissagreeing with you is distasteful and my lack of understanding is something you find worthy of ignorance, and I appologise that game mechanics and the internal workings of game balance are something that I sometimes have difficult grasping.
Would you prefer if in future I refrain from asking for clarification of things I don't understand in future?
Cata
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jun 17, 2011 23:20:34 GMT
Actually in my original post if you care to read it again Funky, I did not state that reducing Bard Song would have no effect on reducing the need for Bards in the end game runs. What I did was question you as to how it would, stating that I couldn't see the effect it would have. Actually, if you read the remark of yours I quoted in my last response, you yourself say that you said that. I can only argue with one of you at once. Make up your mind and get back to me. No need to be so defensive about the logic fail - it's by far the most common, at least on these forums, and often relied on by players in making really bad arguments for/against a change - often because they lack the time, inclination, or resources needed to make more persuasive arguments. I try to discourage it when I see it, as it's often counterproductive in balancing decisions. Funky
|
|
|
Post by Retribution on Jun 17, 2011 23:49:54 GMT
I'm guessing this means that we would only be able to get one use of crit immunity from an EP belt per rest then?
Ret
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Jun 18, 2011 0:04:01 GMT
What can I say, I was unsuccessfully trying to use your own words against you. Specifically the use of the word 'null'. I shoulda just typed what I meant to say in my own words instead of trying to be a smart arse It's simple. Lets start again and I'll try to make my position completely clear this time round. I don't understand how nerfing the bardsong will help reduce the perceived necessity of Bards in end game runs whilst UUU/HMR still remain as they are now with no acceptable alternatives for them. The reason I don't get it is because currently people are quite happy already to go into end game areas with the current Bard Alternatives to song/curse, what they aren't willing to do is go without UUU and HMR. I do actually understand what you are trying to achieve with the nerf, heck I even agree with it, with a decent alternative for UUU/HMR that people will accept and happily go into end game areas with instead of waiting for that all important bard I'd be clapping my hands and jumping for joy. Hopefully I've actually said this time what I meant to say originally and it makes more sense. As for the logic fail, I still say I made none, I made a poor attempt at explaining what I was thinking perhaps which lead to misunderstanding, although for some one with a much better education than myself, much better grasp of the game mechanics and balancing aspects of HG and some one who is far better at reading between the lines and understanding these types of thing than I am I'm actually quite suprised you didn't grasp what I'm trying to say from my original comment. I didn't think it was that far out. If you still see a logic fail here, however, then you're gunna have to explain it to me cause I'm not getting it. As for my defensiveness how could I be defensive about a failure in my logic when I see no failure there? Now that makes no sense. What I was getting defensive about was what I perceived as an attack instead of an answer which I had to wait for others to provide. I'm not actually trying to argue for or against the nerf to bardsong. I have no complaint against it, nor do I have any complaint about the way bardsong currently works. I may change my mind once the change is implemented, I don't know, but right now, it doesn't bother me either way. Cata
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 18, 2011 0:15:16 GMT
With the bard song and monster tweaks, decreases of monster saves are same as before. So you actually buff the critters who suffer less save decreases with the nerf of various auras ie battletide. PS: Is -10 ab to evards too harsh for arcanes? It's already hard to hit high ac mobs such as Chasme, Anzu and babau (usually you have to roll high than 10 to hit them with evards). So with the current nerf, evards is useless for those mobs. Lee, I'm a bit confused by your post. the bard song is getting nerfed and monsters are getting nerfed in parallel. if there are changes to BT or other affects, I would assume that monsters might be nerfed a little more to make up for that. -G
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Jun 18, 2011 0:26:59 GMT
Not a bad update, but I have to agree with cata. Until there is an alternative to UUU/HMR, or less of a need for those 2 nothing will change in regards to needing bards on runs. Unless you want to make assist a medium radius pickup? Might help fix the UUU issue anyway This was such a logic fail that I didn't bother to respond when cata advanced it. Life is not binary. The fact that this will not completely resolve all issues regarding the need for bards, does not mean its effect is nulll. Think outside the dichotomy, people. You don't. You just have to have the one you intend to use equipped when you rest, as it says. You can put another belt on after the rest. Funky Ah ok I just misunderstood on the inspiration change, thanks for the clarification. Wont impact my gear setup at all then. And you can claim logic fail all you want. We'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't say the bardsong edit would have no effect at all, just that it would have no effect on the percieved need for bards. Maybe i should have clarified that in my original post. It's ugly but there it is. I've played a bard everywhere in this mod. I've played other characters most places. I won't even bother trying a deep hell run without a bard. Abyss? No way. Maaaaybe Zionyn if we have a rock solid crew that's all pro, and at least 1 beastly dex tank. And I've been here for around a year. Newer players would only try a deep run without a bard once before they decided never to do that again. I was one such player not that long ago. I really do appreciate the updates. Looking over what you guys are looking at and doing it's obvious you're making strides towards improving this mod even more over what it already is. This is hands down the best lil' MMO i've ever played. It has a spot in my heart next to Velious era EQ That said, I realize feelings run hot around update time. I'm a tad surprised at the antagonistic approach you're taking here to feedback from me and cata. We aren't here attacking you. At least thats not how I penned it, and didnt get it from anyone else. Sorry if you felt that way. But I had a veiwpoint I felt was valid, and I expressed it. I'll try and be more thourough in the future when doing so, to avoid any misunderstandings.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 18, 2011 0:27:16 GMT
It kills lots of builds relying on EP belt for crit imm I'm guessing this means that we would only be able to get one use of crit immunity from an EP belt per rest then? Ret
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jun 18, 2011 0:28:00 GMT
I'm guessing this means that we would only be able to get one use of crit immunity from an EP belt per rest then? Ret Yup, that was the point of that edit. If you can think of other items that should be that way (ie effectively unlimited uses blurs class distinctions/is OP), please let us know. We did debate doing this to one other item as well, but didn't. Funky
|
|
|
Post by Retribution on Jun 18, 2011 0:33:06 GMT
Ah ok Funky. Can't say my Str assassin is terribly impressed but I can see why it was needed.
Ret.
|
|