|
Post by desocupado on Apr 10, 2020 17:49:10 GMT
What if Turner's got +1 turning power per 5 paragon levels?
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 10, 2020 18:59:22 GMT
That would be less than simp's proposal: One thing to consider is that the turn check rolls d8, instead of the typical d20. The increase of +4 TR per paragon level equals to -50% chance of success. For comparison, SR also increases by +4, but you roll with a d20, so each paragon level gives only -20% chance of success. Suggestion: have paragon TR increased only by 2 per level, for a more reasonable match. Could work as well. Thoughts on which would be better, welcome. Funky
|
|
|
Post by woqued on Apr 10, 2020 19:28:24 GMT
That would be less than simp's proposal: One thing to consider is that the turn check rolls d8, instead of the typical d20. The increase of +4 TR per paragon level equals to -50% chance of success. For comparison, SR also increases by +4, but you roll with a d20, so each paragon level gives only -20% chance of success. Suggestion: have paragon TR increased only by 2 per level, for a more reasonable match. Could work as well. Thoughts on which would be better, welcome. Funky Simps proposal seems much more appealing all around. Key points: 1. New turners: turner in hells won't succeed in any group due to powercreep of others, building up with levels is less appealing than fixing them from being broken across the board. 2. The +1*4 isn't enough, paragons would still have to be tuned (hey, can't turn paragon 1 mobs unless you're lvl 80, and paragon 2+ are still off the table. Yaaay....) Combining the two to have the sameish net result might not be the worst idea, but I have never played a turner so can't give proper insight into what would be the best numbers TR-wise.
|
|
|
Post by magecat on Apr 11, 2020 3:28:25 GMT
Another tentative suggestion:
You could hang the TR reduction off of a Smite function. If it was something that worked from a Save instead of the damage mechanics, you could use (subject to adjustment, I am just suggesting a rough):
(d20+(CL*.75)+(Cha Bonus))-TR
to produce a dynamic TR reduction
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Apr 11, 2020 6:10:19 GMT
Key points: 1. New turners: turner in hells won't succeed in any group due to powercreep of others, building up with levels is less appealing than fixing them from being broken across the board. 2. The +1*4 isn't enough, paragons would still have to be tuned (hey, can't turn paragon 1 mobs unless you're lvl 80, and paragon 2+ are still off the table. Yaaay....) I agree. It wouldn't be overly excessive to have both approaches at the same time: decrease paragon monster scaling and at the same time increase TP by a small amount. Lowering paragon TR addresses the issue of more paragons spawning based overall party level and demi iterations, but does not give the turner any sort of advancement. In other words: at lvl 80 your TP (or the lack thereof) is exactly the same as at lvl 60. I would take Deso's suggestion, but water it down a bit: +1 TP at lvl 70 and 80 seems more in line with other PL power ups, for total of +2. It is fair to point out 2 things: 1. Turners also benefit from paragon SP and DC feats for their spells, but these are auxiliary at best. Banishment, Rebuke, UtD and WoF are instakills specialized for certain enemies and their use is limited and situational. 2. Destruction DC of turning does benefit from PL creep; it also scales with charisma. It is however not triggered, unless the target is at least stunned.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Apr 11, 2020 17:24:36 GMT
this is a perfect opportunity to introduce some more support abilities and promote more synergistic inter-class play.
all that's needed is a quick-action TR debuff added onto persuade (thought long and hard and yes i honestly do think this is the easiest, simplest, and most efficient way to go about this), in conjunction with 2 other complementary debuffs, allocated precisely. how can i possibly justify adding yet another ability into what I'm qualifying as one of the best abilities in the game? well, because it just makes sense--bards simply can't afford to split time/quick actions between both SR *and* TR dropping, and before you say it, the hypothetical scenario of choosing when to SR and when to TR is not only too much effort and work, but a huge waste of time in light of the fact that our turner-friendly mob-specific TR-dropper must be always and reliably active, otherwise we're right back where we started.
again, or if i wasn't clear above, I don't think we need more than a single-target, opportunity-cost based debuff to tweak just the right amount of TR. consider a choice between no persuade, and SRs dropping by 3 across the board. or assay resistance. now which seems like a more fun and nuanced approach? consider all the issues with a "TR persuade", re-frame the argument as if it was discussing SRs, and think about it again. Did casters really need paragon SRs dropped by a huge margin because SRs were too high? Or did they just need some more party options? Did we need +1 SP per 5 PLs, or maybe just a single-target spell that drops SR by juuuuust enough to make the critical difference.
by this i mean, with some careful forethought GI, threader was my initial gut cuz they're not desperate trashbin like PDK staffmonk, just bad-but-playable-for-funsies . ok, let's go PDK, introduce it now and it's a first step, it can be useless for rn while we hand out the rest of the pieces to other classes.
the other 2 classes will be druid--with bard, the other quintessential enabler core--and, since clerics are turners, i say arcane. why? despite the common sense flavor and theme, again i don't think turners should be able to buff their own TL or debuff enemy TR, and because frankly, outside of limbo, arcane has virtually zero unique support (RC and BE, but neither is mage)--tactical defense/utility, at best. So, I think this is similarly a perfect opportunity to continue down the trail limbo blazed (by pushing mages into a far more supportive role) and give arcane some more supportish things.
they're already debuff masters, with ED alone being extremely powerful, and w/ the rest of the little black bag of low-level tricks, it's huge to let both the other 2 offensive cores (cleric and druid) as well as tanks, perform excellently. so, you might say, why buff mages more then? i thought you were on about giving buffs where needed etc? yeah, this is different. this is cores, and again, there needs to be a balance of most popular : least popular classes getting new toys if it's going to actually impact anything.
so, we have bard that will drop TRs a little bit on the big monster 1-at-a-time when needed, druid doing something else too, and then tanks having some way too if needed (this is where i would fit in stuff mentioned above, like squeezing in some little mini debuff onto a paladin's smite, or a WM's wwa, or a monk's stunning fist, or a ranger's CS that mob succeeded save on (opt toggle between Con dmg or TR debuff? con dmg 99.99% better, would be useful option for when possibly needed), staffmaster self buff or blackstaff !opt, AA special arrow attack debuff, slinger bullet, GI bomb, assassin poison, blah blah
i also dislike the idea of giving turners bonus TL from PL. Yes, I understand the temptation to look at it like other PL-related powercreeps, but please no. I'm not saying this is a 1:1 comparison--it's just a very very close analogy, like the turning attempts buffing TL--but again, consider casters getting +1 CL per 5 or even 10 PLs. Why? What? No, PLs already do enough. Woki touched on this above but in case it wasn't digested, using PLs to buff something that's broken for everyone at L60 not only is bad balancing but worse, just makes PL powercreep even more ingrained into our balancing approach and philosophy. What takes that yet another step further is the fact that PLs were an enormous buff for turners, by virtue of giving a whopping 6 extra of their most precious resource--LL feats. PLs were amazing for turners and only more-sharply illustrated the contrast between useless x0 L60 ones and rich x2 L80 ones. There is actually no legit need for a higher baseline TL (TP, another story--but the TP/ego issue is another subject at this point) or lower baseline TRs. Rather, the problem is that certain mobs. Honestly, that's all. I think it would be a huge mistake to address the broken parts of turning/turners in this manner. As mentioned multiple times in multiple threads, the simple change--literally what, changing one variable each on 2 mobs?--of allowing turners to instakill amni and cornie was a perfect example of how a surgical strike can be successful.
so yeah. that's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by condude on Apr 11, 2020 22:56:58 GMT
An interesting niche that could be added to a class (PDK???) would be to have +X (8?) TR against turned monsters. It'd give a little diversity to turners - destruction turners vs. CC turners, with CC turners have a slightly higher TR, but PDK turners being able to really expedite trash clearing.
Just a thought!
|
|
|
Post by woqued on Apr 12, 2020 11:03:53 GMT
While all these niche classes are brought to table, do keep in mind that a niche class REQUIRING another niche class to work is potentially a really frustrating idea. The capability to make another class shine should be spread out a bit more than that - turners shouldn't require a PDK, or SD, or GI on a leash to be able to do anything in modern groups.
It could be a nice way to make good tagteams, but that should probably not be the only solution. Having excellent and even unique synergies is great, but in the context of turner balance it is suspicious - in particular in HG where it's hard to balance things around paragon and nonparagon content (read: xr weapons for one).
|
|
|
Post by magecat on Apr 12, 2020 11:37:14 GMT
I certainly concede your point, but I think there is a valid counter point in that the ABCD core has niche functions inherent in runs. I've seen more than one run canx because "We didn't get a(n)....".
If the concern is that there is too much niche in the proposals, then adopting more than one is one way to resolve that. Most of them are value adds to existing functions.
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Apr 12, 2020 13:38:48 GMT
I certainly concede your point, but I think there is a valid counter point in that the ABCD core has niche functions inherent in runs. I've seen more than one run canx because "We didn't get a(n)....". … which is precisely why existing and already established classes started to mimic each other's abilities to certain degree. AoE BC -> NB, harpy song -> curse etc. (heck, even PT2 -> UUU, but this one is not related to any class in particular). GIs are hardly *established* and PDKs are not even existing. Giving these classes niche abilities to help another niche build (turner) will not legitimize them. Or, in a worse case scenario, the new "meta" will throw the game off balance, if overdone. Yes. Yes, but there needs to be a tangible existing function in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by woqued on Apr 12, 2020 14:03:45 GMT
I am not objecting to niche classes getting power that helps eachother. I object that being the *only* way to make them viable. I quite like the idea in theory - with multiple people playing various classes, and people with those classes as their favourites teaming together for good group success. However, that is not how HG is played in reality these days.
The reality I see is turnerenabler only being played if the turner is also multiboxing the enabler class, thus forcing the hand down a pigeon hole.
This is why ideas such as Persuade (semi-universal skill) dropping TR is a much better idea than GI or PDK being the only ones with a special for dropping TR. Now, if we had Persuade drop TR but an AoE TR drop on PDK or GI, that still keeps Turner viability intact without those, but makes it vastly more appealing to bring a turner if those guys are present in a party and vice versa. Or it simply gives that multiboxing player an idea. Aha! That could be fun. But it shouldn't be necessary. On a tangent that is the same reason why I advocated for Spot instant action for a moderate listen drop - that wouldn't step on the shoes of Rangers if numbered properly (say, 5%). Ranger having AoE, persistent, and higher % and still having very good class features is more than enough. But it is slightly different because Rangers have enough and Turners don't.
... To bring it back, GIs are only viable because of a hopefully unintended bug in the GIplode mechanism, and PDKs lack any other impressive feat and SDs (they were mentioned earlier) are already strong so if such things were to be implemented, the other parts about these classes/quasi should be considered as a whole. But I am quite certain that muddling the turner discussion with other niche classes in need is detrimental - these things should be kept separate, make both enabler and enabled classes capable "on their own" first and then think about how to make them shine together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 16:20:20 GMT
Does anyone feel the turner ego needs to be re-done while we are on the topic? Building the power back into the class and then doing something else with the ego?
|
|
|
Post by condude on Apr 12, 2020 16:33:07 GMT
While all these niche classes are brought to table, do keep in mind that a niche class REQUIRING another niche class to work is potentially a really frustrating idea. The capability to make another class shine should be spread out a bit more than that - turners shouldn't require a PDK, or SD, or GI on a leash to be able to do anything in modern groups. It could be a nice way to make good tagteams, but that should probably not be the only solution. Having excellent and even unique synergies is great, but in the context of turner balance it is suspicious - in particular in HG where it's hard to balance things around paragon and nonparagon content (read: xr weapons for one).
I was more pointing towards possibly creating builds like 38 cleric 2 PDK in that case, to get the bonus destruction chance. So you can't turn as much as a pure cleric turner, but in exchange you'd still be able to turn things, followed by a much improved chance at blowing them up. It'd be a standalone class with some niche benefit if there are 2 turners in the party.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Apr 12, 2020 19:04:19 GMT
yeah just what we need... another HS....
for turners.
are you serious
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Apr 13, 2020 9:47:59 GMT
Your TR rebalancing suggestion looks reasonable based on the numbers. I'll run it by the Team. I had a major brainfart and didn't realize it until now. As of the update on 2018-05-24: This means that numbers concerning chance of success in the SR / TR comparison should be halved. That is: every paragon level decreases chance of beating SR by 10% (instead of 20%). If TR is to be in line, it should increase by 1 (instead of 2, or currently 4) per paragon level, thus decrease chance of success by roughly 12%. My apologies.
|
|