Ryzom

svayvti wrote:But I also still hope they will consider some mob rebalances later. Carnivores are still insane, especially for a mage because of their hit/interrupt rate.

Actually, Mage should never be able to stand in "close" combat and cast spells like notting happen without using consenrate stanzas. Mages aren't the tanks, fighters should be tanks.

sidusar wrote:Easy for you to say, but this poll is incomplete. It asks us if we want to have heal weakened, and nothing else. But that's not what's going to happen.
Imagine me asking you: "Would you give another person hundred dollars? No discussion, no 'if', just yes or no." What would you answer? 'Yes' means you're saying you have no problem with giving 100 dollars to random strangers. 'No' means you're saying you would never give 100 dollars to anyone, even if they gave you a million in return.
Most likely you wouldn't want to answer either yes or no, you'd want to answer "yes in some conditions, no in others". Well, that's what I'd like to answer to your question, but your poll doesn't have that option.

Well I assumed everyone would assume I meant as described in the proposed changes I linked to. There's your 'if' situation.

So maybe I shouldn't have credited the community with some intelligence? Perhaps I should have been a little more specific and asked 'Do you really want heal weakened in exactly the way that Nevrax are proposing?'?

I was just trying to encourage people to discuss it on the other thread rather than start yet another long drawn out debate. Trying to reduce the number of 'as I explained in the thread you linked to...' comments. Oh right it was YOU that said that wasn't it?

I just wanted a clearer idea of whether people were really for or against the PROPOSED changes. Pardon me for trying to keep the post count down.

sidusar wrote:Yes, it makes so much more sense that your wounds heal faster than it takes to catch your breath...

Let's remember we're not talking naturally here, this is being done with spells and it makes no sense at all. You can die from your wounds, there is no sense in having spells that replenish your energy more powerful than ones that heal your wounds. If magic were real, do you really think we would create spells like that? Of course not! We'd make spells where we healed people's wounds more powerful so they wouldn't die.

sidusar wrote:Possibly, but at least they will be needed. Right now fighters aren't even needed because elementalists can tank just as well.

You see that's part of the problem. I don't agree with this at all. In my experience fighters are way better tanks than nukers (because of interrupts). I just don't accept the nuker tank concept. To me tank=fighter, always will.

And I will never subscribe to the 'tanks (or fighter) are useless' brigade. I certainly don't feel useless on the, admittedly rare, occasions when I tank (lvl 143 sword atm). In fact I'm often GLAD the nuker(s) can take them down for me. Saves me doing all the work!

Last night is a perfect example of where the real problem lies IMHO. I was hunting Timaris with a nuker (and healer when needed). We could, just about, take down a Fierce Timari with me tanking and him nuking it. If I died, he died too because he couldn't cast enough - interrupts. Sometimes we took it down fast enough that I didn't need a heal at all but was very low on HP. But the biggest problem for me was the number of times I missed the mob.

That's were there's a real problem with nuker power - if they take the mob down before the tank hits. So I return to my earlier suggestion. Give fighters who are in combat and ATTEMPTING to hit, XP whether they hit or not. Just like they originally proposed for healers. If the tank just stands there then no XP, if he tries to fight the mob and a team mate kills it, he gets XP.

yeah that sounds good , they should count misses as joining combat and so count for exp that only leaves them with the "problem" of preventing ppl who are too low from gaining exp (surely why theyve got the system as it is atm with misses). Personaly i dont see that as a problem and id like to go back to the system where everyone involved in the fight (not just those that hit in the team that did the most damage) gains exp -those massive scrums were great fun and it was truly MMO instead of just being a Multiplayer team of nine :/

petej wrote:yeah that sounds good , they should count misses as joining combat and so count for exp that only leaves them with the "problem" of preventing ppl who are too low from gaining exp (surely why theyve got the system as it is atm with misses). Personaly i dont see that as a problem and id like to go back to the system where everyone involved in the fight (not just those that hit in the team that did the most damage) gains exp -those massive scrums were great fun and it was truly MMO instead of just being a Multiplayer team of nine :/

Now the 'only in team' addition was a good one IMHO. I remember the days of beta when anyone gained XP and all the kill stealers there were around. Was very frustrating. I think the XP should stay as only those in the team but make misses count as taking part. If you invoke an attacking (I'm counting both forms of affl as "attacking" here) action against a mob, then you should get experience for being part of the fight. Similarly, if you invoke a defensive (i.e. healing) action on a team mate who is considered part of the fight (i.e. tries to hit), then you should also get XP.

Currently, IIRC, if a healer heals only a tank and that tank doesn't hit, neither of them get XP. Is that right? Sounds like madness to me.

only problem with this model is that new players would just be taken into high level teams and powerlevelled. I suppose that's ok from the point of view of someone who just wants to 'get up there' but it dimishes the game experience overall i think.

looking at it another way if i join a team and swing my sword once, only to miss the target entirely why would i expect to get xp from that when i had no impact on the fight?

philu wrote: Currently, IIRC, if a healer heals only a tank and that tank doesn't hit, neither of them get XP. Is that right?

This is correct. And in my opinion, completely fair. Why should you get xp when you didn't actually help kill the creature.

On another count; if you as a fighter only get the chance to take one shot at the mob and you miss and then the mob dies, then don' t you think you' re fighting the wrong mob?

I think Philu may have something there, about joining a fight granting you xp, hit or miss.

Apart from the teams getting wiped out and calling for rezzes interupting my digging and crafting, my biggest problem is the impact these changes will have on beginning players. With the new LA and jewelery limitations, combined with this heal nerf, and the apparent attitude of those who support the healing nerf ( "I got mine, *F* the new guy" ), starting players need something given, to make up for all that's been, and being, taken away. Otherwise, why spend their money on something that's as big a pain as RL?

OOC:

kostika wrote:This is correct. And in my opinion, completely fair. Why should you get xp when you didn't actually help kill the creature.

hehe, doing damage (heal/aff etc actually) is not the only way to be useful in fight

but there is another problem with "no xp".
if you die (mob sneezes on you) and get rezed, then you need to hit mob again to get xp.
most of the time you dont have enough time.

philu wrote:So maybe I shouldn't have credited the community with some intelligence? Perhaps I should have been a little more specific and asked 'Do you really want heal weakened in exactly the way that Nevrax are proposing?'?

Yep, you should have. You'd be surprised how often even intelligent people make the wrong assumptions

philu wrote:I was just trying to encourage people to discuss it on the other thread rather than start yet another long drawn out debate. Trying to reduce the number of 'as I explained in the thread you linked to...' comments. Oh right it was YOU that said that wasn't it?

Hey, don't look at me. I didn't start discussing it on this thread, just replied to the discussion already in progress. Made that comment because I was trying to prevent this thread from turning into an exact copy of the other one, where everyone just repeats themselves.

philu wrote:I just wanted a clearer idea of whether people were really for or against the PROPOSED changes. Pardon me for trying to keep the post count down.

Nono, pardon me, you're right. This thread should just be for giving your own opinion and not for discussing that of others. All this discussion that should be on the other thread is distracting from that. I shouldn't have let myself get dragged into again either.

What I really had to say in response to the original post was just:
- No in the way they're currently proposing.
- Yes if it's compensated by a decent increase in armor effectiveness (from 45%-55% to 40%-60% is not even an increase, let alone a decent one).
That is all.

philu wrote:You see that's part of the problem. I don't agree with this at all. In my experience fighters are way better tanks than nukers (because of interrupts). I just don't accept the nuker tank concept. To me tank=fighter, always will.

And I will never subscribe to the 'tanks (or fighter) are useless' brigade.

I don't think tanks are useless, just that they're less usefull than healers and nukers. They do save the mages from getting interrupts. My point was more it's perfectly possible for an elementalist and a healer to hunt without a tank. The elementalist will get interrupted, but the healer can keep him alive easily, it just takes a little longer.

Plus as elementalist you have the benefit of being able to immediatly switch to healing if the party needs you to, or to heal your healer back. As a fighter in heavy armor, you can't really do that, so you'd think the heavy armor would offer some awesome protection to compensate, and it just doesn't. My opinion remains the same, increase all max vs by about 30% and make armor work against mob special attacks, and I'll be happy.