STR defense stat, AGI offense - Problem solved?

[TinckTrink]

<DIV> <P>I believe there is an easy solution to the melee system.  Some of you may have seen this posted on other threads, but they get buried so fast I started a new thread, just so we could consider its feasibility.</P> <P>The idea is to simply make STR the defensive stat and make AGI the offensive one.  Most of us have always considered them opposite, but they also make sense this way.  Consider maneuvering a tower shield, parrying an epic mob’s Wild Swing, or even wielding heavy armor.  They are all strength based skills.  AGI as an offensive stat has always made sense since it is required in order to hit mobs and hit them where it will inflict the most damage.</P> <P>The best news about this idea is that all of the classes that are supposed to be defensive already have natural STR.  All melee classes that are supposed to be DPS already have natural AGI.</P> <P>To take this one step further in the direction that SoE has already laid out, you can still give AGI bonuses to classes for wearing lighter armor.  This gives all melee's an optional boost to DPS if they are not required to tank, but does not take away their ability to tank should they be called upon to do so.</P> <P>Please let me know your thoughts, positive or negative.<BR></P></DIV>

[Thesp]

How does this fix anything other than to just swap the labels on stats from str to agi? Ok, so great, you now swap str for agi but everything still operates the same.

[Trei]

My question would be... just how exactly would you propose it is done? Can't just simply swap them around. Just about the closest and only way I can think of at the moment is to have each and every stat directly affect the performance of their 'corresponding' archetype's <i>combat arts/spells</i>, not just their power pool. <div></div>

[Shennr]

<P>Well seeing that a lot of fighters get str buffs and a lot of scouts get agi buffs I can see how this would work out fine. Scouts need more DPS and fighters need their defense buffs. Plus I have seen Agi stats way higher then Str in a raid format.</P> <P>It would fix the cap problem to Agi and that cap really hurts the druids buffs as that is their main stat to buff up but then that takes away from what defense they can give to the tank. Oh well, it's not like 100 agi gives that much defense anyways atm.</P>

[Kizee]

<P>It would [Removed for Content] me off to no end.</P> <P>I have geared my assassin around str gear because I am suppost to be a DPS class and str effects dps. If my 6 months of equiping this char goes to waste I will not be happy at all.</P> <P>I am hoping that SOE doesn't do something like this in the combat patch.</P>

[WolfSha]

<P>You know tinck, i actually thought about thah the other day...</P> <P>I nearly posted it but didn't.</P> <P>What you say makes sense on the face of it - fighters need defece, but their power pool comes from str, scouts need attack but their power pool comes from agi...</P> <P>So it makes sense to swap them...</P> <P>The reason i didn't post it is that it occoured to me that it would lead to very unbalanced chars - fighters would be all defence and no attack, and scouts would be all attack and no defence as everyone would concentrate on their one main stat.</P> <P>Having them revesed forces you to keep both in line to balance and balance you power + attack against your avoidance as a tank, and your power and avoidance against attack as a scout.</P> <P>I think it's ok the way it is as it forces people to have more rounded chars, but i can see your point.</P> <P>Message Edited by WolfShark on <SPAN class=date_text>04-26-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:49 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:50 AM</span>

[BlackHa]

A Ratonga or Wood Elf is useless as a Scout because they are weak. They are better suited as a fighter. Why? Because a strength charcater (like ogre) recieves a penalty once their strength hits 150. In fact...the optimum race for a scout is an ogre (high strength) and the optimum class for a fighter is a ratonga (high agility). Kind of backwards...isn't it? Opposite of what the deveopers envisioned for these races. The big bulky tank and the quick agile scout are obsolete. And the proposed combat changes will only magnify (not help) the problem.

[fur]

<P>Well regarding strength and agility issues , we got to use the core rules in the game. Changing around stats at this stage in the game by making a attribute that has been tied to melee damage since day 1 (strength) do something else will break almost every melee class in my guild. If you make a game and clearly state that in order to be effective and do damage with melee weapons you raise strength , and then after 6 months+ say that "Hey guess what strength is now used to determine how good you are defensivly" would imo be insane.</P> <P>There is no way that they will change what core attributes do in eq2 at this late stage, no way.</P> <P>That beeing said im pretty sure they will balance classes like they did continually in eq1 but they will do so by changing how skills / spells work not by rewriting the ruleset.</P> <P>Also remember that even a ratonga VS a ogre strength wise there is only a 20 pt strength differance , (if ogre takes racial trait strength) 20 strength is nothing in the overall scheme of things so saying that in order to be a effective scout you need to play a ogre or other strength imbued race is utter bs.</P> <P> </P>

[Trei]

<div></div>-post retracted- <div></div><p>Message Edited by Trei49 on <span class=date_text>04-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:20 AM</span>

[Miral]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> furok wrote:<BR> <P>There is no way that they will change what core attributes do in eq2 at this late stage, no way.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>coulda sworn they were changing around the core armor rating system drastically.....</DIV>

[Anlari]

They are changing the entire core combat system as well.

[Melo]

<P>Interesting idea, it would work great for solo but in a group situation with the buffs as they are now, it would be the same problem. I would prefer if SOE were to put the dexterity stat back in the game. That way AGI will only boost your avoidance, STR would boost the damage you do when you hit and DEX would boost your chance of a successful hit. Regarding buffs:</P> <UL> <LI>Scouts would have the best DEX buffs (high damage scouts like Assassin would have a higher self only DEX buff)</LI> <LI>Tanks would have the best AGI buffs (Monks and Bruisers would have a higher self only AGI buffs)</LI></UL> <P>Scouts could also have AGI and STR components to their buffs, but they would be less powerful than the DEX part. Same idea with AGI for tanks. </P> <P> </P> <P>Melo</P>

[BlackHa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> furok wrote:<BR> <P>Well regarding strength and agility issues , we got to use the core rules in the game. Changing around stats at this stage in the game by making a attribute that has been tied to melee damage since day 1 (strength) do something else will break almost every melee class in my guild. If you make a game and clearly state that in order to be effective and do damage with melee weapons you raise strength , and then after 6 months+ say that "Hey guess what strength is now used to determine how good you are defensivly" would imo be insane.</P> <P>There is no way that they will change what core attributes do in eq2 at this late stage, no way.</P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Oh yea?......Looks to me like they are already throwing some core combat structure out the window. If avoidance is to be dictated by armor type (as opposed to agility), then the scouts need to be tossed an agility bone here.</FONT></P> <P>That beeing said im pretty sure they will balance classes like they did continually in eq1 but they will do so by changing how skills / spells work not by rewriting the ruleset.</P> <P>Also remember that even a ratonga VS a ogre strength wise there is only a 20 pt strength differance , (if ogre takes racial trait strength) 20 strength is nothing in the overall scheme of things so saying that in order to be a effective scout you need to play a ogre or other strength imbued race is utter bs.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Anyone else see the contratdiction here? First he states that any changes would "break" the melee classes in his guild. Then he trivializes the strength difference between ogres and ratongas. If the difference were indeed trivial, he would not so vehemently oppose any changes. I would suggest that he post in the provisioner forums that a 4 point strength buff in food is meaningless. After that, he can proceed to the alchemist forums and describe how meaningless the 10 pt strength potions are. The fact of the matter is <STRONG>every point of strength</STRONG> is vastly more important than the agility  <STRONG>doubled</STRONG>. I still maintain that the strong bulky fighter and the quick agile scout are obsolete. The fact that he is so quick to provide a counter argument (this is the second thread he has done so) is evidence that the strength/agility difference in races is <STRONG>indeed</STRONG> a large issue. There really is something to that 20 point difference. </FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>