New Combat System Changes

[Zodi]

<DIV>I have read a couple a forums in regards of the new combat system changes coming up and I would like ask a couple questions:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Supposely on the new combat system<FONT color=#ff3300> <U>tanks who wear heavy armor will lose some of the avoidance skill</U>. </FONT>This makes perfect sense on my mind since there is no way a person who wears 60 pounds of armor can jump and dodge hits like some sort of matrix character. Now dont get me wrong I play a guardian as my main and I am fully aware of this statement, but it just make sense. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now here is another change, <FONT color=#ff0000><U>defense will be cap to a maximum</U>.</FONT> Now in my opinion that just blows, it really destroy any attemp of strategy for a raids and groups. I trully think that no buff should be capped, let the players imagination and strategy by the cap.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Coming back to the<FONT color=#ff0000><U> armor and avoidance</U></FONT> deal here is  suggestion that may work or not</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <UL> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>Heavy armor tanks</FONT></LI> <OL> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>By wearing heavy armor, dodging abilities should be reduced and the tank should be getting hits most of the time.</FONT></LI> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>Heavy armor should be able to filter the mayority of the physical damage. In other words the armor should be one absorbing the mayority of the  blow, not the character.</FONT></LI> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>Heavy armor should also be able to absorb magical damage since it has magical properties imbued on them. </FONT></LI> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>A tank wearing heavy armor should have a very high stun resistance since the damage received is minimal. (The armor absorbs the maoyority of the blow)</FONT></LI></OL></UL> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </P> <UL> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>Light armor tanks</FONT></LI> <OL> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>By wearing a light armor, a tank should be able to keep enough flexibility that allows him to dodge attacks more often</FONT></LI> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>However light armor does not filters damage as well as metal or heavy armor. So<U> once the character gets hits</U>, GOD have mercy on him.</FONT></LI> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>Light armor also should be able to imbued to absorb some sorts of magical damage.</FONT></LI> <LI><FONT color=#ffff00>A tank wearing light armor have way less protection against stun than a tank wearing heavy armor. Since his physique will be the one absorbing the mayority of the damage received.</FONT></LI></OL></UL> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>This is my two cents on this matter. I hope I made sense. If there is anything wrong my assumptions of the future changes please feel to correct me.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>Thanks </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Avathos-Thanos- Crushbone</FONT></P>

[Chanliang]

IMO best way would be change buff stacking something reasonable, make armor types lower avoidance by certain % instead of creating just hard cap and no mitigation cap, just base mitigation % with different armor types have and then add mitigation value from different armor pieces top of it. This way system would still work with limitiations but you still could tune up your character with new equipment etc. Now with current system on test characters will be boring, just get to caps and then all armor/skills/abilites are wasted cause they don't do anything.  Oo found new master chest armor, oh wait my avoidance/mitigation is capped already... <div></div>

[Corv]

<div></div><div></div><div></div>Avoidance and Mitigation, from a role-play perspective, are currently self-inconsistent in EQ2.  On the one hand, you can view a hit blocked by armor or shields as an avoided hit, not a mitigated hit, so it makes sense for heavy-plate classes to have high avoidance.  (i.e. A mob has to hit a vulnerable spot in your armor or hit you bloody hard before he actually does any damage to you.)  This is the way it works for shields, which add to your avoidance even though mobs most definately hit your shield!  Armor only adds to mitigation though, so if a pixie threw a tooth-pick at you, whether or not it hits your soft tender-flesh and does damage is completely unrelated to whether you're prancing about naked or encased in steel.   The system currently just doesn't make roleplay sense. That being said, I don't really care how they change the game so long as these conditions are met: 1. There should not be a significant impact on the difficulty of encounters a group can handle when pushing themselves.  (i.e. The extreme increase in difficulty on Test should *not* go live)  A small impact is okay. 2. Hard caps on skills like parry and defense should *not* be used.  Apply diminishing returns by all means, but a hard cap is a bad idea.  A group should not be motivated to turn away a buffing class because their tanks are already hitting their caps.  Similarily, racial/class/level traits that add to defense should raise the cap instead of counting towards hitting the cap, otherwise they're useless.  3. If parry is to become unbuffable, than a similarily useful effect must be substituted in for guardian spells which currently buff parry. 4. There should be absolutely no motivation for a heavy plate class to prance around in cloth or leather for extra avoidance.   A  warrior trains with and relies on plate armor for his entire career.   Asking a warrior to fight naked should be like asking a monk to fight in full plate.  If heavier armor reduces your avoidance, then the gain in mitigation must *more* than make up for that.  <div></div><p>Message Edited by Corvan on <span class=date_text>04-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:58 AM</span>

[Tami]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Corvan wrote:<BR> Avoidance and Mitigation, from a role-play perspective, are currently self-inconsistent in EQ2.  On the one hand, you can view a hit blocked by armor or shields as an avoided hit, not a mitigated hit, so it makes sense for heavy-plate classes to have high avoidance.  (i.e. A mob has to hit a vulnerable spot in your armor or hit you bloody hard before he actually does any damage to you.)  This is the way it works for shields, which add to your avoidance even though mobs most definately hit your shield!  Armor only adds to mitigation though, so if a pixie threw a tooth-pick at you, whether or not it hits your soft tender-flesh and does damage is completely unrelated to whether you're prancing about naked or encased in steel.   The system currently just doesn't make roleplay sense.<BR><BR>That being said, I don't really care how they change the game so long as these conditions are met:<BR><BR>1. There should not be a significant impact on the difficulty of encounters a group can handle when pushing themselves.  (i.e. The extreme increase in difficulty on Test should *not* go live)  A small impact is okay.<BR>2. Hard caps on skills like parry and defense should *not* be used.  Apply diminishing returns by all means, but a hard cap is a bad idea.  A group should not be motivated to turn away a buffing class because their tanks are already hitting their caps.  Similarily, racial/class/level traits that add to defense should raise the cap instead of counting towards hitting the cap, otherwise they're useless.  <BR>3. If parry is to become unbuffable, than a similarily useful effect must be substituted in for guardian spells which currently buff parry.<BR>4. There should be absolutely no motivation for a heavy plate class to prance around in cloth or leather for extra avoidance.   A  warrior trains with and relies on plate armor for his entire career.   Asking a warrior to fight naked should be like asking a monk to fight in full plate.  If heavier armor reduces your avoidance, then the gain in mitigation must *more* than make up for that.  <BR> <P>Message Edited by Corvan on <SPAN class=date_text>04-21-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:58 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>1) Block needs to be removed as a shield effect, and be driven by level/class/skill, shield types need to be adjusted (chain = round), and shields need to revert back to AC .. pure mitigation.  While this sounds like a step back, it would permit tuning at the class level for an appropriate block level and address 'risk/personalization' aspect.  I.e. Druid + Shield or Druid + primary wis/power + secondary wis/power item OR Crusader using 2h vs 1h+shield. (Added: This can lead to having 'epic' shield drops giving minor block bonus effect)</P> <P>2) Weapon damage bonus should be, as described, based upon STR -BUT- should be driven by class/weapon type.  This would permit certian type of weapons, in the hands of certian classes, to be more 'in line'.  Same bow in hand of a Ranger should give that Ranger more damage then in hands of a Guardian .. likewise a 2hs should give Crusaders more a DB then Guardian .. 2hb should gives Monks more of a DB then Cruaders (see the pattern).  With current system, this gives more DB to fighters utilizing same weapons as scouts based upon their focus on STR (Remove the AGI component, this just causes balancing issues and factor that into iniate dodge for scouts .. see #4)</P> <P>3) #1 and #2 properly tuned, key is by class vs generalization, would offer a more fundamental way to balance classes.  Using just the Crusader vs Guardian perspective .. Crusaders would have more DPS when utilizing a 2h, and would lose that advantage sloting a 1h + Shield.</P> <P>4) Dodge (base avoidance) needs to be tuned at the class level, not as generalized as is now.  Armor adjustment to Dodge should be table driven to take class into consideration -OR- Armor should only be permited to be utilized by appropraite classes (i.e. Why permit a chain to wear cloth .. that obvisously is causing some of the issues right now .. Why would chain wear chain save to 'solo' if can gain same bonus -AND- achieve higher avoidance .. see example in #5).</P> <P>5) AGI needs to be driven by class, not generalized.  A Scout should gain more 'avoidance' per point of AGI then a Fighter (Monks being the exception).  Why should a Scout or Monk in LA have the same level of avoidance (but not same iniate mitigation .. more on that in #6) as a Guardian wearing exact same gear and same stats?</P> <P>6) AC should be table driven to give those that have more focus in mitigation to gain more effect per AC.  This is common to most games, and done that way for balancing reasons.</P> <P>Again .. IMO .. but sure would ease balancing issues and address SoE's goal.</P> <P>Added: And yes, NO-CAPS!  Hard caps are game breakers</P><p>Message Edited by Tamian on <span class=date_text>04-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:25 AM</span>