Quote from PVP

[PsyKr]

Quote:"Yeah, ouch, saw a level 48 monk own all, 13 or so combat arts to use and stifles out the kazoo. 20 second silent fist stifle with 30 second reuse timer, 5 second kick stifle with 10 second reuse timer. ouch, leaves 5 seconds to actually do something. he was barely ever hit with any other melee fighters (ranged from 40 - 49) avoidance was a staggering 80.2% on him. spells just missed entirely, furious dual wielding punches were incredibly effective at interupting oponents combat arts. gonna be a mean class to beat"Bwahaha! Fear us! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[woo]

<DIV>/woot</DIV>

[ganjookie]

PWND!<div></div>

[bonesbro]

That quote isn't accurate... you don't get Silent Fist till 50. <div></div>

[Harpax]

<DIV>Dev's have also said that CA's / Spells can be tuned independently for PVE and PVP.  A 20 second stifle for PVE might turn into a 2 second stifle in PVP.</DIV>

[i3ry]

There is no way they will let us have the normal Silent Fist in pvp =p <div></div>

[POX67]

I hope they do just nerf us for PvP rather than nerf across the board. Learning that you char is great at PvP is scary as you know the nerf bat will be hovering over your head... <div></div>

[Lareal]

Not really. Mecros in eq1 were pretty awesome on the Zeks, and probably the least nerfed  class. <div></div>

[Lareal]

Necros lol. Typing sucks btw. <div></div>

[Frogstomp]

<P>Now I don't want to depress people, BUT : I really hope they won't nerf classes because of PvP... Wait till the kids start whining: "Class X defeated me, it needs to be nerfed ! waaaaah, waaah, sob, sob".</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[psubull]

Throat Punch.   10 second stifle, 10 second recast.  Eat it, monks, <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[woo]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Frogstompur wrote:<BR> <P>Now I don't want to depress people, BUT : I really hope they won't nerf classes because of PvP... Wait till the kids start whining: "Class X defeated me, it needs to be nerfed ! waaaaah, waaah, sob, sob".</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>this has been mentioned about a trilion billion zillion times and the answer is always:</P> <P>soe is making each skill have a PvP and a PvE affect.  they could make monks the most useless class in the game PvP wise and there PvE abilities would not be affected</P>

[stephe]

<span><blockquote><hr>PsyKrow wrote:Quote:Bwahaha! Fear us! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>Heh. Like a lot of other posters and lurkers, my thought was, "Bwahaha! Nerf us! =/" I'd rather our class not get singled out as being an extreme amount of PvP power. You KNOW Sony will apply the nerf bat, you KNOW they will overnerf, and you KNOW that their changes will unintentionally spill over to PvE, because that is their proven track record. I don't see this report as a good thing. Not at all.</span><div></div>

[LittleStuart]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stephent wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PsyKrow wrote:<BR>Quote:<BR>Bwahaha! Fear us! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Heh. Like a lot of other posters and lurkers, my thought was, "Bwahaha! Nerf us! =/"<BR><BR>I'd rather our class not get singled out as being an extreme amount of PvP power. You KNOW Sony will apply the nerf bat, you KNOW they will overnerf, and you KNOW that their changes will unintentionally spill over to PvE, because that is their proven track record.<BR><BR>I don't see this report as a good thing. Not at all.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>While I find the idea of changing spell stats in PvP to be rather strange I will say this; the big advantage is that <U>any</U> changes they make to try and balance monks for PvP is <U>extremely unlikely</U> to have any effect on PvE. They are simply separate worlds and assuming that PvP effects will spill into PvE is like assuming that changes in SWG are going to have a big effect on EQ2 players.</P> <P>Sure, there is a possibility for some intentional changes to PvE that occur because after looking at a PvP change the devs decide it would work well in PvE, but those changes would probably be <U>good things</U>. They've recieved some testing in PvP and because of how they are performing the devs feel it's likely they will make PvE better.</P> <P>Now does that mean that I'm saying it's impossible for PvP changes to affect PvE unintentionally? No. Of course not. Even a change to SWG -could- have a significant unintentional impact on EQ2. The new code could always spontanteously form an artificial intelligence that decides that a galactic empire is a good thing, resulting in its conquest of the world and involuntary servitude of the carbon based life forms inhabitting it that seriously cuts into everyone's EQ2 time.</P> <P>I'm just saying it's rather unlikely.</P>

[stfields]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bonesbro wrote:<BR>That quote isn't accurate... you don't get Silent Fist till 50.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What about Lu'Suns Stifling Dragon?

[stephe]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>LittleStuart wrote: <blockquote> <hr> stephent wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> PsyKrow wrote:Quote:Bwahaha! Fear us! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <hr> </blockquote>Heh. Like a lot of other posters and lurkers, my thought was, "Bwahaha! Nerf us! =/"I'd rather our class not get singled out as being an extreme amount of PvP power. You KNOW Sony will apply the nerf bat, you KNOW they will overnerf, and you KNOW that their changes will unintentionally spill over to PvE, because that is their proven track record.I don't see this report as a good thing. Not at all.</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>While I find the idea of changing spell stats in PvP to be rather strange I will say this; the big advantage is that <u>any</u> changes they make to try and balance monks for PvP is <u>extremely unlikely</u> to have any effect on PvE. They are simply separate worlds and assuming that PvP effects will spill into PvE is like assuming that changes in SWG are going to have a big effect on EQ2 players.</p> <p>Sure, there is a possibility for some intentional changes to PvE that occur because after looking at a PvP change the devs decide it would work well in PvE, but those changes would probably be <u>good things</u>. They've recieved some testing in PvP and because of how they are performing the devs feel it's likely they will make PvE better.</p> <p>Now does that mean that I'm saying it's impossible for PvP changes to affect PvE unintentionally? No. Of course not. Even a change to SWG -could- have a significant unintentional impact on EQ2. The new code could always spontanteously form an artificial intelligence that decides that a galactic empire is a good thing, resulting in its conquest of the world and involuntary servitude of the carbon based life forms inhabitting it that seriously cuts into everyone's EQ2 time.</p> <p>I'm just saying it's rather unlikely.</p><hr></blockquote>Your post reeks of unadulterated optimism. My cynicism is based upon two things: my knowledge of how the software development process occurs (I won't say "works") in a large organization, and my experiences with Sony over the time that I've played their games. You assume competency on the part of the developers; I do not. They say that there's a separation between PvE and PvP code; I'm not going to assume the truthfulness of that statement, since I cannot read the source for myself, until I see the proof with my own eyes. They do not have an impressive track record of thoroughly testing things before they go live. They also do not have an impressive track record of un-nerfing what they have mistakenly nerfed. And they have a very poor history, over the 5+ years I have played both EQ and EQ2, of handling class balance issues. So, please forgive me for peeing on the party favors. =)</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by stephent on <span class=date_text>06-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:44 AM</span>

[LittleStuart]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>stephent wrote:</P> <P><SPAN>...My cynicism is based upon two things: my knowledge of how the software development process occurs (I won't say "works") in a large organization, and my experiences with Sony over the time that I've played their games.<BR><BR>You assume competency on the part of the developers; I do not. They say that there's a separation between PvE and PvP code; I'm not going to assume the truthfulness of that statement, since I cannot read the source for myself, until I see the proof with my own eyes. They do not have an impressive track record of thoroughly testing things before they go live. They also do not have an impressive track record of un-nerfing what they have mistakenly nerfed...</SPAN></P> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually my optimism is based on a lot of things. First, I'm not assuming there will be no bugs at all but I am assuming that truly serious bugs* will be addressed fairly quickly. </P> <P>Secondly, I'm not assuming that there is separation between PvP and PvE code. You worry about the truthfulness of the statement but I can't recall actually seeing any such statement concerning any separation of code (perhaps it was there and I missed it. It is entirely possible). In any event such concerns are unwarranted since there doesn't need to be any separation in code. Each spell is almost certainly a simple database entry and not a custom subroutine. Now each spell gets a possible second set of entries. If a spell is cast against a player and this second set of entries exists then they are used to determine the spell effect, otherwise the first set of entries are used. Any problems that might arise from a spell being improperly balanced for PvP would affect PvP, leaving PvE unaffected.</P> <P>Thirdly, 'nerfing' has nothing to do with bugs. Nerfing is caused by making alterations to abilities. Sometimes there may be unintended nerf like effects because of ability adjustments (such as the ever popularly declaimed 'nerf' in which other people are improved and so people complain that they have been 'nerfed' because of that) but those are still the results of ability modifications. Given the way that the system has been described if the code should suddenly start using the PvP entries to determine how an ability acts in PvP that would be a bug and not a nerf. Again, I am not saying that there will be no bugs. What I am saying is that the system, as described, will prevent them from accidentally nerfing people's PvE abilities as they try to balance PvP.</P> <P>Lastly, the fact that I am aware that there needs to be no separation in PvP and PvE code (and in fact it would be better if there were not) and that bugs are not nerfs while you seem unaware of these facts leads me to the conclusion that I know a bit more about coding and game design than you do, which should not be construed as any sort of insult directed at you. I learned how to code from my father (who has a Ph.D. in mathematics as at the time there were no degrees offered in computer sciences) about 30 years ago and probably know a good deal more about code design than your typical coder. I have been playing RPGs for over 25 years, have worked on the design elements of multiple games, have a very good grasp of probability mathematics, economic theory, game theory, and understand how they relate to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.</P> <P>You want to accuse me of optimism, but I will refer you again to my post. Did I claim there was no chance there could not be bugs? Did I claim that there would never be any sort of 'bleed over' effect from PvP to PvE? No, I didn't. Instead I said that the design seemed good and that as stated there was no reason to assume that efforts to balance PvP would result in a noticable impact in PvE.</P> <P>You, on the other hand, seem to have taken the tack that these changes will result in an automatic nerfing of our abilities. When shown how the design should prevent that you fall back to 'this is what has happened in the past'.. While it is true that past performance can be an indicator of future performance it by no means assures failure. Assuming that it will is like watching someone who tries unsuccessfully to cross a busy freeway and then, when they announce that they have a new plan to go to the nearest overpass and cross there, assuming that they will fail once again, and that is pessimism.</P> <P>I am sure that some will argue that this is a 'half full/half empty' sort of thing, but to me it has more of the appearance of 'three quarters full'. Yes, you can certainly argue that the glass is a quarter empty. You can even argue that as a customer it's not acceptable that you've lost a full quarter of your glass, but to argue that the glass is filled with sand just seems wrong.</P> <P>*Serious bugs in this instance refer to things that are truly game breaking issues. Things that are simply inconvenient for people, such as the fact that Apprentice IV Everburning Flame did (does?) not work, are not serious bugs. Discussions of SOE's ability or lack of ability to fix non-serious bugs or to write code free of non-serious bugs are not in the purview of the current discussion.</P></DIV>

[bonesbro]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stfields wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bonesbro wrote:<BR>That quote isn't accurate... you don't get Silent Fist till 50.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What about Lu'Suns Stifling Dragon? <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, that part is correct - that was the 5s stifle on the 10s recast they mentioned.  It's no Throat Punch but it's none too shabby <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>