Increase self-cast potency for caster/communer

Increase the potency of buffs that a caster/communer casts on themselves. This is to bring more balance to the fact that melees have access to all the same magical buffs that casters/communers have via consumables.

It makes sense for the sanctuary a cleric communes upon himself to protect him more than the sanctuary a warrior gains by quaffing a potion he found on a goblin. 

It is not increased duration that I mean; it is increased potency. Cleric's sanctuary giving 60% instead of the 50% you get from a consumable. Perhaps -25 from armor instead of the consumable -20. 

There has been a big drop in mana based classes being played. There has also been certain races that have all but disappeared. 

I believe this is because of the huge spike in melee incentive with all the new gear, spellforges, and mass consumable availability. Perhaps making caster/communer have innately more potent protective spells may balance this a bit.

As little Johnny said to the teacher, "I like the way you think".

However, would this not result in -800 AC for darn near every c/c, as well as 75+% damage reduction for all non neutral ones?

Explanation: 60% (sanc) + [25% of the 40% remaining being 10%] + damage reduction from high AC + ????

While we have discussed this issue many times the truth is mages and priests continue to survive, even thrive, with certain players behind them.

Making a change will only create opportunity for those players to effectively roll the pbase. Then we have to increase melee abilities, and we are back here again.

It remains a smart suggestion. If I could locate the other threads I would direct you to them, I will let one of the more ingenious young people do it. :)

I even suggested INT affecting the %'s on spell forged items. Perhaps between us there is an answer.

Lower INT = Lower protection and or lower duration or even spell level from spell forged items.

Higher INT = Longer duration or higher spell level from spell forged items.

Then the power combos like Fire/Minotaur Berserkers, and Ogre Rangers would not get the same benefit from them as the "weak" combos like Drow/Gnome warriors.

Im all about racial stats being a big determinant in outcome. Higher int giving more powerful spells, higher wis giving more mental regen or even magic resistance. Id like to see dex effect hitroll and str affect damroll. Con affect ac.

Im just brainstorming. I know that all those specifics would swing things drastically, but i feel thats a logically viable approach and would open more things up.

I had forgotten how beautiful your mind is.

I missed you when you were gone. :)

Glad you are finally home again!

God bless Texas.

1 hour ago, Fool_Hardy said:

While we have discussed this issue many times the truth is mages and priests continue to survive, even thrive, with certain players behind them.

Making a change will only create opportunity for those players to effectively roll the pbase.

One shouldn't rely on how the Top 1% plays certain classes or races to defend why something should remain the same.

One shouldn't balance based on the Top 1%.

If the Top 1% is going to roll the pbase, they're going to do it with or without the changes.  Don't use them as a screen.

There's no problem with balance regarding buffs.

39 minutes ago, Magick said:

One shouldn't balance based on the Top 1%.

Most games I can think of are balanced around the pro scene which would be their 1%.

Things should be balanced around the top players and the skill floor should be raised so the barrier to entry isn't so rough. Well, in my opinion anyway. 

10 minutes ago, f0xx said:

There's no problem with balance regarding buffs.

I dunno if I agree. The armor spell hasn't been changed at all but the 20 ac it provides isn't much compared to in the past. It used to be around 10 to 15% of your total ac total where as now its around the 5% mark. So either it was balanced before and is weak now or was too strong before and is balanced now.

4 hours ago, f0xx said:

There's no problem with balance regarding buffs.

I would be more interested to hear your thoughts on whether we could use a sliding scale regarding spell forged equipment to balance the gap between this race of warrior and that race of warrior. To me the buffs themselves end up balanced by the mechanical setbacks of using the buffer item, consumable or 50% spell failure or whatever. Any constructive input?

I recommend to balance it on the 'hard-coded' skill/stat side, not the 'builder' equipment/consumable side as much. You'll have an easier time I think.

4 hours ago, Wade said:

Most games I can think of are balanced around the pro scene which would be their 1%.

Things should be balanced around the top players and the skill floor should be raised so the barrier to entry isn't so rough. Well, in my opinion anyway.

The first part is likely true.

The second may be as well.

These games do however have many of these players of each position playing, so seeing where everyone is sitting in relation to each other is clearly evident.  StarCraft and World of Warcraft are excellent examples.

We, on the other hand, have a half dozen truly excellent players and they play one, maybe two characters at a time.  So if @Fireman rolls a Knuckle Shuffler many people will cry foul and it's possible that the Knuckle Shuffler will get nerfed.  When he gets tired of that and moves onto Basket Weaving leaving a trail of average players making Knuckle Shufflers behind him and they're not doing too hot, then they could get buffed again.  The cycle continues for Basket Weaving.  Same would go for @f0xx when he rolls Thumb Twiddlers or Sheep Shearers or anything else he sets his mind to.

So we don't easily see where all the classes sit with each other.  To do that, we need to turn to the average players, the bulk of the player base.  We then must take it with a grain of salt those exceptional players and their OP classes that they are just playing well.

That's just how I see it.  It's open for debate.

As for @Grim_Reefer's idea, as I've said before, I like it.  I don't know whether it would help, but I like the idea of it.

7 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Any constructive input?

Nope.

This is not a thread made with regard to constructive discussion, hence why I am not trying to discuss it constructively.

It's a thread in which an average player made an assumption that something is broken and then made a suggestion on  how to fix this something.

His base assumption is wrong though, which in turn makes the discussion of his proposed "fix" to the assumed problem, completely unnecessary.

1 hour ago, f0xx said:

Nope.

This is not a thread made with regard to constructive discussion, hence why I am not trying to discuss it constructively.

It's a thread in which an average player made an assumption that something is broken and then made a suggestion on  how to fix this something.

His base assumption is wrong though, which in turn makes the discussion of his proposed "fix" to the assumed problem, completely unnecessary.

Dude - there is no need to attack people because you don't like their idea.

Grim has an opinion - you have an opinion.  Just because you are 'better' (subjective!) at the game doesn't mean that your opinion is right.

If you don't have anything to add to a thread - just don't post.

In Foxx's defense, he's not attacking anyone.  Is he blunt?  Yes.  Can he come across as abrasive? Also yes.  But this isn't an attack.  He's simply stating his opinion.

Nah its typical of him.  Trash peoples ideas, offer nothing contsructive.  Frankly ignoring him and having sensible constructive discussion around him as if hes not in the room is best.

1 hour ago, English lad said:

Dude - there is no need to attack people because you don't like their idea.

Grim has an opinion - you have an opinion.  Just because you are 'better' (subjective!) at the game doesn't mean that your opinion is right.

I don't see how calling someone average is an insult. If I wanted to insult him I would have called him bad (which I didn't, even though I may, or may not, think he is). He is definitely not top tier PK-er though, which is why I called him average. If you look at things realistically, calling him average might actually be a flattery.

Quote

If you don't have anything to add to a thread - just don't post.

I was quoted and asked for "constructive" input, hence why I posted.

The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging the problem. Accepting it is as such. Only once you've acknowledged it, can you start pondering a course of action by which to tackle it. Grim has already passed this stage. Now if you wonder whether you have brain cancer, you would go to a specialist for his opinion. Not to some random dude with no credentials. Here it's the same thing. In his mind, there is no doubt that there is some form of  imbalance between melees and communers and it lies within the fact that melees can use many buffs available to mages. 

With my post I simply wanted to state that:

1. There is no such imbalance

2. He is not qualified enough to make such an assessment

49 minutes ago, f0xx said:

With my post I simply wanted to state that:

1. There is no such imbalance

2. He is not qualified enough to make such an assessment

Independant source to back up your assumptions?

Nobodies opinion is automatically better than somebody else is.  This isn't a scientific case - we're not talking mathematics.

Whether there is a problem or not is subjective - there are people who are just as (if not more) qualified than you who disagree with you - does that mean that you aren't qualified to make an assessment?

Here is the truth - all of this is subjective - nobody is 'qualified' to have their opinion matter more than other people automatically - and saying anything else is the rankest Arrogance. 

Every post should be backed up with logic and reasons - if those can be refuted, then people have given weight to their arguments - if people can't back up either their initial point, or their rebuttal to somebody else's then they shouldn't enter the argument.

For reference I don't actually think Grim's solution is balanced - as changing some of the base numbers on what spells do is likely to have to much of an impact. I do think that there is a balance, based on posts I've seen here, and on the discord - from people i respect as experts saying there is an imbalance.

I think you need to look at this issue a bit more impartially - as looking over your posts on the subject you seem to have a very strong bias towards a certain player style, and you just get aggressive and dismissive when you feel like people are attacking it.

1 hour ago, Kyzarius said:

Nah its typical of him.  Trash peoples ideas, offer nothing contsructive.  Frankly ignoring him and having sensible constructive discussion around him as if hes not in the room is best.

I don't think F0xx is a bad guy - nor do i think we are a community big enough to be excluding people from discussion.

He clearly knows the game - and i value his input.  I just think that input should come with some reasoning - and explanation.  Not a blanket statement that other people are wrong "because he says so!"

so @English lada nice way of saying exactly what I said ;)

Back on topic however.  I like Grim's idea, though I think the better balance would be found in empowering those spells that reduce an enemies effectiveness.  Saves are so crazy high.  I can get numbers that used to be impossible.  Go back a few years and having -35 spell + double digits in all other categories would of cost you so much hit/dam in trade off that it significantly reduced offense.  Now though, you can sport that magic 40+ HR/DR with tank like saves.  

That kind of makes me wary about the idea presented tbh.  Because all we would be doing in the end is feeding that upward cycle.  It is difficult because the other answer is to normalize gear, and pull down the saves available.  

I am glad to see more people recognizing the issue at least.

@f0xx, calling people average while you sit in your "top tier" seat is condescending if it is truth or not. You feel there is no imbalance and that is fine but many people disagree. Right or wrong, debate doesn't hurt.

@Wade, I personally don't believe in balancing off the highest tier of players. I'll use f0xx's character as an example as everyone knows he was a PK powerhouse.

If we took Kotrag as a point of balance and toned him down to where others did not have problems competing with him than the class would no longer be viable to players who are not as good. Have we seen a feral ninja before Kotrag or since do as well as he did? No, because a large part of the imbalance is not class but player knowledge and skill.

Now you take Joe Average and let him play a feral ninja with the nerfs that we imposed on Kotrag to make him "balanced". I personally don't think Joe Average is even going to be able to compete at all based solely off the fact that we nerfed the class for great PKers, not average.

I never claimed anything was broken.

To me, it makes no sense for a warrior class to have access to the same buffs with the same potency as the caster class who learns these abilities through a guild.

I presented the idea here for creative brainstorming discussions on the subject as I have heard many people speak about the recent melee powerspike. I do not understand what is gained by creating an argumentative atmosphere - it was not my intention to do so.