Punctuation is your friend - my eyes sting from trying to read that last post.
Yes player ability is important and someone viewed as one of the best players may get into a guild or raid even if they do not have the best set of passives for their character.
But if you haven't already built up that reputation the guild or raid will have no reason to take you over a slightly less skilled player that has concentrated on making the character as powerful as possible.
disposalist said:It is until guilds and even groups start insisting on ogre warriors because without stun immunity certain ecounters are harder.
As soon as you give some combo too much of a distinct and significant advantage a good proportion of players will see it as de facto and start rejecting anything else.
"You're a halfling warrior? Nah, sorry, I'll pick the ogre one two levels lower than you instead - go back to LFG".
Yeah, maybe not just because of the 5% crit, but with stun immunity and attack power too? And what about them dwarfs?
"You're a halfling warrior? Nah, sorry, I'll pick the dwarf - our healer can be slow off the mark - we need the extra health pool".
They just need to be a bit careful. There are some great ideas in there and nice lore, but still, some races got "wow!" and others "meh" when it comes to the gameplay impact, I think.
it's the price we pay for diverse racials. there is going to be discrimination, more so with minmaxers. like with cars trucks suvs(class). we are going to discriminate against brand names(race). oh if i'm gonig to buy a truck, buy a ford, not a honda. honda trucks suck.
to go back to pantheon. we could even say that dwarf warriors are going to be better in some situations(key thing is CERTAIN SITUATIONS) where being disarmed just guts my ability to tank. therefore the dwarf is way better than the ogre warrior. say a boss has high burst damage, skar having extra hp% is better. keep in mind the ogre racial is NON MAGIC stun only
besides halfling warriors bonus consumble effect could be comparable. like 20% stronger effects(we don't know exactly what it does)? great for a tank if u pot like a caffiend addict. aaww ye.
dorotea said:Punctuation is your friend - my eyes sting from trying to read that last post.
Yes player ability is important and someone viewed as one of the best players may get into a guild or raid even if they do not have the best set of passives for their character.
But if you haven't already built up that reputation the guild or raid will have no reason to take you over a slightly less skilled player that has concentrated on making the character as powerful as possible.
Huh, again not true, and never has been, if that was the case than in WoW why isn't like everybody alliance, for one Sword specialization is probably the best for warriors since Swords are usually more of and are better throughtout the game, specially at the end, two dwarves get fear ward, which is much better than tremor totem, as it make it to where the tank never loses threat, becuase he was immune to the fear, 3 humans rogues are very hard to counter with other rogues becuase they see through stealth better, 4 allaince have paladins which with the right build probably have one of the if not the highest HPS in original.
Horde basically only gets shamans, which are good buffers and such but it doesnt make up for the fact that other than undead getting "Will of the Forsaken", they dont have a lot going for them. But yet with that said their are a ton of servers on classic that are horde heavy, and completely lop-sided, which proves your statement completely false and is definately not the norm, or ever has been.
I've thought more about these passive and have some to a few ugly realizations:
1. Many passives require some pre-requisite before the passive can be used/applied while many do not.
2. Some passives offer 100% effectiveness while others only allow for partial effective subject to RNG**.
3. Some races have more passives requireing a prerequisite than other races.
As you can see, not a single Archai passive is always applicable, each depends upon an external criteria to be met.
Note: I forgot to put the requisites for the Halfing passive Wild Mind. That one requires an NPC that uses Charm or Mez.
**It is interesting to note that some passives read as "100% immunity" like the Dwarven Grip of the Dwarven Father, where as the Skar Fear of the Nine God reads "20% resistance to fear effects" yet the Halfing Wild Mind just says "grants innate resistance". FFS VR, at least try to keep the damn nomenclature the same for your descriptions. What is "innate resistance" anway? 10% 20% 90%?
Vandraad said:I've thought more about these passive and have some to a few ugly realizations:
1. Many passives require some pre-requisite before the passive can be used/applied while many do not.
2. Some passives offer 100% effectiveness while others only allow for partial effective subject to RNG**.
3. Some races have more passives requireing a prerequisite than other races.
As you can see, not a single Archai passive is always applicable, each depends upon an external criteria to be met.
Note: I forgot to put the requisites for the Halfing passive Wild Mind. That one requires an NPC that uses Charm or Mez.
**It is interesting to note that some passives read as "100% immunity" like the Dwarven Grip of the Dwarven Father, where as the Skar Fear of the Nine God reads "20% resistance to fear effects" yet the Halfing Wild Mind just says "grants innate resistance". FFS VR, at least try to keep the damn nomenclature the same for your descriptions. What is "innate resistance" anway? 10% 20% 90%?
this doesn't apply to pvp? npc immunity only? is this real??? borrrinngggggggggg. man talk about buzz kill. gonna go crawl back into a hole now...
Vandraad said:
**It is interesting to note that some passives read as "100% immunity" like the Dwarven Grip of the Dwarven Father, where as the Skar Fear of the Nine God reads "20% resistance to fear effects" yet the Halfing Wild Mind just says "grants innate resistance". FFS VR, at least try to keep the damn nomenclature the same for your descriptions. What is "innate resistance" anway? 10% 20% 90%?
Main reason why i was saying people are over imagining the benefits of certain passives, becuase we don't know what to scale them too, and though some seem strong why might be situational at best, cept for maybe stun immuinty as i believe you could simply get stunned by getting hit in general, or possibly at least have most humanoids or big targets have some form of a "bash" move that they do constantly throughtout the fight to trigger a possible stun, but this is just me.
Riahuf22 said:Main reason why i was saying people are over imagining the benefits of certain passives, becuase we don't know what to scale them too, and though some seem strong why might be situational at best, cept for maybe stun immuinty as i believe you could simply get stunned by getting hit in general, or possibly at least have most humanoids or big targets have some form of a "bash" move that they do constantly throughtout the fight to trigger a possible stun, but this is just me.
it's immunity to non magical stun only and battle trance needs to be active(i'm tinfoil hatting that this is an accidental leak of the active ability)
Riahuf22 said:Huh, again not true, and never has been, if that was the case than in WoW why isn't like everybody alliance, for one Sword specialization is probably the best for warriors since Swords are usually more of and are better throughtout the game, specially at the end, two dwarves get fear ward, which is much better than tremor totem, as it make it to where the tank never loses threat, becuase he was immune to the fear, 3 humans rogues are very hard to counter with other rogues becuase they see through stealth better, 4 allaince have paladins which with the right build probably have one of the if not the highest HPS in original.
Horde basically only gets shamans, which are good buffers and such but it doesnt make up for the fact that other than undead getting "Will of the Forsaken", they dont have a lot going for them. But yet with that said their are a ton of servers on classic that are horde heavy, and completely lop-sided, which proves your statement completely false and is definately not the norm, or ever has been.
pve discriminated alot more with the racials in wow classic. orc was just crazy for dps, tauren were tanks, trolls was crazy good for healers. in pvp the actives were interesting so there was less minmaxing and more about flexibility.
for sure human sword spec warriors were crazy good, if they could close the distance.
then u have elves active racial so they could now 2x charge and dodge burst damage (if timed correctly)
then mobility issues come into play and gnomes warriors were viable options.
dwarf warriors were the big eff u to rogues with the stoneform immunity to bleed, poisons and diseases.
stellarmind said:Riahuf22 said:Main reason why i was saying people are over imagining the benefits of certain passives, becuase we don't know what to scale them too, and though some seem strong why might be situational at best, cept for maybe stun immuinty as i believe you could simply get stunned by getting hit in general, or possibly at least have most humanoids or big targets have some form of a "bash" move that they do constantly throughtout the fight to trigger a possible stun, but this is just me.
it's immunity to non magical stun only and battle trance needs to be active(i'm tinfoil hatting that this is an accidental leak of the active ability)
The dev clearly knew it was mentioned, its wasnt a leak, he just wanted it to be clear that the passive was 25% and with active it was 100%, so there wouldn't of been a debate of how the passive actually worked, so he did it for clarity.
stellarmind said:this doesn't apply to pvp? npc immunity only? is this real??? borrrinngggggggggg. man talk about buzz kill. gonna go crawl back into a hole now...
I'm sure all this will apply in PvP but because I'm not going into this game to do PvP I did not approach my analysis with PvP in mind.
stellarmind said:Riahuf22 said:Huh, again not true, and never has been, if that was the case than in WoW why isn't like everybody alliance, for one Sword specialization is probably the best for warriors since Swords are usually more of and are better throughtout the game, specially at the end, two dwarves get fear ward, which is much better than tremor totem, as it make it to where the tank never loses threat, becuase he was immune to the fear, 3 humans rogues are very hard to counter with other rogues becuase they see through stealth better, 4 allaince have paladins which with the right build probably have one of the if not the highest HPS in original.
Horde basically only gets shamans, which are good buffers and such but it doesnt make up for the fact that other than undead getting "Will of the Forsaken", they dont have a lot going for them. But yet with that said their are a ton of servers on classic that are horde heavy, and completely lop-sided, which proves your statement completely false and is definately not the norm, or ever has been.
pve discriminated alot more with the racials in wow classic. orc was just crazy for dps, tauren were tanks, trolls was crazy good for healers. in pvp the actives were interesting so there was less minmaxing and more about flexibility.
for sure human sword spec warriors were crazy good, if they could close the distance.
then u have elves active racial so they could now 2x charge and dodge burst damage (if timed correctly)
then mobility issues come into play and gnomes warriors were viable options.
dwarf warriors were the big eff u to rogues with the stoneform immunity to bleed, poisons and diseases.
Honestly you can say tuaren were tanks but think about it, if you died as a orc, you were probably going to die as a tuaren, like 5% extra health is a joke, is was a meaningless passive if you foguth a hard boss at could potentially kill you in 4 hits than how many times can you actually say you having 5% more health actually saved your life? probably not at all, has it happened sure, but lets be real here and say that even tohugh it has happened doesn't mean the passive is strong, it means you merely got lucky and you shouldn of been getting healed better, or you got unlucky with rng and he just decided to whoop you really good, but had little to do with the fact you had more health.
Riahuf22 said:stellarmind said:Riahuf22 said:Main reason why i was saying people are over imagining the benefits of certain passives, becuase we don't know what to scale them too, and though some seem strong why might be situational at best, cept for maybe stun immuinty as i believe you could simply get stunned by getting hit in general, or possibly at least have most humanoids or big targets have some form of a "bash" move that they do constantly throughtout the fight to trigger a possible stun, but this is just me.
it's immunity to non magical stun only and battle trance needs to be active(i'm tinfoil hatting that this is an accidental leak of the active ability)
The dev clearly knew it was mentioned, its wasnt a leak, he just wanted it to be clear that the passive was 25% and with active it was 100%, so there wouldn't of been a debate of how the passive actually worked, so he did it for clarity.
then it is an active and it probably has a decent cooldown. the stun immunity isn't a big deal then. i've done quite a bit of raiding and there aren't too many bosses that stun. situational at best.
Vandraad said:stellarmind said:this doesn't apply to pvp? npc immunity only? is this real??? borrrinngggggggggg. man talk about buzz kill. gonna go crawl back into a hole now...
I'm sure all this will apply in PvP but because I'm not going into this game to do PvP I did not approach my analysis with PvP in mind.
aww ye back on top of the world!
stellarmind said:Riahuf22 said:stellarmind said:Riahuf22 said:Main reason why i was saying people are over imagining the benefits of certain passives, becuase we don't know what to scale them too, and though some seem strong why might be situational at best, cept for maybe stun immuinty as i believe you could simply get stunned by getting hit in general, or possibly at least have most humanoids or big targets have some form of a "bash" move that they do constantly throughtout the fight to trigger a possible stun, but this is just me.
it's immunity to non magical stun only and battle trance needs to be active(i'm tinfoil hatting that this is an accidental leak of the active ability)
The dev clearly knew it was mentioned, its wasnt a leak, he just wanted it to be clear that the passive was 25% and with active it was 100%, so there wouldn't of been a debate of how the passive actually worked, so he did it for clarity.
then it is an active and it probably has a decent cooldown. the stun immunity isn't a big deal then. i've done quite a bit of raiding and there aren't too many bosses that stun. situational at best.
It really depends with they pretty much give everything a bash like they do everquest, than that means a ton of npc's will have a huge chance of stunning you, which mkes it extremely strong, but if what you say is true than your right it won't be, but i got a good feeling with trying to make things "hard" again giving a lot of npc's some form of CC is a sure way of doing that, and with that in mind i see a ton of npc's able to stun, and therefore i think it is actually quite strong.
Riahuf22 said:It really depends with they pretty much give everything a bash like they do everquest, than that means a ton of npc's will have a huge chance of stunning you, which mkes it extremely strong, but if what you say is true than your right it won't be, but i got a good feeling with trying to make things "hard" again giving a lot of npc's some form of CC is a sure way of doing that, and with that in mind i see a ton of npc's able to stun, and therefore i think it is actually quite strong.
if i was a betting man, i'd go with a variety of cc in which case, each racial can be good given the situation. i'm going to tinfoil and assume this because 'dynamic', 'learning from past designs' and 'dispositions' are thrown out there. it would be rather silly to give most mobs just an ability to just stun.
it's more engaging to have some that would disarm, some counterspell, some charm or mezz. speaking of there's this crazy video of ai when i was thinking about dispositions:
ai hide and seek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6nF9WfpPrA this video is better
Riahuf22 said:It really depends with they pretty much give everything a bash like they do everquest, than that means a ton of npc's will have a huge chance of stunning you, which mkes it extremely strong, but if what you say is true than your right it won't be, but i got a good feeling with trying to make things "hard" again giving a lot of npc's some form of CC is a sure way of doing that, and with that in mind i see a ton of npc's able to stun, and therefore i think it is actually quite strong.
I think it was only warrior class NPCs that could use Bash and even then not every warrior class NPC did it.
Here's my issue with some of these passives: The realistic expectation that you will engage with an NPC that has a specific ability to which you have a racial passive to either fully counter it or possiblly resist it, is incredibly low. Stupidly low. Think about it. If you have just 10 dispositions that NPCs can have, do you expect every NPC to express a particular disposition? I don't think so. So lets assume that any given NPC has a 50% chance to either have or not have a disposition. They then have a 10% chance to express the one disposition for which you have a counter. Even then, the NPC might not bring that particular disposition to bear against you. As you can see, your passive quickly becomes something that can rarely be brought to bear and thus rarely affect the outcome of any given encounter.
This is in complete contrast to the Human's 2% spell/melee/range haste passive that is 100% applicable to every single encounter. No prerequisites. THAT, is unbalanced.
Now you might say the Dwarven bonus to hitpoints per point of stamina is 100% applicable but I will disagree as unless the NPC is performing some actions that affects your hitpoints, the bonus is not being brought to bear in the encounter. The Gnome mana bonus per point of intelligence is 100% applicable all the time for only those Gnome classes that are using mana (all but rogue basically).
OG course this should be the case Stellar, i feel like all forms of cc should be abundant, and not 80% one type and the others being scattering few and far in between, i believe for most of the forms cc to be evenly spread out and maybe even some have multiple forms that way he can be punishing regardless of passives, and to have them be smart so lets say a target has a stun and knockdown, but he realize your an ogre so he only tries to knockdown, or your an elf and realize he should only try to stun, that way when these situations come around the npc itself makes it to where your passive loses its strength by not playing into it, this is just a thought, but i think it is definately one worth having.
Vandraad said:This is in complete contrast to the Human's 2% spell/melee/range haste passive that is 100% applicable to every single encounter. No prerequisites. THAT, is unbalanced.
it makes sense lore wise XD hoomans are supposedly adaptable in any given situation, yet don't have the edge ogres have when dealing with a specific scenario. it's a tricky subject i suppose when it comes to pve since the nature desires a need for consistency vs oddities.
i just remembered. later iterations of wow pvp arenas and talents introduced a reduction in time spent cc. so in the case of ogres, instead of it being 25% resist the stun completely or 100% immunity, it's a flat time reduction.
for example: a non magical stun normally lasts 5 secs. with ogre passive it only lasts 4 secs. with ogre racial active it only lasts 1 second.
stellarmind said:Vandraad said:This is in complete contrast to the Human's 2% spell/melee/range haste passive that is 100% applicable to every single encounter. No prerequisites. THAT, is unbalanced.
it makes sense lore wise XD hoomans are supposedly adaptable in any given situation, yet don't have the edge ogres have when dealing with a specific scenario. it's a tricky subject i suppose when it comes to pve since the nature desires a need for consistency vs oddities.
i just remembered. later iterations of wow pvp arenas and talents introduced a reduction in time spent cc. so in the case of ogres, instead of it being 25% resist the stun completely or 100% immunity, it's a flat time reduction.
for example: a non magical stun normally lasts 5 secs. with ogre passive it only lasts 4 secs. with ogre racial active it only lasts 1 second.
but it's ponly 2%, that means at best if standing still and casting the same spell, and pushing the spell again right when its done casting, that after 50 spells he will get an extra cast, in other words this will probably never happen like ever, and therefore will hardly ever be noticed, again taking something that i guess could seem powerful to some but when actually exercised is marginal at best.
Riahuf22 said:but it's ponly 2%, that means at best if standing still and casting the same spell, and pushing the spell again right when its done casting, that after 50 spells he will get an extra cast, in other words this will probably never happen like ever, and therefore will hardly ever be noticed, again taking something that i guess could seem powerful to some but when actually exercised is marginal at best.
I agree with that on the point that you have Enchanters with a 15-30% spell haste (not just melee haste) through the levels which at 30+% makes that 2% seem rather paltry. With that said, it's the last passive that I find most important for Humans. 5% though would seem a bit powerful, but then you have to consider Ogres and their frontal stun immunity, even the unactivated version. When comparing it to that I could see somewhat of a meanline comparison.
I'm impressed with the analysis of these passive abilities especially since we don't know anything about what active abilities there might be. We don't know how each passive actually affects each player. These passive abilities won't affect my race/class choice. If my race-class choice prohibits me from joining certain groups/guilds so be it. I'm going to be a (my description) high amount of hours played, role playing, alt aholic that wants to join a more casual guild that is not going to require only certain race/class combos, or defines how I play my toon. You can help me learn my class? Thanks, I'll love learning. If you're gonna be upset because I slowed the mob instead of healing the DPS, well there's more than one way to play a class. I've played mmorpgs since 1997 and I've never seen a group of more whiny people in my life. O, humans are OP, no Gnomes are. Rinse/repeat for every variable in game. JFC, it's a game. There are also some of the best people in the world that plays mmos. I'll be hanging with those that enjoy a social atmosphere, enjoy the interplay between adults, figuring out their class, and puzzles. Looks like a potentially great game.
Vandraad said:VR, at least try to keep the damn nomenclature the same for your descriptions. What is "innate resistance" anway? 10% 20% 90%?
Quoted for truth. Keeping the descriptions uniform is very important. Hopefully we can nip this kind of thing in the bud.
An exact system used to describe items so there is no variance between one description and another is expected.
philo said:Vandraad said:VR, at least try to keep the damn nomenclature the same for your descriptions. What is "innate resistance" anway? 10% 20% 90%?
Quoted for truth. Keeping the descriptions uniform is very important. Hopefully we can nip this kind of thing in the bud.
An exact system used to describe items so there is no variance between one description and another is expected.
I get the desire for uniformity, but the passives may be varied enough to use different wording, even in the areas of CC resistance. Vandraad mentions 100% disarm immunity, 20% resistance to fear, and "innate (charm/mez) resistance." Those may work somewhat differently by the sounds of them, so it might be difficult to be both specific and uniform. To me, 100% immunity is pretty straightforward (mind, we don't know the prevalence, duration, and even full effects of many types of CC in the game). 20% resistance to fear, similarly, straightforward on the surface - a percent resist chance. Are there going to be numerical resist values too? For example: +50 fear resist at lvl 30 = 100% resist, +100 fear resist at lvl 40 = 100% resist, maybe some boss encounters require extra? Do we have any idea what kind of scaling stats like this might have? "Innate resistance," to me, says probably a flat value available from character creation (+20 resistance), or perhaps a +% to "innate" or unmodified/base resistance - either of which would have different impacts from scaling. But since "innate resistance" is talking about charm/mez effects, that depends entirely on how that is measured. Maybe it does boil down to a percent resist chance as well, and they just need to edit presentations a little more carefully. Maybe since it affects both charm and mez, there are different values for each, since those two forms of CC function drastically differently. If numerical values enter into it, there could even be different thresholds for different CC forms (100% for 100 fear resist vs. 100% for 200 mez resist). Different CC types tend to require unique tuning. Not sure we know enough yet to judge these things too closely.
Maybe they could be more vague to achieve uniformity of language though ("increases stun/fear/charm/mez resistance" - no numbers or specifics)? I could see that opening up other lines of criticism too.