You were commenting on that hit on the Rants thread just last night.

Oh, that? I'm curious what the damage would have been vs someone unafflicted, transed magic, and me without a war blessing. Definitely not 3k. It also can't be done every 2.5 seconds- the chance of damage is random.

I don't think it should balanced around trans magic (but I'm sure Estarra would disagree). I definitely don't think it should be balanced around them being UNafflicted, that's silly. Of COURSE you're going to try to afflict them. War blessing, sure, you can do it without that.

It really shouldn't be balanced around trans magic. Things shouldn't be balanced around trans resilience but they are. Let's -not- increase the learning curve for fighters to join. People feel that conflict is dead and that the learning curve is too steep. So why make it steeper? That being said, Succumb vs Lash should still be looked into.

What level should things be balanced around that wouldn't make Trans players overpowered? Having a chunk of players running around virtually immune to magic damage because it's been balanced for mid-level doesn't seem like a good idea, either.

That's not meant to be a critique, just an honest question. At what levels of resistance should damage be balanced around if not maximum resistance?

Arbitrarily, I'd say half is a good level.

Technically, they could run a statistical count of every character's magic skill and take an average and use that.

Balancing for mid-level is dumb. We balance for the top tier - those who are actually capable and competent and have skills to complement that. Otherwise, skills would only be good against noobs.

It may be more fun for the top-tier, but it seems to me to be extraordinarily less fun for the mid-tier. Is that really fair? I can understand someone who wants credit sales to think that way, but for the average person (please note, Forren, you are NOT the average person. Nor am I. Nor are a decent chunk of the people who post to these forums) I think better balancing for the 'average' player is the most fair.

There have been decisions in the past to nerf skills because of crappy systems. I don't mean "not perfect" - I mean not having a trigger work.

My issue with not balancing around the top tier is often skills will become useless against top-tier opponents and only meaningful against those who lack certain skills. That said, there's a difference between "useless" and "lessened". I don't mind looking at less-than-trans for Resilience and Magic - but for things like Discipline and Planar, I focus on trans.

I think both has to be taken into account, a viable way to fight in top tier and not be able to walk over everyone that dont have trans discipline (pinleg + mantakaya)

That's not only a problem for non-trans discipline.

I will just hope this is a joke or sarcasm or something similar, and move on without responding.



For once, Xavius is actually sounding perfectly reasonable. As is Revan...

What is wrong with the world?

First, yes, as people have said time and time again, things need to be balanced around omnitrans, otherwise there will people people who are nearly unkillable 1v1. And second, you absolutely cannot balance around the assumption that the target is going to be overwhelmed with afflictions, otherwise you'd need to make symbol do 400 damage, on the assumption that their target will have both sensitivity and omen on them, you'd need to make pureblade attacks do 600 damage tops on the assumption that their target will be slitlocked, etc.

Considering that you consistently are so biased that you make me look neutral, this doesn't surprise me.

Edit: Smilie added so its not mean.

Surely there's a nice medium. I wasn't saying to balance on the basis of afflicted up the wazoo, but if you balance without sensitivity, and add in sensitivity, won't that throw off the balance?

You're clearly right. It is only my bias that makes me think 3k damage on a 2.5 second balance is too much.

Just to catch people up, I am now officially biased against bards, Celest, Merians, Shadowdancers, and Monks (yes, that's right - I've been accused of being biased against myself). For some reason, it seems like every time I agree that something is too powerful, I am biased. Conveniently, the people accusing bias are usually the people I am advocating the nerf for...surely that has nothing to do with it, though.

While you do have a funny sense of balance, every man is occasionally blessed by luck.

I think the only thing I've ever disagreed with you on was the forging thing. You just get your feelings hurt too easily. Just a typical emo thing, I don't take it too seriously.

No, you're biased in thinking that it exists in circumstances where it shouldn't occur.



If I were to say "When a knight hits rebounding, it should kill them in one hit", I would be called biased by knights. Just goes to show you- make ridiculous comments advocating nerfs that aren't needed, and SURPRISE you get called biased.

If you balance it with sensitivity, you're forcing the skill user (in this case, a bard) to always keeps sensitivity on a target. Sensitivity is an affliction, so having it should mean that things are harder for you. It shouldn't mean that while you don't have sensitivity, you're safe.