Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Best Of
Re: Templar - Bladefire - Charging Changes
I'm also interested in how this was the change that was settled upon considering this was decided for report 2804:This is my point. If people die in 3 rounds or less anyways, you can't actually use your skill. And Overdriving continues to give you higher maximum blade charge, capping out for me at 226, when you can't even build currently beyond 130, if you're lucky. The way it works, in a group setting now, means that regardless of what style of weapon you are using, small, large, blades, or bludgeons, you cannot use blade releases in group combat to any usefulness whatsoever. Unless you all think I should start being an Vorpal Stun into Impale bot. In which case, Disperse exists and makes that tactic completely worthless as well. Every single tactic involving Bladefire has been completely neutered into uselesness in group combat, and I'd like to know why, and I'd like to know if there's any point in continuing to invest into this class, or if I should just play a neutral one so that I have less of a chance of when I do something in group pvp of getting nerfed off the opinions of people who play 1 lesser every 1-6 months.I don't really care about the change itself, most people die in 3 rounds anyways considering the 10+ v 10+ we see the past few months. Just curious what happened while going through the reports!
Aeryx
0
Templar - Bladefire - Charging Changes
Alright, then. So the changes to blade charging were implemented, and it seems obvious to me, from my perspective as someone who plays Templar on a regular basis, that perhaps the changes weren't exactly well thought out. Lets go over some numbers and some facts.
I tested on @Jourik using Crescent in Bladefire. @Jourik had 15% magic audit. Crescent does magic damage.
Each Doubleswing with my large blade gives 48 blade charge. Below are the various points of blade charge and how much damage magic damage Crescent does on a target with 15% magic audit.
1st sample hit - 48 blade charge = 0 damage(It wont let you use it at 48 blade charge)
2nd sample hit - 72 blade charge = 348 damage(Some blade charge wore off before I typed in crescent)
3rd sample hit - 91 blade charge = 449 damage
4th sample hit - 134 blade charge = 1196 damage
5th sample hit - 124 blade charge = 563 damage(Some blade charge wore off before I typed crescent in again)
So as you can see, the sweet spot to do 'good damage in a group setting' is 130 or more blade charge, by my estimation. That means you have to hit your target 3 times, and then use Crescent on your FOURTH HIT to do 'good damage in a group setting'.
Fact: I am never hitting someone 4 times in a group setting
Fact: This is on someone with 15% audit, when I personally as an average endgame joe have 51% from various buffs
Fact: I have heard things are supposed to be balanced around single combat
Fact: This change was implemented because people were complaining about blade charge in a group setting
Fact: This makes the Overdriving talent in Battlefury's Mastery skill absolutely useless as you can't use Blade charge in PVE, and nobody uses large blades in 1v1 combat because they aren't viable. One would then imagine that Overdriving is meant to be able to reach higher charges to use more impactful releases(you can't do this now)
I get that some people get angry when you delete them with damage at a lesser, but does anyone really believe that this is the right solution? Just completely removing the ability to use blade releases in a group setting either at all or with any reasonable efficacy? This is in addition to the fact that Keroc has said that the class should have more skills anyways. Is that the solution? Does the class need a slight redesign? Or are we going to continue to submit classleads and implement them based on group pvp complaints when we were supposed to be balancing around single combat in the past?
Honestly, at this point, I think some skills need to be thought up and added to Templar if this is the route that we're going to take. It is in no way reasonable to completely make an entire giant percentage of a skillset that is ALREADY SMALL unusable in a facet of the game that is daily and constant(lessers and majors). By unusuable, I mean literally, unusuable. I can't use blade release the first hit, and I can't use it the second hit(when you have 48), so you are minimum looking at using Crescent on a third hit for 449 magic damage on 15% audit. The balance on my weapon is 3.18 currently. That's 9.54 seconds before I can do a single, low damage Crescent on someone. This literally makes no sense. And with the changes that timer is the same for every target now. So please, convince me as to why this change is correct, or okay. Or at least someone assure me that we're okay with the idea of adding additional utility or something different to the Templar skillsets.
I tested on @Jourik using Crescent in Bladefire. @Jourik had 15% magic audit. Crescent does magic damage.
Each Doubleswing with my large blade gives 48 blade charge. Below are the various points of blade charge and how much damage magic damage Crescent does on a target with 15% magic audit.
1st sample hit - 48 blade charge = 0 damage(It wont let you use it at 48 blade charge)
2nd sample hit - 72 blade charge = 348 damage(Some blade charge wore off before I typed in crescent)
3rd sample hit - 91 blade charge = 449 damage
4th sample hit - 134 blade charge = 1196 damage
5th sample hit - 124 blade charge = 563 damage(Some blade charge wore off before I typed crescent in again)
So as you can see, the sweet spot to do 'good damage in a group setting' is 130 or more blade charge, by my estimation. That means you have to hit your target 3 times, and then use Crescent on your FOURTH HIT to do 'good damage in a group setting'.
Fact: I am never hitting someone 4 times in a group setting
Fact: This is on someone with 15% audit, when I personally as an average endgame joe have 51% from various buffs
Fact: I have heard things are supposed to be balanced around single combat
Fact: This change was implemented because people were complaining about blade charge in a group setting
Fact: This makes the Overdriving talent in Battlefury's Mastery skill absolutely useless as you can't use Blade charge in PVE, and nobody uses large blades in 1v1 combat because they aren't viable. One would then imagine that Overdriving is meant to be able to reach higher charges to use more impactful releases(you can't do this now)
I get that some people get angry when you delete them with damage at a lesser, but does anyone really believe that this is the right solution? Just completely removing the ability to use blade releases in a group setting either at all or with any reasonable efficacy? This is in addition to the fact that Keroc has said that the class should have more skills anyways. Is that the solution? Does the class need a slight redesign? Or are we going to continue to submit classleads and implement them based on group pvp complaints when we were supposed to be balancing around single combat in the past?
Honestly, at this point, I think some skills need to be thought up and added to Templar if this is the route that we're going to take. It is in no way reasonable to completely make an entire giant percentage of a skillset that is ALREADY SMALL unusable in a facet of the game that is daily and constant(lessers and majors). By unusuable, I mean literally, unusuable. I can't use blade release the first hit, and I can't use it the second hit(when you have 48), so you are minimum looking at using Crescent on a third hit for 449 magic damage on 15% audit. The balance on my weapon is 3.18 currently. That's 9.54 seconds before I can do a single, low damage Crescent on someone. This literally makes no sense. And with the changes that timer is the same for every target now. So please, convince me as to why this change is correct, or okay. Or at least someone assure me that we're okay with the idea of adding additional utility or something different to the Templar skillsets.
Aeryx
0
Re: Templar - Bladefire - Charging Changes
More will come, its just going to be staggered. Otherwise I'm just going to hold up classleads while I think and test out new things.That's good to know, and alleviates some of my concerns.
I mean if people die in 3 rounds you can't really use soul either as a carnifex which is what I was getting at with saying precharging was silly. I also think it's silly for Kai. I'm also the one that submitted the initial report against both kai and bladecharge, I do group fights extremely frequently so " opinions of people who play 1 lesser every 1-6 months" is a bit much.I find it pretty disingenuous of people trying to justify this absolute neuter of an entire skillset by saying 'precharging is silly' when Monks still get to do it, and have done it since the inception of Kaido as a skillset the entire history of the game, along with Monks CONTINUING to get to do it, when this whole thing obviously seems like a targeted change at one player because of some people getting angry/jealous at a lesser.
But if Keroc is going to make more changes, or do some sort of revamping of Bladefire or swapping it out for something else entirely, that's great. It makes sense in that case. But 'changing blade charging to something more reasonable' is way different than the 'make it entirely unusable at lessers' that it ended up being.
Guess maybe I should start on my first draft of that Warhounds Track report that should have been made this time too. Maybe I'll get Jourik to submit it as well.
Aeryx
0
Re: Templar - Bladefire - Charging Changes
Pre-charging was silly. Being able to walk in and gib someone w/ big dps prepped was prolly not fun for anyone except the Templar themselves.
The intent of this change is to provide the smoothest transition to a fair model. Keroc did admit that Bladefire might need some fluffing, which is something he can do over the course of a few classlead rounds if he so chooses. It is up to us to come up with changes and provide data via playing the class instead of just abandoning it (hello, Shaman!)
It was likely intended that crescent's full dmg isn't necessarily achievable in most team sizes today. The skillset was never really designed with pre-charge in mind. The numbers are probably made with the intent of a prolonged fight to build resources.
Imo, this was the right change.
The intent of this change is to provide the smoothest transition to a fair model. Keroc did admit that Bladefire might need some fluffing, which is something he can do over the course of a few classlead rounds if he so chooses. It is up to us to come up with changes and provide data via playing the class instead of just abandoning it (hello, Shaman!)
It was likely intended that crescent's full dmg isn't necessarily achievable in most team sizes today. The skillset was never really designed with pre-charge in mind. The numbers are probably made with the intent of a prolonged fight to build resources.
Imo, this was the right change.
Iesid
9
Re: The Reality of it all...
@Hawa posting screenshots of conversations is totally useful if the point is to try to influence “public opinion”. If there is such a thing for the game.
The entire thread is a good reminder to not use discord in groups or to at least check who is in the channel. They’ll post your stuff on the forums after all.
@Fezzix I totally think I have been called a white supremacist by the same people. Or maybe more players like to toss that around than I realized.
@Fezzix I totally think I have been called a white supremacist by the same people. Or maybe more players like to toss that around than I realized.
Re: Recent Concerns Regarding Bamathis
Granted, mirror classes could resolve some of that but that's probably way, way off.If anyone wants to know my largest current gripes, it's the rezz ring (despite me having it), and the idea of mirror classes. I hate homogenization.
That's a subject for a different thread though.
Seir
-1
Re: Recent Concerns Regarding Bamathis
Real talk. Normally I'd be fine with people holding their own ill-informed opinions. I'd roll my eyes and probably make fun of you a little, but that's it.
After you actively reinforce the notion that a group in game is analogous to Hitler and the Nazi party and players get called white supremacists, however, I find hard to accept "in my experience/perception" as an excuse.
After you cross the line into mounting a campaign against a group of players by literally calling them white supremacists, you can't hide behind the caveat of "in my perception." You've fired shots based on an admitted assumption.
Even if you're not the one who directly called people white supremacists, you still fed into the hysteria among your group of friends, and you played a big part in spreading the hysteria around so that people accept your ill-informed opinions as the gospel truth.
For my part, I responded in anger to people who had legitimate concerns about the symbolism. I'm glad it's been addressed, and I'm sorry for being insensitive. I won't change my stance on the controversy, but I do understand why people feel uncomfortable. I think it's possible to disagree with people without getting nasty, and I made my own assumptions at the start of all this that everyone of the opposing viewpoint was on the extreme end of it. I'm sorry for that.
The supremacist accusations that came from this and the people who propagated and encouraged it for the past few months, though? Grow up.
After you actively reinforce the notion that a group in game is analogous to Hitler and the Nazi party and players get called white supremacists, however, I find hard to accept "in my experience/perception" as an excuse.
After you cross the line into mounting a campaign against a group of players by literally calling them white supremacists, you can't hide behind the caveat of "in my perception." You've fired shots based on an admitted assumption.
Even if you're not the one who directly called people white supremacists, you still fed into the hysteria among your group of friends, and you played a big part in spreading the hysteria around so that people accept your ill-informed opinions as the gospel truth.
For my part, I responded in anger to people who had legitimate concerns about the symbolism. I'm glad it's been addressed, and I'm sorry for being insensitive. I won't change my stance on the controversy, but I do understand why people feel uncomfortable. I think it's possible to disagree with people without getting nasty, and I made my own assumptions at the start of all this that everyone of the opposing viewpoint was on the extreme end of it. I'm sorry for that.
The supremacist accusations that came from this and the people who propagated and encouraged it for the past few months, though? Grow up.
Fezzix
9
Re: Recent Concerns Regarding Bamathis
I think there is a distinct and fundamental difference: one group is alive and the other is not. The way the undead are made and have been portrayed in how the game describes them is as no longer living. They're former organic creatures that have chosen to sunder their spark and corrupt their bodies heavily towards shadow to become undead/undying/whatever you want to call it. While they walk, talk, unicorn, and feel like living beings, they are most definitely not "alive" unless the lore has changed again. What's more is that it has been gradually revealed over the years that more shadow = hella bad for anything and everything regardless of whether you're involved or not.
So for many Spirit-side organizations indifference and or cohabitation with 'not quite alive or dead things' is largely not an option. If anything, the crusade against Undeath is a mass-destruction of reanimated radioactive, dangerous things whereas Bamathis's slaughtering is a genocide of actual living people.
So for many Spirit-side organizations indifference and or cohabitation with 'not quite alive or dead things' is largely not an option. If anything, the crusade against Undeath is a mass-destruction of reanimated radioactive, dangerous things whereas Bamathis's slaughtering is a genocide of actual living people.
Haven
9
Re: Recent Concerns Regarding Bamathis
I think people who are equating murdering undead with murdering the living are missing the point.
Despite how much we all love our moral greyness, the simple fact is that Aetolia doesn't exist in a vacuum. Instead, it is a game played by players who are exposed to cultural tropes all the time, whether that is through other media, or simply through our every day lives. After all, the whole reason we have this thread is because Tiur felt the need to clarify why the motifs that many people saw (and I am saying this not even being one of them!) in Bamathis were not intended to be interpreted that way. As a result, moral greyness is ultimately sidelined because the dominant traits that make up the two sides very much align with the dualities of "good" and "evil" that are so common elsewhere.
It is absolutely no coincidence that in Spirit we have many motifs that are usually assigned to "good" characters while we see Shadow possessing many motifs that would be used for "bad" characters. Light vs shadow, chivalry vs For example, light and darkness are dualities. Many of these things are likely holdovers from a bygone era when these lines were even more distinct. Some may be less pronounced than others, but they are still all around in the game.
Sure, tropes may be subverted and players are free to interpret what these things actually mean to them and how their characters should act, but that the reason they are tropes in the first place is because they are supposed to invoke a certain idea. They are metaphors, and it is very understandable for players to see them representing what they are most often used to represent.
I am not suggesting that players can't want to move away from this duality and play characters who are much more morally grey, but my point here is that there is a very good reason why many players will see it this way. So going back to the original statement, I don't think it's unusual at all for people to think there is a big difference between murdering undead and murdering living people.
Despite how much we all love our moral greyness, the simple fact is that Aetolia doesn't exist in a vacuum. Instead, it is a game played by players who are exposed to cultural tropes all the time, whether that is through other media, or simply through our every day lives. After all, the whole reason we have this thread is because Tiur felt the need to clarify why the motifs that many people saw (and I am saying this not even being one of them!) in Bamathis were not intended to be interpreted that way. As a result, moral greyness is ultimately sidelined because the dominant traits that make up the two sides very much align with the dualities of "good" and "evil" that are so common elsewhere.
It is absolutely no coincidence that in Spirit we have many motifs that are usually assigned to "good" characters while we see Shadow possessing many motifs that would be used for "bad" characters. Light vs shadow, chivalry vs For example, light and darkness are dualities. Many of these things are likely holdovers from a bygone era when these lines were even more distinct. Some may be less pronounced than others, but they are still all around in the game.
Sure, tropes may be subverted and players are free to interpret what these things actually mean to them and how their characters should act, but that the reason they are tropes in the first place is because they are supposed to invoke a certain idea. They are metaphors, and it is very understandable for players to see them representing what they are most often used to represent.
I am not suggesting that players can't want to move away from this duality and play characters who are much more morally grey, but my point here is that there is a very good reason why many players will see it this way. So going back to the original statement, I don't think it's unusual at all for people to think there is a big difference between murdering undead and murdering living people.
Czcienn
3