In Discussion Class/Skill [Feedback Request] Skill Changes and Balancing

Ah, so that's the reasoning behind it.
On the 2-line point, I can understand — visual effects are an important part of the game.
If I suggest the equivalent of "7s + 2-line" as "7s + 400k cap," would that be acceptable?
Or under the original OSMS 5s, "5s + 300k cap"?
Or keeping the 2019 version's 4s, "4s + 250k cap"?

However, I don't agree with the standard of "non-useless skills should fulfill the same role they used to in old-school" — because there are many counterexamples:

• Pally, as I remember, CR is a Pally-exclusive skill, not a party buff.
• Piercing Arrow, as I recall, couldn't be fired while jumping — because crossbows being able to fire mid-jump felt strange.
• Rage, as I remember, used to overwrite Appo (in an environment where Appo cost 100m each, it was considered a non-useless skill).
• Air Strike/Octopi/Gaviota, as I recall, couldn't be used on the ship — and the animations didn't even match the on-ship state.
• I remember that pet auto-HP could only trigger once.
• I remember DK's Power Crash didn't originally have the Defence Crash effect.
• I remember Archer's Puppet wasn't nearly as strong as it is now.
• I remember there used to be a cooldown between Bucc's transformation stages.

As long as a change increases gameplay depth, cooperation, or corrects something unreasonable, I think it's worth discussing — rather than abandoning any possibility of change just to match someone's image of old-school.

Furthermore, the terms "non-useless skill" and "fulfill the same role" are far too vague:

(Non-useless skill)
The biggest issue is that all skills derive their value from the game environment — how do you even judge?

• In a place flooded with Appo, Rage is useless; in an environment where even +10 WA potions are hard to find, Rage is extremely valuable.
• Piercing Arrow is useless when the endgame bosses are only HT/Zak/AUF, but extremely useful when LHC/VL exist.

(Fulfill the same role)
Even original skills get adjusted for the sake of consistency and balance (though the quality of the original developers' changes is a separate matter). Using only "player memory" as the definition leads to everyone talking past each other — and could even result in situations like: "My friend's creative suggestion — I'll say 'it fulfills the same role'"; "Someone I don't like's creative suggestion — I'll say 'it doesn't fulfill the same role.'"

That said, I'm not claiming your point is entirely unreasonable. Taking Bucc as an example:

• If Bucc has always been a class that alternates between ST/non-ST states, swapping DS and Snatch would be a fairly significant shift, causing players pain during the adaptation period — creating the problem of "skills that used to work in a certain state no longer do."
• But the reality is that full-time ST has been the norm for 7 years — the issue of "skills usable pre-transformation suddenly becoming unavailable" has barely existed, since all skills were always available. Taking advantage of this window where everyone is already being forced to adapt to ST/non-ST rotation, doing the "DS/Snatch swap" + "Shockwave modification as DS's non-ST substitute" at the same time — I don't think the adaptation difficulty for Bucc players would be significantly different from "not swapping DS/Snatch" either way. (Both are hard — hard enough that the majority of voters in the poll are asking to revert the change entirely.)

 

@Saledor You've made very good points regarding CWKPQ.
The reason the archer takes the pirate boss, IS because he is utility class. Because he has the puppet utility that controls him and disable his annoying sharks, the fact that he has more HP plays no factor. He pins the pirate, meanwhile the NL focus down the mage, while the multi target shoot the bottom. On paper, no one should impose damage demands on archers he is taken for his utility. In ~2017 before the new client patch, old HT, I remember people impose demand on NL range, but none on SE. It was bring the SE and don't DC (SE DC was a meme, the moment he is gone the run is gone).
Buffing SE damage is OKAY I was warning about power creep because I see the intention of reworking it further. So quiver buff is OKAY, but it might be too much if he is going to receive more buffs.
Now let's talk utility. In EPQ he is stunning/freezing boars, in CWKPQ he is taking the the pirate cuz his puppet can hold him down. Even in CPQ he has stun for the enemies (though warriors excel in it, archer can still play it very well). It can stoppers farm with his birds. I don't think putting him on higher damage end is the way to go... Single target he shouldn't fall from the warriors or buccs, but he shouldn't overtake the A tier class. He should be low A tier - B tier damage, because of his massive utility.

 

CR is remembered as a skill that counters physical attack cancel. It still fulfills that role.

Failing while jumping is not important to Piercing Arrow's role, and it's not remembered fondly for doing that.

"Overriding apple" is not a role.

Unlike Super Transformation, there is no balance reason as to why these skills shouldn't be usable on ship, and being usable on ship doesn't make them that much better.

I think what I mean to say is "skills should fulfill the role that it looks like they were designed to do, and should not interfere negatively with people's memories of what they actually did"

 

This is irrellevant to this thread but mages cannot currently partake in BPQ. The dispel should not dispel Magic Guard, it just makes any make unable to attack as they have to only ever spam MG or they die. I always feel sad having to tell a mage to make another character to fight Balrog or buy an expensive service. It shouldn't be that way.

 

I feel like Doctor Doom meeting their future self who tells them how stupid they are for making a BM.

Jokes aside, I want to copy and paste this reply everywhere. It deserves so much recognition, your words are incredible. You singlehandedly put forth all my fears for my future BM adventures, all the problems with the class and the executions of our kit, whereas I don't feel like any part of it is executed well and nobody is in agreement as to what how anything should be executed. BM and how players and GMs alike talk about it feels like a topic in a board meeting where nobody cares enough to actually tackle the issues with it and spend the whole meeting going back and forth asking "what is a BM?". All only to never try either direction (DPS vs Utility/support) and just wind up neglecting it.

While doing almost comparable DPS to NL/Sair with similar funding would be nice, the utility letting me solo content and do things differently than any other class can is what made me want to play BM. I want to solo papulatus, Krex, The Boss and even Zakum without a billion mules. It might take forever, but I want to be able to -- IF I manage to master my utilities and the skills I'm given across my career (Bomb Arrow and Focus, for instance).

Seeing ChronoStory's Arrow Rain and how it reaches so far and makes grinding look cool and fun made my ghasts thoroughly flabbered. It doesn't have to be THAT strong, but it was cool to see how it reached above a platform more tall than the tip of my hat reaches. Knowing I can't mob and also can't properly utilise any skills other than SE and Hurricane during bossing doesn't make me excited for late game. I don't want to quit, but if I start doing lategame content and my class is this bad I might just have to, since I know I'd be wasting my time.

 

May I ask a question?
By your definition, DrK/Hero, as a multi target support class that deals about 80% of NL’s damage, then as a single target support class, what percentage of NL's damage should BM deal?

 

Make a new tier of boss, the mini bosses.

So there is

• Large bosses with HP bar in the sky,
• Mini boss without any HP bar (LHC mobs, VL summons, Ephenia summons)
• Regular mob with HP above head.

Dragon rush, bucc's rushes, warrior rushes/magnet works on Mini boss and Regular mobs, and then remove rushing from all big bosses, so the only way to move them is with high dmg.

 

I wonder if you've noticed — the moment you start responding point by point, each individual response already implies that these changes can be discussed one by one, rather than being grouped under some overarching "original purpose that determines what can or can't be changed."

For example, when you say "Unlike Super Transformation, there is no balance reason as to why these skills shouldn't be usable on ship" — then why simultaneously oppose 2-line Snipe? That's also just a case of the animation not matching, rather than having any negative effect compared to the original Snipe. It's even a slight buff.

The two points you raised:

• Skills should fulfill the role that it looks like they were designed to do
• Skills should not interfere negatively with people's memories of what they actually did

The first point is already a bit odd — wasn't Rage/Enrage originally designed as a support skill to substitute for WA potions? It's just been "repositioned" so that it now stacks with WA potions. Moreover, how can we be certain that your interpretation — or mine — is the correct one? (I can only infer the original design intent from the skill design itself, without being able to state it with the same certainty you seem to.)

The second point is even stranger — why is it acceptable to apply a positive interference for balance or gameplay reasons, but not a negative one for the same reasons? And as I mentioned earlier, using "people's memories" as the criterion for whether a skill can or can't be changed is far too subjective. You could easily decide whether you support or oppose something based on gut feeling first, and then find reasons afterward.

For example, with Pally's CR — if you want to oppose it, you could argue: "the only class that counters physical resistance, so other classes should handle other boss parts first." If you want to support it, you could say: "a vital class role that gives the party the ability to counter physical resistance."
Or with Shad's Smoke — oppose: "Smoke was originally meant to give a brief window of complete evasion, not prolonged invincibility." Support: "Smoke was always designed to give party members extended invincibility."

This approach of "deciding yes or no by feel first, then finding justifications" turns the discussion into a pure battle of positions rather than anything meaningful.

And this kind of framing is also one of the reasons the Mage Farming problem is so hard to resolve. The flawed design of three massive AoEs from the game's early days means any change that negatively interferes with AoE gets immediately dismissed with "this isn't OSMS" — most people never even reached 4th job as kids, so to them, whether Genesis has a CD simply doesn't exist in their memory — which actually makes it a potential breakthrough point for improving gameplay. "this isn't OSMS" simultaneously becomes a key argument for "mages were never meant to join bossing parties."
Of course, such a change would need to be made at the very beginning of a server's life so that subsequent changes can allow mages to participate in bossing. Once a server's ecosystem has already stabilized (e.g. multi-mage farming, multi-att bossing), every change has to be carefully considered. But bossing mage is a whole other topic, so I won't go into it further here.

Meaningful discussion about skill changes should be grounded in larger principles — like the ones I've consistently advocated:

• Does it increase the game's challenge, rather than letting a single button clear an entire dungeon?
• Does it increase party diversity, rather than letting a tiny handful of meta classes handle all content?

Any direction of change that achieves these goals is a good one — regardless of whether it introduces negative interference or conflicts with people's memories. Of course, you're free to say "this just isn't OSMS anymore" — but that subjective take is really just "a thousand readers, a thousand Hamlets." Or are you subjectively defining what OSMS means in everyone's mind?

To bring it back to a concrete point: I had previously tried to suggest — while Hero was still one of the weakest classes — buffing it through Coma/Panic complexity increases rather than a blunt DPS buff. But considering that not all players seek complex rotations, the direction of this Hero change is good. Whether to add operational complexity is a choice (for both the GM and players). The downside is that Hero received a good change, but DK/BM/MM weren't adjusted enough at the same time — though since a second patch is still coming, there's still room for hope.

 

The animation not matching is the reason. It's not a balance reason, but that doesn't make it less valid.

We can't be certain that either interpretation is the correct one, so this is a case where you could go either way.

We can go over each point one by one if you like. I don't think it will be unproductive, and I wouldn't say that I agree with every custom balance change in this server. My previous statement praising Royals for its faithfulness towards old school design may very well be incorrect.

Tell a new player that a certain skill is buffed in this server and they'll be like, "ok, neat". Tell them that a certain skill is nerfed in this server and they'll be like "what? why??" There is nothing strange about this. People don't react to buffs and nerfs the same way. There's a reason why the majority of the discussion over the past week has been about nerfs, and I don't see any thread in this forum called "NL buff protest". It's also the reason why a bad buff (perma ST) persisted for so long in the first place, because nobody seemed willing to call it out for being unhealthy.

I wouldn't mind a Genesis CD for the record, even if that's not on the table. I will say that mages WERE meant to join bossing parties, otherwise what's the point of them casting magic cancel? Designing Zakum and Horntail to have multiple parts was probably also done with the intent to give mages something to use their AoE attacks on. They just botched the execution so badly that we still ended up with a meta where mages weren't welcomed in bosses at all. I can't prove it, but it's true.

 

Suggestion for MM - Make Snipe autocast-able (toggleable/non-toggleable)

 

Keep in mind part of mages sucking at bossing is that they're less gear dependent then attackers (they scale very slowly with tma, attackers scale very fast with wa), appos are far more plentiful in royals, and gear is much stronger in royals due to godly system and a more mature economy. If you compared at lower gear/potion levels than we have in royals I'd guess the gap would be much smaller (but still pretty big because Nexon didn't really know what balance is and designed more around themes/aesthetics for a while)

 

Friendly reminder that genesis cooldown will make small squad bishop VL horribly stale since there's no way they'll actually get appreciable offense otherwise

 

• I agree that animation mismatch is a reasonable explanation — but the point of my example was to highlight the double standard of rejecting 2-line Snipe on animation grounds while accepting Sair's animation mismatch changes.

• I don't think going point-by-point on "original design intent" is necessary here, because RMS is no longer the most original version of MS to begin with. For example:
  • Game content: LHC / VL / RG / +20 AUF / Ellin Forest remake
  • Class skills: CR / Blind / Hamstring / Rage / Smoke...
  • Even what are claimed to be "fixes" for many skills have deviated from OSMS's original intent. One hallmark of OSMS was its chaotic and inconsistent formulas — yet many of RMS's "fixes" have moved things in a better direction (though I wouldn't claim all of them are good).

• Permanent ST is clearly unhealthy and should be reverted. Personally I even think the original 1-minute interval was too short — the ST/non-ST time should be more balanced (50/50, 40/60, or 60/40). What I can't accept is opposition or restrictions based solely on player memory or gut feeling — such as opposing the DS/Snatch swap. (I'll admit this is a fairly radical suggestion, comparable in scale to Hero's Coma/Panic overhaul.) That said, if there's a better alternative that solves the problem of "non-ST state lacking a practical ranged-attack / mob-gathering skill," then not swapping DS/Snatch is also acceptable. Additionally, the other problem the DS/Snatch swap aims to address is that within the AoE skill set, DS deals 1.5x Snatch's damage — so after the swap, the contrast would better emphasize "ST state having meaningfully stronger damage output," rather than ST and non-ST AoE skill sets being similar in damage. But swapping DS/Snatch is a simple solution that addresses multiple problems at once.

• Bossing Mage is a good thing — but what I support is enhancing mages' bossing capability without touching Genesis/Blizzard/Meteor Strike (while ensuring that under equivalent gear value and single-target conditions, mages must always remain below 80% of the weakest attacker — which should be Archer).
  • Under this kind of change, mages in multi-part boss fights could very likely outperform certain classes. (e.g. zak/HT)
  • But the 1999 M.ATT cap also still needs to be addressed.
  • There's a lot of discussion on this if you scroll back — I've also posted 1–2 threads suggesting this before.

A more stable source of Cheese perhaps should be part of the Bossing Mage changes.

 

Making corkscrew/backspin hit more than 3 targets and making energy orb an actual projectile (like the name implies it is) would be less radical than swapping two skills. It would also be less useful, but the point is that we don't have total creative liberty here.

 

I think that DrK/Hero should be low single dmg character (B/C Tier), but excellent in clearing mobs (multi target S tier). That would put them at around 70~75% damage of NLs (when attacking 3 targets they sit on 210% so essentially they are good at CWKPQ 3 boss, scargas, hitting 2 heads in HT). When you combine them with their buffs (SE + SI) They should have around 80%~ of NLs damage.
For BMs I think they should deal for single target around 80% of NLs damage. Since they don't enjoy from SI, only their buff that's about it (for MMs that do enjoy from SI, without SI should be slightly below BM, with SI slightly above BM).
If I had to make a tier list of damage single target VS utility VS damage multi targets (3~4 mobs, not mage scale) I'd place the characters like this
For damage (single target):
S - NL, Sair.
A - Shadower, drk,hero, Archers (both classes), Bucc.
B - drk, hero (Without SE SI).
C - paladin
F - all mage classes.

Utility:
S - Bucc(timeleap = infinite echo + SI), Archers, Bishops (mostly for its HS, but dispell and heal and summon also play a part)
A - Paladin(situational, for its crash), hero (for its rage now, before rage buff it would be F tier)
B - Shadowers (for smokescreen, can synergize well with corsairs, the rest of the classes get quality of life less adjustments movement however, it's very good in dojo but not enough to give it a higher tier)
C - drk (HB, only wanted in lower end of the players against bosses that don't dispell very unreliable. If HB moves to the non-dispellable buffs it jumps right to A tier).
F -Sairs, NLs and other mages, although they have the seal, and the summoning dragon, I don't think there's enough content to justify them going up. And I've never seen a seal mule, but I have seen plenty of CR mules.
.

damage multi targets:
S- Drk, Hero with or without buffs.
A- Paladin, Bucc, Shadower
B- Archers, Sairs(for the elemental shots combos and the torpedo ship).
F- mages (if the target count is less than 4 I'd say ultimate attacks are too slow, non ultimate - too weak).

The problem with having one class excel in all content, while others are lacking is that if someone wants to play all content and "feel good" that he can fit everywhere, he will pick that one class, because why would I play something that no one wants in X, when I can play something that can fit everywhere.
Also, having a class that excel in NOTHING is giving up on the class (paladins for example before cr).
I don't want a utility that can mob, that can melt single targets, and that have good multi targets. That's why I'm against buffing archers too much. A small buff that would put them constantly above warriors unbuffed for single target is fine, if archers go above fully buffed warriors, no one would play warriors.
Also, I don't think that Archers are fun to play. Someone said to me "hey, they have all this utility, it's very fun". Well... yes, they do have utility, they are S tier utility, but is the gameplay itself fun? Corsair, have lots of utility it summons 4 octopus on cooldown each time you dismount and mount you should place it to maximize damage, you should egg the target you want to shoot, you have this bird bomb, you have this recoil shot wing boots mobility trick.... but is it fun? mounting and dismounting to dodge attacks feel sluggish and laggy, the recoil + wingboots movement combo is only good on flat straight long line (if u wanna go through henesys or something) the low avoidability makes him take a hit by every mob breaking the combo, and then re-initiating the combo takes time where it's better to just get on the boar mount and go with it... And even though Corsairs playing optimally are FAR superior to any other class, people don't want to play it, because its mechanics are not enjoyable.
The archers are not fun because unlike NLs that have this flash jump, jump shots, satisfying damage line stacking one above the other. Their damage line are at the bottom, instantly get overridden by any attack coming. Holding 1 button and having to SE every 5 minutes is not fun. And as someone complained above, the puppet utility is sluggish, sometimes the pirate boss in cwkpq doesn't catch into it, someone can just walk around it, and it will lock into him and not into the puppet anymore.
If the only way to make the Archer class fun, is to make it stupid OP S tier utility and top A tier single target damage (like the buccs) it's better to rework everything. Maybe nerf the SE. Make SE half as useful, so you would need 2 SEs in a party to get 1 SE normal buff, and then you can make the damage S tier. If he loses the utility, he can have the damage

 

We don't have S-tier utility, at least as far as I know. They even gave NL the ability to knock back bosses which essentially stripped utility from us. And they also buffed NL mobbing whilst nerfing ours, furthering the reasons one should make an NL over a BM. Because of the scaling our class has it's very expensive to get remotely competetive in terms of damage.

I think the big thing that the devs need to decide for archers is which niche they should fill. What their role should be. Currently we half-ass noth damage and utility, with all of the drawbacks (no mobility, terrible avoidability which eats away at the dps even more, etc). My opinion is that while the damage is bad and definitely needs a buff to stay relevant, the home for the archers is utility. BM focusing on single target, and MM focusing on mobbing, but both having mob control and utility, the damage is just expressed differently (Hurricane vs. Piercing Arrow etc). While we do have terrible mobility, we have things like Puppet and bad avoidability that adds upp a lot over the course of a long boss run, since we have to stop attacking every minute to reposition puppet, and once every few seconds to keep attacking at all.

I think all in all, giving archers a bit better scaling whilst making their utility really good like Dragon's Breath being the main knockback source lategame (NLs don't need this, they're supposed to be attacking why do they have that utility come on), Bomb Arrow being useful to control mob groups, Phoenix/Frostprey being able to stun like the Hawk can, Puppet having a 5 minute duration to make it easier to work with (it still has a maximum health...), Hamstring... hamstringing more? idk. Many things can be done that would up Archers' (at least BM, I don't play MM sadly) place in the game without making them broken. And besides, if you spent several hundred billion meso on a NL and compare it to a similarly funded Archer, I think it makes sense to allow Archers to have some damage with all their utility. Our damage is just laughable when our utility hardly works or is ever used.

 

Thanks for the reply.

So based on your perspective, Normally, BM's damage should be around 100%–114.28% of DrK/Hero's, depending on the situation.
(This actually matches the results of the data analysis I’ve been working on over the past two weeks quite well.)

From my calculations, we can conclude that:
1. BM's damage should be increased by approximately 10% (this could be achieved by increasing the critical rate by 5% and allowing Concentrate to stack with potions).
2. Give a Stance/Avoid Rate by at least 30%.(average 30%, which means it can be 100% with cool down)

As a result, depending on the situation (specifically, the monster's attack frequency), normally BM's damage output would range from 99.66% to 113.35% of DrK/Hero 's (HT = 99.66%, taking no hits = 113.35%).

Special Case Comparison:
If BM is in the most favorable scenario (taking no hits, 1 target) while DrK/Hero is in the least favorable scenario (no buffs, 1 target), the damage ratio becomes even higher, reaching 129.54%.
Conversely, if DrK/Hero is in the most favorable scenario (fully buffed, 3 targets) while BM is in the least favorable scenario (high attack frequency, 3 targets), BM deals only 33.22% of DrK/Hero 's damage(66.44% if 2 targets).

 

I've seen so many SE mules, there's gotta be a reason why someone would make a mule, level it up to 130 just for 1 skill..... If that's not an S tier, what is even S tier utility

 

It's because of Night Lords' damage formula giving them a +50% damage increase. It's not because SE as a skill otherwise is broken good, and it does nothing aside from give others some more damage. It's not a utility, it doesn't control mobs or anything. It's just a buff that the best DPS in the game NEEDS to be the best DPS. So why nerf Bomb Arrow's damage formula with SE and buff NL which are already the strongest single-target DPS because of SE?

I just don't like the way you think how having a class do nothing but SE is good game design. It objectively isn't.

I'd love if Dragon's Breath was given a big self-knockback mobility like recoil shot (but either useable in air or good when used on the ground as archers can't use skills mid-air). And if the ability to knockback bosses was given to us and removed from NL. I don't want us to be mules only used for SE, I want us to be a playable and fun class.

 

Not to sound like I'm attacking you, but I can't help but feel disappointed seeing this reasoning again, year after year.

I laid out my reasoning here about 2 years ago:

Spoiler: Old Thread

To reiterate, while I understand that there is a fear that implementing this would negatively impact the server culture, I cannot accept the explanation provided. Range checking, gear checking, and elitism already exist/have existed, whether that's for joining boss runs or certain guilds. In particular, there have been guilds with extensive application processes (gear checks, checking if you can/are willing to mule, etc.) My point is: if a part of the community is going to use the dummy in what you (well, we) view as toxic, I feel that they've already been doing that, and they've had many other ways to do it. In the end there are those that opt in to that culture and those who opt out. If that's not for you, then you can easily find a part of the community that doesn't employ these practices.

Re: Fear of 'R>HT 250k DPS+ show dummy result SS to join!'
I have a really hard time believing that this would ever become a norm in a game like Royals, and instead if anyone were to smega this seriously, they'd be clowned by most of the community. I think it becomes a norm in something like GMS, where there are so many systems contributing to damage output that it is much, much simpler to communicate dps. We already have a number that people could ask for, right (range for boss runs, or level checking for LHC runs)? Even then, the only time I've ever been range checked was for a shadower HT run, which is actually reasonable given the party would want to ensure arms go down quickly. If players would end up going through the effort of doing this with a test dummy, why have you not feared things like 'R>HT show stats window SS to join' or 'R>VL 50+ CGS show in trade to join'. To reiterate, I just don't think it would happen, and if it did, most people would agree that is clown behavior (with regards to public runs.)

I'm pleading with you, can you take the points I've made into consideration and see past your fears here? I genuinely feel that they are overblown, provided what I've said above, and it's depriving us of a tool that could prove to be incredibly useful to put theories into practice. It's really frustrating that in 2026, we still have to use krex eye or find particular mobs/maps to test things.