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

The feedback should be made publicly available because frankly speaking, there's endless misinformation that still gets posted about some classes from people who don't play them.

 

I want to agree with that last bit but that would defeat the purpose of having 'Game Balancers'

 

https://royals.ms/forum/threads/krex-class-dps-comparison.224575/

You can refer to the link, I would suggest warriors and archers need adjustment.

Meanwhile, other jobs are good enough.

 

Wow... Marksman are that behind... Maybe buffing Crimson Arclancer could help them out

 

I'd like to suggest a few balance changes in light of the new Krex DPS test and Von Leon being added to the game.
I mentioned a lot of them briefly but I'd like to make a proper feedback post.

The way I see things, every job in the game needs to have a purpose, something they can provide or do that others can't.
For example:
- Corsairs have the highest single target DPS (if the player dismounts correctly/under perfect conditions).
- NLs have very high single target damage, have the best QoL and are super efficient with pot (hp/att pots) usage.
- BM/MM have SE.
- Bucc has SI/TL.
- Shads have Smokescreen and are specifically the best in 4-targets DPS (relevant in HT/VL gargoyles).

So those classes always have their place and provide something that can't be replaced by others.
Now let's look at warriors:
- Hero and DRK have Rush, Magnet and Def crash.
1) Def crash is easily replaceable by a bishop.
2) Rush and magnet are both not mandatory and Corkscrew or aggroing mobs with Genesis/Dragon Strike are both good alternatives.
- DRK provides HB, which is not mandatory.
- Paladin provides Crash and Threaten.
1) Crash is only useable in very specific bosses (HT, Nibergen, Zakum, Scarga) - and even for those its preferable to mule it.
For the other bosses - Paladin is nearly useless.
2) Threaten has very little effect, it's almost not noticeable.

In conclusion, it means that in end-game conditions warriors serve no purpose (except for LHC/CWK) and are mostly just a burden.
Other jobs can do everything warriors can but better, while also providing important buffs or utility.
It's sad to think about it this way, but it's true.
For that reason, I believe the conversation around class balance should focus on making warriors relevant again, and nothing else for now except for QoL changes for other classes.

How do you make 3 classes with minimal buffs and utility relevant? with damage.
Warriors should edge the other melee classes with damage, at least in most conditions.

I will try to keep my feedback conservative, and I won't suggest wild changes or anything that would change how the game looks or plays too much, but at the same time I believe the DPS chart for classes needs to look different.
I will also not suggest exact figures, as they need to be tested to achieve the balance that I'm suggesting and I have no way to do that.

Now for my suggestions:

Hero:
I suggest giving hero an identity, as a strong single target attacker, with some multi target capability.
Hero will be the middle ground, stronger than DRK in single target, but weaker than Paladin.
1) Make Panic (the 3rd job skill) consume all orbs when used.
Change it to be a strong single target attack (with multiple lines) with a somewhat long cooldown.
Balance it in a way that will make this skill worth using over just spamming Brandish on single target attacks, and make it strong enough to edge DRK in single target, just slightly.
Worried about having this skill break the 3rd job balance?
Remove Enrage from 4th job and add a passive skill (comparable to acb for Paladins) that upgrades Panic in 4th job.
2) Adjust/increase Brandish attack % a little if needed, until Hero reaches the desired spot in terms of DPS values.

I DO NOT suggest making Enrage a party buff, it will just make it a must to mule and is not a healthy change overall in my opinion.

This change will also make hero a little more fun to play, as you will have to do more than just holding a button.

Dark Knight:
With challenging gameplay and high pots consumption, there needs to be a reward.
Dark Knights need to have the highest multi-target damage (up to 4 targets, including 4 targets).
For that reason, Crusher attack % needs to be bumped up by a good amount.
I don't personally think any other change is required.
Please do not mess with berserk %, that is not needed and will just make DRK another Hero (which in some bosses it already is thanks to the recent pot change).

* On a side note, I would suggest having another look at the Spear/Pole Arm dynamic.
Perhaps make Fury a little better for spear (so it can outdamage Crusher on 5 or more targets) and Crusher a little better on Pole Arm.

Paladin:
The solution to Paladin is simpler.
Paladins need to be uncapped, as soon as possible.
You already know it, but it still hasn't happened (I do not mean to judge).
After uncapping, I suggest bumping up Blast attack %, to give Paladins a clear edge over Hero and DRK in single target.

Conclusion:
After all those changes, and after tweaking the skills % as I'm sure you will have the do, the DPS chart should look something like this:
*Only between those jobs, Sairs and NLs will obviously still have their place at the top of the chart.
Single target:
1. Paladin
2. Hero >= DRK
3. Shad >= Bucc

3 targets:
1. DRK
(big gap here)
2. Hero >= Shad
3. Bucc
4. Paladin

4 targets:
1. DRK >= Shad (DRK will only hit 3 targets, but overall DPS will be slightly higher)
2. Bucc >= Hero
3. Paladin

5+ targets:
1. Bucc
2. Shad >= DRK (1-2 more targets for BoT)
3. Hero
4. Paladin

This is what I'd call balance, as every melee class will have it's unique place and purpose and they will all be viable in different places.
Don't be scared to make Warriors stronger than Bucc/Shad in certain situations, they have their own unique buffs and utility to provide.

 

I'm in favor of Warriors being buffed but I do hope the average player is considered when it comes to gameplay changes rather than just only the elite/top players. At the top, the elite/top players more than likely view the game on a different level (favoring optimal/high dps) than the more casual longterm (or short-term) player. While gameplay loop changes can potentially be good, if it throws off the game-style for the people who play in a variety of content vs ... VL/HT only, then I don't think it'd be a good idea.

 

Whoa shads are really high up there on single target DPS for a class that's good at mobbing... or is @Donn1e just OP.

 

Her shad is very well equiped, but iirc awlz drk has even better gears/untras, so i would say that with similar gears the difference would be a bit higher, even more, with similar gears at a bit lower stg(50-64wa gears) im pretty confident that: Bucc outdmgs drk easily and a ski drk would have over 6% difference with a faltizan one.

 

i don't agree with this.

if staff is considering buffing drks' dps, i am against buffing crusher. I'd rather drk dps be buffed via other skills such as berserk (there's already a precedent on this as this was the way it was done in update 68).

Reason being :
- Crusher is already the strongest 3rd job attacking skill by far, buffing crusher would make it overpowered for a 3rd job skill, could mean the diff between 1 hitting/2 hitting for 3rd job.
- Due to the way SE functions (additive to formula), i'd rather the difference between crits / non-crits stay true to the intended ratio values instead of straying away from what is considered nostalgic to me at least.
- If drks were to be made the absolute king of multi, the penalty for not zerking should be higher as a trade off. Buffing crusher does not do that, but buffing berserk will.

 

Hmmm, actually... for ski having a bigger advantage at lower att gears, I don't think that's actually true.

If we're speaking strictly in terms of lower att gears, theoretically, the gap between faltizan and ski should be closer instead since the 13 att diff becomes a larger diff based on %, meaning faltizan would have a bigger advantage the lower the overall att is, and that advantage grows smaller the higher the overall att gets.

Example : let's take two scenarios A & B.
A: 60 att cgs falt vs ski on apple
B: 40 att cgs falt vs ski without apple.

so for scenario A (higher att), the total att for falt vs ski would be, 312 vs 299, leaving falt with a 4.3% att advantage.

for scenario B (lower att), the total att for falt vs ski would be, 192 vs 179, leaving falt with a 7.2% att advantage. (meaning faltizan is more appealing the lower the overall attack is)

So, from this, i assume that it's actually the opposite, that the higher the overall att is, the bigger the dps gap between ski and falt.... or maybe im wrong

 

https://royals.ms/forum/threads/update-on-soul-arrow.194667/

I thought soul arrows functioning like shadow stars was a pretty cool idea so i'm necroing this topic again.
I've read the entire thread and i think there is a work around to satisfy both sides.

What if there were two separate skills that had a max level of 10 instead of one with a max level of 20?

• One would be the original soul arrow that doesn't requires any arrow and provides infinite ammo, does not benefit from arrows att with a 10 mins duration at max level 10,
• The other would be the formerly intended new soul arrow (maybe call it spirit arrow xD) that functions like shadow stars, consumes a fixed amount of arrows to provide infinite ammo and bonus w.att depending on the arrows used for a 200 secs duration at max level 10.

This way, BMs can choose to use either but they can only have one active at a time (similar to how paladins can only have 1 element charge at a time), and its a decent buff to BMs.

 

I'm confused why the current iteration of soul arrow is necessary at all.

I skimmed the thread and there does not appear to be any legitimate argument for it, and it utterly confuses me why this change was reversed.

 

You'll notice the whole reversal argument was driven by an single egotist. I wish I was active on the server at the time the discussion was happening, I would have pushed for it to stay with some minor adjustments to benefit Marksman

 

From what i read in that thread, it's mostly for the sake of nostalgia and the ability to freely use skills that requires arrow without ever needing to hold an arrow. I think it has its merits especially to those who doesn't care about min-maxing their dps and does not want to deal with holding arrows all the time, but at the same time, the "new" change back then was amazing which had a good amount of archers supporting that change, just a pity that it was reverted prematurely without exploring more options, which i thought was unfair to the archers that was enjoying the new change hence my belated suggestion now since it could accommodate both sides (maybe too late).

I also think my proposed suggestion would allow for an interesting gameplay as archers would have the option to choose between using either soul/spirit arrows, weighing if it's worth using spirit over soul for that instance, like for example,

in HT preheads, cwkpq archer rooms, farming quest items, etc.

 

Yes, this is why I like the current Soul Arrow. Mainly the quest items part. I like being able to turn it on before going to do hp quests, or farm crimson guardians, or dragon skins, etc, so I can keep my quiver full and my diamond arrow stacks in tact for the next boss run So I'd be sad to lose it. Not like devastated and heartbroken. But just a bit sad

I think if it were to become a skill that was worth using at all times and the duration was also reduced, I'd be a bit worried about us having too many active buffs to manage. We already have more than most classes I think? For example, Marksman has Blind, SE, Booster, Focus (if you care enough to use it), MW, and potentially also Frostprey and/or Puppet to keep up depending on the situation. So I'm actually happy that I don't ever use it during bosses currently. Adding another would be kinda rough, especially if it can be dispelled too

What if instead we just kept Soul Arrow the same when used as an active skill but also gave it an always-on passive buff as well, that increases as you add stats into it (could also be made into a separate skill if that makes more sense)? Something like: x% chance to not use up an arrow. I think then it would accomplish pretty much the same end goal of saving you arrows but without requiring another active buff to cast. Would also make it valuable both to MM and BM that way (though more so for BMs since they're shooting faster).

Just adding my 2 mesos to the conversation

 

but you wouldn't have to use the additional proposed skill, you could still play the same as how you do now, just that if you do ever need to minmax your arrow usage, there's always the option to do it with this skill. All it does is really provide a arrow saving plan to BMs that hoard a ton of arrows in their inventory, which for some players can be a very good qol.

the way i see it is, if someone wants the additional qol of saving arrows, then pressing a button once every 200 secs/dispel isn't really a big deal and probably a decent trade off, akin to how NLs would minimize their stars usage.

 

I'm not 100% sure if SE affects Assassinate at all but it doesn't seem like it does? I would like Assassinate to get nerfed a little bit and have SE function on it so shads have more reason to play with archers.

 

SE affects assassinate. The damage displayed in the first party view is incorrect. You can test this by using shad on one client and observing from another client, where you will see different damage lines and crit lines in the third person view. IIRC the damage you see from the third person view is what is actually being calculated by the server.

 

Same here. I wasnt playing much at the time due to IRL things and just general burnout when this change first got implemented, and would have strongly apposed changing the skill back. I very much like the proposed change from @lxlx and feel like it allows both types of players to exist.

Also, it really irks me that the original thread was closed at the request of the OP. Kind of like they were happy they got the change reverted and wanted to end any further conversation incase the change was undone. Unless the thread had derailed, no feedback topic should ever be closed to allow a chance to continue the topic at a later date if new feedback is provided.

 

@Dave Deviluke is it possible to reopen that feedback thread?

https://royals.ms/forum/threads/update-on-soul-arrow.194667/