The source of leeching is HP wash, people cant simply level themself without leeching duo to all of their AP put to INT instead of the main stats. Just by making HP washing optional or completely removed will cut the need of leeching by half or more. That will never happen to royal though. Nerf Archmage only make less people selling leech, not make the desire to buy lessen.
Since people are always comparing skill book prices between BS and AMs, let's not forget that creating a HS mule costs money as well. Probably in the range of 1b-1.5b to leech til 81. Yes it can be avoided through grinding but the opportunity cost should be considered as well. What exactly is the objective of the reverting the buff on AM for? Is it to reduce the amount of leeching in the server? Or is it to adjust the balance between mages and bishops by increasing the difficulty of mages? If it's the former, many have argues in this thread that it's probably not going to be very effective especially when skele spawn rates are to be adjusted. If it's the latter, are AM a really over-popular class right now compared to bishop that needs to be nerfed? As many have reasoned in this thread, bishops have many other advantages over AM at the moment that makes the damage disparity somewhat justifiable. A small nerf can be accepted, but the nerf proposed is around 20 lvls worth of tma for AMs to do one of the very few things that they can do end game. If it's for any other reason, we would really appreciate the thought behind it.
Yeah, the title of this thread is a huge clickbait. And OP wonders why people talks about the legality of leech in this thread, LMAO.
Maybe 99% of level 160+ arch mages have a priest on their own, that is very likely. However, comparing both characters - the arch mage and hs mule- to a bishop isn't a valid comparison and here's why: If we follow that logic: Any high level Paladin or Hero could have a HB mule so it would be correct to say their HP has to be nerfed because (Hero + HB mule) vs. (DrK) is a fair comparison. All classes should have their speed and jump values nerfed because its easy to create a haste mule: (Any class + Haste mule) vs. (Sin or Dit). Arch Mages should have their magic attack nerfed because (AM + HS Mule) vs (Bishop). I hope this explains it well enough. As to your second point, yes. That is correct. I don't like playing with 3-4 clients at once but I do because it isn't as troublesome and HS is way too good to ignore. Without the proposed changes to AMs, Bishops are still very viable and way more attractive than an Arch Mage: BISHOP Pros - Doesn't require two clients to leech efficiently. - Dominates early level leeching as a HS mule would get exp from low level mobs (Levels 10-90) - Gets to attend every possible boss as it is a must in all boss runs. Endgame consists of leeching, farming, attending Zak, Krex and HT until level 200. - Can eventually offer high level leech services (or self leech) with good funding (up to Petris, Some rooms in ToT) and compete with AMs despite being a support class. - Occasionally gets offered free leech in exchange for HS buffs. - Doesn't burn away pots as fast as Arch Mages do (because of Elemental Amplification) Cons - Deals lower damage than Arch Mages. - 3rd job would be a pain if they can't find free leech. Then again, there's himes and MP3 so its not absolutely terrible either. ARCH MAGES Pros - Can one hit petris, arguably the best mob, much earlier than bishops. - Access to RoR (FP) and Ob(IL) for farming/grinding and grinding respectively. Leech doesn't really count since you'd need a bishop with ToT quests completed to access HS. - Less funding than Bishops to achieve their end game goal. Cons - They can't offer efficient high leeching services without creating a priest. Requires at least 2 clients open simultaneously. - They can't boss. - They have no party buffs other than meditation. - 3rd job IL is really bad / 2nd job FP is also very mediocre but we've got pqs for those levels. - Can't offer low level leech without a HS mule. - Elemental Amp burns pots away really fast and has an increased risk of dying (if you time a meteor/blizzard cast at the same time you get hit by a high damage mob). - No diversity in endgame: grinding until 200.
It is not a valid comparison, because saying AM's+Priest's are better than Bishop's is like me saying my Bishop+AM is better than AM+Priest so Bishop's are actually even more overpowered in this scenario. They should be judged solely on their individual pros/cons, and gameplay says Bishop's are much better in all but 1 category and it seems like a few Bishop Skelegon whining is about to make Bishop's reign over AM's once again. There's so much backlash when NL's and Bishop's can't dominate and participate in everything that it's no wonder underplayed classes are so bad. Can't buff Paladin's and Buccaneer's too much or they might be over powered, but heck let's boost the hp of all the NL's and give Bishop's their Skelegon buff.
I still haven’t seen a single post by a GM that gives a rational explanation for what they want to achive from this update. Please at least let us know what makes you think that this update will achive and why the way you chose to do it is the best way to go about it. Because at this point this thread became an echo chamber where we repeat the probelms that we see in the update without hearing much of the opposition. And that never leads to any change. GMs will end up just avoiding on talking on this subject and lock their decision
Not a GM so grain of salt: Leeching prices were stable and the frequency of leeching was much lower in old source. With new source came an unintentional nerf to skele spawn, and we increased the damage AM. This pushed the balance from what it was, to effectively favor AM > Bishops. The "goal" by essentially reverting all changes is to bring back some semblance of the order that we had in old source in regards to leeching/AM and Bishops. IMO, this doesn't constitute a nerf like some have said in this thread because we aren't making AM worse than they were, we're just putting them back to what they used to be at, like Andreas said.
I understand that this might not be the full story. But if it is, then I can assure you that the next feedback thread will be asking for AMs to be buffed so that it's not completely inferior to bishops in every possible way. Currently, things make sense because there is actually a clear purpose for people to create AMs, that is to provide end game leech that no other classes can do as effectively. Also. leech prices are stable now, not sure how the frequency is measured tho, but as many have pointed out in this thread, the frequency will probably not reduce much with this change.
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing haha. I'm simply explaining what I felt was... the best explanation I could get from... goodness, probably a hundred pages worth of discussion. Also, I know leech prices are stable, and they probably rose proportionally to all other inflation, but it's hard to tell if it's because of demand of leech or inflation, or that's how I look at it. edit: Admins have their own chat, that neither myself, nor the GM's, have access to. So it's very possible there's stuff missing. But I'm just pulling from the staff all chat basically.
If the goal is to put things back to how they were, can we revert ele wands so they give damage penalties to bishops like in GMS? This is a major overlooked factor in why Bishops are so strong in this server Reverting this would help A/M, but honestly doesn't seem feasible. A better and more realistic solution is just to keep A/M as it is.
Sad reality is that there are overwhelming number of bishops (mains) compared to low-middle tier boss parties that require bishop as a party member. Majority of high tier boss runners already possess a HS mule or bishop so they'd rather bring their own hs to maximize the profit: these bishops are used as mules not for full potential of Bishop class. Zak, Krex and Toad don't need any activity from a bishop. HT would be the only boss that SHOULD require active Bishop but... this doesn't apply in all cases. There are only limited number of HT runners and low~middle tier HT parties usually keep few well-experienced bishops in bl to tag along in HT. Chances of random bishop getting invited to HT is rather slim. They'd be asked whether they have experience and get rejected if not because there is high chance they'd die from dispel+attack combo. Top tier HT runners don't even take separate bishops. They either bring their own highly hp washed bs that can tank without MG or enough sacrificial mules to endure seduce during their speedy runs. As the server is quite old, there was enough time for older players (main bossers) to make HS mules, supported by the multiclienting. Similar to the way there are increased number of high hp washed characters through manipulation of AP resets, we have reached a stage where significant proportion of bishop-maining players lost their footing as a compulsory party member in a boss squad. Hope this will be part of consideration when measuring the balance between Bishops and Archmages. Bishops still got their door and HS advantage over archmages as map-wiping grinders but bossing ability is less viable than we think due to aforementioned reasons.
[1] Yes, that is correct. However, I don't think -and don't have any way to prove the following, this is just what I think- we'll see a decrease in the frequency of leeching. I think more people purchase leech because there's an enormous surplus of mesos floating around in the server, and the act of selling leech/leeching generates even more mesos from monster drops + LMPQ got nerfed and OPQ is barely played at all. We all know Lv.71 and beyond are leech levels, barely anyone grinds those out as its slow. Wouldn't the skele buff be enough to balance out leeching between mage classes? It would definitely bring leech prices down (for both skele and petri) as right now there was no supply of skele leech. If anything, by reducing the amount of AMs selling petri leech and increasing the amount of skele leech, the frequency of leeching will surely increase as there's many more bishops floating around. [2] This is correct as well, but only when offering high level leech services. Bishops still dominate low level leech (up to ulu1-2). I understand by giving them back skeles, you won't see low level leeching as often anymore as most bishops would prefer to sell skele leech if that pays out better and for their own exp gain as well. That's what I think. Though I can agree AMs > Bishops in the high level leech department, I don't believe a nerf to AMs would balance it out: I believe a skele buff would be enough. ------ @sparky95 Hey man. Sorry, I'm not very familiar with bossing as I barely do it and my attacker is merely level 138 so I haven't attended any HT runs yet. But I gotta say that's a problem I've seen with all classes: NLs dominate and there's a mule for every useful party buff. Bowmasters/Marksmen with close to no dex as all AP was pumped on HP solely to provide SE in boss runs. So yeah, I feel other classes have the same problem, not just bishops. It'd be cool to have some oldschool bossing (no muling in boss runs) as it encourages party play, which is Maplestory is meant to be about + generic nostalgia argument. However, this doesn't mean Bishops or Priests don't attend Zak, Krex or HT. Even if they're just mules, they have a purpose in there unlike Arch Mages. I reckon what you mentioned is a separate problem that does affect bishops but it also affects all classes altogether. While it should be taken into consideration, it should be addressed as an issue on its own.
For this reason we really should get rid of pet auto hp/mp. Multi client will exist, but you would have to go all out in your multitasking if you truly want to bring multiple characters to a boss.
I actually support this idea as well. Just out of curiosity, do you have any statistical data for Ele wand dmg nerf (bishop) vs Bliz/Met nerf (archmages) in numbers? Like how similar or dissimilar are they in reduction of damage output once both are applied? If I'm not mistaken, one of Eli's statement pointed that archmages are now reaching end-game too quickly and it should require more effort. If the biggest complaint to this change is that bishop are too favored with the change (+ indirect buff from skele spawn buff), I think the best solution is to subsequently nerf bishops (if the ele wand dmg nerf isn't too bad, maybe it can be adjusted to a balancing proportion) as well. I can already imagine showers of complaints from bishop mains but I personally believe buffing everything for balance will eventually overload and lead to BigBang-like status where everything is too easily achieved without considerable effort. The longer something takes or more challenge it brings, the healthier it is for the server in long term. Archmages will have to strive for 1hit Petri and bishops will need extra effort to 1hit Skele as main argument state that they are not meant to be sole-grinders like archmage but multi-functional utility class. Summary: I still agree with Eli that archmages are too op at this state (not just relative to bishop but considering petri is end game leech map) in the way they reached 1hit standard of end game leech maps too quickly. I believe the AM dmg nerf is necessary but if that's going to upset the balance for preference of classes between Bishop & AM, additional, yet slight nerf to bishop's damage would suffice the balance.
Well explained! Im 100% for this. Make it harder to 1hit petri but not offsetting the difference that bishop vs AM have atm.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I spent months leveling my AM and gearing specifically to 1shot petris. If you nerf I will have wasted all my time and getting the extra 90 TMA is too much time for me to commit to do. If this nerf goes through I will likely quit the game.
Unfortunately no, I don't have numbers for how similar an Ele Wand nerf would be to the proposed Bliz/Met nerf. The reason is, it would take a lot of time to figure out that I don't have right now. If anybody else wants to go into depth and figure it out please go right ahead. However, it's fair to say if ele wands were nerfed, then going Luk on Bishop would be the new optimal build. This is because ele wands are supposed to give a whopping -25% damage penalty to elements besides its 2 main elements. Figuring out the exact damage tradeoff would require considering every gear slot for a Luk bishop with new Luk based gear and comparing magic values for 1H. I believe this would be a similar nerf comparable to the proposed nerfs for Arch Mages (1200->1290 and 1220->1290). If I had to guess, Bishops would be looking at least 10% more magic required to 1h certain locations (e.g. 1355 - >1490 magic). So, this would be a huge nerf compared to the proposed arch mage changes. In short, Bishops are supposed to be way weaker than they are, so reverting these buffs to Archmages doesn't make any sense. I agree Archmages are reaching end game too quickly than I would like. But that's simply opening the Pandora's Box as to the much larger issue with archmages as a whole. They are the only class in Maplestory that can't boss, and as such have no real end game. In fact, leveling up an archmage is actually detrimental because it will reduce the expshare your party members receive. AMs being "cheap" does not in any way mean they are balanced. In fact, quite the opposite, as the low prices are just a reflection of the low demand as a result of how lackluster the class is to begin with. Decisions regarding to nerfing Archmages could only be based off personal preferences as to how strong you want them to be. In my opinion, Bishops will always outshine Archmages overall, and nerfing Archmages simply because their class's end game comes too early, would just artificially add an end game to class that doesn't' have an end game, making them even weaker and driving their book prices even lower. Edit: As evidence that any argument in favor of nerfing Archmages can only be support by personal preference, look at the three people who have in the last few posts wrote replies or liked posts in favor of nerfing Archmages. Venin, Eli, Sparky95. Hmmm. Not to call them out, but aren't all three of those players super end game Archmages or AM mains who wouldn't be affected by the Arch Mage nerfs? I'm not a genius detective or anything but it seems to me that maybe, just maybe, these players want Arch Mages to be nerfed because it will make the class more unique and niche again, perhaps even raising the price of petri leech. So in short, these players have a lot to gain from nerfing Archmages 1H numbers, whether they have thought about it themselves or not.
I do have lvl 200 I/L which is retired from grinding scene and seldom get used for self petri leech but it has 0 equips and barely 1hits petri only thanks to high int from lvlup APs. It won't be able to 1hit petri anymore once this change kicks in. I have never sold mage leech in my life hence raising leech price is none of my concern. I'd prefer to have it lowered of course as I have bought few in the past and may buy again in future. I reached 1hit petri on I/L just before new source hit and I remember the struggles of reaching that high TMA. I had to buy HTP (2 failed runs) after failing 2x MW20s to make up the missing digits. I have experienced both bright and dark eras for archmages. My opinion is not based merely on selfish purposes but from arising concerns. Newsource archmage buff didn't affect me but the reverse process would affect my "end game AM char". I made a f/p recently and it's sitting at 124 lvl right now (not shown in signature as it's not significant). This AM is probably going to be the next grinding machine once I re-enter ulu grinding sites so nerfing AM dmg affects me directly as well for the argument's sake. (I never invested in mages so my bishop can only go as far as 1hitting ulu2 and is only used for afk-farming or HS muling purpose).
