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

I'm actually very in support of this, the elemental system imo is one of the bigger design flaws in old maple (still less than no potion cool down). It should be a nice bonus but really ends up just heavily limiting mages on what they can grind on with how large of a bonus it is.

 

(1) On whether changes fit the old-school style

Everyone has their own image of "old-school MS," but the romanticized vision of that simpler time tends to only feel good for a short while before its problems become apparent.

My first private server (which lasted about 6 months) let everyone experience 1x EXP/1x drop, and when I talked to the GM, the conclusion was that updates were temporarily too difficult with the technology at the time. So people enjoy through CPQ/LPQ/OPQ/RJPQ, and the bug-filled BPQ — but after 4th job, there were only three endgame options: Zak/HT/Skele. Most people quit around Lv155~160 after 1 HT run.

That's the problem with over-emphasizing old-school accuracy. (In fact, during my first private server, my position and outlook were almost identical to yours right now.)

After going through four private servers that each dead within 6 months (Royals was my 4th, and I haven't played any others since), I've come to understand what I truly imagined old-school MS to be:

• Back then, we looked forward to updates every few months — what new adventures and new content would come.
• Back then, we expected the developers to adjust skills when they became unbalanced.
• Back then, we held on to the class we loved, even if it wasn't meta. Some friends only found out after playing a private server that mages weren't suited for bossing — imagine how disappointed someone would be if their image of the old days was "mages could boss too."

This is why I'm not opposed to changes that deviate from the original — I say "original settings" rather than "style," because MS's class balance has always been terrible. After experiencing a server where 90% of players played the same 2 classes, I stopped liking the idea of treating flaws as part of the charm.

Now let's count the changes in Royals that deviate from the original but are genuinely great:

1. Drop item stat range expanded (-5~+5 → -5~+10)
2. Smoke buff and removal of revival items, emphasizing the importance of TL — skills that used to be dismissed as "useless trash" (though the damage balance was forgotten after Smoke was buffed)
3. EPQ remake
4. Introduction of multi-target-friendly content that didn't exist in old-school MS — LHC and VL

So when we talk about preserving the old-school feel, what exactly are we preserving? The happy memories before Lv120? Or the post-Lv120 loop of Zak/HT/Skele? The superiority of having picked the meta class (NL/BM/DK) and laughing at those who picked "wrong" (Pally, or HT without elemental weakness)? Or the childhood image of the class you loved? (At least before Lv120, mages could participate in boss fights.)

(2) On the scale of changes

The reason I chose 45%/70% (normal/weak) rather than something close to 100% comes down to a few factors:

1. Class identity
Because mages already have exceptional AoE, single-target DPS must be limited — otherwise mages would completely outshine MM, whose only AoE advantage is the one thing it has over single-target classes. This matters especially because current bosses rely on multi-target damage far more than the original game did. Bringing one mage saves roughly 5 minutes on Zak now (on a Lv160 team), there's heavy multi-target demand in HT/VL, and DK matters more than NL in VL — all of this points to one question: "Do we want a game that's purely a DPS race, or one where different classes complement each other and different party compositions lead to different outcomes?"

2. On major changes
Although I mentioned earlier some changes to WA classes that deviate from the original, mages have one deeply ingrained counter-argument: "it's a core old-school trait that mages can only farm, not boss." So I don't think jumping straight to 95% in one go is a good idea — it would leave MM/Pally/Hero/DK in a very weak position. In fact, I'd argue that even 70% against weak elements is already a fairly bold number, enough to make mages worth bringing to most AoE-heavy boss runs.
Another reason is that reform should be phased. Let most people first experience that there exists a range of changes that "barely affects the market or bossing meta" — let them feel that a gentle change brings no real harm. If being conservative, the right combination would be 30%/45% or 40%/60%.

"With the same investment I can farm AND boss (especially HT/VL) — so why would I play any other weaker attacker?" My answer is that the compensation for farming is "only 70% of the weakest class's DPS at the same investment." And even at 45%/70%, bringing 1~2 mages to VL could significantly reduce pressure on Golem without heavily impacting DPS.

So if the change goes to 90%~95% "directly", I'd rather reject it outright.

3. On cooldowns
One direction I personally think changes should go is "making the game more diverse." If a mage can easily hit 70% with a single skill, versus hitting the same DPS through a combination of multiple skills, I'd always prefer the latter.

The other direction is "making every skill meaningful." The CR/Blind changes were great examples. That's also why I previously suggested: "Hero's Enrage could be changed to a 1hr CD, providing the whole party with +200 WA for 1 minute" and "Hero's Panic/Coma could get a 40s CD, with Panic changed to 3 hits and Coma to 2 hits, turning them into multi-stage damage skills."

(4) On element formula changes

Given that your proposal includes changing the elemental weakness formula (+50%/-50%) → (-15%/-15%), I would still only support the (59.5%/70%) combination that I already fell this is a sufficiently aggressive change.

Additionally, though I do agree with this change, modifying this formula would inevitably impact the leech market and Pally's damage output — which would directly increase the GM's workload significantly and risk making it infeasible to implement. (Changing skill IMG is far simpler than modifying source code.)

 

Actually, I believe all the Ellin maps are custom made for Royals, and the whole area is level-adjusted!

LHC/VL/RG were post-big bang, and our VL and RG are actually fully custom content!

My answer is: "You don't need to actually invest in a mage to farm. You just need 6 of them. Investing in one doesn't help with farming anyways."

Rotations are good and a way to make the game more interactive and engaging. I'm not a fan of one-button story.

Not every skill does need to matter though, keyboard space and SP limits are a thing to consider. There's a balance to be made, and people need skills to use while leveling that don't end up OP. I'm more interested in the end result of "is the class fun to play."

 

Hello procrastinya

(1) On whether changes fit the old-school style

Isn't that more like you opinion that consider those changes genuinely great ?
Some of that like " item stat range +10 " might not seem good in my eyes.

Anyway, those changes don't actually essentially change from old-school style. With one exception of Ellin remake which is about changing monster levels. But isn't Ellin came out around late pre-BB, not far from BB coming out ? I didn't even know Ellin exists at that time. And many players would not deeply remember Ellin as core old-school pictures as sth like Victoria Island, Orbis, etc ?

For drop item stat range expanding and Smoke buff, it isn't essentially change from old-school style at all, it just changing numbers to some extent.

But adding CD to skills like Fire, Ice Demon that you have proposed would essentially change from old-school style.

Is there any other skills in RMS that has no CD but then assigned CD to it ? If this can happen then adding CD to skills like Gene, Meteor, Blizz is a proper idea too ?

And about LHC and VL, this isn't a deviation from old-school style at all. It's just adding new maps and new mobs to the game. Even though new mobs are very strong but it's ok as long as we don't do sth like increasing chars dmg drastically like post-BB.

We could add whatever new maps and mobs. We could add Pink snail, Pink Barlog in some new areas. That's totally fine.

Aren't 2 from above which are from your argument contradicts each other ?

I think you shouldn't separate pre lvl-120 and post-lv120 to sth that we should choose either from them. It both exists at the same time. We can have them at the same time.

 

Hello procrastinya

(2) On the scale of changes

" otherwise mages would completely outshine MM " ???

- Mages can't contribute SE and Blind which are huge.

- MM could potentially still out DPS Archmages on 6-target, even 10-11 targets in Golems of VL So exceptional AoE that you cited might have an exception here ?

- What I proposed is still less than ST DPS of MM, so MM still has better ST.

Some classes like Paladin Bucc Shad MM could potentially out DPS Archmages on 10-11 targets ( mini Golems ) based on my estimation. What makes archmage's AOE op is that it hits 15 targets and has wide all-around range, especially when can 1 hit mobs. But when it comes to some situations like Golems in VL, mobs are aligning nicely, can't be 1 shotted anymore, many archmage's advantages fall off.

If only 70% of weakest ST DPS of attackers, bringing 2 of that would impact a lot of DPS on VL run. Having 2 of that is like losing more than 60% ST DPS of a class like BM. That's rather close to losing 1 person.

Moreover, and importantly, Unlike many classes, Archmages would have no supportive ability. Imagine MM without SE and Blind, who is gonna recruit them to VL ?

We can just apply formula to some skills. If we are worried about Pally's dmg output, we can just let it be the same for Pally.

 

(1)

• I'm not sure whether it's a reading comprehension issue or a translation problem, but you clearly didn't understand that I support these changes.
• Your definition of "changing old-school style" in your argument is far too subjective. I fully support any change that increases game diversity or depth of gameplay. My personal view of "old-school style" is about a sense of exploration, no stat inflation, and anticipation for new area updates — so adding CDs to skills doesn't break old-school style at all, in my view. On this point I'm responding to your subjective take with my own.
• The idea of adding a CD to Blizzard might be feasible on a brand new server, but it's not viable on a server that has been running stably for years — it would create too many problems.(Let's not get into the full discussion just yet.)

(2)

• The reason you think I'm contradicting myself is because you've fallen into the same false dichotomy trap as another player — which isn't productive for discussion. Between "mages should only be able to farm, not boss" and "mages should be able to boss," my position is: "mages can boss, but pay a price to compensate for their farming advantage" — and that price is being at 70% DPS output. Of course, this gap also serves as a ""buffer"" to give the entire server some time to observe whether the strength of AoE causes any significant negative impact to bossing.
• So when I brought up pre- and post-Lv120, I wasn't trying to create a divide — quite the opposite. The goal is consistency throughout: mages should be able to participate in bossing at all stages.

 

(Clarification first — I'm not rejecting your proposal outright, but I don't think 90% DPS is a reasonable number. I also hope you'll treat my counterarguments as steelmanning from someone on the same side, aimed at making the proposal stronger, not at tearing it down.)

(1) On the 90% figure

Perhaps my wording left some room for ambiguity, but what I mean by "completely outshine" is this: when a mage reaches 90% of MM's single-target DPS while also having AoE like Blizzard — and given that most classes don't need SE at this stage, and Blind is useful but most 18-man runs don't specifically need to sacrifice an attacker slot for SE/Blind — the mage's advantage in Golem/Gargo events would far outweigh MM's. If single-target DPS reaches 90%+, most parties would simply choose mage over MM. But at 70%, parties would need to genuinely weigh whether the Golem/Gargo advantage is worth giving up that DPS gap. The 10% gap below the weakest class that your proposal suggests is, in my view, not a meaningful barrier.

My proposal has always been about avoiding turning the game into a after-BB DPS meter simulator. The focus should be on reinforcing class identity — including giving classes new roles that may not have originally existed. Under this framework, when a class excels in one area, it should fall short in another. (This is also why Shad's balance is so poor.) Mages already have excellent farming and powerful large-area AoE — what they lack is a reasonable single-target DPS (discussed below).

If we agree on "reinforcing class identity rather than making this a DPS race," then what counts as "reasonable single-target DPS" needs to be grounded in what role we want mages to fill. In my view, mages bring two things no other class can match: farming and sustained, large-area AoE. Given that, I believe the appropriate DPS target is 45%/70%.

The 45%/70% figure also reflects a conservative approach to the gear scaling curve — an area where data is lacking. Specifically, the scaling ratios across 2B→10B, 10B→25B, 25B→50B, and 50B→100B are unknown. If we adjust to 90% using 50B as the baseline, and mage gear scaling is lower than that of regular classes, then at 2B~10B a mage could already out-DPS several other classes — before even acquiring 45 CGS or a perfected (-0~-3) weapon. This is a real risk among average players. If detailed data analysis shows this risk doesn't exist, that could be one reason I'd support a one-step reform to 90%(50B ref.) — but without that data, I firmly oppose 90%.

In other words, 70% is the first step before this question is resolved — opening up the mage market slightly, and consistent with the incremental reform approach I've advocated throughout.

(2) Incremental Reform

As philosopher Karl Popper emphasized in his concept of Piecemeal Social Engineering: when dealing with complex systems, the better approach is to make small adjustments, observe the results, and continue iterating — rather than attempting to reshape the entire system at once.

Bossing mage changes involve an equally complex system. The impact extends well beyond mages themselves — touching boss ecology, gear market value, party composition, player investment, leech market dynamics, class population distribution, and more. A one-step reform might solve the bossing participation problem, but if unexpected side effects emerge, the damage will ripple across the entire game environment.

The player earlier in this thread had significant logical issues, but on this concern specifically, I share his position — just to a different degree. That difference in degree is exactly why he concluded "no changes at all" while I chose "small but repeated changes."

If after some time at 70% no meaningful negative effects appear, gradually moving to 75% → 80% → 85% is entirely reasonable. But a single jump to 90%–95% carries too many unpredictable risks.

(3) On VL

Whether this estimate holds may require further discussion, but I'd argue it's already hard to say definitively that Blizzard is weaker in a 9-mob scenario.

Moreover, if this buff is framed as both a single-target DPS buff for bossing and an AoE identity buff (to reiterate — I oppose anything that pushes the game closer to a DPS meter, like post-BB changes), then at 6 mobs the correct skill rotation would switch to "ice/fire" Demon anyway.

From the Demon adjustment angle: as part of the compensation for being capped at 70%, Demon perhaps should not have a CD, but instead — assuming Wand 6/Wand 8 — have its damage set to approximately 60% of CL/Paralyze (i.e., roughly 70% × 60% = 42% of the single-target DPS reference).

It's also worth noting that in Golem events, Blizzard has an effect similar to Genesis — pulling aggro from distant Golems — so the mage's advantage is far from negligible.

From this I can also see where we agree (reading between the lines): we both want bossing mage to work. But your approach frames it as a DPS meter adjustment, while mine is built on the premise that the mage's identity is AoE and being the only class suited for farming — every advantage must come with a corresponding weakness.

The 2-mage setup you mentioned would cost roughly the DPS equivalent of one 60% MM — that is the price of bringing mages. But in return, you get more stable Golem kills (assuming Demon is buffed), without heavily impacting Gargo clear speed.

From a class balance perspective, I believe the mage's farming capability is precisely what is traded off against their VL-level DPS. Just as NL's disadvantage in VL raises the standard in the 12-man clean-range.

(4) On the Pally issue and technical concerns

The technical problem is the same: any change involving source code risks becoming too complex to push through. Adjusting only the skill percentage (%) values is far easier to implement. If the elemental weakness formula is actually modified, it could easily introduce a chain of unpredictable bugs — much like the seemingly unrelated BPQ Pad change that ended up causing frequent disconnects in VL. Changes to core formulas carry that kind of hidden systemic risk.

 

Hello procrastinya

I have said many things already, It could be misunderstanding, but the core of discussion is probably the same. Enough talking with this one.

If your standpoint for old-school style is about openly welcome new updates and fully support any change that increases game diversity or depth of gameplay. Then we could very well welcome many post-BB essential features as long as those increases game diversity or depth of gameplay ?

How about changes about potion CD ? How about removing 1.5 secs i-frame so players can get many hits at the same time ? Aren't those changes interesting to be implemented too ? And many many more.

With many many changes would be implemented, do we still consider that old-school Pre-BB MS server ? It might potentially be Super-BB MS or sth ?

I could very well quit this sever if those things happen. It isn't old-school MS anymore. I can just play new modern server with many changes to come.

Why not get into the full discussion yet for now ? Isn't that important for the discussion ?

When you are talking about your standpoint of looking forward to many changes to come to old-school MS you use this to support your idea of flexible views of old-school MS about mages can boss or not, potentially implying further to many possible flexible old-school features ?

• Back then, we held on to the class we loved, even if it wasn't meta. Some friends only found out after playing a private server that mages weren't suited for bossing — imagine how disappointed someone would be if their image of the old days was "mages could boss too."

You said that that's from another person. But why did you use that to support your idea then ? Or at least you involve that in your argument.

---------

And when you are kind of opposing my idea of 95% DPS ST of archmages, this is what you use to support your opposition.

Although I mentioned earlier some changes to WA classes that deviate from the original, mages have one deeply ingrained counter-argument: "it's a core old-school trait that mages can only farm, not boss." So I don't think jumping straight to 95% in one go is a good idea

You didn't specify to only mages in this argument ( shown below ), and there are many other classes in this argument too, implying not only mages ?

So not only you refuse about dividing, why you says refering only about mages bossing in this argument ?

" So when I brought up pre- and post-Lv120, I wasn't trying to create a divide — quite the opposite. The goal is consistency throughout: mages should be able to participate in bossing at all stages."

 

(1) I'm in favor of potion CDs — I've even thought about "potions of the same category sharing one CD group (while different categories remain independent)," making potion usage itself part of the game's depth. But only implemented in new areas, leaving existing areas unaffected.

(2) On the question of whether something is "old-school MS" — I'd again ask you not to fall into the same false dichotomy trap as with bossing mage, something I've emphasized an enormous number of times already. This is a matter of degree, not a yes-or-no question. The fact that I like old-school MS means I disagree with changes to a certain extent — the difference is just where I draw the line.

• So I genuinely don't see how either "adding CDs" or "bossing mage" breaks old-school MS in any way.
• To go further: what I like is old-school MS with its poor design removed or corrected — not old-school MS preserved in its original form. That's why I support the LHC/Ellin changes, the CR/Blind changes, boss mechanic changes, and so on.
• To me, the abundance of useless skills is precisely the kind of thing that needs fixing. And what I support is increasing game diversity with minimal impact on the existing environment — not unlimited diversity expansion, which almost always comes with a wave of disasters.

(3) I oppose both extremes: the extreme conservative (someone who cannot tolerate any change) and the extreme reformist (someone who wants to overhaul everything in one perfect sweep). This is also the difficulty that moderate reformers face — always having to contend with both extreme conservatives and radical reformers at the same time.

(4) Since you're willing to discuss the negative impacts of adding a CD to Blizzard, let's open that up. Here are roughly 6 topic I can think of, all 6 points can be elaborated further — if you'd like to go off-topic from the bossing mage reform proposal, feel free to expand on any one of them.:

1. Erosion of existing players' investment value Many players have put enormous time, money, and resources into building Arch Mages or Bishops. Adding a CD to Genesis/Blizzard/Meteor would effectively change the core value of those characters, easily leaving players feeling that years of investment have been devalued.
2. Decline in game economy supply Mages have long been the backbone of efficient farming and resource generation. If farming efficiency drops, the market supply of gear, scrolls, materials, and mesos may decrease, driving up prices and raising the cost of playing.
3. Higher barrier to entry for new players Many new players rely on a Bishop or Arch Mage to build their first pool of wealth before investing in other characters. If mages' earning potential drops, new players will find it harder to catch up with veterans, widening the wealth gap — especially compared to players running 10+ mages.
4. Increased HP washing costs Royals' endgame content heavily depends on HP washing, and the funds needed for washing come in large part from mage farming. When mage income drops, the barrier to HP washing rises, affecting character progression and late-game participation.
5. The wealth gap between high- and low-investment players may not improve — and could worsen Adding CDs hits single-client players harder, but multi-client players may maintain efficiency by rotating AoE skills across multiple characters. This could result in a scenario where 5-client players are hurt while 15-client players remain largely unaffected — similar to the 10+ mage argument above.
6. Disrupting the stability expectations of a long-running server As a server that has been running for over a decade, many players value rule stability and long-term planning. Significantly changing core skills could undermine veteran players' willingness to continue supporting and staying — particularly 1-mage veterans, while 10+ mage veterans would be comparatively unaffected.

(5) On whether this only affects mages I'm not sure where your logic gets tangled — aside from mages, is there any other class that needs to worry about "before or after of the Lv120 divide not being able to boss"? Or does your reform proposal already include some class other than mages that "originally couldn't boss"? Otherwise, shouldn't it just be assumed by default that I'm only discussing mages, or the differences between mages and other classes?

(6)Just like the other player who was unwilling to reason through their own position logically, I think it's time to return to the original topic. I've laid out my case for 70% under a 50B reference — now it's your turn to make the case for 90% under the same 50B reference.

 

Potion CD is actually pretty essential to good boss design, otherwise it's very hard to punish mistakes as your options are pretty much killing the player or nothing. Pot CD allows minor damage to stack up and occasionally be cleared, but then if they keep getting hit it eventually kills.

A similar approach could be done by a CPQ/Dojo style potion limit in bosses, if adding a cool down is too hard (especially because it would need to respect DK and likely change CD based off how much HP was healed)

 

I also think "potion-disabled maps" combined with "dojo potion drops from mobs/boxes" is the best idea that doesn't require source code changes (In terms of designing new challenging game content.) — since it only involves modifying map-IMG & item-IMG files.

 

Heal would also unfortunately probably need a cool down added in those maps, or to be disabled entirely. And the HP healed (not damage dealt to mobs) would need to be more standardized if given a CD because the current range of healing is absolutely massive

 

Hello procrastinya

Regarding old-school style or not, so you admit that you partition line are sth like impacts on existing environment like game economics, even though I don't even know when,where you drew that line on that earlier comment (in that part), so your line seems to don't involve "style" of the game ?.

Ultimately, It's up to your opinions about changing the game. You can propose any change you like. But on this old-school server, it's up to Admins and GMs to consider whether to accept a proposal or not.

You used the word "false dichotomy" a lot, both on my argument of your contradiction and on the standpoint regarding old-school style. I think you could very well fall into sth like fallacy fallacy trap, where you use the fallacy statement to oversimplify the arguments, especially to your favor.