Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
korrode

Would you like to see the weight of att and def increased?

Recommended Posts

Would you like to see the 'weight' of attack and defense increased in the hit and dodge combat rolls?

 

I would, as i think melee combat training should yield the biggest strength benefits for melee combat.

Edited by Korrode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote no to this. I think thing are pretty fair the way they are, people can add to their other atttibutes and/or perks :) A real warrior is well rounded and can alc, summon, and other skills. oa attributes give you credit for this.

 

I also Voted No on the removal of PP thread. Hard to implement and how to repay the player that worked hard for the bought PP.

 

Enough Said few me

:medieval: AttilaTheHun :medieval:

Edited by Inglor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i vote semi yes, i want see a/d working better, but dont think atributes must matter less... but, the price of nexuses could be highter because now ppls are much much much richer and get gc in easear way, it would be a little gc sink too... like 500k+50(or how it cost) hydro bars... i mean add to price 500k gc what you must pay to npc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note, this topic is about making a/d matter more. Mentioning PP buying, although it has some part in this, makes the topic very likely to get hijacked to offtopic :S

Personally I'd like to see a/d levels matter more. Don't know if this would suddenly bring more ppl to crowd yeti (highly doubt it) or other spawns, but for sure those who spent time at spawns lvling a/d deserve bigger advantage from the levels.

It is hard to evaluate what it would do to have certain percentage more weight on a/d, but I'm thinking of even 20% more would still be agreeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's good that we're able to tweak our 'powers' a bit by different distribution of pickpoints on the attributes, but I do think a/d should count a lot more in it all that it does now. Same for magic, by the way.

 

So, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note, this topic is about making a/d matter more. Mentioning PP buying, although it has some part in this, makes the topic very likely to get hijacked to offtopic :S

Good point :S

 

Already it's begun :medieval:

I also Voted No on the removal of PP thread. Hard to implement and how to repay the player that worked hard for the bought PP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i think nearly everyone who has bigger A\D would say YES. so do i.

i think i know why this is coming up to forums again :medieval: it has been discussed a little in other topics, and it seems really fair that A\D would matter more, than it does now.

but i am afraid tho, that what we think is good, Radu might see as not nessecary thing or whining :medieval:

 

and i will not say a word about PP buying thing. lets keep topic for A\D :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's good that we're able to tweak our 'powers' a bit by different distribution of pickpoints on the attributes, but I do think a/d should count a lot more in it all that it does now. Same for magic, by the way.

 

So, yes.

 

Yes. All Skills should be weighted upon the levels. Skill levels take a long time to acquire. The attributes should be a secondary support affecting the choices you make in your pp placements.

This can also be tweaked quite easily and be adjusted to meet the changing demands of the game.

Edited by Starlite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think anyone would dissagree on the fact that a/d should matter more then p/c or any other attribute should do.

We all remember the times when people went to pk with massive coord or massive phys, this was no fun at all.

The attribute cap made this change, only it is hard to further investigate the matter..

 

There should be an example of a code i think, in which people explain how to change the set up as it is now and of course not making the gaps to big ( i know again im talking bout gaps), but in this matter i mean, that it should not be (this also noted in other topics) that an a/d 150 would win every match just cause he/she is 150 a/d..

 

And of course, it shouldnt be too much of work to implement this code, cause i dont think radu will like the idea of working hours to implement something that just changes something, which isnt all THAT BAD to begin with..

Sure its a fact that a/d should weigh more then any attribute u can spend ur pp on, but radu made the weighing as he thought it would be fair..

 

1 thing that does trouble my mind bout this fact, will this give any unbalancing looking at the builds of people, i'm for example a low phys player, in this way i can have long mob fights and im pretty useless in pk, so if ya change anything in the set up of a/d versus attribute will this change the set up of players which are mob fighting only..

Sure its not reasonable that an a/d 100 is fighting yeti (its just a rough example), but if he made his set up to be able to fight yeti's this way, but kills the mob below yeti to fast, it will be unfair to him if we change things and he is unable to kill yeti's but still kills the mob below yeti too fast (so the change will ruin his set up and will cost him a reset or a money sinking project of buying removals)

 

my 2cents

Edited by MasterZen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would, as i think melee combat training should yield the biggest strength benefits for melee combat.

 

This ^^

 

IMO its a no brainer... ALL skills should get the greatest benifit from the level of those skills and not from attributes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 thing that does trouble my mind bout this fact, will this give any unbalancing looking at the builds of people, i'm for example a low phys player, in this way i can have long mob fights and im pretty useless in pk, so if ya change anything in the set up of a/d versus attribute will this change the set up of players which are mob fighting only..

Sure its not reasonable that an a/d 100 is fighting yeti (its just a rough example), but if he made his set up to be able to fight yeti's this way, but kills the mob below yeti to fast, it will be unfair to him if we change things and he is unable to kill yeti's but still kills the mob below yeti too fast (so the change will ruin his set up and will cost him a reset or a money sinking project of buying removals)

Well, the people who would potentially feel the ill effect you describe are those who's def level is lower than their training creature's attack level.

 

Certainly from DCW and up, there's either very very few people like this, or mostly likely none at all.

 

Prior to DCW level, mostly creatures can only be trained 'well' once yourDEF>monsterATT anyways... a couple of common exceptions to this is people in 60's and even 50's def training Orge, and people in 90's-104 def training Feros.

 

Some ogre people may need to drop back to polars for a little while, some feros people may need to drop back to fluff for a bit... that's about it. (Well there may be a couple of creatures quite early on too that i'm not remembering the specifics of.)

 

Anyways, it wont "screw up" anyone badly, it may "screw up" a small number of people a little, but either way, i don't think it's too much to be asking that peoples levels need to be higher to train a creature with higher levels than them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways, it wont "screw up" anyone badly, it may "screw up" a small number of people a little, but either way, i don't think it's too much to be asking that peoples levels need to be higher to train a creature with higher levels than them.

 

I know nothing about training a/d, but it might be quite much to ask them ...

You ask them to train on mobs with lower attack meaning they will get lower exp, what in turn will mean they need to train longer then before.

I bet that if somebody would ask you to train for less exp, you would not be happy (and of course you and other people who have higher a/d and don't have to train on lower mobs would be in "advantage")

 

PS: i'm not trying to flame, just pointing out, that it might be an issue for people ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You ask them to train on mobs with lower attack meaning they will get lower exp, what in turn will mean they need to train longer then before.

It will affect everyone equally, i dont see the problem.

 

 

I bet that if somebody would ask you to train for less exp, you would not be happy

The day the TS pot fail feature was removed, my ability to earn exp at the time dropped by about 100k exp p/h. I was one of the biggest supports of removing the TS pot failing effect, and had been supporting it for almost a year prior to it being removed.

 

So yes, i actually would be happy. The game being more fair and balanced makes me happy.

 

PS: i'm not trying to flame, just pointing out, that it might be an issue for people ...

"beta".

 

 

EDIT:

Additionally:

I aint top 10 a/d, in fact, i'm not even top 50.

Making this change will probably make my time in PK a bit harder, and it will be longer before i can move to the new LOrcs, which have plenty of spawns and are fine for single spawn training... i'll be stuck waiting in lines for Yeti spawns for longer.

 

So please, before the word selfish comes to anyone's mind, think carefully about it.

Edited by Korrode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So please, before the word selfish comes to anyone's mind, think carefully about it.

I don't said or implied that you're selfish ... Just said that for those who are on low levels, it might be a problem.

(No i don't count myself into this category because i don't care about a/d :medieval:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like the current set up.

 

a/d levels are just one factor, then there are 6 attributes and more cross attributes to build.

 

This is called statagey.

 

We have defensive weapons, aggressive weapons that suit some builds/styles better then others.

 

I do agree, that the use of rl dollars in an excessive amounts are not great for the game, however, it has been like this for quite some time, and I doubt we will see a change in that in the near future. So I suppose if you cant beat them, join them.

 

If you cant beat a player that has a lot of bought pickpoints and is the same a/d as you, well, then I guess you just cant beat them. There are still ways to beat them though. again stratagy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless this is a trick question

It's not. By "weight", i mean 'power', 'effect', 'strength', etc. :medieval:

Yes, I got that, I just have learned not to take anything at face value without questioning it first :medieval:

I've been here a while now, and one thing I noticed is that there is such a lack of respect these days compared to when there was no $ influence and no neg perks and hydro pp's and no character buying, and no rollbacks on demand, 15 attrib cap, and and and...

Neg perks are not time/effort put into fighting, hydro pp's are not time/effort put into fighting, char buying and the rollbacks definitely are not...

Imo.

 

So yes, absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely yes. As Liquid said it's very likely that should such change happen it could affect char building considerations of many players, and I don't think anybody would mind more variety in that segment.

 

*whispers conspiratively* It could also have long-term impact on that other thing which is not to be addressed in this thread ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×