thomasblair

1 hour ago, GiveVindisGreatAxes said:

The biggest change that feels half baked was the PDM nerfs across several abilities. Im all for PDM nerfs, BUT you need to balance that out with armor buffs to offset the new levels of squish that melee will feel. Armor values need to be adjusted to make up for PDM drops if you want to see melee played at scale. 

58 minutes ago, galvia said:

 

• The nerf to PDM type defense was not combined with a significant enough increase to other defensive stats and options, so ultimate PDM has again become the defacto source of defense in the game. Combined with the above Fanatic issues and buffs to spam ranged DPS in general time to kill is going to be at an all-time high, and combat will be very uninteractable in a game with gear durability loss and long downtime. This has been very poorly hand...

Thanks for the feedback on this, there were some good additional suggesitons in the thread. Next up is too see how much can be implemented in a milestone. If I had to bet the whole feature will take a couple of milestones to deliver on.

Since 7.100 is really close to launching on Live, and this set of changes needs more iteration time, we are going to move these changes into 7.200 and continue to iterate on them in that branch. This should give us more polish time for other changes in 7.100 and more time to dive into some of the edge cases you brought up with the Combat Stats (like Holy Damage).

Thanks for the pages of feedback, it has given us a few angles to look at!

Just now, Balathan said:

Might be time to revisit that?

Well if we try @Arkade 's advice from above and swap the promotion node grants to straight up Armor Class instead of resist, then the existing disicplines/talents shouldn't need to get touched.

3 minutes ago, Yoink said:

You double dipped here a little bit. That 32% physical resists was a combination of armor and resists. My actual armor value in this test was 2800. So you could have 28% (2800 armor) + 35% (2000 resist all from plate and +15% misc) = 63%

Gotcha I thought that 32% was epic plate but we can drop it down 4% to rare.
28% (rare plate) + 35% (resistances) = 63%

Which still puts us less damage taken than the current PDM only version of Live, AND at a benefit of you don't need to rely on group buffs exclusively to have protection, your worn equipment protects you!

I think we are pretty close to the correct values assuming a player can hit those resist caps, and get a single PDM buff/talent?

@Yoink Thanks for the proof of work! It very much helps when we can show work, then evaluate it.

I think the values we are assuming;
everyone has 5% PDM post changes from one of the sources. Talent , Group Buff, etc. (5% is no 30% but still a benefit!)
Resist all may be capped at 25%, but the specific resists are capped at 35%, so it is possible to hit 35% from resist all + physical + slashing, etc. (I don't remember why the values were set as this, but it was done back in April 2018 and have been rolling with it since.)

32% Physical Resists + (20% Resist All Plate + 15% Misc Resist (Physical/Slashing, e...

12 minutes ago, Infraction said:

How is this going to work if PDM debuffs still stack? You limit pen+armor breaks but instead of stacking large amounts of PDM now its capped at 5% but can still be pushed negative.

Those PDM debuffs have to change as well.

@BarriaKarl You are correct, the only real place PDM should have been used was "Block" powers, and that is it.
It permiated outwards from there as everyone really liked the stat, (because it really made it feel like damage was being reduced) with no one realizing that was because the...

13 minutes ago, EvilGhandi said:

I don't understand. People are dying too quickly, so you're creating a way for that to happen even faster?

Am I misunderstanding something?

These changes should not make TTK faster, it should slow it down.

((Armor+ Resistances) - (Armor Breaks + Armor Penetration))
by altering the inputs into this formula, damage is mitigated before it even makes it to the PDM reduction that takes place after the above is applied to incoming damage.
(AB + AP) should be effectively capped at 30% thus the result of ((Armor+Resist) - (AB-AP)) won't be number 0 or lower (like it currently is).

More mitigation before PDM is less damage overall, which will lower those big hits considerably.
The risk of PDM being left at current values + making armor work, is that you now have unkillable groups when they stack PDM.

Thanks for the feedback, yes there some tweaks we still need to make, and are working on them. When you are giving feedback focus on the core of the issue;

In the combat formula:
Damage is reduced by ((Armor+ Resistances) - (Armor Breaks + Armor Penetration))
after Damage makes it through that formula it is reduced a final time by PDM.

The vast majority of people have a whooping 0% mitigation after the initial armor calculation.
Which means everyone is relying on PDM as a crutch to reduce damage at all.
PDM isn't easy to get for smaller groups, solo players, people who have no idea. These folks are running around with 0% defenses without knowing it and get melted. There are also some side effects that bleed over into gear, where in sturdier armors are deemed worthless, and any defense that isn't PDM is also worthless.

What is really helpful is feedback where a power or talent was missed. (Humans and the...

On 8/14/2021 at 3:03 AM, macavity said:

Don't forget that the only people who actually stuck around during the 6-7 years of development and actively played/tested the game were a lot of people from those big guilds as well. So in a way it's true that some(maybe most?) of those people shaped the game since Artcraft worked off of the feedback that they got from those people.

Yes, the people who where here for the past 6-7 years shaped the game you are playing.
Ground target reticles? removed - players didn't like em.
Root Motion Combat? removed - players didn't like it.
Build time on crafting? removed - players didn't like it.
Survival mechanics? removed - players didn't like them.
There is quite a long list of things that were yanked because of feedback. Unfortunately, There is no way to take feedback from folks who weren't here when the cement for the house was being pour...

22 hours ago, Andreaa said:

Sounds like guild and alliance maximum sizes need to be decreased. The response to this is always "But big guilds/alliances will just split their forces between 2 guild tags!!!!!111" Well...okay? The end result is that there is still an additional logistical hurdle, which was not there before, to maintaining a style of play that is clearly having negative effects on the game environment.

Yes we would absolutely love to crank the guild size down from 500 to a reasonable number, however it is one of those things that changing it this far into Live would really suck for many guilds.

21 hours ago, veeshan said:

The problem i see here if your still only catering to large zerg alliances most small/medium size guilds wont be able to fill the roster of the 90-110 odd players on to defend or attack seiges, think it would be a ...

3 hours ago, macavity said:

This whole thing where the zone is removed from the game by making it inaccessible to everyone that's not in the siege is so INSANELY stupid. Just keep the normal zone, but move the actual siege battles off to a different server entirely since it's already being instanced. It's such a no-brainer.

This isn't an option available as we don't have a server instancing system where can just copy an area (because people would want to use their keep) and put it into an instance. Making tech like that would take a considerable amount of time.
 

3 hours ago, Retchet said:

Kicking players out of the zone who aren't part of the handshake eliminates the possibility of a small guild swooping in at the last moment and capturing the keep for themselves.

The handshakes also prevent mara...

You are just seeing us build our Campaign Configurator settings as we get ready for launch. The base group size has always been 5 and continues to be 5. We built a feature a few updates back with a variable group size setting in our Campaign Configurator, where we can make the Configurator set max group size to a value from +1 - +5 for that campaign.
Group size is just one of many knobs available to us to make each Campaign feel different than the others in the Configurator, and as time goes forward we will continue to add more settings into the Configurator. I know in other MMO's once they make changes those changes are permanent and just the way it is from then on, however Crowfall's Campaign premise has always been there are tons of knobs and we will turn those knobs and see what kind of Campaign it produces.
As Zybak pointed out, each time we dial Up a +1 to max group size, we have just increased the power of groups in that Campaign due to buffs and healing, so i...

They still are stat sticks, it even says so now when you hover over the equipment slot!
Chaos Orb just has a huge contribution from weapon damage which is going to cause the power to have a wide damage range.

@Yoink Could you explain why you want this one? There is functionality you lose with with bypassing the take screen if we change this is why I ask. You also risk someone else making factory copies off of items you crafted and changing the name.

Thanks for the feedback in here! Some things will be tweaked because of it.
First on the stop is a tweaking of resource costs. We are shooting for the baseline cost to be what the template item is + normal additives +- a few resources. In the case of armor, it is baselined at the resource cost of the armor + treated steel + specialty seals. What is currently on Live, most recipes are short about 14 dust and a Billet or Two.
We are still figuring out how we can bake in the polish costs to the recipes. More than likely we will put a cost multiplier on the dust cost based on the rarity of the template being copied. The logic being if you are using blue, purple, orange resources, the odds are really high you polished every stage.
A request is in to keep the name of the Crafter from the item template on the copies, and UI is figuring something out so you can see if an item is a copy from the account vault without needing to tooltip each item.
Where we put ...

Great post @neven!
I appreciate the effort that went into this, and some of these things are in the works (Factory Tables), and some of them this is the first time hearing about it, and will take some thoughts how to alter things like dust costs. Right now we have 1 cost per recipe, which is why we baked the costs of things like treated steel/seals into all armor even though at the point of use in the Factory, we have no idea if it was used in the original craft or not.
Hearing feedback on the number of copies per template is great, because if that number is too high, there are all kinds of ripple effects to the economy and players who just want to craft.

Now that the initial Factory implementaiton should all be on Live, we are looking for feedback from everyone who has used them.

This is not a bug, the amount of attributes granted from vessel's was tuned using the Fae in 6.400 and the final data unfortunately did not get propagated to the other races in 6.400. (This is why the Fae has had lower attreibute potential than the other races in 6.400).

In order to add the Quantity option I would need to take away the Rename item functionality from them, and people have made too much cool content with the notes to do this.
Maybe it would be better to add the old Velum paper recipe back into the mix, and allow it to be used for notes instead.