Re: Next Instance

#51
I wonder if gruenesschaf wakes up sometimes, reads the forum and thinks "I feel you Blue".
There is a whole team putting a lot of work into this project, yet the forum is flooded with QQ and plane / backdoor insults.
Last edited by Ceen on Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Next Instance

#52
Yeah people QQ because the only way 2 realms have to take about the same time as midgard to clean it....is with spam pet.
Because only 1 realm has the celerity, but now all 3 have spec af for example
This gives a freaking benefit for midgard because of the celerity it's pretty unbalance if you nerf the other realms because they are taking advantage of the toons they have but let the mid advantage....
So that's why people are bored of those patches....

Re: Next Instance

#53
Eldoktor wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:51 pm
Yeah people QQ because the only way 2 realms have to take about the same time as midgard to clean it....is with spam pet.
Because only 1 realm has the celerity, but now all 3 have spec af for example
This gives a freaking benefit for midgard because of the celerity it's pretty unbalance if you nerf the other realms because they are taking advantage of the toons they have but let the mid advantage....
So that's why people are bored of those patches....
I've been laughing so hard Hib and Mid received spec AF but Mid kept their beloved celerity, ha, the simple pleasures of life...


Curious to test the new instance btw.

Re: Next Instance

#54
Equating spec af with celerity really is not the same thing. Every realm had access to spec af since the introduction of alchemy, giving it as a buff to the other two realms, with at most the level 34 one mind you (with a couple moa levels it's the same as the item charge), only kept the status quo in terms of available and used buffs while allowing buffers to fully buff the group without anyone having to use item buffs.

As for requiring pet spam to compete with celerity, the effects of the necro AF debuff are pretty similar in an alb melee group inside those instances.

Re: Next Instance

#55
I get why something needed to be done, But making theurgists (can't speak for hib, no elfing clue) complete garbage feels very knee jerk and not well thought out.

maybe with our DA/haste buffs and 3 pets. my might get a mercy spot? doubtful.

I fully support the no chain-stunning mobs in DS that's logical. but why not but a 1-2 pet spam class limit? or some other mechanic that punished too many pets attacking the same target.


there was a problem sure, but this was a shotgun fix that needed a wrench.

Re: Next Instance

#56
Hayter wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:49 pm
I get why something needed to be done, But making theurgists (can't speak for hib, no elfing clue) complete garbage feels very knee jerk and not well thought out.

maybe with our DA/haste buffs and 3 pets. my might get a mercy spot? doubtful.

I fully support the no chain-stunning mobs in DS that's logical. but why not but a 1-2 pet spam class limit? or some other mechanic that punished too many pets attacking the same target.


there was a problem sure, but this was a shotgun fix that needed a wrench.
Thats true. the abilities of classes should be the same across the whole game. To set any limitation in a class ability just for a instanz/for other part of game is very bad idea.

Re: Next Instance

#57
Hayter wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:49 pm
maybe with our DA/haste buffs and 3 pets. my might get a mercy spot? doubtful.
Imagine some ppl play a class that wasn't invited before and most likely won't be invited after. Did you see them whining?
There will always be classes that are better than others. Theurgist was completely out of line and will still be useful with pbt DMG and haste+3 pets.

Re: Next Instance

#58
In the presence of pet spam, the only ways to introduce some difficulty is either making it completely impossible to do without pet spam by just needing such a huge amount of pets to have any chance at all, or you add mechanics like stt or constant small ae damage or scale add spawn based on attacker and not only players, all of those mechanics either make pets harmful (stt and add spawn count) or not really worth it.

I think most would agree that literally making absurd amounts of petspam required is stupid. That leaves mechanics, however, I really don't see how adding multiple of those abilities to basically all bosses is any better than just saying: 3 pets, that's it.

Re: Next Instance

#59
gruenesschaf wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:06 pm
In the presence of pet spam, the only ways to introduce some difficulty is either making it completely impossible to do without pet spam by just needing such a huge amount of pets to have any chance at all, or you add mechanics like stt or constant small ae damage or scale add spawn based on attacker and not only players, all of those mechanics either make pets harmful (stt and add spawn count) or not really worth it.

I think most would agree that literally making absurd amounts of petspam required is stupid. That leaves mechanics, however, I really don't see how adding multiple of those abilities to basically all bosses is any better than just saying: 3 pets, that's it.
Cause it’s unnatural and can be seen as the lazy way out instead doing something creative. Just getting the job done is boring to people who play this out of passion.

Re: Next Instance

#60
gruenesschaf wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:06 pm
In the presence of pet spam, the only ways to introduce some difficulty is either making it completely impossible to do without pet spam by just needing such a huge amount of pets to have any chance at all, or you add mechanics like stt or constant small ae damage or scale add spawn based on attacker and not only players, all of those mechanics either make pets harmful (stt and add spawn count) or not really worth it.

I think most would agree that literally making absurd amounts of petspam required is stupid. That leaves mechanics, however, I really don't see how adding multiple of those abilities to basically all bosses is any better than just saying: 3 pets, that's it.
This is why I, along with many others ive spoken with, feel this is a ridiculously lazy fix.

The reason Darkspire wasnt the "challenging dungeon" that you guys intended has ZERO to do with petspam. The dungeon was easy because it was designed to be done with a HueHue Hit It With Hammer mentality. Make some of the bosses have high physical resistances, make others have high magic resistance, force players to have a BALANCED setup instead of stacking 1 class. Mids are still stacking melees, Albs look to be stacking Reavers, not sure what Hibs are stacking atm... as I said in an earlier post you are simply changing what people will stack. Darkspire is still easy, all that was done is you added a couple classes to the list of those not invited, nothing was fixed.

You dont need to add anti-pet spam mechanics to all the bosses, just 1 MAYBE 2. This would still give the class a reason to be in the dungeon as they still help in other areas but due to some bosses being strong versus them there would be no reason to stack them.

With HoH being tested this would have been a PERFECT time to test out some antispam mechanics to see how they went over with the community. See which ones worked, see which ones didnt. It would have given a good idea what could be changed in Darkspire to alter setups in a positive way. Instead of involving the community and testing how to fix it, we get this "You arent playing the way we want you to" nerf.