Posted by: @sirlocke

For the most part, I think the changes to 2HA are pretty good. There's still the issue of sap being unreliable for its intended purpose, and the hooks not being very viable in PvE, but those aside, there is one thing tied to the changes made I'd like to make a suggestion on:

 

Up Slash, as discussed in my original post, doesn't really justify its difficulty well. Making it either range does help, but it's still not justified as a difficult skill over hip slash. The damage is very comparable to hip slash, and in my testing, it only has a 7 point accuracy bonus over hip slash (it may be percentage based, 7 points is based purely on my ranks versus an opponent I could reliably test on). The biggest issue is that it's a difficult move that by default goes up against an easy dodge, which is a tough hurdle to get over. My recommendation would be to keep it as difficult, but change it to aim low by default. This would both fit the motion of the maneuver more accurately, and it would put it up against an average dodge by default, which would immediately justify its difficulty compared to hip slash.

Backhand strike, if I remember correctly (it's honestly been a while since I had it in my rotation because I moved all the slashing moves out of my rotations a while back, for the exact reason as Up Slash), already aims at an average dodge by default, so there is precedence for this within the skillset already.

This was a quick implementation, thanks! Makes the difficulty of Up Slash MUCH more justified.

On CKF changes:

I enjoyed the mythos surrounding CKF, and its origin made some of the limitations feel correct;, e.g., nothing bigger than a buckler; WSL is triggered only by Slashing Block, etc..  Those things made the skillset feel like a proper add-on module to the Knives skillset.

The recent changes make CKF feel less like a unique stance, and more like a group of additional subskills of Knives.

I'm not sure if folks were abusing Slashing Block or something, necessitating a change.  So, please disregard my thoughts if the changes were wholly necessary.  But I, for one, did not mind giving something away (big shields, compromised defensive arrangement) for the benefits of CKF.

I would suggest instead of mainstreaming the skillset, keep it unique and make it more restrictive, if necessary:  Keep the back-and-forth bonuses - but only with a buckler or less; keep the two-stage combination of Slashing Block and WSL, but make it more difficult, etc..

(Sidebar:  Rib Tickle should be usable as soon as an opponent initiates a grapple, since timing the split-second between Waist Clasp completion and Rear Plummet initiation is next to impossible and makes the skill irrelevant. [Assuming I have my facts right.])

My 2 sens.

So, the game had its first big night of PvP since the changes. I think overall people were pretty satisfied with what they played with thus far, the sentiment being that things seemed much more balanced. One thing I did notice that could probably use a little attention though, is the disparity close range weapons seem to suffer compared to long range weapons at controlling the range.

What I mean by that, is most long range weapons at this point have had most if not all of their attacks made short and long range with the combat updates. They have the versatility to execute what they want at whichever range they want, and most of them have the added bonus of being able to control that range with skills.

I think this was most evident in the Brawling Vs. Spears fight that took place. It looked like a royal pain in the butt for the brawler to stay on top of the spear guy, and the spear guy admitted after the match that, now that skills like thrust were any range, he could utilize parting techniques to be an annoyance rather than a necessity. 

I think this is a healthy dynamic, mind you, I just think the other side needs some attention in the dance. Close range weapons could use some tools to control the range themselves. Something to make themselves 'stickier' on an opponent, so to speak. Maybe this could come in the form of defensive type maneuvers, that can be activated when polearms use parting moves. Maybe it comes in the form of multiple lunges, much like staves and its three parting moves. I'm not entirely sure what works best here, just hoping to draw attention to what I see as potentially being a future imbalance. 

Thanks for reading.

Posted by: @rupert

So, the game had its first big night of PvP since the changes. I think overall people were pretty satisfied with what they played with thus far, the sentiment being that things seemed much more balanced. One thing I did notice that could probably use a little attention though, is the disparity close range weapons seem to suffer compared to long range weapons at controlling the range.

What I mean by that, is most long range weapons at this point have had most if not all of their attacks made short and long range with the combat updates. They have the versatility to execute what they want at whichever range they want, and most of them have the added bonus of being able to control that range with skills.

I think this was most evident in the Brawling Vs. Spears fight that took place. It looked like a royal pain in the butt for the brawler to stay on top of the spear guy, and the spear guy admitted after the match that, now that skills like thrust were any range, he could utilize parting techniques to be an annoyance rather than a necessity. 

I think this is a healthy dynamic, mind you, I just think the other side needs some attention in the dance. Close range weapons could use some tools to control the range themselves. Something to make themselves 'stickier' on an opponent, so to speak. Maybe this could come in the form of defensive type maneuvers, that can be activated when polearms use parting moves. Maybe it comes in the form of multiple lunges, much like staves and its three parting moves. I'm not entirely sure what works best here, just hoping to draw attention to what I see as potentially being a future imbalance. 

 

Thanks for reading.

 

I agree, while the Melee Advance command helps with the juggling around of engagements in a group fight, in a 1v1 PvP fight I can see how this would be an issue between ranged and melee combatants. 

Perhaps one answer is to look at a few moves in each melee skillset and either change them to "either" (though this would kind of negate the benefit of ranged weapons) or make 2 skills in each melee set be "approach" moves in addition to what they already do (or just make a new skill entirely). Sort of like the complete opposite of parting moves, where the move will engage an unengaged opponent on a success (but not work if you are already engaged to someone else). This would help with the "sticking" to opponents in a 1v1, without negating the new melee advance command, and be balanced against the parting moves most ranged weapons have.

I can only speak to OHS and Avros, but OHS already has "Lunge", which is good. Avros, Strike and Smash would make sense but it already does a lot utility wise so thats out. Maybe add it to Rapid Strike. 

Posted by: @randomone

Perhaps one answer is to look at a few moves in each melee skillset and either change them to "either" (though this would kind of negate the benefit of ranged weapons) or make 2 skills in each melee set be "approach" moves in addition to what they already do (or just make a new skill entirely). Sort of like the complete opposite of parting moves, where the move will engage an unengaged opponent on a success (but not work if you are already engaged to someone else). This would help with the "sticking" to opponents in a 1v1, without negating the new melee advance command, and be balanced against the parting moves most ranged weapons have.

I can only speak to OHS and Avros, but OHS already has "Lunge", which is good. Avros, Strike and Smash would make sense but it already does a lot utility wise so thats out. Maybe add it to Rapid Strike. 

This would be fine, probably. One small thing I would mention though, is the 'approach' moves we're describing here should probably work on failure as well, much like parting moves. Much like you I can't speak on all sets, but I have a good amount of experience with knives. Knives has one of those lunges that does not approach on failure, and because of this (And it being difficult), there's not much use in even attempting it over just approaching.. It's probably going to miss, and your still 2 seconds away from approaching.

On the subject of utility, I put together this table a week or two ago based on exactly that. 

removed link

Basically what I've done is I have gone through every offensive skill on the wiki, and I've catalogued the 'utility' effects they can have on combat. Note, this does not include new weapons, and does not include any of the recent combat changes. I've also left off things like 'feint', which only produce the utility of being a 'feint'. 

I'm genuinely not sure if this data is useful, but it does show some interesting correlations. Notably, the weapons with the most access to utility are also the most dominant weapons, and the individual skills with the most access to utility are the best skills for the most part. You'll also notice that in some cases, just because a weapon has access to a lot of utility, doesn't necessarily make it a good weapon, or a good skill. Example being, both sspin from staves and plummet from brawling are both 5 category moves, but the usefulness of the utility is very different. 

I don't know if this can be used to help with the quest to balance combat, but I figured I'd throw it out there for context.

Thanks for reading. 

I would hesitate to suggest digging up the bones of this old, broken ghost, but Offensive Guarding could perhaps be re-tooled in a way that could assist with this issue but not also be a completely overpowered PK griefing disaster. I'm no entirely sure how to approach it, pun intended, in a way that would be reliable enough to be worthwhile but not be at too high a risk of being overpowered, though.

Perhaps the easier solution might be increasing the roundtimes on parting moves, and perhaps even making them create an opening. Also ensuring that every offensive skillset has access to a lunge of some sort would help; adding a shield charge to the generic shield skillset would take care of most/all one-handed weapons, and I -think- the only 2-handed weapon that doesn't have a lunge currently is 2-Handed Axes (maybe brawling/Pankration, but I'm not entirely sure). Falx and chainblade have pull-in moves, so they don't necessarily need a lunge.

Parting moves also should be very low damage, realistically; you're literally countering the forward force of your weapon with the motion. It would be like trying to swing a punch while rotating your punching shoulder backwards while delivering it. But, hey, not everything has to be super realistic, so I don't think it's that big a deal.

I think having more moves be viable at either range is a good change for PvE, but like many things, PvE and PvP are very different beasts and it's an unenviable task to try and balance both.

Or alternatively, make parting moves work like fall back in that failing to land the move successfully keeps you engaged and creates an opening.

We had a meeting in the WA tonight discussing the combat changes. I think we can all agree that was pretty disorganized, and a lot of stuff got lost in the scroll. One thing in particular I did not want to see lost in the scroll was the talk about stance changing.

In my opinion, stance changing skills have changed the way combat plays in TEC. They're a clear evolution of an archaic and clunky system. Not only are they faster than manually changing your stance, they also have the added bonus of providing utility. For example, takes staves stepping spin. This move is 1+mos, can be used at either range, moves stance upwards, and strikes the opponent 3 times. To perform this same utility with lets say the OHS skillset, I would need to approach or lunge (0-2+mos), manually switch stance (2+mos), and then attack the opponent 3 times (2+mos per strike). This is an extreme example, but a valid one. However, the GM's made it clear during the meeting that they were not going to be extending this adaptation to the other skillsets, but a compromise is going to be necessary here.

The suggestion that came up at the meeting was that changing combat posture be made MOS. There is absolutely no reason that a stepping spin, a move that strikes three times while changing combat posture, should be faster than only changing your combat posture. This seems like the fairest and simplest solution across the board, and I wanted to make sure it got saved here. The biggest reason that stance changing feels clunky is because while doing it manually, you are stuck doing only that. If the staff is unwilling to extend the ability for all weapons to fill this downtime with utility, then make the downtime as minimal as possible.

Thanks for reading.