Weapon Limitation

Miugre - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Bottom line: this community has become far too obsessed with perfection and stats in endgame. Well, duh. Endgame is boring. We need to accept that, take our time getting there, and make alts when we finally do get there. If you can't stop and smell the roses, you're doing it wrong. ;[

Not just perfection, but also with money/time rates. Everytime I mention going Sage as a Sin, it degenerates into an argument about Demons having more DPS due to 5 APS. It's like scenarios where there are other, better DDs, or where you don't have that 5 APS don't exist.

Also, I've had people telling that Sage Bloodpaint isn't enough reason to go Sage because the squad can just get buffed by a Sage Sin and then fill that slot with a Demon Sin instead. If that doesn't scream "obsessively efficient", then I don't know what does. Except, of course, getting all the best level 11 versions of all buffs separately.

It's also funny because not once have I claimed that Sage is the superior path. All I have ever said is that it's not nearly as horrible as people make it seem. And yet it looks like no one is going to ever admit that Sage is a valid, perfectly useful choice.

Moderating your damage to allow someone else to tank is all fine and good if you're unable to tank in your current squad setup, and I agree that if a DD can't tank something, they should control their damage so whoever in the squad CAN survive is able to tank.... but saying that DDs should always lower their damage is just plain ignorant and stupid, IMO.

If a DD can allow the other DDs in a squad to cut loose (aka hold aggro best) and can actually tank the boss or whatever... then that DD is the tank. Period. The boss gets killed faster, everyone saves time, and the repair bills/charm burn/pot burn/etc is lowered for everyone. That's a GOOD thing.

On all of my chars, even before when barbs were always the common tank, if there was something I knew I could handle, I didn't hold back UNLESS I didn't want to tank for whatever reason.

The cleric shouldn't determine who tanks. The DDs shouldn't have to change what can be a 15 minute run into a one hour run by nerfing themselves into oblivion. The barbs shouldn't QQ so much as there's still plenty of need for them pre-endgame and at endgame they can always restat, DD, or go into areas where Barbs are still considered the best for survival while keeping aggro.

And, of course, people talk about damage moderation as if it's always the DD's fault. Yet, I've seen plenty of times where, instead of dealing with something they knew they could handle, a DD decided to hold back or nerf themselves... and then wound up with aggro anyways.... and then got killed or came close because they put themselves in a situation they'd have never been in if they hadn't been trying to moderate their damage from the start.

Fact of the matter is, the tank in any given situation is the one who can best hold aggro and survive. If that's the Barb/BM/Pet, good for them. If that's the 5.0 sin with a +12 weapon and +10 armors, good for them. Funny how so many barbs are complaining now about not being the main tank at endgame, and before their complaints were about being the main tank. I'm not saying I'm against letting barbs tank. In fact, I'm one of those who believe that level 11 barb skills should have a threat level increase so that barbs are still viable for holding aggro against a well-geared endgame DD.... but I'm also not going to sit around and take off half my equips during a fight or go AFK for 50% of it just to let someone else feel important when I can do the exact same thing they're doing without taking as much time. If I'm playing with friends, fine. If I can't handle myself, fine. Otherwise? Sorry but I'm going to do my job in making this run as fast and easy as possible... and if I'm on my Barb and a DD wants to tank, I'll let them. Less repairs for me, faster run all-around, and if the DD's unable to tank I'm a barb so I can snap aggro back and the DD will know to moderate damage.








And before it's even mentioned, I'm not one of those who believe in, nor like the idea of, adding someone to a squad just to get their buffs and then booting them. If someone in the squad is multiboxing and it's an alt of theirs so they want to give he squad a little boost, fine. If it's someone who actually wants to join the squad, either I have room for them in the squad and they can come, or the squad is full (or needs a capable tank/cleric) and they can't.

Think he meant archers should wield daggers and deal more damage at melee range. As of now, the best bow on my server (+12 Jaden) cannot compete in DPS with +5 Lunar Claws at 5/s at a stationary target over time.

I want my slingshot ep build to come true some day. b:cry

Miugre - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Ok, this one just confused me. How could a DD possibly put themselves in a more dangerous situation by dealing less damage?

New 3-x where killing faster means less chance of a death.

Miugre - Heavens Tear wrote: »

If you're referring to the 4-minute boss, sure. But kossy seemed to be referring to a general situation where the DD (and apparently no one else) would be screwed over because the DD decided to damage-mod. The 4-minute boss would cause a squadwipe (as I understand it - I've never failed to kill that boss within the time limit, but I haven't tried him since TT3 was amped).

3-3 bosses are a good example of that. Sometimes you can kill the bosses with only minor problems (well, compared to what it could be) and sometimes the bosses go all out in seconds.

To drag this thread back near the original topic:

All weapons should be available to all classes (except maybe spheres, as psychics seem to use a different magical energy than the other classes).

Ranged damage should be scaled up in PvE only. A scaled percentage increase, starting at level 59 (or 89....) with a comparable scaled percentage decrease in PvP would be a simple fix. This would bring back more variation in squads for PvE without further breaking PvP.

Barbarian aggro skills, specifically Flesh Ream and Devour, should have their aggro values greatly increased. It should not be impossible to steal aggro from a stack of Flesh Reams, but it should be somewhat difficult. "Just restat to demon/claw at endgame" shouldn't be the only option for tanking. (looking at the tank class skills in FW makes me think perhaps they are just making all the fixes PWI needs as part of their new game and leaving this one as a testing ground for new stuff....)

I don't think these changes would be impossible or reduce PWE's income, but I don't think they are likely to happen either.

IMO, There's no realistic need to limit weapon types for skills that don't directly need a specific weapon. Most buffs, Barb/Veno transformations, Cyclone Heel(as it uses feet, not fists to do damage), etc.

Limiting weapon types to certain classes makes even less sense. Why limit the versatility of any class? I believe that there should be skills that require different weapons, as it adds diversity.

I guess being realistic or diverse is asking for too much for an MMO though.

Kaste - Sanctuary wrote: »

I'd like to have Michaels opinion on that, now that we got him back .

I was kinda staying out of this thread because it's really quite a messy topic...

I don't completely understand PWE's reasoning for some of the choices on whether weapons are class restricted or not.

Take the bow and crossbow for example. Crossbows, historically, were made for the masses of unskilled to defeat those in armor, pretty much putting an end to the middle-age image of a 'knight in shining armor'. Bows, on the other hand, we weapons of the elite, requiring a great deal of skill and training... not quite sure, but swords, if found in the hand of peasants, they would most likely be stoned to death or imprisoned. Anyway, digressions aside, anyone in PWI can use a bow, however only 'trained' archers can use crossbows... however, that's enough of that.

I do find it odd that the only class that don't have class restricted weapons are blademasters and barbs. Perhaps it's due to the fact that these two primal melee-type classes are obviously more likely to use more variety of weapons than other classes are. Who knows.

I say just leave it the way it is. Asking for changes is only an invitation to more headaches than it is worth. Proverbial can of worms, imo.

Probably not the answer you were looking for, but that's how I see it.

P.S. Sure, I'd like to use daggers too. xP

TraciLords - Lost City wrote: »

Honestly to be realistic claws should be barb/veno only since they are beast characters and are the only ones with claws.

Just a little common sense for you to think about.

Time for the raging BMs..."Dont take away my claws"

Shush you. b:irritated

TraciLords - Lost City wrote: »

Sorry I forgot to mention that they should make an exception for Michael.b:kiss

b:cuteb:kiss

my suggestion is to make it so that some skills for e.g barbs aren't restricted to a certain weapon type. I'm sure by now everyone knows its possible to "glitch" claws (or even a bow for that matter, although it wont shoot anything - which would be rofl ftw) into true form due to the fact that while casting a skill, weapons can be changed. However, once "glitched" into true form with any weapon not "intended" for a barb to use, they're stuck until relogging since not even the true form skill will work with fists (yet archers for example get an "any weapon" skill tree). Sure its not the way its intended to be, but it would be nice to have - considering a heavy armor venomancer can stack -interval gear and dish out lots of damage with a magic sword (iirc they can get to 3.33 attacks/sec) and still have amp damage/purge/etc - basically a minibarbfistmaster