PDA

View Full Version : Antibuff - remove it from PPU - give it to everyone else.



William Antrim
26-11-12, 12:53
Ok so this thread has come about due to an issue over the weekend. However this is not a rant. It is a legitimate gripe with current game mechanics and if it becomes more popular I can honestly see dark days for nc pvp.

Currently the only class that has antibuff is the ppu.

Yesterday we (some clan mates and myself) got into some fights. All well and good. Numbers were matched evenly and we won some and lost some. Happy with that.

As per the norm however some people (names wont be mentioned in the thread) came back a while later with more people. Faction alliances and "blue on blue" attacks aside I noticed one serious issue in the game that I feel needs to be addressed. The role of antibuffing.

My guys had 2 tanks and 1 ppu. 3 Players in total. Not noobs by any stretch. All fairly good pvpers. The other side had 3 people also. Again pretty decent players clearly. However they brought 2 ppus to one fighter. Now I know what youre thinking - its going to be one of those flame fest threads but it really isnt. Their fighter was not that good and his damage output was neglible to be fair. However with 2 ppus constantly buffing him and antibuffing us we were at a distinct disadvantage. This to my mind is an issue.

We could not do enough damage significantly to worry the ppus whilst buffed and the only times we made them even get a tiny bit worried was when we antibuffed them. Even whilst pretty good at pvp the fact that we could only antibuff one at a time and 2 were able to rebuff we had a disadvantage.

Some people will stop reading now and go "get some more ppus". We have some. We each (the three guys there) have one. But we didnt because we prefer "fair" fights. It protracted into a stalemate due to the lack of antibuffing in small scale skirmishes and that is why I am here today making this thread.


For those who only want to skip to the end and dont read the rest -


WE NEED ANTIBUFF FOR MORE CLASSES. It should not be just the ppu - the hardest player to kill on the battlefield - who has the antibuff. PEs or Spies or someone else should have an antibuff tool as well. It should be given to multiple classes also to prevent the targetting of these players first by opposing teams. I am all for the PPU having the antibuff AS LONG AS others get to have it also.

The problem I see with this is as time goes on more people will just bring more and more ppus to op fights until the game becomes a "how many ppus can we bring" fight.

With PPU-buffing zoneline p2 fights being considered a standard mo now I do not want to see this tactic go the same way. It will be the death of real PVP and not something I would honestly like to see in nc.

P.s this is not a flame at the guys we were fighting, it just highlighted a pretty severe issue in my eyes.

Izeo
26-11-12, 13:42
I should begin by reiterating that I'm not experienced in PvP - I understand the basics and how things "should" work but I don't know about advanced setups..

.. but it seems that the fact that "Antibuff" itself exists is a huge problem. Without antibuff existing, that fight would've been a lot more fair...fairer? more fair?

Then, the only factors would be:
- the team of 2 ppus and 1 fighter -> ppus are quicker to defend their fighter, since they have two, but do less damage because of one fighter
- the team of 1 ppu and 2 fighters -> ppu is slower to defend his fighters, since there's just one, but do more damage because of two fighters

^ That seems balanced.

But then, adding antibuff in, you're right -- the side with 2 ppus then has a bigger advantage. blergh..

CMaster
26-11-12, 14:06
For the record, there are currently antibuffs available to PEs and probably also spies (although spies may need to drug for them). However, as said antibuffs take the form of a nanite injector, they aren't the most viable of options (I'd urge you to give them a try on the test server though, and describe well why they aren't a good option, so future antibuffs are better).

Anyway, I'd say that this is just indications of broader problems with PPU as a skill, and the passive-monk as a class, than something as simple as antibuffs. Psi needs to mean more to the PE and spy who use it than it does at the moment, while PPUs need to be drastically toned down - PPU + fighter should really be weaker than 2 * fighter. Dedicated PPUs should really only start to make sense at 4+ team sizes (in my opinion)

My support is still for making the APU an antibuff-and debuff class, and making said skills a core part of playing an APU - so an APU fighting a PE solo would typically antibuff the PE as part of the fight.

Making antibuffs more readily available is perhaps a form of band aid that could be implemented, rather than rebalancing PPU buffs itself. The question next of course is what form should these antibuffs take? Something that replicates current antibuff behaviour, or something that works quite differently?

The big risk of course is that by making antibuffing easier and more frequent, the response is more PPUs to replace the shields again. While one PPU might be able to keep three people shielded and buffed at the moment, if antibuffs get spammed, perhaps we encourage everyone to do damagedealer + PPU pair again, so they can best keep buffs up...

William Antrim
26-11-12, 14:50
Cmaster if you make the ppu less viable than 2 fighters noone will play one. If you give everyone antibuff you can bring an extra fighter OR the ppu as either balances out the issue. It's not a band aid but a viable solution.

P.s nannites.... Just no.

ratakresch
26-11-12, 15:02
Nanites

The anitshield nanites could be used by APU's, Spies and Pe's, but this crap is worth nothing. I played a spy setup ones where you could use these nanites with a psi 3 buff or with havenin x forte. The thing is. You have to hit the target directly in a minimum range with these nanites. Next the shield your going for will run out. This will take like 10 seconds (if i remember it correctly). During this time the ppu has full protection of the shield while seeing it running out. So he could easily cast a new one at the end. He is never unprotected. Only usefull if the ppu is rezzing, and even then you have to hit him, which is not easy these days (clipping bugging etc.).

PPU

I'm with you guys, if it comes to PPU zerg. I know to good what it means to fight against an outnumbering enemy with more ppus then our whole opfight team. We are outnumbered in fighters and PPU's in every fight. This is going so far that we fightet with 4 people (2ppus 2 fighters) against a team with 6 PPU's and 6 fighters. Normaly you could never win this fight. But it's possible. With the right tactic you could a least win over time or bring them to retreat. And i dont think it's a lack of fun.
BUT:
This could not be the normal way, and not for all people on the server!

I dont think there is a quik solution to this. I will think of one later. :P

CMaster
26-11-12, 15:16
Cmaster if you make the ppu less viable than 2 fighters noone will play one.
Imagine PPUs, if you will as a "combat multiplier" - ie, they make people more effective by a certain amount. Right now that amount is something like a 3x - 4x multiplier. - One person PPUed fights like 3 or 4 people (certainly as you saw, they're at least level pegging with 3). When right now, in a 2vs2, or 2vs1, the fact that t. Where the number "should" be is something like 1.4x. So one person PPUed fights like 1.4 people. So 3 people PPUed fights like 4.2 people. It's not quite so simple of course, but you see where I am coming from: PPUs make sense in large teams, but don't abruptly make any one person unstoppable like they do at the moment. How to achieve this is harder of course.



If you give everyone antibuff you can bring an extra fighter OR the ppu as either balances out the issue. It's not a band aid but a viable solution.

Nope. As long as PPU buffs make people stronger than simply having another fighter on the team, adding more antibuffs will just mean bringing more PPUs to replace the buffs. Unless you make the antibuffs so strong people that people just give up on buffing entirely. There's probably a happy middleground to be found where antibuffs are only used under certain situations, but it's important to be aware of those risks. Simply making all characters able to antibuff doesn't make all characters equivalent - that's ignoring every other way that PPUs change the fight.



P.s nannites.... Just no.
?


@Izeo - the real problem is that PPUs are too strong. A single PPU offers enough protection that their fighter is unlikley to ever lose to one or two opponents. A single additional fighter on your team has no equivalent effect.

William Antrim
26-11-12, 15:16
Thank you for the feedback. I cannot edit the previous post (I am at work currently and using an old browser).

The reason why I don't think it will come down to one PPU and one fighter ratio is because if the other team brings lots of fighters (IE NON PPU) then they can focus for example 1/3 of their number as dedicated antibuffers and the other 2/3 as damage dealers on said debuffed person.

Yes more ppus act as a force multiplier but standing directly opposite that are other antibuffers ready to take on the role of antibuffing the rebuffed player. Suddenly OP fight pvp becomes more about antibuffing and buffing the fighters tactically than it does about clipping around a pillar for example. I think that this form of tactics and skill is a lot more fun than fighting a team of unkillable ppus with a small handful of damage dealers.

You would have to be a very good ppu to survive with all of these debuffs and it would be probably marginally easier to kill some of the antibuffers before you start to kill the ppus for example. Again it is another tactical advantage that both teams have to think about. Do you kill the "better" players on the ppus or do you go for the easier kills in the ranks of the antibuffers. These are all tactical decisions. At some point the scales will tip one way or the other and there will come an end to that round of fighting. Then the flame wars can start on trade but tbh I have no solution for those...

All antibuffs (regardless of type) HAVE to act in EXACTLY the same way however. No one class can have a better one than any other. It would cause the same problems we have now. Whoever can antibuff the best gets to do it. If the PEs and Spies have some dex-based (even tanks too could use this) shield breaker type deal then it would need to function in the same way (RoF/Range/Cast time) as the Psi equivalent. Otherwise its not worth having.

I recommend Dex based weaponry because then more classes have access. Doesnt have to be a "gun" as such but some form of tool with the same range as the psi spell is required.

CMaster
26-11-12, 15:27
Some vauge thoughts:

Probably want the antibuff to be inconvenient enough that it wouldn't be used on PEs (or spies) without PPU support, otherwise you start to give tanks (and APUs) quite an advantage.

Should the inconvenience be in the form of a big warmup time, like we have at the moment for antibuff - it gives both the recipient and the people going to deck the recipient time to prepare - or should it be in the form of a big cooldown, meaning it can be used more quickly in reponse to circumstances?

What if the cost of using the all-class-antibuff was to antibuff the user as well? Makes it a real choice to use it in a fight, and might create some interesting informal rolls, like antibuffing-stealther/sniper spies. (Vauge concern with this is it might make fighting back when outnumbered harder.

Brammers
26-11-12, 15:28
So give the anti-buff to other classes? You didn't say which ones, so I'll assume all of them

Let's see what the end result is would be. A fight starts, everyone anti-buff's each other and shoots each other dead. Fight over in less than 30 seconds.... :wtf: I can just see the all tank clans coming along with Warhammers and anti-buffs.

@William Antrim - You really want short fights or proper fights? Personally if Anti-buffing is going to have a role, think about giving it back to the APU. Although the nanites do need a look at again.

William Antrim
26-11-12, 15:34
Sorry for double post. Lack of editing rights is irritating.

Ratakresch already pointed out the flaws in nannites as they stand. If they worked properly I would be all for them - see my last post.

As for the PPU force multiplier maths model no i see it differently.


If I bring 3 ppus and 3 fighters I can send one guy to debuff and only have 2 doing damage. If you have 5 ppus and 1 fighter your guy is going to get well looked after. However if I bring 1-2 ppus and 4-5 fighters your guy is getting knocked on his arse no matter how many ppus you have. There will be a point where TOO MANY ppus are there. If you lose the ability to do damage you pretty much lose the fight. PPUs will run around trying to be an annoyance or they will GR out. Regardless, if they hang around with my 3-4 guys having antibuff and damage (and noone to worry about damaging them) theyre either going out of the battlespace via a gr, whether that costs 4k or 6k.

PPU buffs have to make people stronger or what is the point in having them? This is not a ppu nerf thread. I DO NOT WANT TO NERF THEM THEYRE FINE! More balanced than the other classes imo by far.

As to your last point, I disagree. Based on the fight yesterday with 2 fighters vs 1 fighter ppu buffed (which was part of our fight) we could have killed him quite easily. However due to external factors that have been addressed in TS patches (clipping and movement generally) we did not manage to do this. The more you pound a ppus shields the less effective they become. PPUs have already been nerfed considerably. They dont need any more nerfing. 2 decent fighters can do enough damage (with balanced weapons) to a single ppu buffed fighter in my opinion.

If more weapons were viable then yes that would solve this issue but I am wholeheartedly against nerfing the ppu just because weapon damage is considered subpar. If anything the damage should be boosted.

Dropout
26-11-12, 15:37
Too much text to read for me atm to read the Whole thread..
..But you couldnt outdamage a PPU's heals? Did you Guys use Alt+H? :wtf:

2 fighters + 1 PPU should ALWAYS win against 1 fighter + 2 PPUs (not counting skill here).
Only good thing about having 2 PPUs to 1 fighter, is that both can be half asleep while PPU'ing lol.

if your PPU was really bad, then fair enough I guess.. Or did you use TSU rifles and Wyatts or something? :p

BTW, the tank wasent Falk Keegan by any chance?

William Antrim
26-11-12, 15:47
Brammers if you did that I would spread my guys out across the zone and stealth in and debuff your guys one by one and take em out. Your guys would not (I would imagine) risk AOE-ing so close to their own troops who are getting debuffed. To every tactic there is a solution. I am not going to start quoting Sun Tzu per se but the man had a point!

Walker sorry but I am going to ignore your post as it doesnt contribute anything. No offence. Starting with "too much text to read..." made me switch off.

I want proper fights yes. I want discussion about proper fights which is why I made the thread. I am happy to be proved wrong but I think that the PPU (only) having antibuff is a flawed concept.

I would rather have a fight over in 30 seconds than one that ends in a clipfest lasting over an hour.


Cmaster yeah I agree. I dont want it to be an antibuff spamfest. These things should take a while to cast and be used tactically. Not as long as a rez but the antibuffer (imo) should be stationary at the time of using it. This gives the "defending" team a chance to counteract his actions - ie kill him before he gets the antibuff off. The only scenario I can give you to liken it to is the combat rezzes of NC1.

CMaster
26-11-12, 16:25
First off, just to say I misread the start of this post and hence misunderstood the complaint somewhat - I'd thought that your team had no PPUs, vs the other team having 2.

Yeah, the fact that PPUs outnumbering fighters is currently viable is well, beyond silly.
Moving antibuffs away from PPUs is the obvious solution to this indeed.
Giving them to everybody helps avoid making any one class more important.
So yeah, thumbs up to this idea I guess - although not without some reservations (I still think there's space for antibuff as a much more regular part of the APU arsenal, in exchange for approriate damage on the APU).
I do also think it's still important to avoid locking the game into a 1:1 fighter:PPU ratio at op fights, which could happen if antibuffing is too prevelant.

Oh, and Brammers - you can rebuff after being antibuffed you know. Team fights are more about focussing firepower than spreading it out like you suggest would happen.

Ivan Eres
26-11-12, 17:28
It looks like the solution is already in game. This was meant to be.

Just make the nanite antibuff work correctly and there you go.

Netphreak
26-11-12, 23:49
It looks like the solution is already in game. This was meant to be.

Just make the nanite antibuff work correctly and there you go.

How would you make it comparable though.
It needs to be able to work at some kind of range rather than melee distance, and it needs to work much quicker, rather than take 10secs to take a shield off which can easily be seen and recast in that time.

I think there would probably be an awful lot of work involved in getting it comparable/were it needs to be.

William Antrim
26-11-12, 23:55
I would suggest making it fire after charging up like the psi one does.

Ghostface_Speak
27-11-12, 01:32
I would suggest making it fire after charging up like the psi one does.

Yes,this should be tested on the TS.If those Tools can be tweaked to be useful,there may be no need to move the Antibuff from the PPU [giving it back to the APU,in the current state of the game/balancing,is not a good idea at all]

CMaster
27-11-12, 01:36
With things like this, it would be nice if we could get some "rough and ready" prototypes of several of the ideas (eg warmup, cooldown and self debuff versions) made up, then each gets a few days as active on the test server, and we could see which seemed to work best.

Izeo
27-11-12, 04:32
Question: Does anyone enjoy the idea of a debuff spell anyway?

Doesn't this seem kind of silly?:
"I wanna shield this guy so we have an advantage *buffs ally*"
"No! I don't want you to have that advantage *antibuffs enemy*"
"No but I want him to have the shield.. *rebuffs ally*" etc?

(In other words, maybe a good way to balance it would be to remove it?)

Doc Holliday
27-11-12, 05:12
Question: Does anyone enjoy the idea of a debuff spell anyway?

Doesn't this seem kind of silly?:
"I wanna shield this guy so we have an advantage *buffs ally*"
"No! I don't want you to have that advantage *antibuffs enemy*"
"No but I want him to have the shield.. *rebuffs ally*" etc?

(In other words, maybe a good way to balance it would be to remove it?)

Its about tactics. With no antibuff the ppu runs around all day going hahahaahahhahahahahahahhahaha i cannot be killed like some idiots do. Then you hit them with the antibuff and antiheal and your damage dealers start smacking them around and they get scared, panic sets in, they make a mistake and die. or if they are bad they die without the panic.

(or you zone down in to TG hq and you write fail back to them. like they did to you ^^ :P)

If no antibuff the ppu becomes a god and cannot be taken down easily without some casting their enhanced enhanced enhanced ultimated crahn holy fatal run time error sanctum on to the target and his shields falling off during the time hes out.

On a side note a friend of mine was on his ppu whos capped (int is short maybe 3 levels) and running rare shields etc. He crashed and people started whaling on him and he still had time to log back in and get moving again before they could drop him.

Yes. We NEED antibuff.

Izeo
27-11-12, 08:40
I guess I would've prferred no such thing as antibuff, but, don't make the PPU shields as strong as they are, to compensate.

phunqe
27-11-12, 09:12
Quite early still, so I might be talking out of my ass, but back in the old days before antibuff, I cannot really remember it being that unbalanced?
Sure, the PPU was unkillable, but there were not so many of them were there? I remember a lot more damage dealers and only a handful of PPUs.
I might be remembering it wrong though, although removing antibuff could potentially reduce the PPU population, hence balancing it?

Did that make any sense or...

EDIT: What I was thinking was that if antibuff got removed, it would by evolution imply that more people rolled damage dealers instead since it would be quite stale otherwise. Damage dealer class is in general more prefered amongst players. If we can boil down the PPU population and have those who really loves to play it (which includes me actually), how would that turn out?
I don't mind playing it as is at all really, just that it seems a bit bloated at the moment and they are brought/played for the wrong reasons.

EDIT 2: I do understand the make or break implications the old days PPU had, but if you bring them now for antibuffs which can make or break it as well I don't really see a large difference? I do remember opfights with unbalanced amount of PPUs that could go either way before the times of the debuffs.

Again, might be my ass talking, I started playing quite recently again so it might be all based on the wrong assumtions :)

phunqe
27-11-12, 13:41
Early in the morning + before breakfast = incoherent.

In any case, I remember playing both a PPU and a damage dealer in the old days and all I can remember was pure fun without the antibuffs. Remind me, were the antibuffs added due to a massive outcry about PPUs or just added as a "general" balancing measure?

William Antrim
27-11-12, 14:18
We have had antibuff for as long as I can remember. If you don't have it people will bring even more ppus. If you have that then kiss goodbye to real PvP. We need a reason to bring less ppus not more.

If we had more powerful group buffs that might help also. Ppu now has less of an impact than he ever did at op fights. They used to be godlike back in the day which is why when we had good ones in our clans we brought less of them. We just didn't need the extra ones basically. Because they're more tuned now people seem to need more of them to support the team.

phunqe
27-11-12, 14:38
Ok, I just could not remember a saturated PPU presence when there were no antibuffs since you really didn't need as many (and people tend to gravitate towards offensive classes unless forced otherwise).

William Antrim
27-11-12, 15:20
I think if everyone has the antibuff it will force people to think about bringing more damage dealers than antibuffers because once those antibuffs go off (and lets be fair you could always have 2 people a fraction of a second apart starting their antibuffs on the same target) the target is going to be vulnerable. This will invariably force some clans to bring more ppus of course but over time I think the consensus will be more damage dealers to bring the win that much quicker.

Whatever happens it removes the focus from the PPU. I am all for giving the APU his antibuff back. With all of the other nerfs currently in place for the class I think this is one step too far. I would be supportive of any plans to change this back. Even if the APU becomes a "utility" player in op fights (ie antibuffing and damage dealing on unbuffed chars) then I would be happy. However I do not want to see this become APU/PPU opfight teams and noone else. If everyone had antibuffs then we would see a variation in the tactics and group class selection. Plus it would also mean that some of the newer people to the game could experience pvp on their char without having to level up one of the "op fighting" classes.

If all four choices had a role I think we would have a much more colourful and fun Neocron.

I think at the very very minimum PE's should be given an antibuff of some sort. Even if the Spies and Tanks werent able to do it. I think this would go a very long way towards offsetting the differences in damage output (compared with spies) and defence (compared with tanks) at opfights.

CMaster
27-11-12, 15:48
No, I have to agree with Phunqe here - more antibuffs (from any source) means more PPUs to counter it. Pretty much inevitably. More antibuffs = more time buffing one person than otherwise (replacing the removed buffs) = less fighters fully supportable per PPU = lower fighter:PPU ration. There's no practical way around this - unless you make antibuffing so easy and prevalent that there's no point PPUing/PPUs drop dead all the time.

Really, the only "need" I see for antibuff is as a rez prevention (and that can be gotten rid of . You can certainly argue (I would agree) that antibuff adds an extra tactical factor, and rewards well organized teams (those who can focus a target as they get antied, those who can quickly rebuff their fighters.

And yes, the better the player on the PPU, the more people they can support. It was a classic of 2.0/2.1 - lots of people could do the "buttplug" role - relatively few made good PPUs supporting their whole team. Of course, really, really practiced APU/PPU teams had their own strengths.

In the long, PPU-overview I'd like to see PPUs able to look after bigger groups. However, more antibuffing will make this harder to achieve, not easier. Still, anything is probably better than the current situation where bringing dedicated antibuff PPUs makes sense.

Brammers
27-11-12, 16:16
Early in the morning + before breakfast = incoherent.

In any case, I remember playing both a PPU and a damage dealer in the old days and all I can remember was pure fun without the antibuffs. Remind me, were the antibuffs added due to a massive outcry about PPUs or just added as a "general" balancing measure?

Antibuffs have existed in NC1, and was a weapon used by the APU. In 2.2 KK changed it so it could be used only by a PPU. It's probably just as well the anti-buff role got move to the PPU as APU's are too weak atm. (However APU's balance is another topic in itself!)

However at the end of the day, I prefer the anti-buff being limited as it is now. I really don't want to get into a fight to find myself anti-buffed every 5 seconds and having to get myself buffed again (That include self-buffing)

William Antrim
27-11-12, 16:20
Then what you are describing as your wish Cmaster is more powerful ppus. This was what we had in nc1. Extremely powerful individuals who basically changed the game with their skills. I am not blowing smoke up anyone's backside but everyone can remember the best ppus on their servers pulling off 7 second rezzes and rebuffing their teams before the opposition had a chance to counter.

I think if ppus are dropping dead all of the time at op fights it is going to discourage the use of more than one or two in favour of more damage dealers to outwit the enemy damage dealers. If I bring a higher amount of firepower the theory is I should attain superiority over and control of the battlespace in a shorter amount of time. I can project more power into the given area than you can, not less. Do not forget that there will be more capped "other chars" in any given clan than capped PPU's.

Plus if Clan A brings extra ppus they will reach a point where they are saturated with ppus and their damage output will either drop off significantly OR they will need to find more warm bodies to come to op fights. If their damage drops off (the most likely course of action) then they will soon need to adapt their play once more to combat the enemy as they wont be killing anyone yet at the same time Clan B who might theoretically have more damage dealers will be able to hit the fewer damage dealers that are currently there and put them down faster thus negating the use of the PPUs. Its pointless having lots of PPU's if your damage dealers have all been killed. Plus if they try to rez one of their DD's with the current rez timings and everyone has antibuff theyre gonna have to be brave or lucky or a combination of both.

I can certainly see the point you guys are trying to make and I can wholeheartedly see some people adopting that approach but due to time and resources currently available to many clans I do not honestly see it happening this way. If anything I see a shift away from PPU-buffed fights and perhaps even some real fighting from people who do not need one to fight. If they can be unbuffed so easily why not bring a char who can at least fight back and defend himself. Particularly with the new positioning fix in pvp I think a lot of these pvp dynamics are going to change. In the short term yeah I could see more ppus as the game is currently but if these changes were to come about then I think we would see a lot more thought put into some op fight team compositions.

Doc Holliday
27-11-12, 17:03
keep in mind that not everyone has/plays a ppu all the time and player skill is an infinite variable. Added to which if other classes have the antibuff ability they can match this with a damage dealing capacity and therefore adjust the tactics accordingly in terms of op war composition.

i think this is currently being discussed from a purely mathematical point of view and must be regarded in more "real" terms.

Besides if the apu has the antibuff he becomes more useful in an op fight and not so much the forgotten class. At the same time he is still not on par with the tank in terms of defensive ability meaning its the attackers choice who to target first. A tank who is antibuffed can take more damage even unshielded at an op fight and therefore will always be inherently useful because of this factor. he can be used to block shots and soak damage that an apu cannot. the defensive line so to speak.

I dont truly expect it to go back to monkocron.

The spy with his stealth and high damage output also has a role on the battlefield being able to stealth around positions etc and get in to the opponents 2nd or 3rd line and hit and run so he will still also find he has a role. If the PE had damage upped and the option of an antibuff he too might find a role in this equation.

Just my thoughts. Tactically all this must be taken in to account. i dont expect the monkocron teams of nc1 even if antibuffs are given back to apus and removed from ppus.

An alternative here could be to make 2 kinds of antibuff. one each for the apu and ppu. different requirements on them eg mana cost can be assigned in order to create that extra niche role in an op team. IE the apus is cheaper on his mana. give an incentive to bring one or two to a fight. Its certainly a consideration no one else has made yet as far as im aware.

CMaster
27-11-12, 17:07
Antibuffs have existed in NC1, and was a weapon used by the APU. In 2.2 KK changed it so it could be used only by a PPU. It's probably just as well the anti-buff role got move to the PPU as APU's are too weak atm. (However APU's balance is another topic in itself!)

However at the end of the day, I prefer the anti-buff being limited as it is now. I really don't want to get into a fight to find myself anti-buffed every 5 seconds and having to get myself buffed again (That include self-buffing)

The thing is Brammers, what William is saying (and I can totally believe is true) is that right now, people bring along PPUs to do nothing but antibuff. So you see lots of antibuffing happening, and you also see many more PPUs than seems to make any sense.

Oh, and monk-o-cron is an ever present threat. Remember that before 2.2, APUs were well down the heirarchy of 1 vs 1 classes (Something along the lines of: Hybrid, Drugged PE, Drugged Spy/PE/Tank, APU, Spy). Yet when it came to OP fights and similar, nothing stopped the APU/PPU combo.


I really don't see most of your logic with what you are arguing here William. The stronger you make PPUs, and the more easy you make it to remove buffs again, the more importance you place on having a 1:1 fighter:PPU setup (once PPUs have lost AB and para, it's never going to make much sense to go past this point, the way it seems it can at the moment). The way to reduce the reliance on PPUs is to make them weaker, not stronger, but able to support more people. So you reduce the strength of foreign shields from the current 30% to say, 20%, but make shields last 10 minutes rather than 3 (and degrade slower too) Or make group buffs easier to use - whatever lets a single PPU support more people. If you want to make fights without PPUs viable, then you need to make it so that a single PPU arriving doesn't tip the scales like it does now - it's just the (roughly) effect of one more person showing up.

Edit @ Doc:
Well yeah, player skill is always going to vary. Not everyone will have or is going to be willing to play the "optimal" - hell, NC has always kinda fetishised playing known-sub-optimal builds as a way of showing off. But we can say from past experience that over time, the bulk of the player base will gravitate towards whatever seems to work best - or at least work easiest. I don't think 10 APU + 10PPU in pairs was ever the "optimal" in 2.0/2.1, but it was increasingly what was seen and what won control of most of the map.
That said, this discussion isn't really mathematical - it's just trying to see what behavior is encouraged/discouraged by the changes being suggested. You don't want to push people into any one optimal too much, or reward "unfun"/punish "fun" play. To an extent preserving variety is what we're seeking here.

Anyway, the general agreement seems to be that it would be best for PPUs to lose antibuff. What (if anything) should replace that is more the debate. I've got my idea of what I think would be best (a new style of APU) - but without playing, it's kinda hard to tell.

William Antrim
27-11-12, 17:51
What if the rare shields had a group shield effect added? Would this make things easier/better?

In NC1 I saw one clan use the group shields effectively. TJ - on Uranus. They used to gather up around their ppu at an alotted time and he would group shield in a clock face formation with everyone in range. This worked for them.

Perhaps if the PPU was given this capability along with a reduction in defensive power of foreign cast shields and more antibuffs being available to others this would provide a more level playing field for all parties involved?

I have no hidden agenda. I am merely trying to promote some good discussion into (in my opinion) the single most important and fun aspect of NC - op fighting.

I would also like to ask - is there the ability within the game mechanics to only cast your group shields on a player IN YOUR TEAM. This would potentially alleviate the one negative side effect of group buffing - ie buffing your opponent. This would also probably make PVE much easier as you wouldnt buff the mobs youre fighting either. I am not sure if shields actually do anything to monsters any more however. Historically they did but that may have been disabled in todays game.

Kame
27-11-12, 18:58
Nanites:
Weirdly enough, using nanite antibuff tool drains PSI power, which makes no sense RP-wise.

I guess this is because the tool was designed as a replacement HAB for APUs (hence the req on the antibuff nanite tools) and as a attemp to limit it's use on classes like PEs and Spys. This is a weak design in my opinion.

To bring a coherent, easy to manage approach to nanites, all but the Heal and Repair nanites should be removed, and Heal and Repair nanites should BOTH be recyclable.


PPUs:
A lot of clans/fighting teams seem to carry an extra PPU around for PVP. That guy's job usually is the Antibuff and Rezzes. This leads to a lot of fights where looser`s side fighters are all down and then you have 2-3 PPUs running around, clipping, and trying to pull rezzes.

Now I dislike how strong a PPU is. Monks are described as the frail, post-troglodyte type of humans with extra-sensory powers. Hardly makes any sense that on one spectrum of the class you have the best damage soakers and on the opposite side you have what is (supposed to be) the best damage dealer (in terms of dam/min).

The PPU's self-buffs and heal are the problem in my opinion. They make a PPU tougher than a Tank. Way I see things, making the self-buff weaker than the foreign-buff is a viable option to acheive a better PVP balance.

This would make targeting the PPUs a viable option in PVP, and also make PVE harder which seems to be in-line with the current DEV team's vision.
No more 'PPUs up first', but rather 'Tanks up first' which is a lot more in line with what a Tank's description is.
Due to the CON amount, simply put, a Tank should be the class with the less damage intake when PPU buffed/healed.

P.S.
To all those saying PPUs are nerfed enough already, I will say that ANY class being able to simply stand still and outheal another class because of shields and heals should not exists, as this is very, very poor game mechanics for balanced PVP.
Imagine in BF if medics could outheal a engineer's small weapon well enough so the healed player could simply stand still, soak up the damage and keep doing whatever it is that it is doing.

slith
27-11-12, 19:28
Why not remove the monk class as a whole?

Ghostface_Speak
27-11-12, 19:38
@William

No offense but the fact that you remember 1 clan that used the groupshields (while a gazillion others didn't) speaks for itself.Groupshields MAY be worth using IF the buffs would only apply to the runners in the Team of the PPU (like you suggested).

However,in this case i would suggest creating a rare variant of those modules and not "screwing" with the existing ones.
Would be a pleasure to check it out on TS-Opwars.

(another) reduction in the power of foreign cast shields PLUS more antibuff options in general would alter PPU gameplay and have way too much impact on PVP,maybe even to the point where no one could be arsed to play PPU.

I agree on the need of a non-ppu Antibuff solution but not on the "hey let's change something else while we're at it,too" since this climaxed in the current 2.2 "Balancing-Mess".
1 thing at a time ;)

Kame
27-11-12, 19:55
Also back before te 2.2 mess, killing a HABd PPU was easy because of the freq on monk's spells. You could easily give him a good 2-300 damage before he could get S/D back up. Multiply by 2-3 APUs, and that meant inta death for that PPU.
Now with our shit freq (even on weapon classes) PPUs with skills and brains can manage 0 damage when HABd, even with multiple damage dealers.

I feel skilled PPUs are actually a lot tougher to kill nowadays.

William Antrim
27-11-12, 20:17
I don't take offence. I know group shields are shit. Hence why I made the point of only seeing one clan use them effectively. I didn't want to suggest adding to a polluted rare pool however.

Izeo
28-11-12, 00:10
The way to reduce the reliance on PPUs is to make them weaker, not stronger, but able to support more people. So you reduce the strength of foreign shields from the current 30% to say, 20%, but make shields last 10 minutes rather than 3 (and degrade slower too) Or make group buffs easier to use - whatever lets a single PPU support more people.
I like this. A PPU would be awesome for a big team - he can shield lots of people at once, but the shielding isn't as effective as it is now, and, adding another PPU in wouldn't make much of a difference (aside from fast healing of individual targets), because everyone is already shielded. Makes sense to me.

On a side note can someone explain to a pvp-noob what "foreign shields" are?

CMaster
28-11-12, 00:18
I like this. A PPU would be awesome for a big team - he can shield lots of people at once, but the shielding isn't as effective as it is now, and, adding another PPU in wouldn't make much of a difference (aside from fast healing of individual targets), because everyone is already shielded. Makes sense to me.

On a side note can someone explain to a pvp-noob what "foreign shields" are?

When you cast a shield, it can be either a "self shield" - so applied to yourself and of almost unlimited effectiveness. Or it can be cast on somebody else - a "foreign shield". These are currently capped at a maximum resistance of 30% (I think they take a modifier anyway, so that even without this cap, they're a lot less than 80% - or so that say a PE deflectoring a friend will get a lot less than 14%. Would have to check on that last one.

Basically, it's a way of letting PPUs be invincible, without letting them do the same to others.

Earlier in 2.2, foreign shields capped at 25%, which I felt was a better point.

Kame
28-11-12, 19:15
PPUs shouldn't be near invincible. They should rely on Tanks to soak up PVE damage for them, and on their own skills to dodge/avoid getting PVP gank.

Self and foreign buff should exactly the same, and that same should be foreign-like strenght.

William Antrim
28-11-12, 19:55
PPUs shouldn't be near invincible. They should rely on Tanks to soak up PVE damage for them, and on their own skills to dodge/avoid getting PVP gank.

Self and foreign buff should exactly the same, and that same should be foreign-like strenght.

I agree with you up to that last point. If you make foreign buff and self-buff the same you might as well delete the ppu. He has to have something in defence to give up ALL forms of attack.

Dropout
28-11-12, 20:19
Yeah Self and foreign cast being the same is a horrible idea IMO.

A PPU who dies just as easy as an APU.. Doubt that it would be much fun to die within the first 10 secs of every fight.. And it would make combat rezzes completely impossible aswell.

Doc Holliday
29-11-12, 07:07
I love some of the intelligent reasoning in here from some of you but keep this in mind. When u nerf the ppu down so he takes more damage and dies easier lots of people gonna stop playing them because they have the most to lose in terms of valuable items.


Some of your ideas in this thread and the reasoning behind it is to me too much based around one assumption. ie people bringing more ppus not less etc. At the end of the day this game is a numbers game. you can balance so much pound for pound but when, during an op fight, if one clan get the numerical advantage, it will. Some of these counter arguements are based on too many assumptions such as that EVERY SINGLE RUNNER has a capped ppu at his disposal and will bring it when in reality thats not so often the case.

wake up and smell the coffee before you smack down ideas or say no that clearly wont work. This is a very careful process to balance up the class/classes and i dont think that the ppu personally is that bad in terms of how easy to kill him it is.

final thought on this all which seems to have escaped a lot of people. you talk about the volume of antibuffs being brought to a fight if used by another class. and that it will automatically propogate more ppus being brought. Assuming both teams have an infinite number that could happen.

But think about it in real terms. not bullshitland terms. If everyones antibuffing who the hell is damaging the player whos getting antibuffed. think about the fact that not every person or clan has a million alts ready to go.

Theres far too much theoretical shit in this thread saying this or that or the other to counter these arguements and some of the changes are pretty fuckin ludicrous.

Heres a thought. Give the pe a decent usable antibuff. Oh hang on. due to class mechanics his psi caps at 35. so how do u scale that to allow use of an antibuff. We then go back the issue of the monks only being able to use it. It has to sit with the apu/ppu. no choice there it would seem if you are to apply special requirements on psi to it.

So. Outside the box. We need some kind of antishield tool. Not based on psi reqs. Open to all to use potentially. Maybe even make it require TC as all 3 "Other" classes can get tc quite easy. Another option would be to make a melee weapon like the electro shocker do it. Thunderbolt. 0 Damage but eats shields etc.

At least this is putting forth ideas. I still highly doubt monkocron makes a return given the state of the apu but hey some of you can see the future so you already know whats coming.


For the record my money's on someone posting "bring back shit buffing" as the next dumb shit statement posted in this thread.

Izeo
29-11-12, 07:49
Is there an issue with nerfing shields overall so that it may not be worth it to have to worry about who can antibuff who?

William Antrim
29-11-12, 13:43
Yes izeo. Doing that hurts the ppu the most and he will be carrying double ar least the amount of rares you're carrying so it makes his game even harder.

Netphreak
29-11-12, 14:16
So the main issue is that PPU shields and heals to other players is too strong and needs reducing a bit?
And a PPU's personal heals or shields maybe need adjusting as well?

Dropout
29-11-12, 14:26
For the record my money's on someone posting "bring back shit buffing" as the next dumb shit statement posted in this thread.

I would personally LOVE if they brought back shitbuffing! :p

Kame
29-11-12, 19:33
.
Noob-buff was a great way to get rid of a clipping, last-runner-from-team-alive PPU.

It required great team coordination and was rewarding to acheive, with the prize being an otherwise able-to-withstand-3-fighters-pounding-him PPU actually taking decent damage and ultimately dieing.

Still baffles me it was took out of game, or how some (shortsighted) people considered it "an exploit".

Besides, with the HAB currently in the PPUs arsenal, any shitbuffed PPU would simply have to A/B the shit shield and cast a good one.


BRING BACK NOOB-BUFFING !!!!

Izeo
30-11-12, 00:09
Yes izeo. Doing that hurts the ppu the most and he will be carrying double ar least the amount of rares you're carrying so it makes his game even harder.
Damn. Kind of an unfair reason to keep them invincible. It sucks when "time spent" is added into the balance (since that's not really balance) :(

Dropout
30-11-12, 00:13
Damn. Kind of an unfair reason to keep them invincible. It sucks when "time spent" is added into the balance (since that's not really balance) :(

Thats only a small part of the reason why they must be hard to kill.
If they werent such a pain in the ass to kill, they would always be the first target in opfights - and that would make some really short opfights tbh.

Chuck Norris
30-11-12, 00:18
Make it a melee woc weapon ;p