July 25, 2012, 22:40:03 |
I was interested about what french players thought about this "rebalancing" and went there to read the forums and wanted to share it with you guys since I know some of you are interested. As I've been reading the french forums for the past two hours and they have realized the same issues with this "rebalancing" as we here did.
To summarize the thoughts (18 pages what I read):
1. Air Iops are op and now even more, they needed nerf not buff.
2. Panda changes will need to tested out to see if it works, seems cool.
3. Rogue buffs were in place.
are wondering that if game developers even know anything about the game they are making and "balancing". Seriously there was like 1 or 2 posts which complemented on Sram changes and those were about fire tree buff or making invis 1 wp. Following things provokes a lot of discussion:
4.1. Sram invis change failed
4.2. Double nerf
4.3. Backstabing issues (diversion is gamble, look around never been useful, leaving us with only guile for positioning which costs us -25% damage)
4.4. Srams role (doesn't fit any role in group, not good in dps, support etc.)
4.5. Global concern about nerfing everything fun about sram and killing the player / class base.
4.6. Most but not all comments thought that srams needed buff (as we do) and not nerf. Even players who don't play sram did!
This being said and as devs etc. don't read our international forums they might still has a chance to repair this mistake they made if they listen to the players at all. I sure hope they do since we know the game the best.
I humbly hope that Troyle
will read the forums and keep himself updated and work as our little voice as he might be the only employee at Ankama who speaks english.
Thank you for reading.
Quote (Kikuihimonji @ 25 July 2012 22:22)
As for Diversion i think it should be 30%>60% not 40%>60%. And yes it's nice change. 60% is pretty high chance but you will have to risk to loose that AP. Why this change is nice? Because it shouldn't be easy to make sram backstab you knowing that backstab is high damage bonus. So +1 to this change i really liked it. Still i think that if Sram fail to make opponent turn its gaze: there could be a 10% damage bonus at least, as a recompensation, so that this AP won't be actually lost and so that sram's might keep trying to use more AP's in case of failure.
I agree with you at the invis changes. You can reduce the damage if you give invis that lasts and the other way around. Also make it viable option for fire and water trees too! Currently they made it hard to stay invis and reduced damage by 50%, here in Finland we call this Double Fail.
This issue / spell still requires a lot of attention.
But as I read your thought on diversion, I'd like you to think about this:
1. We as srams no longer use wp for anything else apart from double as it is. ---->
2. With careful double usage we can use other 5 wp for scram which allows us usually to simply run behind the target. Much better choice than diversion or guile.
3. If we talk about close combat. I would always choose to lose -25% of my damage compared to 40% chance to lose ap, since 1 ap loss will ruin my combo anyways reducing the damage done even more. In all cases with optimal amount of ap (9 for water example) I can deal more damage with that -25% than I would with successful diversion (=8 ap and backstab with no reduction)
This post has been edited by Hauhio - July 25, 2012, 22:56:21.