View Single Post

Grimsblood's Avatar

05.17.2013 , 01:05 PM | #133
Quote: Originally Posted by Korse View Post
My raid group is actually pretty humble since we clear the content to enjoy it, but since you brought it up several of the posters in this thread were US firsts in EC, TFB, and S&V.
I believe I was specific to the 16 man portion. That fight was different and that was what I was highlighting. Let's see, MoX, FriendlyFire, Ace, Level Capped, Chosen, Carange and Messores (Minus my guild) are the ones to see that fight that ran progression on it. Soooo, I believe I saw someone from MoX posting.....who else was part of a 16 man guild for it?

Quote: Originally Posted by Korse View Post
Not true. Class design is part of the balance. Content is the other part. If you honestly do want class balance, support threads like this so the designers see that players think range classes have an unfair advantage. If there were mechanics that limited range advantage in fights, that would reduce the ridiculous uptime range classes have. I don't know if it was a purposeful attempt at this or not, but the Styrak fight forces players to close to within melee range (at least one per mob). If that mechanic were to reflect damage to range attackers instead of just making the people who do play melee run to the mob while the ranged still sat at range it would help diminish the range advantage.
So, now instead of making fights melee friendly you choose to make them melee ONLY fights? Remind me how that is balanced.

Now, sure I can agree that class and content design goes in to making a game balanced. However, to use 2 of the 50 fights in the game (only counting different difficulty modes for current ops) or 4% of the fights is NOT justification to change one ability on one class that is assumed to be OP for sake of balance.

Do you see what I am getting at as far as balance? There are always holes.

Quote: Originally Posted by Korse View Post

So instead of taking ideas to the development team and forcing them to at least hear out your ideas, you're just going to give up? It's too much effort to add class utilities, class synergy, or expand upon the game after it's released. **** it, let's just stack snipers who sit in a group at 35m with 100% uptime and complain there's not enough [hard] content.

This just sounds like laziness on your part, or the general concept people have toward individual interaction with the government. It may take a lot of work and effort to get your ideas into the system and actually try to improve the game you play, but to me that's way more important than my comment about sitting snipers at range for all the fights. I still laugh when I remember that apathy got the GPA scale and mascot at my university changed by 12 people (out of 15,000) because no one opposed them. The hardcore raiders are a minority, but obviously you have no problems posting on the forums all day. Why not use those threads to the advantage of trying to implement changes you want?
I believe that would be a discussion for another thread....not this one . But let's explore this a bit more............

Just spit balling here off the top of my head:

8 different AC's
8 different Synergy abilities to start
24 different Synergy abilities if you do it according to spec
Now balance those.......................
After balancing those, implement them into boss fights.
Balance all old fights to new implementations to avoid OP posts (like this one) how much time did it take to implement 2.0, with new class balance and abilities. How about how much money? Furthermore, how much profit would be made off implementing the system above? This isn't the government, this is a business......
DPS is science. Healing is art. Tanking is strategy.
Hippolytà - Level 50 Sentinel - Grimsblood - Level 55 Sage
Saphyria - Level 55 Sniper - Fenrîr - Level 55 Gunslinger