Originally posted by bliss14

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by infiniti70

I am not a developer, but I do not think it would be that difficult to have a swing radius shown on screen for melee, while giving a thrust option (at reduced dmg) for more precision. We already see this in GW2 where strikes hit multiple foes based on weapon range. Would definately remove a lot of zerging.

Range attacks simply being a line shooting froward that can be adjusted for trajectory (lob over freinds). Agree, it would slow combat down and require more coordination), but I think that is a good thing.

I do not think our thoughts are off too much on CC, we both want it to be tatical. If all actions were based on a stat like stamina and CC took a heavy toll, then I think it would work well and be a very tactical part of any encounter.

Sop I still believe CC is a great method of class balance, paticularly is that skill sets offsets DPS and Heals...where most crys of imbalance come from.

 

 

I agree with you two for the most part. Things I'd like to add though.

Blades with an edge and arrows should be able to hamstring an opponent if they're hit in the legs. Accuracy should be reduced if hit in the head or arms. A person should be stunned if hit in the head with a club, mace, or like-weapon.

If the world has magic, it's pefectly acceptable for wizards and sorcerors to be able to control people. However, I thought I just had is if they have a concentration meter and can only hold as many people as this meter allows. The spellcaster can't move or perform any other action while controlling other people (making them sleep etc). If attacked, the spellcaster loses concentration and people recover from being controlled. It's just an off of the top of my head idea, but it'd be more realistic and would require for spellcasters to use it strategically. 

So being hit in the head with an edge won't result in a concussion?

There is no way to accurately represent the effects of being hit with a weapon.  You could go all out and say any hit inflicts the utmost damage it could i suppose.  Edge to the head inflicts daze.  Edge to the legs inflicts hobble/cripple.  Then reduce it by percentiles according to armor. 

You smack someone in the head with a blade, their head will fall off, they won't get a concussion. Since ultra-realism wouldn't work, you gotta make concessions. For instance, games will assign different affects to weapons, such as bleeding dmg from blades and stuns from blunt weapons. DAoC took things a step further by giving armor weaknesses and resistances to certain weapons and by balancing weapons by reducing their damage the faster the swing speed is and visa versa. Although we're entirely off subject here I realize.

True balance would be boring, but it's also impossible unless every class can only do damage or heal. As soon as classes have CC, escapes, stealth and other such abilities it is simply impossible to truly balance the game, at which point the devs can either aim for a rock/paper/scissors approach or simply get them as close as they reasonably can.

If there is one thing I hate to see when it comes to class balance though it's homogenization of classes simply to make the devs job easier. It removes any variety in combat which ultimately makes things boring quickly.

The only class balance should be based on *enjoyment*. As long as a class is the favourite of a minimum percentage of the player base (c. 5%?) and less than some maximum percentage (40%?) then it's balanced.

If too many players (30-40%?) don't have any favourite classes then the classes suck.

Perfect class balance would be where most players (60%+?) had 3+ favourite classes and couldn't decide their number one.