Jump to content

  •  

Perk - Tank


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 27 March 2018 - 03:48 PM

Tank: (Only takes affect when no weapon is equipped, a shield is equipped, cannot cast offensive magic)
(Cannot combine with Two Handed Wielding)
Tank 1 - 1pp - Base Equip Armor + 10% of Base Equip Armor (+1 defense, -1 attack per every 2 mobs)
Tank 2 - 1pp - Base Equip Armor + 20% of Base Equip Armor (+2 defense, -1 attack per every 2 mobs)
Tank 3 - 1pp - Base Equip Armor + 30% of Base Equip Armor (+2 defense, -1 attack per every 2 mobs)

Changes from initial proposal are in Level 3:
50% reduces to 30% of Armor shown in #arm (all armors combined).
-1 attack per every 2 mobs put back in since an increasing negative shouldn't vanish just because you maxed it out.

Concerns/Issues:
Will have to teach the server to know what equipment is considered shields (might be able to cheat and use the definition of check for items in the Lefthand only and nothing in the Righthand). The old Magic system will have to be adjusted so each offensive spell is checked for this Perk (maybe I can cheat and look at the current New Magic data?).

Also if Anything adds to Armor, the bonus might be higher then expected since the server only tracks total Armor from everything, not from "base equip armor". That also means a mob that gets this Perk will be able to benefit from more then just what it's wearing.

NOTE: at this time in the testing the negative of no Attack Magic has not been coded yet.

#2 butler

butler

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1417 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 28 March 2018 - 06:12 AM

So i imagine shield will bump up the percentages then.

I like it.

#3 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 06:16 AM

View Postbutler, on 28 March 2018 - 06:12 AM, said:

So i imagine shield will bump up the percentages then.

I like it.
Otherwise we do have to some up with a clean definition of "Base Armor" because anything also other then looking at a value shown by #arm will require a clean definition and coding to implement.. The numbers in #arm ar calculated as you add remove armors etc, not everytime they are needed.

#4 WaterBottle

WaterBottle

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 08:28 AM

Just so I'm on the same page, the armor bonuses from medallions are also included and that was the intended behavior?

If so, we are on the same page since it's the value pulled from #arm.

#5 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 08:38 AM

View PostWaterBottle, on 28 March 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

Just so I'm on the same page, the armor bonuses from medallions are also included and that was the intended behavior?

If so, we are on the same page since it's the value pulled from #arm.
I don't know if that was in intended behavior, but without a lot of reworking that is how it would work, since medallions add armor just like armor does, there is no distinction in the server. Medallion is equipment, and the term "Base Equipment" implies that is included.

#6 butler

butler

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1417 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 28 March 2018 - 08:56 AM

I'd say there are no issues in medallions and shield spell being included, i think that works as it should.

I'd say the only one with any argument not to include would be the shield spell, but I think it's inclusion because of how #arm handles it is nice, since it lends shield more advantages to tanks. It seems entirely reasonable, and I look forward to it.

#7 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 09:02 AM

View Postbutler, on 28 March 2018 - 08:56 AM, said:

I'd say there are no issues in medallions and shield spell being included, i think that works as it should.

I'd say the only one with any argument not to include would be the shield spell, but I think it's inclusion because of how #arm handles it is nice, since it lends shield more advantages to tanks. It seems entirely reasonable, and I look forward to it.
The spell being separated from Base Armor is a fairly easy change to make since that is handled in Magic, unlike Medallions which are just another equipable item. So, I'm for letting it affect Medallions, but not Magic.

#8 butler

butler

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1417 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 28 March 2018 - 09:05 AM

View PostLearner, on 28 March 2018 - 09:02 AM, said:

<snip>
The spell being separated from Base Armor is a fairly easy change to make since that is handled in Magic, unlike Medallions which are just another equipable item. So, I'm for letting it affect Medallions, but not Magic.
Tbh, think there is no argument against medallions being included, would seem daft not to.

the spell i argue should be included, as they bolster each other, and i like that little bit of synergy

#9 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 09:15 AM

View Postbutler, on 28 March 2018 - 09:05 AM, said:

View PostLearner, on 28 March 2018 - 09:02 AM, said:

<snip>
The spell being separated from Base Armor is a fairly easy change to make since that is handled in Magic, unlike Medallions which are just another equipable item. So, I'm for letting it affect Medallions, but not Magic.
Tbh, think there is no argument against medallions being included, would seem daft not to.

the spell i argue should be included, as they bolster each other, and i like that little bit of synergy
A reason to consider not including a spell is technically that is more different from base armor since it is purely magical and not from a worn item. Combine that with being relatively easy to implement, then I think it should be seriously considered not to include Shield spells.

#10 butler

butler

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1417 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 28 March 2018 - 09:20 AM

yeah, not denying there's a good case to remove the spells effects into this. In my opinion i think it's a nice little thing for the perk, but I'd not be unhappy if it was removed. I just like it :P

#11 SimAnt

SimAnt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 95 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 05:53 PM

Just to be clear, this is base armor + the perk which is base armor + (base armor * bonus)
Example: 7 + (7+(7*0.3)) -> 130% increase

#12 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 05:56 PM

View PostSimAnt, on 28 March 2018 - 05:53 PM, said:

Just to be clear, this is base armor + the perk which is base armor + (base armor * bonus)
Example: 7 + (7+(7*0.3))
Whoa ... that automatically more then doubles your armor before even having the %!!! That is WAY too much!!

That is not at all how I read that. I read it as a 10% to 30% bonus added to your armor.

#13 SimAnt

SimAnt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 95 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 06:46 PM

View PostLearner, on 28 March 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

View PostSimAnt, on 28 March 2018 - 05:53 PM, said:

Just to be clear, this is base armor + the perk which is base armor + (base armor * bonus)
Example: 7 + (7+(7*0.3))
Whoa ... that automatically more then doubles your armor before even having the %!!! That is WAY too much!!

That is not at all how I read that. I read it as a 10% to 30% bonus added to your armor.
Hmm, well we can see how this 10 to 30% bonus works, but just feels like it would not be worth the perk then unless the it was 20 - 60%.

#14 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 06:55 PM

View PostSimAnt, on 28 March 2018 - 06:46 PM, said:

View PostLearner, on 28 March 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

View PostSimAnt, on 28 March 2018 - 05:53 PM, said:

Just to be clear, this is base armor + the perk which is base armor + (base armor * bonus)
Example: 7 + (7+(7*0.3))
Whoa ... that automatically more then doubles your armor before even having the %!!! That is WAY too much!!

That is not at all how I read that. I read it as a 10% to 30% bonus added to your armor.
Hmm, well we can see how this 10 to 30% bonus works, but just feels like it would not be worth the perk then unless the it was 20 - 60%.
If you read it the way you were initially thinking, people would take Level 1 and not bother with 2 or 3 so they could take other Perks instead.

#15 butler

butler

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1417 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 29 March 2018 - 05:20 AM

right now, i get 15-22 armour from full iron set + steel shield

at tier 1:
(15/100)*10 = 1.5, round up to 2
(22/100)*10 = 2.2, round up to 3(?) or down to 2(?)
bonus 1-2/3 from perk
leather pants = 1-2 in comparison
iron chain = 2-5 in comparison
at tier 2:
(15/100)*20 = 3
(22/100)*20 = 4.4, round up to 5(?) or down to 4(?)
bonus 3-4/5 from perk
shield spell = 3 in comparison
cuisses = 2-5 in comparison
at tier 3:
(15/100)*30 = 4.5, round to 5
(22/100)*30 = 6.6, round to 7
bonus 5-7 from perk
Cuisses = 2-5
plate mail = 7-10 in comparison

the first tier is made entirely irrelevant by shield spell, using the iron plate, aug's do not do a huge amount to negate that.

otherwise the first tier, and i'd say, arguably the 2nd tier aren't worth taking

I'd say the 2nd tier is what the 1st tier should be, at the very least. The bonus probably isn't worth the number of perk points you'd put into it.

reiterate, tier 1 is actually useless, and made irrelevant by a level 12 spell, so isn't really worth taking as a serpent sword, and possibly a ti long would be more useful than that pitiful number.

so maybe shift 20-40? or could do increments of 15, so 20-65.

#16 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 05:44 AM

View Postbutler, on 29 March 2018 - 05:20 AM, said:

right now, i get 15-22 armour from full iron set + steel shield

at tier 1:
(15/100)*10 = 1.5, round up to 2
(22/100)*10 = 2.2, round up to 3(?) or down to 2(?)
bonus 1-2/3 from perk
leather pants = 1-2 in comparison
iron chain = 2-5 in comparison
at tier 2:
(15/100)*20 = 3
(22/100)*20 = 4.4, round up to 5(?) or down to 4(?)
bonus 3-4/5 from perk
shield spell = 3 in comparison
cuisses = 2-5 in comparison
at tier 3:
(15/100)*30 = 4.5, round to 5
(22/100)*30 = 6.6, round to 7
bonus 5-7 from perk
Cuisses = 2-5
plate mail = 7-10 in comparison

the first tier is made entirely irrelevant by shield spell, using the iron plate, aug's do not do a huge amount to negate that.

otherwise the first tier, and i'd say, arguably the 2nd tier aren't worth taking

I'd say the 2nd tier is what the 1st tier should be, at the very least. The bonus probably isn't worth the number of perk points you'd put into it.

reiterate, tier 1 is actually useless, and made irrelevant by a level 12 spell, so isn't really worth taking as a serpent sword, and possibly a ti long would be more useful than that pitiful number.

so maybe shift 20-40? or could do increments of 15, so 20-65.
Wearing a Moon Med instead of MoL/Gatherer you can also gain 2 more Armor.

Also, Shield does not make this useless since you could gain this bonus plus the Shield bonus. It's not an either or deal.

Finally, don't forget there will be more armor available in the future, so the initial values being conservative is better.

#17 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 11:35 AM

With a little extra tweaking, I think I found a simple way I can track if you are wearing a shield or weapon which will prevent ectra processing for this Perk to check if it's active.

#18 Learner

Learner

    God

  • Administrators
  • 2451 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 12:55 PM

Initial version is now available on Test from Wraith 2

#19 butler

butler

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1417 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 29 March 2018 - 01:04 PM

View PostLearner, on 29 March 2018 - 05:44 AM, said:

<snip>
Wearing a Moon Med instead of MoL/Gatherer you can also gain 2 more Armor.

Also, Shield does not make this useless since you could gain this bonus plus the Shield bonus. It's not an either or deal.

Finally, don't forget there will be more armor available in the future, so the initial values being conservative is better.

2 armour isn't significant in changing that. I never claimed the shield spell was an either or, i thought it was rather apparent, i'm stating why would people ever pay for this perk, if 1 matter essence does the equivalent job AND they can use a sword.

when the bonus is that minor, in the more extreme cases of armour, what's the point. tier 1 genuinely gives no reason to use it over what is currently in the game. No use, as the difference it makes is as practical as having the moon medallion, which no one uses for tanking. I did the above example because that the equipment it would be used underneath.

The thing is, currently, what is there really to appeal to people going into this. I am considering this as not a worthwhile investment, and the negatives don't impact me, because current equipment can be equivalent to this and still let me use a sword, and perk points are going to be so limited that pouring 3 into this just to make it kind of worthwhile, whilst there are more impactful ones as options... well.

the perk does nothing except in the most extreme cases. It's seeming underpowered.

I still argue the current value verge too close to making the perk and irrelevance at inception (though simants proposal was not how i took it and an extreme in the other direction).

#20 SimAnt

SimAnt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 95 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 06:24 PM

A thought, we could also try changing the perk to be based entirely on defense instead of armor. 5/10/15 percent of defense level boosts.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users