Log in

View Full Version : What damage tables for melee and hybrids does P99 use?


MakeYouMad
10-19-2011, 10:02 AM
The one where hybrids are gimped or un-gimped?

Here's patch notes:

September 18th, 6:00pm
-------------------------

** Melee changes **


We're wrapping up an extensive look at the way that melee works in EverQuest. These changes are appearing now on Test (in fact, most of them are working as of right now). We wanted to make you aware of these changes in some detail so that you can give us the feedback that we need on them. Please try these changes out and comment on results that you've seen.

We will be beginning our final analysis on casters in the very near future.

* Melee Tables *

Melee combat is based, at least in part, on tables that determines how each class functions. Up until 50th level melee and hybrid classes are on the same table, with the exception being monks who are on a separate table (one that has them doing more damage). At 50th level warriors, rogues and rangers were all moved to the monk table along with the monk, who did not receive a new separate table.

The problem here is that post 50th level the disparity between these two tables, combined with lower combat abilities for the hybrids as well as a more restricted selection of weapons acted as a double (almost triple) penalty, making them less effective in combat than was really intended.

Therefore, all melee and hybrid classes will be basing their combat off the melee table once they reach 51st level. This should increase the combat effectiveness of hybrids noticeably.

Monks, however, are intended to be somewhat better at dealing out damage in combat than warriors. To slightly improve their combat prowess they will be working from an improved combat table once they reach 55th level and again at 60th level. This will improve the combat ability of monks somewhat, essentially placing them a half a step ahead of everyone else in toe-to-toe combat in the same way that they were prior to 50th level. The rogue will still maintain a margin of superiority when you consider their ability to backstab.

* Two-Handed Weapons *

The effectiveness of these weapons falls slightly below our desire for them. This tends to make those that rely on them most often (shadowknights and paladins) also fall slightly behind our desires for their damage output, at least at levels beyond 50. We'd also like to see a broader range of weapons used by higher level warriors, and it would be nice to see two-handers as a more viable option.

Therefore, we will be increasing the minimum damage of these weapons for all classes once they reach 50th level. There will be an increase in the minimum damage of two-handed weapons based on the wielder's level and delay of the weapon. The higher level the character and the larger the delay, the bigger the bonus. Obviously we're not going to give out exact numbers, but this should result in a solid increase in damage output when using two-handed weapons.

We also believe that there has been a bit of disparity between the very high-end one-handed weapons and their counterpart two-handed weapons. The ultra-high end one-handed weapons are comparatively better than their two-handed counterparts. We will, on a case by case basis, be improving many of the high-end two-handed weapons. Because this is essentially a fix for an oversight on our parts, we will be making these changes retroactive (meaning you won't have to trade the items in or hunt for new ones, existing weapons will just change).


* Rangers *

We've also noticed that rangers, while intended to be hit harder in combat than other melee/hybrid classes, are getting hit harder than we planned. Again, this only happens in the 50+ level range. So we will be increasing the defense cap for rangers again slightly to 210 at 60th level. Exactly how these points will be distributed is uncertain, but probably just one point per level after 50. We will also be giving rangers triple attack.


* Monks *

Monks will be getting triple attack. This along with the improvement of their combat tables should place them about where we want them, combat-wise.


* Bards *

Bards are indeed intended to have the least ability to deal damage physically of all the classes we're discussing. However, with their lack of double attack they didn't meet even our intentions for their damage output. We will, therefore, be raising the offense and one-handed weapon caps for bards over 50th level to match that of warriors. This should place their ability to do damage by means of melee within our intended range without making them more effective than the knights at any given level, since double attack is a potent melee skill that bards do not get.

pickled_heretic
10-19-2011, 10:11 AM
We will also be giving rangers triple attack.

Monks will be getting triple attack.

when was this patch from?

Dentalplan
10-19-2011, 10:24 AM
September 2001, about 2 months before Luclin

Rais
10-19-2011, 10:26 AM
September 18th, 6:00pm No year, not in patch history that I can find of a Sept 18th.

This patch I'm linking is the only one that comes up with monk triple attack.

Oct 8, 2001

http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20011008.html

Two-Handed Weapons have been given an increased damage bonus for characters over level 50. Also, certain post-epic quality two-handers have been improved.
Warriors have had their taunt skill cap increased to 230 at 60th level. Also, the Blades of Strategy and Tactics can now be used in either hand.
Rogues, as the primary user of piercing weapons, will benefit from an improvement in the quality of a few existing high-end daggers. At some future date new piercing weapons will be added to the game to fill gaps in equipment availability.
Monks will now be on an improved combat table at levels 55 and again to a better table at 60. Monks now have the ability to Triple Attack at 60th level. The minimum damage done by Flying Kick will be greatly increased for monks starting at 51st level and scaling up to level 60. We also intend to add more monk weapons in the future to fill equipment gaps.
Rangers have their Double Attack skill cap raised to 245. They have also gained an innate offensive bonus that starts at level 55 and increases until level 60. Ranger's Defense skill cap has been raised to 220, and their Riposte skill cap has been raised to 185.
Paladins and Shadowknights, besides the benefits they gain from the two-handed weapons change mentioned above, have also been moved to the same combat tables as warriors. In the future we intend to examine the existing one-handed weapons useable by knights for possible upgrades. We are also increasing the Taunt skill cap for these two classes to 220.
Bards have had their 1h blunt and 1h slash skill caps increased to 250. Their piercing skill cap has been increased to 240. Their Offense skill cap has been raised to 252. Bards are also being moved to the same combat table with all the other melee and hybrid classes (save monks who have separate tables after level 55). Bards Parry skill cap has been raised to 185 as well. Finally, the Singing Shortsword can now be equipped in the off hand and still give full song enhancing benefits.

stormlord
10-20-2011, 03:00 PM
I always despised the move from tank/dps/utility-like ranger to dps-like ranger. I've always felt that rangers should be able to tank/utility better. They focused on dps too much in the past 10 years. The kiting used early on in EQ wasn't as pronounce when mobs started to summon and zone design wasn't the same either. And mobs hit a lot harder but root didn't seem to scale with it to compensate the danger level.

Maybe it's just how the experience sub-50 was so much more flexible than the experience afterwards. By the time my ranger was into his 60's and 70's he was like humpty dumpty - always having to be put back together. Maybe it's just that at the lower levels rangers can hold together better or something. When you started to get into the 50's and 60's, mobs would hit like trucks. It got worse and worse with time. By the time I was in my 80's I couldn't tank current content unless jesus christ was there to keep me alive. You also die a lot quicker at the higher levels. In the lower levels you have a little bit of time to think and react. But later on you can die in a matter of seconds. And mobs summon. It's different gameplay - almost like a different game.

This is how I see ranger: tank/dps/utility in roughly equal parts. I think that it went in the dps direction and cast out utility and tanking ability in favor of it. Not sure why. Some people blindly focus on dps.

Generally, games are dumb when they focus on dps or tanking or healing too much. Too linear.

Maybe a lot of the blame can go to how they abandoned EQ for EQ2/SWG/etc.

(my above comments are focused on live mostly because I have a 85 ranger i made in 2001)

Xadion
10-20-2011, 03:44 PM
This change was much needed- also there was - I belive - another 2h dmg bonus update shortly after velious if I remeber- but well me remebering is not always acurate!

the DMG on 2h's imo on p99 is still below what it should be- SOE's main example was war epic as 2x 1h's should be close in pure DPS as the 36/41 dmg 2h epic- so they finally and then had to again- bump 2h dmg because a miss on 2h's is alot more counter DPS than a miss on 1hs. This is also why knights where so bad at DPS because they had shitty skill/atk and missed alot and then when they hit - they hit for like 30! whoo yeah... 30dmg with my 40dmg epic! hotshit!

stormlord
10-20-2011, 04:22 PM
This change was much needed- also there was - I belive - another 2h dmg bonus update shortly after velious if I remeber- but well me remebering is not always acurate!

the DMG on 2h's imo on p99 is still below what it should be- SOE's main example was war epic as 2x 1h's should be close in pure DPS as the 36/41 dmg 2h epic- so they finally and then had to again- bump 2h dmg because a miss on 2h's is alot more counter DPS than a miss on 1hs. This is also why knights where so bad at DPS because they had shitty skill/atk and missed alot and then when they hit - they hit for like 30! whoo yeah... 30dmg with my 40dmg epic! hotshit!
Paladins/Shadowknights aren't dps-oriented like a rogue or wizard. Dual wield does more damage, generally. That's why it wasn't given to knights. Paladins are a cross between a cleric and a warrior. They have support and heal type spells and lay on hands. Shadowknights are more dps-oriented with their spells and harm touch. Anything that changes 2handers will change these classes significantly. And one other thing... while it's true that missing with a 2hander is "big", it's damage/delay that's important. Anyway, I think you're focusing too much on dps. And I think ti's also Sony's fault for not highlighting the OTHER traits knights have.

Snaggles
10-20-2011, 04:39 PM
Paladins/Shadowknights aren't dps-oriented like a rogue or wizard. Paladins are a cross between a cleric and a warrior. They have support and heal type spells and lay on hands. Shadowknights are more dps-oriented with their spells and harm touch. Anything that changes 2handers will change these classes significantly. And one other thing... while it's true that missing with a 2hander is a lot of damage, it's damage/delay that's important.

Paladins/Shadowknights and DPS shouldn't muttered in the same sentence unless it's a moaning one. :p

They were just trying to make 2handers more viable. They spent the time trying to figure it out so leaving them broken compared to 1h would not only gimp classes but really ruin some fun of others with a choice (monks/warriors/rangers) who can also dual-wield.

There are enough reasons to go 1h or 2h if the damage was totally equal. 1h for knights is predominately the "tank" setup and 2h the "solo" setup. Because when nobody is helping your SK kill a blue con it's not a question of dps but how much time you want to stare at a mobs feared ass. =p

stormlord
10-20-2011, 04:51 PM
Paladins/Shadowknights and DPS shouldn't muttered in the same sentence unless it's a moaning one. :p

They were just trying to make 2handers more viable. They spent the time trying to figure it out so leaving them broken compared to 1h would not only gimp classes but really ruin some fun of others with a choice (monks/warriors/rangers) who can also dual-wield.

There are enough reasons to go 1h or 2h if the damage was totally equal. 1h for knights is predominately the "tank" setup and 2h the "solo" setup. Because when nobody is helping your SK kill a blue con it's not a question of dps but how much time you want to stare at a mobs feared ass. =p
I would have taken a heal-over-time lay on hands over a 2h dps boost.

Leveled a pally to 65.

Snaggles
10-20-2011, 05:05 PM
I would have taken a heal-over-time lay on hands over a 2h dps boost.

Leveled a pally to 65.

Why not a helicopter mount?

They were trying to balance 2h damage and make it relevant not improve a single class. It's easier to tweak numbers for a skill (like damage bonus tables) than give people nifty perks. Plus I can't think of a single guild who would want a knight to do LESS damage for a perk on a 72min cooldown than be on the same 2h damage table as a warrior.

My AA HT did 16k damage and it was still a parlor trick on raids.

stormlord
10-20-2011, 07:02 PM
Why not a helicopter mount?

They were trying to balance 2h damage and make it relevant not improve a single class. It's easier to tweak numbers for a skill (like damage bonus tables) than give people nifty perks. Plus I can't think of a single guild who would want a knight to do LESS damage for a perk on a 72min cooldown than be on the same 2h damage table as a warrior.

My AA HT did 16k damage and it was still a parlor trick on raids.
Sorry, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the past 10 years, not the perspective of someone 10 years ago. I believe that Sony failed to produce varied content for all of the different classes and setups. To compensate, they slowly but surely homogenized the classes. They also simplified their systems and used more spreadsheet items. It had the effect of reducing development costs by decreasing complexity. Just my opinion.

Basically, the initial "vision" was too complicated and costly to continue. They set out to decrease the amount of unique conditions to develop and bug test for. This "streamlined" the game, increasingly.

This is why I saw the strong move towards linear things, consistently: To reduce costs. Linear things produce less conditions. This means less things to test and develop for. They were very cautious.

I would buy all these arguments given by them, if these incidents were isolated. But they're not.

And one more thing... They may not have known consciously what they were doing. They gave all these arguments year after year. But underneath it all, they couldn't cut the mustard. Maybe declining interest and shifting funding (to other games) inevitably led to a kind of cognitive dissonance or denial.

If they had come out and said, "We can't meet the demands of our initial hopes and dreams," I would have understood and even forgiven them. It was the denial that was unforgivable.

Snaggles
10-20-2011, 07:27 PM
Sorry, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the past 10 years, not the perspective of someone 10 years ago.

They invented the genre. I'm sure they could have done a ton of things better with a crystal ball. WoW copies the Hell out of EQ and still messed things up.

Point is your advocating for more of a balance towards healing and less towards damage. That's understandable but what do you want, Pallies to do half a warriors damage? A quarter the damage? At some point the sheer frustration of game play gets old because mobs have a ton of hps and when Warrior's get nice taunting weapons (epics, BoC, Frostbringers) the gap between knight and pure melee taunt diminishes.

Also, a LoH dot is nice for solo work but for saving your cleric or chanter from dying? :o

It doesn't matter really. You have your opinion, I have mine, and other people have theirs. The game only went one direction and the P99 dev's aren't prancing through Willy Wonka's candy shop magic wanding things.

stormlord
10-20-2011, 07:41 PM
Anyway, whatever. DPS is like sex. Put it out there and make your money.