Low Avoid Classes Discussion

As I fall off the right Horntail platform, I ask myself "is there no god?" The four nightlords in my party look down at me and answer back "no."

 

1. Specifically for PB banish/sed order behavior - I'd want to see deaths acting similarly as a banish in shifting you out of the sed rotation. This would cause those who can survive sed, whether by good shielding or by class attributes, to stay in the sed rotation for longer thereby creating a pseudo-tank role to keep high-risk characters safe. With how the current sed rotation works, oftentimes, the better play is to leave high-risk classes dead because it can be seen as a waste of resources if they continue to remain in a high-risk situation. If dying shifted you out of the rotation, you'd at least have a longer window of time before your next death, thus giving you more time to contribute to the fight. Banish would still exist to shake things up to uncertainty, but it'd help balance out players for being continually punished for their class weaknesses.

2. I think it depends in context. From my observations over the years, all content seems to go through three phases: 1) exploration 2) normalization 3) optimization. The first phase occurs when new content is released and clears are uncertain. Content might feel too difficult at this time because information is not as wide spread, but there always exist the vanguard who continue to push through their failures until they find success. After some time, strategies begin to solidify and get shared around enough that clearing becomes normalized. Around this phase is when people will see the content as pretty do-able and fair. Then comes the last phase where optimization occurs. People find out ways to shorten the run or maximize EV by cutting down on runners. Around this phase is when some people might consider the content too easy, even though nothing about the fight had changed.

3. This one is tricky. I think it has both pros and cons. I think multiattack is just a new layer for which to escape the staleness that is single clienting, especially for players who have been running said content for years. If single client gaming were to be made interesting enough to command your undivided attention, then I think there'd be less of a push to normalize multiattack, but honestly, that won't stop people from trying to multiattack anyways. This topic is also controversial because it seems to be pushing into the more 'social' types of bossing, but was it ever a problem for when people were multiattacking in content like JC/Scarga/NT1 since their release? These were widely regarded as solo bosses for several years now, and people have been multiattacking it for years.

4. I think avoid is neat, but it shouldn't be the be-all and end-all to content viability or dpm efficiency. I'd suggested there being a cooldown on shifter that could somehow be refreshed (dark sight? jumping?) but that seemed to be ill-received. Staff seems to be wary of this which is why it seems like more and more bosses are being designed with the 'cannot be dodged' attacks. Maybe avoid can be put into more situational/reactionary applications as well (e.g. only % of avoid is active when in certain states and can be fully realized if certain satisfactions are met - jumping? ducked? parried?). Just framing the direction of this thought experiment and how things could look - don't take this as a literal suggestion.

 

1.
IMO no. Examples of "successful" balance changes to avoid in ML have just been to make it irrelevant, such as DR and PB Sed Notes. Cheesing the Sed order always felt like exploiting a flawed implementation more than a game mechanic, if I were playing as PB I'd obviously only sed the Bishops.
Anecdotally, the only non-turn-based game that I can think of that had passive avoid (briefly) was League of Legends, and they removed that very early on because it was universally hated. If I had to guess, Maple inherited its avoid mechanic from tabletop games that relied on them because how else are you gunna dodge attacks.

2.
Difficult to judge since goals are subjective. I imagine someone who is committed to maining DK, as one might in OSMS, would say the game is pretty hard.

Personally I am not a fan of how heavily class dependent ML is. A lot of MMORPG fantasy is building your avatar and conquering challenges, but as the meta's progressed, that playstyle has become almost as much of a voluntary challenge as Odd Jobs. Class choice is by far the most significant factor for performance, short of being dead or attacking in the wrong direction. I used to have a negative opinion on how GMS made all the classes relatively homogeneous in capabilities, but now I see it's a necessary evil because we've accomplished the same outcome in ML by switching from an Avatar playstyle to a Pokémon Trainer style approach, but with a lot of extra complication.

3.
Negative. I think a lot of multi-attacking growth stems from 2 main factors:

1. some classes make it way too easy
2. gear scaling is too weak, base stats are too high. There's hardly any return on vertical growth, whereas horizontal growth is like >70% efficiency per character

Neither of these seem like healthy mechanics for a game that's heavily based in farming for gear to put on your attacker.

In OSMS, we didn't have 30k HP NLs, 15k HP Bishops, Pally was not super man, Onyx Apples were an obvious cash grab for wedding tickets, even Cider gives a lot of free power. I'd prefer if power levels were shifted away from base stats and attack pots, and instead put on scaling formulas so that the juice is more worth the squeeze on a player's main. Right now you get like ~85% of the DPM your character will ever deal, virtually being butt naked. This won't prevent the sweatiest players from multi-attacking, nothing ever will, but balance changes don't need to be made on an all-or-nothing approach

4.
Avoid should be removed. It messes with our expectations for survivability, to the point where one of the main downsides of a 30k HP Warrior with multiple defensive skills is that they're not tanky enough

Avoid is often conflated as a defensive stat, but in the context of the original Neckson sandbox, a 2k HP NL isn't going to survive Zakum just because they can avoid 70% of OHKOs. In reality avoid is an offensive stat that lets you lay down more DPM, as well as an economic stat that saves you on the primary running cost of your character for reasons beyond my comprehension.

With this viewpoint, I think it's entirely possible for avoid to be removed, because it's simple enough to replace with other tools to boost effective DPM. Technically FJ is a huge DPM boost, one that's very apparent when rotating between PB statues or HT heads. Stance is another example, but stance is a problematic mechanic too.

 

Mostly the danger and challenge is to a player's wallet. Folks expect to clear 100% of the time, and I think that's good in a game like Maple which doesn't have an edge when it comes to offering a hardcore challenge, there are so many titles out there that simply offer a better package for that kind of experience

Imo ML bossing's main draw is the social aspect, so the design should seek to promote that. I don't doubt that a lot of players prefer the AFK cookie-clicker style gameplay, but we have farming and lower tier bosses for that. A good end-game raid boss would demand a players focus without annoying them to exhaustion, appeal to a wide audience, have adequate avenues of skill expression for replay-ability, and of course grant just barely enough rewards for dopamine addicts. That's a pretty tall order but my point is a boss doesn't have to kill the player to be engaging. Core Blaze got very close to fulfilling these criteria, up until we figured out how to cheese it to death, especially with the Maverick bait strategy

I'm just spitballing here, but imagine a boss skill where if you don't dodge it, your DPM is reduced by 50% for 60 seconds, and you can't cleanse it. That would be a pretty financial big motivator to play gud that screws everyone equally. And for the sweaty small runs, getting hit too much would actually mean failing - a consensual risk.

All valid concerns, I don't have great solutions, though I can think of many mediocre ones. I will say though, there are no victimless balance decisions. Even a lack of changes is a balance decision in itself.

Ultimately I think new players have the least expectations in terms of content difficulty, thus are the hardest to disappoint. What will disappoint players though is finding a good OSMS server, getting really into it, then slowly discovering the game isn't in the same genre as they were expecting, because the meta has moved so far outside the context of the game's design.

 

We can all pretend like the issue is "avoid" or anything other made up factor that's creating balance issues between classes but if you wana get real this thread should be about nerfing NLs. If you delete the NL class from the server, the entire end game bossing scene becomes completely fair and balanced. Tbh, if NLs didnt exist I dont think anyone can objectively say which class is the next best. Even in Auf, NLs are now considered top tier after pallies. Don't even get me started on HT, which is literally NL or bust, even bishops can easily be muled to dh/wyvern since bishop dpm to wings/arms is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. And ofc in PB NLs are once again the best class with no real competitors. And for all other non end game bosses, guess what, NLs are the best or top tier lmao. Everyone already knows this and has accepted it and has made an NL or making one, unless the server is ready to seriously nerf/delete NLS, these types of threads are completely disingenuous.

 

the ddos'er is already gone bro i cant read forums anymore
but i agree with whatever u said ure a mischievous trickster smart rat

 

SE in shambles if NL deleted. Also another class will just rise to take NLs place.

 

None will take its place in the level of utility/meta placement it currently holds

 

I wasn't proposing that we actually delete the NL class as a solution, just that in theory it would solve all balance issues in the server. This thread is a spin-off from the sair balance thread, but before that there have been similar threads complaining about every other non-nl class for buffs, reality is it would take forever to buff every non-nl class to bring them up to NLs. As a server, we can either buff 10+ classes that each require specific unique buffs based on their characteristics, or just nerf/delete NLs and all of a sudden, the server becomes completely balanced. That's all I was saying. Another way I look at it is that everyone in the server has an NL now, so there is no need for balance changes since we can all just play NLs lmao.

 

How is se in shambles? If NLs are gone, their DPM in most bosses would be considered pretty good.

Maybe another class would replace NLs, but which one? It doesn't seem obvious to me right now. I think the remaining classes would be pretty balanced.

 

I don't have any deep insight into NLs nerfs, but as a player, I can see they are wayyyy too OP. But if you want an answer, lets reduce their dummy DPM by ~30%?

 

Significantly reduced avoid
Significantly reduced dpm
Reduced w.att scaling
Reduced afk/muleability/multi attack-ability


Whatever it takes to kick them strongly off of the top spot for literally every boss in the game. Why should other range char in the game invest two fold, sweat their balls off with lower bottom and top floors when a NL has higher avoid at 140 than a 200 BM/MM?

Its the most blatantly broken class there is which especially shows once you get closer to the 60 CSG club as it out dpms every single class in the game. If you want to play a highly afk class that is indestructible in content you shouldnt also be #1 for effective dpm.

 

I dont think it is fair both having 30k hp and high avoidability. There should be inverse proportion between hp and avoidability(applies from 20k hp+)
And I dont have opinions regarding DPM issue on NL

 

3. The problem with multi-clienting as skill expression is that it's biased towards low complexity classes. Multi-clienting allows those classes to convert that low complexity into essentially extra power, which makes the whole concept of "more difficult to play classes with slightly more reward" completely fall flat on its face

 

Like most Maplers, ripping on NLs is one of my top pastimes, but the class is just the poster child for much deeper issues that evolved over many years.

If we are still using single client performance as the basis for balance (which is a discussion worthy of its own thread), then the same context needs to be given to M'Lords. A typical single client NL has numerous negatives, even its main feature of reliable high single target DPM is not fully realized without a lot of gear. A weak NL(no Apple, which is its own broken mechanic) is really weak, while the elite NLs are just several farmers in a trench coat posing as an attacker(s). Even if NL's were deleted, the next best horizontally scaling class would just become the new vessel for the same tactics.

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, I think the goal of attacker balance, whether that be applied to the classes and/or the content, should be to promote social bossing - and a big part of that is to make playing a single character more rewarding because most humans only pilot 1 body at a time thus intuitively relate to 1 digital avatar. To pivot the direction of the meta away from multi-attacking involves pretty substantial changes to class and content design. Multi-client farming is what it is, but I think single-attacker bossing can still be preserved because bossing is a much narrower context. I don't believe straight nerfs to NL would accomplish that.