Pikeman Archive
Thread: So.. what exactly is wrong with Stacking Defenses?
ok, I read most of the post (not all sorry) and my opinion is as followed.
Dont forbid stacking, cause it will simplify Templates to a very low variety. More people will run around with the same template, and the fun of thinking about a "seldom" template will be spoiled.
The same thing counts for a non-capped stacking system. Then you move all the way to the other side of the field, as there are only 1-2 templates that have full Melee, Range defences etc., it will decrease the variety of templates again.
My opinion is, cap the stacking at a certain point. For example Melee and Rage def at 100. Defence ver Kock-down, blindness, stun etc. at 50 or so. Like this there will be alot more templates possible, without having a huge disadvantage ver. so called uber templates (max stacking without limit). Aswell it will bring the Crafting Profession's abit back into the game, since atm u can't be a crafter and a fighter at the same time, unless u pay for 2 accounts (I know alot of people that do that), but not all can affort that, and I strongly believe it aint fair that others have a big ingame advantage only cause they can affort it in real life.
How exactly the cap's should look like I can't advice you, since my knowledge on PvP is very limited, due to the fact I am a Master Architect and I get owned by most pure combat Templates.
I've recently become a defense stacker with master brawler/pikeman, 4/0/0/4 TK, 3/0/0/0 Fencer and 0/0/1/1 swordsman, so my opinion of course is biased, but I'll try to argue my points fairly.
When one takes into account what exactly all our state and melee/ranged defenses do, I think compromises can easily be made. I'm not saying this is how things are, but perhaps a better solution to just totally nerfing stacked defenses.
Melee/Ranged Defense
This is basically what it says. Your defense versus melee and ranged attacks. These mods gained from all professions should be stackable. They should be the determining factor into how much damage you take from the weapon being fought. If you have low melee defense and are being attacked by a polearm, let's say, you will take more damage than someone with high melee defense. The same holds true for ranged weapons and ranged defense. The reason I believe these should be stackable is because if you train yourself in the art of several modes of combat, you learn how to defend yourself better against the whole array of that weaponry. My example being that someone who knows kung-fu would not be as well equipped to defend against all types of melee combat as someone who say is a bushido master, who is trained in all forms of martial arts combat including unarmed, swords and polearms. The more skills you are trained in the better your defenses should be.
As for how this would translate into game mechanics, it would give the people who dedicate the majority of their skill points into combat professions an edge in the respect that they wouldn't take the damage of someone how only dedicates part of their skills to combat.
Defense Versus States
Much like melee/ranged defense these again should be stackable. The more you train to defend against a dizzy attack, let's say, is the less likely chance of you being put in that state. What weapon you have in your hand should make no difference when determining your defense versus a state. You have trained more in the area of state defenses than someone else and should reap the benefits of this.
Dodge/Counterattack/Block
Here is where the trouble lies. These defenses should not be stackable. Your training in dodging with a pistol should in now way have any bearing in you ability to dodge with a fencing weapon. They are two completely different areas of training and should be treated as such. These mods should have separate designations and should be only available while using the weapon trained in. Pistol dodge should be its own defense and Fencer dodge should be its own. The same holds true for block and counterattack. The training for these types of actions are trained only for the weapon they are acquired in.
This area is the one that seems to be causing the most frustration and problems in the game. Players with huge dodge numbers through stacking have become all but unhittable and have made fighting them almost impossible. If these defenses are separated the combat system will be much improved.
My Solution
Again, I feel if melee/ranged defenses, as well as state defenses are allowed to stack while removing the blocking defenses, you will see more people who are willing to master a profession in itself and not try to min/max, as the term goes. To aid in this also, the melee/ranged defenses and state defenses should be spread throughout the elite professions trees, not just delegated to one line. This will also cut down on (people like me) those who just take the defensive tree of certain elite professions to gain an advantage.
I believe this is the best way to go IMHO. People who dedicate more skill points to combat will still have an advantage while at the same time ridding the game of those who min/max just to gain near omnipotence.
Sorry for the typos. I've been under the influence of some wicked drugs the past week or so and my mind is nice and cloudy.
![]()
I think the present profession, as determined by what weapon you are wielding, should get 100% of the bonuses. Crosstrained professions with bonuses that apply with different weapons should get half of their bonuses applied to the stack.
So say you got 20% dodge from pistoleer and 40% dodge from fencer. If you are wielding a 1h sword, your dodge would be 40% + 0.5*20% = 50%. If you use a pistol, your dodge would be 20% + 0.5*40% = 40%.
What this says is training from other professions matters, but it does not matter as much as the defensive techniques specific to the weapon presently equipped. You would get some benefit, but not alot. Problems arise when defenses get in the 80%+ range, where 1 in 5 blows are defended. Having half bonuses would result in diminishing returns yet still credit that profession somewhat.