Swordsman Archive
Thread: More Bleed Changes
Bleeds seem to have been changed more on TC. At present they deal direct damage on the initial hit but the actual ticking bleed is less significant by a good margin. It looks as though this applies to flames and most (but probably not all) other DoT sources.
So, we probably have an across the board change to bleeds making the actual bleed less effective in general but dealing damage on the initial strike. I am under the impression that the intention is to downplay tactics that rely on a single bleed and to require continuous direct damage.
Alright, there's the info, please don't shoot the messenger.
Personal opinion: I can live with this (as a player) as long as the combat rebalance makes up for it. I don't like the idea of bleed kiting and would prefer that attacks in general are very effective and that bleeds are more of an add-on instead of a primary source of damage. I think this is an attempt to reduce the effectiveness of certain "cheap" tactics that unfortunately may deal more damage than just that. That doesn't mean I'm not making a big ruckus about it (as a correspondent). In terms of our relative balance with other professions this is definitely a loss, and one I don't think anyone is going to say we deserve. For example, I know that a lot of people are going to comment that "TKA's don't have bleeds", and that's absolutely a relevant issue. At this point I think the change is almost certainly staying in for the publish, no matter what. I think our best bet for seeing some action on this is to save up for the combat rebalance and push hard then if this isn't counterbalanced by something else. That doesn't mean there's nothing to be said about the issue, that's just my impression of how to best address this (I've found that getting changes in really requires saving up your ammo for the right moments). So take that as strategy talk and feel free to speak out on what you think about this.
So discuss.
StGabe.
i know that the combat changes are coming - blah blah blah - we have been hearing that for months but we don't even have a proposed concept in front of what is going to really happy.
it's pretty frustrating when everything seems to just nerf us more and more.
why not wait and do it when they balance everything else?
guess we need to wait and see
at any rate thanks gabe
Message Edited by haun on 02-09-2004 01:54 AM
shutout wrote:
this will make taking on any high level mobs that much more difficult. its the DoTs that make them managable. first they raise the HAM on all of these things, now they take away our most effective way to compete. i'm just waiting for the devs to put 99% resists on everything, so that we'll have a hard time taking out kreetles.
Didn't the devs say from waaay back that they wanted high-level mobs to be unmanageable by soloists or small groups? I've seen posts here recently explaining how to use bleeds to take down rancors etc, and I'm guessing that this is exactly the sort of thing the devs were trying to avoid.
In the game stats published in a Friday feature a few weeks ago, there was a comment about the number of red cons that people were taking on both as solos and in groups, with the implication that this wasn't on - that it would be tackled in the future. Hello, future.
Makes sense to me. In the continuity, Skwalker can't take out Jabba's rancor - he has to trick the beast under a closing door in order to kill it. Sure he hadn't finished his training... but I think my point stands. This is the sort of continuity evidence the devs would have to consider when balancing creatures vs players.
Bleeds seem to have been changed more on TC. At present they deal direct damage on the initial hit but the actual ticking bleed is less significant by a good margin. It looks as though this applies to flames and most (but probably not all) other DoT sources.
I dunno about you guys, but taking out high level mobs is what I play for. Seems like Dev's push for large groups. But, with the lag on Bria, along with the small amount of good loot, I have no desire to group when Im going after tough mobs. I don't remember ever playing a game where if you were good you couldnt beat the top creatures. I read a guys signature post and it said "SWG is like nicotine, after every patch you are closer to quitting" Im not a get mad and threaten to quit kinda guy. But, if I cant solo top creatures I think that will lose the fun for me. Also, I think patches are a way of a un-balancing. In effect, they make leave some professions stronger and nerf others so you dont stay static, a means of making you switch professions often. For instance if bleeds are nerfed many people will go doc/TKA or Commando/TKA or CM/TKA because these classes can now still solo anything. TKA has had it good for so long, and they continue to nerf other classes, makes no sense to me. Kinda how they killed the CH/Commando combo that was soloing everything. I see no reason that players cannot be powerful, the biggest thrill I get is soloing mobs with 50-400k ham. I could not be content beating up on small animals. Thanks.
Kolias Bria Server
MasterBrawler/Master Swordsman
Ethalsar wrote:
shutout wrote:
this will make taking on any high level mobs that much more difficult. its the DoTs that make them managable. first they raise the HAM on all of these things, now they take away our most effective way to compete. i'm just waiting for the devs to put 99% resists on everything, so that we'll have a hard time taking out kreetles.
Didn't the devs say from waaay back that they wanted high-level mobs to be unmanageable by soloists or small groups? I've seen posts here recently explaining how to use bleeds to take down rancors etc, and I'm guessing that this is exactly the sort of thing the devs were trying to avoid.
In the game stats published in a Friday feature a few weeks ago, there was a comment about the number of red cons that people were taking on both as solos and in groups, with the implication that this wasn't on - that it would be tackled in the future. Hello, future.
Makes sense to me. In the continuity, Skwalker can't take out Jabba's rancor - he has to trick the beast under a closing door in order to kill it. Sure he hadn't finished his training... but I think my point stands. This is the sort of continuity evidence the devs would have to consider when balancing creatures vs players.
...didn't he use a 2h bone ?
Sotaudi wrote:
Ethalsar wrote:
shutout wrote:
this will make taking on any high level mobs that much more difficult. its the DoTs that make them managable. first they raise the HAM on all of these things, now they take away our most effective way to compete. i'm just waiting for the devs to put 99% resists on everything, so that we'll have a hard time taking out kreetles.
Didn't the devs say from waaay back that they wanted high-level mobs to be unmanageable by soloists or small groups? I've seen posts here recently explaining how to use bleeds to take down rancors etc, and I'm guessing that this is exactly the sort of thing the devs were trying to avoid.
In the game stats published in a Friday feature a few weeks ago, there was a comment about the number of red cons that people were taking on both as solos and in groups, with the implication that this wasn't on - that it would be tackled in the future. Hello, future.
Makes sense to me. In the continuity, Skwalker can't take out Jabba's rancor - he has to trick the beast under a closing door in order to kill it. Sure he hadn't finished his training... but I think my point stands. This is the sort of continuity evidence the devs would have to consider when balancing creatures vs players.
Just to be picky (please take this in the light-hearted manner it is offered), your argument needs work. True,Luke had major problems with the Rancor. However, as I recall, he did not use the force (not to bright of a tactic on his part), and he was unarmed and not trained as a TKA. Yet, despite the problems he had, the rancor was dead at the end. So, you have basicallyjust proven that a non-force-wielding, unarmed, non-TKA should be able to take on a Rancor and win.
None of this is "official", this is just how it is working on TC at the moment. But I think we're kind of in lock-down mode and however it is now is likely to stay to live.
Can 20 (or however many are lucky enough to be in a group, personally I ahve never seen more than one or two of any type in a group unless its the current fad) all still land the same bleed and have them all tick? if so I don't see this as too much of a problem it will just mean grouping if you want to take on a really High level critter. If only one bleed ticks then we are in trouble.
Also will the mind bleeds from riflemen stack or is it one bleed only per PC.
Message Edited by Abominable-TCO on 02-10-2004 10:59 AM