Stephen asked for it so here it is! I'll copy over the relevant posts shortly.
Is there a plan to go back to 200 max stamina, or are we staying at 100? That is linked into the issue. Many dps rotations are stamina starved after a couple of rounds. After those first few rounds they are using stamina as it recovers (1 stamina/0.1s iirc).
As you said, to maintain threat a player must do at least 30 damage each round (on average). He gets 60 stamina/round. So to do that 30 damage he needs to do 0.5 damage per point of stamina in a longer fight (eg. against ogres).
Assuming roughly equal matchup in terms of attack bonus vs. ref/fort/will that's ~85% of max damage. Base damage minus resistance is 45-r at the moment. So damage done is ~0.85*f*(45-r)~(38-0.85r)*f where f is the damage factor. Damage per stamina (what we're concerned with for a stamina starved character) is ~(38-0.85r)f/s where s is the stamina cost.
Assuming for simplicity that it's only a single attack being spammed to maintain threat once stamina starved requires:
(38-0.85r)f/s > 30/60=0.5
List of r vs minimum f/s::
List of f/s for attacks::
(Data for attacks grabbed from your google docs Official Wiki data last night.)
Admittedly this is a bit simplified in that it ignores secondary effects and is only single attack spamming, but it should show that many attacks should have no problem holding aggro against single targets while others will lose it. Obviously focusing on a single target should make the other creatures drop aggro in the current system.
In my experience I've lost aggro aggro against ogres a few times and I'm still trying to reconcile that with the above numbers.
@Nightdrifter:
We're happy to keep tweaking Stamina numbers. 200 seemed like it was too much, as it seemed to be allowing a lot of people to kill all their targets with burst damage such that they didn't even notice Stamina was a thing. 100 might not be enough. I'd love to see another thread comparing and contrasting peoples' experiences at the two different Stamina maxes. The intent is to leave Stamina regen at where it is now, so raising the total mostly just affects how many secondaries you can use before being fixed to your regen rate.
Now that I know the stamina regen rate is set to 60/round, I wonder if the better fix would be to re-adjust the stamina amounts for attacks. Namely, take the highest cost attack and set it to 60, then readjust all other attacks' stamina costs proportionally. Damage factors could also be adjusted downward to maintain the same Dps.
It makes sense for a player to be able to make one attack per round. This adjustment would enable that.
Increasing the total available stamina just changes how many primary and secondary attacks the player can make at the opening of the fight. I am personally comfortable with the 100 stamina mark. But then again, it is all I have ever known!
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I've been thinking, that I want to elaborate on more later is that right now heavy armor and lighter armors are COMPLETELY unbalanced. To put it bluntly. You're better off taking a heavy armor role and using weapons you don't have bonuses for than going with any role in armor lighter than heavy.
Right now my fast/stealthy character uses the crusader armor feat because... it works. The majorly increased protection is worth losing the benefits of a more fitting role such as scout.
The protections are huge and there are no penalties to heavy armor since they removed the movement speed debuff.
I was thinking a decent fix would be:
1. The lighter the armor / better the quality, the more stamina regeneration you get.
2. Reduce stamina costs for melee attacks.
3. As lighter classes still capable of getting decent AC in the tabletop such as ranger and monk are implemented, add some fairly substantial defensive buffs that lower stamina regen as a drawback.
4. Decrease general stamina regen.
Effects:
Lighter armor classes can throw out more abilities faster. They can heal, tank, cast spells whatever more often than heavy armor characters. Just like heavy armor characters they need to upgrade their gear to get the full effect of their armor choice. (That's the reason for lighter armors buffing stamina regen instead of a debuff for heavier armors.)
However they can trade some of this power off for higher protections by taking the stamina debuff defensive traits which wouldn't really be practical for a heavy armor character. Characters like monks that wear clothes instead of armor can become defensive powerhouses through these abilities, though they will need comparable quality cloth armor to heavy armor get enough stamina regen for it to be practical to trade it off for similar protections.
Melee gets a bit stronger, especially light armor melee, but we were looking for ways to balance it anyhow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As Stephen pointed out in his thread the difference between a max of 100 or 200 essentially just comes down to your opening few attacks (assuming the same stamina regen rate for 200 vs 100).
With 200 you can open up with multiple secondary attacks, each of which tends to cost ~60 stamina. So you can get in 3 right off the bat. You even might get a 4th off right away if the attack time for those first 3 is long enough to regen ~40 stamina. After that you're stamina starved.
With 100 you can open with 1 and then wait a couple of seconds for your second. After that you're stamina starved.
If you're not opening with expensive secondaries but rather with more efficient primaries then the difference is simply how long it takes to run dry. Intuitively it might feel like it takes twice as long to run dry with 200 compared to 100, but it's actually a little more than twice. This is because in the extra time to use up that extra 100 you have regened a little extra stamina (1 per 0.1s). Still, your opening dps is high for a bit until stamina starved.
Once stamina starved it comes down to just using stamina as you get it back - perhaps waiting a little for a bigger attack - but since no attack costs more than ~65ish the max stamina doesn't matter there.
The only time the max matters when stamina starved is if you are stunned or lagged. In that case you might hit a max of 100. A larger max would mean having a little extra in the tank when coming out of the stun/lag, but likely that's not very much.
So really the biggest difference between 100 and 200 is how much of an opener a player should get.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So really the biggest difference between 100 and 200 is how much of an opener a player should get.
If we're all in the same boat, with the 100 or 200 point stamina bar, does it really matter? Both sides in PvP would have the same opening reserves? Or it a problem in that it makes PvE even easier for the players?
Does it give a surprise attack a reasonable amount of advantage, or too much advantage in addition to the existing advantage against flat-footed/surprised players?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So really the biggest difference between 100 and 200 is how much of an opener a player should get.If we're all in the same boat, with the 100 or 200 point stamina bar, does it really matter? Both sides in PvP would have the same opening reserves? Or it a problem in that it makes PvE even easier for the players?
Does it give a surprise attack a reasonable amount of advantage, or too much advantage in addition to the existing advantage against flat-footed/surprised players?
It certainly gives an advantage to anyone attacking an unexpecting opponent to have more stamina to blow right off the bat. But not as much as it is against mobs. That's because the mobs we're beating up right now have minimal resistances compared to what players have and most have far less hp.
Worst case scenario is a veteran attacking a newbie. With 200 stamina that's a good 3-4 secondary attacks in the first couple of rounds. In many cases that will be enough to drop the newbie. 100 would at least give that newbie a little time to react as it's at most 2 secondaries in that opener. They're very unlikely to win, but at least they'll get to make an attempt. (Essentially more stamina is more of an advantage for veterans against newbies due to the way scaling of base damage and resistance works.)
Personally I'd go with 100 or maybe a little over 100 to not place too much advantage in the hands of person who attacks first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has this issue come up because of all the ranged fighters switching to melee and not knowing what they are doing ?
I play a melee cleric which really trashes your stamina but I think its all fine just as it is.
If you get yourself gridlocked and surrounded and run out of stamina that is entirely your fault for poor tactics.
I may be a bit outspoken here, but people really just need to learn to play melee fighters instead of trying to change the game. I am detecting a worrying trend here both in ranged and melee towards a dumbed down "stand in one place and hit 1" style of play.
So really the biggest difference between 100 and 200 is how much of an opener a player should get.If we're all in the same boat, with the 100 or 200 point stamina bar, does it really matter? Both sides in PvP would have the same opening reserves? Or it a problem in that it makes PvE even easier for the players?
Does it give a surprise attack a reasonable amount of advantage, or too much advantage in addition to the existing advantage against flat-footed/surprised players?
Lets ignore PvE and just focus on PvP: Imagine you are approaching the tower I am defending. I have a longbow fighter. You have a whatever melee fighter in heavy armor. You can take a hit. But I can also deal a hit.
With 200 Stamina, as you approach (with opportunity) I can hit you no less than three times with the longbow exploit for roughly 200 points of damage EACH (after defenses). With 100 Stamina, I can hit you once, maybe twice. More than likely, however, I will hit you with the exploit once and a primary attack once then prepare for melee.
I think that is a huge difference in PvP, personally.
I am ignoring the role charge would play in that scenario, mind you. But I think the general point still stands. All I have to do is move between attacks, forcing you to move again, and re-assume opportunity, if it comes down to it.
I don't think that would be very conducive to a balanced fight between melee and ranged/attacker and defender.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that would be very conducive to a balanced fight between melee and ranged/attacker and defender.
This I think is the biggest flaw in all the recent nonsense.
It comes from a conventional MMO perspective that all characters must be equally balanced in order to get equal epeen in PvP.
My original impression was PFO was meant to be a group combat game with formations and specialist characters and it SHOULD NOT MATTER if one character gets more kills then another as long as the combination as a team wins.
My original impression was PFO was meant to be a group combat game with formations and specialist characters and it SHOULD NOT MATTER if one character gets more kills then another as long as the combination as a team wins.
Minus the shouting, that's a fair point. We haven't seen PvP outside of free-for-alls so far due to tech limitations, and my example above completely ignores the fact that it will likely be team(s) defending and team(s) attacking.
I think the only way we would really know if 100 is better or 200 is better is to try it out in-game when all the other combat tech is in place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My personal experience is that 200 Stamina is basically pushing the easy button for most battles in PvE, and in PvP 200 Stamina gives you a major advantage if you attack first.
100 Stamina allows you get get off 2 secondary attacks pretty close together, or 3 primary attacks.
With 200 Stamina, you basically have twice as many attacks. In PvE spamming these attacks mean you can kill almost twice as many NPCs, and do quite a bit of damage before they can even make it to you. It makes it easier to take on larger and higher end groups, by yourself, and in parties you can wipe out things so fast that the NPCs don't even have a chance to respond.
In PvP, that initial burst of damage can add debuffs to the target, and do significant damage. Instead of having to make a meaningful choice with your stamina economy, you essentially have the ability to spam the first 4-7 attacks within 5-8 seconds.
I think stamina should stay 100.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My original impression was PFO was meant to be a group combat game with formations and specialist characters and it SHOULD NOT MATTER if one character gets more kills then another as long as the combination as a team wins.
Ho ho. Utopian. Dollars to Donuts there will be fights on the same team over 'You stole my kill.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My original impression was PFO was meant to be a group combat game with formations and specialist characters and it SHOULD NOT MATTER if one character gets more kills then another as long as the combination as a team wins.Ho ho. Utopian. Dollars to Donuts there will be fights on the same team over 'You stole my kill.'
Certainly. I believe the minimum age requirement is 13, and it has already been established on a previous thread that no one here is above the age of 12 :)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
With high starting stamina, cool downs dominate usefulness; that implies that a rotation of "faceroll" tactic of "use the best ability that isn't on cool down" is indicated.
With low stamina, the player must consider both damage/time and damage/stamina as well as effects, adding a meaningful dimension to gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just entered the game in Alpha 7. I think stamina has been 100 for Alpha 7 and 8. In the beginning , I spammed high stamina feats and ended up gasping for stamina by the end of a fight. I think that taught me to think about my combat options a little more than having 200 stamina would.