Okay, assholes, what's going on in my lair?
Okay, assholes, what's going on in my lair?
command, this is hawk 1.
repeat, command, this is hawk 1.
was the package deliverered? Over and out.
Originally Posted by Bird of Hermes
just as the thunderstorm clears from my city
so, too, has Verg lifted the clouds from my heart
[12:37] <I3uster> if playing overwatch would save my mother from the deathbed
[12:37] <I3uster> id probably flip a coin
[12:38] <I3uster> to see if i play or not
[18:23] <frantic> spinach is like a caffeine zombie
[18:23] <frantic> in AX he would like
[18:23] <frantic> drink 8 shots of espresso
[18:23] <frantic> then he'd turn to me an hour later
[18:23] <frantic> 'frantic', he'd say, his eyes wild and his lips smug
[18:23] <frantic> 'i need coffee'
Oooray!
PaD NA ID: GameManDan (318,600,328)Rank: 530Main: Savior Lightning, Shirou, and whatever flavor of the monthWorking: plus farming for days
...did the moon fall
R we ded???
: (
We were always dead.
<Airen> I play hetero every once in awhileSpoiler:
Spoiler:
THE LEGEND NEVER DIES
[22:42] <Leo> look it's not our fault we can function properly with a cock in our mouthes
The argument I wanted to make is regarding the LCK stat. Specifically, regarding this part of the rulebook: "When dealing with a Noble Phantasm that checks against an attribute, the LCK attribute of the attacker and the defender are compared. For every +2 Ranks higher LCK the defender has, he gets +1 Rank boost to the challenged attribute, for the purpose of this check and this check only."
I feel that while it may not seem that big of a bonus, it's actually very problematic in quite a few ways, and causes an unbalance both ways. Firstly, in the case of someone who takes high LCK, the stat is, relatively, not a very rewarding investment. The other effects aren't bad, and I'd say they're quite good, but what I'd call the main effect of the stat is a very conditional trigger, and will not matter much against other Servants with high LCK. Even in the case of A rank LCK, which is quite a hefty investment (especially for a low or average GP quantity Servant), it won't have any effect against other enemies with A or B rank LCK. Thus, especially when you don't really have much GP to spend on the first place, its not a stat that is very rewarding to invest into.
On the other side of the balance, those Servants that are restricted by their legend to a lower LCK rank, or just don't have much GP to actually try and invest into LCK (think Assassin or Gunner classes, for example), are going to have a lot of trouble with this stat, since while LCK isn't very rewarding when you invest into it, it is instead extremely punishing when you don't, to the point I'd say that if you have E rank LCK, you'd be forced to make all your (offensive) NPs either rank A or rank EX. I wouldn't say that LCK completely kills the idea of weaker but efficient offensive NPs, but it does heavily cripple it in the case of low LCK Servants, as the range of their possible targets is heavily reduced, and even A rank NPs run the risk of having their effect halved. Furthermore, a Saber or a Crusader with A rank LCK, B in the rest of their stats (except one at rank C) becomes able to have an A rank check on almost all of their stats against Servants with C rank LCK, and the same applies to basically all stats with B rank LCK versus D rank LCK, and so on. I also do feel it a bit... bizarre that the NP effects of lower LCK Servants have to go through what basically becomes two checks, while enemies that target them only have to deal with a single check. I f ear this also pushes for a meta in which you're going to want to always have at least C rank LCK and offensive NPs at A rank.
My proposal regarding this is to keep LCK as a stat that reduces damage dealt by NPs. My idea would be each rank of LCK reducing damage caused by Noble Phantasms by 5 wounds, capping at 25 wounds reduced at A rank, or at least something like that. That way, LCK would be a more attractive stat to invest into, as its main function gives more concrete rewards, and at the same time it doesn't massively punish Servants with low LCK, since it wouldn't effect checks (unless it is a LCK check, of course).
Mind you, this is just my opinion, derivated from my point of view as someone with a low LCK Servant (given my Servant's legend, there's no way I can justify LCK above D), so of course its to be taken by a grain of salt, I only mean to express what I see as an issue, nothing else.
-----
I also think there should be a limit on the number of status effects a target can have. I may be misunderstanding how it works, but I can easily see a magus having both a burn spell and a shock spell, and being able to completely cripple a target for a rather long amount of rounds. I do also think status effects like those should impair and reduce, not completely shut down whole aspects of the target, but that's just my personal opinion on the matter.
quotes
LCK is not a stat that's enticing to invest in, but it sucks when you don't invest in it? That's the whole point. That's the actual reason to invest in it, because it's going to suck if you're going to be one of the 85% players of Regalia who have decided to use LCK as a dump stat. I've seen so many sheets that have maximized their other attributes via the way of keeping their LCK ridiculously low because 'there's no penalty in having a low LCK Rank'. Well, now there is. And if you're still going to do that, well, it sucks to be you. So even when one of these minmaxed twinks throws their NP at you, if you've put even a hint of effort into your LCK, you're that much better off.
As for what comes to low GP classes (Assassin being the lowest), there's also this argument: they are not classes meant to have B-Rank everything. Hell, if you spread them evenly, Assassin can get C in 4 attributes, with 5th being D. These are classes where you are meant to make sacrifices in certain stats if you want some to be high, and plan your game strategy accordingly. Hell, Assassin is not meant to be equal in stats to Saber; because it's Assassin. So if you invest in LCK for such a class, it's because your playstyle centers around that, not other stats.
And what comes for your suggestion: no. There's no way in hell I'm making LCK into something that's basically an 'immunity' stat. Indeed, it would only make the problem worse than what the perceived problem is right now. Instead of just making the NP not as effective, or granting more leeway for getting out of it, straight up damage reduction would allow a Servant to completely no-sell some NPs, making them absolutely ineffective when it comes to dealing damage. That's a road I won't walk.
So unless someone has better suggestions regarding LCK stat, the one that it is now is the one we're going with.
--------------
And what comes status effects, they can be 'repelled' by having a stat higher than the Rank of the status effects. This was talked about before. Still, if you invest in status effects instead of damage, you're gonna get bang for your buck. I'm not nerfing that aspect.
Still going with the grid-like combat system with the range increments on everything?
Yes.
i just want to be a cute girl again, man
- - - Updated - - -
On a more serious note, the grid system doesn't look bad. Ideally I'd like to try it firsthand before judging it...?
[12:37] <I3uster> if playing overwatch would save my mother from the deathbed
[12:37] <I3uster> id probably flip a coin
[12:38] <I3uster> to see if i play or not
[18:23] <frantic> spinach is like a caffeine zombie
[18:23] <frantic> in AX he would like
[18:23] <frantic> drink 8 shots of espresso
[18:23] <frantic> then he'd turn to me an hour later
[18:23] <frantic> 'frantic', he'd say, his eyes wild and his lips smug
[18:23] <frantic> 'i need coffee'
Yeah, I'd be partial on it being tested before judging it.
quotes
This thread bursts into activity all of a sudden.
did something happen on IRC
Revised rulebook tonight.
quotes
Test it in a Colosseum match before the next set of updates?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
