10-15 SECONDS TTK

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

There is no point in responding because you're always doing to me what you claim I'm doing to you. I never said the things you claim I did in your big post

This entire thread I've been saying "dps vs dps is 10-15s", "tanks/healers are ~30s" (and I even said that "it might not even be tank vs tank", cause Steven's wording there is more vague than in other parts), "group pvp will be killing people in 1s, as signified by Steven snapping his fingers", "when Steven is talking about group pvp he accounts for any of Intrepid's future plans for its balancing, which would include any potential defensive and offensive buffs/effects".

That's it. Unless you point to where I said "1v1 pvp is about both people being supported by other players" - I don't know what else I can say to make you see that I'm literally repeating what Steven said and saying "I don't like/want this design".

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

And I didn't make that statement. I simply repeated what Steven said and said "I don't like this design". It was Steven who said that this is their current approach to ttk balancing.

If he did jump from 1v1 pvp all the way up to "a full raid targeting a single player" - I'm somewhat fine that, but then we'd need to talk about aoe scaling, and that's a whole different discussion that has already happened in the past.

But if he did mean party vs party when he said "group pvp" - then I'd prefer if ttk was longer. Mainly because there's 2 ways to take his ttk timings:

• the target stands around doing nothing
• the target uses everything in their toolkit to avoid dying

If 10-15 ttk is in the context of the first option - it means that a dps class dies in around 5-10 damaging abilities, purely on hp values (this estimate is based on average cast times shown on streams). This then implies that a party of people can use all their best damaging abilities at once and wipe a target "in a snap".

This was my reasoning behind believing that Steven was talking about party pvp when he said group, and not "a raid is attacking a single person".

Now if we look at the second option - things are WAAAAY worse. Because now the target is moving and using defensive abilities - AND IT'S STILL A 10-15s TTK. This means that the hp values of that target are below the floor, which means that direct-damage's worth of ttk is probably like 4-5s.

And if THAT is the case - a party can wipe 2 people in a snap, if they get the jump on them.

Depraved and a few other people believe that Steven was talking about the first option (I don't remember which one you believe, cause this has been a long convo). And as I described above, Steven's "snap" still aligns with "a party targeting a single player in the enemy party" situation, and not just a "raid doing the same" one.

As for big defensive buffs or strong healing, that can supposedly save that single player - these would, first of all, only work if the defending side saw the attackers coming, but would also depend on what other tools the attackers have. Due to us not knowing any of those tools, I've been talking about attackers getting a jump on their target (which is usually the healer) and killing it "in a snap".

And I've already given my suggestion for how this perceived issue could be addressed and also gave my reasoning for seeing it as an issue (namely my L2 experience of healers "being snapped"). If you believe that Intrepid will go away from this "snapping" design and add defensive tools that prevent it - cool, you agree with me.

But this belief goes directly against what Steven has stated, which is why it's funny that you seem to agree with Steven, while disagreeing with me. If you think he was only talking about a "raid attacking a single target" - we'll just have to disagree on that interpretation.

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

Except we've already seen that during the caravan showcase, which is also supported by the fighter showcase. Right now ~100dmg abilities take somewhere around 1s to cast. Stronger abilities take longer, but also deal x3-4 the damage.

So far we've seen that mages/healers are at lower hp values than melee chars (~1k compared to 1.5k). Leveling higher obviously gives more hp (lvl25 mage from the last showcase had 3k hp), but I'd assume that damage increases with lvl as well, so the only assumption I can make here is that ttk will remain similar (or potentially that is the exact ttk Steven was talking about).

Snipe from the caravan showcase did almost 400 dmg to a tank. Steven was lvl25 there (against assumedly lvl15 people), so let's assume it does 200 at lvl15 (everyone else in Steven's party did ~400, so I assume they were lvl25s too). At 200 dmg, that's 1/8 of a tank's hp and 1/5 of a healer's.

I'd imagine a strong long cast mage nuke has a similar dmg value. A rogue attack from stealth could potentially do even more, but let's say it's the same, but it obviously requires being in melee (but we have stealth). So even in these assumptions, that's already 3/5 of a healer's hp from just 3 dps characters.

I'd assume cleric/summoner/bard/tank can all use some ranged attack (either ability or bow) and warrior could be the first one to initiate into a stun synergy with a relatively low dmg value. Even if bow shots + stun do ~200 collective dmg - the stun would still provide just enough time to finish off the healer "in a snap".

And again, this is not counting any potential dps augments or cleric/bard/summoner having range abilities that are stronger than a simple bow shot.

Any potential buffs from either side can be disregarded cause they either balance each other out, or Steven took them into account when giving his timings.

To me this sounds like the most basic optimal surprise attack on an enemy party. I've seen COUNTLESS such attacks in L2 by archer/mage parties. Hell, even dagger parties did this through stealth. And all of what I said was in the context of an "one of each" party composition and not any potentially more dpsey setups of "as many archers as you can get".

So again, this was my thought process behind believing that Steven meant "party vs party".

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Which is why I suggested that tank effect. It would make parties fight the party as a whole, rather than removing the healer first and then just cleaning everyone else up.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

It's the same "skill" you've been talking about. Executing a good ambush requires good knowledge of the surroundings and of the enemy's movement.

And in the case of ambushes the attackers always have an advantage (cause that's the entire point), so even if the fighting skill might be higher on the defending side - the ambushers could still come out on top.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

And if those things exist - cool. But then Steven's words would be a lie, or, even worse, they'd mean that nothing is fucking planned and he's just winging it all. I try to believe that there's at least some form of plan for their design and that Steven is presenting their plans for balancing that design. And this belief requires me to think that Steven accounts for any potential builds when talking about averages.

They've been designing, discussing and internally testing all the things they've talked about, so if they have no idea of what those plans can result in - we have a much bigger problem on our hands than "ttk is short".

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

The only thing I expect from them is a bell curve of averages. That is, what I assume, Steven gave us. And at the peak of that curve is "10-15s ttk for dps vs dps and ~30s for tank/healer vs tank/healer".

I'm interested in high skill players or the ends of the curve. I'm interested in what the peak of the curve implies. Just as you keep mentioning that high skill players will make the ttk way longer - I keep mentioning that the current ttk implies situations where the ttk is 1s. Both are in accordance with the bell curve.

And I believe that having that peak at 20-25s would remove the chance of the left side of the curve to hit 1s. And if not remove, then at least HIGHLY decrease the chances of. And this was also the initially presented plan for the game's balance (the 30-60s ttk and all that). And so if the plan could change once, I see no reason why it couldn't change back.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

Yep. If my non-professional-designer ass can sit in a chair and come up with a few dozen ways to balance combat and then try and imagine how things would influence each other - Intrepid should be MILES ahead of me in terms of that imagination, not only because they're professional designers who have been doing this for a living for decades, but also because they've had years of playtesting all of those ideas at all stages of the game's development, so they even have a way more practical image of how the encounter would go down if a thing was tweaked or an effect was added.

Now obviously a broader testing would show more details and more applications of those effects, but that's simply perfecting the bell curve rather than suddenly completely flipping the devs' testing upside down.

And if Intrepid have not done all that imagining - then what in the fuck have they been doing the last 7 years? I'd prefer to believe that they have imagined that stuff, have potentially tested that stuff, Steven oversaw (or at least got a report on) that stuff and then he told us the average ttk from their testing/imagining.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Mag, the only damn thing I've been talking about is averages. "Bell curve" is a near-definition of "average". Where in the hell am I "glossing over it"?

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

When I say "average" I mean average. The "70% of players will experience the ttk that Steven mentioned" average.


That average includes everything, skill, gear, lvls, whateverthefuckelse.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Ah, it's one of those times where you try to go deeper into a topic and tell others that they haven't gone deep enough?

Yes, I didn't go deep enough (especially if you completely disregard my post to Depraved). I'm looking at a GAME-WIDE AVERAGE. Literally everything in the game from "lvl1s pvping each other right as they start the game" to "lvl1 char fighting lvl50 fully max char".

The average situation across all of those, in the long run, will be "somewhat equally-progressed players fighting each other", which is exactly what Steven gave the example for.

The entire point of "average" is to include all the things and then point out what the middle point indicates.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

I expect the ttk to become faster at higher lvls, so the currently presented ttk (at supposedly "middle lvls") would be even shorter at max lvl.

If Intrepid decide to give us way more defensive tools than offensive - cool, I'd be all for that. But from all the game's I've seen - the higher the lvl, the faster you can kill your opponent.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Or it could go the way of L2 and only the rogues would have high enough evasion to evade a lot of attacks, though even then only when they're using short-but-strong buffs for evasion.

Also, in L2 mages didn't even miss, unless you were attacking someone who was several levels above you.

And I'm sure there are other games where evasion wasn't as insane as it seemingly was in BDO.

But I would also count such evasion as "a defensive tool", so that's already smth I'd be fine with. I'd just hope that building high into evasion means giving up other stats.

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

P V Peeing

We have not received permission from Saabynator to share the quoted post.

Yes, my nickname tends to remind americans (or usa-brainrotted people) about their shitty history, even though my nickname has nothing to do with anything related to said history.