Barbarians need love.

[NiteHawk]

I think it's overly complicated that way but also throwing negative effects for things that people can't really control won\t get good reviews. In ROK it was done for a short period that in zerker rage they'd deal more damage but take more damage too. People flipped over it mainly because they cannot control it and if you landed a 'starter' rage on your last attack you'd get whomped before you could even use it. Lance did change it to a positive damage reduction which was absolutely made no sense in the long run.

Overall, how is the rage effect, aka how it currently works. Right now it takes two hits to get into rage, then you can rage up to three times. Maybe the modifier should be 50% more damage instead of the current, which I believe is 40% right now. I'm not sure on that though as that might be too much. It could even be a buildup, I.E. first rage is 40%, second is 50%, third is 60%. Then obvious reset, for example.

[Folder]

I'll chime in on this one too.

I dunno about raising barb damage. They already hit hard af especially when flurry is going on. I think they are underutilized because they take more damage, not because of how much damage they do. They take more magic damage and more physical damage and it kinda does suck - it is noticed for sure and just feels bad, imo.

We're talking about a lot of changes here, and this is my opinion as always, but I prefer active abilities as opposed to more passive stuff. If we want to make gameplay interesting then we should be looking into active abilities or ability points as NH suggested. Give the player a decision - do I want to do more damage RIGHT NOW or save it? It's on the lines of adding in cooldown based abilities. It makes gameplay more dynamic and this is good.

We can add all sorts of passive shit for the sake of balance, but long term wouldn't it be better to focus on active abilities (which, yes, is a pretty big change) that can achieve balance and add some interesting gameplay?

[daedroth]

Well I forsee snowflake tears if it is based on how damaged the character is.
I know I wouldnt play barb if to do their full potential they had to be damaged, low on health.

@Jake: You could have rage "optional", you choose with a command when you want to use the rage, but meh, that doesnt feel right, unless maybe if the rage lasts until it is used up.

@NH: As for enforced negatives, you dont NEED to have negatives, I only suggested ones I think made sense. Besides why should everything be a full positive?
The lower dodge when in rage would be offset by the damage reduction through AC increase. They get hit more, but they take less damage when they do, and they dish out more damage.
Besides... dont they already have enforced negatives through their lowered dodge and magic resistance?

Anyway, bedtime story for kids time.

[Tucker]

I'll chime in on this one too.

I dunno about raising barb damage. They already hit hard af especially when flurry is going on. I think they are underutilized because they take more damage, not because of how much damage they do. They take more magic damage and more physical damage and it kinda does suck - it is noticed for sure and just feels bad, imo.

We're talking about a lot of changes here, and this is my opinion as always, but I prefer active abilities as opposed to more passive stuff. If we want to make gameplay interesting then we should be looking into active abilities or ability points as NH suggested. Give the player a decision - do I want to do more damage RIGHT NOW or save it? It's on the lines of adding in cooldown based abilities. It makes gameplay more dynamic and this is good.

We can add all sorts of passive shit for the sake of balance, but long term wouldn't it be better to focus on active abilities (which, yes, is a pretty big change) that can achieve balance and add some interesting gameplay?

I dunno if it has to be active abilities necessarily but just stuff that's unique from other classes is very important, and things that are not available to any class. Zerkers have nothing that's unique to itself and I really don't think Rage counts currently since it is extremely similar to RH kicks that Ninjas use. They're both passive skills that benefit stringing multiple hits together and increase dmg. The differences between +40% chaining up to three and +100% once and resets are very minor and I think there's an edge to monks for PVP and an edge to barbs for PVE but they both benefit higher hit-rates and attacking low dodge-rate targets in the same way.

Slayers have /hide as their active and it offers very little depth of game-play and is has no versatility when used to attacking. Sure you can not /hide and not backstab as a Slayer but it is measurably a worse way to play the class - that means there ends up being only one play-style anyway no matter the active. Having to move rooms is an active Slayers also have and that also adds no depth of gameplay and is more annoying than fun.

I just can't think of too many good ways to give Zerkers an active ability that would actually create depth of gameplay. Burds youtube example is a pretty cool way to do that but even in that case there isn't much depth there other than having to hit a different macro and stacking them up on mobs right before running to a fight or to PK which is still cooler than now so I think it'd be nifty.

Burds mention of adding rage scaling is also pretty cool or upping it slightly I like the idea a lot of 40-50-60.

For actives you could give them an intimidate which would debuff one target or possibly an armor piercing passive that could be implemented in different ways: only in rage, only with 2h weapons, as a passive, or as an active the temporarily debuffs/lowers enemy AC if it hits. There are definitely lots of cool ways to help them out and give a bit more depth of gameplay.

Well I forsee snowflake tears if it is based on how damaged the character is.
I know I wouldnt play barb if to do their full potential they had to be damaged, low on health.

If you play them now then you'd be dumb to stop playing them since they way it's been described is strictly a buff to the class
That is also a very common way games handle the class its a sort of blood-rage effect. I really doubt they'll be many snowflake tears since few people play the class often and those who do would appreciate a buff.

[NiteHawk]

I am all for either one overall, we can poll it when we have a better mesh on what we want to do though.

Active abilities aren't the reason why I care for it. I think a class can be good with active or passive. I think the difference would be that you could 'store' flurries and maybe have 4 flurries or use them as soon as you have them, etc.

They do take more damage, that is true. I think it's pretty just with the damage they deal though. They should be worthwhile to play even with that cause, adding an extra bit of damage to accommodate so its worthwhile to me would be OK. They should be high risk but high profit too regardless on how it pans out. Otherwise it's just a monk with some different makeup and its boring af.

[Lateralus]

Yea I like the idea of them doing a bit more damaged the closer they are to death. They are not that bad right now they still do a lot of damage if not targeted in time in pvp and do damage in pve.

This would be a simple way to give them some tactic. Chance it on low Heath during a fight to do more damage. This would be interesting in pvp and pve.

[Folder]

My issue with low health is that low health doesn't last long in this game. No one ever hovers at low health, unless we are talking cheesing with a guardian (I like that tactic). People either 1) die or 2) get healed up, they just don't hover. So, imo, while this low hp dmg buff thing sounds cool I think it's not going to play out how we want.

I vote for the more active system of storing flurries, it adds a LITTLE bit of decision making which is good.

[Lateralus]

My issue with low health is that low health doesn't last long in this game. No one ever hovers at low health, unless we are talking cheesing with a guardian (I like that tactic). People either 1) die or 2) get healed up, they just don't hover. So, imo, while this low hp dmg buff thing sounds cool I think it's not going to play out how we want.

I vote for the more active system of storing flurries, it adds a LITTLE bit of decision making which is good.

And that's exactly why i think it would work so well. It would give them a little extra but nothing game changing. I think from a balance, code and play simplicity standpoint it's the best option.

I also think the low hp deal would make leveling and even farming pretty exciting as well. Want to risk faster leveling or farming. Ok you might die or be an easy ok target.

I don't dislike the storing attacks I just think it's over complicated and could be hard to implement properly.

[daedroth]

My issue with low health is that low health doesn't last long in this game. No one ever hovers at low health, unless we are talking cheesing with a guardian (I like that tactic). People either 1) die or 2) get healed up, they just don't hover. So, imo, while this low hp dmg buff thing sounds cool I think it's not going to play out how we want.

I vote for the more active system of storing flurries, it adds a LITTLE bit of decision making which is good.

And that's exactly why i think it would work so well. It would give them a little extra but nothing game changing. I think from a balance, code and play simplicity standpoint it's the best option.

I also think the low hp deal would make leveling and even farming pretty exciting as well. Want to risk faster leveling or farming. Ok you might die or be an easy ok target.

I don't dislike the storing attacks I just think it's over complicated and could be hard to implement properly.

Who would willingly go into battle half dead when they could have healed before hand?
How effective would they be?
Did berserkers half kill themselves before running into battle, nope, they just ate some mushrooms and/or psyched themselves up or got angry in combat (oooh! how about that you need to eat mushrooms to go berserk that would give Jake his beloved activation ability and there is actually historic evidence this was the case! )

Personally I think there should be penalties based on wound... but I diverge.

If there was a SLIGHT bonus to damage based on wounds, then yeh fair enough - that would make sense (although I still think if its a rage bar then the wound level should just increase the rate at which rage is accrued, although first option would probably be simpler - could actually have wound levels affect normal non rage damage? meh), but the main bonus should just come from the rage.

The snowflake tears I referred to would be from people playing barbs who left themselves wounded (because that was the only way their class got their special ability) and then got killed easy... I'd find having to do that more frustrating than anything. I'd not cry though... I'd just not play them.
If it was to work like that I foresee barbs used even less and a flurry of sad postings.


Ooooh its just gone dark and I heard thunder... mummy!

[Tucker]

Who would willingly go into battle half dead when they could have healed before hand?
How effective would they be?
Did berserkers half kill themselves before running into battle, nope, they just ate some mushrooms and/or psyched themselves up or got angry in combat (oooh! how about that you need to eat mushrooms to go berserk that would give Jake his beloved activation ability and there is actually historic evidence this was the case! )

If there was a SLIGHT bonus to damage based on wounds, then yeh fair enough - that would make sense (although I still think if its a rage bar then the wound level should just increase the rate at which rage is accrued, although first option would probably be simpler - could actually have wound levels affect normal non rage damage? meh), but the main bonus should just come from the rage.

The snowflake tears I referred to would be from people playing barbs who left themselves wounded (because that was the only way their class got their special ability) and then got killed easy... I'd find having to do that more frustrating than anything. I'd not cry though... I'd just not play them.

You don't have to go into battle at 25% hp just to get the big bonus in facts thats retarded unless you have a guard protecting you which would be an interesting strat. There will be no 'snowflake' tears for buffing an underpowered class that someone plays. You seem hung up on people getting low hp before fights and dying, but they'll learn pretty quickly that its a stupid idea.

If you really wanna argue realism (which I always think can end up getting stupid af quickly) then Berzerkers would take the drugs to keep them fighting hard even if they're wounded. Bloodrage is a thing in some animals and humans where if a creature is wounded it can get a bursty of adrenaline to fight harder or run faster as part of fight or flight instinct. Kind of like if you tazer a guy on PCP and he doesn't go down

If it was to work like that I foresee barbs used even less and a flurry of sad postings.

No... no it wouldn't. It is literally a buff - a simple improvement on the class. They are better at fighting with that change than without. Saying fewer people would play it is nonsense. I'm not opposed to buffing the class in other ways that're being discussed just trying to be crystal clear since it seems confusing or something.

Personally I think there should be penalties based on wound... but I diverge.

Maybe for like one class but in general thats a bad idea because it is the opposite of a rubberband mechanic and creates an even bigger reliance on healers which are already extremely important right now.