I agree. Now come up with good reasons not to have tactics. You paying gives you the right to be heard, sure. If someone doesn't have a rational thought about a topic- but pays- you think they have the same say as someone that brings up valid points? That's some scratch-your-head logic right there.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
REMOVE Tactics requirement ( poll )
- Thread starter Kiss Of Death
- Start date
- Watchers 7
Please back this up with an example of what template everyone would play if this change goes through.
I would play tons of hybrid toons and make a bushido mage
you can make a bushido mage right now...
The concept is: u play with tactics u go for specials and kinetic dmg output playstyle. U remove tactics, u play with specials and other type of dmg output will join the specs. So Imagine a bok mage or a tank mage , a stealther defensive with weaving and chiv which main role is to dmount and para, bola or mortal etc... tons of ideas...
sounds fun to play
Last time I checked, it's still nothing but gimp templates.. except much fewer to choose from.... So why shouldn't it be changed?
Not as effective as it will be
Sure, except right now you drop to 15% SDI, and 90.0 tactics does nothing for any specials that require Weapon skill, Tactics & Bushido...
Still gonna need tactics to get to the 300% cap.
120 swords + 120 parry + 120 bushido = 360.
Special Moves – Ultima Online
Tactics isn't even on the list of skills that compose the 300 points mana cost decrease bonus.
I already drop anat on several of my dexxers for resist or other skills, so I don't care much about that 300% thing.
120 Anat/Healing would add a layer of survivability that would make the damage less important, so it would be fun to play regardless. Would kill things slower, but would fare much better against opponents where hit life leech doesn't work.
Edit:
150 str, 120 anat, 100 DI on items give you 215 out of 300.
150 str, 120 tactics, 100 DI on items give you 231,25 out of 300.
The 20 joat on lumberjacking add another 4 points to those.
Last edited:
My apologies I wasn't clear. While you are correct about the mana bonus, tactics is still a major part of your total damage increase. ~81%
That is definitely true. 120 Tactics adds at least 16 points more of DI than 120 anat, but I would be willing to sacrifice some extra damage for the added survivability that 120 healing/anatomy brings.
It would be an interesting support template to play on cross healing dexxers.
There is no real valid argument to keep tactics required. Removing it has hundreds of pro's and no cons whatsoever. The only thing in the con list I could think of is tactics scrolls will sell for less gold, LOL. As it is on current test changes it will only make mage weapon mages OP and everything else would suffer with no extra room. The gimp templates back then were the NS/DS with hiryu, but that was fixed by adding hiding and stealth to DS dmg and on the bushido templates cooldowns and increased mana were added to evasion and lightning strike. TACTICS HAS TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO RESTORE ANY SUBSTANCE BACK INTO PVP!!
Thank you, i agree but not necessarily xhealing dexers, a healing sampire itself is not just a support temp, its an OP unkillable template by most mages templates running with no mystic when it comes to raids or even for escaping. I can already survive on my 120anat 120tact sampire 0healing spamming ai on rikkys and semidars, now imagine if i had healing on top of that, with a little bit less damage... i am not supporting the 0tactics nonsense not for sampires, bok mages, and nox dexers, ill get nothing but a mess and more changes requests
Last edited:
And even with that, you would still die to 99% of the pvp'ers in UO. PS: Killing a sampire, even one that runs healing, is NOT that hard.
my bushido mage can put in work on any temp lol
I'm not sure what that means.... but a disarm archer or a alchy-parrymage would still beat it... so what's your point?
She wasn't talking about sampires... but how is a sampire unkillable? pretty much every template that exists in pvp right now would continue to smoke sampires with ease, even if the sampire dropped tactics for healing.
less over-all efficiency for minor bonus to healing incoming damage & a 2nd option to res teammates? ... well worth the trade! /sarcasm
You haven't said anything that supports keeping tactics required... besides you're against it being removed. (shocker, right?)
The only thing I agree with you on, is Sampires are OP.... and tactics is NOT what causes that.. it's Vampire form.... It's not rocket science... it's UO.
Tank-mages will be much more common if archery gets properly fixed...
bokuto-mages will be much more common when non-focus spec SDI is increased...
Nox dexers will be played just as much as they're being played now... lol (almost not at all) -because everyone has Parry and Alchemy...
Para spam ciao cacao hehe
Get your best pure mage, or 1.25 archer, even a ds with disarm, holy fister, u still wont do crap when i focus ai on a bara, or double hit primeval champ, or abyssal infernal, i garanty you im 99% unkillable 1v1 unless u get a mystic and purge, and thats without having healing. Anyone will clearly run out of mana by the time i kill the champ in 2mins.
You cast explo fs, i evade. If i get disarmed i offscreen confidence rearm, if i get low working the spawn, i can honor myself, or hit some spawn whirlwind while disturbing your mage with hit area, stop saying that killing a sampire running with healing is simple if u haven't seen or played one yet.
Hehehehehe c'mon gandalf.... If I see u on screen we know how it ends:
1) u recall out
2) u sacred journey
3) u die
1) u recall out
2) u sacred journey
3) u die
europa misses you blazingo
It's true mate I don't pvp there since a year when Mike D came overSays the shard dodger!europa misses you blazingo
No we dont, so dont encourage himSays the shard dodger!
Nope.
It adds a lot of damage, most melee masteries rely on it (onslaught for the most important one), so PvM people will most likely not drop tactics out of their templates.
But dropping the tactics requirement for specials that still require it open template options for both PvP and PvM.
PvP template diversity benefits more from this change, but it is still something worth considering for PvM too.
no my bushido mage is really good lol, I have a great temp
Evade has a 10+ second cooldown timer, and I'm a 30 SDI Mage. Good luck.
Killing Sampires with healing IS easy, considering I've done it more than once. If my ping to Europa weren't in the 109-120 range, I'd be more than happy to easily prove you wrong.
Ive been playing uo with a 120ping for the last 14years, get my icq and prove me wrong on a pure mage from level1 despise till champ up, ill be more than happy to do the recording
That should have been the "Compromise" that was reached... not reducing the tactics requirement.
Tactics no longer "required" for special moves, but to make tactics more appealing they should add it to the list that contributes toward the 300.0 combat LMC bonus
Edited for clarity.
Last edited:
Merlin
The Enchanter
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
With 84 votes, it is 60% supporting and 40% against. That may be a majority, but it is by no means some overwhelming majority. If we put every in-game question up for a plurality type of vote, we would probably get alot of bad results. So yes, the poll does speak for itself - 40% of people don't want it changed.
That is why I think the current suggestion from the developers is a fair one - reduce the amount of Tactics needed for specials compared to current requirements, but do not remove it entirely either.
Beyond the demand for more "template diversity", I haven't seen a great reason for the change to completely remove the requirement.
While I am against removing the requirement on the grounds of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", neither side of the argument has some absolutist logic one way or the other. I see no reason why a middle ground couldn't be found and lived with.
I've yet to see any good reason for the change to keep the tactics requirement as-is, or reducing it instead of removing it. I'd go so far as to say I do not think there cannot be a legitimate balancing concern regarding removing the tactics requirements from specials.
You demean the idea that "template diversity" is a legitimate reason to remove the requirement, but it genuinely is a great reason. This is a 20 year-old game with people playing similar templates they played in other decades. Increased template diversity is always a good thing.
I think the reason that 40% of players have voted against this poll is likely because a lot of them are out of touch. Just based on what we've seen in similar threads to this one, we see reasons against removing the requirement such as:
- Sampires will be OP. They already are, and this won't change that. Tactics damage increase is essential the how the templates function, and even if a sampire did remove tactics to add healing or something similar, it genuinely doesn't matter as it would still be the best PvM template in the game.
- Tank mages will be OP. No, they won't. With un-blockable disarm returning, there is no way that tank mages will be dominating the field or been some flavor of the month template. Those that play that template will continue to do so with a moderate (and probably needed) buff.
- Deathstrikers will be OP. No, they won't. It won't be any easier to catch someone who wants to endlessly run from you just because you don't have tactics. It also hurts the damage of some deathstriker specials, so they'd be stronger in one area but weaker in another. The idea of any melee template being OP in an open field setting is absurd to anyone who actually PvP's.
- Tactics will never be used in any template again, another skill relegated to obscurity! Nope. Archers will still use tactics, a good number of melee templates will still use tactics, every PvM'er that currently uses tactics should continue to do so.
I'm sorry, but this is a genuinely ridiculous statement to make. This is not a scenario in which a "middle ground" can be found and lived with. Either keep tactics the same as it is on live, or remove the requirement entirely. Reducing the amount of tactics to what is currently on TC1 is not a solution and will virtually nothing to improve template diversity or make PvP (or PvM) more enjoyable. The only way I could even consider reducing the amount of tactics required instead of removing it entirely is if the developers allowed modified skill for tactics, weaponskills, and bushido to function like all other modified skill in the game (outside of masteries).
Remove Tactics Requirement for weapon specials
Add Tactics Towards Lower Mana Cost on Weapon Specials , will give more reason to have tactics besides damage increase.
Make +Skill work towards tactics requirements if you keep it this way
Pretty Simple
Add Tactics Towards Lower Mana Cost on Weapon Specials , will give more reason to have tactics besides damage increase.
Make +Skill work towards tactics requirements if you keep it this way
Pretty Simple
Last edited:
Not really, it just makes Mage templates even more insane and dominant. Take my Mage/Archer for instance. Magery/Eval/Med/Archery/Tact/Resist/Alchemy. That template can drop anyone from 150 Health to dead within a single burst with Exp+FS+AI+Hit Lightning+Hit Velocity, and a Supernova, all of which hit at nearly the exact same time. If you remove the Tactics requirement, i can still AI for 35 damage (or the 30 with the proposed Combat Changes), but instead will pick up GM Inscrip, for even more damage output and defense (usable Spell Reflection, innate Casting Focus).
Historically, most powerful skills/abilities get nerfed fast whenever a Mage template get's ahold of them. Hally Tank Mages, DP Kryss Mages, Death Strike Mages, Bok Bok Mages, Specials remaining toggled during spellcasting, etc. With just their base 3 skills, Mages already have the most versatility and utility of any template. When you combine that with overpowering offense, it get's ridiculous fast.
Actually, you can get away without Tactics for a PvM Warrior. 100% DI on gear+200% DI from Lesser Slayer=300% cap. For Super Slayer, you can use 100% DI gear+100% DI from Super Slayer+100% DI from Honor, EoO on top ensures you stay at 300%. The only thing that you won't be able to hit 300% on without Tactics, is monsters without a Slayer. For those, you use 100% DI on gear, +100% DI from Honor, and EoO to boost you around 260%+ DI.
Last edited:
Focus spec and supernova causes the single burst of 150+ HP, we've been over that before in some other relatively recent threads.... Parry-mages can do this with shield-base + nova instead of a bow w/AI... except parry-mages have more defense.... thus, moot point.
I lolled a little reading this section, because for one. Bok-Bok-mages aren't played because of focus spec & archery being so overwhelming... DS mages aren't played becasue of that as well, tactics requirement doesn't hurt a DS mage template at all.
It hinders bokuto mages (and dexers) a little by requiring 90.0 skill points of a potentially useless skill since "Bokutos" only gain ~3 points of damage from 90.0/720.0 skill (LOL, Yea that's worth it..)
Tactics isn't factored in the 300% damage increase cap. the 300% increase is from "Bonus" damage only: Slayers, Spells (enemy of one, consecrate, divine fury), honor, & Item property bonuses even Crushing blow weapon special (which is why no one uses this in pvm)... If you tested it, you'd know that.
If you think people will do the same damage without Tactics by just reaching the max 300% damage increase cap, I suggest you go test it, again, obviously you didn't...
could you play without tactics if it weren't required? Sure.... but you'd lose enough damage it wouldn't be worth dropping tactics to make the pvm fights take 20-40% more time...
and no one pvmed without tactics before it was required either... You could get away with 90.0 tactics in pvm right now, and most/all pvmers still go to 120.0 tactics... coincidence? I think not.
Hell, that's the main reason I requested to get another "Slayer" talisman (cameos) other than the conjurer's trinket back in the day... so I could pick between Chivalry & Bushido instead of needing both on every ****ing pvm dexer...
Lack of Template diversity & imbalances are killing this game...
Focus spec: Focus spec is not a bad idea, it's just too much of a penalty for playing non-focus spec... which is being reduced.
Tactics requirement: All about that burst, since you get damage bonus from this. most utility specials don't get used anymore, aside from dismount (group) most specials that do get used require additional skills Bushido or Ninjitsu.
Spec-toggling while casting spells: No one plays casters with weapon specials anymore... literally every single person that holds a weapon either uses a Ranged weapon (Bow/Throwing weapon) or some form a Splintering weapon....) A very small handful of people (I'm talking...Donald Trump hands) play any caster that toggles specials that aren't an Archer.
Merlin
The Enchanter
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
I think what will ultimately happen is that people will discover 2 or 3 new templates that are extremely OP and everyone will move to them. This would thus have the opposite effect, limiting the amount of viable templates rather than increasing them.
So yes, I do openly demean the concept that "template diversity" can be a good thing. I think people just see the word 'diversity' and assume it's a good thing. I don't fall for the 'church of diversity' argument.
Ah, the old "attack anyone who disagrees with me as out of touch" argument.
Respectfully, this has been the problem in a number of these threads discussing the upcoming changes. Anyone who disagrees with a certain group is attacked as being "out of touch", or "not making valid points", or " trolling". It's more or less a bullying tactic to try and get the people who disagree too frightened to post because they will get written off.
I think we're capable of having a discussion on the topic without resorting to writing off anyone who disagrees with you as "out of touch".
Such as this. This was the best part of your post, and one of the better points in the thread.
This amounts to a 'my way or the highway' stance, which I also view as a problem.
Maybe it's my inner-diplomat, but I again fail to see why a middle ground couldn't be found. If one can't find any compromise, my vote would be to keep things as is and not remove the requirement. Again - not broke, don't fix it.
I'm aware that puts my opinion in the minority, but it's a 42% minority, not a 1% minority.
Like this. That could be a fair compromise (noting I say that without considering the possible full implication of changing it for weapon skills, bushido, and other areas in addition to tactics). If some of the details were fleshed out a bit more, I could see this as apart of the alternative to the 'all or nothing' scenario.
I know that still probably isn't enough for the folks that want it fully removed, but I think the nature of this significant change should see all alternative possibilities tested.
Any evidence to back any of this up? How about hearkening back to the time in UO history where there was no tactics requirement? Sure was a whole lot of diversity then.
You're mistaking personal attack for a legitimate criticism. The sentiment from naysayers is that it will be OP/destroy balance/relegate templates/etc. I corrected those sentiments with what you called the "best part" of my post. Would you disagree that these people are actually "in touch" if their assessment is categorically wrong?
To play off of your diplomat quip, if a resolution or treaty is proposed, the laymen get a hold of the general concept of the resolution/treaty and discuss in detail the ramifications of it and grossly misidentify the consequences of the proposed ideas. If someone acutely informed on the current situation comes in and elucidates the specifics of the resolution, answers questions regarding specific scenarios, and generally calms fears and exaggerated conclusions, I'd call that a successful dialogue. Were the laymen out of touch, misinformed, or simply uneducated? Perhaps, but that's what experts are there for- the take the burden of education off of the general majority.
I think you're missing something pretty big here. You're asking for compromise, for reason, for general moderation- these are most always the right way to get things done, as most things don't happen at opposite ends, but rather in the middle.
However, that is not the case here. The main reason for this is that the difference between 30.0/60.0 and 70.0/90.0 tactics requirements (proposed v.s. live) is that this produces essentially no function difference in gameplay, for both PvM and PvP. If you want to know why I can go into that detail, but I know there are enough experienced people here who wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment that the proposed change is essentially worthless as it changes nothing. That's why we're okay with leaving it as-is on live, because they are functionally almost identical.
I disagree, since the archer Mage was an exception. It still opens up specials for other templates.
However the nova and AI are being toned down so it reduces the damage bursts leaving the point pretty moot.
Ah, DJ puts well thought out and logical explanations and merlins retort it "I kinda sorta feel like there might be some overpowered template that will come out of it".
Hey bud, back it up with a rational thought. We are all waiting to hear the overpowered template that will come out of this change. I am on the edge of my seat for an actual reason instead of merlins trolling.
It is hard to reason with someone that doesn't know the game. DJ is clearly a "Fellie" (that is the feluccia version of a trammie) and that is not meant as insult or troll as I know some moderators like to issue warnings based on the word trammie.
Hey bud, back it up with a rational thought. We are all waiting to hear the overpowered template that will come out of this change. I am on the edge of my seat for an actual reason instead of merlins trolling.
It is hard to reason with someone that doesn't know the game. DJ is clearly a "Fellie" (that is the feluccia version of a trammie) and that is not meant as insult or troll as I know some moderators like to issue warnings based on the word trammie.
I say we go to test center and you show me how dominant the template is. Care to back up that claim?
edit: I remember someone claiming that curse+corpse was easy to get off and easy to kill someone in theory only to be shown completely differently in practice. I am willing to do the same here.
They make these glass cannon templates, kill noobies with ex+fs+AI hope that lightning and velocity go off so a simple Heal potion doesn't completely negate their entire template.
....
I dont need to point to a explicit example, there is 19 years of UO history to prove that everyone who like to use Gimp templates all end up using the template that does the most damage using the last amount of skill. If you fail to see this you must be new to the game or one of those who just jumps to the most recent gimp template of the day. Its not rocket science its UO history
LoL. You are talking in absolutes, which already makes you wrong.
But, I will humor you. Please list current templates that are "gimp" and current templates that are not gimp.
And also elaborate further on what templates take skill vs which templates do not.
Thank you.