REMOVE Tactics requirement ( poll )

[CovenantX]

Stop trying to fix that what has already been fixed.

Do us all a favor... give us an example of what was Fixed by implementing the tactics requirement?

If you're going to say something about a full template, give us one a mage cannot make with current methods, but also with less skill increase than a "dexer"?

 

[805connection]

whatever gets more people pvping.

 

[Revan123]

Imagine the amount of bok mages, and nox dexers out there when ur giving them 90free skill points, or even sampires going with healing scripts running in the background, i disagree, 30-60 tactics requirement is alright.

But I vote that tactics no longer require real skill to perform specials.

Uhhh..... What kind of Sampire would kill spawn without tactics...?

 

[Revan123]

Don't forget to also make a poll and ask if people want cookies. Point is, that asking players if they want something that makes em stronger is ridiculously pointless and predictable

........................Uhhhh.

I Love Cookies Bro...

 

[Revan123]

Dropping tactics will make you weaker (offensively). Thus it shouldn't be required.

Exactly. There already is a major trade-off to it. Most people will still play with it. But alongside the current templates, there will also be a handful of new templates that will be possible.

 

[Revan123]

if u don't think trammies will leave, u kidding yourself. isn't it easy enough to kill trammies, if u want more fights, make things more even. this will mainly help pvp chars types. tactics wasn't the problem with pvp but has morph into it. guess ill be only one trying to defend the trammies. aren't we powerful enough. u have chars that can disarm, moving shot, cast spells, throw pots, bonus skills, ect.., and now u want to allow any special to be use without tactics. I just realized there's no use even posting here. lol

Sir, can you please elaborate on how removing the tactics requirement will give pvp'ers a comparative advantage over trammies?

 

[Revan123]

How does this affect players that don't pvp ? I never have tactics in my pvm template, it's not needed for damage output, not really. As for needing it for specials, it shouldn't be called weapons specials, if tactics are needed to perform them, you should only need a weapon. If I don't need tactics against a magic casting, heavy damaging , pounding AI driven mob, why would I need it just because my target is human driven ?

.......

...You don't use it on your pvm templates?.. It's not NEEDED for damage output?...

Man... you're a Stratics LEGEND... How can you be a Stratics Legend while also being noobie at PvP AND PvM?

 

[Revan123]

What does the OP (someone who regularly posts pics of his cheats) know about what the pvp community wants? The pvp community would like people not to cheat.

OHHHH MYYYY GERRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDD!!!! PEOPLE CHEAT!!!! BAN THEM!!!!!!

Or how about just staying on topic please. Thx.

 

[Revan123]

People are already complaining about the gimp template of chivalry wrestle parry char, if you then allow tons more gimp templates, it will make the game ridiculous.

Gimp Gimp Gimp... What do you have against Gimps man?

 

[Revan123]

With 67 votes, results are 58% Yes, 42% No. Seems clear to me that removing tactics requirement doesn't have the overwhelming support that some wish to think it does.

I think the developers' proposal of finding a middle ground - something less than current Tactics requirement but not complete elimination - is the fairest path here.

There will almost always be a flavor of the month template that will trend for a while, just like there is with all of the Chiv-fisters right now. I don't believe shouting "TEMPLATE DIVERSITY" is the answer to this issue. I believe such diversity will only open up more issues and complaints down the line as soon as a few folks find the next OP template to exploit.

.....Are you serious? LOL. 58% isn't overwhelming support? That's a 16% Difference. If someone wins an election with a 16% difference it's considered a blow out. And no offense, but you're obviously making zero attempt to draw an impartial conclusion; and not for nothing, your conclusion is incredibly premature for someone who hardly understands how pvp works in the first place. Half the people arguing against it, seem to be arguing it on behalf of trammies anyway- not that it will even adversely affect trammies anymore than it will pvp'ers anyhow... But they seem to think so. If you were a pvp'er at all, you would understand that template diversity is what makes pvp MORE fun for MORE players. It allows players to use ingenuity to create new and unique templates, and it allows players to play templates that are more uniquely fitting to their styles. How is "shouting template diversity" not the answer to this issue? People want more diversity. Would you rather play a game with the diversity diversity of Overwatch or would you rather play a game with the diversity of Rock Scissors Paper?

I imagine you're impartial against this change because top level PvP'ers always seem to have the most ingenuity, and anytime new possibilities are created, they are usually the first to realize something's potential and exploit it's possibilities. So are you suggesting we should just never change or add anything because some PvP'er is going to exploit it? That's not at all how you make a game fun. I will "shout template diversity" all day, because unlike some people, I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Lord Frodo]

.....Are you serious? LOL. 58% isn't overwhelming support? That's a 16% Difference. If someone wins an election with a 16% difference it's considered a blow out. And no offense, but you're obviously making zero attempt to draw an impartial conclusion; and not for nothing, your conclusion is incredibly premature for someone who hardly understands how pvp works in the first place.

overwhelming
ADJECTIVE

• 1Very great in amount:
  

A 56/42 is not OVERWHELMING a 66/33 is about the start of overwhelming a better one would have been 70/30 or better

 

[Revan123]

overwhelming
ADJECTIVE

• 1Very great in amount:

A 56/42 is not OVERWHELMING a 66/33 is about the start of overwhelming a better one would have been 70/30 or better

Are you seriously arguing the definition of "overwhelming" with me?

Okay, well let's get down to the facts. "Overwhelming" means "Very great in amount" right? Well... I consider it to be a "Very great amount" anytime there is a CLEAR MAJORITY; and 58% to 42% is most certainly a clear majority. That's not even taking into consideration the fact that almost everyone who has argued on behalf of the 42% seems to be completely uneducated on the art of PvP.

 

[Merlin]

.....Are you serious? LOL. 58% isn't overwhelming support? That's a 16% Difference. If someone wins an election with a 16% difference it's considered a blow out. And no offense, but you're obviously making zero attempt to draw an impartial conclusion; and not for nothing, your conclusion is incredibly premature for someone who hardly understands how pvp works in the first place. Half the people arguing against it, seem to be arguing it on behalf of trammies anyway- not that it will even adversely affect trammies anymore than it will pvp'ers anyhow... But they seem to think so. If you were a pvp'er at all, you would understand that template diversity is what makes pvp MORE fun for MORE players. It allows players to use ingenuity to create new and unique templates, and it allows players to play templates that are more uniquely fitting to their styles. How is "shouting template diversity" not the answer to this issue? People want more diversity.

I imagine you're impartial against this change because top level PvP'ers always seem to have the most ingenuity, and anytime new possibilities are created, they are usually the first to realize something's potential and exploit it's possibilities. So are you suggesting we should just never change or add anything because some PvP'er is going to exploit it? That's not at all how you make a game fun. I will "shout template diversity" all day, because unlike some people, I know what I'm talking about.

43% of those who voted don't want the change. If you're writing off anyone who disagrees with you as a know-nothing trammie, then that's your own prerogative. I'm merely pointing out that the support for removing tactics isn't as large as the loudest voices in this thread would have you believe.

However on a different note, per several other moderator warnings in this thread (see posts #120, 127 and 137), if you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, you're little personal swipes and minor insults in your various posts need to come to an end.

 

[Revan123]

Funny thing is those who dont PvP pay the same amount each month as you. so they have the same amount of say over how the game moves forward. Its their game too you know. Ps im a PvPer who thinks everyone should be allowed their own say.

"The same amount of say"? What does that even mean? Are you implying that Non PvP'ers opinion's should hold the same amount of weight as a PvP'ers on PvP related matters?

If you are referencing them making statements in regards to how it will affect PvM, then I support your point- their opinion is just as important. But Paith was referencing it's affect on PvP, not PvM. This is mostly a PvP related matter. It will hardly have an affect on PvM, as the LARGE MAJORITY of PvM templates that use specials will still need tactics. Therefore, their opinions may not be entirely worthless, as I'm sure even they pvp from time to time; but it most certainly does not have the weight of an actual pvp'ers opinion. No offense...

 

[Revan123]

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).

This is probably the best written post I've read so far, and I'd highly suggest that all against the change consider Diddle's words. For the record, Diddles and I are adversaries on the field, and I don't know him too well personally, but if he's anything like the people he plays with, he probably doesn't agree with me on a great many things- but we do most certainly agree on this, because we both understand game mechanics and know what will be best for template diversity, and pvp overall.

 

[Revan123]

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).

You seem to have a grave misconception as to how pvp works. Players don't just stand still. Your entire argument is based on the notion that someone is going to stand there while you get that entire combo off on them (including a curse before hand) and NOT run or pot or apple. In reality, not a single decent pvp'er is going to allow you to get all of that off without running and using consumables. Furthermore, you completely ignored the weaknesses of the template, and I can assure you, that that's templates weaknesses make it not worth playing in a competitive pvp atmosphere (unless you're ONLY playing it for style, not success).

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.

Back in the day, mages were most certainly OP, and they needed to nerf some templates. But now a days, Dexxers and archers hit faster than ever, do more damage per hit than ever, have way more mana than ever, and have far more defensive and survival capabilities than ever. Just because a change/s made sense back in 2000 and whatever, does not mean it makes sense in 2017.

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.

Yes....... you can get away with it.... but their whole point is that Sampires won't NEED tactics anymore, which isn't really a valid argument when you consider that there will still be MAJOR trade-offs to dropping tactics. Yes, I guess it is technically true. They won't 100% NEED tactics anymore. But why should they have to? The alternative will NOT be OP. Trammies seem to think it will be, but what do they know? They weren't even the one's that started the whole move to Sampires. From what I can remember, when Sampires were just starting to get super popular, it was actually pvp'ers that were playing them primarily. They were the one's working spawns on their alts more than anyone else, where as Trammies were still in large part (although not entirely) sticking to Spellweaving mages or Taming characters, and pvm'ing in non-felucca dungeons and EM events.

 

[Revan123]

Do your own home work instead of asking everyone else to provide you with details you can easy find yourself with browsing through theses posts

No man... That's not how it works. You make the claim, YOU prove it. You can't just say something is true and then when someone asks you to support your thesis with arguments, tell them to go find out the details for them self. The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. If you told me that fairies existed, and I said prove it, would you tell me to "do my own home work instead of asking you to prove it"?

That's ridiculous....

 

[Revan123]

Im not playing your game and naming templates for you to just pick them apart and i endup spend all my time defending some thing i dont play. You know fine well whats gimp and whats not

Yes... he does know... That's how he knows that you're wrong lol. You just said, "Im not playing your game and naming templates for you to just pick them apart and i endup spend all my time defending some thing i dont play." If he can pick it apart, doesn't that suggest that it's not OP? It's hard to make the case that something is OP if you haven't played it.

Are there certain OP templates that are more competitively viable than others? Yes, there's about three. Wrestle Parry mages, Archers, and Holy Fisters. We're trying to add more to that list, but your entire point, is that if we make weaker templates more viable, than there will be new OP templates. No, that's not always how it works. That's how it's worked in UO for a number of years, but that's because the developers have no clue what they're doing. They always super-buff something or super nerf something else- usually both at the same time. They go back and forth like a sea-saw between powerful templates. There are many examples of games where various classes are competitively viable (Like Overwatch). Sorry, they do have a clue when it comes to some small specifics, but they don't get the big picture because they don't have a thorough understanding of PvP. No offense intended here, but until you actually get good and/or try some of these "Gimp" templates, you will never really have a thorough understanding of how they work; the same way they don't.

 

[Revan123]

Please keep comments about tactics and not on accusations, swipes, and discussion of cheats. This thread is heading towards a lock which is not something I wish to do. When a thread is locked, people complain that we are not allowing discussion but this thread has had 15 posts reported by the participants of the thread. We are trying to let this topic be discussed but it has gone downhill. The thread has already been cleaned up and a thread warning issued. Keep on topic without accusations & attacks or it will be locked. It is up to you guys on what happens from here, discussion or lock.

You don't need to lock the topic... Just keep deleting posts and giving warning points (for ACTUAL violations). There's no need to silence the conversation altogether. That would be like canceling class for an entire classroom because two kids are acting out. Ridiculous. Just like some people want to actually learn in class, some people actually want to discuss this topic.

 

[Revan123]

Cant you read, im not playing your name a template game. Been on these boards too long and seen too many people like you. Too old in the tooth as they say.

Why not? It's very easy for pvp'ers to name the top templates of today. It would certainly help you establish credibility as something other than just a trammy (no pun intended).

 

[Revan123]

Pretty much a summation of my thoughts.

It's fine that the developers wanted community input, but they're so out of touch with PvP, that they hear these ideas from inept players and are unable to determine if what they're saying actually has any basis in reality. It's funny, UO might be the only game that is being balanced by the lowest tier of players rather than the highest.

It's incredible. It's like people would rather play Rock-Scissors-Paper than Overwatch. I can't judge every single person to vote against it, I imagine a few of them are actually pvp'ers, but based on the arguments being made, the people that actually pvp seem to be over-whelmingly in favor of the (entire) removal of a tactics requirement.

 

[Revan123]

...You do realize that most of those features you just listed, were changed because Mages got ahold of them, right? Like i said earlier, when you combine the versatility/utility of Magery/Eval/Med (not to mention the burst combo capability, which is something that Dexxers lack), with a powerful skill/ability normally associated with melee, you get OPness, which virtually everyone switches to in order to compete (thus killing your "but muh diversity!" argument).

- Death Strike in combination with the burst combo capability of Mages, was pretty ********. If the Exp+FS+DS victim ran, he died, and if the Ninjitsu Mage ran from him, the DS would ensure that the victim wouldn't chase, lest he lose a huge chunk of health, allowing the Ninjitsu Mage to turn the fight on a dime.
- As many other people said here, most Dexxer templates already ran with Tactics, before Tactics was added as a requirement for specials. So who was the Tactics requirement change aimed at? Mages. For reasons i listed above.
- The cooldown and Combat skill requirement was added to Evasion, because Mages were abusing the hell out of it in PvP. Back then, Warriors didn't have enough MR in PvP to keep Evasion up nonstop, while Mages did. When you combined the 50-60% block chance (even against spells/DoT ticks) of Evasion, with the 1.5 sec Greater Heals that heal for 45-50, it made the Mage damn near unkillable. Not only that, but it also prevented interrupts, allowing the Mage to have more consistent damage output, allowing them to go all out offense during an Evasion.
- Animal Lore has been a requirement for Taming for a very long time, affecting the control % chance, since before AoS. With the introduction of NPC Veterinarians able to rez pets, quite a few Tamers (especially PvP Tamers) already run without Veterinary. Removing Animal Lore as a requirement, and only needing Taming to control high end pets, would be insanity, especially considering the power of some pets. 100-120 Skill points alone, should not offer that much power.
- The DEX requirement was added to Parry, once again, as a deterrent to Mages using it. Parry Mages are now possible due to the introduction of Legendary Artifact gear making 80+ DEX attainable on a Mage suit. When you combine that high level of defense, with the fast heal/cure capabilities of a Mage, and it also synergising with their offensive capability, it becomes ridiculous, for much the same reason as Evasion Mages were. Another reason that Parry Mages have become a sore subject, is because with the introduction of the "Shield Bash" Mastery, Parry Mages have brought back the Bok Bok Mage imbalance, since Shield Bash is basically an improved Nerve Strike that also interrupts casts even through Protection.
- They should've kept Human JOAT counting towards the Special Move Cost Reduction. Otherwise, Humans offer virtually nothing over Elves and Gargoyles.
- 4/6 Chiv Mages were basically unkillable outside of gank squads syncing burst combo dumps. With 4/6 Chiv, Mages were able to cast 0.5 sec Close Wounds that healed for 35+, 0.25 sec Cleanse By Fires to cure poison, and 0.5 sec Remove Curses to remove Curse and Mortal Strike. Chiv Mages also had a big enough Mana Pool and MR to maintain this almost indefinitely. It was pretty much impossible to stop a 4/6 Chiv Mage from healing, and you'd expend more Mana and time to damage them then they'd spend to heal it, so they'd outlast you.

Sometimes, "Diversity" has to take a backseat to "Balance".

Your whole argument is based on the notion that this will create OP templates; and as someone with a thorough understanding of pvp and templates, I can assure you, it won't. This is not 2007. Most people have Wrestling + Parry + Healing, or Healing + Confidence heals, or Bushido + Parry + Chiv, and EVERYONE uses potions and HPR and eaters, etc etc. Archer mages and dexxer mages are already under-powered. If you disagree, you've probably never played on one against a decent pvp group.

 

[Revan123]

Hence why they locked Weapon Specials behind a skill that Mages normally don't have, while Dexxers do. Tactics. Shocker, i know.
Who will benefit the lion's share from removing Tactics requirement from Weapon Specials? Mage templates, that's who.
Just imagine, if you will, a Mage with Magery/Eval/Med/Resist/Parry/Inscrip/Fencing, able to perform Disarms, Mortal Strikes, Dismounts, Bleed Attacks, Splinters, all the while bursting like a god and parrying 40% of attacks that manage to get past it's weapon defense, even if Disarmed. Or imagine a Mage with Magery/Eval/Med/Resist/Archery/Inscrip/SW, an even more offense based burst god utilizing Pixies for interrupts and Attunement/Gift of Renewal for self sustain. Or how about a Mage with Magery/Eval/Focus/Resist/Archery/Mysticism, with Spell Plagues and Trigger Bombards to improve it's already insane burst.

You see the kind of Pandora's Box that is opened by completely removing Tactics requirements from specials? Mage templates get an immense boost from it, while melee dexxers only gain a few new templates, which still can't compete against Archers and Mages. Archers can simply be burst down in record speed by the afore mentioned Mage templates, before even their Eaters, Regens, Bandies or Pots can kick in.

I think everyone pretty much agrees that mages without Wrestle + Parry cannot compete nearly as well as Wrestle + Parry mages these days. That's the goal of this- to make it so people can actually play non Wrestle + Parry mages again.

 

[Revan123]

Hence why they locked Weapon Specials behind a skill that Mages normally don't have, while Dexxers do. Tactics. Shocker, i know.
Who will benefit the lion's share from removing Tactics requirement from Weapon Specials? Mage templates, that's who.

Yes... you have a point... But what's the problem with that? The only competitive mage templates these days have Wrestle + Parry. We're trying to change that- and 30 less skill requirement will NOT change that. You seem to be trying to keep mages from getting any kind of buff whatsoever, without much reason. What do you have against Mages? Do you believe that all mages are OP?

Just imagine, if you will, a Mage with Magery/Eval/Med/Resist/Parry/Inscrip/Fencing, able to perform Disarms, Mortal Strikes, Dismounts, Bleed Attacks, Splinters, all the while bursting like a god and parrying 40% of attacks that manage to get past it's weapon defense, even if Disarmed. Or imagine a Mage with Magery/Eval/Med/Resist/Archery/Inscrip/SW, an even more offense based burst god utilizing Pixies for interrupts and Attunement/Gift of Renewal for self sustain. Or how about a Mage with Magery/Eval/Focus/Resist/Archery/Mysticism, with Spell Plagues and Trigger Bombards to improve it's already insane burst.

You see the kind of Pandora's Box that is opened by completely removing Tactics requirements from specials? Mage templates get an immense boost from it, while melee dexxers only gain a few new templates, which still can't compete against Archers and Mages. Archers can simply be burst down in record speed by the afore mentioned Mage templates, before even their Eaters, Regens, Bandies or Pots can kick in.

Just because Dexxers won't benefit from it doesn't mean Mages shouldn't. As I said, non Wrestle + Parry mages NEED a buff to be viable. This is their buff. It will be game changing for sure, but not game breaking. If dexxers need a buff (which they hardly do), something can be done for them. I already suggested increasing the frenzy whirlwind slow duration from 1.5 seconds to 3 seconds (the old duration was 4.5 seconds), but while also making it removable with an apple, and also changing mortal back to the way it used to work, but decreasing the duration of the debuff from 8 to 6 seconds, and from 4 to 3 seconds the second time it's applied, and also increasing the duration for which the diminished debuff time lasts.

 

[Revan123]

I stopped paying attention to this post after I read the template examples. I will assume you did it on the fly and made a mistake based on your stratics name.

First, let me fix these templates real quick. Let's drop Med (useless in todays pub) for Alchy. On the first template, lets also drop parry for nox or scribe because parrying with a one-handed weapon is a 15% lower chance and not worth the investment of skills.

The first template will be able to bleed, dis-arm, para shot, mortal and dp. AI would do absolutely nothing. So, you have to cycle the opponent, go for a mortal (apple) go for a bleed ( only useful special for disrupt) go for a DP (cure pots) go for a dis-arm (run). Hmm, nevermind. There really is no saving that template without tactics. Will people run it? Yea, but it's nowhere close to being OP.

The seconds template will be able to mortal, para shot, dismount. Any other special will not do enough damage to make it worthwhile without tactics. So, you will cycle your target, mortal (apple), Para shot (box), dismount (putting you at equal or greater risk).

Both templates will be dis-armable without the masteries saving throw.

I am struggling to see pandora's box. Even with removing tactics as a requirement the majority of people will still use it to increase their dmg.

He calls it Pandora's Box, because he hasn't already thought out these possibilities, where as most pvp'ers have already explored them time and time again. We all already know what works and what doesn't for the most part. He's just imagining this stuff now. He doesn't even understand that Parry on a non-bushido mage won't be over-powered because the parry chance is only 20%- where as a mage with a shield gets 35% (unless he includes a shield with the weapon, in which case he won't be able to chug which is a MAJOR weakness in itself). He also doesn't understand that every pvp character with a weapon in hand that doesn't have the disarm mastery is super weak to disarms. Will his template be viable? Yeah, it might actually be, because even that 20% parry chance can go a long way to making the template viable defensively. But he seems to think it will be over-powered because he thinks it will be JUST as viable defensively as a wrestle parry mage (not even close) except WITH all of the offensive power of a fencing mage. That's why to him, this is "Pandora's Box."

edit: Btw, no offense intended here at all man, but you can tell how much you know about pvp when you think every template has Med. No one plays with med anymore. Everyone has tons of mana inc + mana regen. All of the templates you mentioned are already possible if you just replace med with the extra skill you added. The large majority of active PvP'ers have already done this. By that logic, Pandora's box has already been opened, unless you mean Pandora's Box = having med.

 

[Revan123]

43% of those who voted don't want the change. If you're writing off anyone who disagrees with you as a know-nothing trammie, then that's your own prerogative. I'm merely pointing out that the support for removing tactics isn't as large as the loudest voices in this thread would have you believe.

However on a different note, per several other moderator warnings in this thread (see posts #120, 127 and 137), if you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, you're little personal swipes and minor insults in your various posts need to come to an end.

First off, I never once dismissed everyone in favor of keeping the tactics requirement as being a "know-nothing trammie," that was the overly-dramatic and false conclusion that you drew from the argument that I was trying to make; which is that half (I should have said "most" tbh) of the people ARGUING on behalf of keeping the tactics requirement were arguing it on behalf of trammies. That is not an insult, that is a fact. Just read the posts. They're literally stating that it will have adverse affects on trammies. Then I went on to say that you, and a few other people arguing here, aren't actual pvp'ers (at least not competitive one's anyhow). That is not an insult either. I don't hate non-pvp'ers. I love trammies. I have many trammie friends. But if someone is a Native American, I call them a Native American. If someone is not a Native American, but seems to think they are, even though genetic evidence suggests otherwise, than I will say that they are not a Native American. You may disagree with my assertion (that you are a trammie), but by no means is any insult or trolling intended in my statement. I am simply stating what I believe to be true based upon what you have said. You literally said that "shouting template diversity is not the answer to this issue." Based upon what you said, I believe that you are not an actual pvp'er, because anyone that pvp's seriously wants more diversity, always. Serious PvP'ers see other aspects of UO as a means to an end, the end that is PvP. They farm for PvP. They craft for PvP. They trade for PvP. They do not see PvP as a little side-game like Rock-Scissors-Paper. People that have spent enough time PvP'ing have gotten bored playing as- and against the same three templates all of the time (Wrestle + Parry Mages/Archers/Holy Fisters A.K.A. "Rock-Scissors-Papers"). They want more diversity. I firmly believe that if you do not understand that, it's because you don't pvp enough to be considered a serious pvp'er. I'm sorry if you feel insulted by that statement, but as I already said, it is not intended to insult you. It's intention is to de-establish the credibility of many of the people voting against the change.

 

[PlayerSkillFTW]

whatever gets more people pvping.

You could have a billion available templates, yet still only see 2-3 in Fel. Why? Because diversity doesn't determine how many templates are in Fel, the Meta does. If one template is so dominant that only 1-2 other templates stand even a chance against it, that's all you're going to see in Fel. A removal of Tactics requirements for specials, would benefit Mage templates the most, which are already dominant.

How about instead of asking people to provide reasons for NOT removing Tactics (which you then disregard all stated reasons), how about you provide arguments FOR removing Tactics (which you have yet to do, other than yell "But Diversity!"). What templates would emerge, that would be competitive enough to compete with the top, and increase the number of templates viable in Fel. After all, you guys are the ones lobbying the devs to overturn a previous dev decision.

 

[Mervyn]

Do us all a favor... give us an example of what was Fixed by implementing the tactics requirement?

If you're going to say something about a full template, give us one a mage cannot make with current methods, but also with less skill increase than a "dexer"?

I didn't say the requirement for tactics for weapon specials was because it made dexxers gimp.
From my memory, the reason tactics requirement for weapon specials was introduced in the first place was MAINLY because the bokuto mage was OP as it was too offensive and defensive, although it did at the same time solve other issues:
I.E:
120 magery
120 eval
120 resist
120 swords
120 bushido
100 parry
Meditiation whatever you can fit on.

Mages could evade and nerve strike, plus set hiryu on the target, it was overpowered.

 

[OREOGL]

You could have a billion available templates, yet still only see 2-3 in Fel. Why? Because diversity doesn't determine how many templates are in Fel, the Meta does. If one template is so dominant that only 1-2 other templates stand even a chance against it, that's all you're going to see in Fel. A removal of Tactics requirements for specials, would benefit Mage templates the most, which are already dominant.

How about instead of asking people to provide reasons for NOT removing Tactics (which you then disregard all stated reasons), how about you provide arguments FOR removing Tactics (which you have yet to do, other than yell "But Diversity!"). What templates would emerge, that would be competitive enough to compete with the top, and increase the number of templates viable in Fel. After all, you guys are the ones lobbying the devs to overturn a previous dev decision.

I disagree, if you only have 1-2 templates affecting the Meta, wouldn't you want to A) nerf those templates or B) Broaden the Meta templates?

Your second paragraph is literally asking us not to have you all make a valid argument why it shouldn't be reverted.

Looking at publish 46, this addition seemed like a knee jerk (over)reaction to some of the templates that were affecting the current meta. Now that the meta has shifted since 2007, there no longer seems to be a valid reason to keep the requirement.

I used to hold the same opinion as you, because of the extra 90 points players would receive. However, a lot of the previous changes and current changed negate the concerns such as damage bursts particularly and give dexer templates a mild buff by allowing them to devote it to other skills, but the trade off is damage loss.

 

[OREOGL]

I didn't say the requirement for tactics for weapon specials was because it made dexxers gimp.
From my memory, the reason tactics requirement for weapon specials was introduced in the first place was MAINLY because the bokuto mage was OP as it was too offensive and defensive, although it did at the same time solve other issues:
I.E:
120 magery
120 eval
120 resist
120 swords
120 bushido
100 parry
Meditiation whatever you can fit on.

Mages could evade and nerve strike, plus set hiryu on the target, it was overpowered.

Nervestrike was also addressed in publish 46 to make it breakable.

Before that not only could you toggle and hold specials while casting, you could also nervestrike which was unbreakable letting them to freely mana dump.

 

[PaithanTheElf]

Nervestrike was also addressed in publish 46 to make it breakable.

Before that not only could you toggle and hold specials while casting, you could also nervestrike which was unbreakable letting them to freely mana dump.

Also, isn't evasion more reliable with tactics now?

 

[OREOGL]

Also, isn't evasion more reliable with tactics now?

I believe it extends the duration but I don't recall the length, so there's that.

They also added in the delay timer instead of it being freely spamable.

A believe a lot of people are thinking back before that publish and thinking of the templates that were way overpowered and trying to use that as a justification. However those were nerfed along with tactics so it's not really a concern.

If someone can explain how the extra 90 points is going to cause an overpowered template going above the existing meta then I'd consider it.
But currently, there isn't any reasonable argument.

 

[chad]

You could have a billion available templates, yet still only see 2-3 in Fel. Why? Because diversity doesn't determine how many templates are in Fel, the Meta does. If one template is so dominant that only 1-2 other templates stand even a chance against it, that's all you're going to see in Fel. A removal of Tactics requirements for specials, would benefit Mage templates the most, which are already dominant.

How about instead of asking people to provide reasons for NOT removing Tactics (which you then disregard all stated reasons), how about you provide arguments FOR removing Tactics (which you have yet to do, other than yell "But Diversity!"). What templates would emerge, that would be competitive enough to compete with the top, and increase the number of templates viable in Fel. After all, you guys are the ones lobbying the devs to overturn a previous dev decision.

Let's assume you're correct in the assertion that mages are dominant. Why are they dominant? Likely because 95%+ of mages currently play with parry, which makes it hard for dexers to compete. If mages suddenly have a reason to start using weapon skills, they will no longer have parry. If they have no longer have parry, would that not allow for dexers to be more competitive with them?

 

[chad]

Also, isn't evasion more reliable with tactics now?

Evasion with 120/120 + 100 tactics is almost guaranteed to block the majority of incoming damage. 120/120 + 90 tactics is significantly worse. 120/120 + 0 tactics is really unreliable.

 

[CovenantX]

I didn't say the requirement for tactics for weapon specials was because it made dexxers gimp.
From my memory, the reason tactics requirement for weapon specials was introduced in the first place was MAINLY because the bokuto mage was OP as it was too offensive and defensive, although it did at the same time solve other issues:
I.E:
120 magery
120 eval
120 resist
120 swords
120 bushido
100 parry
Meditiation whatever you can fit on.

Mages could evade and nerve strike, plus set hiryu on the target, it was overpowered.

Another answer that has nothing to do with "Tactics requirement"... I'll explain why again.......

You can do all that now..... even without skill point increase items you could drop Parry for tactics... I already explained why no one plays that template, it has nothing to do with tactics... it's 100% because of 2 things.
#1) Focus spec This is why all TANK/Archer-Mages are "Focus Mages" It's counter-productive to drop spell damage (by choosing bushido) for a chance at Weapon damage (which can miss) however, tank-mages now would just run tactics & use AI...... um.. this is what they do, which is nothing new...... Shocker, I know...

2) Archers.... Guess what's going to happen when Archery gets adjusted & non-focus SDI gets a slight increase? -I'll be playing my bokuto mage again....
template in case you think I'm lying for some reason.

my template =
120 Mage (+30)
120 Eval (+10)
120 Resist
90 swords (lol-mage weapon... shocker, I know) there's no point investing the extra 30 points, if Disarm effects Weapon-skills & Mage weapons the same F***ing way... (I suggested a change to this too btw)
90 tactics
120 bushido
60 med (yeah... it has 60 med - pointless, I know... I could very easily drop med and get something like Parry, Poisoning, or Scribe, by using antique rings/bracelets in that suit... (I only have +20 magery between my imbued venom & 50 EP ring)

real skill + (*) modified. Mark of travesty (mage-eval & +15/5 magery ring/bracelet Imbued...).... the best part, is that template was possible before the "global loot upgrade" So tell me how exactly did tactics become required to "Fix" bokuto mages?


Basically the only thing the Tactics requirement did, was it made weapon skills up to 120.0 skill point investment USELESS without tactics... No template would EVER pick up a weapon skill without tactics, especially not mages (excluding wrestling, Wrestling can't be disarmed AND it doesn't require tactics lol) because Auto-attacks are achieved by mages with Mage-weapons + Magery, and "Auto-attacks" aren't enough to kill anyone to make any dexer template effective...


If Tactics has to stay required.... it should probably only be required for ranged weapon special use even though archers wouldn't drop tactics anyway.
I just can't find any reasons that says Tactics should be required... obviously no one else can either.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

UO was always a lot more fun before any of the things they've done to 'balance it for the better'. They listened too much to the whiners instead of pointing out they have access to the same stuff as everyone else, the only difference is some people put in more effort to be good at it, while some settle for mediocrity. They should remove the Tactics requirement and while they're at it most other caps/requirements they've put in to 'balance PvP'. The only limit I want is what I can get on gear. If I choose to (for example) have 6 FC on my character it's at the cost of other slots already. If someone else wants to gimp out on skill increase, stat increase, or whatever it should be up to them. At least before they started adding in all these nerfs, restrictions and pointless caps it was exciting to PvP because you didn't know what the other player was going to do. Now everyone runs the same 3-4 templates it's predictable as f.

There was once talk of using regs for higher SDI, that was a good idea, it would have led to thieves being relevant. It would have created options. But no. Instead they chose to implement it the way they implement everything else with a bunch of dumb-arse caps and restrictions.

Remove the Tactics req!

 

[Revan123]

You could have a billion available templates, yet still only see 2-3 in Fel. Why? Because diversity doesn't determine how many templates are in Fel, the Meta does.

I don't think you understand what is meant by "diversity." When we talk about diversity, we are not talking merely about possible templates that people can play. There are already a whole bunch of combinations of classes that people can play. Anyone can play whatever they choose. People can already drop tactics for other skills. Those templates are already available. Will they be able to use specials? No, but they can still do it, regardless of however bad the template will be. You just said there could be a billion available templates, yet only see only 2-3 in fel. That's how it is already. Those same templates without tactics are available regardless of the tactics requirement for specials or not. What we mean by "diversity," is competitive diversity. Those templates are available today, but they are not competitive. We want to make them competitive so we DON'T only see 2-3 templates in fel. We want to balance the playing field for more types of templates, and removing the tactics requirement goes a long way to doing that. You believe it won't, because you believe that it will only make those templates overpowered now, changing the meta from Wrestle Parry mages to Tank/Archer mages. It WILL NOT. Wrestle Parry mages are currently the ONLY competitively viable mage template of today. If you disagree with that, then you are completely out of the loop of today's meta.

If one template is so dominant that only 1-2 other templates stand even a chance against it, that's all you're going to see in Fel. A removal of Tactics requirements for specials, would benefit Mage templates the most, which are already dominant.

So you think that just because only 1-2 other templates can stand a chance against a WRESTLE PARRY MAGE, we shouldn't give NON-WRESTLE PARRY MAGES a buff?... Are you serious man? Do you honestly think that UO is currently dominated by mages all of types? What about Archers? Only 2 classes really stand a chance against Archers (wrestle parry mages and holy fisters). And what about Holy fisters? Only about two classes stand a chance against them. You're only looking at part of the equation, not the big picture. UO is currently dominated by about 3 classes. Wrestle Parry Mages, Archers, and Holy Fisters. Only one of those meta classes are primarily mages. This change will not benefit ALL mages. It will only benefit the mages that AREN'T currently the meta. The mages with a weapon in hand. As I just said, the only competitively viable mage template of today is the Wrestle Parry mage. We want to change that. We want to make mages with weapons in hand viable too. Removing the tactics requirement entirely will change that. Reducing it to 60 will not be enough to change that.

How about instead of asking people to provide reasons for NOT removing Tactics (which you then disregard all stated reasons), how about you provide arguments FOR removing Tactics (which you have yet to do, other than yell "But Diversity!"). What templates would emerge, that would be competitive enough to compete with the top, and increase the number of templates viable in Fel. After all, you guys are the ones lobbying the devs to overturn a previous dev decision.

Template diversity is ALL the reason in the world. Imagine if Overwatch only allowed you to play 3 classes. Let's say in overwatch, you were only allowed to play Reinhardt, Mercy, and Soldier. Would you consider the game fun? Yeah, maybe for a short while. A very short while. But imagine knowing that you're playing those 3 classes, and there's about 15 other classes that they could easily add (all the other current ones, Roadhog, Junkrat, Torb, Mei, etc etc), but they don't, because a bunch of people are crying that adding more classes will unbalance the game. That is the dilemma that we are in, and "Template Diversity" is more than enough reason to want a change to be made.

 

[Revan123]

I didn't say the requirement for tactics for weapon specials was because it made dexxers gimp.
From my memory, the reason tactics requirement for weapon specials was introduced in the first place was MAINLY because the bokuto mage was OP as it was too offensive and defensive, although it did at the same time solve other issues:
I.E:
120 magery
120 eval
120 resist
120 swords
120 bushido
100 parry
Meditiation whatever you can fit on.

Mages could evade and nerve strike, plus set hiryu on the target, it was overpowered.

Key word:

was

It WAS overpowered, before everyone played with 150 HP, 18 HPR, eaters, potions, and templates with a combination of Parry, Healing, Bushido, or Chiv. Btw, You can already make this template without the Tactics requirement being dropped, and several people have. J.T. that rich Korean dude had one, and so does Kyrite. By no means is it overpowered, otherwise EVERYONE would be playing one. In today's game it's good defensively and great for utility, but it doesn't have a whole lot of burst damage, and it's very weak to the disarm, because when you're disarmed, all the defensive abilities of bushido parry go right out the window.

 

[cholupa]

This update has become a huge disappointment after they decided to keep the Tactics requirement

 

[cobb]

@Bleak
If you are not willing to remove the need for Tactics, can we at least go back to how it was in the very first update? Remove Tactics requirement to perform specials, but make it so 60 Tactics is still required to receive the combat mana bonus.

 

[cobb]

According to the Devs, the main goal of this update is template diversity. I just don't see how 30 extra skill points is going to solve that problem. It's like getting a penny for a tip.

 

[Revan123]

@Bleak
If you are not willing to remove the need for Tactics, can we at least go back to how it was in the very first update? Remove Tactics requirement to perform specials, but make it so 60 Tactics is still required to receive the combat mana bonus.

Don't even bother man. These guys have no clue what they're doing.

The poll of this thread was clearly stated: "Do you want to Remove the Tactics requirement for specials?" In this poll, the implied alternative (and what Blazing expressed in his comments) is what they have planned already, 30-60 tactics required (NOT 70-90 tactics). In other words, this poll was created to see if players would prefer to have the tactics requirement removed entirely, or if they would like for the 30-60 tactics requirement for specials. Between 55 and 60% of the people voted for yes, and I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who voted no aren't even pvp'ers based on the arguments they were making, and clear lack of understanding of today's pvp meta (one guy even thought everyone plays with med lmao). However, it seems that the developers have mis-interpreted this poll to be be a question of whether players want the tactics requirement removed entirely, or whether they want it to remain exactly the same as it is now (70-90 tactics required for specials); in which case they'd just find the middle ground and implement the 30-60 change; which btw, is a completely false conclusion, because the poll was obviously meant to consider the current proposed changes (30-60 tactics requirement) to be the alternative- NOT to have it remain exactly the way it is (70-90 tactics).

The only conclusion that we can draw from this, is that they either A. think they know better than the player base, and are going forth with the current 30-60 proposed change in spite of the will of the player base to have it removed entirely; or B. they mis-interpreted the poll to be a choice between the tactics requirement's complete removal and a 70-90 tactics requirement; in which case, they can't even draw a proper conclusion from the feedback provided to them. Ultimately, they're making decisions that are contrary to the will of the community, which would be a good thing if they had some sort of great insight that we don't, but they don't. How are we supposed to believe that they have some sort of insight into PvP that we don't when their rationale's for making their decisions fail to show any competence? I mean, this game isn't developed with any professional competence whatsoever. Just look how bad they are at even properly articulating their changes. Not only can they not explain the changes in a way that makes sense to players (or that makes sense at all period), but they even have a hard time using proper grammar. The arguments given by the community on behalf of removing the tactics requirement were altogether stellar. Some members, such as Diddles, Chad, and Covenant gave very compelling explanations as to how removing the tactics requirement would improve gameplay in various ways. In comparison, the arguments against it completely lacked any sort of rational foundation at all. Most were based purely on speculation, and some even on ridiculous personal agendas, like, "if Blazing is asking for it, it can't be good." None of this matters in the end, of course. The developers have made a choice, and once they do that, they are highly unlikely to listen to what people are telling them. Although they have a limited understanding of PvP, they still have plenty of agenda; and as long as something conforms to their pre-conceived notion of how things should be, it doesn't quite matter what's best for the game in the end.

GG Ultima Online.

 

[Great DC]

@Bleak . Next time your on bleak I want to shake your hand and tell you that the pvp that was left was on life support and you basically just pulled the plug on it. Congrats on being the person who didn't listen to anyone and did whatever you want and destroying any chance of making pvp worth doing. Complete failure on all levels!

 

[cobb]

@Bleak
I believe it's still not too late. If you were to remove the Tactics requirement, I believe you will be remembered as the greatest Dev to ever have worked on UO.

 

[CovenantX]

@Bleak . Next time your on bleak I want to shake your hand and tell you that the pvp that was left was on life support and you basically just pulled the plug on it. Congrats on being the person who didn't listen to anyone and did whatever you want and destroying any chance of making pvp worth doing. Complete failure on all levels!

It's unbelievable that it has come down to this, especially after the publish notes had phased right through quite possibly the best set of updates this game has seen in a Very long time, just for them to pull almost a complete 180' and make it another poop-chute publish. I can't say I'm surprised though, given the track record of the Team & previous UO-dev teams....

At least the game-play window looks good, now perhaps people will be able to see the real issues... "Those aren't players you see at Luna, they're NPCs!" -Everyone, not playing on Atlantic.

 

[Lord Gandalf]

@Bleak . Next time your on bleak I want to shake your hand and tell you that the pvp that was left was on life support and you basically just pulled the plug on it. Congrats on being the person who didn't listen to anyone and did whatever you want and destroying any chance of making pvp worth doing. Complete failure on all levels!

Next time i see post like this @Great DC, i will grab you by the head and shake it like a milkshake and hit by the wall for that constructive feedback.

Trash talking,pointless comments, and generalization will never help. I stand here to thank the devs for being very active and im very impressed by the changes they brought the last couple months!

Time to lock this thread.

 

[drcossack]

Next time i see post like this @Great DC, i will grab you by the head and shake it like a milkshake and hit by the wall for that constructive feedback.

Trash talking,pointless comments, and generalization will never help. I stand here to thank the devs for being very active and im very impressed by the changes they brought the last couple months!

Time to lock this thread.

So you think people fighting the same 2-3 templates every day is fun? ALL of the pvp'ers want the tactics requirement removed, and we've said why - the "keep tactics" crowd has not done the same. The update before the 30/60 or whatever was good - why did the devs not stay with that? Yeah, they're active, but when they refuse to listen to the players who actually know what they're talking about? That doesn't work. Whether the pvp'ers agree with each other on things or not (i.e. the supernova change), we've all given reasons why we wanted things to change.

 

[OREOGL]

Yep, time to lock.

 

[Kiss Of Death]

@Merlin I think it's time to close the thread . The poll was pretty clear, almost 60 % of the votes , 3000+ views. this topic had a lot of interests.

Considering many pvpers do not look stratics too, I think this poll would have ended 65 % 35% if the Felucca players voted properly.

Anyways the requirement of 60 tactics will stay so our voice is just going to be lost in the cold winter.

 

[Lord Frodo]

So you think people fighting the same 2-3 templates every day is fun? ALL of the pvp'ers want the tactics requirement removed, and we've said why - the "keep tactics" crowd has not done the same. The update before the 30/60 or whatever was good - why did the devs not stay with that? Yeah, they're active, but when they refuse to listen to the players who actually know what they're talking about? That doesn't work. Whether the pvp'ers agree with each other on things or not (i.e. the supernova change), we've all given reasons why we wanted things to change.

It would be nice if the DEVs would say what thye are hearing from E-Mails and what they are hearing from the other side of the world. I know that there are players from the European side here but what are they Asian Players saying and where is a forum you can see what they want. It would be nice to know where they get all their feedback from and what it is. Give us a reason.