I must point out that this post is just one part of an even larger post. In this way, even if for now it is possible to provide some insights into the proposed changes, given the holistic nature of MO2, I ask you to read the other posts before formulating your conclusions. Preferably, discuss about it in the last post (Final Considerations)
In the same way that I commented in Part 3 of this series of posts about Auw Surge, it is no secret to everyone that Star Vault has a philosophy of severely nerfing some mechanics in the game due to specific builds, thus making it unfeasible to use the same for builds that had nothing to do with the nerf.
MO2 does not follow the standard class system of other MMOS, so players are free to choose their skills. Some players aim to create their builds based on some classic archetypes (mages, Fighters, archers...). Others, in turn, simply seek to place the most unbalanced elements of the game in the same build. In the vast majority of cases, with a few exceptions, we encounter this type of problem in hybrid builds.
This sytem wouldn't be a problem if the return on investment of skill points was directly proportional. What I want to say is that what is expected for someone who invests a lot of points in a playstyle is that they will have a greater return than someone who invested a few or almost no points in the same playstyle. But in MO2, the truth is literally the opposite.
This can be evidenced by the following cases:
In the same way that I commented in Part 3 of this series of posts about Auw Surge, it is no secret to everyone that Star Vault has a philosophy of severely nerfing some mechanics in the game due to specific builds, thus making it unfeasible to use the same for builds that had nothing to do with the nerf.
MO2 does not follow the standard class system of other MMOS, so players are free to choose their skills. Some players aim to create their builds based on some classic archetypes (mages, Fighters, archers...). Others, in turn, simply seek to place the most unbalanced elements of the game in the same build. In the vast majority of cases, with a few exceptions, we encounter this type of problem in hybrid builds.
This sytem wouldn't be a problem if the return on investment of skill points was directly proportional. What I want to say is that what is expected for someone who invests a lot of points in a playstyle is that they will have a greater return than someone who invested a few or almost no points in the same playstyle. But in MO2, the truth is literally the opposite.
This can be evidenced by the following cases:
- Archer as an archetype is still not viable, at least not on the ground. However, it should be remembered there are 4 skills related to archery as a whole and 2 more just for mounted. The most bizarre part of this scenario is that any fighter with just 100 points invested in archery (1 skill) can be as effective as someone who has invested 400 points in 4 skills. Things get even stranger if we take into account the clades, in which Thursar and Oghmirs have a superior performance in archery than the clade that literally has gifts and passive nodes in its mastery related with archery, Alvarins;
- Although opinions are divided, in general, the dominant thought in the game is that pets are broken. Regardless of the truth, one thing cannot be denied. Do you know what is more broken than a mage with a pet? A fighter with Pet! Leaving this issue aside, it doesn't matter whether the user has magical abilities or not... the problem is the fact that both can create builds with low investment in pets and be more effective than someone who dedicated all skill points to being a Beastmaster .
Although I specifically only mentioned about pets and archery, we know that the problem also extends to other aspects of the game, such as magic and survival (damage, healing, movement speed, armor), but I believe that the solutions proposed in previous posts somehow already solve the problem discussed here.
The solution such scenario would be based on matching the return according to the investment:
The solution such scenario would be based on matching the return according to the investment:
- Remake the Archery and Domestication skill trees, in order to make the acquisition of certain skills that are not used by low-investment builds mandatory. Although this is easier in Domestication, when it comes to Archery, the skill's damage should be distributed across other layers of the tree;
- Risen pets must literally suffer the same balancing as Akh bound, i.e., they must scale with the owner’s intelligence up to a maximum of 100. Wort cenario case, make it scale with both, 100 int and 100 psy (5% for each 10 points in these stats), thus restricting them exclusively to mages. Furthermore, just as living pets are benefited by zoology, undead pets must also be affected when crafted;
It makes sense that risen pets are restricted to intelligence-based builds and utilize zoology during their design process. Some people will feel uncomfortable with the use of zoology, but this makes the game more balanced with their living counterpart. Furthermore, most pet users only use mammals, which is no reason to cry since almost 100% of people have at least Mammalia Lore in their builds. The big difference could happen in Tupilak, assuming that "someday" Star Vault will release excellent recipes that mix different lores. This way we would have a greater return for those who invested more points in this playstyle.
If nothing is done, we know that pets will be nerfed to the point of being completely unusable, especially after this last patch, which was very good, but only further reinforced the use of pets in any type of build.
If nothing is done, we know that pets will be nerfed to the point of being completely unusable, especially after this last patch, which was very good, but only further reinforced the use of pets in any type of build.
Last edited:
