The_Lich_King wrote:
What you have highlighted here is not the need for a low stat crappy creature... we already have those. You talked about tweaking bats because 2 aggro'd your friend, but regardless of if you tweak them or not that interaction will remain fundamentally the same. If a bat aggroes someone and they don't know what they are doing or they just run, they will KO regardless of how much you lower their stats. Likewise if someone KO'd to ants then it means they will KO to ants regardless if you make them fightable at 1 UA or not.
The stats of Bats and Ants aren't fundamentally the problem its that they don't understand how to fight.
So instead of the thread being "make hunting more intuitive" and it being about changing low lvl moms to be even lower, instead the focus of this thread should be "Make fighting more tutorialized"
Making fighting more tutorialized is something i fundamentally agree with, and would even like to see the option for a tutorial fight offered from your hearth fire after you purchase fighting... make it send you to a valhalla like place where you can be properly tutorialized.
MachineLegend wrote:The_Lich_King wrote:
What you have highlighted here is not the need for a low stat crappy creature... we already have those. You talked about tweaking bats because 2 aggro'd your friend, but regardless of if you tweak them or not that interaction will remain fundamentally the same. If a bat aggroes someone and they don't know what they are doing or they just run, they will KO regardless of how much you lower their stats. Likewise if someone KO'd to ants then it means they will KO to ants regardless if you make them fightable at 1 UA or not.
The stats of Bats and Ants aren't fundamentally the problem its that they don't understand how to fight.
So instead of the thread being "make hunting more intuitive" and it being about changing low lvl moms to be even lower, instead the focus of this thread should be "Make fighting more tutorialized"
Making fighting more tutorialized is something i fundamentally agree with, and would even like to see the option for a tutorial fight offered from your hearth fire after you purchase fighting... make it send you to a valhalla like place where you can be properly tutorialized.
I think you're half correct, fighting could certainly be more turorialized. However, been some of the people I have known playing have been told/read how combat worls, but have not been provided adequate chances to apply that knowledge and actually learn it. A good tutorial can certainly give them some opportunities, but I still would only agree that it is half the issue. I disagree that by giving people more time to react and digest the appearance of the combat ui by lowering some enemy stats will not result in any positive change in their understanding of the combat. One of the biggest reasons that combat needs to be turorialized is because none of the enemies are at an appropriate tutorial scale. Furthermore, what use is a turorialized combat without an appropriate enemy to test your knowledge against.
Ysh wrote: I think you are jordancoles. You saying this for throwing off of track to make me thinking I am jordancoles.
Onep wrote: If I had to choose between drowning you and savoring every moment as your face desperately gasps for air beneath the brine or saving the planet, I'd choose you everytime.
MachineLegend wrote:I can respect that perspective...
I guess ants are a weird one for me because the only incentive to fight an ant is when you raid their hill, where you aggro all of them and sticking around and fighting is, like you mention, a classically bad idea.
I do think a good common ground is introducing a critter in between ants and bats.
Ysh wrote: I think you are jordancoles. You saying this for throwing off of track to make me thinking I am jordancoles.
Onep wrote: If I had to choose between drowning you and savoring every moment as your face desperately gasps for air beneath the brine or saving the planet, I'd choose you everytime.
overtyped wrote:I think animal cheesing is a good part of haven. Human ingenuity is fun.
Ysh wrote: I think you are jordancoles. You saying this for throwing off of track to make me thinking I am jordancoles.
Onep wrote: If I had to choose between drowning you and savoring every moment as your face desperately gasps for air beneath the brine or saving the planet, I'd choose you everytime.
The_Lich_King wrote:overtyped wrote:I think animal cheesing is a good part of haven. Human ingenuity is fun.
Don't you also like to eat toe fungus or am I misinformed?
yym331 wrote:As a solution to these issues, reducing the durability (HP) of animals significantly while improving their movement mechanics—such as allowing them to climb cliffs, swim, and increasing their attack range—would help balance the system ( We should also make weapon and unarmed combat penetration mechanics applicable in PvE.)
For instance, if animals had an attack range of around 160, it would effectively reduce the reliance on exploiting mechanics like boat hunting. Additionally, making animals like bears and moose capable of swimming would further address these exploits.
However, creatures with extreme durability, like Orcas, would still need a substantial reduction in their HP to maintain fairness and consistency in the game.
Users browsing this forum: Claude [Bot] and 282 guests