Break is infuriating.

[ManaKing]

Petrification has always been painful in this game but I'm still surprised by how unfairly the spell Break was implemented. If I use Break on a mob and I hit it once, they aren't petrified. They cast Break on me with capped enhancing and Barstone and Barpetrify up. They get to beat me mercilessly for the next minute+.

I don't care if Petrification from TP moves still works the same. It's the double standards around Break that I can't stand. Please fix this. It is complete BS and no one enjoys it.

[Komori]

Did you really except SE to let us be able to freeze a mob for more than a few seconds?

[Ryce]

My skills are far from capped, so I thought it was just me.

It's a joke really. If/when it lands, it's less effective than Flash. I don't care if it has low accuracy, but when it sticks it should stick for more than 1 attack round.

[Mirage]

I think petrify should be changed to let there be a chance of not breaking the petrify status with each attack.

Something like for example:

First melee hit on mob after petrifying it, 0% chance of petrify breaking. Second hit 5%, 3rd 10%, 4th 15% and so on.

For magic, the values should probably be different, seeing as you can deal a lot more damage with a single nuke than with a single melee hit. For nukes, maybe the rates should be 1st hit +15% chance of breaking. Second nuke, 25% chance of breaking petrify, and so on.

These are just examples. SE would probably have to make a certain algorithm, where each NM or mob family would have a certain petrify-resistance value attached to them, and this, along with mob level, mob magic resistance and so on would decide exactly how easily melee/magic would break petrification.

It is of course unrealistic to expect petrify to stay on a NM after like 5 casts of blizzard V, but if you petrify something like a lv85 regular mob, it isn't really unrealistic to let it stay petrified through something like 5-10 melee strikes.

[Vold]

Did you really except SE to let us be able to freeze a mob for more than a few seconds?

Uh, yes. Otherwise don't even waste our time. I'm tired of our time being wasted. If you can't live with a spell given to players being as fully functional as their monster counter parts then don't bleeping waste our time with the spell.

Learn to throw more HP onto monsters to balance out the fully functioning spells. Why is this so hard to conceive? There is absolutely no reason on this Earth to waste their and our time by doing crap like this.

[Neisan_Quetz]

This spell is good for fodder adds when sleeps are down (and undead all the time since sleep is resisted), and that's about all the use it sees from me.

[LeaderofAtlantis]

Kind of make it like a reverse Stoneskin - the greater your enfeebling skill, the higher the amount of damage is that can be done to the monster before the Petrification breaks. I think that would be a bit more reasonable than how Break currently works.

[Mirage]

That's actually a good idea!

Kinda does what I was suggesting, but it's much simpler. Which is good.

[Rohelius]

I do not know what would stop LS's from doing Chainspell>Break>Zerg as opposed to Chainspell>Stun>zerg...
Maybe they did not want to change the resistances for all the important HNM's in the world and maybe
that is the reason they made it wimpy?

[Urteil]

All you have to do SE, is fix Break in ballista so we actually earn diminishing returns from it. Because its the only CC that we do not.
******************************************************

But seriously in addition to that:

Adding a 10% chance for the break (or something like this) to not "break" (lol) in PvE would be fine.

In PvE.

IN PVE.

IN PVE.


How many forms of CC do we honestly need? We already have horde lullably, and sleepga, and sleepga one, bindga from Scholar, Graviga from Scholar.

Break is fine in PvE suits its purpose well, however I think a minor adjustment is needed.