Thread: Monster Defense Removal and Balancing

Had one of those random discussions with people in the LS and wanted to get more feedback.

When it comes to class balancing and combat, one of the issues being faced right now is that against NMs most all classes are dealing similar damage because of the monsters defense.

A gladiator and marauder and lancer and pug all have somewhat similar damage in the grand scheme of things when fighting the Great Buffalo, as an example.

Where the damage really differs is when mobs have no defense, IE attacking a level 1.
Marauders will deal over 8000 dmg, gladiators tend to deal around 3000 and, something more to what you'd expect from a Sword vs a Great Axe.

On NMs with high defense though, the Sword and GAxe damage is close together, at least close enough.


Something I saw in Everquest II was the removal of all Defense from Enemies, but still allowing Negative Defenses (Weaknesses), and adjusting the HP of monsters to compensate for it.

So, a mob with 2000 HP goes to 20,000 HP but has no defense so takes a lot more damage, as an example - but this leaves room for vastly different damage outputs from players, as well as increased effectiveness of abilities like Bloodbath.

I was wondering if this kind of system would better work for FFXIV than the current one of having Positive Defense on enemies - instead flooring all defense and adding Negative defenses for weakness, allowing players to always deal their damage potential, but allowing moves dependent on Damage to become really useful.


Notice: I didn't mean make the game easier - You adjust the mobs HP to compensate for it so the fights take the same amount of time, but instead of hitting for 60 damage you hit for 4000 allowing Bloodbath II to really be useful on fights against tougher enemies. (Not that it isn't useful now).





tl;dr version:
Remove defense, Add negative stats for mobs weak to something, increase HP accordingly, classes magically become more balanced - if you don't believe it parse against level 1s.
Also note, leave defense for players.

Honestly I think it would be better if they just made the damage types (blunt, pierce, slash, etc...) matter more. It would mean some things are better against certain enemies than others (not new to FF or RPGs for that matter) and it would lend to class uniqueness.

Originally Posted by Defmetal

against NMs most all classes are dealing similar damage because of the monsters defense.

Not true. No idea what leads you to this Statement, but its def. not true.

Originally Posted by Defmetal

A gladiator and marauder and lancer and pug all have somewhat similar damage in the grand scheme of things when fighting the Great Buffalo, as an example.

Not true. lol

Originally Posted by Defmetal

Where the damage really differs is when mobs have no defense, IE attacking a level 1.

Eh?

Originally Posted by Defmetal

Marauders will deal over 8000 dmg, gladiators tend to deal around 3000 and, something more to what you'd expect from a Sword vs a Great Axe.

Of course, because its a 49 Rank difference. <_<

Originally Posted by Defmetal

On NMs with high defense though, the Sword and GAxe damage is close together, at least close enough.

No its not.

Originally Posted by Defmetal

Notice: I didn't mean make the game easier

Yes you did, because you dont understand Damagecalculation at all.

Btw: SE will adjust some things in the next Patches and Updates. Not to mention the Revamp of the whole Battle-system. So asking for Balancing right before that happend is not really understandable.

Esp. if people come around the corner and just assume Stuff, and obviously dont know what they are talking about.

I like it.

+1

Yup, so you can just attack them mindlessly and winning fights with no skill required knowing their weaknesses and just point on them.

No man, high damage and easy fights is not what people want. At least I believe... But I believe that's difficulty and good tactics that makes the battle full of fun.
Monsters weaknesses will be a great thing to have, but it'd be cool if some bosses don't have any said weaknesses.
As for me, raising HPs and lowering Defence = Lowering HPs and raising Defence. They take less damage but they have low HPs, and at the same time they take more damage with high HPs, which is basically the same.

No offense, Nero... I'm sure you have experience to defend your statements... but unless you share some of that experience with us your arguments carry no weight...

Just quoting a bunch of passages and just saying "nope, no, nuh-uh, you're wrong." is not arguing or debating... it's just being contrary.

Originally Posted by Ferth

Just quoting a bunch of passages and just saying "nope, no, nuh-uh, you're wrong." is not arguing or debating... it's just being contrary.

Would you try to argue with someone who is saying "Cows are pink and can fly"? Or would you just say "you are wrong"?

Originally Posted by Arcell

Honestly I think it would be better if they just made the damage types (blunt, pierce, slash, etc...) matter more. It would mean some things are better against certain enemies than others (not new to FF or RPGs for that matter) and it would lend to class uniqueness.

All Right!

All Defmetal wants is bigger numbers pretty much. I can somewhat agree to that. But hitting 8000 on a mob your level is a bit overdoing it imo.