Enemy Categorization is Disorganized

[OenKrad]

This is a long overdue thread to address item properties, talents, and enemy types in the game.

Currently, Lords fall under different categories for their “type” and it isn’t immediately obvious to players. They might be Infantry, Berserker, Monster, Armor, Skaven, and/or Chaos, but the player has no real way to know that without testing or finding reliable sources somewhere. However, a player shouldn’t need to do such a thing in a game like this to begin with.

All Lords and Bosses should be Monster type to keep both with consistency for recognition and consistency for builds. If a player is building for anti-Monster/Boss in quickplay, the Monster property should apply to all Mini-Bosses/Bosses/Lords. It is illogical to mix and match which Bosses are Monsters and which are not; The issue needs to be addressed.

If you ask any player what is the type of enemy any of the Lords are, what are you likely to hear? Monster and either Chaos/Skaven. When a player is experiencing the game, they quickly learn of a few types of enemies. This being mainly Unarmored, Armored, Elites, Specials, and Bosses. The properties on items or talents give us bonuses against certain types of enemies, which certain context clues usually help us identify.

• Infantry referring to the general horde enemies you see on the map. They make up hordes and most of the ambient enemies. They’re always unarmored.

• Armor being certain Elites, Specials, or Bosses. There is a distinctive clinking metal noise when you hit or shoot them. If you don’t penetrate the armor, you see a red triangular shield icon.

• Specials being unique spawns with unique sounds that stand out from the typical unit. They have abilities like shooting bullets, spewing fire, and disabling.

• Bosses get a health bar in the center of your screen. They capture a player’s attention more than anything else. They’re all generally seen as Monsters.

All the Mini-Bosses/Bosses are considered Monsters. That would be Rat Ogre, Stormfiend, Bile Troll, Chaos Spawn, and Minotaur. The ones you see a lot in general gameplay. Then we see Lords which are unique to a map and are similar in concept, but are in event areas and are tougher.

From the left: Gatekeeper Naglfhar, Bodvarr Ribspreader, Burblespue Halescourge, Rasknitt, Deathrattler, and Skarrik Spinemanglr. The only one missing is Nurgloth the Eternal because he is not currently spawnable.

Can your typical or new player tell you what their types are? What about more veteran players?

• Gatekeeper Naglfhar - Chaos, Super Armor

• Bodvarr Ribspreader - Chaos, Super Armor

• Burblespue Halescourge - Chaos, Monster

• Rasknitt - Skaven, Infantry

• Deathrattler - Skaven, Monster

• Skarrik Spinemanglr - Skaven, Super Armor

And:

• Nurgloth the Eternal - Chaos, Berserker

Despite being so similar, Burblespue Halescourge is “Monster” and Nurgloth the Eternal is “Berserker” but not “Monster”. As we can see at the time of this writing, a number of people are pointing out how awkward it is to run into that situation with Nurgloth the Eternal alone.

---

The current setup is confusing and ineffective. Players on consoles don’t have the luxury of mods like Bestiary to show them stats like this:

Nor do console players have the luxury of mods in general to spawn enemies and test equipment & enemy types. There are a lot of PC players that don’t use mods at all. That means the base game needs to present itself better.

The current properties for types and how many unique enemies there are for each:

• Skaven (17 unique enemies - 3 “Lords”)
  • Slave Rat, Clanrat, Clanrat (Shield), Plague Monk, Stormvermin, Stormvermin (Shield), Ratling Gunner, Gutter Runner, Poison Wind Globadier, Warpfire Thrower, Packmaster, Sack Rat, Rat Ogre, Stormfiend, Skarrik Spinemanglr, Deathrattler, Rasknitt.
• Chaos (20 unique enemies - 14 “Chaos” and 6 “Beastmen” - 4 “Lords”)
  • Fanatic, Marauder, Marauder (Shield), Raider, Berserker, Mauler, Chaos Warrior, Lifeleech, Blightstormer, Chaos Spawn, Bile Troll, Burblespue Halescourge, Bodvarr Ribspreader, Gatekeeper Naglfahr, Nurgloth the Eternal, Ungor, Ungor Archer, Gor, Bestigor, Standard Bearer, Minotaur.
• Infantry (16 unique enemies - 1 “Lord”)
  • Ungor, Ungor Archer, Gor, Fanatic, Marauder, Marauder (Shield), Mauler, Lifeleecher, Blightstormer, Slave Rat, Clanrat, Clanrat (Shield), Gutter Runner, Poison Wind Globadier, Sack Rat, Rasknitt
• Armored (10 unique enemies - 3 “Lords”)
  • Stormvermin, Stormvermin (Shield), Ratling Gunner, Warpfire Thrower, Skarrik Spinemanglr, Chaos Warrior, Gatekeeper Naglfahr, Bodvarr Ribspreader, Bestigor, Standard Bearer.
• Berserkers (3 unique enemies - 1 “Lord”)
  • Plague Monk, Berserker, Nurgloth the Eternal.
• Monsters (8 unique enemies - 2 “Lords”)
  • Packmaster, Rat Ogre, Stormfiend, Bile Troll, Chaos Spawn, Minotaur, Burblespue Halescourge, Deathrattler

There is quite a disparity in category numbers when they’re listed like this as well. For example, without Nurgloth the Eternal, there are only 2 unique Berserker enemies for the Berserker property to be applied to; in contrast, there are 15 unique enemies for the Infantry category if we exclude Rasknitt. In general, Berserkers are not seen as much as other enemies, so it diminishes the property’s value. So in addition to confusing players as to what an enemy’s types are, there is a value disparity amongst properties.

What if we re-categorized this (Infantry, Armor, Berserkers, Monsters) into Infantry, Elites, Specials, Monsters? Chaos/Skaven will remain completely unchanged.

• Infantry (9 unique enemies)
  • Slave Rat, Clanrat, Clanrat (Shield), Fanatic, Marauder, Marauder (Shield), Ungor, Ungor Archer, Gor.
• Elites (7 unique enemies)
  • Stormvermin, Stormvermin (Shield), Plague Monk, Mauler, Chaos Warrior, Berserker, Bestigor.
• Specials (9 unique enemies)
  • Sack Rat, Gutter Runner, Packmaster, Poison Wind Globadier, Ratling Gunner, Warpfire Thrower, Lifeleech, Blightstormer, Standard Bearer.
• Monsters (12 unique enemies - 7 “Lords”)
  • Rat Ogre, Stormfiend, Bile Troll, Chaos Spawn, Minotaur, Rasknitt, Deathrattler, Skarrik Spinemanglr, Burbluespue Halescourge, Nurgloth the Eternal, Gatekeeper Naglfahr, Bodvarr Ribspreader.

We see a more leveled quantity across the board. It’s okay to have Monsters be higher in quantity because they’re uncommon occurrences to begin with. There are also Lords unique to specific maps. In addition, the categories are more proper fits for the various unique enemies. This achieves two important goals:

• Make identification of enemy types more obvious and intuitive for players so they can properly utilize properties.
• Make property types more competitively valuable and viable.

As it is, some people already specialize against certain types whether that be something like “Horde clearer”, “Special Control”, or “Monster Killer”. This would simplify the process and help with that as well. Other factors into enemies such as “Armor” or being “Resistant” will remain unchanged as far as a player’s experience is concerned, so those are non-issues. They’ll simply continue to be things that players experience in an intuitive and natural way. Players should also see either no change in their breakpoints or an improvement in them.

The primary changes are properties, classifications of enemy types, and what each unique enemy is classified as.

---

I recognize this as a substantial change to the game. If nothing else, it would be ideal to see the Monsters portion of the suggestions implemented so that at least Bosses are consistent with player’s expectations. Despite saying that, it should be a substantial improvement to the game if the change was done in its entirety and I promote such a change.

I also recognize rerolling items would probably be a hassle for people. This change may end up being best implemented when a crafting rework is done. Another option would be giving existing players a “gift” to help pay for rerolling existing gear.

[TmanDW]

I like a lot of points in this post, and it describes an existing problem well. One thing though, is that in your suggestion for a classification there’s a problem with armored units. As is now, gameplay wise armored units have a different damage taken profile because of their armor type. If you sweep SV, Gunners, CWs, etc. together in a specific armor type classification with Maulers, Assassins, etc., a weapon will have the same damage profile against, for example, a Stormvermin and a Mauler. Because of how things are programmed right now, your suggestion would probably be a huge mess to implement…

What my suggestion would be, is to get rid of the “power increase vs. …” property altogether. Then each weapon can be balanced around fair breakpoints for that weapon. Some classes could still get a power increase like it’s implemented right now, but that power increase can be tweaked so that the class is able to hit better breakpoints for the weapons it has available. Would also be a herculean effort to implement, I know, but it would solve a lot. And as you said, any of these measures should be accompanied by a crafting (and traits / properties) rework as well.

[Adelion]

@OenKrad

All Lords and Bosses should be Monster type to keep both with consistency for recognition and consistency for builds. If a player is building for anti-Monster/Boss in quickplay, the Monster property should apply to all Mini-Bosses/Bosses/Lords. It is illogical to mix and match which Bosses are Monsters and which are not; The issue needs to be addressed.

I will mostly ignore the rest of the thread as this is the more discussed point at the moment. I understand that mini-bosses and bosses should apply to the monster category. It makes sense and if I want to be a boss-killer I should have a certain reliance in doing this.

However, this should not apply to Lords. There should be no category like Lord-killer. DPS classes should still do more damage (as they do in the Nurgloth fight) but you shouldnt be able to specifically spec for them. Lords should be something which throw a wrench in every imaginable built. That would be good design and as such I would prefer for all Lords to be re-adressed and make them a better, challenging experience.

If you check your list from the Lords you will notice that from the Lords just two have actually the Monster category. One of them is Death Rattler which is an addition to Rasknitt and a modified Rat Ogre. So him being Monster makes sense.
What doesn’t make sense however is Burblespue Halescourge being Monster. And I am heavily assuming it is because we have no other category which would fit him. So I don’t see the great idea to change the category of ALL OTHER LORDS just to fit the arbitary “Should be monster” rule which at the moment only two Lords have. The categories chosen for them are fitting and should stay like this. The only thing we could discuss is introducing new special categories for Lords which can’t be specced towards like:

• Introducing a Wizard category for Rasknitt and Burblespue (just removing the second category for Burblespue would work too)
• Introducing a Demon category for Nurgloth with the same properties as Berserker (although Berserker fits as he works like one in phase 3 and he is a Lord infused with demonice powers)

Actually, introducing a Wizard cagtegory for Rasknitt, Burblespure and Nurgloth would make sense.

[KaelusVonSestiaf]

So here’s the thing. I agree with a re-categorization of enemies for the sake of consistency in Power VS properties.
However, Nurgloth having a berserker type armor is a big part of what makes him such an effective, interesting lord to fight. Not because of power vs, but because of how berserker armor impacts the way he takes damage.

I support these changes as long as the categorization of enemies stops being linked to their actual armor type, so that Nurgloth can still have berserker armor (ie, the behavior in which he takes damage is corresponding to his berserker status), while still classifying as a monster for power vs reasons.

If I recall correctly, this should already be possible because Super Armor and Armor are both different types of armor, but they’re both of the ‘armored’ category (both are affected the same by power vs armor, while being different armor types)

PS: Nice to see you making posts again, OenKrad!

[Alistair]

I totally agree in the part that things are notoriously hidden but I totally disagree in making every boss/lord monster. Look at Bodvarr/Skarrik/Naglfar. Noone would expect by their looks that they are monster. You see a big/tall beefy dude in alot of armor. Why should he be anything but armored?
Similiar for reordering the others. Sure some are pretty obscure but for gameplay reasons it totally makes sense to have it the way it is.
If you would change that you would see 90% of builds just running 20% vs special as those are often needed to hit breakpoints for those and thoes are usually (especially for ranged weapons) the important breakpoints.
You wont see anyone (but shade maybe) running monster cause there wouldnt be any reason. Hence right now there is barely a reason to run monster (if you dont aim for a packmaster breakpoint). Power vs Monster for the most part is an irrelevant category. You can run it if there is nothing else you can aim for (which already is a pretty small niche). But you could also just run chaos or infantry to increase dmg on secondary targets and maybe get enough dmg to kill an enemy damaged by an ally.
Another good thing of having lords and enemies have different armor type is diversifing builds and giving different weapons different roles and strengths.
If you take away berserker armor a blunderbuss/grudgeraker would lose one of its unique points of being able to slaughter monks/savages. A longbow or crossbow on the other hand would be just as effective against those as against a stormvermin.
That would mess up balance totally. And I doubt the benefit is worth. Would be much easier to add a chart somewhere ingame/in the keep that has all that missing info.

[OenKrad]

Thank you.

@KaelusVonSestiaf

However, Nurgloth having a berserker type armor is a big part of what makes him such an effective, interesting lord to fight. Not because of power vs, but because of how berserker armor impacts the way he takes damage.

I support these changes as long as the categorization of enemies stops being linked to their actual armor type, so that Nurgloth can still have berserker armor (ie, the behavior in which he takes damage is corresponding to his berserker status), while still classifying as a monster for power vs reasons.

If I recall correctly, this should already be possible because Super Armor and Armor are both different types of armor, but they’re both of the ‘armored’ category (both are affected the same by power vs armor, while being different armor types)

Yes, I don’t see why that wouldn’t be possible either. I do have something to propose though.

How many players with confidence can tell you how the Berserker type affects an enemy? Armor? Monster? And so on? To my knowledge, Fatshark has never provided this information anywhere that players can easily access. I think this is one of the things where they want to keep information hidden in order for players to simply “experience” something and they may worry players will ask for even more of them (E.G. changes to specific parts of a type of enemy).

Regardless, when certain types have a great affect on enemy/player interaction, that should be explained with transparency to the players. Having a shotgun do the same damage to Berserker as it does to Infantry is what a player would normally expect. Having a crossbow do less damage to Berserker than it does to Infantry is not what a player would expect. After all, the Chaos Berserker for example does not wear any noticeable armor of any kind, just like a Marauder which is an Infantry enemy. So why or how would a player ever expect their crossbow to behave differently in the same scenario versus the shotgun?

Armor is the only type that is immediately obvious to players. Super Armor is less so. I’m willing to wager that for the longest time a good many players didn’t know poisons, burns, and bleeds did either 1 or 0 damage to Super Armor enemies. What about when Fatshark changed burns to actually do damage to Super Armor? They never conveyed that in a patch note and players had to pry the information out of the developers.

---

@Alistair How many breakpoints on average will a player try to hit on any given career/weapon? It’s usually not many, right? So if you wanted to kill a specific special (E.G. Globadier) You could do Skaven/Specials, Skaven/Skaven, or Specials/Specials. You can also utilize talents on careers.

@Alistair

Look at Bodvarr/Skarrik/Naglfar. Noone would expect by their looks that they are monster. You see a big/tall beefy dude in alot of armor. Why should he be anything but armored?
Similiar for reordering the others. Sure some are pretty obscure but for gameplay reasons it totally makes sense to have it the way it is.

@OenKrad

Bosses get a health bar in the center of your screen. They capture a player’s attention more than anything else. They’re all generally seen as Monsters.

The obscurity doesn’t help. And having these oddball categorizations exacerbates the issue. The aforementioned Lords would still interact with players in a similar manner via their Super Armor, but the properties players can choose and who they affect would change. I don’t see how having a scattered and disorganized system as it is now makes more sense than giving enemies proper and logical categories. As far as gameplay is concerned, players should see an improvement across the board in their experience. You could also just change “Monster” to “Boss” to make it simpler.

@Alistair

Another good thing of having lords and enemies have different armor type is diversifing builds and giving different weapons different roles and strengths.

When you quickplay, you can’t possibly know which map you’re going to get. That means against some Bosses the Monster property will be effective and others it’s useless, despite the player wanting to go for anti-Boss. When players go in with certain expectations for how something should work and yet they’re using something that has no value because of poor presentation from a game design standpoint, then that’s a problem. There is plenty of or even more diversity with the mentioned changes because properties like Berserker and Monster are changed to give all properties more competitive value and viability.

You’re misunderstanding that the general interactions have to change simply because of recategorization. Just because Bodvarr Ribspreader gets recategorized as Monster does not mean he loses his Super Armor or Chaos affiliations. Things like Armor should be extensions of an organized underlying structure.

Even if we change the behavior of certain categories to match each other (E.G. Chaos Berserker and Mauler) and a weapon like handgun/crossbow does the same damage across the board to fleshy targets like shotgun, you’re going to see similar or slightly greater performance. An example would be the handgun may be able to one shot a Chaos Berserker with the proposed change. Crossbow will still be able to two shot a Chaos Berserker either way (with a little property help). It would still need three shots to kill a Mauler either way. And of course enemies like Chaos Warriors would keep their Super Armor affiliation even if they’re “Elites”. So even if the behavior change was done on many enemies, it would see similar or slightly greater performance.

[Pershing]

@OenKrad

Players should also see either no change in their breakpoints or an improvement in them.

Any paired breakpoints involving two enemies currently in the same armor class that are in different categorizations under your proposed system would have worse breakpoints. E.g. (40% skaven armoured for a hypothetical SV headshot breakpoint and a Ratling gunner bodyshot breakpoint would be impossible to reach under your system. The most I could hope for is 40% skaven/special, and 20% skaven vs the SV, and the same would be true for any enemies of the same armor type that are then classified as different enemy types.

[souI23]

GREAT post. Totally agree.

Anyway let me ask two things.

• you said this will not change any breakpoints… but I have some doubts. Not that it’s a bad idea… but this GOOD change should be accompanied by a balance patch, to better define the new breakpoints;
• how would you handle shotguns? For example they are very good vs infantry and berserker but weak vs armors… but now they are all under “elites”.
  Do you mean that certain enemies, beyond their category (elites, specials, etc etc), should have the status of armoured? Like a bonus, I mean. And what weapons would be weak against this status? Because weapons damage’s tables too would be divided into your new tiers. We would not have “armours damage” anymore.

Anyway, as you said, it’s an idea a little bit hard to be applied… wanting proceed step by step, the first one should be put every boss and Lord under Monster tier.
Second point should be rework monks and chaos berserkers (since power vs berserker is really useless)… maybe could they be just infantry BUT with a bigger amount of HP (they would be still strong vs many ranged weapons, still weak vs shotguns)?

@TmanDW

What my suggestion would be, is to get rid of the “power increase vs. …” property altogether. Then each weapon can be balanced around fair breakpoints for that weapon. Some classes could still get a power increase like it’s implemented right now, but that power increase can be tweaked so that the class is able to hit better breakpoints for the weapons it has available. Would also be a herculean effort to implement, I know, but it would solve a lot. And as you said, any of these measures should be accompanied by a crafting (and traits / properties) rework as well.

This would NOT totally wrong but… don’t you think, in this way, we would have less power of choice on our build?

@Adelion

I will mostly ignore the rest of the thread as this is the more discussed point at the moment. I understand that mini-bosses and bosses should apply to the monster category. It makes sense and if I want to be a boss-killer I should have a certain reliance in doing this.

However, this should not apply to Lords. There should be no category like Lord-killer. DPS classes should still do more damage (as they do in the Nurgloth fight) but you shouldnt be able to specifically spec for them. Lords should be something which throw a wrench in every imaginable built. That would be good design and as such I would prefer for all Lords to be re-adressed and make them a better, challenging experience.

If you check your list from the Lords you will notice that from the Lords just two have actually the Monster category. One of them is Death Rattler which is an addition to Rasknitt and a modified Rat Ogre. So him being Monster makes sense.
What doesn’t make sense however is Burblespue Halescourge being Monster. And I am heavily assuming it is because we have no other category which would fit him. So I don’t see the great idea to change the category of ALL OTHER LORDS just to fit the arbitary “Should be monster” rule which at the moment only two Lords have. The categories chosen for them are fitting and should stay like this. The only thing we could discuss is introducing new special categories for Lords which can’t be specced towards like:

• Introducing a Wizard category for Rasknitt and Burblespue (just removing the second category for Burblespue would work too)
• Introducing a Demon category for Nurgloth with the same properties as Berserker (although Berserker fits as he works like one in phase 3 and he is a Lord infused with demonice powers)

Actually, introducing a Wizard cagtegory for Rasknitt, Burblespure and Nurgloth would make sense.

Little premise. I know, we already talked on this argument into this thread, but let’s be honest… that thread it’s a little bit confusing and I want to write it more clearly here (also to be read by @OenKrad).
But don’t worry, I don’t want to start another infinite discussion, after this I will not answer you anymore.

Returning in topic I can’t understand why bosses killers must not be Lords killers too. Or better I can imagine your point of view, you don’t want to see a Lord killed in few seconds… but these arguments aren’t one the consequence of the other.

If a career is bosses and Lords killer doesn’t mean that that career must kill Lords in one second… there are other ways to make Lords tougher.
For example, using Monster type, the two chaos Lords would be already much more tougher.

Moreover, putting all bosses and Lords under Monster tier, would help other points:

• the game would be more clear for many players (remember that “we” are a minority… most players don’t use mods, don’t use forums, don’t search on internet);
• it’s frustrating not being able to specialize in something;
• the roleplay would be improved. Maybe is it a subjective point? Maybe… but if I set my career to kill huge targets, or simply if I imagine myself as bosses slayer, I find it pretty sad if I can’t “use my build” (probably you don’t agree about what “use my build” means… just a different vision) vs Lords just because I must not;
• this would be an easier change… adding a new category only for Lords would be complicated;

I can understand you want see Lords as:

Lords should be something which throw a wrench in every imaginable built.

But Lords maps are just normal maps… maps chosen randomly from a pool of maps that give the same reward. They can’t be a spike of difficulty… the old SKIPPERgate shows it. People are quitting from Nurgloth too.

@KaelusVonSestiaf

I support these changes as long as the categorization of enemies stops being linked to their actual armor type, so that Nurgloth can still have berserker armor

Same speech as above, I don’t wanto to start the same discussion here… but I can’t understand your words.

There are many players that are showing how berserker tier on a Lord create some problems
+
You love berserker type on Nurgloth because it makes the Lord tough
+
There are more options to make Lords tougher

There is no need because we should use the berserker type for a Lord… we could adopt different options to make Lords tougher.

[Unskinner]

Great work on that post But, as most of the times, I need to give credit to @TmanDW since he, as most of the times, already said the same things I wanted to say… just get rid of the whole “Power VS” things, I would even take it a step further and remove all properties, it would just make balancing way easier, you have no disadvantages if you go for a QP and need to play Into the Nest with a full “Power vs Choas” gear and last but hell it’s not least, it’s the best thing ever: you would never ever again need to use that reroll button again Crit Chance and Attack Speed could be matched accordingly for weapons and classes or maybe bound to new properties or simply those which actually need e.g. a Critical Strike to proc.

Another thing that stands out in this post is V2’s opacity, the fact you mentioned, that important information is hidden and only obtainable with mods… another problem is the way dummies work, just all those unnecessary hidden information… I just wonder why things like the Bestiarium or the Weapon Compendium are not part of the Base Game… But well that’s maybe content for another thread or was already discussed.

[TmanDW]

@OenKrad : (Just to see if I got your idea right this time:) So you want to keep armor class as-is (SV is Armored, Assassin is Infantry, etc.) for the sake of basic weapon damage profiles, while disattaching the “Power vs. …” property from armor type, but rather making it work on enemy type (Special, Monster, etc.) instead? I guess that would work, but that will definitely make things more complicated as well. Not against the measure, mind you, but it would not automatically make things clearer either…

@souI23 : Removing the “Power vs. …” properties would cause less build freedom and diversity? I think it’d be the opposite, really. Right now it feels pretty much like a mandatory pick for most weapons, just so you reach the best breakpoints for that weapon. If it’s not an issue anymore, it frees up properties for more interesting choices that affect the way you actually play, rather than just the raw effectiveness of your strikes. The fact that you need a spreadsheet to determine what the best “Power vs. …” properties are doesn’t help either. And, as I said, this would only work if accompanied by a rework of all enemy HP, all weapon damage, and a revision of other properties, so that it works as a system…

[DatDing15]

The different Armor Types are definetly confusing. Without any wikis, guides or mods, I am sure you have little chance at looking it properly through what kind of Armor Type you are facing, apart from the obvious ones of course.

What about taking lords completly into a different category? That would help keeping Monterkillers as actual Miniboss Slayers.
And maybe lords have to be dealt more neutrally? That Monsterkillers have to pick different properties to be effective against lords?
Or that there are NO properties for efficient Lord Slaying making every class more effective (or ineffective) to lords. That would definetly hurt players who aim at those instant kills…

As you said a rough overwork is overdue. Making it more transparent what type of Armor I am facing right now.

[souI23]

@TmanDW

Removing the “Power vs. …” properties would cause less build freedom and diversity? I think it’d be the opposite, really. Right now it feels pretty much like a mandatory pick for most weapons, just so you reach the best breakpoints for that weapon. If it’s not an issue anymore, it frees up properties for more interesting choices that affect the way you actually play, rather than just the raw effectiveness of your strikes. The fact that you need a spreadsheet to determine what the best “Power vs. …” properties are doesn’t help either. And, as I said, this would only work if accompanied by a rework of all enemy HP, all weapon damage, and a revision of other properties, so that it works as a system…

Yes, I can understand your point of view… but I would feel myself “forced”. Afterall there are a couple of examples where you can choose your properties.

But you idea has good aspects too, so I’m not totally against it.

[Torantolis]

Really comprehensive post, my dude thanks for sharing.

I’d share support for @TmanDW’s point of just removing “Power vs” altogether or, at the very least, doing as he thinks you mentioned for detaching it from armor type. If we could remove it altogether, this whole issue of “super armor, berzerker, monster” issue would go away and, moreover, I don’t think it’s something we should’ve cared about in the first place.

If we could instead approach a bosses healthbar by percentage and not have any background information on damage per hit or his total health, the only character we could focus on is ourselves… which I’d way prefer. Doesn’t matter to me how they’re classified (I hate the power vs traits) so long as the Enchanter remains this epic and the other lords get some buffs.

One more thing I’d like to mention as it’s become an issue blown really far out of proportion: I agree with you that you should be able to dependably tech your build for something you are semi-confident that you’ll face, but I do not believe any character should be able to tech for “Anti-Boss”. I believe there needs to be a very sharp distinction between Monsters and Bosses (Lords).

I would really like it if you could choose to tech towards high single target damage and that these builds would still do high-er damage to bosses, but that no build in the game should be able to do anything even close to 20% of a bosses health in under 5 seconds. It makes a boss fight longer which, in my opinion, would also provide merit to taking cleave-builds as a way to help the team face off versus adds that drop into the arena.

All IMO, of course.

[hgjw]

I’d personally would love to see just a full depart away from the whole power vs x system. The reasons being A) its extremely confusing for most players especially the newer ones B) once you understand it you know its extremely limiting in terms of breakpoints and C) its just a bloody mess to balance to be completely honest.
Seriously ask yourself how often you just open up the breakpoints spreadsheet or heck just ask the most common breakpoints in reddit or here instead of doing some sort of “theory crafting” ?
I don’t think i’m in the minority when i say that once I’ve rolled my “perfect” stats on the weapon its staying there forever until a patch or something massively changes it.

You can perhaps make some arguments about x for y situation etc but nearly 90 % of the actual weapon breakpoints are so obvious that we might not as well have any stats to begin with.
In my opinion its just giving you an illusion of some kind of flexibility when it comes to building but in practice its rarely the case. Honestly most of the times if you make the “wrong choice” its just going to hinder you because you cannot say 1 shot a stormverim with a exec sword or maybe that handgun won’t anymore 1 shot body shot that special. Just few examples from top of my head to demonstrate my point and there are plenty of others.

[TmanDW]

Yes! Thanks for saying what I meant so clearly.