Techer Skill Tree Conjecture thread

[gigawuts]

The thing that irks me is they're using a method of balance that's proven to fail.

They're giving every class identical treatment with stats, but NOT identical treatment with range.

So while everyone gets the base stats of let's say def=1 with cookie cutter unit bonuses, only close range classes actually depends on this def stat. This method of balancing is a proven failure. Range itself is hardcoded into weapons and does not need bonuses to be good.

They don't want to give more stats to close range classes for the reason of breaking the mold, yet they don't give them extra damage for their shorter range either. This is a problem for all 3 close range classes, albeit less of one for techer because it still has good long range classes.

Honestly, I think a good balancing starting point for techer would be a kind of Zero Range Advance for techs, as a part of wand gear.

Then give s-def units a bonus of 50% to all def stats, or at least ramp up s-def to r-def levels for every unit set where r-def is better than s-def. Come on guys, give better def to the class you specifically designed to be hit more.

[SPOnion]

They don't want to give more stats to close range classes for the reason of breaking the mold, yet they don't give them extra damage for their shorter range either. This is a problem for all 3 close range classes, albeit less of one for techer because it still has good long range classes.

They did give the best units to close ranged classes you know, although they are so hard to find and expensive for free players.

Try search リア／フェニバイル/ リア／ザングリス / or even リア／ブルブヘッグス

[gigawuts]

Yeah, and they require a bunch of cash and a heavy def investment that reduces your potential investment in atk that the long range classes simply don't need to pay. S-Def units are identical to or worse than comparable r-def/t-def units (I guess I should specify this time - if they exist) by nature of lazy cookie cutter balancing.

[SPOnion]

Yeah, and they require a bunch of cash and a heavy def investment that reduces your potential investment in atk that the long range classes simply don't need to pay. S-Def units are identical to or worse than comparable r-def/t-def units (I guess I should specify this time - if they exist) by nature of lazy cookie cutter balancing.

For the sake of argument please don't ignore the fact that, even though it is true they require more resources than some T def units(like around 50 s def on the MAG as a Human Male TE/FO), the 169 sets has the highest S defense currently, followed by the 161 set. The clone set is only like 10 lower each with S def than the Banther/Banshee set and provides a much better r defense. It is simply not a fact that S def units are universally worse or identical to t def units.

But I guess when you calculate in how much resource such units require, they might be the worst scenario for free players. Obviously those who make 10m per day would not care that much.

[Shinmarizu]

They did give the best units to close ranged classes you know, although they are so hard to find and expensive for free players.

Try search リア／フェニバイル/ リア／ザングリス / or even リア／ブルブヘッグス

Which only furthers the point here. Otherwise Techers deal with armor sets a tier lower than Forces and Hunters/Fighters, for the most part. Unless free players have done extensive research and know exactly which armor to use and how to prepare their mags for it, they are constantly on the short end of the stick when it comes to both weapons and armor.

[SPOnion]

Unless free players have done extensive research and know exactly which armor to use and how to prepare their mags for it, they are constantly on the short end of the stick when it comes to both weapons and armor.

As if we never are T_T
Trust me I hate it too when I reached lv 30 limit (at that time as the highest lv) and realized suddenly that a pure Ice FO without PP charge rec is so horrible unless you are willing to pay cash for a new tree. WHY WOULD AN ICE FO INVEST HEAVILY INTO THE FIRE TREE!

[Shinmarizu]

It would be very cynical of me to suggest that Sega haphazardly designed Techer's stat growth in a way such that we would pay for our build choices at least twice in order to make the best we can out of it.

It bothers me just how true that statement is becoming.

[gigawuts]

For the sake of argument please don't ignore the fact that, even though it is true they require more resources than some T def units(like around 50 s def on the MAG as a Human Male TE/FO), the 169 sets has the highest S defense currently, followed by the 161 set. The clone set is only like 10 lower each with S def than the Banther/Banshee set and provides a much better r defense. It is simply not a fact that S def units are universally worse or identical to t def units.

But I guess when you calculate in how much resource such units require, they might be the worst scenario for free players. Obviously those who make 10m per day would not care that much.

I'm not ignoring it. In fact, it makes my point for me.

Close range has to sacrifice more to gain things that long range either gets with more ease, or does not need, without sacrificing any long range capabilities to already have these defensive options. To achieve comparable levels of s-def, a close range class is required to sacrifice offense. Offense that is similarly balanced, or in the case of techer offense that is already worse.

Really. These points pretty much make themselves.

[SPOnion]

Personally I would not call a 50 s def on a mag "sacrificial" or "worse investment" or "make you less offensive" since you get a substantial R def back (that is helpful in AQ) and a relatively higher S def in total if one uses the 169 set. Currently it's not like you are suddenly doing much less damage without that 50 T atk (as if TE had any good wand anyway).

It is only when this set becomes so rare and expensive that it is a problem for free players, which is not whole population.

[ShinMaruku]

I still say the techer should get the chage bonus without having to charge that would deal with the slower casting.