Back to

By continuing to browse this website, you consent to the use of cookies, which enable us to offer you customised content and to collect site-visit statistics. Click on this link for more information on cookies, and to customise your cookie preferences. X

No flash

YetAnotherNew...'s profile
Member Since : 2013-10-05
91 Posts (0.12 per day)
Most active in : Character Classes
posté March 28, 2015, 22:39:58 | #1
If i might add my 2 cents to this discussion, i believe one of the biggest problems with Wakfu is the endless class revamps in the first place.

Not that many classes don't need to be changed because they are either weak or dont have appealing game-play.

Because it puts too much time between one class change and another's. The game-context in which once-valid changes were made are modified and a recent revamp is quickly outdated. Worse, these punctual revamps make it hard for developers to be able to make class design choices that permit each class to have a unique appeal.

Shielding, used to be a somewhat "special" ability, limited to gobgob osas, earth Sadi's, and (to a more limited degree) sacs. Now Feca's and Iops also have it (Yay half the game's classes can shield).
Granting AP used to be a Xelor trademark, now Feca's and Iops also can.
Self stabilization used to be a Iop Unique, now Cra's can too, and i get the feeling its just because they were revamped together and they recicled a skill.
Whats with the double Srams have? How does that have anything to do with the whole "assassin" class concept? That self-shielding lock-stick that can push is too me a overpowered utility that the class got just because designers couldent think of anything better to put on the spell slot.

What im getting at is that the way changes are being made seems to be in the direction of "give every class everything". I dont think anyone wants that, whats the point of playing a rpg if class choices are meaningless?

And all of these recent revamps... Well, Currently max level players have very few specialties they *dont* chose. Its hardly a choice for many classes. You take all specialties exept for "that bad one".

Isint it kinda obvious there will have to be some sort of Specialty revamp somewhat soon?
Arent you guys that *just got revamped* a tid bit worried that when this happens you might get stuck with awefull changes and put last in the "revamp line"?

Similar things already happened in the game history.

For example, the Feca class revamp came just before the game's overall stat overhaul, which included changes to player health, resistance, and locking mechanism. Feca players that were happy because they became "awesome tanks" with the revamp soon found out that tanking wasent quite the same thing (regardless if you agree or not that tanking still exists in the game, it should be easy to see that its kinda mean to, right after changing a class, changing game elements that define their role).

My entire point is that revamping classes 1 by 1 or 2 by 2 is a mistake.

Game designers should give a few balancing measures all around just to keep the classes that are currently kinda underpowered at least competitive, and revamp *everything* at the same time.

I think its the only way i can see they can give each class mechanisms that seem unique and interesting, instead of just throwing at whatever class is getting revamped the ideas they currently have, without really keeping consistency between classes and their proposed strengths.

Plus, by defining each class simultaneously, they can make it more permanent. Flat numeric bonuses and scaleable passives with caps are bound to require revamping just because as the game progresses and players gain items with more and more powerfull stats, a limited ability loses comparative strength in the end game context. A Specialty that gives 50% bonus damage might be overpowered when the level cap is 100, but kinda stinks now that it is 170.

I think Wakfu is broken in many ways. I think specialization to specific group-roles should be a thing. I think tri-elementing should not be possible.
By guaranteeing players cannot "kinda do everything" with the same character, any character brought to a group to preform his specialized role will feel like he is contributing in a unique way to the group. A tank would tank. A healer would heal. Element specific DD's would not compete with eachother because their elements do not overlap.

Right now a player with higher level and better items is pretty much better at everything, and current class revamp policies are making this worse by giving classes a even wider range of utility. A Eni can outdamage your damage dealers if she has better items, even though she was brought to heal. A Iop can give the entire team AP while he obliterates enemies, making a poor little underleveled xelor that came along to support feel useless.

This is lousy game design, the game is scaling badly the higher levels get, and punctual class revamps will not fix it.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - March 28, 2015, 22:42:47.
Thread : General Discussion  Preview message : #844364  Replies : 387  Views : 19408
posté March 26, 2015, 05:34:40 | #2
Dont you think its a bit offensive that someone takes hours to write a guide or make a video and you just stroll in basically saying "im not willing to spend the 20 min it takes to read/watch this, i want you to teach me in a way i dont make any effort at all"?

Would you actually be satisfied with something so abreviated?

If i told you
"max spells A and B from fire branch, C and D from water and E and F from earth, cast these combos: AB->D Or E,F->B(glyph)",
you wouldent be able to tell if what i am saying is nonsense or not. How can you tell if im trolling, if im a newb, if its intended for something different then what you had in mind or if my build just plain stinks. Its kinda absurd anyone would be actually willing to follow such short instructions in the first place.

The point of a guide is to explain the spells and build to the reader so that:
a ) he knows WHY he is doing that (and understanding why you match certain spells in a "combo" makes you a better player because you can tell when it wont work, when you should try something else, etc)
b ) So he can tell you know what you are talking about and that your guide is trustworthy.

I dont think fecas are extremely hard to play or complex, but noone can give a new player good instructions in so few lines anyways (only a veteran player would understand a short explanation).

There would have to be details on when to cast a spell as a glyph/armor or when to use them directly. Spellchoices depend on the build strengths (DDing, supporting, damaging, pvp, pve, etc). How and when to properly use the specialties. And even explanations on base mechanics (how the feca shields stack, for example).

A short guide would be either:
a ) Bad/wrong
b ) OK but very very specific (EX: PvP guide for mid level fecas with limited item budget) - in this case its quite certain that people would start using the guide wrong (for high level Player vs monster fecas, for example), and it would stink in those cases, and the guide-writer would get raged at.

The kind of people that write guides want to teach something that they like and are proud of. They wont write something so partial or incomplete. They will write the complete "wall of text" and hope people actually learn something.

Seriously, just go read a guide or watch the video. I don't think you're "monstrously thick", but coming to a guide thread and asking for a shorter guide wasent just rude, its kinda dumb. How can a new player know better then veteran ones how long a guide has to be?

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - March 26, 2015, 05:36:35.
Thread : Feca  Preview message : #843476  Replies : 8  Views : 4992
posté March 17, 2015, 17:24:34 | #3
Kinda hard to keep track of which egg is which after a while....


Thread : General Discussion  Preview message : #839926  Replies : 111  Views : 4868
posté March 17, 2015, 14:50:47 | #4
They do not stack.

Thread : Feca  Preview message : #839662  Replies : 1  Views : 866
posté March 07, 2015, 19:15:00 | #5
Thanks for the replies, they are very interesting.

I thought maybe i should clarify that i dont think locking defines a tank.
To me "tanking" means having above average ability to survive (be it health, resistance, shields, block whatever), and being able to in some way protect allies.
I just saw lock as the only mechanism to "protect allies" in wakfu (available to everyone, that is. There is the " trank" ability to take damage directly for a ally, but to me that is very trivial and non-appealing, and the only ones that can do it are sacs and foggers, and even them only to a limited extent).

Im not sure i fully buy some of the replies...

1) I do not think "locking" trivializes fights. Chosing which monsters to lock and actually surrounding yourself with them was often non-trivial. And many had escape mechanics which forced you to have additional considerations (putting them on opposite sides to not knockback you, not having them in line with allies to prevent line-atacks, etc).

If locking enemies is trivial, it is easy to argue that damage dealing is pretty much as trivial as it gets. You use abilities on enemies. Backstab/aoe if you can. There really is not much thought to it.

There are always simple cases and more complex ones.

2) I also do not think content is more difficult then before, but this might be just biased and too little experience (ive only been playing for about a year). I had the impression wabbit castle was alot more exclusive and difficult then sram, enurado and past xelor.

Mayyybeee HC present xelor is harder. I havent seen past p2, it looks pretty hard, but if the dungeon gets nerfed then it wont count. Its hard to compare i guess, but to me it is not obvious that "content is more difficult".

3) I just wanted to clarify what you guys are describing as the " current viable tank". Its a character with 1000+ damage (level 170) that just puts him/herself more or less in the monsters way and supports or damage deals normally? Im having a hard time visualizing it.

This actually works (in the " protecting the team" sense) in a meaningfull way?
You guys think this is a appealing and effective way to implement tanking?

Like, the first room of past xelor. Everyone is spread out in line and surrounded by monsters. I cant really see how a character could " tank" that... I could run up to one monster and teleport him far away from someone... Maybe put a -mp glyph on a monster that isint beside someone yet. But nothing i can think of seems like a meaningfull contribution that would be better then just hitting a monster with a 1200%+ damage character.

Im just trying to understand how what you guys are describing as a "helpfull tank" plays and which items they use.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - March 07, 2015, 19:23:29.
Thread : General Discussion  Preview message : #836440  Replies : 19  Views : 1395
posté March 07, 2015, 10:22:21 | #6

Quote (kurausu @ 07 March 2015 06:18) *

One last thing:

450 lock is so little lock that pretty much any class can have as much without getting dedicated lock items.
Sorry but this is bullshit. I dare you to get a Cra, Eca, Sadida, Osa, Enutrof, Masqueraider and Eniripsa to 450 lock without using dedicated lock items.

Unless you dump stat points into lock and/or rune the equipment towards it, which would make all the equipment runed that way a lock dedicated item. Oh and it would also be useless for most of them.

To get to 450 without statting points into lock and without a passive that gives lock, you'd need around 37.5 lock points per equipment slot (450 points divided by the 12 equipment slots).

And i'm even being nice and ignoring the levels (We could have restricted character level to be between 142 and 150).

Maybe i was not crystal clear that by " dedicated lock items" i meant "really putting an effort into having as much lock as you can" . I never said they couldent stat it or have some lock items.

What i meant is that a Iop who figures he will rune/stat lock rather then ini (personally i think ini doesent make sense for CC damage dealers unless its some pvp build, just forces them to advance too much to not waste their first turn - so if i had a iop it might be what i would do) can get to that much lock from some random lock pieces +runes and locker-pro.
Without ever intending to be a tank.

A Cra *could* have 450 lock, it would be a lousy item/stat build, im not going to argue with you there. But any class can get to as much.

So no, its really not "bullshit". Maybe you could say i might have elaborated my point more accurately, but it was quite clear from the start that my intention was to point out that the ammount needed for Wa
post-stat revamp is not much.

But i appreceate the feedback. I do not quite share your point of view on the necessity of lockers. I do hardmode vortrex just fine without one, but maybe its just a matter of trying it with different groups and finding out different playstyles. I really dont fancy changing my tank character into something else, so im pretty much willing to try anything to make her feel fun and usefull again.

Thread : General Discussion  Preview message : #836368  Replies : 19  Views : 1395
posté March 07, 2015, 03:30:26 | #7
Well, i suppose lower level stuff might work.

But i think its less a issue of how much lock, and more just because lower level monsters have a better chance of having low MP.

I really tried to stack huge ammounts of lock to be able to tank high level monsters, im quite convinced that it cannot be done. With my lock, i tried to lock some xelorium monsters and they escaped anyways, even when i got surrounded(I stat multi lock to be able to get to higher lock ammounts).

Here is how much lock i can get to (with piwi' s because actually getting surrounded by xelor monsters is a pain because they keep escaping):

The problem is that
1) lock is limited to a 5 mp penalty, so high level monsters (which seem to always have 7 mp) can step away no matter how much lock you have.
2) lock suffers from *severe* penalties from the sides and back. Im not sure how much, but i think its halved at the sides and even less at the back. This makes " tanking" multiple monsters quite impossible.

Quote (Tzooon @ 07 March 2015 03:27) *
There are too many death tiles and flat damage penalties late game for tanks to be relevant anymore.

Oh i guess i agree with that.

I always thought that these insta=death mechanics and flat damage mechanics are much lamer then something that actually requires team-play, but it seems like they are here to stay ._.

Thread : General Discussion  Preview message : #836301  Replies : 19  Views : 1395
posté March 07, 2015, 03:02:33 | #8
Thoughts about the tanking role. So, i used to have a feca tank guide. After the stat revamp and level increases it got super outdated.
I never got back to it because i wanted to get back to max level to have a more complete view of tanking at the endgame.

But the more i played, the clearer it was that "tanking" kinda doesent exist anymore.

Im writing this post to explain how i came to this conclusion, and ask the community if they agree, and maybe get some feedback from the developers as to their intentions in regard to tanking mechanics.

Before explaining why i think tanking does not exist anymore, i feel i should explain how the game was around 6 months ago (before the stat revamp), to give a comparative measure as to how it used to be.

Untill Tormentor dungeon came out, Wa wabbit was the highest level and hardest dungeon. Characters had much less health before the stat revamp, a well geared damager with around 1800HP, a particuarly tanky one wiht 2000ish. Sac' s could get up to 3000-3500. A Cavalier wabbit dealt around 1500-2000 damage in a turn, depending on if he crits.

The important thing to notice is that a single monster could 1 turn a player.

Different groups completed this dungeon with different tactics. Some had rogues (with super high ini) firewall around the place and focused cavaliews before they could kill the group.

Other groups just had a player tank them.

A focused tank could easily reduce the damage with shielding to a point he would survive even 3 cavaliews hitting him for many turns before he needed healing. Locking worked differently as well, with enough lock you could make it so any monster trying to run away simply lost his turn (95% chance with enough lock), so monsters in CC with a tank were pretty much stuck there.

In this scenario, it is easy to see why a tank in the group was beneficial. These were monsters that could 1 turn your healer or damage dealers. a room would have multiple cavaliews, not to mention all the other monsters you need to beat with some urgency(the healing shootews, the mp stealing robots).
Good players would even help position the tank in the first turn simply because it meant that the entire team could focus on killing other monsters while the tank keeps the cavaliers occupied. It was a logical and beneficial strategy.

Today Wabbit Castle (Wa' s dungeon) is old content, so it is expected that it is easier then when it was launched, or even a year ago.
But what made the biggest difference was the stat revamp(which came together with a change on monster stats). Players now have 2-3 times more health, but the monsters damage is roughtly equivalent.

Now it is quite possible to just let the damage dealers/healers take a few hits while you kill the monsters. Not only that, locking just doesent work as well. The AP/MP penalties are never enough to keep monsters from getting away and hitting someone else. Even the bosses lock requirement fell greatly (before you had to have around 700 lock for wa, now i believe it is around 450).
450 lock is so little lock that pretty much any class can have as much without getting dedicated lock items.

To me, this is clearly Ankama saying "we do not want tanks to be required in this dungeon".

Now, maybe people were complaining that there were too few tanks in the game, too few people could run the dungeon. Maybe alot of players will believe it is good that this content became more accessible (and ill pose the question to the community along those lines at the end of this post).

This may be fine, but i believe that making tanks unneccesary makes tanks bad.

Ill explain:
A tank is, by definition, a character heavily focused in surviving enemy hits, positioning enemies in a way to best protect allies and allow them to attack, and keeping them in that position (as put in the wabbit cavaliew example).

Because of gameplay style, item, ability and stat choices, a tank will have reduced (inefficient) damage (compared to a actual damage dealer). For example, a tank might stat health/resistance instead of damage/resistance with strength points.

Let' s look at a logical thought process:
Now, consider a group going to a dungeon. They can beat it with or without a tank. A tank does less damage then a damage dealer. Thus the dungeon will be faster with a damage dealer.
So you can run the dungeon more in the same amount of time with a damage dealer rather then a tank, which leads to more chances of winning items and rewards.
Thus bringing a damage dealer is better.

I cant really see any flaw in that thought process. Tanks are just bad.

Wel, we are considering they have worse damage. Since the stat revamp, lock items have gained alot of damage%.

Maybe a tank no longer has less damage then a damage dealer!

But wait, If a character will spend his AP/MP to attack enemies efficiently (run around to backstab and such), he will not be really focusing in the whole "controling enemy positioning".
And with the lock revamp, in which monsters that are in CC with the tank are able to escape with some ease, all locking really does is reduce how far away a monster can run, and hopefully how many attacks he can preform.

I tried restating my feca in many different ways trying to figure out how Ankama intends players to tank since the stat revamp... And i either feel useless (when i actually play as a tank) or feel like im not tanking at all, that im just a front like damage dealer (when i play/stat as a DD).

Maybe its just me, but... I really dont think a character with damage dealer playstyle and some secondary stat that reduces a bit of ap/mp from enemies really falls into a entire different " group role".

This is not a tank. Its just a DD with a bit more resistance and some almost useless lock.


What i am getting to is that:

a) Tanking is only good if it is REQUIRED. Any content that does not need a tank is completed more efficently without one.
b ) Tanking has (or should have) a different playstyle and item requirements to damage-dealing.
c) Current lock mechanics make tanking near impossible(too few penalties from lock, too severe lock reductions from sides/back, too many monsters with powerfull escape mechanics and large MP pools).
d) Current monster damage is far too low compared to average player health to make tanking required.
e) Current dungeon lock requirements are too low to make tanks required.
f) New content does not have tank-encouraging mechanics (the most recent dungeon with any kind of clear incentive to bring a tank would be Wa - which is 2 years old). Xelorium HC birdy boss, which was my largest hope for a dungeon that needs a tank, is unlockable(or at least does not lose MP) in P1, and attacks max health anyways (like 3K per turn), noone can really tank him.

Okay, so maybe this is not news to anyone.

Maybe the reader is just "ok, so you just figured this out? Duh, tanks stink for ages now"
Right. So then why does the group finder feature have "Tank" as a role?

To me it is perfectly clear that Ankama thought that having different roles all be important was not "newbie friendly", and simply dumbed down game tactics in which the best strategy is always to have 6 players with as high as possible damage kill everything before they are a problem. Sometimes a positioner or healer helps a bit. And thats it.

But they still kinda "pretend" that there are other player options, just so that when a new player gets to a high enough level he realizes his entire character project is unviable and unwanted.

Its really just mean. If you dont want tanking to be in the game, just say so.
My suggestions:

A) Outright say tanking does not exist. Just as there is no role called "dodger" just because a character has alot of dodge, " lock" itself does not define a tank.


B ) Make tanking viable:
-Make content that will require a tank. It does not have to be ALL content. Just some is enough (hardmodes, whatever). Requiring a tank means : massive damage that would kill a non-tank and huge lock requirements (at level 170 i think 600 lock would be a bare minimum).
- Make locking have less severe penalties from the sides/back. Make locking penalties to MP more severe (if you really are concerned about PVP, you can just limit it against players but not against monsters).
-I think locker pro's no-teleport effect should also always work against monsters. Tanking is about reliability (your life/your firends lives are in the line), a skill that works sometimes is almost as bad as one that never does.
-Provocation should be a passive ability to all tanks. Any obvious "tank" passive should have a passive provoke effect that encourages monsters to target that player. Now that tanks cannot stat Init (unless they lose lock to do it), added to tanking items terrible ini, a tank wil be the last to play. By the time it is his turn, monsters will be all over the place (and if their damage is increased as i believe it is necessary for tanking to be a thing, probably two of your allies will be dead by your first turn), making grouping them around you by yourself impossible. The game would need some sort of mechanic that encourages monsters to hit the player actualy designed to get hit for the team.


At last, my quesitons to the community are:

1) Do you guys think tanking should exist in the game?
(if so, to what extent?)

2) Do you guys think tanking currently is viable in the game?
(if so please explain - i really cant see it)

3) Do you guys mostly agree or disagree with my impressions on the matter, as described above?

4) Do you guys think there is any possibility this scenario may change in the near future?

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - March 07, 2015, 03:16:00.
Thread : General Discussion  Preview message : #836291  Replies : 19  Views : 1395
posté March 07, 2015, 01:47:05 | #9
I think the community tends to underestimate buggy a bit.

I think he scales differently from other damaging sidekicks like shadow because his key damage bonus passive is on crit, so at low levels his damage seems low, because of a lower base and low level items have poor crit bonuses. Assuming he is weak, noone bothers to see how he looks at high levels.

At higher levels, when you have alot of crit items, he pretty much only crits. And he has really good range, so in fights where enemies start far he starts attacking before anyone else.

Im not saying he is awesome, or better then other sidekicks. But i think he is quite competitive.

Thread : General Discussion  Preview message : #836275  Replies : 8  Views : 550
posté December 10, 2014, 00:15:20 | #10
We (feca community) think the pvp effect works against monsters (at least sometimes), and that it is a bug (non-intended, may get patched).

Thread : Feca  Preview message : #806695  Replies : 2  Views : 929
posté December 04, 2014, 01:12:48 | #11
I liked it!

You might want to consider adding it to the guides section as well.

Thread : Feca  Preview message : #804439  Replies : 17  Views : 8129
posté December 03, 2014, 02:15:56 | #12

Quote (Cyten @ 02 December 2014 18:52) *
Here is why Feca out damages a rogue:

Look, your example is not valid for many reasons.

Firstly you have to compare each classes abilities to deal damage in a entire turn (or preferably, sustained in a sequence of turns and in varied situations), not just two spells independently.

Natural is a very high damage per AP spell (highest feca's have access too), but it is limited to 2/turn (4 ap total) - it is not the base for a feca's damage calculation. And rogues have multiple class mechanics that affects their DPT that are not considered when you look at one isolated spell.

Second, it is very difficult to accurately establish a rogue's DPT because it has class mechanics that affect it's calculation in complicated way.
Earth spells have low damage per Ap, but surprise shot may allow you to do additional "free" attacks after your spells. Air spells also have low damage per AP, but rogue master allows you to regain AP to have more overall casts. Fire spells create bombs /firewall which damage may be variable according to enemy actions, how many passives affect them (remote triggering), and when and in what position they are triggered.

Comparing one or two spell's base damage is hardly a valid argument in favor of either class.

Look, i like fecas. I see many problems with the class, many things i would change about it, but i have two fecas high level myself, and i wouldent if i didnt love the concept. I am not trying to convince you fecas do less damage then rogues (i personally think so based on my experience, and i think once you have played a bit more you will realize it yourself), or that you should play something else to be optimal. I am just writing here to try to show you why the kind of "argument" you are presenting is meaningless.

I do agree feca's can be damage dealers. I just think they are not particularly exceptional DD's, but not that they are incapable of preforming the role.

You are free to think whatever you want, but the moment you try to make a claim to the community (such as "class A outdamages class B"), it is important to make sure that you can actually back it up with real arguments (a in depth class mechanics analisys, a well thought representative model ,simulations, a vast ammount of sample data, there are many decent ways to go about it). The ones you are giving are noticably flawed at a first glance.

Thread : Feca  Preview message : #804123  Replies : 11  Views : 1960
posté December 01, 2014, 16:14:51 | #13
Its a video redirecting to youtube.

He cannot post it here.

Every link outside the forum gives out a warning. Its just a legal precaution so if someone links something very innapropriate, ankama cannot be made responsible.

You can see what site it is redirecting you to in the warning page:


If you think youtube is somehow a dangerous site, dont continue.

Thread : Feca  Preview message : #803521  Replies : 8  Views : 4992
posté November 28, 2014, 23:46:27 | #14

Quote (Cyten @ 28 November 2014 01:54) *
Just as I thought, if speced right Feca can go beyond tank.

Im with AdmiralWhiskey on this one.

You are confusing "outdamaging" with "winning a pvp fight".

Take this example:--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The feca ShieldyJane has 1200 hp, 60% resistance and deals 300 base damage per turn, and gains 200 shields.
The rogue SneakyBob has 900 hp, 50% resistance, and deals 600 base damage per turn.

SneakyBob *clearly* outdamages ShieldyJane. There is no discussion on this because 600dpt > 300dpt. Outdamages means "does more damage then". And Sneakybob clearly does more base damage then Shieldyjane.

But if SneakyBob and ShieldyJane fight, ShieldyJane wins:

It takes ShieldyJane 6 turns to kill SneakyBob: 300 jane's base damage*50% (100- sneakybob's resistance) = 150 dpt, 900/150 = 6. Meanwhile, it takes Bob 7 turns to kill Jane : 600 base*40% (100-janes resist)= 360 dpt, reduced by shields = 180dpt, since 6*180 = 1080, jane lives and kills bob (no matter who starts the fight).
-----------------------------------------end of example----------------------------------
You cannot just compare who dies first, or who has biggest numbers in a PvP fight, because the players are not atacking a target with equivalent resistances, health and defensive shielding.

Again, when someone "outdamages" someone else, they are not "better". They just do more base damage. The feca certainly had more resistances, possibly more health, and had shields absorbing part of the damage. You cannot metrify who did more base damage with the linked fight.

This kind of comparison has to be made in a controlled enviorment, so that the damage outputs can be independently compared.

To know who outdamages who, you can simply calculate based on elemental damage %, base spell damage and resources (AP/MP) for each one and know who has a larger output. But this is simplified because it would be a single target ideal cenario, which would likely disconsider rogue firewall damage and so forth. A realistic model would likely have to be a quite complicated simulation.

You can also test it in game in some controlled situation, say a feca and a rogue of the same level and equivalent item quality atacking one same target -who does not react or use any ability to not pullute the simulation- just to see who kills it first (for example another character who duels both). This way, both characters are dealing with the same resistances.

Take it from me. Rogues outdamage Fecas. Easy.
Im not saying fecas *lose* to rogues in pvp matches, i would be surprised if my feca did unless its the strongest of rogues. Im just saying rogues do more base damage.

Feca's entire class theme is aroud resistance, glyphs, shielding, etc. They can be quite viable in PvP because of their endurance, but in terms of raw damage im quite certain (though i speak from experience alone, i never actualy tried to math fecas vs all other classes) that we are on the very low end of base damage output.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - November 28, 2014, 23:54:25.
Thread : Feca  Preview message : #802329  Replies : 11  Views : 1960
posté November 19, 2014, 17:25:14 | #15

Quote (SpiritualEnigma @ 14 November 2014 23:34) *
If you want to do damage as a Feca you'll have to have this tree because the glyphs are too strong to ignore.
Oh, there was one other thing that i forgot to mention. The part i highlighted above was something that kind of called my attention when i was reading because i have always believed quite the opposite (that fire glyphs are horrible to the point we should be questioning ankama why they even implemented them).
Maybe it would be worth doing a damage per AP comparison to glyphs too?
For example, Flaming carpet is 4 AP, so the glyph costs 5 (carpet + neutral glyph).
The glyph has 85 damage at level 200, so... its 85/5 = 17 damage per AP (which is quite horrible).

Now, i understand someone might wanna argue that this will be lots of damage because it will hit a bunch of enemies at once...
I see tons of flaws with that reasoning.

Firstly, no other classes sacrifice single target damage for their AOE's. A Osamodas Weakening command (5ap1mp) deals 135 damage. Thats 27 damage per AP, and it is a 2 square width AOE (Oh, i would also note that i do not think it makes sense to take in accout MP cost of spells in its damage per AP calculation... a feca with 4 AP can cast 2 Natural atacks, not one. MP cost is just a mobility restriction for using that spell). The point is, this spell is just as good for AOE as for single target.

Secondly, glyphs have the additional disadvantage that they dont do damage when you cast them. Only when the monster activates it on HIS turn. This means that you might put down a glyph under a group of monsters worth AoE-ing, but allies will kill them before they activate it and your glyph is mostly wasted.

Thirdly, high single target damage is preferable to higher total dabage, but spread out AOE. It is better to fight one healthy monster then two crippled monsters, just because dead monsters do not attack. In my understanding of high level dungeons, a group wants to just kill some of the enemies (sometime specific nasty ones, sometimes none in particular) as quick as possible. Many monsters even heal themselves or allies if they are not killed quickly.

Fecastopheles is a bit more difficult to analyze since each activation deals AOE damage. Its damage per activation is horrid (at level 200 88 damage for a 7 AP glyph). In theory, this spell could be the highest damaging spell in the game. But in practice, it suffers from many of the problems Flaming carpet glyph (ony activating on the enemy turn, a juicy AOE may become empty by then, etc), and even when one monster does activate it in a way he damages another or a few other nearby, he will leave the glyph's AOE on his turn, so each new activation will be more empty.

I dont know if i was able to express my point of view. I just wanted to try to show that our fire glyph's usefulness is at least quite arguable.

Thread : Guides  Preview message : #798386  Replies : 10  Views : 5560
posté November 18, 2014, 06:33:00 | #16

I really liked your guide. I considered posting a damager per AP table for each spell to help everyone with comparing spell damages, but you beat me to it! I think that is really helpfull for new players to pick their spells! I also think much advice is very usefull, for example the turning inversion on and off is something almost no-one does.

I did want to point out a few things i did not fully agree with, just case maybe they were points you might want to re-think about.

--"Tanks need to prioritize these stats: AP, Resistance, Damage, Lock, MP, and Block (in that order)."

I do agree all these stats are nice, but i strongly disagree about the order part. Some of them (such as block) lose all value once you reach a certain limit (more then 100 block is waste). Others like AP might lose a lot of its value once you obtain a certain number when you can cast your desired "combos"(after which additional AP can be difficult to use and are likely wasted). I would say a real and static priority order in stats would always be somewhat misleading, its just important to know what each one is for to understand their value. But if i had to state a order i would probably say something like:

Lock, MP, block, resistance, AP, Damage (in that order).

Which is quite different from what was proposed! This is just what i feel from tanking at high levels (ammount of lock required for it to be meaningfull in the battle, mobility challenges, damage intakes and etc), i do not intend to say i am a authority, i can be wrong! Since this is your guide and all i dont want to write a huge reply and take up tons of space, but if you want me to try to explain why i would argue for that order i can do it in forum messages!

Another minor thingy that got me confused was this statement:
" Lock (maybe multi-lock if you only do PvE and have a lot of teammates)"
Multi lock grants more lock based on how many enemies are in CC with you... I do not understand why you said the amount of teammates influences the usefulness of this ability.

Anyhow, this is a very nice reference and i see a lot of people asking about fecas, i hope you are able to keep it updated!  

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - November 18, 2014, 06:50:16.
Thread : Guides  Preview message : #797732  Replies : 10  Views : 5560
posté November 14, 2014, 00:35:16 | #17

Quote (Troutmask @ 13 November 2014 12:13) *



Water - Steam 80, Crashing Wave 80

Earth - Fecabo 80, Fecastaff 80

Everything else even spread for resists?

So... Firstly spell levels no longer grant resistances, only damage. Distributing spell levels is now only for attempting to increase your preferred element(s) damage(s), and actually improve spell levels.

As for the spell selection... I honestly would not know what is best, but i can point out some vulnerabilities in the ones you chose:

Earth spells have very very low damage (to compensate that they also give shields).
This is a easily verifiable fact: You can verify in game, or just open the website ( Click here) and just compare steam with defensive orb (both cost 3 AP). Orb deals 61 damage at level 200, steam deals 87. All earth spells follow the same pattern, they deal *significantly* less damage then fire or water spells of the same cost. The only exception is Fecastaff, with increadibly good damage but the harsh limitation of 1cast /turn and 2 mp additional cost. I do agree lower AP spell options are more flexibile, but out of the earth spells Fecammer does have highest damage output per AP, and the best utility (along with the staff glyph), so that may be worth consideration.
61 damage might not seem like that much less then 87, but you must remember that these are the base values that are altered by damage %. if you have 900% all damages, the orb armour would be dealing 610 (base 61 + 900%*61), and steam will deal 870. Its almost 300 damage difference (1/2 of the earth spells entire damage value).
Feca Earth spells are *brutally* underpowered for the purpose of damaging. They are meant to help a tank last longer, not to kill anything.

Additionally, all water spells except drip are ranged only (no close combat range). Thus, if a enemy comes CC with you, your options are only hitting him with weak/ineffective damaging earth spells, or running away (wich may cost you 2 ap for a drip if you do not have enough dodge).

Another criticism i would see as valid is that your spell choices overlap in utility. Steam and crashing wave both grant armor. Earth spells also grant armor. You are not taking any of the other possible utility (MP removal, AP removal, 1 turn damage delay, spells with no need of line of sight, etc).

A question that comes to mind is, why take fecamaster if you are not using fire?
Sure, you also get 2 control and some lock.... But, although the lock may be a annoyance to the enemie at times, i hardly see it being worth 20 specialty points unless you're a tank.
The controll seems equally pointless to me. In PvP i dont see stacking AP glyphs as a good idea. A smart opponent will frequently be able to move you off of them. And investing AP now for gains in 2 turns in PVP is usually not a good idea.

Like i said before, i do not know what is best for PVPing as a feca (specially not at low levels). I just do not intensively PVP with my characters.

I do believe your decisions should depend on the type of PVP you have in mind. 1v1 is *ALOT* different from a 2v2. in a 2v2 a supporting feca with high resistance, provocation and peace armor can really tip the scales and let his team win, but a feca with the same build in a 1v1 would just be wasting 2 specialties.
Additionally, some builds may be excellent against some classes and terrible against others.
Considering you have 1v1 in mind (i believe it is what people usually mean when they say PVP), i would personally probably go earth/fire, with crashing wave, steam, bubble, fecastopheles and natural attack.
Crashing wave would be just for the armor, the other spells because they are the highest damage per AP spells feca's have.
I would self-shield with water spells, or not at all, depending on the fight. Since this spell selection is highly ranged-only, i would stat dodge (or ini just because starting in PVP is almost everything in a balanced fight).

I would also strongly consider taking points in to inversion.

I would expect such a build to be nice against ranged foes like Cras and Xelors (you would also have range, you are a feca so you would have more resistance and shields, etc), but not so good against CC classes like air iops and sacs because your spell selection is heavily ranged and many spells require MP to cast, so moving away, even if you have enough dodge, will weaken your atack.

Please do keep in mind that rarely, if ever, any build is good against everything.
There is a lot of stuff i honestly have no idea. I would have to spend some time playing a level 80 to have any opinion regarding major points (more + damage, or more AP? MP worth it?).

Im not a super PVPer, just a high level feca player, so im not trying to give you a guide or to-do list. Just trying to give some insight and considerations. My hunch is that the initially proposed build could be improved on.

Hope any of that text wall is helpful, and have fun!

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - November 14, 2014, 00:45:01.
Thread : Feca  Preview message : #796193  Replies : 4  Views : 1368
posté November 13, 2014, 23:55:30 | #18

Quote (Powerful-Potato @ 12 November 2014 04:47) *
I have a few things that i want to ask an experienced Feca:
Does Earth Shield and Glyph be affected by secondary damage ? If it does affects shields and glyphs, which type of secondary damage apply on shield/glyph ? ( Single target damage for shield and aoe damage for glyph for example )
Does the secondary damage like long ranged, close combat and backstab applies to glyph/amor ? And if it applies, it will be based on the postion of the Feca or the glyph ?

And lastly, can anyone please tell me which one of the secondary damage should i invest for a fire/water glyph Feca ?
Sorry for the horrible english
I have not done empirical testing on many of these regards, so please do take the replies i will give with a grain of salt.

Yes, Shield Outputs and Glyph damages are affected by "secondary damages" such as single target, multi target, backstabbing, etc. Essencialy, all damage types are valid when applicable. So a earth shield will profit from single target bonuses (earth spells are always single target atacks), but fire glyphs will use Multi-target bonuses.
Naturally, a non-damaging earth glyph (such as Fecammer -MP glyph) will not give shields as when this spell is used in "glyph" mode explicitly does not deal damage nor grant shields.
Similarly, backstab bonuses will never apply for shielding (either yourself with earth or allies with water).

As for positioning, i am pretty certain that glyphs take *your* position in account, not the glyphs. It will not matter if your fecastopheles glyph is right under a enemy, if you are 6 squares away it uses distance damage bonuses and not close combat damage bonuses.

In my experience water/fire combination is played as a heavily ranged damager (curious that the "resistance" class is played as if it was a Cra). Almost all water spells are distance-only, and some fire spells (notably Fecastopheles) are as well. Thus, i would suggest taking distance damage.
Crit damage is also helpfull.

As a range damager, backstab bonuses, as well as close combat bonuses, are less likely to be usefull.

Personaly, i think that the feca attack glyphs are very limited and usually avoid using them, and thus like single target damage as well.
But if you are decided to try to use glyphs (you did seem to explicitly say so), this may be detrimental.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - November 13, 2014, 23:57:11.
Thread : Feca  Preview message : #796186  Replies : 3  Views : 1065
posté October 03, 2014, 05:12:05 | #19

Quote (JuloFreeqer @ 01 September 2014 16:54) *

First thing first, i' d like to thank You for the epic guide.

I have question there is no option to state 2 MP as for today (01.09.2014). What to do?
Should i give 1 MP and 1 AP or should i skip 1 AP and go straight for Lock? I' am trying to go for "Build B".
Hi, im sorry, i have not had to play lately so i have not kept the guide up to date (Even if i wanted to keep it at it, I think it is dishonest to write a "end game" guide if i have not been keeping up to the latest content releases...).

I was still playing when the 2 MP was cut down and was testing a few different options. I was liking 1 AP 1 MP, but of course lock is still the most imporant.

Like i did state in the guide, I wrote it with maximum level (at the time) characters in mind, so I can't really say which i think is best "first".
If you decidedly want to level as a tank, trying to play as a tank in your groups, i would probably recommend MP->lock->AP just because low level items do not have much lock, so to lock enemies at all you will probably need the stated lock.

But do keep in mind leveling as a tank at all is not particularly efficient, at least until whisperers or even wabbit island (unless there were drastic changes since the srambad updates).

Quote (Paranoob @ 24 September 2014 20:56) *
Hi! What about strenght Points?


Strength points basically just convert to %earth damage and % resistance to earth (last i played, at least).

With this in mind, its contribution to your endurance is just slightly increased earth resistance, and slightly stronger earth shields.

In my gaming, i did not find the damage (and consequential shield) increase justified stacking this stat at all. I did mess around with increasing all damage stats equally (str, int, chance, etc) for a overall resistance gain, which did prove quite advantageous (specially considering that once all other stats are cheaper once you increase one of them - the same points that give you +30 str can give you +15 of all stats - to me, clearly the better choice).

Of course, stacking these resistance stats limits a possible investment to initiative, and which is best largely depends on your playstyle, the content you usually fight, and your team composition.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - October 03, 2014, 05:19:08.
Thread : Guides  Preview message : #783790  Replies : 26  Views : 18004
posté July 29, 2014, 22:00:45 | #20
I would like to add a bit of clarification regarding tanking in a more general aspect (which was mentioned above).

Although this is admittedly my view on the subject and i am certain there are players that will disagree, I am pretty sure that any disagreement's would be result of different game-play experiences and, for at least a fraction of the game, what i am about to say is valid.

I often (here and in other threads) see people say something like "ah, make a earth feca, it is a good tank".
Firstly, i would like to clarify what i understand is meant when you state a character (feca or otherwise) is of a element: Saying that a class is "fire" or "earth" implies that they seek items that increase that element damage, and they take spells of that element. A fire Ecaflip will take fire spells to maximize his spell levels and thus base damage and fire damage percentages, and seek appropriate fire damage items. A "dual element" fire/water Enu will, similarly, take spells in those two trees and items for both those damage types.

Now, tanking requires locking creatures down and usually some for of map control to make the enemies come adjacent to you so you *can* lock them down.

Higher level items with lock frequently have no damage values, or very small damage values if compared to equivalent items of that rarity and level, in a way that it is unreliable to have a "tank" with viable damaging capability.

Because tanks will prioritize resistances and lock for his tanking functionality, I have always believed it is a contradiction to describe a tank character by any element. For higher level content a group may be concerned about having damage dealers capable of attacking with all elements within the group, to strike the enemies varied vulnerabilities. Since tanks will not be a reliable damage source for any element, it may even be misleading to say you are a "earth" feca if you are actually a tank.

And because the items give lower damage values, feca tanks often (if not always) are tri-element, to have a larger toolkit of armors for their group. High level volcano can lower a enemy resistance considerably and will likely give your group more damage then you ever could deal yourself. Many armors and glyphs can be helpful if leveled.

But because of this low damage, leveling as a tank is extremely slow unless you are grouped. Don't expect to solo dungeons and such, even if considerably higher level.

Of course, a player can level his feca as some sort of element combination (say water/earth), with damage items, and "tank' the low level monsters he fights will leveling with his group. I just wanted to clarify that once you are passing level 100, this will not work for many enemies (not enough lock to tank). Then you will be forced to chose to respec to become a actual tank, respec to become a damage dealer (earth spells have low base damage and are usually a poor DD choice), or stay as you are (which may very well not be optimal for either group role).
It is a bit of a text wall, and not all information is entirely relevant for a very new player, but i do think it is important they realize what they are getting into.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - July 29, 2014, 22:10:10.
Thread : Feca  Preview message : #758365  Replies : 25  Views : 2305