Forums Home Forum Rules Achaea.com Lore Wiki Vote for Achaea! IronRealms.com
Home› Everything Achaea› The Matsuhama Arena

Dirge - gravehands and piety

KlendathuKlendathu Eye of the Storm
in The Matsuhama Arena
Forgive my ignorance if I am incorrect, only having ever been on the receiving end of both, but gravehands and piety appear to be mechanically the same ability, albeit for diametrically opposite factions.

Why is it, therefore, that dirge can banish gravehands, but has no effect on piety? Should it not affect both equally?

(No flaming, sensible, well reasoned comments only please)

Tharos, the Announcer of Delos shouts, "It's near the end of the egghunt and I still haven't figured out how to pronounce Clean-dat-hoo."
«1

Comments

  • CynderCynder Where the Red Pandas roam.
    I personally just hate:

    Bard removes gravehands with a song
    Necromancer destroys rites (piety) with necromancy
    Devotionalists do ???

    On top of that gravehands only effects non-Mhaldorians and not people on your enemy list. While Piety only hits those on your enemy list. >.>
    Made for some very annoying Mhaldorian ranked duels let me tell you damnit.
  • JovoloJovolo
    edited December 2014
    They aren't mechanically the same, as they have large situational differences and varying strengths and weaknesses including who they hit, visibility, dynamic use, essence/devotion cost, etc. They're both splashable room hindrance abilities, but that's where the similarity ends. 

    Dirge has been a point of contention for completely different reasons than you state. It's a neutral, easy, and untaxing counter to a factional staple. If you're going to argue that it should affect both gravehands and piety equally, it should be in the direction of making it affect neither and be repurposed altogether.
  • AntidasAntidas
    Jovolo said:
    They aren't mechanically the same, as they have large situational differences and varying strengths and weaknesses including who they hit, visibility, dynamic use, essence/devotion cost, etc. They're both splashable room hindrance abilities, but that's where the similarity ends. 

    Dirge has been a point of contention for completely different reasons than you state. It's a neutral, easy, and untaxing counter to a factional staple. If you're going to argue that it should affect both gravehands and piety equally, it should be in the direction of making it affect neither and be repurposed altogether.
    Agree. Should instead simply give deviationists a method of countering gravehands similar to what necromancers have to counter rites - some sort of mildly costly channeled ability.

  • KendrickKendrick
    Yeah. You can eat my rites but I can't eat GH, the hell is that. :[
  • ErnamErnam
    Kendrick said:
    Yeah. You can eat my rites but I can't eat GH, the hell is that. :[
    this
  • AradorArador
    Rites are also invisible on squint, and enemy only. Stop thinking these things are equal.

  • ErnamErnam
    edited January 2015
    Arador said:
    Rites are also invisible on squint, and enemy only. Stop thinking these things are equal.

    Both of those "differences" are nearly meaningless, while technically true.  Rarely do you need to see Piety to know it's there, when there's a Devo user in another group, and rarely do raids involve more than 20 enemies (negating the "enemy only" thing).

    I agree that they are not "equal", but I would have to say that they are essentially as equivalent as two abilities could possibly be without actually being the same skill.

    With that said, I don't think anyone cares if they are equal or not -  I think what people care about is the fact that Piety (read: Targossas' crowd-control) is now easily removable in group combat scenarios, whereas Gravehands (read: Mhaldor's crowd-control) is not.

    The other somewhat valid question is: Why was this even given to necromancy at all?  I'm not aware of any solid reason that it would be spontaneously added, without doing the same for other, "equivalent" abilities elsewhere in the game.  There's no way to cure hamstring, pinshot, or vines, for example.  All three of those abilities would be virtually meaningless in 1v1 combat if you could, as is now the case with Piety, against Infernals or Apostates.  Now priests have no way to hinder necromancy users, but are still completely boned against gravehands, in 1v1 combat, which is a HUGE nerf to priest and a HUGE buff to necro users, in 1v1 combat, which I think is a pretty huge, but unintended side-effect of a purely group-combat-based change.

    I think a lot of people seriously underestimate how crucial Piety is for priest offense, particularly.  Without it, it is almost entirely possible for a priest to kill someone who knows when to hit the panic button.  Due to this change, as far as a priest is concerned, Necromancers and Infernals essentially just got Evade, bringing the number of classes that we have zero chance of killing* to four.  [ * assuming they aren't terribad at combat ]

    The same logic does not apply to knights, primarily since they are a prep class and therefore do not require hindrance in order to complete kill sequences - and they also have Blocking, easier/faster leg breaks, lunge, and engage.  Combat balance regarding Piety is always so hard to talk about since it is a relatively strong ability that is somewhat wantonly given to two completely different classes.  For example, this is a HUGE hit to priest, but a relatively small hit (but still a hit) to Paladins.
  • WessuxWessux Chattanooga
    edited January 2015
    I can't use Gravehands anymore unless I want to get caught too :<. Also desecrate is a channeled ability with a long balance that takes a hell of a lot of mana and some essence. If a necromancer uses it in a fight with a priest they're gonna have a bad time. Desecrate is nearly useless in 1v1 and is only good in a raid at very situational times.


    Edit: Gravehands was added in so Apostates could fight people. Without a room hindering ability apostate is equally as difficult to fight as, as a priest. And again, it's not like they can just do this willy nilly. If you think that you are extremely miss informed on how the skill works.
    Invest in a 9mm retirement plan.
  • AradorArador
    If you give the necromancer time in a 1v1 fight to channel desecration, I have no sympathy for you. Also you can unenemy all, therefore remotely turning off piety if you want to beckon people. I'll just chuckle at the rest.

  • ErnamErnam
    edited January 2015

    I actually didn't know that it's channeled, but this isn't a particularly dangerous against a priest.  A 1-2 second curing pause doesn't open up any opportunity that isn't immediately outweighed by the fact that you are now able to freely leave the room (since Piety is essentially the only thing we have that can stop you from doing so).  Unpause, eat bloodroot, stand, and leave.  If we prepped a leg and immediately started a shatter when you began Desecrate for a double leg break, it might buy a priest enough time for like 2 attacks before you can cure it up and run, but the time used by Shatter and Smite would cost a huge amount of momentum (in fact, more than we'd regain during the on-balance time before you could stand).



    I'd say that Desecrate is far more valuable in 1v1 combat than in group scenarios, specifically because 1v1 combat allows you to do it in the room with your opponent, vs. in group combat, where you more or less have to do it while they're not present.

    How does it work with balance after the channel completes?  Because if you regain balance at the end of it (like shatter), then it's actually WAY BETTER than if it wasn't a channel, because it makes it impossible for a Priest to simply replace Piety before you regain balance.  This would be a particularly terrible mechanic if that's how it works.

  • AradorArador
    edited January 2015
    Is a longer channel than that, if I recall correctly. It's not that you can take advantage in that time, it is that you can stop it so very easily from being done if you are there.

  • ErnamErnam
    edited January 2015
    Arador said:
    Is a longer channel than that, if I recall correctly. It's not that you can take advantage in that time, it is that you can stop it so very easily from being done if you are there.

    Yes, but forcing a priest to paralyze you means forcing a priest to stop attacking (while you continue curing) which means you are obliterating their offense.  Priests have no way to reliably paralyze with a combination attack, which means that to stop it they'd have to jab, torc, or prone you (assuming that stops it) - none of which can be worked into a priest chasten/disrupt combination.

    So sure, you can stop it, but you've accomplished the same thing that running would have accomplished: Stopping the affliction pressure while continuing to cure.

    edit: I didn't think of this earlier, but it really isn't anything particularly new, since blackwinding after a smite, sap, chasten, or virtually anything else, is effectively Evade anyways, assuming you don't get unlucky and get hit by Cleansing.  Most classes have ways of ignoring Piety, but that doesn't mean we need to add even more (particularly to classes that already had several).
  • AradorArador
    You'll have to get someone to give you the correct figures since I have not done it in ages, but I want to say around a 4-5 second channel, making it completely useless in 1v1 unless the priest is on a mid fight coffee break. Can not remember the balances on it.

  • ErnamErnam
    edited January 2015

    Should include devo, essence, karma, mana, WP, endurance cost, while we're getting academic!

    @Arador if it's a 4+ second channel, then you'd be right that it'd be pretty dumb to use in 1v1.  I honestly have no idea what the channel time is on it, so that whole portion of my argument may very well be invalid.  I will admit that I assumed that it's in the 1-2 second range, since every other channel that isn't either an insta-kill or an environment-changing ability is.
  • WessuxWessux Chattanooga
    edited January 2015
    3.5s channel.
    4s balance cost.
    500 mana cost.
    3.5%-4% essence cost
    Invest in a 9mm retirement plan.
  • ErnamErnam
    edited January 2015
    Wessux said:
    3.5s channel.
    4s balance cost.
    500 mana cost.
    3.5%-4% essence cost

    quick-witted, diadem?  30% eq reduction is pretty significant, in either direction.

    Also, I wonder if that's forcible. *g*
  • AepasAepas
    Ernam said:
    Arador said:
    Is a longer channel than that, if I recall correctly. It's not that you can take advantage in that time, it is that you can stop it so very easily from being done if you are there.

    Yes, but forcing a priest to paralyze you means forcing a priest to stop attacking (while you continue curing) which means you are obliterating their offense.  Priests have no way to reliably paralyze with a combination attack, which means that to stop it they'd have to jab, torc, or prone you (assuming that stops it) - none of which can be worked into a priest chasten/disrupt combination.
    Desecration is the new meta.
    Replies the scorpion: "It's my nature..."
  • JovoloJovolo
    edited January 2015
    You have to pause to desecrate, so you don't need to chasten to keep up with their curing because there isn't any. Push has a sub 2 second eq anyway, so it's hardly taking a lot of time out of a priest offence to prevent desecrate, and you can still combo a lash or disrupt with it. Desecrate isn't viable at all if there's at least one enemy in the same room as the necromancer, it's solely used in between fights.

    If dirge was repurposed to not affect Gravehands, I don't see a big problem with Devotionists getting a specific counter to gravehands, but it's not exactly a pressing or necessary issue considering there's already a neutral counter to the ability.
  • MorthifMorthif
    There's no neutral counter. Targ never has more then one bard and they are always a non com and get beat so hard they quit class
  • JovoloJovolo
    That doesn't make it not a neutral counter.
  • ErnamErnam

    Individual classes (particularly rarely used ones) having the only hard counter to an ability that several other, factional classes (particularly, two popular ones) is, and always has been, a terrible concept.

    I thought IRE was trying to get out of this whole "lets force people to change class / remain a class for their organization" thing anyways (see: Houses).
  • JulesJules
    edited January 2015
    What a nice comparison Halos put up.  I wish more knowledgeable people would put that kind of post up.  

    Seeing a thread like this, and all of the people arguing about how things are "fine", I can't help but think of the fact that runies just got a hindering abilty, unprecedented for us, and which seems to have *really* slipped in under the radar (although it's possible and even likely that some players were involved in getting it suggested and approved).  Even as a non-com, I feel almost 99% certain that if that hindering idea had been suggested by almost anyone (even someone who is generally liked and respected as a combatant), huge swaths of the playerbase would have screamed bloody murder.  They would have lectured the OP on what he should do, and insist that no hindering was necessary, and that he should use walls, and many other things I admit I don't understand.  They certainly never would have conceded that maybe something like this could be done without breaking Achaea.  And maybe it *will* for a time - in fact the thread about the new runie ability does show some things that people strongly feel must be fixed, but being extremely averse to any sort of change in this vein really does seem like a theme for us.  

    EDIT:  same thing with standardizing weapons, really, and any one of the huge changes happening right now.  People screamed bloody murder that that removing probability from weapon stats would be a horrible change for about 10 years.  Literally fought it tooth and nail any time it came up.  Thank God sometimes admin just ignores us and says, yep, we think this will be a good change.  
  • AntoniusAntonius
    edited January 2015
    There's a reason "huge swaths of the playerbase" don't have any real input on combat balance in Achaea, though. Had somebody suggested Runewardens get room hinder prior to the Knight changes I would have happily told them they were crazy. Afterwards, however, they really needed it. They lost a large part of what made them viable compared to the other two classes when they lost weapon stat runes, and they needed something major to make up for that. As for the forging changes, the only people I recall being violently opposed were those who were concerned with the profitability of forging, not the combat balance of Knights and other weapon stat dependent classes. That or they just weren't capable of grasping the factors at play. Some people are just opposed to change no matter what, because the (perceived) negative to them vastly outweighs the good for the game as a whole. Nothing you can do about that. Pretty much no change ever is going to be universally liked, there will always be at least one person who is unhappy. Edit: Piece of shit forums on mobile doesn't want to recognise that is split into paragraphs. Sorry about the wall of text.

    Results of disembowel testing | Knight limb counter | GMCP AB files

  • JulesJules
    edited January 2015
    I figured someone might have brought up that it was something for the changes, and I'm glad it was you to bring it up, because you're pretty civil about things like that.  That said, I still think people would have had a hissy fit (and you seem to think so too) - because oh my word changes, and they are forever!

    EDIT:  also, serious question.  Would not have many Runies have jumped at the chance to trade the stat runes for a true hindering ability?  I'm asking.  

    (when you're not on mobile ;) )
  • CooperCooper
    @Jules‌ Runewardens didn't need the hinder before the knight changes. Afterwards, they did.

  • WessuxWessux Chattanooga
    Cooper said:
    @Jules‌ Runewardens didn't need the hinder before the knight changes. Afterwards, they did.
    I would argue the reverse. Doing the two arm parry bypass or other parry bypasses was usually met with running/flying. With the new nausea bypass it's not really necessary for prep (not including two hander). Runewarden needed a way to keep people in the room. Wunjo Nairat were great, but it relied on your opponent letting the runes hit them and if you put them down then they ran that meant you weren't using things like dagaz, uruz, and old isaz which were nice to have.

    I think the Isaz change is a welcomed addition to the class before or after the knight changes.
    Invest in a 9mm retirement plan.
  • JulesJules
    I really don't know, but people are already arguing both sides :P, which was not quite, but very closely related to my point, which was just that our players just can't seem to enjoy the potential of a new idea without dismissing it out of hand, or even turning it into a bit of a doomsday scenario (and maybe sometimes it really is, RELAX MINDSEYE anyone)?  Still, all in all, I'm glad that admins sometimes just makes bold changes without really asking, because for some reason we really are super cautious, probably to a fault.  
  • ErnamErnam
    edited January 2015

    There have been very few pre-discussed major changes to the game that weren't vehemently argued against, given the opportunity.  (Some) people even argued that kill rooms were a valuable, fair part of the game.

  • JulesJules
    That is awesome, and I can see it happening.  
Sign In or Register to comment.