Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

Classlead Discussion Q2 2016

13468915

Comments

  • AtalkezAtalkez Member Posts: 4,924 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Armali said:

    Unnamable's cast time is 3.2s eq according to the AB. Instill is 2.5s eq. We can immediately see that 33% of the time, a one-aff unnamable will go off and you've lost aff progress over an instill, because the target can just focus away your aff. What if they're off focus balance for one reason or another? Than you've still lost progress because Unnamable is slower than instill.

    It may be slower than instill, but it allows the class to unlock afflictions that instill does not have access to, so pairing it works better than repeating instill over and over imo.

    What happens if you get a 2-aff unnamable? The target will focus off the first aff, and be left with one remaining. In this scenario, you've knocked their focus balance and given them one aff. This is similar to the, 'one aff unnamable without focus scenario'. If they're off focus, then you get two affs and you've made some progress towards Hecate/whispering madness.

    If you have Cadmus, you've now given yourself paralysis (potentially, though it's pretty often), otherwise no disagreement here.

    What happens if you get a 3-aff unnamable? Well, you have two mentals on you. You may have one or more physical affs. If you have 2 or more when they regain balance, you'll probably get hit with an instill and a hecate, then a whispering madness, then an enlighten. If you don't have focus they can probaly just whispering madness into hecate immediately, then enlighten. -- keep in mind though, because of the eq costs involved, you still have maybe a second or two to try and get the hell out, which is similar to the reaction time you have to tumble against certain set ups.

    An argument will be that, 'well, a smart Occie will time unnamable to land after Cadmus, a smart Occie will use the unnamable with some momentum built up'. But that's fine. That's like saying, 'well, a smart BM can pre-impaleslash you off of your attacks'. You can see unnamable casting. You can take precautions to disrupt their timing, like active hindering (for example, on cast, if an snb is on-balance they could attack/guardbreak to get to 4mo, then strike low impale to buy themselves a bit of time where the Occie can't capitalize on the unnamable shot), or running away, just like you can disrupt a prep setup by fake or pre-applying. It's true, a 3-aff timed with instill and entity will get you to 4 affs, right up to a hecate. But a hecate isn't death, and neither is hecate + whispering madness. Enlighten is. And the Occie still needs balance to actually cast each of those abilities in sequence and such a scenario can only really occur maybe 33% of the time, a bit more if you happen to be off focus balance (in which case you're either so far behind they could've just cadmused, or their pre-momentum has been reduced because they spent a balance somewhere burning your focus). 

    You will have to make the argument for a smart occie using it after they've already stacked you a bit. There's no reason to start a fight with Unnamable, because as you mentioned yourself it's simply less efficient to use in that manner. It's best comparable to a serpent snap with an EQ cost than a pre-impaleslash of a prep class. I can cure my legs and be okay easy enough. Affliction class isn't like that in the slightest. The best use, to me, would be after Cadmus when focusing can lead to the target not being able to run or hinder you because of paralysis. As Farrah mentioned, running really doesn't seem to work at all. You can't fly, and you can't shield because occultist beats both of those with no real loss to momentum. You have one/two seconds to attempt to walk out of tentacles, and a high chance you have paralysis so you sacrifice that curing chance on something that doesn't help except to give you an rng chance to leave the room seems pretty over-the-top no?

    A further argument might be, 'well it's annoying that I have to run away so often!' That's not really an argument though. If you successfully escape as a prep class, you make definable progress towards your kill condition as long as you've hit them a few times. They haven't if you manage to get out. As a mo. class, you already generally have the tools to slow down their momentum sufficiently (for example, I do as an alchemist, and a spine serpent probably would do, if they get that para spamming down pat), so the instances of an unnamable shot coming out are farther in between.

    As was said, I don't see running away as a viable option versus occultist. The issue, is that it also can't be cured around. There is not (cure impatience if snapped for serpent), or (cure asthma for apostate if slickness) defensive mechanisms in place. The class punishes shield, flying, running, and curing. To me, that's a bit much. I'm not big on the 'run or die' mentality. I'm much more inclined towards curing you way through situations, or managing/manipulating your opponent/situation than simply being overrun with little way to manage it. 

    Unnamable is a gamble that, if it pays off, can pay off big, but most of the time fizzles and can be mitigated. Is it annoying that you don't know how many affs you get and thus might not know when to run? That's certainly a possibility! Neutering unnamable in the solutions described would render the skill nearly useless though -- so maybe the 'Something I haven't thought of' should be, 'let the target know how many mentals they go so they can react accordingly'. Beyond that, it's just a matter of watching your own status, highlighting unnamable cast, and then weighing the risks to make a decision of stay-leave.

    Again, we disagree that running is an option versus the class. I think something needs to be done, and it doesn't even have to be this. I don't care if I get approved/declined. I'm just offering suggestions for issues that I see. That's what my job is for the ACC, imo, and I'm gonna do that.
    @Jinsun

    I'm not geared towards taking anyone down, not sure where that comes from. I see what I perceive to be an issue, discuss it and see what I can do to manage it, try it again and again and again and if I think there is a problem, then I add it to my classlead list that I keep open on my dekstop when I'm in Achaea. Things get added/tweaked as time goes on. I weigh the issues I see pretty heavily before you ever see the classlead on it.

    Sigils aren't a balancing factor where the Lust mechanic is concerned, imo. Truename is OP as shit, don't see how you can disagree there. I'm fine with making Fool a faster cooldown in exchange for less-cures!

    At the end of the day, they're just suggestions. You can disagree with them, you can love them, that's cool. Still gonna write them up!


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • AtalkezAtalkez Member Posts: 4,924 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Armali said:
    You asked for logic, and then you dismiss logic (by literally saying tl;dr) when you get it by citing anecdotes (I not focus in time because of stupidity which I will IMMEDIATELY FOCUS away again because it procs aff discovery on serverside, and I /might/ procs secrets/shield when I'm on balance), when you originally asked for not-anecdotes. I'm not sure what you want anymore.

    By the way, your Infernal trick doesn't work. If you tumble immediately you just get impaled off one leg and eat the (hypothetically torso because of torso damage on impale) DSB. You won't tumble away in time because of intimidate (pretty sure that will lengthen tumble time just enough with one leg break). And if you're clever enough to pre-tumble, who's to say your opponent isn't clever enough to you know, actually dsl you twice to make sure you're not pulling off BS before they actually go for the kill shot?
    Wasn't dismissing anything! I was responding to the general thought process of balancing combat because, in a vacuum, you make things work a certain way. Many, many times theory and practical doesn't come together the way you anticipate. You can't account for every single thing, and so trying to turn 1v1/group combat into integers and derivatives isn't going to work in practice.

    In that instance, the issue isn't the impale doing torso damage, it's the lengthening of the tumble. Also being clever on defense is one thing, being clever on offense is another. Both of you doing it at the same time? Let's be serious. 

    I think our brands of combat are extremely different, and that's okay!


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,332 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 2016

    The traditional formula for affliction heal cooldowns is 10 secs/aff. Abilities that cure one affliction have a 10 second cooldown. Abilities that cure two have 20 secs, etc, with a few exceptions.

    I think dragonheal might be an exception (can't remember if it heals two or three affs, has a 20 second cooldown). Fool is an exception, but in a way that hurts the Tarot user (40 or 45 seconds for 3 affs). But naturally, healing 3 affs for one balance has its advantages for maintaining momentum.

    I'm fine with it as is, though.

  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAMember Posts: 2,908 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 2016
    Sigils aren't a balancing factor where the Lust mechanic is concerned, imo.

    They're a defense to it. How are they not considered a balancer. THEY ARE FOR BALANCING.

    As to stuff with Unnameable. Unnameable at the fight is awesome and super easy to gear up. Rixil/Attend Unnamable Visions/bloodleech. Congrats, you're now down tree and an herb balance and about to tick potentially 3 mentals on my next balance while I stack. It's a -huge- bonus on front end which just goes to show that you don't really get it.

    Saying, "I don't like this" isn't really a great reason to do a classlead. You really need to dig into a class before asking the game designers to change it to suit your suggestions because you're effecting how someone else plays the game. If you're gonna make suggestions, take time to really understand them. 

    @Farrah with tarot changes, you can also force a fool fling. Or if you're a tarot user fling at the beginning of the stack at the opponent so they can't fool. 
    image
  • AtalkezAtalkez Member Posts: 4,924 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 2016
    Not worth arguing with the guy that likes to Empress into guards/honours mobs about why the Lust mechanic is easily abused.

    Good luck with your classleads!


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    I mean, to be fair they can do the exact same thing back if you're a Tarot user. Woe to those facing a Devotion user though, that would be fun.
  • AtalkezAtalkez Member Posts: 4,924 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 2016
    No you can't. You have to AGREE to me being able to Deliver you.

    Completely different.

    Edit: Also, generally the guards portion is done with a doppie Empress, so no real threat to our occultist to do it!


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAMember Posts: 2,908 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Or, you could just check allies in a fight when you see me leave. It's balanceless. 
    image
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Atalkez said:
    No you can't. You have to AGREE to me being able to Deliver you.

    Completely different.

    Edit: Also, generally the guards portion is done with a doppie Empress, so no real threat to our occultist to do it!
    Oh, I was talking about the Fool thing. Your comment snuck in in between as I was posting.
    Atalkez
  • AtalkezAtalkez Member Posts: 4,924 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Jinsun said:
    Or, you could just check allies in a fight when you see me leave. It's balanceless. 

    Or you can read the classlead that detailed the problem?

    Allies being balanceless is irrelevant.


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAMember Posts: 2,908 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    The problem is what? Not using sigils is punished by the offensive abilities that they prevent? You can't be bothered to check allies and reject someone 1 v 1, despite often having more than a few minutes to do so? Classleads are here for serious problems and issues, not for the admin to baby you for being lazy.
    image
  • AtalkezAtalkez Member Posts: 4,924 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Atalkez said:
    Not worth arguing with the guy that likes to Empress into guards/honours mobs about why the Lust mechanic is easily abused.

    Good luck with your classleads!



    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    I've personally always thought it was kinda weird that Lusted Empress would take you across continent, but allied Lust, wouldn't. Maybe could make it the other way around, so it still has utility in skirmishes and raids.
    Shirszae
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAMember Posts: 2,908 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Armali said:
    I've personally always thought it was kinda weird that Lusted Empress would take you across continent, but allied Lust, wouldn't. Maybe could make it the other way around, so it still has utility in skirmishes and raids.
    See, this guy gets it. Would be fine with this.
    image
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Welp, I have two free slots. I guess I'll make it a report!
  • AerekAerek East Tennessee, USAMember Posts: 1,818 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Farrah said:

    When I read the torso/impale thing, I was thinking about Intimidate. I don't play DWC, and have no idea what intimidate actually does (other than that it extends tumble in some way). I was thinking the impale change might create impossible to stop torso dsbs in conjunction with intimidate, but was also thinking intimidate might not be necessary if the torso impale thing was added. I can't really say if it's a problem without knowing exactly what intimidate does though.

    Intimidate extends Tumble-out time by .5s for each damaged leg, (On top of the existing penalties for damaged limbs) so Tumble with 1 damaged leg and Intimidate is 5s, tumble with 2 damaged legs and Intimidate is 7s.

    Intimidate exists to remove the disparity between S&B and DWC. Against S&B, you have 1s to tumble on a leg break or they have time to impale/Disembowel. DWC, on the other hand, has to break both legs first, and you could tumble after the second leg break and still make it out in time, with the first leg break serving as a convenient telegraph to tell you to get ready. It made DWC Disembowel inherently easier to avoid than S&B, so DWC needed something to bridge that gap or just be an inferior spec, so Intimidate forces you to tumble on the first leg break, or be Disemboweled, just like S&B does.

    None of that would change with the Impale-damaging-torso idea. Removing Intimidate would mean that DWC would have a much easier time getting torso damage, but a much harder time actually Disemboweling, which would make the change rather moot.

    I'm still wary of the Impale change solely because of Infernal. It'd be a godsend for Runewarden, because Runewarden DWC is dependent on Disembowel alone with no other finisher to threaten. But for Infernal, it just guarantees a with-torso DSB in a way that no other Knight class can, and to the stated shrugs of "I'd rather risk DSB than Vivisect", I guess I have to offer from the unartefacted perspective that I don't tank a lot of disembowels from Knights, even unartefacted ones. The moment an Infernal has STR gauntlets and this capability, I would not want to fight them under any circumstances, because I would almost always lose that gamble. If eating with-torso DSB becomes the "intended" means to avoid Vivisect, then that's another facet of artefact creep, forcing you to own tanking artefacts to fight Infernal in the same way a RoF is basically required to fight Occultist/Alchemist.
    -- Grounded in but one perspective, what we perceive is an exaggeration of the truth.
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    I did some math-ings, and I don't like what I see, even for Runewarden DWC.

    Leg break, intimidate.

    Apply to leg. Tumble before second break. Depending on timing (need to tumble within .5s-1s), you eat an impale and a torso DSB.

    Apply to leg. Tumble after second break. You definitely eat a torso DSB.

    Apply to torso. Tumble before second break. They second break you, chase after your tumble, and you eat a torso DSB. If you're a Runie or a Sentinel, you're golden as long as you've prepped the other room. Otherwise you probably die.

    Apply to torso. Tumble after second break. Pretty sure they can wait for the torso to finish curing and then just straight up DSB you.



    Personally, I feel this makes it far, far more stringent than SnB even for Runies.

    Consider the one leg - torso SnB set up.

    Leg break.

    Apply to leg. Tumble within 1s. Even if you have torso damage, you escape. If they didn't prebreak torso, your timing becomes extremely lenient and you get out.

    Apply to torso. If they pre-broke, you're golden. If they didn't pre-break, they need to wait it out. Meanwhile, you can just tumble willy nilly.


    The only good recourse I could think of was using a ton of fake applies to confuse your opponent as to just what exactly was going on.
  • RangorRangor Member Posts: 3,205 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Farrah said:

    The traditional formula for affliction heal cooldowns is 10 secs/aff. Abilities that cure one affliction have a 10 second cooldown. Abilities that cure two have 20 secs, etc, with a few exceptions.

    I think dragonheal might be an exception (can't remember if it heals two or three affs, has a 20 second cooldown). Fool is an exception, but in a way that hurts the Tarot user (40 or 45 seconds for 3 affs). But naturally, healing 3 affs for one balance has its advantages for maintaining momentum.

    I'm fine with it as is, though.

    Where do you get those numbers from? Tree is slower than 10 sec/aff, Shrugging is 22 sec/aff, passive curing ranges from 15 to 30 second tics from what I've seen.

    Active healing an affliction every 10 secs seems very strong compared to what I see in other classes.

    A set number for affliction heal cooldown wouldn't be good though. For example as sylvan I have lots of capability for hindering, so I should never have anything like 10 sec/aff healing.
    image
  • KeorinKeorin Member Posts: 672 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    If the delay from intimidate was made short enough, there could be room for an early tumble, at least.
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,332 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 2016
    Aerek said:
    Farrah said:

    When I read the torso/impale thing, I was thinking about Intimidate. I don't play DWC, and have no idea what intimidate actually does (other than that it extends tumble in some way). I was thinking the impale change might create impossible to stop torso dsbs in conjunction with intimidate, but was also thinking intimidate might not be necessary if the torso impale thing was added. I can't really say if it's a problem without knowing exactly what intimidate does though.

    Intimidate extends Tumble-out time by .5s for each damaged leg, (On top of the existing penalties for damaged limbs) so Tumble with 1 damaged leg and Intimidate is 5s, tumble with 2 damaged legs and Intimidate is 7s.

    Intimidate exists to remove the disparity between S&B and DWC. Against S&B, you have 1s to tumble on a leg break or they have time to impale/Disembowel. DWC, on the other hand, has to break both legs first, and you could tumble after the second leg break and still make it out in time, with the first leg break serving as a convenient telegraph to tell you to get ready. It made DWC Disembowel inherently easier to avoid than S&B, so DWC needed something to bridge that gap or just be an inferior spec, so Intimidate forces you to tumble on the first leg break, or be Disemboweled, just like S&B does.

    None of that would change with the Impale-damaging-torso idea. Removing Intimidate would mean that DWC would have a much easier time getting torso damage, but a much harder time actually Disemboweling, which would make the change rather moot.

    I'm still wary of the Impale change solely because of Infernal. It'd be a godsend for Runewarden, because Runewarden DWC is dependent on Disembowel alone with no other finisher to threaten. But for Infernal, it just guarantees a with-torso DSB in a way that no other Knight class can, and to the stated shrugs of "I'd rather risk DSB than Vivisect", I guess I have to offer from the unartefacted perspective that I don't tank a lot of disembowels from Knights, even unartefacted ones. The moment an Infernal has STR gauntlets and this capability, I would not want to fight them under any circumstances, because I would almost always lose that gamble. If eating with-torso DSB becomes the "intended" means to avoid Vivisect, then that's another facet of artefact creep, forcing you to own tanking artefacts to fight Infernal in the same way a RoF is basically required to fight Occultist/Alchemist.
    It's not moot at all. The reason for the suggested torso impale is to match S&B's leg, torso, impale setup. In that setup, you can tumble after either the first leg or the torso. If the S&B breaks torso before the leg break, the counter is simply to cure the torso.

    For DWC, if the torso impale change happens there's no preliminary step at all before delph/delph leg, which means you can no longer cure torso pre-leg break (like you can vs the S&B torso, leg setup), AND any knight with a clue can wait to delph/delph leg when you're already off balance. You then can't tumble after the first leg break. Against S&B, you can tumble just fine (in a leg, torso setup) even if off balance when they initiate, because they still have to break torso.

    And you're saying Intimidate stops tumble after second leg break. So the dsb becomes unstoppable? Something has to counter it, so Intimidate + torso impale seems to push it too far and make it -harder- to stop than S&B.
  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,367 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited July 2016
    ~2s (first leg) + ~2s (second leg) + 3.6s (impale) = ~7.6s. You shave off about .4s with level 3's, getting it close to a flat 7s. 

    With a 5-second tumble, you're probably going to be fine if you tumble fast. If you tumble after the second leg, you're toast. But that's been the case with lots of classes for a while, and I don't personally see it as too big a deal (I know people'll disagree with this). 

    Edit: I wouldn't be opposed to intimidate being changed to stop you from starting tumble for a narrow window (say, .5s?) instead of extending tumble's length, so that the knight has a chance to screw up your attempt to get away, rather than making it closer to mathematically impossible to get away. That way, it works the same as SnB's stun strike, which most SnB knights I know use exactly for that purpose. 

    ETA: On second thought, I'd prefer intimidate stunning a target for a short duration (identical to SnB's stun strike) with the condition that the target has to have a broken leg when you do it. Else you can just script the line for the you-can't-tumble-right-now thing and just tumble when that's over, and probably still get away, and that's no help at all. 
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,332 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Rangor said:
    Farrah said:

    The traditional formula for affliction heal cooldowns is 10 secs/aff. Abilities that cure one affliction have a 10 second cooldown. Abilities that cure two have 20 secs, etc, with a few exceptions.

    I think dragonheal might be an exception (can't remember if it heals two or three affs, has a 20 second cooldown). Fool is an exception, but in a way that hurts the Tarot user (40 or 45 seconds for 3 affs). But naturally, healing 3 affs for one balance has its advantages for maintaining momentum.

    I'm fine with it as is, though.

    Where do you get those numbers from? Tree is slower than 10 sec/aff, Shrugging is 22 sec/aff, passive curing ranges from 15 to 30 second tics from what I've seen.

    Active healing an affliction every 10 secs seems very strong compared to what I see in other classes.

    A set number for affliction heal cooldown wouldn't be good though. For example as sylvan I have lots of capability for hindering, so I should never have anything like 10 sec/aff healing.
    Actives, not passives. I said there were some exceptions, and meant class abilities, not tree (which is in addition to those).

    Salt, blood boil, fitness, heal, alleviate heal one affliction and have 10 second cooldown. Blood boil used to heal two and have 20 sec cooldown. Bedevil has 10 sec per aff cooldown. It's clear there's a pattern they follow, with exceptions where necessary.

    Shrugging used to be 10 too for one aff but was nerfed to 12 because balanceless.
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    If they don't tumble within .5s of the first leg break you will get dsb'd as DWC. That's not even debatable -- if the target doesn't tumble, you break the other leg and impale dsb. If the target does tumble after the window closes, then you impale then anyways and dsb because intimidate with one leg break extends the tumble time to about 5s, and that's more than enough time to impale and then dsb.

    The weakness of DWC isn't landing the dsb, which is fairly trivial with proper play -- it's ensuring that you actually have torso damage to make that DSB fatal. 65 would make it so that ensuring torso damage is pretty much guaranteed.

    You have to also consider that with SnB, even if you miss the tumble window, if you apply to torso on leg break, you can almost certainly guarantee survival with fake applies. If you miss the tumble window as DWC with more reliable torso damage, you eat the torso DSB and die against a 22 str Runie. And missing the tumble is not that hard when it's 0.5s.




    FarrahJhui
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,332 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Especially since there's no reason for you to be on balance for those .5 seconds!
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited July 2016
    Monks, those colossal dicks, are the exception.

    Basically, 65 would make Jhui OP. Do we really need Jhui to be more OP?
  • AerekAerek East Tennessee, USAMember Posts: 1,818 @@ - Legendary Achaean

    Farrah said:
    It's not moot at all. The reason for the suggested torso impale is to match S&B's leg, torso, impale setup. In that setup, you can tumble after either the first leg or the torso. If the S&B breaks torso before the leg break, the counter is simply to cure the torso.

    And you're saying Intimidate stops tumble after second leg break. So the dsb becomes unstoppable? Something has to counter it, so Intimidate + torso impale seems to push it too far and make it -harder- to stop than S&B.
    @Farrah I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, but if they tumble on the torso in a leg>torso setup, then instead you can break leg, break leg, wait until they apply to the second leg, break torso, follow, Impale and still get them. S&B is highly flexible in its Disembowel approach, and when I played it, I rarely missed a Disembowel once I knew the opponent's tendencies, unless they used Piety/GH/rubble/Nairat to stop me from following.

    DWC doesn't have that flexibility. It has a very linear, split-second setup that can always be foiled by a tumble on the first leg or any of the class tricks that have come up in this thread. (Cripple, Mind Throw, Battlecry) Intimidate is meant to remove Tumble on the 2nd leg to address that lack of flexibility, and force tumbling on the first leg break just like you should vs S&B, DWB, and BM.

    Like I've said, I have concerns with 65, but DWC -just- got into a good place that makes it competitive with other styles, and that happened specifically because of Intimidate. I do agree that the .5s tumble window vs DWC is a bit extreme, and now that I see that (I'd thought it was still 1s) I've suggested that Intimidate only work with 2 damaged legs, which would bring it in line with S&B, DWB, and BM with their 1s tumble windows on first leg break.
    -- Grounded in but one perspective, what we perceive is an exaggeration of the truth.
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,332 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    That flexibility is coming with greater prep time if you break two legs as S&B, and still isn't unstoppable. Piety/gravehands/etc are counters, in addition to being able to change your applies like hold leg apply, apply to torso.

    DWC would be both harder to stop and require less prep with proposed change. I don't think a 1 second tumble window is much better, given the ease of starting while your target is off balance when you no longer have to prebreak torso. I think it'd be better to add flexibility in some other way that requires an additional break, if that's what you like about S&B.
  • JhuiJhui Member Posts: 1,958 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Armali said:
    Monks, those colossal dicks, are the exception.

    Basically, 65 would make Jhui OP. Do we really need Jhui to be more OP?
    What's 65
    image
  • SzanthaxSzanthax San DiegoMember Posts: 1,906 @ - Epic Achaean
    Report #65
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Submitted by: Anonymous      Status      : Submitted
    Skill       : Weaponmastery  Ability     : Mastery
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Problem:
    Dual Cutting specialisation knights don't have a way to incorporate a damaged torso into their kill 
    sequence without requiring a long break chain involving four body parts, which provides a massive 
    warning of what's about to occur (even the slowest person should be capable of tumbling in time). 
    This means breaking the torso ahead of any other limb breaks, and hoping that the opponent doesn't 
    notice or have a way to track their own damaged limbs.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Solution #1:
    Modify the Mastery ability so that, in addition to its current effect, it will also cause the Impale 
    ability to deal limb damage equal to either one half or an entire doubleslash (using level three 
    scimitars, to make counting easier for all involved) to their torso. This will allow a kill sequence 
    more in line with that of sword and shield specialisation knights, who only require two breaks (leg 
    then torso) prior to the impale.
    Solution #2:
    Solution #3:
    ------------------



Sign In to Comment.