Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
Comments
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!
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
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.
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.
Good luck with your classleads!
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
Completely different.
Edit: Also, generally the guards portion is done with a doppie Empress, so no real threat to our occultist to do it!
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
Or you can read the classlead that detailed the problem?
Allies being balanceless is irrelevant.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Basically, 65 would make Jhui OP. Do we really need Jhui to be more OP?
@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.
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.
At this point, we're not really in disagreement. I agree 65 is dangerous and could upset the delicate balance that DWC has taken years to find. There's just a strange implication in here that seems to be saying DWC is stronger than S&B is, when most of DWC's life has been spent in S&B's shadow.