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

Classlead Discussion Q2 2016

13468915

Comments

  • AtalkezAtalkez Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 5,279 @@ - 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!

    Deucalion has cowardly declined the challenge of Atalkez to engage in mortal combat.

    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,635 @@ - 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, Secret Squirrel Posts: 3,059 @@ - 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, Secret Squirrel Posts: 5,279 @@ - 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!

    Deucalion has cowardly declined the challenge of Atalkez to engage in mortal combat.

    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,352 ✭✭✭✭✭ - 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, Secret Squirrel Posts: 5,279 @@ - 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!

    Deucalion has cowardly declined the challenge of Atalkez to engage in mortal combat.

    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAMember, Secret Squirrel Posts: 3,059 @@ - 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: 1,352 ✭✭✭✭✭ - 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, Secret Squirrel Posts: 5,279 @@ - 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.

    Deucalion has cowardly declined the challenge of Atalkez to engage in mortal combat.

    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAMember, Secret Squirrel Posts: 3,059 @@ - 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, Secret Squirrel Posts: 5,279 @@ - 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!


    Deucalion has cowardly declined the challenge of Atalkez to engage in mortal combat.

    You hug Aurora compassionately.
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,352 ✭✭✭✭✭ - 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, Secret Squirrel Posts: 3,059 @@ - 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: 1,352 ✭✭✭✭✭ - 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: 1,352 ✭✭✭✭✭ - 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: 3,308 @@ - 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: 1,040 @ - Epic 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: 2,635 @@ - 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: 2,635 @@ - 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: 1,352 ✭✭✭✭✭ - 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: 2,635 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Especially since there's no reason for you to be on balance for those .5 seconds!
  • ArmaliArmali Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 1,352 ✭✭✭✭✭ - 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: 2,635 @@ - 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:
    ------------------



  • AerekAerek East Tennessee, USAMember Posts: 1,818 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Holding leg applies to apply to torso only stops me if I actually break torso. As S&B, I'm under no compunction to do that until I think you've applied restoration to legs, which means we get into a Cold War/Sitzkrieg mind game of fake applies and waiting for the other one to make a move. You have to stand up some time, and that's only going to happen if you apply restoration apply to legs, which means S&B has control of that situation. Hell, Shatter shenanigans become options if you're just gonna sit down there.

    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.
    -- Grounded in but one perspective, what we perceive is an exaggeration of the truth.
Sign In to Comment.