Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2h left AND right swing are equal or better than 1h left swing:
-All three hit for full damage early in the animation
-2h gets a reach bonus on both sideswings, 1h left swing doesn't
-The "hits the head" feature of 1h left swing is a double-edge sword, because all a 2h user has to do is ready an attack, and their animation causes them to crouch under the incoming left swing. You can't crouch under a 2h sideswing.
So it's not that 1h left swing is so amazing, it's that 1h right swing and thrust are so crap that left swing is often the only option. I prefer to overhead, but that's risky if your opponent is good at dodging.
I disagree. There are a number of reasons why the Tydeus' proposed schema is a good one:
1.) As Malaclypse said, there is an imbalance between extreme strength and extreme agility builds in terms of usefulness. There is currently no point in having an extreme agility build (ie 27 or more agility) for a melee character unless you are either very high level, a rageball alt, or someone who enjoys being dead most of the time. Extreme strength builds (ie 27 or more strength), on the other hand, are very rewarding to play on both duel and battle as long as you know how to block and have good awareness. Something that makes them of more equal effectiveness is a plus in my book.
2.) As it is currently implemented, there is little reason to get a lot of WM over converting the extra skill points you would save or allocating them somewhere else. With the free 111 wpf he gets from leveling, a straight 1 weapon melee build usually only wants about 3 WM to offset the penalty from his armor. This would be fine except that even hybrids don't get as much out of WM as they do with a similar investment in other skills. 7 WM is currently not enough to use even 3 weapon classes at 110 wpf (before armor penalty), whereas 7 riding is enough to use nearly every horse better than the majority of the population.
3.) From the standpoint of game design, it makes agility and WM parallel with strength and IF. With a change in the vein of what Tydeus has suggested, you would be able to get decent wpf with sufficiently high agility and no WM in the same way that you would be able to get decent HP with sufficiently high strength even with no IF, although you would get a greater benefit in both cases by actually investing skill points.
The specifics of it may need some tweaks, but the general idea of it is definitely sound. Some people have raised concerns about excessively high weapon speeds coming out of a wpf rework, but I do not think that will be a major issue because cRPG now has an absolute level cap of 36 and no wpf carryover on retirement. It is unlikely many people would be able to get more than 200 wpf in one weapon class without either being very high level or sacrificing everything else to do so, and the requirements of specific items can be adjusted if a problem arises.
The passive of Strength (referring to the HP gain per point one since Strength has two passives) is too potent. It's a pretty massive benefit and sort of detracts from the allure of Ironflesh (though, of course, stacking both is most effective); you can already get pretty good to great HP @ 24+ STR without ever even investing in Ironflesh. I'd like to see the passive HP benefit changed to be similar to Agility's passive gain (which is like, the equivalent of 1 ath every 3-4 agi or something?) while simultaneously buffing Ironflesh. This would hurt those who haven't invested very heavily into Ironflesh but instead rely on Strength for the bulk of their durability (like me, 18 STR, 3 IF; 6 HP from Ironflesh, 15 HP from STR). I don't feel like Stat investment should contribute to a build's effectiveness as much as skill allocation.
As you say train them... If you train people to walk forward as a shield wall there is no reason why they can't all move at the same rate. I have been in a few shield walls and never had a problem keeping moving at the same rate as everyone else. They usually fall apart when you try to change direction or location because it's difficult to explain where you mean whilst in battle. A auto formation would allow you to turn the entire shield wall a different direction or move them forward 4 passes as one.. By having it so if you press any button you disengage this means you still need skill because if someone approaches and you want to attack or change your personal direction you still have to do this manually. Thus making the formation tactic only useful whilst setting up or holding ground protecting your army from archers. This wouldn't cause an unfair advantage or an unbreakable shield wall which would result in a stalemate in battle.
Also if you were set to battalion 2 and it decreased your movement speed this would change the way you fight... I think a lot of people would get annoyed that their foot work would be different. IMO Boosting peoples movement speed would be 8/10 times advantageous.. whilst limiting it to the slowest would only be advantageous around 3/10 times maximum.
Saying its my fault sounds weird.
Tell me how you are going to abuse it? Two weeks of cooldown is hard to abuse, then after you have choosen your new main, lets say they just put a two day cooldown before you can join any strat battles and do other things such as tickets etc.
Oh and saying you dont want to sound like a dick makes you sound like one.