End this STR madness

[Vibe]

I think one of the major issues is:

Power strike giving a swing speed enhancement.

Since when does PS enhance swing speed?

[[ptx]]

Heavy STR    -    STR    -    BALANCED    -    AGI    -    Heavy AGI

  Sucks        -    Bad     -       good           -    Bad    -    Sucks

Why would this be bad? This is the way it used to be at one point, and it was good. Balanced builds being... well, balanced, unbalanced builds being for specialized chars.

[Tydeus]

Why would this be bad? This is the way it used to be at one point, and it was good. Balanced builds being... well, balanced, unbalanced builds being for specialized chars.

I don't know, cause that pigeon hole's everyone into only a few builds? It removes variety from the game? It implies that any specialized character will be bad, even after considering what they specialize in?

thats not what i'm saying, i'm saying that bringing up allers or hippy in a question that requires balance is difficult because you're pointing at players far above the norm. Most people can't kick with no athletics, and people with higher athletics do kicks easier, its just so few people use them.

But thanks for the recap

And I'm saying, you're wrong. Most people couldn't kick even if you gave them 15 athletics. Str builds have an easier time kicking people than anyone else. Why? Because it's easy to kick someone that facehugs/charges you. When you kick it stops you from moving forward and your foot doesn't extend to 10 feet. No matter what you do, you can't kick someone if they're backpedaling from you, end of story. You will never kick someone that is playing the distance game, ever.

If you move significantly slower than someone they generally try to outfootwork you. This means things like circling you, which is best done at close range.

[MrShine]

Even though I'm convinced strength is better for melee, is this really that big a problem?

2H/pole - Focus on Strength
Shield - Balance OR slight favor of strength
Support pole - Balance
Archers - Slight favor of agility
Dedicated Xbow - Focus on agility
HorseRiders - Balance
HorseRanged - Slight favor of agility
Throwers - Slight favor of strength
Other hybrids - Balance OR agility

Its not like all classes go full strength.  Do that with someone like an archer or most hybrids and you won't be effective.
Just because full strength works better for melee than full agi doesn't mean there is a problem.

[Tydeus]

Even though I'm convinced strength is better for melee, is this really that big a problem?

2H/pole - Focus on Strength
Shield - Balance OR slight favor of strength
Support pole - Balance
Archers - Slight favor of agility
Dedicated Xbow - Focus on agility
HorseRiders - Balance
HorseRanged - Slight favor of agility
Throwers - Slight favor of strength
Other hybrids - Balance OR agility

Its not like all classes go full strength.  Do that with someone like an archer or most hybrids and you won't be effective.
Just because full strength works better for melee than full agi doesn't mean there is a problem.

No classes are as simple as you just made them out to be. For instance, the best cavalry, the ones who get the most kills, are all agi builds with huge amounts of riding. Archer's aren't "best" with a slight favor to Agi, that's just what most people do because it's the accurate way to go. Damage archers are equally as effective and they're all Str builds. You're acting as if there's only one effective and enjoyable way to play something when there are several.

[[ptx]]

I don't know, cause that pigeon hole's everyone into only a few builds? It removes variety from the game? It implies that any specialized character will be bad, even after considering what they specialize in?

No?
The current situation pigeon-holes melee into STR builds. Back then you could go for slow, clumsy but hard hitting str builds, or fast, agile, yet puny agi builds, whilst balanced builds... were just balanced? Which actually made sense...

[Gurnisson]

Support pole - Balance

Yeah, about that one. I will pick strength build as dedicated poker, no doubt. Being able to one-hit people with pokes to the face and soak some damage is vital.

[Tydeus]

No?
The current situation pigeon-holes melee into STR builds. Back then you could go for slow, clumsy but hard hitting str builds, or fast, agile, yet puny agi builds, whilst balanced builds... were just balanced? Which actually made sense...

What you quoted and what you're talking about are two separate things...

[[ptx]]

I thought it was talking about overall good-ness of a build, non-balanced builds being better than balanced at only specialized tasks.

[MrShine]

Yeah, about that one. I will pick strength build as dedicated poker, no doubt. Being able to one-hit people with pokes to the face and soak some damage is vital.

No classes are as simple as you just made them out to be. For instance, the best cavalry, the ones who get the most kills, are all agi builds with huge amounts of riding. Archer's aren't "best" with a slight favor to Agi, that's just what most people do because it's the accurate way to go. Damage archers are equally as effective and they're all Str builds. You're acting as if there's only one effective and enjoyable way to play something when there are several.

I just made that post as an example, of course there are a bunch of different ways you can adjust them based on style/skill level /how you define "balance" etc.

I'm trying to demonstrate that JUST BECAUSE strength is > than agility for most infantry doesn't mean there needs to be a change.  I don't think there needs to be an inner balance that makes full str builds suck as much as full agi builds suck. For some builds full strength sucks, for other builds full strength rules. Just because almost all full agi builds suck doesn't mean it needs to be looked at that much.

[Tydeus]

I just made that post as an example, of course there are a bunch of different ways you can adjust them based on style/skill level /how you define "balance" etc.

I'm trying to demonstrate that JUST BECAUSE strength is > than agility for most infantry doesn't mean there needs to be a change.  I don't think there needs to be an inner balance that makes full str builds suck as much as full agi builds suck. For some builds full strength sucks, for other builds full strength rules. Just because almost all full agi builds suck doesn't mean it needs to be looked at that much.

Then stop thinking about it only in the perspective of one's build. Part of game development and balance is creating a set of tools that your player base can find things to do with. Look at the stats themselves without attachment to a weapon. Strength just has far more going for it than agility does, it's a weak tool. Most of this conversation isn't even about "full agi builds", as such a build is unreasonable due to item requirements being strength based.

[Teeth]

No?
The current situation pigeon-holes melee into STR builds. Back then you could go for slow, clumsy but hard hitting str builds, or fast, agile, yet puny agi builds, whilst balanced builds... were just balanced? Which actually made sense...

Which is not the same as Thomek posted. Thomek posted that a str focus is worse than balanced and agi focus is worse than balanced. You now post that all types are equal in effectiveness, but still different. That is what it should be.

Agility: Weak/Fast

Balanced: Medium/Medium

Strength: Strong/Slow

These different types of builds should have comparable effectiveness in melee. As it is now a 15/24 character is not as effective in battle as a 24/15 character. A 12/27 character is pretty much a gimmick character, whilst a 27/12 character is almost as effective, or more effective for some, as a balanced character.

The game favours the Strength attribute as it is now. To fix this all that is needed is giving Agility an advantage like:

- Extra WPP points for every point of Agility (Str gets 1 hitpoint, what does Agi get? Movement speed increase thats comparable to 1/5th of an athlethics point)

- A flattened or completely flat WPF curve. Strength builds will get slightly less WPF and Agility builds a bit more. (Or make Agility builds get a lot more, like close to 200 wpf and leave the Strength build wpf as it is, this would speed up the game a bit. Could be nice as every patch since january has slowed the combat down further.)

- A buff to athlethics, more top speed increase or more acceleration increase.

- Increased swing speed for every Agility point like in singleplayer.

Apart from a buff to athlethics the Strength requirements of weapons skyrocketed in the last few patches, making 12/27 builds completely crap, just because there aren't any top tier weapons they can use.

To be honest I don't understand why the devs haven't done something about this so far. Unless they don't think that Strength and Agility should be of equal use. It is pretty easy to fix this, a few simple tweaks.

[Konrax]

Power strike is the speed at which the weapon swings, WPF is how often you can swing the weapon I believe.

[Teeth]

Power strike is the speed at which the weapon swings, WPF is how often you can swing the weapon I believe.

No, Powerstrike adds damage to your swings and has nothing to do with swing speed. WPF increases swing speed, percentually. So faster weapons get more of an increase than slower weapons. WPF also adds slightly to your damage and also decreases breaking chance.

[Konrax]

I'm pretty sure that powerstrike effects the speed of the swing.

WPF is how often you can swing your weapon.

Need dev's to confirm or deny it but it has worked like this for a long time as far as I know.