Reactive Stuns with the upcoming change to pre-requisites based off of class

I went through and looked at all of the weapon spec lines for each realm to see what would be available to the stealthers who rely on evade and what they would be given access to when the change happens.

Sword------- 39 points (2 part chain) 7 second stun (block)
Axe----------- 34 points (2 part chain) 6 second stun (block)
Left Axe------39 points (2 part chain) 7 second stun (evade)
Spear---------N/A

Blades--------21 points 4 second stun (block)
Piercing -----25 points 5 second stun (evade)
Celtic Dual --N/A

Slash-----------34 points (2 part chain) 5 second stun (block)
Thrust---------- 4 points 2 second stun (evade)
------------------15 points 5 second stun (block)
------------------50 points 9 second stun (evade)
Dual Wield---44 points (2 part chain) 7 second stun (parry)

Seeing as how dual wield reduces defenses by 1/4 instead of 1/2; evades happen much more frequently. Looking at this list there's a lot of parity with a couple outliers that need examining.

Blades and Slash seem too weak and Thrust's Dragonfang is completely out of line with anything else anyone has to offer except perhaps Scout's Slam. Dragonfang is the reason Infiltrators are the most played class on Phoenix and Dragonfang was deservedly nerfed on live. Is this going to be addressed at all?

Wed 17 Oct 2018 9:21 PM by Armsmancer

If the justification for nerfing Dragonfang is because on live later in it's life then you'd have a long list of other things that would be justified in nerfing them for the very same reason, no?

Also, you still have all of your work ahead of you to show that they nerfed it simply because of any one reason, above it is implied it is because it was better than the other options, yet by the time it was nerfed there were other additions to the game that easily could have played a part. I don't remember exactly when it was nerfed, but for instance, if it came after ToA then the arsenal others had to play with are different than here so it is comparing two unlike things.

Above you've showed it isn't equal to the alternatives and other realms' options, which again could be presented as say, an enchanter stun nuke combo's being out of line and OP compared to the best comparable options other realms have. This tunnel vision is way too zoomed up on this one comparison and I think you're leaving out all the other variables, the other things that go in to every single fight, which are not governed and won/lost simply based off who gets off more reactionary stuns. Great job on showing the comparison and laying out the case but I don't see anything here that justifies nerfing something, especially if one of the things you are bringing into consideration of it to be that later on Mythic decided to nerf it, because as above, that adds a lot more to the list of things potentially on the nerf list.

And finally, just because Mythic did something is horrible reasoning to put in on the side of reasons to do something, they had entirely different incentives with issues similar to buffbots and other things to keep subscribers that simply invoking Mythic did something doesn't move the needle in any direction.

Wed 17 Oct 2018 10:25 PM by Joc

The idea that ANYONE can justify a 9s off evade stun on an assassin is ridiculous. If this seems like a good idea then you are not being objective at all.

Wed 17 Oct 2018 10:38 PM by Silvarin

Armsmancer wrote: Also, you still have all of your work ahead of you to show that they nerfed it simply because of any one reason, above it is implied it is because it was better than the other options, yet by the time it was nerfed there were other additions to the game that easily could have played a part. I don't remember exactly when it was nerfed, but for instance, if it came after ToA then the arsenal others had to play with are different than here so it is comparing two unlike things.

Dragonfang was nerfed because it IS out of line with anything else other stealthers have access to. Its an evade stun without a chain that guarantees a win vs. another stealther without purge up. It was directly after ToA and had nothing to do with the expansion other than Mythic took a hell of a long time to fix something that was needed.

Armsmancer wrote: Above you've showed it isn't equal to the alternatives and other realms' options, which again could be presented as say, an enchanter stun nuke combo's being out of line and OP compared to the best comparable options other realms have.

It can't, because this is all about the stealth gameplay and has nothing to do with caster or melee balance in 8v8. Don't bring up anything outside the scope of my post because you didn't agree.

Armsmancer wrote: This tunnel vision is way too zoomed up on this one comparison and I think you're leaving out all the other variables, the other things that go in to every single fight, which are not governed and won/lost simply based off who gets off more reactionary stuns.

I'm not leaving anything out. In a stealther vs. stealther melee fight the number one determining factor is an evade stun. I'm purposely leaving out the 4 second side stun from Celtic Dual, and the back stun from Hunter's Spear line as that is seen by many as a cheesing mechanic and is still being discussed as something that could be changed etc. If an assassin get off the PA chain, you should die. No one should automatically lose melee fights vs. Infiltrators because of nothing but Dragonfang. It's fairly ridiculous to say that its fine as is.

Armsmancer wrote: Great job on showing the comparison and laying out the case but I don't see anything here that justifies nerfing something

Then I have to call into question your judgement or you are simply ignoring the glaring differences because of personal bias.

Armsmancer wrote: And finally, just because Mythic did something is horrible reasoning to put in on the side of reasons to do something, they had entirely different incentives with issues similar to buffbots and other things to keep subscribers that simply invoking Mythic did something doesn't move the needle in any direction.

I think you're showing a lot of bias here. "I didn't like what Mythic did to the game so you can't use anything THEY did as a point for your argument." Really? Im not getting into an argument over Mythic's balance decisions over 17 years. The fact that a balance team made a decision that Im a proponent for backs up my argument.

If all you're going to add is that you don't want to discuss the numbers and would rather dismiss my post because of elements you took issue with it's not really adding anything to the discussion is it?

Wed 17 Oct 2018 11:45 PM by Armsmancer

It's like people aren't reading, comprehending, or at least understanding the burden that is on them and what passes as justification. Sourcing things too seems lost on about everyone around here lately making complete fiats and expecting us to just swallow it. Your post was well made initially but I'm disappointed on the latest turn. Implying I have a bias is silly too I don't play infiltrators and have no dog in the fight on it being 1 second long or 9, but thanks for implying the only reason that is left for me pointing this out is because I want to somehow benefit from the outcome. I'm kind of a referee here calling out when things are badly argued for, if you've been around you've likely seen me have to do this over and over with people and their bad arguments, let's get to yours.

Silvarin wrote: ↑
Wed 17 Oct 2018 10:38 PM
"Dragonfang was nerfed because it IS out of line with anything else other stealthers have access to. Its an evade stun without a chain that guarantees a win vs. another stealther without purge up. It was directly after ToA and had nothing to do with the expansion other than Mythic took a hell of a long time to fix something that was needed. "

This is what I'm talking about with fiats. I can say the same thing and turn the words to wasn't from was and isn't from is, that leaves us wanting ..what is it..oh yeah, a source? Why would you put this down here and not put a source behind it? We're just all gonna rely on your perfectly accurate memory, and somehow swallow down that it was just a coincidence huge gear changes were made, artifacts, ML abilities, all these, and they and ZERO bearing on their decision to nerf dragonfang, because, you said so. Please.

Silvarin wrote: ↑
Wed 17 Oct 2018 10:38 PM
"It can't, because this is all about the stealth gameplay and has nothing to do with caster or melee balance in 8v8. Don't bring up anything outside the scope of my post because you didn't agree."

My complaint of your post is because the scope is all zoomed up on just melee stuns and their duration and the training points required to get them and their positionals. There is more to balance than just this magnified approach. The game gets balanced beyond your scope, right? The enchanter example is brought up to expose this and it went right over your head. Instead of going "yeah, to some other casters in pvp the enchanter clearly outshines them in utility because of these other factors" you just said "don't look over there folks plz it makes my case look bad because of my narrow scope, which if expanded, shows my hypocrisy when the same standard is evenly applied to other classes."

Silvarin wrote: ↑
Wed 17 Oct 2018 10:38 PM
"I'm not leaving anything out. In a stealther vs. stealther melee fight the number one determining factor is an evade stun."

Source again? There's tons of factors that determine an outcome of a fight and saying something like this is just ignorant on paper. You are loading the question/model here by starting the battle in the middle, we're already passed who got the opener off, if the not-infiltrator did get opening off and got a stun in, if his spec is this or that. I get it sucks to get dragonfang'd in a close fight and know its over, but you again have this super zoomed up focus on just that moment and not everything else that lead to one particular battle's result, and all of your work still yet ahead of you to hand anyone the conclusion that it needs nerfed, your case isn't convincing still. I mean do you think I have a different feeling when I meet an enchanter with my firewiz and I get the first hits off and his pet gets to interrupt me over and over and then I've lost the upper hand, I get hit with a FREE 9s STUN and its over obviously .... even though I got the drop on HIM? Oh no! Don't bring up equally frustrating, out-of-balance things Armsmancer! I notice you didn't even attempt to dismiss it with a justification, you just dismissed it. Still exists bro, explain to us the difference.

Silvarin wrote: ↑
Wed 17 Oct 2018 10:38 PM
""I think you're showing a lot of bias here. "I didn't like what Mythic did to the game so you can't use anything THEY did as a point for your argument." Really? Im not getting into an argument over Mythic's balance decisions over 17 years. The fact that a balance team made a decision that Im a proponent for backs up my argument.""

Just...wow

Comprehension still a major hurdle for people here apparently. Clearly, I said you cannot use Mythic's decisions years after 1.65 to classes to justify changes pre/present 1.65 because they had different incentives, for instance I brought up buffbots because, clearly Mythic had a vested, financial interest in having them allowed, so someone coming along and saying "but Mythic had them!" is a crap argument, and your argument is crap for the same reasons.

Sorry my tone got dark on ya but c'mon, I stated objective things I'm trying to be like a lawyer and tell you what will and will not hold up in court and your response was totally littered with heavy emphasis on me having untoward reasons for my responses.

Also the balance team you are talking about had more on the scales than you do here, like I mentioned like TOA/Artifacts/ML abilities/Champion levels...you and this balance team have different things on the table so stop acting like you now, and them then, have the same variables to consider. You don't, and I just exposed it, it's like a full time job here.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 12:11 AM by relvinian

What upcoming change?

Thu 18 Oct 2018 12:53 AM by Silvarin

Since Armsmancer is incapable of intelligent discourse or thought I won't bother replying to such blatant trolling with not even a veiled attempt at a decent reply on 2 occasions. BS and fluffing papers in a public highschool or junior college is fine. Please don't think you can get away with such shoddy reasoning anywhere else.

As for Relvinian:
gruenesschaf posted

"Re: Dragonfang#3 There are currently no style effect changes planned.

We will however change the opening requirements for classes that cannot (likely) fulfill a requirement, for example after parry for classes without parry will be changed to something else."

Thu 18 Oct 2018 2:49 AM by relvinian

Finally, the full power of battle bard will be unleashed.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 3:20 AM by Magesty

Silvarin wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 12:53 AM
Since Armsmancer is incapable of intelligent discourse or thought I won't bother replying to such blatant trolling with not even a veiled attempt at a decent reply on 2 occasions.

It is a result of mainlining Steven Crowder content cut with philosophy 101 power points.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 4:29 AM by jelzinga_EU

Obviously Dragonfang with a 9 sec stun is silly on an infiltrator. It was changed in 1.69 (see: http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.69 ).

In Patch 1.18 Styles where re-hauled incl. 9 sec Dragonfang ( http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.18 )
In Patch 1.22 assassins lost ability to spec Parry ( http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.22 )
In Patch 1.32 assassins gained ability to spec above 25 Weapon ( http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.32 )

So obviously when Dragonfang was introduced, infiltrators couldn't get it, in fact no thief-class (that is what they where called back then) could spec more than 25 Weapon. Only when 1.32 came out, they could spec >25 weapon and thus opening up Dragonfang.

No matter the history or "fairness" the current Dragonfang-implementation is out of line compared to other assassins. SB and NS do not have such a long duration stun and while it requires a hefty investment (50 Thrust spec) the gains are massive: People have lower HP-pools then on live (back then) because there are no buffbots on Phoenix. Most classes will die in a 9 sec stun against an assassin, especially if you consider the ease of weapon-switching (and thus poisoning) - which was not common on live in this era at all. With the increased information in the combat-log we know infiltrators evade somewhere between 35 - 50% of their enemy attacks, depending on enemy (dualwield, WS etc). So Dragonfang is available every fight and unless the enemy has a 30 mins. CD available (Purge) it gives infiltrators an extremely high win-ratio in melee-fights against others unless they can return the favor.

In all honesty 9 sec Dragonfang is as imbalanced as 9 sec Shield-slam on Merc/BM: The gains far outweigh the cost of getting the ability and it means almost a certain win in encounters. If the Phoenix-leaders want an interesting experience for small-men, stealthers and solo'ers it would be best to reduce Dragonfang and Shield-Slam for light-tanks to a lower duration.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 3:36 PM by Turtle006

One thing missing from this analysis IMO is the ease with which you can land side styles here. They are almost anytime styles, which makes rangers and nightshades much better than shown here. If it was me, I would add those into the discussion as well. Drgonfang is strong, but it requires an evade. Side styles just require the skill to use the game mechanics.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 3:59 PM by klaggorn

Op is a stealther from another realm?

Thu 18 Oct 2018 6:55 PM by Thinal

The only reason the cost is not "prohibitive" on the inf is because he has 0.3 more spec points than other assassins and 0.5 more than any other class. Speccing to 50 in a skill line where its maximum damage benefit is about 2/3 of that to get a stun no better than a diamondback that costs 25 piercing seems way out of line to me. It is a prohibitive cost for a merc who won't get to 50 DW/42shield to get it, or on a point-tight scout or minstrel.

Even if you ignore the other changes over those 4 patches 1.66--1.69 and decree a nerf must ensue!, it should be somewhere above 5 seconds. Perhaps 7 seconds; same duration at higher cost than Midgard's LA reactionary, but immediate rather than second in a chain.

But really, as someone who would never ever ever play Albion, I don't see the necessity in this. Phoenix has illustrated why Uthgard was so rigid about following original mechanics even when bugged, because it's a nerf here, boost there, and eventually a full time, ongoing restructuring of game mechanics in elusive search of balance. There's a LOT more to complain about than this stun.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 6:56 PM by Cadebrennus

Turtle006 wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 3:36 PM
One thing missing from this analysis IMO is the ease with which you can land side styles here. They are almost anytime styles, which makes rangers and nightshades much better than shown here. If it was me, I would add those into the discussion as well. Drgonfang is strong, but it requires an evade. Side styles just require the skill to use the game mechanics.

If the intended target of a side stun has half a brain and at least most of their fingers it is a lot harder to land a side stun on said target, especially if they are keeping you in their forward arc trying to get their reactionary stun.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:13 PM by poisonclover

Silvarin wrote: ↑
Wed 17 Oct 2018 5:49 PM
I went through and looked at all of the weapon spec lines for each realm to see what would be available to the stealthers who rely on evade and what they would be given access to when the change happens.

Sword------- 39 points (2 part chain) 7 second stun (block)
Axe----------- 34 points (2 part chain) 6 second stun (block)
Left Axe------39 points (2 part chain) 7 second stun (evade)
Spear---------N/A

Blades--------21 points 4 second stun (block)
Piercing -----25 points 5 second stun (evade)
Celtic Dual --N/A

Slash-----------34 points (2 part chain) 5 second stun (block)
Thrust---------- 4 points 2 second stun (evade)
------------------15 points 5 second stun (block)
------------------50 points 9 second stun (evade)
Dual Wield---44 points (2 part chain) 7 second stun (parry)

Seeing as how dual wield reduces defenses by 1/4 instead of 1/2; evades happen much more frequently. Looking at this list there's a lot of parity with a couple outliers that need examining.

Blades and Slash seem too weak and Thrust's Dragonfang is completely out of line with anything else anyone has to offer except perhaps Scout's Slam. Dragonfang is the reason Infiltrators are the most played class on Phoenix and Dragonfang was deservedly nerfed on live. Is this going to be addressed at all?

until you include SIDE STUNS which are ANY-(time)LAG styles I like to call them now.. this means absolutely nothing, because the above styles are never used except the classes that don't have a SIDE STUN.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:15 PM by poisonclover

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 6:56 PM
Turtle006 wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 3:36 PM
One thing missing from this analysis IMO is the ease with which you can land side styles here. They are almost anytime styles, which makes rangers and nightshades much better than shown here. If it was me, I would add those into the discussion as well. Drgonfang is strong, but it requires an evade. Side styles just require the skill to use the game mechanics.

If the intended target of a side stun has half a brain and at least most of their fingers it is a lot harder to land a side stun on said target, especially if they are keeping you in their forward arc trying to get their reactionary stun.

lol, this bs right here... Clearly replaced your anytime style with a side stun.. go somewhere else with this bs.. if you know what your doing there is no defense to it. and if you don't agree you are one of those people who rely on it. get over it, its bs and it needs to be addressed.

Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:21 PM by Cadebrennus

poisonclover wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:15 PM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 6:56 PM
Turtle006 wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 3:36 PM
One thing missing from this analysis IMO is the ease with which you can land side styles here. They are almost anytime styles, which makes rangers and nightshades much better than shown here. If it was me, I would add those into the discussion as well. Drgonfang is strong, but it requires an evade. Side styles just require the skill to use the game mechanics.

If the intended target of a side stun has half a brain and at least most of their fingers it is a lot harder to land a side stun on said target, especially if they are keeping you in their forward arc trying to get their reactionary stun.

lol, this bs right here... Clearly replaced your anytime style with a side stun.. go somewhere else with this bs.. if you know what your doing there is no defense to it. and if you don't agree you are one of those people who rely on it. get over it, its bs and it needs to be addressed.

Do you want to know how awesome my CD side stun is on my Blades Ranger? I specced 25 Pierce for an evade stun and weapon swap to a Pierce weapon when I get an evade. Then I swap back to Blades for the Blades rear style chain. That's how awesome the side stun is.

The side stun is most useful in group play. In 1v1 its effectiveness is far less useful than a reactive stun.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 6:45 AM by Druth

I don't get sidestunned unless I fight 2+, or they come in with speed. It's all about moving in the fight, and not using stick/face.

And this is how stuns should be imo, not this 9 sec stun without having to think.
Even as a reaver who loves it, it's just so broken and who ever I fight are pretty much dead unless they have purge up before the stun ends, and that is such bull.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 2:04 PM by poisonclover

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:21 PM
poisonclover wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:15 PM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 6:56 PM
If the intended target of a side stun has half a brain and at least most of their fingers it is a lot harder to land a side stun on said target, especially if they are keeping you in their forward arc trying to get their reactionary stun.

lol, this bs right here... Clearly replaced your anytime style with a side stun.. go somewhere else with this bs.. if you know what your doing there is no defense to it. and if you don't agree you are one of those people who rely on it. get over it, its bs and it needs to be addressed.

Do you want to know how awesome my CD side stun is on my Blades Ranger? I specced 25 Pierce for an evade stun and weapon swap to a Pierce weapon when I get an evade. Then I swap back to Blades for the Blades rear style chain. That's how awesome the side stun is.

The side stun is most useful in group play. In 1v1 its effectiveness is far less useful than a reactive stun.

Sorry to here you have no idea how to abuse the melee system in this game. Ask a few of your realm mates. you might be the only claiming to not be able to use it in 1v1

Fri 19 Oct 2018 4:17 PM by Armsmancer

Silvarin wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 12:53 AM
Since Armsmancer is incapable of intelligent discourse or thought I won't bother replying to such blatant trolling with not even a veiled attempt at a decent reply on 2 occasions. BS and fluffing papers in a public highschool or junior college is fine. Please don't think you can get away with such shoddy reasoning anywhere else.

As for Relvinian:
gruenesschaf posted

"Re: Dragonfang#3 There are currently no style effect changes planned.

We will however change the opening requirements for classes that cannot (likely) fulfill a requirement, for example after parry for classes without parry will be changed to something else."

........I specifically layed out my case if you want to call it trolling go ahead but you are logically inconsistent and I pointed it out, that is on you for a lack of understanding or imagination. But if you think anyone else here sees your retreat as some high-road, anti-trolling technique then you were definitely a waste of time to engage with and I'm sorry that I offended your feelings by replying in the context, directly, of each point one by one. I haven't googled it but I bet if I split screened the definition of "Trolling" and also my last post to you, I'd have kind of a hard time nodding along like it's a match.

Another one bites the dust I guess, another measured and found wanting.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 4:18 PM by Armsmancer

Magesty wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 3:20 AM
Silvarin wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 12:53 AM
Since Armsmancer is incapable of intelligent discourse or thought I won't bother replying to such blatant trolling with not even a veiled attempt at a decent reply on 2 occasions.

It is a result of mainlining Steven Crowder content cut with philosophy 101 power points.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Normies with no argument do this, but you be you boo.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 4:22 PM by Armsmancer

jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 4:29 AM
Obviously Dragonfang with a 9 sec stun is silly on an infiltrator. It was changed in 1.69 (see: http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.69 ).

In Patch 1.18 Styles where re-hauled incl. 9 sec Dragonfang ( http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.18 )
In Patch 1.22 assassins lost ability to spec Parry ( http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.22 )
In Patch 1.32 assassins gained ability to spec above 25 Weapon ( http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.32 )

So obviously when Dragonfang was introduced, infiltrators couldn't get it, in fact no thief-class (that is what they where called back then) could spec more than 25 Weapon. Only when 1.32 came out, they could spec >25 weapon and thus opening up Dragonfang.

No matter the history or "fairness" the current Dragonfang-implementation is out of line compared to other assassins. SB and NS do not have such a long duration stun and while it requires a hefty investment (50 Thrust spec) the gains are massive: People have lower HP-pools then on live (back then) because there are no buffbots on Phoenix. Most classes will die in a 9 sec stun against an assassin, especially if you consider the ease of weapon-switching (and thus poisoning) - which was not common on live in this era at all. With the increased information in the combat-log we know infiltrators evade somewhere between 35 - 50% of their enemy attacks, depending on enemy (dualwield, WS etc). So Dragonfang is available every fight and unless the enemy has a 30 mins. CD available (Purge) it gives infiltrators an extremely high win-ratio in melee-fights against others unless they can return the favor.

In all honesty 9 sec Dragonfang is as imbalanced as 9 sec Shield-slam on Merc/BM: The gains far outweigh the cost of getting the ability and it means almost a certain win in encounters. If the Phoenix-leaders want an interesting experience for small-men, stealthers and solo'ers it would be best to reduce Dragonfang and Shield-Slam for light-tanks to a lower duration.

Same exact argument can be used against hib having baseline stun - back in the day resists weren't capped with no SC and hp pools were lower and a 9sec stun you'd die from in baseline nukes easy before it expired.

Hibs can have the best casters but Alb can't have the best stealthers, totally consistent logic around here. Nobody is dealing with this easy comparison because it is clearly on the same chopping block with the logic above but Noooo, don't mention that inconvenient thing. Special pleading.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 4:43 PM by Cadebrennus

poisonclover wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 2:04 PM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:21 PM
poisonclover wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:15 PM
lol, this bs right here... Clearly replaced your anytime style with a side stun.. go somewhere else with this bs.. if you know what your doing there is no defense to it. and if you don't agree you are one of those people who rely on it. get over it, its bs and it needs to be addressed.

Do you want to know how awesome my CD side stun is on my Blades Ranger? I specced 25 Pierce for an evade stun and weapon swap to a Pierce weapon when I get an evade. Then I swap back to Blades for the Blades rear style chain. That's how awesome the side stun is.

The side stun is most useful in group play. In 1v1 its effectiveness is far less useful than a reactive stun.

Sorry to here you have no idea how to abuse the melee system in this game. Ask a few of your realm mates. you might be the only claiming to not be able to use it in 1v1

When people were in Thidranki I specifically showed someone EXACTLY how to run through (and what angles to run through) and how time their swings to land rear and positional styles on a person who was using /face and /stick.

I've been doing it for years and I know exactly how it works.

Reactionaries are more reliable in a 1v1 setting because you can walk backwards and your opponent while most likely keep moving towards you. Positionals are more difficult even if you know the system of how it's done due to the fact that your opponent is also moving in different directions as well

This is why I stated earlier that reactionaries are more reliable 1v1 and that positionals have more utility in group RvR.

Don't ever assume that you think you know what I know.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 5:48 PM by jelzinga_EU

Armsmancer wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 4:22 PM
Same exact argument can be used against hib having baseline stun - back in the day resists weren't capped with no SC and hp pools were lower and a 9sec stun you'd die from in baseline nukes easy before it expired.

Hibs can have the best casters but Alb can't have the best stealthers, totally consistent logic around here. Nobody is dealing with this easy comparison because it is clearly on the same chopping block with the logic above but Noooo, don't mention that inconvenient thing. Special pleading.

Except caster-stuns are affected by resists (people did have SC in this era btw) where melee-stuns are not. Caster-stuns are also affected by determination, melee stuns are not.

Not that I don't mind a discussion about Hib baseline-stun; but you can't compare it with melee-stuns just by saying it's 9 sec (same as Dragonfang / Slam) as for a typical melee in a group-setting fighting a caster it is nothing but free-immunity and a speed-bump.

And don't worry - Albs will have the best stealthers regardless, simply because of 1 thing: Minstrels - notice how I didn't mention their stun at all?

Fri 19 Oct 2018 6:17 PM by Armsmancer

jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 5:48 PM
Armsmancer wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 4:22 PM
Same exact argument can be used against hib having baseline stun - back in the day resists weren't capped with no SC and hp pools were lower and a 9sec stun you'd die from in baseline nukes easy before it expired.

Hibs can have the best casters but Alb can't have the best stealthers, totally consistent logic around here. Nobody is dealing with this easy comparison because it is clearly on the same chopping block with the logic above but Noooo, don't mention that inconvenient thing. Special pleading.

Except caster-stuns are affected by resists (people did have SC in this era btw) where melee-stuns are not. Caster-stuns are also affected by determination, melee stuns are not.

Not that I don't mind a discussion about Hib baseline-stun; but you can't compare it with melee-stuns just by saying it's 9 sec (same as Dragonfang / Slam) as for a typical melee in a group-setting fighting a caster it is nothing but free-immunity and a speed-bump.

And don't worry - Albs will have the best stealthers regardless, simply because of 1 thing: Minstrels - notice how I didn't mention their stun at all?

I'm fully aware of the reduction from resists, my example I kept on the same timeline as his, which was before the expansions, so no capped resists or anything, plus can be debuffed (15%/30%/50% variations based on spec)by the same class that is nuking you. Even then, the HP was so low a 7 sec vs 9 sec stun you were still dead, remember his argument was from HP pools being low, so as I clearly stated, getting stunned and nuked down with baseline nukes was a constant and still is a constant thing, and the argument / point still stands because all of the points are the same, and I'd argue hib stun is worse than dragonfang, please consider :

dragonfang : spec for stun 50 thrust
hib baseline stun : well, baseline free

dragonfang : based off reactionary
hib baseline stun : anytime and 1500 range

dragonfang : only infiltrator gets
hib baseline stun : every hib cloth caster gets

So please everyone tell me with these as givens, how hib baseline stun has no bearing on this conversation about nerfing dragonfang. I'd wager more people took dirt naps on every server from stun/nukes to deaths than the stealther 1v1's going on, but I'm apparently talking about apples and oranges because when you die during a stun, it matters if a guy evaded your melee attack and you died from stabbing, that is worlds apart from not even seeing a caster , getting stunned, and seeing light explode your face, somehow, soooo different and unrelated.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 6:25 PM by defiasbandit

Ranged stuns are dumb.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 7:02 PM by Cadebrennus

defiasbandit wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 6:25 PM
Ranged stuns are dumb.

Agreed.

Fri 19 Oct 2018 7:05 PM by defiasbandit

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 7:02 PM
defiasbandit wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 6:25 PM
Ranged stuns are dumb.

Agreed.

Unless you are a thane raining down thors wrath.

Sat 20 Oct 2018 7:49 AM by Druth

Casted stuns has 2 flaws:

1) Determination/Stoicism, meaning half the people in a melee group will be near immune to the effect.

2) Casters can be interrupted/NS/mezzed/stunned, making their followup damage fail. A tank train on a stunned target can only be mezzed, or slammed.

Mon 22 Oct 2018 2:09 PM by poisonclover

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 4:43 PM
poisonclover wrote: ↑
Fri 19 Oct 2018 2:04 PM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Thu 18 Oct 2018 7:21 PM
Do you want to know how awesome my CD side stun is on my Blades Ranger? I specced 25 Pierce for an evade stun and weapon swap to a Pierce weapon when I get an evade. Then I swap back to Blades for the Blades rear style chain. That's how awesome the side stun is.

The side stun is most useful in group play. In 1v1 its effectiveness is far less useful than a reactive stun.

Sorry to here you have no idea how to abuse the melee system in this game. Ask a few of your realm mates. you might be the only claiming to not be able to use it in 1v1

When people were in Thidranki I specifically showed someone EXACTLY how to run through (and what angles to run through) and how time their swings to land rear and positional styles on a person who was using /face and /stick.

I've been doing it for years and I know exactly how it works.

Reactionaries are more reliable in a 1v1 setting because you can walk backwards and your opponent while most likely keep moving towards you. Positionals are more difficult even if you know the system of how it's done due to the fact that your opponent is also moving in different directions as well

This is why I stated earlier that reactionaries are more reliable 1v1 and that positionals have more utility in group RvR.

Don't ever assume that you think you know what I know.

snare style...with disease or even without.. side stun... 99.9999% effective. has been. try walking back all you want when I sprint in combat and side stun you. there is no defense and clearly I know exactly what your failing to say. I could care less what you think you know. The rear style misses if someone turns ever so slightly, the side style is much easier to land and it shouldn't be. it should be the same window or vision to land. and its not ive tested it. numerous times. do yourself a favor and do the same, or continue to keep doing what your doing which seems to be relying on it. good luck sir

Mon 22 Oct 2018 5:02 PM by Cadebrennus

I played a Mercenary for years before switching to a Melee Ranger. I have played nothing but Dual Wielding classes since classic so it's pretty safe to assume that I know a thing or two about positional styles.

Tue 23 Oct 2018 4:31 PM by Niix

I’m happy knowing most infils here haven’t unleashed the power of 50DW instead of 50 pierce.

Trading 9sec stun for 7 sec (2nd in chain I know but you land it most fights tbh) but also gain an incredible amount of damage and utility from DW frontal style and side chain after stun (attack speed debuff on shadows rain is gnarly)

I don’t think I’ve lost a 1v1 (ignoring perf advantage fights cuz well they usually tell story of winner regardless) cuz you’re dead before stun ends (unless purge).

Frequently 1v2 shadowblade tho they could be bad.

Tue 23 Oct 2018 4:47 PM by Druth

Niix wrote: ↑
Tue 23 Oct 2018 4:31 PM
I’m happy knowing most infils here haven’t unleashed the power of 50DW instead of 50 pierce.

Trading 9sec stun for 7 sec (2nd in chain I know but you land it most fights tbh) but also gain an incredible amount of damage and utility from DW frontal style and side chain after stun (attack speed debuff on shadows rain is gnarly)

I don’t think I’ve lost a 1v1 (ignoring perf advantage fights cuz well they usually tell story of winner regardless) cuz you’re dead before stun ends (unless purge).

Frequently 1v2 shadowblade tho they could be bad.

Which 2nd in chain is it infils get?

Tue 23 Oct 2018 5:41 PM by Niix

Druth wrote: ↑
Tue 23 Oct 2018 4:47 PM
Which 2nd in chain is it infils get?

The stun is at 44 Duel Wield (hypnotic darkness), chained from a 25 duel world style (Reflection) which is evade reactionary for infil.