Nightshade

Started 2 Aug 2019
by Ownnyn
in Suggestions
Can we get celt or shar please.

Mids have norse and albs have briton. Just makes sense.
Fri 2 Aug 2019 2:14 PM by thirian24
Agreed. Celt definitely should be an option for us.

Mid and albs both have 3 options for their sneaks.
Fri 2 Aug 2019 3:33 PM by Mavella
With the nerfed buffed stats you're getting extra quickness that norse/Briton do not. It is impossible for Norse to soft cap qui without spending an inordinant amount of RA points on it. Qui is just as important to dps as strength is until its soft capped of course.

Back when Norse could soft cap qui and cap swing speed with minimal investment and Luri/Elf over capped qui with just buffs then yes Norse had an advantage. This isn't the case anymore.

Buy Aug str 4 or 5 if you really need strength parity. You already have the best possiblee match ups vs mid leather and alb leather when Infs run slash. Do you really need 20 more str and con on TOP of 20% and 10% favorable resist match ups.

On second thought yes let's give you 3-5% more DPS worth of strength and we can eliminate that 20% favorable resist match up vs SBs. Deal?
Fri 2 Aug 2019 4:25 PM by Druth
Think it might tamper with a sort of balance, between assassins.

Without Race respecs, it would not be a big deal, would see fewer and lower RR NS's for a time
Fri 2 Aug 2019 4:45 PM by inoeth
ns is alrdy strong enough
Sat 3 Aug 2019 5:31 AM by Ownnyn
Its only 10 str difference from keen to celt or shar, shar brings more con. The trade off is less dex and quick.
Sat 3 Aug 2019 7:17 AM by Saroi
Don't mind me people. I am just here to read all the complaints about NS. *eats popcorn*
Sat 3 Aug 2019 7:18 AM by Saroi
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 5:31 AM
Its only 10 str difference from keen to celt or shar, shar brings more con. The trade off is less dex and quick.

The difference is 20 Str and 20 con. Luri have 40 of both, while Celt have 60.
Sat 3 Aug 2019 8:40 AM by Ownnyn
Ok so 20 more str and con, 20 less dex and quick. Its a trade off.

Celt starting stats

60/60/60/60

Norse

70/70/50/50

Briton

60/60/60/60


But 60 str for a ns is unfair?


Infact luri and elf are the only races with 40 str?

AND....40 con on both?

Yall worried NS might get even starting stat options? Weak
Sat 3 Aug 2019 9:52 AM by ddelmarle
Nightshade definitely need a buff considering there is 5 INF/SB for a NS
Sat 3 Aug 2019 10:23 AM by Druth
ddelmarle wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 9:52 AM
Nightshade definitely need a buff considering there is 5 INF/SB for a NS

I know where you pulled that statistics from.
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM by Ownnyn
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

20 more str/con but 20 less dex/quick

More dmg per hit but less attack speed

More hp but less evade.

And its still on par with what albs/mids have access too.
Sat 3 Aug 2019 2:33 PM by Numatic
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

20 more str/con but 20 less dex/quick

More dmg per hit but less attack speed

More hp but less evade.

And its still on par with what albs/mids have access too.

Due to armor resistances, NS's already have a dmg advantage going blades. In essence you are asking for a buff for a class that has a 20% advantage against SBs and a 10% advantage against slash infils which comprise a majority of the classes they fight
If they gave SBs a crush spec (hell even thrust) I'd be okay with it. The 20 less dex means nothing for a str based weapon. Therefore the only thing you really lose is qui. A 75 dex/qui debuff reduces evade chance by about 2%. So you're talking less than a 1% difference for the dex loss. Yet you gain more dmg and higher weapon skill.

I'm not saying Celtic NS shouldnt exist. But it's not as simple since NS is probably in the best spot already when it comes to the assasin war.
Sat 3 Aug 2019 7:06 PM by Estat
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

I will provide the logical reason against celt or shar ns as soon as you provide the logical reason against troll or dwarf sb or against saracen friar or theurgist.
Sun 4 Aug 2019 9:12 AM by Ownnyn
Numatic wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 2:33 PM
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

20 more str/con but 20 less dex/quick

More dmg per hit but less attack speed

More hp but less evade.

And its still on par with what albs/mids have access too.

Due to armor resistances, NS's already have a dmg advantage going blades. In essence you are asking for a buff for a class that has a 20% advantage against SBs and a 10% advantage against slash infils which comprise a majority of the classes they fight
If they gave SBs a crush spec (hell even thrust) I'd be okay with it. The 20 less dex means nothing for a str based weapon. Therefore the only thing you really lose is qui. A 75 dex/qui debuff reduces evade chance by about 2%. So you're talking less than a 1% difference for the dex loss. Yet you gain more dmg and higher weapon skill.

I'm not saying Celtic NS shouldnt exist. But it's not as simple since NS is probably in the best spot already when it comes to the assasin war.

Thats still not a reason against celt.

Rephrase

Infs get either a 60 str race, or a 70/80 dex starting race.

Mids get a 70 str, or 65/70 dex race to choose from.

There are meaningful differences between briton/sarc or norse/koby, not to mention inc or valk

Hib gets a choice or 40 str 80 dex

Or

Wait for it

40/75

There is no mid to high str race available to hib.

And news flash....its not a new idea.....not only has celt been available as NS for years.....it didnt break the game....at all.
Sun 4 Aug 2019 9:13 AM by Ownnyn
Estat wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 7:06 PM
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

I will provide the logical reason against celt or shar ns as soon as you provide the logical reason against troll or dwarf sb or against saracen friar or theurgist.

I have no problem with either example.....but its a bit of a stretch to compare troll sb to celt ns....as the race with the closest stats is the norse.....which by the way......can be sbs. Have a nice day
Sun 4 Aug 2019 9:20 AM by Druth
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sun 4 Aug 2019 9:12 AM
And news flash....its not a new idea.....not only has celt been available as NS for years.....it didnt break the game....at all.

And sb's got access to, wait for it... legendaries, meaning heat, meaning they didn't need crush.

You are comparing a ToA setting to a non-toa.

He listed reasons, you don't agree, that doesn't make them any less valid. It just means you personally chose to ignore them as valid.
Sun 4 Aug 2019 1:13 PM by poppas pker
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sun 4 Aug 2019 9:12 AM
Numatic wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 2:33 PM
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

20 more str/con but 20 less dex/quick

More dmg per hit but less attack speed

More hp but less evade.

And its still on par with what albs/mids have access too.

Due to armor resistances, NS's already have a dmg advantage going blades. In essence you are asking for a buff for a class that has a 20% advantage against SBs and a 10% advantage against slash infils which comprise a majority of the classes they fight
If they gave SBs a crush spec (hell even thrust) I'd be okay with it. The 20 less dex means nothing for a str based weapon. Therefore the only thing you really lose is qui. A 75 dex/qui debuff reduces evade chance by about 2%. So you're talking less than a 1% difference for the dex loss. Yet you gain more dmg and higher weapon skill.

I'm not saying Celtic NS shouldnt exist. But it's not as simple since NS is probably in the best spot already when it comes to the assasin war.

Thats still not a reason against celt.

Rephrase

Infs get either a 60 str race, or a 70/80 dex starting race.

Mids get a 70 str, or 65/70 dex race to choose from.

There are meaningful differences between briton/sarc or norse/koby, not to mention inc or valk

Hib gets a choice or 40 str 80 dex

Or

Wait for it

40/75

There is no mid to high str race available to hib.

And news flash....its not a new idea.....not only has celt been available as NS for years.....it didnt break the game....at all.

1.Celt nightshade has been around only for a bit on live along with many other classes that got different race combinations.
2. NS have an advantage over both other sins ESPECIALLY sbs with the damage tables. They hit sbs so hard its not even funny. SB are also restricted to 1 damage type.
3. LUri/elf have less strength but WAY higher quickness and this state of the game that is vital. You hit harder than norse already just because of the damage tables and also swing way faster.
4. NS get a side stun and a 1 part evade stun and sb don't get neither.
5. 2 hand damage is a joke and the weapon speed even more when wielding 2 hander.
6. If people want clet ns sb need to get bludgeon and side stun on left axe. ( As this ACTUALLY is a change that has been in live for YEARS). Unlike the celt ns on live.
Sun 4 Aug 2019 1:21 PM by poppas pker
Numatic wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 2:33 PM
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

20 more str/con but 20 less dex/quick

More dmg per hit but less attack speed

More hp but less evade.

And its still on par with what albs/mids have access too.

Due to armor resistances, NS's already have a dmg advantage going blades. In essence you are asking for a buff for a class that has a 20% advantage against SBs and a 10% advantage against slash infils which comprise a majority of the classes they fight
If they gave SBs a crush spec (hell even thrust) I'd be okay with it. The 20 less dex means nothing for a str based weapon. Therefore the only thing you really lose is qui. A 75 dex/qui debuff reduces evade chance by about 2%. So you're talking less than a 1% difference for the dex loss. Yet you gain more dmg and higher weapon skill.

I'm not saying Celtic NS shouldnt exist. But it's not as simple since NS is probably in the best spot already when it comes to the assasin war.

THIS ^^^ 100%
Sun 4 Aug 2019 8:00 PM by jelzinga_EU
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

20 more str/con but 20 less dex/quick

More dmg per hit but less attack speed

More hp but less evade.

And its still on par with what albs/mids have access too.

The reason is actually quite simple. Initially the server started at a point where it was 1.65 with QoL-changes. Those QoL-changes spiraled out to a lot of changes, including a late pushed "style-update" (Replace all Parry/Block with Evade for stealthers), later patch-changes which seemed a good idea (STR/CON poison replaced by WS/CON poison), various stealth-changes and what not.

Then suddenly paladins got 2.5X spec-points, friars became a monstrosity, thanes got buffed and.. but this is an assumption, people realized the game would never be balanced and devs stepped on the brakes. We're basically somewhere between 1.65 and (much) further into the game on live, with lots of imbalances. No Celt NS, no Bludgeon, stun-disparities between the realms stealthers, and countless of other examples where the game isn't really balanced.

If you add Celt NS you might feel it is fair and balanced, while in reality the game wouldn't be. SB's will want their Bludgeon, will want their off-evade stun, infils will want their side-stuns, so in turn SB's want it. Then NS want Remedy, they all want Remedy etc etc etc.
Sun 4 Aug 2019 9:35 PM by Cadebrennus
Numatic wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 2:33 PM
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Sat 3 Aug 2019 1:16 PM
Still waiting for a logical reason against celt or shar.

20 more str/con but 20 less dex/quick

More dmg per hit but less attack speed

More hp but less evade.

And its still on par with what albs/mids have access too.

Due to armor resistances, NS's already have a dmg advantage going blades. In essence you are asking for a buff for a class that has a 20% advantage against SBs and a 10% advantage against slash infils which comprise a majority of the classes they fight
If they gave SBs a crush spec (hell even thrust) I'd be okay with it. The 20 less dex means nothing for a str based weapon. Therefore the only thing you really lose is qui. A 75 dex/qui debuff reduces evade chance by about 2%. So you're talking less than a 1% difference for the dex loss. Yet you gain more dmg and higher weapon skill.

I'm not saying Celtic NS shouldnt exist. But it's not as simple since NS is probably in the best spot already when it comes to the assasin war.

It's actually more significant than that. I respecced out of 10 qui to give 5 more Dex and here's what happened:

Losing 10 qui was about half a percent without going over, so no loss of evade there.

Adding 5 dex and losing the 10 qui led to a net/loss gain of 0% to evade ( minus 0.12% to be precise) according to the calculator, yet gaining an additional 2% block even on an unskilled shield.

The stat difference of having much lower strength is even more significant considering you're talking a 20 point difference. Not only does it affect damage it also affects defense penetration, so any Bladeshade will start off in an uphill battle before any WS debuff poisons are applied.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:24 AM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Sun 4 Aug 2019 9:35 PM
Adding 5 dex and losing the 10 qui led to a net/loss gain of 0% to evade ( minus 0.12% to be precise) according to the calculator, yet gaining an additional 2% block even on an unskilled shield.

The stat difference of having much lower strength is even more significant considering you're talking a 20 point difference. Not only does it affect damage it also affects defense penetration, so any Bladeshade will start off in an uphill battle before any WS debuff poisons are applied.

Yeah that doesn't make sense. First of all, block is completely irrelevant for NS, since they don't use shields in melee. You also assume that the defense penetration of having more STR outweighs the advantage in DEX/QUI for evade-purposes. Third, this lower WS only applies when the NS is Blades, in which case they have a massive advantage in the armour-tables where any (very) small difference in WS and Evades is easily offset by the much better damage due to that.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 6:55 AM by Ownnyn
I dont buy it, albs have a 60 str with slash and it isnt op to mids.

Fact is ns can either spec pierce and have both realms resistent, or spec slash and be short 20-30 strength vs the other 2. And only gain damage table advantage on 1
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:03 AM by gotwqqd
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 6:55 AM
I dont buy it, albs have a 60 str with slash and it isnt op to mids.

Fact is ns can either spec pierce and have both realms resistent, or spec slash and be short 20-30 strength vs the other 2. And only gain damage table advantage on 1

Well they actually gain damage on both...one more than the other
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:22 AM by Mavella
Is it so complicated to understand that hitting 10% harder and being hit 10% less as hard is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20-30 strength?

This is what Aug strength 5 gives a Norse SB running 4.2/2.4 setup on a dummy with garrote running 44CS with 39LA. +5 main hand damage and +1 offhand damage. Do you honestly think that's better than the +10%/-10% from armor you get? 22 strength is a literal JOKE in comparison. If you want to give up at least 10% of that bonus and get rid of your comically easy evade stun you get, sure make Celt NS accessible. Slash infs have to give up their evade stun for a 2 parter you'd have no problem with that as well right?

If you want to match an SB in Weaponskill run pierce. You'll likely have more WS than an SB due to stat growth on these classes and both will have a -10%/-10% penalty.
Of course we wouldn't do that because OBVIOUSLY +10%/-10% is so fucking favorable vs mid leather and studded compared to a few more damage stat you're be an idiot not to run it.

You really must be trolling
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:32 AM by Ownnyn
Really? You say 22 str is a literal joke........but then complain when asked for 20

Wow....i realise your bias. But wow

Your acting like im asking for slash damage, bc 20 str is nothing compared to this...i agree

But we already get slash damage. The problem isnt the resist type, its that we have to lower our ws AND lose out damage to other armor types.

So i get an advatage against sneaks, but lose it to skalds and thanes....something i fight just as often.

Like i said its a give and take, and i agree the 20 more str vs weak armor types is a no brainer. But where you get to maximize your stats, we dont.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:54 AM by Mavella
Yes you get the C H O I C E to do maximum damage to other stealthers or visibles. If you want to do more damage vs chain fucking run pierce how hard is this concept. You'll match up (-10/-10 vs sb's and -10/-10 vs slash Infs) but you'll have more weaponskill than either so it'll be totally worth it right?!

What do I get to maximize my damage do as an SB? The occasional hero, champ, druid I might run across? Well two of those are basically non targets if they have cooldown up, so watch out solo druids!! So awesome I get to choose such a great advantageous damage type! Oh wait...
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:09 AM by Cadebrennus
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:24 AM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Sun 4 Aug 2019 9:35 PM
Adding 5 dex and losing the 10 qui led to a net/loss gain of 0% to evade ( minus 0.12% to be precise) according to the calculator, yet gaining an additional 2% block even on an unskilled shield.

The stat difference of having much lower strength is even more significant considering you're talking a 20 point difference. Not only does it affect damage it also affects defense penetration, so any Bladeshade will start off in an uphill battle before any WS debuff poisons are applied.

Yeah that doesn't make sense. First of all, block is completely irrelevant for NS, since they don't use shields in melee. You also assume that the defense penetration of having more STR outweighs the advantage in DEX/QUI for evade-purposes. Third, this lower WS only applies when the NS is Blades, in which case they have a massive advantage in the armour-tables where any (very) small difference in WS and Evades is easily offset by the much better damage due to that.

There are more classes than just Assassins you know.

5 more Dex is +2% parry, +2% block.
-10 qui with +5 dex = +/- 0% evade.
Not sure how much + defense penetration +20 str is but it's a lot more significant than you're letting on.

There is an advantage in armor tables but it's not massive.

This is you and every other Assassin player complaining about the "massive advantage" that Blade NS's have over the other two realms' Assassins;

In other words stop being such a drama queen.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:12 AM by Ownnyn
So your arguement is

Im an sb and its not fair that we get 1%more damage from race choise......


Cry me a river


Were not agueing about resist tables. I get it. Sorry hib leather isnt on your prefered damage table....go make your own thread about why sbs should get pierce like the other 2 assassins. Or heck make the arguement for crush. Thats a different topic

The point is ns lose 20 str or 30 str against briton/norse

Even in the pierce line, which takes dex........AND str into account.

The arguement about slash being strong against mid leather is void......bc

1, we already have it
2, albs have it

And the 2nd point is also prime reason why allowing celt should be an easy decision.......albs have it.

Every arguement youve made about why celts shouldnt be ns, is also a reason britons shouldnt be infs.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 9:22 AM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:09 AM
There are more classes than just Assassins you know.

So in a topic about Celt Nightshade you're going on about other classes ? Okay...

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:09 AM
5 more Dex is +2% parry, +2% block.
-10 qui with +5 dex = +/- 0% evade.
Not sure how much + defense penetration +20 str is but it's a lot more significant than you're letting on.

So essentially you really have no idea but you know I'm downplaying it ? That is interesting, you either got a (ballpark) idea about the relation between those two or you don't, but if you don't know - you can't immediately dismiss my claim. So which one is it ?

Furthermore, if you think 5 DEX gives you +2% Parry and +2% Block - think that through for a minute.... do you honestly think it gives a flat-out 2% increase (thus buffs give you ~ 30% parry and block according to you) or is it a 2% increase in your current Block/Parry ; in which case your statement means nothing without stating your spec and current block/parry-ratings.

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:09 AM
There is an advantage in armor tables but it's not massive.

This is you and every other Assassin player complaining about the "massive advantage" that Blade NS's have over the other two realms' Assassins;
In other words stop being such a drama queen.

If you truly think +20 STR (Aug Str 4 - 5) would give you an advantage even remotely close to the armour advantage of a NS vs a SB you should consider going back to primary school. There is literally no other explanation except a seriously flawed understanding of numbers and percentages.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 11:36 AM by Freedomcall
Celt should not be introduced imo
+20 str/con -20 dex/qui is not a trade off, it's a quite huge buff.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 12:56 PM by Cadebrennus
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 9:22 AM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:09 AM
There are more classes than just Assassins you know.

So in a topic about Celt Nightshade you're going on about other classes ? Okay...

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:09 AM
5 more Dex is +2% parry, +2% block.
-10 qui with +5 dex = +/- 0% evade.
Not sure how much + defense penetration +20 str is but it's a lot more significant than you're letting on.

So essentially you really have no idea but you know I'm downplaying it ? That is interesting, you either got a (ballpark) idea about the relation between those two or you don't, but if you don't know - you can't immediately dismiss my claim. So which one is it ?

Furthermore, if you think 5 DEX gives you +2% Parry and +2% Block - think that through for a minute.... do you honestly think it gives a flat-out 2% increase (thus buffs give you ~ 30% parry and block according to you) or is it a 2% increase in your current Block/Parry ; in which case your statement means nothing without stating your spec and current block/parry-ratings.

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:09 AM
There is an advantage in armor tables but it's not massive.

This is you and every other Assassin player complaining about the "massive advantage" that Blade NS's have over the other two realms' Assassins;
In other words stop being such a drama queen.

If you truly think +20 STR (Aug Str 4 - 5) would give you an advantage even remotely close to the armour advantage of a NS vs a SB you should consider going back to primary school. There is literally no other explanation except a seriously flawed understanding of numbers and percentages.

Then perhaps you should go back to kindergarten. Do you even realize that we are not on Live where race and starting stats matter little due to temps and bots? On live anyone with any class can easily get desired stats in the 400+ range, whereas here on Phoenix it is hovering around 300, and starting stats affect that greatly. I bring other classes into the argument to show that there are other factors in play, not just evade. Assassins do fight classes other than Assassins you should know. If players like yourself had more cognizance outside of your little Assassin circle-jerk then you would be aware of more factors at play. I am using a Charplan calculator that gives very precise numbers so I know exactly what I am talking about. Perhaps if you did more than just parrot other people's talking points as gospel then you would find out exactly where your particular classes stand against other classes and how to improve your game rather than just bitch and whine about things you don't actually understand.

As far as WS as a factor it is significant but I do not have the exact numbers because the WS defense penetration is a more complicated formula that takes more factors that are in play than the calculator I am using can determine, such as opponent defenses. Unlike you I do not claim concrete results without concrete proof. However WS with stats and spec is a significant factor, hence why main tanks (for example) always try to maximize both stats and spec for optimal penetration, and why classes that have suboptimal stats and spec (such as hybrid Rangers or Sniper Scouts trying to melee, or noodle-armed Elf/Luris with Blades) do more poorly than what is expected by players such as yourself that are highly misinformed.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:07 PM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 12:56 PM
Then perhaps you should go back to kindergarten. Do you even realize that we are not on Live where race and starting stats matter little due to temps and bots? On live anyone with any class can easily get desired stats in the 400+ range, whereas here on Phoenix it is hovering around 300, and starting stats affect that greatly. I bring other classes into the argument to show that there are other factors in play, not just evade. Assassins do fight classes other than Assassins you should know. If players like yourself had more cognizance outside of your little Assassin circle-jerk then you would be aware of more factors at play. I am using a Charplan calculator that gives very precise numbers so I know exactly what I am talking about. Perhaps if you did more than just parrot other people's talking points as gospel then you would find out exactly where your particular classes stand against other classes and how to improve your game rather than just bitch and whine about things you don't actually understand.

As far as WS as a factor it is significant but I do not have the exact numbers because the WS defense penetration is a more complicated formula that takes more factors that are in play than the calculator I am using can determine, such as opponent defenses. Unlike you I do not claim concrete results without concrete proof. However WS with stats and spec is a significant factor, hence why main tanks (for example) always try to maximize both stats and spec for optimal penetration, and why classes that have suboptimal stats and spec (such as hybrid Rangers or Sniper Scouts trying to melee, or noodle-armed Elf/Luris with Blades) do more poorly than what is expected by players such as yourself that are highly misinformed.

The problem is with all these claims you make is that you lack knowledge and data to back up your claim, so I will explain it to you with numbers taken from Phoenix:

* If I drop my baseline STR buff (which is 257 --> 224 STR) I see a difference on Doublefrost on dummies :
MH: 117 --> 110
OH : 45 --> 43
totals : 162 --> 153 --> roughly 5% less damage for 30 STR - so a Bladeshade Luri vs a Norse SB is lacking 5% damage when using slashers. However, the NS also has more QUI, increasing their DPS again, so all-in-all the advantage for a SB can never be higher than 5%. Let's ignore the QUI advantage on the Lurikeen and say SB has 5% more damage.

* If I see my evade (on my SB) vs the evade on a NS (I take Biotin as an example as I got a video which I can watch to see evade %) I notice:
Bition evades me 27.96%
I evade Biotin 27.89%
These evades are the net-result of my increased WS/Defense-penetration and his superior D/Q - so they roughly cancel each other out. Slight advantage to the NS, but I'm just gonna assume it is the same for now (which is in your advantage).

This means before resists I will do roughly 4-5% more damage with a SB vs a NS. You consider this significant (which can be discussed - but lets go with this assumption).

Now we take armor into account. My 105% gets reduced by 36% resists (26% + 10% from resistant armour) and his 100% gets reduced by 16% (26% - 10% from weak armour). These differences are 4X-5X bigger:

I do 105% * 0,64 = 67.2
He does 100% * 0,84 = 84

This difference is 20% : As you can see armor resists/weakness matter a lot more than the WS-thingy which you cling onto. This is reason #1 why I can't take your argument serious. You claim 4-5% is a big deal, but the 20% is not - which makes no sense when you apply basic math (hence the primary school comment).

The moment you start about "but NS don't always fight SB" I'm gonna counter with how a Pierce NS will have a higher WS than a Norse SB - rendering your argument immediately void.

The 2nd reason why I can't take your comment serious is your claim (from misreading / misunderstanding a calculator which is based on empirical data from live and not Phoenix from which you can get exact data just from reading the combat-log) that 5 DEX gives you 2% block/parry. This would mean getting 75 DEX from items, 100 DEX from buffs and 25 DEX from RA's would give you 200 DEX ==> 200/5 = 40 x 2% = 80% block/parry. I don't have to explain that is wrong, I hope ?
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:15 PM by Cadebrennus
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:07 PM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 12:56 PM
Then perhaps you should go back to kindergarten. Do you even realize that we are not on Live where race and starting stats matter little due to temps and bots? On live anyone with any class can easily get desired stats in the 400+ range, whereas here on Phoenix it is hovering around 300, and starting stats affect that greatly. I bring other classes into the argument to show that there are other factors in play, not just evade. Assassins do fight classes other than Assassins you should know. If players like yourself had more cognizance outside of your little Assassin circle-jerk then you would be aware of more factors at play. I am using a Charplan calculator that gives very precise numbers so I know exactly what I am talking about. Perhaps if you did more than just parrot other people's talking points as gospel then you would find out exactly where your particular classes stand against other classes and how to improve your game rather than just bitch and whine about things you don't actually understand.

As far as WS as a factor it is significant but I do not have the exact numbers because the WS defense penetration is a more complicated formula that takes more factors that are in play than the calculator I am using can determine, such as opponent defenses. Unlike you I do not claim concrete results without concrete proof. However WS with stats and spec is a significant factor, hence why main tanks (for example) always try to maximize both stats and spec for optimal penetration, and why classes that have suboptimal stats and spec (such as hybrid Rangers or Sniper Scouts trying to melee, or noodle-armed Elf/Luris with Blades) do more poorly than what is expected by players such as yourself that are highly misinformed.

The problem is with all these claims you make is that you lack knowledge and data to back up your claim, so I will explain it to you with numbers taken from Phoenix:

* If I drop my baseline STR buff (which is 257 --> 224 STR) I see a difference on Doublefrost on dummies :
MH: 117 --> 110
OH : 45 --> 43
totals : 162 --> 153 --> roughly 5% less damage for 30 STR - so a Bladeshade Luri vs a Norse SB is lacking 5% damage when using slashers. However, the NS also has more QUI, increasing their DPS again, so all-in-all the advantage for a SB can never be higher than 5%. Let's ignore the QUI advantage on the Lurikeen and say SB has 5% more damage.

* If I see my evade (on my SB) vs the evade on a NS (I take Biotin as an example as I got a video which I can watch to see evade %) I notice:
Bition evades me 27.96%
I evade Biotin 27.89%
These evades are the net-result of my increased WS/Defense-penetration and his superior D/Q - so they roughly cancel each other out. Slight advantage to the NS, but I'm just gonna assume it is the same for now (which is in your advantage).

This means before resists I will do roughly 4-5% more damage with a SB vs a NS. You consider this significant (which can be discussed - but lets go with this assumption).

Now we take armor into account. My 105% gets reduced by 36% resists (26% + 10% from resistant armour) and his 100% gets reduced by 16% (26% - 10% from weak armour). These differences are 4X-5X bigger:

I do 105% * 0,64 = 67.2
He does 100% * 0,84 = 84

This difference is 20% : As you can see armor resists/weakness matter a lot more than the WS-thingy which you cling onto. This is reason #1 why I can't take your argument serious. You claim 4-5% is a big deal, but the 20% is not - which makes no sense when you apply basic math (hence the primary school comment).

The moment you start about "but NS don't always fight SB" I'm gonna counter with how a Pierce NS will have a higher WS than a Norse SB - rendering your argument immediately void.

The 2nd reason why I can't take your comment serious is your claim (from misreading / misunderstanding a calculator which is based on empirical data from live and not Phoenix from which you can get exact data just from reading the combat-log) that 5 DEX gives you 2% block/parry. This would mean getting 75 DEX from items, 100 DEX from buffs and 25 DEX from RA's would give you 200 DEX ==> 200/5 = 40 x 2% = 80% block/parry. I don't have to explain that is wrong, I hope ?

Do you think the class WS tables have any significance on damage and defense penetration?

Your answer will determine whether or not you truly understand or whether you're simply talking out of your ass. Simple question. Take your time. (btw I've calculated Quickness' effect on DPS and it's not anywhere close to being as significant as you think.)
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:43 PM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:15 PM
Do you think the class WS tables have any significance on damage and defense penetration?

Your answer will determine whether or not you truly understand or whether you're simply talking out of your ass. Simple question. Take your time. (btw I've calculated Quickness' effect on DPS and it's not anywhere close to being as significant as you think.)

Question 1: Yes. For damage it is (almost) completely linear with the paperdoll WS-difference. As for defense-penetration: not so much. There is some, but generally the evade-rate of my SB against a merc isn't much worse than against an INF. Luckily NS and SB are on the same damage-tables, so it doesn't matter in this discussion.

As for your stab about QUI improving DPS: If you had taken the time to properly read my post you would have seen I assumed the effect of QUI on DPS to be 0%. I know it is not 0% - but to take away any discussion about it I removed it entirely to give the SB the best advantage in the differentiation before resists. Since you don't seem to understand that, I think that is (final) reason #3 why I don't take your posts seriously.

Luckily I'm not the "3 strikes and your out"-guy, huh

For entertainment reasons I can give you a quick approximation about it. Before styles the difference between 210 and 240 QUI (which seems a fair number for Norse SB vs Luri NS) is ~9% (swingspeed difference; as haste and improved QUI do not lower your unstyled cap and only lower your style-bonus). Assuming reasonable styles, I would assume the difference in DPS from QUI will be in the ballpark of 3-4% (fairly close to the 5% from STR).
Mon 5 Aug 2019 5:07 PM by Cadebrennus
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:43 PM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:15 PM
Do you think the class WS tables have any significance on damage and defense penetration?

Your answer will determine whether or not you truly understand or whether you're simply talking out of your ass. Simple question. Take your time. (btw I've calculated Quickness' effect on DPS and it's not anywhere close to being as significant as you think.)

Question 1: Yes. For damage it is (almost) completely linear with the paperdoll WS-difference. As for defense-penetration: not so much. There is some, but generally the evade-rate of my SB against a merc isn't much worse than against an INF. Luckily NS and SB are on the same damage-tables, so it doesn't matter in this discussion.

As for your stab about QUI improving DPS: If you had taken the time to properly read my post you would have seen I assumed the effect of QUI on DPS to be 0%. I know it is not 0% - but to take away any discussion about it I removed it entirely to give the SB the best advantage in the differentiation before resists. Since you don't seem to understand that, I think that is (final) reason #3 why I don't take your posts seriously.

Luckily I'm not the "3 strikes and your out"-guy, huh

For entertainment reasons I can give you a quick approximation about it. Before styles the difference between 210 and 240 QUI (which seems a fair number for Norse SB vs Luri NS) is ~9% (swingspeed difference; as haste and improved QUI do not lower your unstyled cap and only lower your style-bonus). Assuming reasonable styles, I would assume the difference in DPS from QUI will be in the ballpark of 3-4% (fairly close to the 5% from STR).

Well that definitely answers it lol. You're relying on anecdotal evidence rather than actual testing, parsing logs, and pre-built calculators. At least you entertain yourself with your ignorance. Here's a little hint: 9% swing speed improvement does not calculate linearly to 9% more DPS, even when allowing for consistent swings over time.

You're a waste of characters typed into this forum.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 5:28 PM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 5:07 PM
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:43 PM
For entertainment reasons I can give you a quick approximation about it. Before styles the difference between 210 and 240 QUI (which seems a fair number for Norse SB vs Luri NS) is ~9% (swingspeed difference; as haste and improved QUI do not lower your unstyled cap and only lower your style-bonus). Assuming reasonable styles, I would assume the difference in DPS from QUI will be in the ballpark of 3-4% (fairly close to the 5% from STR).

Well that definitely answers it lol. You're relying on anecdotal evidence rather than actual testing, parsing logs, and pre-built calculators. At least you entertain yourself with your ignorance. Here's a little hint: 9% swing speed improvement does not calculate linearly to 9% more DPS, even when allowing for consistent swings over time.

You're a waste of characters typed into this forum.

It seems indeed my characters are wasted on someone like you who clearly demonstrates time and time again he's unable to read. I said before styles (=unstyled) that DPS and swing-speed are 1:1 linked. Once you start adding styles it depends on the GR of the style how the relation is. That is where I said for reasonable styles (e.g. GR 0.6~) you're looking at 3-4%.

But who am I kidding, my data is build on tests AND empirical data and actual ingame experience on Phoenix. Yours is build on.. well inability to read replies proper and a misunderstanding of elementary math as well as the idea you need to parse logs when there is no variance on Phoenix and the defense and offense-numbers are listed in the combatlog.

But hey, keep digging that hole, it is painfully clear to most that you don't even realize you're digging it...
Mon 5 Aug 2019 6:01 PM by Mavella
The mental gymnastics are astounding.


Plug your +5 dex into any calculation on this page and tell me where it increases your block or parry by TWO percent. You get about 0.2% but being off by a factor of 10 isn't a big deal in math right? You make claims like this and expect anyone to take you seriously?? Holy. Shit.


https://camelotherald.fandom.com/wiki/Dexterity
Mon 5 Aug 2019 6:16 PM by Ownnyn
So much hate

Your still basing the nerf to ns, one that isnt seen by mids or albs, simply because they can hit 1 armor type harder that the other 2. News flash.....so can the other 2 damage types.

But bc that damage type happens to be sbs, its soooooo unfair

The arguement still stands, celt ns should be allowed bc the difference 20 more str makes is small.....and its already available to the other 2 realms.

Albs have 3 assassin races that highlight str, or dex or inbetween

Mids have 3 races, that highlight str or dex or inbetween.

Hibs only get 2 races, neither breaking 40 strength.


All bc 1 mid armor type is weak and cries rivers of tears.

Even though all armor has a weakness AND a strength.



Mathematics can argue all day long about the effect, but its minor, very minor, and already allowed by the other realms.

Its like saying 20 more strength is fine for alb but not for hib....bc slash is too op against my precious sb

Did we not just cover the fact infs get both slash and 20 more strength? Where are your tears for that injustice?

How about every skald im running against having hammer and huge strength bonuses.....and his chain is strong to slash? If its unfair to sbs, how is that not unfair to NS?

Like i said your arguements are weak bc they only peryain to the small picture your bias about.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:02 PM by Mavella
Yes we're all sorry you don't get your 20% bonus with another 5% on top of it from more strength. Boo fucking hoo. You make the argument well alb/mid have it why can't I have it?

Here's the SB version.

Where's sbs 1 step evade stun? Where's sb's favorable armor match up in stealth wars? Where's sb's choice of damage type? Sb's have been making these arguments since Phoenix launch and nothing has changed.

You come in making the same argument for race choice parity and expect the change just because? Sorry but the pointing at what others have and saying I want that too doesn't seem to be a valid argument for change around here.

It's been explained to you ad nauseum why Blade NS makes out the best in stealth wars and you choose to run blades exclusively for that reason. God forbid you actually have to have one sort of negative (it's hardly a negative at all) with your damage type choice.

My arguments are weak? You literally make no argument except for "I want it all.".

Get fucking real.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:18 PM by Cadebrennus
Mavella wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 6:01 PM
The mental gymnastics are astounding.


Plug your +5 dex into any calculation on this page and tell me where it increases your block or parry by TWO percent. You get about 0.2% but being off by a factor of 10 isn't a big deal in math right? You make claims like this and expect anyone to take you seriously?? Holy. Shit.


https://camelotherald.fandom.com/wiki/Dexterity

Literally a two second search (including typing time) to find a Charplan with a built in calculator.

http://daoctb.sourceforge.net/Charplan__EN.htm
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:21 PM by Cadebrennus
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 5:28 PM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 5:07 PM
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 4:43 PM
For entertainment reasons I can give you a quick approximation about it. Before styles the difference between 210 and 240 QUI (which seems a fair number for Norse SB vs Luri NS) is ~9% (swingspeed difference; as haste and improved QUI do not lower your unstyled cap and only lower your style-bonus). Assuming reasonable styles, I would assume the difference in DPS from QUI will be in the ballpark of 3-4% (fairly close to the 5% from STR).

Well that definitely answers it lol. You're relying on anecdotal evidence rather than actual testing, parsing logs, and pre-built calculators. At least you entertain yourself with your ignorance. Here's a little hint: 9% swing speed improvement does not calculate linearly to 9% more DPS, even when allowing for consistent swings over time.

You're a waste of characters typed into this forum.

It seems indeed my characters are wasted on someone like you who clearly demonstrates time and time again he's unable to read. I said before styles (=unstyled) that DPS and swing-speed are 1:1 linked. Once you start adding styles it depends on the GR of the style how the relation is. That is where I said for reasonable styles (e.g. GR 0.6~) you're looking at 3-4%.

But who am I kidding, my data is build on tests AND empirical data and actual ingame experience on Phoenix. Yours is build on.. well inability to read replies proper and a misunderstanding of elementary math as well as the idea you need to parse logs when there is no variance on Phoenix and the defense and offense-numbers are listed in the combatlog.

But hey, keep digging that hole, it is painfully clear to most that you don't even realize you're digging it...

Where is your "empirical" data? I don't recall you being particularly active during beta and providing actual data to the Devs. Conversely, I was very active during Phoenix beta and during EA's and Broadsword's tenure of Live where I tested and shared said tests.

Sorry dude, your anecdotal evidence and driving by your ass does not constitute "empirical" data.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:25 PM by Mavella
Holy shit. I don't need an old character planner that uses God knows which formula to prove you wrong.

Let's take the simplest formula on the page for simplicities sake.

((dex X 2) - 100) / 40 = % chance to parry from dex

250 dex = 10%
255 dex = 10.25%

What about these two values is equal to 2%?

When you make outrageous claims like 5 dex gives 4% passive defense the burden of proof is on you when multiple people with clearly better understanding of the mechanics of the game call you out. You are the one spreading misinformation. I've seen this trend from you since the first time I read your Ranger "guide". Are you willfully this dumb or just a master troll?
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:47 PM by Ownnyn
Your not changing your arguement.

Its your bias cause your the one armor type that it negatively affects, but only by a small amount.

You still cant overcome the arguement that albs have it already, proving that 60 str with slash damaged isnt op.

You cant say its op for ns but not inf

Conversely you cant say its op for ns but not skalds or warriors or the dozen other classes that can match a stat with a damage type that is strong to another....

Defeciencies with available damage types with sbs is not relavent to missing stats for the ns, make your case in another thread and stop conflating the 2
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:57 PM by Mavella
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:47 PM
Your not changing your arguement.

Its your bias cause your the one armor type that it negatively affects, but only by a small amount.

You still cant overcome the arguement that albs have it already, proving that 60 str with slash damaged isnt op.

You cant say its op for ns but not inf

Conversely you cant say its op for ns but not skalds or warriors or the dozen other classes that can match a stat with a damage type that is strong to another....

Defeciencies with available damage types with sbs is not relavent to missing stats for the ns, make your case in another thread and stop conflating the 2

Again you're asking for a change that came much later in the daoc timeline than the 1.65 framework this server started at. Briton could be inf since launch. Celt couldn't be NS much later in the game the devs have already tuned the stealth war to where they seemingly want it given the lack of changes despite many threads.

You again make the claim well if they have it why can't I? That's not a fucking argument that's a childish gimme statement. I gave you examples of ones SBs have tried and failed to get themselves over the past 8 months.

POINTING AT SOMETHING AND SAYING I WANT THAT TOO IS NOT A BASIS FOR CHANGES ON THIS SERVER

You need to make a real argument why this needs to be changed and I'm sure if you use the search function hard enough staff have said at least once in the past Celt will not be NS on this server. Everyone else is giving you the mechanical/mathematical rationale for this decision and all you keep doing is coming back with "yeah but". That's not an argument. Sorry kid.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:16 PM by Ownnyn
I have made that arguement

Its currently screwing blade specced shades not to give them a str based race.

Reason u gave, not me, for not giving us celts is

1) that would be op with both slash dmg and 60 str against you....

2) its not 1.65

3) ????


1. Infs are a perfect example why your #1 reason is a void arguement as ive said since the beginning. 1 realm getting something is the definition of a beginning argument for the next realm asking for it. How do u think all realms got endo, or twf, or sos.

Fact, infs can go blades and use 60 str races. If the arguement is it negatively impacts sbs, then why dont you cry about infs? Maybe cause the fact you get a 70 str race.

Why the fury about celts, but nothing about britons?

2) ask uthgard how 1.65 did for them?

Heres some other non 1.65 things, palys, animists, friars, every realm ability, frontiers, poisons, sms, just to name a few.....oh and no buff bots, no poisoning ranger weapons, no reapply of lifebanes. How about easy templating.

Get the fuck out of here with that 1.65 arguement. You lose all credibility the moment you make it.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:52 PM by Mavella
Rofl willfully choosing to get a 20% and 10% damage advantage advantage vs other sins at the cost of 5% damage worth of strength is not the definition of "screwing yourself". That's called making a wise and informed decision.

Slash Infs actually have to give up utility(1 part evade stun) and willfully choose to do worse vs hib leather and RF to get a bonus half as good as you get vs sbs. Their weaponskill also goes down significantly compared to Thrust.


You see how they have to make decision a wieghing the pros and cons to decide who they want to be stronger against? Bladeshade gives up a miniscule amount of base damage compared to slash inf while retaining the 1step evade utility and a significant damage advantage vs other stealthers. If you can't see the clear give and take scenario and see it's not quite the same for NS as it is for SBs whonliterally have no choice and Infs who have to willingly choose to gimp themselves vs ns to be stronger vs SB I can't explain it any simpler.

I truly can't wait to hear the next round of "yeah buts".
Mon 5 Aug 2019 9:02 PM by Saroi
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:16 PM
I have made that arguement

Its currently screwing blade specced shades not to give them a str based race.

Reason u gave, not me, for not giving us celts is

1) that would be op with both slash dmg and 60 str against you....

2) its not 1.65

3) ????


1. Infs are a perfect example why your #1 reason is a void arguement as ive said since the beginning. 1 realm getting something is the definition of a beginning argument for the next realm asking for it. How do u think all realms got endo, or twf, or sos.

Fact, infs can go blades and use 60 str races. If the arguement is it negatively impacts sbs, then why dont you cry about infs? Maybe cause the fact you get a 70 str race.

Why the fury about celts, but nothing about britons?

2) ask uthgard how 1.65 did for them?

Heres some other non 1.65 things, palys, animists, friars, every realm ability, frontiers, poisons, sms, just to name a few.....oh and no buff bots, no poisoning ranger weapons, no reapply of lifebanes. How about easy templating.

Get the fuck out of here with that 1.65 arguement. You lose all credibility the moment you make it.

I am not getting into if Celt NS should be implemented or not. There have been enough Posts already.

You see, in the year 2003 before ToA came out Mystic actually made the idea of Celt NS. Celt NS was even on the testserver for month and later it was postponed to go live. Mystic stated that Celt NS is superior to Lurikeen and Elf. Note, this was in the year 2003 when there were no or almost non Blade NS around.

I am not taking any sides here. I am just stating that even the develepors of the game back then thought Celt NS are overall stronger than Elf/Luri.

Here is the patch 1.62i notes to read:

CLASS NOTES

- We have removed the ability for Celts to become Nightshades, at least for the time being, while we assess the consequences of this change. We may re-implement Celt Nightshades in a future patch, but it won't go live in 1.62. This was removed based on testing feedback that showed the Celt Nightshades may have a distinct advantage in RvR over Lurikeen and Elven Nightshades due to their inherently greater strength. It was not our intent to redefine the class based on a new race/class combo.

Besides that. If you implement Celt NS, then others want the other classes too. Like Highlander Inf, Luri BM, etc. This will probably be a lot of work for the Devs and take a lot of time.

Last: The speaking here is about the stats but Celt also has a resist advantage. Luri have 0 slash, 5 crush. Elf have 2 slash and 0 crush. Celt have 3 slash and also 2 crush. Yes, it is not that big of a deal but it adds up to the more str. and con.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 10:15 PM by Numatic
I get how everyone is passionate about their side of the arguement. But it's not productive to get at each others throats (especially insulting). Its just gunna make the devs lock the thread.

I think the main problem with Celt NS isnt that it makes the class so OP that it would ruin rvr. What it will do is make a class that has the largest advantage out of the 3, an even larger one. The reason people dont complain about Briton inf is because they have a disadvantage going blade against NS. So they are choosing to fight sbs and hunters over NS and rangers. Whereas a thrust Infil chooses to fight NS over SB. Meaning they take a hit there. But for a NS, they gain an advantage against both assasins by going blade. It puts them in an already favorable position against the other 2, and by asking for a Celt NS, you want to add even more to that favorability.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 10:52 PM by Ownnyn
Saroi wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 9:02 PM
Ownnyn wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 8:16 PM
I have made that arguement

Its currently screwing blade specced shades not to give them a str based race.

Reason u gave, not me, for not giving us celts is

1) that would be op with both slash dmg and 60 str against you....

2) its not 1.65

3) ????


1. Infs are a perfect example why your #1 reason is a void arguement as ive said since the beginning. 1 realm getting something is the definition of a beginning argument for the next realm asking for it. How do u think all realms got endo, or twf, or sos.

Fact, infs can go blades and use 60 str races. If the arguement is it negatively impacts sbs, then why dont you cry about infs? Maybe cause the fact you get a 70 str race.

Why the fury about celts, but nothing about britons?

2) ask uthgard how 1.65 did for them?

Heres some other non 1.65 things, palys, animists, friars, every realm ability, frontiers, poisons, sms, just to name a few.....oh and no buff bots, no poisoning ranger weapons, no reapply of lifebanes. How about easy templating.

Get the fuck out of here with that 1.65 arguement. You lose all credibility the moment you make it.

I am not getting into if Celt NS should be implemented or not. There have been enough Posts already.

You see, in the year 2003 before ToA came out Mystic actually made the idea of Celt NS. Celt NS was even on the testserver for month and later it was postponed to go live. Mystic stated that Celt NS is superior to Lurikeen and Elf. Note, this was in the year 2003 when there were no or almost non Blade NS around.

I am not taking any sides here. I am just stating that even the develepors of the game back then thought Celt NS are overall stronger than Elf/Luri.

Here is the patch 1.62i notes to read:

CLASS NOTES

- We have removed the ability for Celts to become Nightshades, at least for the time being, while we assess the consequences of this change. We may re-implement Celt Nightshades in a future patch, but it won't go live in 1.62. This was removed based on testing feedback that showed the Celt Nightshades may have a distinct advantage in RvR over Lurikeen and Elven Nightshades due to their inherently greater strength. It was not our intent to redefine the class based on a new race/class combo.

Besides that. If you implement Celt NS, then others want the other classes too. Like Highlander Inf, Luri BM, etc. This will probably be a lot of work for the Devs and take a lot of time.

Last: The speaking here is about the stats but Celt also has a resist advantage. Luri have 0 slash, 5 crush. Elf have 2 slash and 0 crush. Celt have 3 slash and also 2 crush. Yes, it is not that big of a deal but it adds up to the more str. and con.

Thanks for the well thought out post.

However. the arguement is that celts are op cause mythic said so......the same mythic who thought up animists, vamps, warlocks, bds.....

The same mythic who thought palys were great, or that 2 realms didnt need endo regen.

The same realm that gave 1 realm aoe stun.

Thanks but if the crux of your argument is that mythic said so, then i put the comment in the same pile as those that say...cause 1.65.

As for luri bms and highlander infs....

The statement reads like im asking for something not currently in the game....slash briton infs exist.

Nobody said make trolls or highlanders or firbolgs assassins. However to be honest im not opposed, for the same reason all those races can be heavy tanks, including the same races as assasins, and you see all sorts of variety among them.

Wanna play a hero....how about luri pierce and shield. Or shar for the hp...or firby for the str, or celt for balance, or tree dude for whatever they bring....and u see em all out there.

Does firby have such s huge advantage to luris that luris can never play hero?

Im not saying there isnt a difference, but while a celt ns specced slash might excell in one fight, a luri pierce can in another. Its the differences that make them great. Same reason i see all 3 races of sbs or infs.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 11:21 PM by Cadebrennus
Mavella wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:25 PM
Holy shit. I don't need an old character planner that uses God knows which formula to prove you wrong.

Let's take the simplest formula on the page for simplicities sake.

((dex X 2) - 100) / 40 = % chance to parry from dex

250 dex = 10%
255 dex = 10.25%

What about these two values is equal to 2%?

When you make outrageous claims like 5 dex gives 4% passive defense the burden of proof is on you when multiple people with clearly better understanding of the mechanics of the game call you out. You are the one spreading misinformation. I've seen this trend from you since the first time I read your Ranger "guide". Are you willfully this dumb or just a master troll?

http://daoctb.sourceforge.net/Charplan__EN.htm

In case you missed it the first time. Grun and the other Devs have stated time and again that they are using the original code with an order of attack modification so that the end result matches the original intent of the code. No one gives a shit about your simplified formula. Use the original one. Hell, there's even a choice of which formula to use in the downloadable calculator. I've also checked my results with online calculators and the numbers match. Obviously you see the one spreading misinformation.

Regarding the Ranger Guide I have no problem refuting my own information when I get new data that disproves my prior claims, hence "The Drunken Ranger's Guide to Drunken Celtic Dual Wielding" which has corrections to my initial assertions. There is no ego connected to my posts or assertions. With people like you, however, you base your entire worth on whether you are right or wrong, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. When your whole identity rests on such a flimsy base it leads to the cognitive dissonance that we are witnessing from you and other posters right now. I would feel sorry for you except for your shitty attitude which prevents my pity.
Mon 5 Aug 2019 11:38 PM by Mavella
Don't care about your diatribes.

Post screens of 5 dex and ONLY 5 dex increasing your block and parry by 2% each on Phoenix vs a fully buffed equal level attacker. You're making the asinine claims. You provide the evidence.

5 dex might increase your dex improvement of your total block by 2% aka going from 10%->10.25% but that certainly wasn't what you were implying. If this in fact the "2%" you're referring to I'll just laugh my way right out of this thread.

I honestly don't give a shit about " but muh calculator"

This is such an absurd claim I honestly can't believe you're still sticking by it. Put up or shut up. Honestly.

EDIT: Nevermind I did it for you. Here is the impact of 4 dex on my warriors parry and block rate vs the same attacker.

.21% increase on both. I'm sure 1 more dex will somehow magically multiply these values by 10 though right?

Tue 6 Aug 2019 2:38 AM by gotwqqd
I think the bonus’s are additive not multiplicative
Tue 6 Aug 2019 3:47 AM by Cadebrennus
Mavella wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 11:38 PM
Don't care about your diatribes.

Post screens of 5 dex and ONLY 5 dex increasing your block and parry by 2% each on Phoenix vs a fully buffed equal level attacker. You're making the asinine claims. You provide the evidence.

5 dex might increase your dex improvement of your total block by 2% aka going from 10%->10.25% but that certainly wasn't what you were implying. If this in fact the "2%" you're referring to I'll just laugh my way right out of this thread.

I honestly don't give a shit about " but muh calculator"

This is such an absurd claim I honestly can't believe you're still sticking by it. Put up or shut up. Honestly.

EDIT: Nevermind I did it for you. Here is the impact of 4 dex on my warriors parry and block rate vs the same attacker.

.21% increase on both. I'm sure 1 more dex will somehow magically multiply these values by 10 though right?



Good for you. Perhaps it is different than what I am claiming. However at least up to beta the calculator has been accurately reflecting what is actually in game. That being said I don't know what the WS penetration code is for that mob, nor do I know what your initial stats were, final stats, or even what level your character is. At least you tried something different and actually tested something for once. I was actively testing and logging throughout beta and during the initial launch. Thanks for FINALLY contributing something that I can look into further.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 4:01 AM by Mavella
Keep grasping buddy. Even a broke clock is right twice a day right?
Tue 6 Aug 2019 4:32 AM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Mon 5 Aug 2019 7:18 PM
Literally a two second search (including typing time) to find a Charplan with a built in calculator.

http://daoctb.sourceforge.net/Charplan__EN.htm
In case you missed it the first time. Grun and the other Devs have stated time and again that they are using the original code with an order of attack modification so that the end result matches the original intent of the code. No one gives a shit about your simplified formula. Use the original one. Hell, there's even a choice of which formula to use in the downloadable calculator. I've also checked my results with online calculators and the numbers match. Obviously you see the one spreading misinformation.


https://ibb.co/C2Pt2s1


Plugging in 5 additional DEX on the tool you provided doesn't give the result you claim. So we're at a situation where :

a) Reading the combat-log in-game doesn't give the result you claim (see screenshot Mavella)
b) Common sense doesn't give the result you claim. (see my explanation before)
c) The calculator you provided doesn't give the result you claim. (see screenshot above)

It is a pattern I keep seeing when I take a closer look at your claims. All you do is make yourself less and less believable, so my suggestion to you if you want to do more testing would be to open a topic about what you want to test and post your methodology on how you want to test, so others can verify the tests you're doing are useful. Then post the data with screenshots and logs, so others can verify your results.

Because in all honesty this 2% block/parry discussion would be a lot shorter if you just had posted the results of the calculator in a screenshot. Maybe you would have even seen your error for yourself and not posted it at all...
Tue 6 Aug 2019 4:45 AM by Mavella
Oh my god reality is crashing down all around us.

Can we get a formal apology letter in this thread PLEASE?!
Tue 6 Aug 2019 4:54 AM by Cadebrennus
Yup looks like I made a mistake in the calculator. The calculator is correct, but I can't remember where I got the original numbers. I guess that's what happens when I run numbers when I'm tired.

Keep in mind though that you guys are plugging in values for live (+26 stat overcap, max buffbot values +62 base, +93 spec), and that your results will be skewed as well. You should try readjusting the calc to show actual buff and temp options here before you crucify anyone. The +5 Dex does give a +8 WS boost with Thrust weapons (1/2 str, 1/2 Dex) and a +20 WS boost to Shields so stats definitely matter more than you guys are letting on though. I plugged in the Phoenix applicable stats for an Elf/Luri NS with 50 Blades Vs a Norse SB with 50 Sword and I'm showing a WS advantage for the SB by +92. That's pretty significant. That's an 8% boost over a similarly specced NS, but we will have to get a dev opinion on exactly how significant that is here, dependent on how they've tweaked the code.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 5:35 AM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 4:54 AM
Yup looks like I made a mistake in the calculator. The calculator is correct, but I can't remember where I got the original numbers. I guess that's what happens when I run numbers when I'm tired.

Keep in mind though that you guys are plugging in values for live (+26 stat overcap, max buffbot values +62 base, +93 spec), and that your results will be skewed as well. You should try readjusting the calc to show actual buff and temp options here before you crucify anyone. The +5 Dex does give a +8 WS boost with Thrust weapons (1/2 str, 1/2 Dex) and a +20 WS boost to Shields so stats definitely matter more than you guys are letting on though. I plugged in the Phoenix applicable stats for an Elf/Luri NS with 50 Blades Vs a Norse SB with 50 Sword and I'm showing a WS advantage for the SB by +92. That's pretty significant. That's an 8% boost over a similarly specced NS, but we will have to get a dev opinion on exactly how significant that is here, dependent on how they've tweaked the code.

Obviously WS matters and the difference is undeniably there. But it is partially compensated by higher QUI and in the case of Blades NS vs SB 4-5X compensated by the armor-differences.

If you feel that that is still unfair for NS you could get higher WS by simply going Pierce as a NS. You would have higher WS than a Norse SB. The fact most don't do that is because armor-differences >> WS-difference.

There is a lot of people here who don't want Celt-NS and it is mostly because it feels unfair to give the class who already has the most advantages another boost. Essentially asking for a Celt-NS is eating the cake and having it, which causes a lot of friction against the idea.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:50 AM by Cadebrennus
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 5:35 AM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 4:54 AM
Yup looks like I made a mistake in the calculator. The calculator is correct, but I can't remember where I got the original numbers. I guess that's what happens when I run numbers when I'm tired.

Keep in mind though that you guys are plugging in values for live (+26 stat overcap, max buffbot values +62 base, +93 spec), and that your results will be skewed as well. You should try readjusting the calc to show actual buff and temp options here before you crucify anyone. The +5 Dex does give a +8 WS boost with Thrust weapons (1/2 str, 1/2 Dex) and a +20 WS boost to Shields so stats definitely matter more than you guys are letting on though. I plugged in the Phoenix applicable stats for an Elf/Luri NS with 50 Blades Vs a Norse SB with 50 Sword and I'm showing a WS advantage for the SB by +92. That's pretty significant. That's an 8% boost over a similarly specced NS, but we will have to get a dev opinion on exactly how significant that is here, dependent on how they've tweaked the code.

Obviously WS matters and the difference is undeniably there. But it is partially compensated by higher QUI and in the case of Blades NS vs SB 4-5X compensated by the armor-differences.

If you feel that that is still unfair for NS you could get higher WS by simply going Pierce as a NS. You would have higher WS than a Norse SB. The fact most don't do that is because armor-differences >> WS-difference.

There is a lot of people here who don't want Celt-NS and it is mostly because it feels unfair to give the class who already has the most advantages another boost. Essentially asking for a Celt-NS is eating the cake and having it, which causes a lot of friction against the idea.

Turns out though that gaining/losing approximately 0.2 seconds of swing speed isn't all that significant to DPS. It comes out to around 2-10 damage per hit both over time and per individual swing. I've firmly been in the "more quickness is better" camp for a long time, but as your calculations and my (revised) calculations show, it's better to put those starting points into Dex if you're using a Dex based weapon such as Thrust/Pierce/Spear (50/50 of course) or Shield/Staff.

Basically a Blades NS is up shit creek when it comes to defense penetration and raw DPS compared to an SB, or they could focus more on WS at the expense of having a negative to their damage type. It isn't as cut and dried in favour of an army of Blades wielding NS's as you and others make it out to be. Regarding the other positives of NS's I think the DDs are too strong and definitely overshadow Archers in terms of damage over time (according to my tests during beta, though this may have changed since then) as well as utility (keep sieges notwithstanding), and this would have to be addressed before a Celt NS would be balanced and viable.

Btw the reason I've jumped all over your ass in this thread is because of the hyperbolic statements like "in the case of Blades NS vs SB 4-5X compensated by the armor-differences". Seriously, that is just ridiculous. A 0.2 faster swing speed translates to 3-10 more damage over time while reducing damage per hit. At most you're talking a 5-10 damage per swing advantage over time, which is nowhere near close to 4-5x as good as a +20 strength advantage which is nearly 100 more weaponskill. Personally I would take the 100 more WS over a measly 0.2 faster swing speed any day.

If I had simply gotten a plat trade faster in Mid than I did on Alb (I left Hib) I would be playing a SB right now due to the advantages they have. NS's are simply too weak per swing with Blades to have appealed to me, and the only reason I still haven't gone to Mid is their overwhelming population advantage. I for one, enjoy a target rich environment which is why I'm staying in Alb for the time being.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 9:29 AM by Sepplord
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:50 AM
Btw the reason I've jumped all over your ass in this thread is because of the hyperbolic statements like "in the case of Blades NS vs SB 4-5X compensated by the armor-differences".

The armor differences is a 20% dmg difference, not a quickness loss...

Seriously Cade, in this thread you seem to simply have not properly read the other guys comments. He even completely dismissed the quickness benefit COMPLETELY and ONLY compared armor-differences to the str-differences, yet you STILL try to somehow justify your comments by referencing stuff that wasn't said



totals : 162 --> 153 --> roughly 5% less damage for 30 STR - so a Bladeshade Luri vs a Norse SB is lacking 5% damage when using slashers. However, the NS also has more QUI, increasing their DPS again, so all-in-all the advantage for a SB can never be higher than 5%. Let's ignore the QUI advantage on the Lurikeen and say SB has 5% more damage.

* If I see my evade (on my SB) vs the evade on a NS (I take Biotin as an example as I got a video which I can watch to see evade %) I notice:
Bition evades me 27.96%
I evade Biotin 27.89%
These evades are the net-result of my increased WS/Defense-penetration and his superior D/Q - so they roughly cancel each other out. Slight advantage to the NS, but I'm just gonna assume it is the same for now (which is in your advantage).

This means before resists I will do roughly 4-5% more damage with a SB vs a NS. You consider this significant (which can be discussed - but lets go with this assumption).

Now we take armor into account. My 105% gets reduced by 36% resists (26% + 10% from resistant armour) and his 100% gets reduced by 16% (26% - 10% from weak armour). These differences are 4X-5X bigger:
Tue 6 Aug 2019 10:20 AM by Cadebrennus
Sepplord wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 9:29 AM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:50 AM
Btw the reason I've jumped all over your ass in this thread is because of the hyperbolic statements like "in the case of Blades NS vs SB 4-5X compensated by the armor-differences".

The armor differences is a 20% dmg difference, not a quickness loss...

Seriously Cade, in this thread you seem to simply have not properly read the other guys comments. He even completely dismissed the quickness benefit COMPLETELY and ONLY compared armor-differences to the str-differences, yet you STILL try to somehow justify your comments by referencing stuff that wasn't said



totals : 162 --> 153 --> roughly 5% less damage for 30 STR - so a Bladeshade Luri vs a Norse SB is lacking 5% damage when using slashers. However, the NS also has more QUI, increasing their DPS again, so all-in-all the advantage for a SB can never be higher than 5%. Let's ignore the QUI advantage on the Lurikeen and say SB has 5% more damage.

* If I see my evade (on my SB) vs the evade on a NS (I take Biotin as an example as I got a video which I can watch to see evade %) I notice:
Bition evades me 27.96%
I evade Biotin 27.89%
These evades are the net-result of my increased WS/Defense-penetration and his superior D/Q - so they roughly cancel each other out. Slight advantage to the NS, but I'm just gonna assume it is the same for now (which is in your advantage).

This means before resists I will do roughly 4-5% more damage with a SB vs a NS. You consider this significant (which can be discussed - but lets go with this assumption).

Now we take armor into account. My 105% gets reduced by 36% resists (26% + 10% from resistant armour) and his 100% gets reduced by 16% (26% - 10% from weak armour). These differences are 4X-5X bigger:

I know what he said and I know what I said. However, I just don't see the logic in a hyper-narrow form of analysis that ignores all other contributing factors. He and others in this thread are failing to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. I prefer to view class and realm balance in a holistic manner. Really that's what it comes down to.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 10:23 AM by Taniquetil
NS doesnt need Celt in the current set up.

Celt was added when damage table differences were nullified due to legendary heat weapons evening out the damage tables and SB's getting Bludgeon.

NS has a lot of advantages and can do very well in the sin war and other fields, AugStr4 basically resolves the differences anyway if you really feel its lacking, but your points can be better spent elsewhere.

Properly applying poisons, using the right styles and playing to your class strengths are far more important than 20str.

If you're struggling on the NS rethink a few things about the rest of your game before worrying about celt being in.

Initial decision for NS not getting celt probably went something like this:
- Better damage table, but give lower str
- Give them an insta magic DD that no other sneak class has to balance out the lower HP over the course of a fight
- Give higher dex/qui to give a slight benefit to evade rate.

All those muddled together = pretty equal, tbh against SB probably in favour of NS, and against blade Inf, probably in favour of NS, against pierce inf, probably in favour of Inf.

Both played well it can come down to RNG more than anything. If you're getting dunked on, its not your lack of celt, its other parts of your game.

Tani - Lurikeen NS. Small bean and proud.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 4:06 PM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:50 AM
Turns out though that gaining/losing approximately 0.2 seconds of swing speed isn't all that significant to DPS. It comes out to around 2-10 damage per hit both over time and per individual swing. I've firmly been in the "more quickness is better" camp for a long time, but as your calculations and my (revised) calculations show, it's better to put those starting points into Dex if you're using a Dex based weapon such as Thrust/Pierce/Spear (50/50 of course) or Shield/Staff.

Your conclusion might be right (tho I have my doubts) but your approach to that solution is wrong. If we're talking about DPS you can't talk about 2-10 damage per hit both over time and per individual swing. The entire idea about QUI is that you hit for less, but swing faster therefore increasing DPS (as the loss per hit is smaller than the effect of swinging faster).

You can precisely calculate how much 30 STR is better than 30 QUI on a Luri NS vs a Norse SB in raw damage for any given style. I'm too lazy to do it exactly, mostly to avoid the next discussion about what GR I should assume. It is safe to say however the advantage of the SB will always be smaller than taking the 30 STR advantage on its own, which is what I did before.

Basically a Blades NS is up shit creek when it comes to defense penetration and raw DPS compared to an SB, or they could focus more on WS at the expense of having a negative to their damage type. It isn't as cut and dried in favour of an army of Blades wielding NS's as you and others make it out to be.

You seemed to have missed another point I made before: If a SB would have such better defense penetration then you would see that in a match-up between a NS and a SB the Evade-rate of the SB would be higher than the Evade-rate of the NS. This is however not the case, in those fights you will always see the Evade-rates are roughly equal. When fighting classes with substantial better WS and dualwield (e.g. a Mercenary) you see that the evade-rate only drops a few (2-3%) compared to fighting an assassin. If there is such thing as defense-penetration the effect is very little.

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:50 AM
Btw the reason I've jumped all over your ass in this thread is because of the hyperbolic statements like "in the case of Blades NS vs SB 4-5X compensated by the armor-differences". Seriously, that is just ridiculous. A 0.2 faster swing speed translates to 3-10 more damage over time while reducing damage per hit. At most you're talking a 5-10 damage per swing advantage over time, which is nowhere near close to 4-5x as good as a +20 strength advantage which is nearly 100 more weaponskill. Personally I would take the 100 more WS over a measly 0.2 faster swing speed any day.

You seem to miss a fundamental grasp on the mechanics. If you're talking about DPS it makes no sense at all to talk about 3-10 more damage over time.

Nobody is argueing or saying 30 QUI is better than 30 STR. In fact, I completely ignored the +30 QUI advantage. It is annoying you trying to put words in my mouth. I repeat, I NEVER said that +30 QUI is better than +30 STR.

What I said is that the starter-stats difference is completely irrelevant once you look at the larger picture: The armor-difference makes so much more difference than the starter-stats difference it is pointless to discuss it on its own. If Kobold SB's could wield hammers and had base 10 STR I would still go Kobold.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 6:38 PM by Cadebrennus
jelzinga_EU wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 4:06 PM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:50 AM
Turns out though that gaining/losing approximately 0.2 seconds of swing speed isn't all that significant to DPS. It comes out to around 2-10 damage per hit both over time and per individual swing. I've firmly been in the "more quickness is better" camp for a long time, but as your calculations and my (revised) calculations show, it's better to put those starting points into Dex if you're using a Dex based weapon such as Thrust/Pierce/Spear (50/50 of course) or Shield/Staff.

Your conclusion might be right (tho I have my doubts) but your approach to that solution is wrong. If we're talking about DPS you can't talk about 2-10 damage per hit both over time and per individual swing. The entire idea about QUI is that you hit for less, but swing faster therefore increasing DPS (as the loss per hit is smaller than the effect of swinging faster).

You can precisely calculate how much 30 STR is better than 30 QUI on a Luri NS vs a Norse SB in raw damage for any given style. I'm too lazy to do it exactly, mostly to avoid the next discussion about what GR I should assume. It is safe to say however the advantage of the SB will always be smaller than taking the 30 STR advantage on its own, which is what I did before.

Basically a Blades NS is up shit creek when it comes to defense penetration and raw DPS compared to an SB, or they could focus more on WS at the expense of having a negative to their damage type. It isn't as cut and dried in favour of an army of Blades wielding NS's as you and others make it out to be.

You seemed to have missed another point I made before: If a SB would have such better defense penetration then you would see that in a match-up between a NS and a SB the Evade-rate of the SB would be higher than the Evade-rate of the NS. This is however not the case, in those fights you will always see the Evade-rates are roughly equal. When fighting classes with substantial better WS and dualwield (e.g. a Mercenary) you see that the evade-rate only drops a few (2-3%) compared to fighting an assassin. If there is such thing as defense-penetration the effect is very little.

Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:50 AM
Btw the reason I've jumped all over your ass in this thread is because of the hyperbolic statements like "in the case of Blades NS vs SB 4-5X compensated by the armor-differences". Seriously, that is just ridiculous. A 0.2 faster swing speed translates to 3-10 more damage over time while reducing damage per hit. At most you're talking a 5-10 damage per swing advantage over time, which is nowhere near close to 4-5x as good as a +20 strength advantage which is nearly 100 more weaponskill. Personally I would take the 100 more WS over a measly 0.2 faster swing speed any day.

You seem to miss a fundamental grasp on the mechanics. If you're talking about DPS it makes no sense at all to talk about 3-10 more damage over time.

Nobody is argueing or saying 30 QUI is better than 30 STR. In fact, I completely ignored the +30 QUI advantage. It is annoying you trying to put words in my mouth. I repeat, I NEVER said that +30 QUI is better than +30 STR.

What I said is that the starter-stats difference is completely irrelevant once you look at the larger picture: The armor-difference makes so much more difference than the starter-stats difference it is pointless to discuss it on its own. If Kobold SB's could wield hammers and had base 10 STR I would still go Kobold.

Yet you micro-focus only in certain niches that prove a very narrow point. If you can't see the forest for the trees then you are going to stay misinformed and continue to experience cognitive dissonance.
.
.

.
.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:41 PM by Mavella
He's "micro-focusing" when you spent pages of this thread touting how awesome five dex as is a basis for how strong 20-30 Strength different is. When it's been proven over and over in fact how ineffectual a small amount of stats is(fraction of 1 percent - 5% difference at most) you bury your head in the sand while pointing to your stupid god damn calculator that you can't even read correctly.

We don't need hours of testing to show that given everything equal bladeshade will always have an advantage in stealth wars. I can speak from anecdotal evidence that vs equal RR sins I can do everything right and still get rocked because of how much more damage the are capable of doing. If I beat one it's either considerable RNG in my favor or they failed to use or were unable to use a charge in combat.

Gruen also posted in that bludgeon thread about how turning off the leather armor +/- literally flipped the lop sided victories from NS to SB. When you read that statement do you imagine it's the stat difference that played a bigger role in these fights or the overwhelming resist disadvantage?? Given the outcomes he was reporting the answer should be fairly obvious.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 10:52 PM by Cadebrennus
Mavella wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 7:41 PM
We don't need hours of testing to show that given everything equal bladeshade will always have an advantage in stealth wars.

Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it in a nutshell.

I'm out.
.
.

.
.
Tue 6 Aug 2019 10:57 PM by Mavella
Keep deflecting with your dumb ass gifs. It's definitely making you look less pathetic.

Edit: Also props on doing testing for the server given your track record and apparent lack of understanding of the game I really hope the devs put any data you generated for them right in the trash.
Wed 7 Aug 2019 1:12 AM by Cadebrennus
Mavella wrote: ↑
Tue 6 Aug 2019 10:57 PM
Keep deflecting with your dumb ass gifs. It's definitely making you look less pathetic.

Edit: Also props on doing testing for the server given your track record and apparent lack of understanding of the game I really hope the devs put any data you generated for them right in the trash.

You are allowed to personally thank me for the un-nerf to stealther melee towards the end of beta and at launch.
Wed 7 Aug 2019 7:53 AM by Turano
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Wed 7 Aug 2019 1:12 AM
You are allowed to personally thank me for the un-nerf to stealther melee towards the end of beta and at launch.
What un-nerf? Were they even worse in beta than they are now? Serious question btw
Wed 7 Aug 2019 11:31 AM by Cadebrennus
Turano wrote: ↑
Wed 7 Aug 2019 7:53 AM
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑
Wed 7 Aug 2019 1:12 AM
You are allowed to personally thank me for the un-nerf to stealther melee towards the end of beta and at launch.
What un-nerf? Were they even worse in beta than they are now? Serious question btw

Yes at the end of beta everyone was doing 32% lower physical damage (archery and melee) because they were trying to match the post-nerf (August 2016 patch) numbers on Live. It was worse for non-tank classes because on live tanks and hybrids had their style damage boosted to make up for the loss and Assassins had CS style damage boosted.

https://forum.playphoenix.online/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3077#p19369

I don't have the pages of conversations and cannot share the PMs back and forth between myself and the Devs from Discord but suffice to say that they reverted a huge chunk of the 32% physical damage nerf to close to Live's pre-nerf (August 2016) levels after lengthy conversations and much testing with me.
This topic is locked and you can't reply.

Return to Suggestions or the latest topics