Part 2: 28 minutes

5:55 p.m.

>Weapon Specs:
>I recently tested a whole bunch of legacies & specs, I was far
>from impressed with a bunch of them especially how functional
>some were compared with others.

Which was part of the design. Some are utility, some are defense, some are offense, there is a wide variety.

>Simply put I think its bias in
>reguards to certain races how well some specs work and how
>poorly others work.

Some legacies were designed with very specific races being good at them in mind.

>I could be wrong, but I go from testing
>which I have preformed. Some of the differences were so tiny
>that I thought it purely accountable to randomness. However
>others stood out blatently.I assume that a bit of common sense
>applies with specs. However I do think that some common sense
>reguarding game design is also needed.

I have no idea what you're actually trying to say there.

>Take for example the mace spec:
>One one hand you have 1 skill, cranial, that is size based.
>The bigger you are the better you cranial.

Partially. There are a handful of other factors in there as well.

>Then the flip side,
>The smaller you are the better you drum... Personaly I can
>understand the cranial aspect, but I cannot understand the
>drum aspect it just seems stupid.

False.

>Sword spec:
>Flurry, totaly str/skill based. Okay Strength for multiple
>attacks ??? Just because I can lift heavy weights I should be
>able to land many attacks in a row ??

Partially. There are a handful of other factors in there as well.

>The flip side, Riposte, heavily dex based.

Dex-based, yes. Heavily, no.

>I've seen arials riposte 15 times in 10
>rounds and a fire giant only twice in 10 rounds. A parry is a
>parry, yet you need more dex to turn a attack forcefully back
>on the attacker. Personaly I view this as a str based skill on
>the assumption that your allready "parrying" the blow your
>going to need strength to push the blade back.. Anyway..

You don't "turn a attack forcefully back on the attacker". The echo is, You parry the blow and return an attack of your own. Being stronger isn't going to make that happen more. Being quicker and more agile is.

>Polearm spec:
>To start off with I will say that 6 months ago when I tested
>this I got totaly different results to when i tested it a week
>ago, tests that were confirmed by another player/character.

And yet somehow, we haven't touched any of the code for polearm specs.

>Polearm, you think large massive weapon heavy, for big strong
>people. Well you might think that but infact your wrong. Chop
>seems to be size based, enlarged fire giant seemed to chop
>alot better and harder than a reduced duergar.

Partially. There are a handful of other factors in there as well.

>The flipside,
>and I find this stupid beyond all things. Distance. It seems
>the smaller you are the better it is. Enlarged giant actually
>tanked nearly 32% worse than it did when reduced on the same
>creatures, tested over 30 mins each, roughly 135-170 combat
>rounds was the basis of the test.

False.

>Now even if the imms think
>that it might be "realistic". I would have made the assumption
>that game design would lead to a spec for all races that is
>both offensive & defensive.

There are powers in most specs that are offensive, defensive and utility. Some obviously favor one of the three more than the others. However, to say that the specs would be the same for all races is stupid. Within the races there are differences (stats & size jump to mind) that affect these skills. This means the specs will work differently for every race.

>I would have considered polearm to be a greate giant defensive spec.

True.

>It used to be. But not anymore it appears.

False.

6:23 p.m.
>END warrior specs:

So long, and thanks for all the fish!