So the topic has been talked around but never directly addressed. How well does the legacy Fluid Deceptions negate STSF?

Does race matter? Meaning, do stats matter? Duergar with low int/wis with it, or gnome with great int/wis, or human with 20/20? Does it make STSF build slower based on stats? Is it a check each time, or each 'observation'? Or does it blanket negate charges building?

Thanks.

For what it is worth, I really felt that STSF warriors became a significantly easier fight once I had this as a legacy.

Also for what it is worth, Daevryn's post on Fluid V STSF

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=19207&mesg_id=19222&page=

How come you think this is obscure?

Fluid removes 1 incoming melee attack. STSF charges on your melee attacks, so removing one decreases speed of STSF charging by 1 hit per round.

I'm positive that's pretty much all there is to it.

Umiron, the guy with the code access, gave out an explanation for what he thought he remembered from seeing said code in the past.

An added intelligence check versus STSF would absolutely be one of those "How the hell woyld anyone not on Imm staff be expected to pick up on this," situations, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. There have been similar situations in the past.

Your explanation also makes sense, but are we that sure that feinted attacks don't count to STSF?

Even if it was just 3.

and his playtesting suggests that STSF charges (or doesn't) independently of an attack actually being attempted or not from feint disrupting it.

That ruins my idea. Too bad I can't playtest

I'm pretty sure having Fluid gives the warrior an int-based bonus against STSF, but I don't care enough right now to go look.

I'm pretty sure having Fluid gives the warrior an int-based bonus against STSF, but I don't have enough time right now to go look.

Cause little things DO matter, especially to the non vocal players.

That's neat,
On the whole not helpful though.
Other folks sometimes just aren't as interested in certain things.
Lots of folks phrase things differently, and it isn't too bad!

s

It is hard to interpret your response as anything other than arrogant and antagonistic. I'm not an Umiron hater - you are a volunteer admin of a free game - you hardly owe anything to anyone... but why give such a reply to the player base? Meh - frankly just disappointing to see.

It's like you WANT to be jingled or something.

Original version:

I'm pretty sure having Fluid gives the warrior an int-based bonus against STSF, but I don't care enough right now to go look.

Revised version 1:

I'm pretty sure having Fluid gives the warrior an int-based bonus against STSF.

Revised version 2:

I'm pretty sure having Fluid gives the warrior an int-based bonus against STSF; things are busy, if I get a chance I will confirm with the code.

***

"but I don't care enough right now to go look." --> MEH

Revised version 1 leaves room for someone to ask if he can look when he's not interested, leading him to have to now respond with the latter half of version 2 if we're doing PR route, other option, just ignore them. It's efficient to just say in the first place that he doesn't want to look.

Version 2 is dishonest.

The original version is the most truthful and informative.

^

How much of a hypocrite you are right?

We have low numbers, so you want to blame Umiron for that
because he was being honest about not wanting to dig through
code to write a dissertation on how Fluid interacts with stsf.


Better do our best to run off one of what two people around who
code. Serves 'em right for not speaking the way I want them too.

Sent from my Iphone

Being honest has nothing to do with being effective or polite.

You can be honest and not piss people off.

You know, I was wondering just earlier today: Were CFers always such delusional, self-important, thin-skinned, disingenuous and whiny bitches? Is it a new movement? Or am I just losing my tolerance for it with age?

So I took a look back into Gameplay starting from the very beginning, turns out it was similar in the past.

But I invite you to check out how many imm responses back then are as follows:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=2326&mesg_id=2372&page=238
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=958&mesg_id=985&page=245
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=2077&mesg_id=2090&page=239
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=2077&mesg_id=2106&page=239
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=2805&mesg_id=2851&page=235
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=1612&mesg_id=1617&page=242


I thought millennials were supposed to be the coddled generation. But dear god, if you boomers aren't absolutely babied from start to finish in every dialogue you start crying about it. What's up with that?

All trolling aside, I simply thought Umi's reply was a bit dismissive/harsh. That's all. xoxo

"im not retarded i was just trolling OWNED"

And he isn't a PR guy, as if it would even matter to anyone if he
did walk on eggshells.

Sent from my Iphone

I suspect it is a direct counter rather than an indirect one. Why? Because the legacy is about misleading, which if done successfully had the same effect as being unpredictable. Specifically that it is harder to predict your actions.

I'm not sure why people seem to think it would necessarily be some subtle effect rather than a hard counter.

Because it would (probably) make STSF the only legacy that checks the opponent for another legacy when evaluating its own effect.

I take Umi's word for it, but it makes more sense to start from the position of assuming the rule rather than the exception in my opinion.

Would it?

Not saying you are wrong but... Landslide Vs outcry, greeting Vs harmonious or another greeting, enigma Vs calming. Might not be an explicit check but the legacies definitely counter each other.

Countering didn't sound out of the ordinary but explicitly checking for each other did.

I was definitely already wrong in my assumption about this, and with Fluid/STSF being tightly coupled in design like that, it wouldn't surprise me now if more legacies worked like that. The apparent pattern of being stand-alone is still there, but it doesn't look monolithic to me anymore.

The unpredictable edge is the only non-stat that is supposed to effect STSF

Think it was daev who said it. Definitely some imm said it though.

nt

Sent from my Iphone

Is Jalim your shepherd?

Sent from my Iphone

Sent from my Iphone

You following his lead like a sheep.

nt

Sent from my Iphone

Baa.

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=19207&mesg_id=19222&page=
?
Relatively cryptic/not clear, he could have meant it prevents their attacking as much as they would if you don't have Fluid. Fluid to me seems like a totally ####-tier pick on any warrior dependent on returning damage via concealed/riposte/swiftstrike and a totally great power boost on any other warrior if it was given as a 3rd legacy. I can't imagine picking it as one of my two coded legacies, on any warrior, though. Maybe a helf with fluid + space would be cool... but if you were going to do that, why not just do an elf with stsf + space

gr

Sent from my jitter bug

Sent from my Iphone

Now get back under your bridge with the others.

If that's the case I woulda' liked to take it.

Link it if you've got a source! McBeth's reference just sounds like Daev was talking about how folks who would normally take Fluid just take Striking in stead, and that Fluid is a decent counter to Striking (not that it has special-coded anti-stsf stuff in it) - maybe he just means that feints are useful against the stsf hit stuff.

-Ish

>Fluid Deceptions

A good legacy, albiet one that's often overshadowed lately by Striking for a lot of the kinds of characters that would normally have been expected to take it. Probably best picked by characters that need or have a plan for its special disarming effect. (Also a good pick if warriors with Striking are your bane, incidentally.)

That might mean that actually hitting you is one of the triggers to gain an STSF charge?

I've only had it once so I don't really remember.

Neat though. If Daev says so it's surely true, I have no idea how though.

Hitting is not a trigger to gain a charge.

-You understand *'s favorite defensive postures, and see * weaknesses.-

Only ever appears in logs right before the STSF char makes an attack, whether it hits or is dodged/parried/etc. Maybe a feinted attack doesn't count as an attack for that purpose. I don't think you can prog a weapon on a feinted attack for example, which leads me to believe feinted attacks are flagged differently.

If you look closely, that echo only triggers on the first attack the STSF user makes in that respective round.

One possibility is that it just gets calculated whenever they do their series of attacks in the combat round.

The other: the STSF check for that aspect only happens on the first mainwield attack. And since feint always feints that particular attack, that's how Fluid counters STSF.

more people would be spamming feint against stsf if so

I think feint is based on an INT comparison.

STSF definitely still fires when a feint happens, or at least in the same round.


As to the int thing, only thing I know is:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=52069&mesg_id=52088&page=


-Ish

Neat.

Though now I'm back to having no clue why he might say that.

I wasn't around CF when he was, but it seems like something I might say if I wanted my enemies to take a ####ty legacy while I stomped them mercilessly.

But, that's not the impression I had of him?

I don't think he would have lied about it, or had any reason to,
seeing as he could steamroll 90% of the pb even without cheating.

Sent from my Iphone

"Or at least same round" isn't helpful.

We need to know if it fires on exactly that attack

A feinted attack is not a melee attack and melee attack code (including stsf charge check) are not run.

In other words, don't take Fluid Deceptions if you hope it will help you against STSF, because you'll get STSF charged 12,5% slower (4,5 rounds instead of 4 to full charge if you're dumb, big deal) against you.

I'm only sharing this so that, in case your post is misinfo, there's another view.

I tested it a bit for fun. On a round where the person with STSF gets 1 swing. AND that swing is feinted (so it never makes contat). The person with STSF still got a STSF charge during the round.

That implies to me that this is incorrect.

-Ish

No other attacks at all, and 1 feinted attack triggers STSF charge?

All right my info was misinfo.

I took that edge then asked about it on this forum. I was told that it's still int based, so no shifter should ever ever ever take it. Not sure why it's even an option for them.

Wisdom, not int, AFAIK.

Reference: http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=68053&mesg_id=68059&page=

Though it does say wis and int in the same sentence

-Ish

Even wis, as Umi pointed out, is crap for forms. Still not sure why it's an option for shifters. I cannot think of any case where it wouldn't be a waste of edgepoints.

Is owl form not wise?

About as wise as a general human.

Why would fluid negate STSF at all? I mean, in theory it could based on what Fluid is meant to be, but I'm not sure that it does since STSF is all about observing the movements of the opponent, which would include the feints. If anything, STSF would negate fluid because they would observe the techniques used to bring about the feint.

It is an interesting question though, I'd be curious to know if it does anything or if the two legacy checks ignore one another.