I'm sure this is revealing who i'm playing right now, but to be honest I don't care all that much. I would like to post the logs of what has inspired me to post this, but I think that would be inappropriate given the active characters in question.

My question is simple..is anything being done to the Striking shadow legacy for warriors? I'm just in flat out awe at how powerful and utterly demoralizing it seems to be for anyone fighting the legacied warrior in question. I have even found it to work unbelievably well after only a few rounds of combat. I'm afraid to really speak my mind because I fear I would actually get upset over a small thing like the game that is CF. But I will give in to my immature rant. I disagree with the argument that 'it's only good for high wis/int classes so it's not overpowered'.

If there is a skill that makes a particular race/class combination inherently super powered, I think that defines overpowered. If you look at all the successfull hight int/wis warriors in the past year, I think you'll find that most, if not all had this legacy. I think that's a disturbing trend. I also think that a legacy shouldn't encourage players to log off/log back (an OOC mechanism). Now i'm only speculating on how the legacy works, so please feel free to correct me.

I'm sure this has been brought up before...but I am not the type of player who often complains (I don't think i've really ever complained on any forum about something being overpowered) so I don't think it's just because i'm being a sore loser. I also went out of my way to post this because for one of the first times in my CF life I found myself nearly go OOC whining about this skill, and that surprised me since I consider myself at least a respectable roleplayer who is always in character.


If this has already been discussed, and everyone believes it's well balanced and i'm coming way out of left field, then I apologize and will hold my peace. I hope this doesn't come off as too angry, but well...like I said.. I was just stunned. In 4 years of CFing I had never been so frustrated with something I had absolutely no control over.

Ok, thanks for everything you guys do regardless!

Grysh.

Having played both sides, my conclusion is that anyone who can choose striking as an effective legacy choice has major vulns that are hard to cover up. Having high int means low hp, low str, and either a metal, damage type, or elemental vuln. While striking is a huge pain in the butt to counter if you're not prepared, it's like fighting a bard or a trannie in that, if you are prepared, you'll laugh at how easy it is to beat them.

Despite having fought Hunsobo a lot and building up striking like nobody's business, I never killed him. He killed me a bunch though.

What are these 'preparations' you speak of? You mean you just have to prep 5 times as much as them to have a chnace of not dying? I don't think that's an argument in favor of it. As far as exploiting vulns, have fun touching them in meelee combat. Also good luck blinding them to counteract the legacy when there is an edge which limits the chances of dirt kick working. I'd have to relook over my logs, but i'd say i have 1/4 chance of landing a dirt kick. That's potentially 8 rounds of getting tooled by a dagger spec, not to mention seriously outmelleed just so that you don't get perma lagged trying to flee. And since their evade is pobably way higher than yours (i dunno about everyone else but with my low dex character it hasn't gone up once and never fired in pk) then the chance of landing your big damage skills is limited. Anyway, my very very frustrated $0.02. I have no trouble conceading that another character is just flat out better than me in pk, but I guess I must just be bitter of not having a 1% chance of winning a fight. Just leaves a 'bleh' taste in my mouth.

Anyway, I've complained enough about this, and will stop all that right now.

I realize there are some matchups that are just simply difficult for one of the parties involved. That doesn't mean the other is overpowered etc...

I think I'm just frustrated and had to vent. My apologies.

Just for the sake of argument...

>What are these 'preparations' you speak of? You mean you just
>have to prep 5 times as much as them to have a chnace of not
>dying? I don't think that's an argument in favor of it.

How do you die that much to a character that basically can't lag you out?

>As
>far as exploiting vulns, have fun touching them in meelee
>combat.

Answers to that are pretty much the same that they ever were.

>Also good luck blinding them to counteract the legacy
>when there is an edge which limits the chances of dirt kick
>working.

It really doesn't do that much. :P

>I'd have to relook over my logs, but i'd say i have
>1/4 chance of landing a dirt kick.

Once Striking really gets rolling it's time to give up on dirt and change tactics.

>That's potentially 8 rounds
>of getting tooled by a dagger spec, not to mention seriously
>outmelleed just so that you don't get perma lagged trying to
>flee.

Semi-rhetorical: Why are you getting out meleed by a guy wielding daggers? They parry for ass. They're also generally the easiest weapon to disarm.

Sure, you've got concealed to fire on dodges, but the flipside to that is you're dealing with a character that probably only has dodge standing between him and getting hit. This also means that tactics that hamper dodging are at a premium.

> And since their evade is pobably way higher than yours
>(i dunno about everyone else but with my low dex character it
>hasn't gone up once and never fired in pk) then the chance of
>landing your big damage skills is limited.

Evade doesn't exactly work a lot for anyone. I doubt a character has ever existed that had even a 10% chance to evade a given attack.

http://www.qhcf.net/cforum/logs/vpost.pl?85720

Yes, if you look long enough, you can find a log where 2 out of 4 Evade checks succeed.

If Nepenthe wants to know the maximum probability of an Evade, he just looks at the formulas I wrote up for it, or sets up some logging to directly count it. Either of those confirms what he's telling you: 10% is better than you'll do.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

NT

NT

I spent half the day explaining to a dozen people that, in spite of the email that got sent to the mailing list, the issue we're having with one of the hardware devices is not fixed by doing something totally random in the test application and trying again.

That just because it *happened* to occur that way once didn't indicate, in any way shape or form that they were correlated and that seeing something happen once didn't constitute as remotely close to statistically notable.

And given how grumpy I have been during the process of quitting smoking, it took ridiculous feats of willpower on my end not to call the guy who sent afforementioned email a moron.

You know, Nep, I read this thread yesterday and gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Then, I lost a fight I really should have won when the enemy (when I carried no appreciable maledictions) evaded two pummels in a row.

So, even in your worst case scenario, that's 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100. A 0.01 chance for that to happen.

Sorry, I'm not that unlucky.
T

Odds of getting struck by lightning are 0.00002% but that doesn't mean it never happens.

Actually, I said that probably no character has had even that high of a chance, so you're probably looking at an even lower chance than that.

But, that said, a 1% chance should show up once for every 100 times you try to throw an attack command. I bet you notice every time someone evades two attacks in a row, and I also bet you *don't* comment on it every time someone *doesn't* evade two attacks in a row. You notice it more because it's of great concern to you. It's kind of like how you really remember the one time someone sacs you down to the pies and not so much all the times people didn't do it to you, or kind of how everyone thinks everyone else full loots much more than they do, because you remember every time you come back to nothing, but rarely notice all the times that you and twelve other people taking a piece or two of gear each equates to nothing.

Anyway, I fired up a test port of the game (because, hell, I didn't write evade, and aliens may have kidnapped Valg and replaced him with a much sloppier coding doppelganger) and tried a bunch of different evade scenarios with all manner of debugging and reporting going, and all the numbers/frequency are shaking out the way I'd expect.

Thanks for taking a look. Incidentally, I also am more inclined to notice (and subsequently post about) unlikely events when I'm on tequila number five.

>Despite having fought Hunsobo a lot and building up striking
>like nobody's business, I never killed him. He killed me a
>bunch though.

This is consistent with what I've seen happening most of the time with that kind of matchup -- the Striking character 'wins' more fights, but the power fighter character kills them more.

NT

nt!

The effects of striking are mostly geared for warrior on warrior fights that last long. Sure, if you play a dagger spec trying to take on stsf gnome, it will look retarded. Or even an axe spec, given the gnome can tank, you will be screwed. But you can also look at it like this. A striking warrior will not have the lag potential of a warrior with greeting. Neither does he have super high damage output off the bat. Striking does nothing against mobs (necros and conjies in PK and all PvE battles). If you can do big damage, like flurry, you are likely to win against a stsf warrior. I think the stsf charges also wear off now, so he can not flee and teleport, and pwn your face an hours later.

"If you can do big damage, like flurry, you are likely to win against a stsf warrior."

I don't know how many warriors with stsf you've fought against, but the chances of landing a flurry/pincer/pummel/drum for big damage appear to be small, and you're stuck lagged, getting out meeled and conceal attacked and with a great chance of being unable to flee. Since most are dagger specs, they'll usually have a weapon which takes advantage of a vuln so are on par with damage against you. This of course is only my experience against them.

Again, I wonder what the percentage of successfull gnome/dark-elf warriors were that used stsf compared to the percentage of successful giants who used Greeting. I think you'd find the former is a greater percentage.

Grysh.

by mithril flurry right off the bat. Stsf doesn't help them on the first round. Flurry + round + parting was enough. Granted, this is not a guaranteed win button, and I had to try it several times over. But it's still there.

This is pretty much my experience having fought that kind of matchup from both sides (though I understand it's not everyone's)... the STSF warrior might 'win' more of the fights, but when things go right for the power fighter it's actually a flat out kill, whereas the power fighter usually realizes things are going south and can clear out before they die.

>My question is simple..is anything being done to the Striking
>shadow legacy for warriors?

Nope! All of the changes I've thought necessary have been made for most of a year or more at this point.

>If there is a skill that makes a particular race/class
>combination inherently super powered, I think that defines
>overpowered. If you look at all the successfull hight int/wis
>warriors in the past year, I think you'll find that most, if
>not all had this legacy. I think that's a disturbing trend. I

I think that speaks to two things:

1) Legacies go in and out of vogue. One year everyone will be on a legacy bandwagon, and a year later, with no code changes, no one will be picking that legacy.

2) It's a legacy that, essentially, makes some combinations that are just purely bad playable. I mean, if you look at most of the felar warriors of the last ten years, you'll find that most of them picked one of spear or hand or both, too. That's more because felar axe/sword (while it's been done, and even with some success!) is just bad and most people aren't huge masochists.


>If this has already been discussed, and everyone believes it's
>well balanced and i'm coming way out of left field, then I
>apologize and will hold my peace. I hope this doesn't come
>off as too angry, but well...like I said.. I was just stunned.
>In 4 years of CFing I had never been so frustrated with
>something I had absolutely no control over.

I'll be honest... I'm not even aware of a warrior who has the legacy right now that's what I would call more than moderately successful. A guy that's running something like 50-30 is doing well for themselves, but they're not exactly a super power either. Even Nuekar, who I mostly blame for the run on Striking a year or so ago, was more or less in that ballpark.

It's not a legacy that dominates everyone; it is a legacy that looks really, really good in some matchups. In this sense it's a lot like Greeting-based giant warrior or thug thief or demon-happy conjurer, characters that in some matchups I feel like I just can't beat unless they play really badly, and in others I feel like have little chance to beat me.

Depending on your character (which I have no idea of) you've probably got some options to mitigate the strength of the legacy against you. For example, studying your opponents' fighting style is a lot harder if you can't see.

Thank you for taking the time to respond Daevryn, it is appreciated.

I will consider your advice, maybe I've just been unlucky.

>I will consider your advice, maybe I've just been unlucky.

It does depend some on what you're playing.

I've played a Striking warrior, and I've played against lots of Striking warrior. It can be a really bad matchup for some characters, although I don't think it's an unwinnable matchup for any. (Assuming the variants on race/spec/other legacy choices to go with it that I've seen.)

Can you use neurological disruption or disrupt organ to inhibit a Striking warrior's ability to study you, same as blind?