|
|
#31663, "Lets hear it for the Giants!"
|
The changes to CF recently have seen a massive upswing in dex builds and the slow death of many of the giant builds, with a few exceptions still being competitive.
I would like to see a tweak to some of the skills in CF to help giants become viable again. At present, other than weight wielding issues, there is no real drawback to being an arial mace or axe spec compared to a giant mace or axe spec.
This strike me as being odd because one has a str of 19 and the other (cloud/fire) has 25 strength. Now I am sure that if someone took a baseball bat and hit you with the equivalent strength of 19 you would have some broken bones and be pretty hurt but compare that scenario to one of a giant with the same baseball bat. I am pretty sure you would be more frucked up by the latter!!
What I would propose is a change to how maledict skills work for different strengths. Giants with 25 strength getting the full bonus and the maximum -str/dex on their opponent moving down a sliding scale to the weaker races that get less mileage out of the malediction. This should balance out at the high dex/low str races are more likely to evade the giants maledicts.
It would add a dimension to combat by making people decide if they want to cover str or dex in gear to avoid blows or to avoid your maledictive blows being weakened as your opponnent weakens your physical strength.
Maledict skills this would not effect are hamstring, hurl (maybe artery) as they, to me, make less use of strength.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Giants don't *need* anything,
laxman,
02-Apr-10 07:32 PM, #25
Something to consider,
Rayihn,
02-Apr-10 01:06 PM, #24
RE: Something to consider,
Hutto,
04-Apr-10 03:57 PM, #28
What giants need,
Valkenar,
01-Apr-10 09:00 PM, #20
RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!,
incognito,
01-Apr-10 07:23 PM, #19
RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!,
Malakhi,
01-Apr-10 01:23 PM, #6
RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!,
Daevryn,
01-Apr-10 07:52 AM, #1
RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!,
Welverin,
01-Apr-10 10:54 AM, #2
RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!,
NMF (Guest),
01-Apr-10 11:49 AM, #3
I think possibly giants just don't fit your playstyle.,
Twist,
01-Apr-10 12:46 PM, #26
Yah, but,
Forsakenz (Guest),
01-Apr-10 12:55 PM, #4
If they won't parry,
Alex (Guest),
01-Apr-10 01:16 PM, #5
Don't think so...,
Mekantos,
01-Apr-10 03:33 PM, #10
Dodge is definitely after parry. -nt-,
TheDude,
01-Apr-10 03:42 PM, #12
Yup. (n/t),
Daevryn,
01-Apr-10 03:45 PM, #13
Odd.,
Mekantos,
01-Apr-10 04:13 PM, #14
RE: Odd.,
34-inside,
01-Apr-10 04:25 PM, #15
RE: Odd.,
AlphaQ,
03-Apr-10 10:09 AM, #27
Check out fencing sometime.,
trewyn,
02-Apr-10 09:39 AM, #22
Well,
Valkenar,
02-Apr-10 11:34 AM, #23
RE: I think possibly giants just don't fit your playsty...,
ORB,
01-Apr-10 01:26 PM, #7
The giants I talk about...,
Twist,
02-Apr-10 08:50 AM, #21
Something to support this argument,
Mekantos,
01-Apr-10 01:51 PM, #8
RE: Something to support this argument,
Daevryn,
01-Apr-10 02:16 PM, #9
RE: Something to support this argument,
Isildur,
01-Apr-10 03:42 PM, #11
Igbah was really tough for me as an Elf with STSF.,
_Magus_,
01-Apr-10 04:55 PM, #17
RE: I think possibly giants just don't fit your playsty...,
Hutto,
01-Apr-10 06:22 PM, #18
Question:,
_Magus_,
01-Apr-10 04:49 PM, #16
| |
|
laxman | Fri 02-Apr-10 07:32 PM |
Member since 18th Aug 2003
1867 posts
| |
|
#31700, "Giants don't *need* anything"
In response to Reply #0
|
Honestly it has been touched on here but you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare arial finesse spec vs giant warrior.
Now a dagger arial spec is combining a spec that is highly dex dependant with a superior dexy race. the results are a broad ability to take on most melee based characters and win in the sense you drive them off. What you give up is kill sealing ability.
Giants when paired with str intensive weapon specs by and large are not as effective against as broad an enemy set in terms of who they win. the advantage though is that they can over specialize in escape prevention meaning they have a bigger subset of people very likely to die against them.
The end result is that by and large even though giants can't win against as diverse a group of people as some finesse builds can they do tend to have a higher rate of killing. In that sense they are balanced.
The problems you see arrise is when people don't play smart, being a giant mace spec and trying to out maledict a dagger spec is most likely a waste of your commands. If you can kill them or leave them sevrely wounded in 4 rounds (2 drums, 2 pincers, 3 jabs and a flurry, 3 backhands and a drum, a cranial and a drum, charge and chop, etc..) what does it matter if they can str drop you in 5 and then need another 3 to kill you. Now dagger specs can do a lot of direct damage with conceal but that is offset by the fact that there are virtually no high average daggers in the game so if you are not out direct damaging an arial as a giant... well you are not doing something right.
|
|
|
|
|
Rayihn | Fri 02-Apr-10 01:06 PM |
Member since 08th Oct 2006
1147 posts
| |
|
#31696, "Something to consider"
In response to Reply #0
|
The top two pk'ers in the mud right now are both warrior. One is dexy and the other is a giant. They have very similar pk wins to deaths ratios, and the giant has about a hundred hours less than the dexy guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Valkenar | Thu 01-Apr-10 09:00 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
1203 posts
| |
|
#31690, "What giants need"
In response to Reply #0
|
Giants need more subtlety. Personally I'd hate to see giants return to being the definitive top dogs again because the archetypal giant playstyle is horribly boring to fight against (and as). It's all just about avoiding lag or outgearing them.
Furthermore, I think dex builds *should* have a small advantage in a straight up fight, since strength builds have an easier time sealing kills.
|
|
|
|
|
incognito | Thu 01-Apr-10 07:23 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
4495 posts
| |
|
#31688, "RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!"
In response to Reply #0
|
I have to admit I've not played a giant for a while, but I've fought plenty.
To me, dex builds are now too powerful relative to giants. I don't think giants need to be toned up so much as I think dex builds need to be toned down.
One major drawback of a dex build was that you got bashed and took damage. Now, you get bashed (less, because of evade), and deal more damage than you take (because of dodgy legacies that help you concealed).
It's not just melee vs melee. For communers & casters, the dex build is now more dangerous than the giant build. Bash is no longer the major threat.
|
|
|
|
|
Malakhi | Thu 01-Apr-10 01:23 PM |
Member since 12th Dec 2009
367 posts
| |
|
#31673, "RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!"
In response to Reply #0
|
IMO the main drawback to dexy/arial warriors is weapon selection, and I think it is a substantial drawback. Basically, there are more heavy, higher avg, two handed weapons than light, higher avg, one handed weapons. Also, several skills DO work better/more-often with higher str.
As far as 1v1 PKing, I think giants are competitive as long as they treat the dexy dagger spec as though it's a shaman that can lag.
|
|
|
|
|
Daevryn | Thu 01-Apr-10 07:52 AM |
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 posts
| |
|
#31665, "RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!"
In response to Reply #0
|
>I would like to see a tweak to some of the skills in CF to >help giants become viable again. At present, other than >weight wielding issues, there is no real drawback to being an >arial mace or axe spec compared to a giant mace or axe spec.
Besides several of your key skills working less often with max stats, you mean?
I mean, maybe a better dodge makes up for missing more often, but it's hard to say that there's no drawback.
|
|
|
|
  |
Welverin | Thu 01-Apr-10 10:54 AM |
Member since 23rd Oct 2009
624 posts
| |
|
#31666, "RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!"
In response to Reply #1
|
Maybe its just my playstyle, but I sure would like to get hit less, and have mediocre skills, than hit more and have the skills hit more often. Not sure tactically if outdamaging really comes in to play when its harder to hit them. Just statistically speaking. But I'm still pretty sucky at PK, and have been run over by giants a lot, so I could be wrong. But I don't play warriors much either.... So it may be something I try later.
|
|
|
|
  |
|
#31669, "RE: Lets hear it for the Giants!"
In response to Reply #1
|
Maybe I don't know all the ins and outs. Just a suggestion to make giants more brutal.
How about a giant brutality edge that can 'sometimes' add a little extra boost to maledies they inflict like boneshatter, whirl, impale.
|
|
|
|
      |
|
#31671, "Yah, but"
In response to Reply #26
|
dex and daggers obliterate every other giant build but fire sword and maybe cloud sword. Armageddon, flurry, and riposte are just too punishing for little elves.
Balance would mean that a dexy dagger spec would never parry against axe, mace, or pole, imo.
|
|
|
|
        |
|
#31672, "If they won't parry"
In response to Reply #4
|
axe, pole and so on those builds will be totaly raped by conceals.
|
|
|
|
          |
Mekantos | Thu 01-Apr-10 03:33 PM |
Member since 06th Dec 2003
796 posts
| |
|
#31678, "Don't think so..."
In response to Reply #5
|
I thought the defense skill order went like:
dodge, parry, shield block
Therefore if code were introduced to negate parrying against those weapon types, it would have no effect on whether or not they dodge, as that will have already been determined by the time the parry check comes into play.
It actually makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
            |
TheDude | Thu 01-Apr-10 03:42 PM |
Member since 20th Sep 2005
285 posts
| |
|
#31680, "Dodge is definitely after parry. -nt-"
In response to Reply #10
|
|
|
              |
Daevryn | Thu 01-Apr-10 03:45 PM |
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 posts
| |
|
#31681, "Yup. (n/t)"
In response to Reply #12
|
|
|
                |
Mekantos | Thu 01-Apr-10 04:13 PM |
Member since 06th Dec 2003
796 posts
| |
|
#31682, "Odd."
In response to Reply #13
|
In every martial system I have ever studied, you dodge first. Absolute avoidance is the best way to keep from getting injured.
|
|
|
|
                  |
34-inside | Thu 01-Apr-10 04:25 PM |
Member since 27th Nov 2007
21 posts
| |
|
#31683, "RE: Odd."
In response to Reply #14
|
>In every martial system I have ever studied, you dodge first. >Absolute avoidance is the best way to keep from getting >injured.
Odd? That's nothing. In this game you can grab a piece of driftwood and swim across the ocean!
|
|
|
|
                    |
AlphaQ | Sat 03-Apr-10 10:09 AM |
Member since 17th Feb 2010
29 posts
| |
|
#31701, "RE: Odd."
In response to Reply #15
|
Or with that same piece of drift wood, you can swim under the ocean...
|
|
|
|
                  |
trewyn | Fri 02-Apr-10 09:39 AM |
Member since 04th Jan 2005
269 posts
| |
|
#31693, "Check out fencing sometime."
In response to Reply #14
|
You don't learn about dodging... ever really. Not until you start whacking each other with a sabre do you really have a use for getting out of the way. And for some real wrist-muscle building fun, grab the epee and see how many times you can smack each other in the arm in 10 seconds.
Then when you're done working out, ask your instructor why in the hell did he take the 2nd floor room in the building with no elevator. Not much leg muscle left for dodging after doing a good workout... or walking down stairs.
|
|
|
|
                  |
Valkenar | Fri 02-Apr-10 11:34 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
1203 posts
| |
|
#31695, "Well"
In response to Reply #14
|
>In every martial system I have ever studied, you dodge first. >Absolute avoidance is the best way to keep from getting >injured.
Have you ever studied a martial system that takes place in full plate mail? Not a lot of dodging goes on when you're heavily armored.
Also, even unarmed systems that are focused on reality/self-defense/other buzzword generally seem to agree that what you want is interception and response. In a real fight you get punched, and the goal is to minimize the frequency and damage and to take the initiative back from the aggressor. Sport systems are different.
Anyway, CF's combat is super-super-super unrealistic. Fun, but not in any way based on reality. It has internal consistancy, which is what a fiction/game system needs. Its resemblence to actual combat is incidental at best and predominately non-existent.
|
|
|
|
      |
ORB | Thu 01-Apr-10 01:26 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
993 posts
| |
|
#31674, "RE: I think possibly giants just don't fit your playsty..."
In response to Reply #26
|
I don't know as a cronic giant player it has definately gotten alot tougher out there. Especially against dagger specs. Also keep in mind the giants you were talking about had the best gear in the game and were either emperor or chancellor or whatever. For the rest of us non ultra-elites giants just don't compete near as well as the rise of the dex specs. That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.
|
|
|
|
      |
Mekantos | Thu 01-Apr-10 01:51 PM |
Member since 06th Dec 2003
796 posts
| |
|
#31675, "Something to support this argument"
In response to Reply #26
|
Note: I actually am kind of in the "help giants a little" camp.
When you were playing Hunsobo, I was playing Drezen. We both did well PK-wise (I'm sure you did better), but there was very little chance of me actually killing Hunsobo in a 1v1. I gave it a try once or twice, and it ended exactly like I knew it would - me running away like a frightened little girl.
With giants it's that freaking bash that just rules. If you can't mitigate it through some sort of spell, and you know you can't take the damage...then there really is no argument as to how it will turn out. Hunsobo was more or less unique, however, due to the extreme gear (dual humansunders, swordmaster's gauntlets, etc), the crazy emperor powers, and being played by Twist.
Oddly enough, I've always found that I can kill giants easier, in a melee sense, with a more dex-based race. With Iramath I think I died to The Bash once, and that was from the Emperor Nabburak. And I was dropping them on a regular basis.
It does seem like there is something missing from the strength end of the spectrum...a kind of counter to evade. I could list a few ways to handle that via a new skill, but I won't unless there is genuine interest.
|
|
|
|
        |
Daevryn | Thu 01-Apr-10 02:16 PM |
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 posts
| |
|
#31676, "RE: Something to support this argument"
In response to Reply #8
|
>It does seem like there is something missing from the strength >end of the spectrum...a kind of counter to evade. I >could list a few ways to handle that via a new skill, but I >won't unless there is genuine interest.
I'm not necessarily opposed to "something cool for giants or strengthy characters" (although I'm also not convinced their situation is as dire as some people think), but for it to be specifically a counter to evade seems to defeat the point of having evade.
|
|
|
|
|