COMBAT MANEUVERS UPDATE

[theotherjohn]

As of tonight (09/14/04), the following modifications to the combat system have been released:

All unaimed ambush attacks have been changed to recieve approximately half the normal base ambush damage modifier. Unaimed ambush attacks include: use of the ATTACK command while in hiding, use of the AMBUSH command without specifying a location to hit (whether through AIM or the command line), and the Quickstrike/Spin Attack combat maneuvers. The stance pushdown mechanism has not been affected by these changes. Aimed ambush damage modifiers are unaffected.

Mighty Blow is no longer useable from hiding.

The use of Quickstrike/Spin Attack from hiding now carries a +10 stamina penalty.

Feint and Sunder Shield now take the attacker's stance in account when determining success chances (the defender's stance remains irrelevant).

Subdue creature task repetition assignments have been slightly lowered.

END NEWS ITEM

[xShadowMerchantx]

Heh, talk about screwing people over.

[Xinister]

This sucks!

Mighty Blow is no longer useable from hiding.

Feint and Sunder Shield now take the attacker's stance in account when determining success chances (the defender's stance remains irrelevant).

A Lot of suckiness here!

Xinister


Originally posted by theotherjohn
As of tonight (09/14/04), the following modifications to the combat system have been released:

All unaimed ambush attacks have been changed to recieve approximately half the normal base ambush damage modifier. Unaimed ambush attacks include: use of the ATTACK command while in hiding, use of the AMBUSH command without specifying a location to hit (whether through AIM or the command line), and the Quickstrike/Spin Attack combat maneuvers. The stance pushdown mechanism has not been affected by these changes. Aimed ambush damage modifiers are unaffected.

Mighty Blow is no longer useable from hiding.

The use of Quickstrike/Spin Attack from hiding now carries a +10 stamina penalty.

Feint and Sunder Shield now take the attacker's stance in account when determining success chances (the defender's stance remains irrelevant).

Subdue creature task repetition assignments have been slightly lowered.

END NEWS ITEM

[AnticorRifling]

I always thought that feint was stance based. I always stanced into offensive to feint so it doesn't really bother me much. My warrior never hides so it doesn't bother me to much.

[Latrinsorm]

Feint used to be at least as or more effective in stance defensive. That's what made it awesome.

[Fallen]

Uhm, macro it?

MD, Smite/Bane, Disintegrate, Bone Shatter, Fervant Reproach, ect ect all based on stance. It will kill squares to have a few skills the same way.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Fallen
Uhm, macro it?

MD, Smite/Bane, Disintegrate, Bone Shatter, Fervant Reproach, ect ect all based on stance. It will kill squares to have a few skills the same way.


Umm, feint gives hard RT, not soft RT, so macroing it wouldn't do much because you can't switch back immediately to stance guarded like a pure.

And squares already have a skill that way, it's called "attack".

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Fallen
Uhm, macro it?

MD, Smite/Bane, Disintegrate, Bone Shatter, Fervant Reproach, ect ect all based on stance. It will kill squares to have a few skills the same way.


:wtf: Tell me... when were square attacks not based on stance?

[Wezas]

Originally posted by theotherjohn
Feint and Sunder Shield now take the attacker's stance in account when determining success chances (the defender's stance remains irrelevant).


Fuckers. My 2-handed warrior's been using Sunder to disarm the arachne priests & priestesses enough to take a big ole swing at em.

Now he's screwed.

[Artha]

Hrm, that ambush change sucks balls.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Fallen
MD, Smite/Bane, Disintegrate, Bone Shatter, Fervant Reproach, ect ect all based on stance. It will kill squares to have a few skills the same way. Every square skill is now stance-based, thx. I was aware of one (feint), apparently sunder was the same. Warcries might be just as good from stance d, but warcries are pretty Godawful anyway so that's a push.

[Artha]

It doesn't matter that a square's main attack is stance based, the fact that pures had a few that are means that squares had an unfair advantage. Right? Right?

[Fallen]

A few? Every Wizard's bolt is a few?

A square crying about having to stance. That is amusing. All of your defense is based around the AS/DS arena (Redux, Armor, ect). Stance obviously doesn't effect TD.

Why is it a big deal to change stance? Is it often a square dies from being caught with a regular blow in offensive? I can't believe many squares would agree with that.

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Fallen]

[Stunseed]

< Is it often a square dies from being caught with a regular blow in offensive? >

My Ranger is by no means a normal square, but under 50 trains I don't die from physical attacks. Perhaps someone with an older Ranger/Bard could supply their view of it.

[Nieninque]

Wall of Thorns needs to be able to defend against Bearhug.
Its stupid that it cant.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by Fallen
A few? Every Wizard's bolt is a few?

A square crying about having to stance. That is amusing. All of your defense is based around the AS/DS arena (Redux, Armor, ect). Stance obviously doesn't effect TD.

Why is it a big deal to change stance? Is it often a square dies from being caught with a regular blow in offensive? I can't believe many squares would agree with that.

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Fallen]

You must have never hunted as a warrior. Wizards can go back to defensive in less than 1 sec after casting the bolt.

Warriors swing a weapon and it's hard RT, which we stand there in the open.

For my warrior, it is not the first blow that kills, but the stun that it creates. I don't hunt with spells, so my defense is around 150 in stance offensive.

Standing in the open stunned in stance offensive is not a good situation to be in.

Rangers don't die from physical attacks at level 50? They should be nuked, since they are obviously too powerful.

Xinister

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Fallen
Why is it a big deal to change stance? Is it often a square dies from being caught with a regular blow in offensive? I can't believe many squares would agree with that.


These are from a log of my warrior from back in August.

Unsuccessful Sunder:

>sunder pri[Roll result: 36 (open d100: -68) Penalties: 0]
You swing your scroll-etched claidhmore at an Arachne priestess's reinforced shield and connect!
An Arachne priestess deftly deflects the blow!
Roundtime: 3 sec.

Successful Sunder:

sunder pri[Roll result: 190 (open d100: 86) Penalties: 0]
You swing your scroll-etched claidhmore at an Arachne priestess's reinforced shield and connect!
The reinforced shield splinters and is rendered utterly useless!
Roundtime: 3 sec.

DS in defensive:


>A mammoth arachnid tries to ensnare Asurock!
AS: +192 vs DS: +208 with AvD: +26 + d100 roll: +86 = +96
A clean miss.


DS in offensive:

A mammoth arachnid tries to bite you!
AS: +212 vs DS: +150 with AvD: +20 + d100 roll: +95 = +177
... and hits for 24 points of damage!
Slash to your right leg hits high!
Kinda makes your knees weak, huh?


50+ DS means alot. Especially if I'm stuck in offensive for 3-5 seconds.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Wall of Thorns needs to be able to defend against Bearhug.
Its stupid that it cant.

I am so fast and agile, I fly through your thorns and bearhug you.

Wall of thorns has nothing on me.

Xinister

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Fallen
A square crying about having to stance.You can't take the high ground when you have soft RT, sorry.

[Caiylania]

:yeahthat:

[StrayRogue]

I'm a rogue who hunts with a higher than usual RT. Being able to effectively hunt from defensive was stupid and you're a retard if you never thought it wouldn't be "nerfed" in some way.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Dur. Besides, there should only be 3 stances, offensive, defensive and dead.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I'm a rogue who hunts with a higher than usual RT. Being able to effectively hunt from defensive was stupid and you're a retard if you never thought it wouldn't be "nerfed" in some way.

I agree, sorcerers and casters should get "nerfed."

Xinister

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Xinister

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I'm a rogue who hunts with a higher than usual RT. Being able to effectively hunt from defensive was stupid and you're a retard if you never thought it wouldn't be "nerfed" in some way.

I agree, sorcerers and casters should get "nerfed."

Xinister

I meant in regards to all the warriors moaning about Feint.

[Chyrain]

Originally posted by Xinister

Rangers don't die from physical attacks at level 50? They should be nuked, since they are obviously too powerful.

Xinister


my ranger dies from physical attacks all the time. I've been trying to only rely on my own spells plus a few spirit spells and signs. Usually I'll get stunned for 5 or 6 rounds and chipped to death. My only real defense is hiding. If they can't see me, they cant hit me. But that doesn't make me too powerful. It makes me smart. :)

[Stunseed]

I'd been happy if they had stopped the Feint lock.

Also, I agree that WoT should make Bearhuggers get damage. Longer you Bearhug, more damage you cause to yourself.

[Stunseed]

< Rangers don't die from physical attacks at level 50? They should be nuked, since they are obviously too powerful. >

See thread called "The Duel" where my Ranger stays on par with a Warrior 5 trains older. My training plan is definately not normal, take that as you will.

Edited to add that Wizard spells are nice to have, too. :yes:

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Stunseed]

[Xinister]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I meant in regards to all the warriors moaning about Feint.

Feint is available to other professions and not just warriors.

However, if SIMU goes for the route of professions changing to stance offensive to do an offensive attack, then casters should go to offensive also when attacking. Not like they are staying in offensive more than 1 sec anyway.

Seems only fair.

I don't use feint to hunt, but it does suck for those that do.

Also, I was responding to comments on being a square automatically assumes that one does not die with any physical attacks.

Xinister

[AnticorRifling]

I use feint to hunt. I am a wizard. I go to offensive to attack. I will continue to kick ass.

[Xinister]

I use to play a war mage, but he went demonic when I went on "vacation."

It is a great time to be a war mage right now.

Xinister

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Stunseed
My Ranger is by no means a normal square, but under 50 trains I don't die from physical attacks. Perhaps someone with an older Ranger/Bard could supply their view of it.

Maybe because rangers aren't squares?

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Fallen
A few? Every Wizard's bolt is a few?


...

I'm sorry, but that has got to be the dumbest argument I've heard yet. As others have already stated... bolters only have to be in offensive stance for a fraction of a second.

In anycase, I really don't care; I very rarely(if ever) use feint while hunting for experience, and warriors have always had to be stuck in offensive anyway(That's why your first statement made no sense at all.)

[Stunseed]

Pardon me for the mistake.

Even furthering the point, if you're a SQUARE and 50 trains and you don't have an idea of not dying a physical attack, then you really need to be shot in the face in a non-fatal way. Even Warclaidhm had that part down.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by Stunseed
See thread called "The Duel" where my Ranger stays on par with a Warrior 5 trains older. My training plan is definately not normal, take that as you will.


I read the log on "The Duel" Sorry to say, You did not stay on par with a warrior that's 5 trains older in that duel.

It looks like he was toying with you.

If it was my duel, right after the failed hamstring.

war ber stunseed
war ger stunseed
disarm stunseed
tackle stunseed
hide
ambush stunseed head

That would be it. I don't know why the warrior warcry cry on you?

Xinister

Edited: Don't need the extra warcry at the end in there since it's mostly a win situation already.

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Xinister]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Stunseed
I'd been happy if they had stopped the Feint lock.

Also, I agree that WoT should make Bearhuggers get damage. Longer you Bearhug, more damage you cause to yourself.

Hrm, my pretty much total lack of CVC combat is showing. I would just have assumed that WoT and/or CoS would damage anyone attacking the user with a bearhug or garrote or any other cman that requires physical contact. :?:

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Jonty
[In anycase, I really don't care; I very rarely(if ever) use feint while hunting for experience, and warriors have always had to be stuck in offensive anyway(That's why your first statement made no sense at all.)

How and where do you you hunt?

as a twohander I know my hunts would be very short without using feint to stop the spell casters in the tower and Nakiro gets sick of rescuing me past the barrier as it is.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Xinister

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I meant in regards to all the warriors moaning about Feint.

Feint is available to other professions and not just warriors.

However, if SIMU goes for the route of professions changing to stance offensive to do an offensive attack, then casters should go to offensive also when attacking. Not like they are staying in offensive more than 1 sec anyway.

Seems only fair.

I don't use feint to hunt, but it does suck for those that do.

Also, I was responding to comments on being a square automatically assumes that one does not die with any physical attacks.

Xinister

Erm no. Pures in general cannot survive being hit in offensive stance, as can squares (or as squares are expected to). Pures are also limited to their attacks in regards to mana, and how, in regards to warding based magic, stance generally will not make them hit harder or lighter.

If you were aware of channelling, which IS stance based, you'd also realize that pures have the option of stancing, risking far more than any square, for that bit of extra damage.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Pures are also limited to their attacks in regards to mana, and how, in regards to warding based magic, stance generally will not make them hit harder or lighter.


I agree with everything except that I want to note that squares are limited also with stamina now.

Xinister

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Xinister

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Pures are also limited to their attacks in regards to mana, and how, in regards to warding based magic, stance generally will not make them hit harder or lighter.


I agree with everything except that I want to note that squares are limited also with stamina now.

Xinister

Squares do not nor have to hunt with stamina as a factor.

[Latrinsorm]

Stray, you have a square that hunts without using any maneuvers?

[StrayRogue]

I can hunt without maneuvers pretty easily. Most high level rogues do the same as well.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Stray, you have a square that hunts without using any maneuvers?

I use maneuvers on every creature. I do not have a stamina issue because I 3x PT.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Squares do not nor have to hunt with stamina as a factor.

Pures (as a profession not training) do not nor have to hunt with mana.

Xinister

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Xinister

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Squares do not nor have to hunt with stamina as a factor.

Pures (as a profession not training) do not nor have to hunt with mana.

Xinister

Explain to me how a sorcerer can hunt without mana.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Explain to me how a sorcerer can hunt without mana.

Train in a weapon and use a weapon.

May take a long time, but they still don't need mana.

I made a war sorcerer before, pretty powerful.

Xinister

[Jonty]

Originally posted by theotherjohn
How and where do you you hunt?

as a twohander I know my hunts would be very short without using feint to stop the spell casters in the tower and Nakiro gets sick of rescuing me past the barrier as it is.

Hide and ambush, no need for feint.... I use two-handers as well. As for the tower, it was a fucking joke when I hunted there.

I currently hunt plane three. For n'ecare and aivern, I have to wait till they swing. I don't hide with them because I can't hide from n'ecare, and I have to wait for aiverns to swing first anyway because they fly. Warlocks... tackle, hide, ambush head. Their DS seems to get very high when they're hit with anti-mana, so to be safe, I tackle 'em first.

If I needed to use feint, it would be against a caster, so I don't really care if I'm in offense for that anyway....

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Xinister

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Explain to me how a sorcerer can hunt without mana.

Train in a weapon and use a weapon.

May take a long time, but they still don't need mana.

I made a war sorcerer before, pretty powerful.

Xinister

Without magic, a war-sorc would not be viable. And when I say pures have to use mana, I use the predominent majority. You cannot say just because 1% of the pures out there don't use mana to hunt, because even war-mages do, that it is in essence similar to a squares reliance on stamina.

Most old rogues I talk to do not use maneuvers. I can hunt without them just as well as I can with them. If I was being picky I could also argue that guild skills aren't maneuvers per say, but hunting without them is just as simple as if I was using them.

[Jonty]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
If you were aware of channelling, which IS stance based, you'd also realize that pures have the option of stancing, risking far more than any square, for that bit of extra damage.

I channel 705 as a sorcerer frequently. The risk is very minimal. First, it's only three seconds that's I'm in offensive, so if I do it right, there is no risk at all. And second, my DS is over 400 in offensive stance.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Jonty

Originally posted by StrayRogue
If you were aware of channelling, which IS stance based, you'd also realize that pures have the option of stancing, risking far more than any square, for that bit of extra damage.

I channel 705 as a sorcerer frequently. The risk is very minimal. First, it's only three seconds that's I'm in offensive, so if I do it right, there is no risk at all. And second, my DS is over 400 in offensive stance.

Would you say there is less or more risk of being hit while channeling?

[Jonty]

Does that really need to be answered?

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Jonty
Does that really need to be answered?

Nope, but thats my point. Pures can have an inherant risk, no matter how small, for a greater "kick" in their offensive capabilities.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Without magic, a war-sorc would not be viable. And when I say pures have to use mana, I use the predominent majority. You cannot say just because 1% of the pures out there don't use mana to hunt, because even war-mages do, that it is in essence similar to a squares reliance on stamina.

Most old rogues I talk to do not use maneuvers. I can hunt without them just as well as I can with them. If I was being picky I could also argue that guild skills aren't maneuvers per say, but hunting without them is just as simple as if I was using them.

Alright, let's get this straight. I just noted that Squares are limited by stamina, but I did not imply that they were dependent on Combat Manuevers to hunt.

Rogues are simply over powerful!
Prior to the fear factor for undeads, I was a level 10 Rogue hunting Zombies, which are level 23 at the time. Hiding and ambushing, and killing each with just one shot. I know that 13 levels is not a lot, but if you take in the account of training for only a level 10 rogue who is 2x in hiding and ambush, then, it's an incredible feat.

I rerolled the rogues after I became lord with each, since it was getting too easy and boring.

Xinister

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Xinister

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Without magic, a war-sorc would not be viable. And when I say pures have to use mana, I use the predominent majority. You cannot say just because 1% of the pures out there don't use mana to hunt, because even war-mages do, that it is in essence similar to a squares reliance on stamina.

Most old rogues I talk to do not use maneuvers. I can hunt without them just as well as I can with them. If I was being picky I could also argue that guild skills aren't maneuvers per say, but hunting without them is just as simple as if I was using them.

Alright, let's get this straight. I just noted that Squares are limited by stamina, but I did not imply that they were dependent on Combat Manuevers to hunt.

Rogues are simply over powerful!
Prior to the fear factor for undeads, I was a level 10 Rogue hunting Zombies, which are level 23 at the time. Hiding and ambushing, and killing each with just one shot. I know that 13 levels is not a lot, but if you take in the account of training for only a level 10 rogue who is 2x in hiding and ambush, then, it's an incredible feat.

I rerolled the rogues after I became lord with each, since it was getting too easy and boring.

Xinister

Exactly. Rogues/squares do NOT have to use stamina or maneuvers to hunt. It only aids them. Where-as Pures NEED mana to hunt.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Exactly. Rogues/squares do NOT have to use stamina or maneuvers to hunt. It only aids them. Where-as Pures NEED mana to hunt.

Do sorcerers run out of mana constantly and can not hunt?

When I was a sorcerer, I just go rest for a few minutes and I regain all my mana back.

Or just join COL and Wrack. Almost no LIMIT unless you are casting every second during the hunt.

Xinister

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Xinister

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Exactly. Rogues/squares do NOT have to use stamina or maneuvers to hunt. It only aids them. Where-as Pures NEED mana to hunt.

Do sorcerers run out of mana constantly and can not hunt?

When I was a sorcerer, I just go rest for a few minutes and I regain all my mana back.

Or just join COL and Wrack. Almost no LIMIT unless you are casting every second during the hunt.

Xinister

Go chat to a low level sorcerer or two. Sorcerers have mana as a concern, constantly, as do all pures.

[CrystalTears]

I don't know why, but when I hear pures say they don't need mana to hunt because they use a weapon, it annoys me. :lol:

[Fallen]

You can't take the high ground when you have soft RT, sorry.>>

The Channel verb gives just as much hard RT as some sqaures hard RT. Attacks have already been lowered from the traditional 5 seconds to as low as 3.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Go chat to a low level sorcerer or two. Sorcerers have mana as a concern, constantly, as do all pures.

Buy wands. Still not a problem.

Anyway, I thought we were speaking of middle to higher train characters?

Xinister

What's great now is that mana is a cocern that you create for yourself, as a pure. You can either single or double in HP, and if you double you will *NEVER* have mana problems.

But, saying that, pures do need mana to hunt. I think it's wrong when a lower end character uses his perception about how things are about later in the game, because somtimes, the rules don't always apply that did in earlier levels.

- Arkans

[StrayRogue]

You answered my question there Arkans. You NEED mana to hunt. Squares do not NEED stamina to hunt.

That was the goal, I agree with you 100%.

- Arkans

[Xinister]

Again, if you read my initial comment on the whole topic.


I agree with everything except that I want to note that squares are limited also with stamina now.

Squares are limited with stamina for CM. Sorry, that's a fact.

Xinister

But they don't need CMs to hunt.

- Arkans

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Stunseed
I'd been happy if they had stopped the Feint lock.

Also, I agree that WoT should make Bearhuggers get damage. Longer you Bearhug, more damage you cause to yourself.

Hrm, my pretty much total lack of CVC combat is showing. I would just have assumed that WoT and/or CoS would damage anyone attacking the user with a bearhug or garrote or any other cman that requires physical contact. :?:

Garrote is affected by WoT, but bearhug isnt :(



[Roll result: 40 (open d100: 13)]
One of the vines surrounding you lashes out at Jastio, driving a thorn into his skin! Jastio flinches slightly.
Jastio attempts to slip a wire around your neck, but you nimbly dodge aside.

Edited to add an example of garrote :D

[Edited on 16-9-04 by Nieninque]

[Xinister]

Originally posted by Arkans
But they don't need CMs to hunt.

- Arkans

Actually, for a warrior with all the guild stuff moved to CML, stamina is used and limited.

Xinister

[CrystalTears]

I know plenty of warriors who don't have to use their guild/CM skills to hunt.

Right, but no manuevers (even guild skills) are required to hunt. It just makes it easier. Pures *NEED* mana, since their AS/DS doesn't raise fast enough with the increase of monsters.

- Arkans

[Xinister]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I know plenty of warriors who don't have to use their guild/CM skills to hunt.

Depends on their training route and their level.

I killed warferers with a claidhmore at level 10 without anything.

Xinister

You're really a sorry square if you NEED CMs.

- Arkans

[Xinister]

Originally posted by Arkans
You're really a sorry square if you NEED CMs.

- Arkans

I disarm (CML) the harbingers, then hide and ambush with a claidhmore to the neck.

Most guild skills are transferred to CML and uses stamina.

Xinister

I bet you don't *NEED* them to hunt though. That's the whole point.

- Arkans

[Xinister]

Originally posted by Arkans
I bet you don't *NEED* them to hunt though. That's the whole point.

- Arkans

If I was a pure, I don't *NEED* mana to hunt too.

Just buy wands and imbue.

An alternative does not equate to feasibility.

Xinister

Right, play a pure (expecially a sorcerer) without 712 or without 120. You'll get pwned so hard on every hunt.

- Arkans

[Xinister]

Originally posted by Arkans
Right, play a pure (expecially a sorcerer) without 712 or without 120. You'll get pwned so hard on every hunt.

- Arkans

712 can be imbued into a wand? If so, then it's fine.

I have a mage rechargable gem with 219, +50 to TD.

If those have not changed?

Xinister

Anyway, I am going to stop. I guess we have to agree to disagree here.

[Fallen]

I know of several decently high level squares that were amazed when I showed them the Cman verb. Squares can hunt just fine without Cman attacks well until their 50's I would imagine.

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Xinister
I have a mage rechargable gem with 219, +50 to TD.

If those have not changed?

Yes, it has changed.


219 · Spell Shield [SPSHIELD]
Duration: 1200 seconds +60 seconds for every Major Spirit spell known

Type: Bonus

Through the use of this spell, the caster is able to call upon the Spirits of Power to form a powerful barrier against magical attacks.

The self-cast bonuses include +30 Bolt Defense Strength (DS) and +30 Spiritual Target Defense (TD).

Training in Spiritual Lore, Blessings enables this spell to be cast upon others, briefly. The duration is 2 minutes and requires 80 ranks of Blessings Lore.

[CrystalTears]

Doesn't imbuing require mana to use? In one way or another, pures are using their mana to hunt.

[Xinister]

Originally posted by Jonty
Yes, it has changed.


219 · Spell Shield [SPSHIELD]
Duration: 1200 seconds +60 seconds for every Major Spirit spell known

Type: Bonus

Through the use of this spell, the caster is able to call upon the Spirits of Power to form a powerful barrier against magical attacks.

The self-cast bonuses include +30 Bolt Defense Strength (DS) and +30 Spiritual Target Defense (TD).

Training in Spiritual Lore, Blessings enables this spell to be cast upon others, briefly. The duration is 2 minutes and requires 80 ranks of Blessings Lore.


It's time to sell that too!

Anyone interested in a mage rechargable spell shield gem?

Xinister

[Xinister]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Doesn't imbuing require mana to use? In one way or another, pures are using their mana to hunt.

Ask some other sorcerer to imbue? That's not using YOUR mana. :P

Xinister

[Drew]

Is anyone here really argueing that pures have it tougher than squares?

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Xinister

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Doesn't imbuing require mana to use? In one way or another, pures are using their mana to hunt.

Ask some other sorcerer to imbue? That's not using YOUR mana. :P

Xinister

:lol: Okay that's just fucked up.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Go chat to a low level sorcerer or two. Sorcerers have mana as a concern, constantly, as do all pures. Low level squares have stamina as a concern constantly too. I thought we were talking about high level folks?
Originally posted by Fallen
The Channel verb gives just as much hard RT as some sqaures hard RT. Attacks have already been lowered from the traditional 5 seconds to as low as 3. I hopre for your sake your attacks are many times more effective than an unaimed dagger.
Originally posted by Arkans
You're really a sorry square if you NEED CMs. So you hunt without a knockdown/disabling maneuver? Doesn't that take forEVER?

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
So you hunt without a knockdown/disabling maneuver? Doesn't that take forEVER?

No, it doesn't.... It's faster.

Hide, ambush critter head.

[StrayRogue]

Agreed Jonty. I can hunt with or without them. Depends on the critter and how I'm hunting. I don't need any of them. As for high level, who needs to waste 5 seconds sweeping/tackling, when you can hide in 3, and ambush/kill in another 3?

The entire argument is that pures NEED mana to hunt. Squares do not NEED stamina to hunt. This draws back to how "crappy" the feint change is when people equate the whole "pures don't go offensive" crap as a dominance over the way of the Squares way of hunting. BOTH parties are limited in ways, while hunting. One by mana, the other by stance.

[Latrinsorm]

So you guys are getting One Shot Kills, or the target is sufficiently debilitated it doesn't matter?

I'm going to feel bad for you guys when the armor/hiding changes go in.

[Jonty]

One shot kills most of the time.... Those damn random crits fuck me up sometimes.... But it doesn't really matter since it'll still be stunned for a good amount of time.

Yeah, the armor changes will suck for me....

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
So you guys are getting One Shot Kills, or the target is sufficiently debilitated it doesn't matter?

I'm going to feel bad for you guys when the armor/hiding changes go in.

I'm in brig, so its not going to effect me at all. I usually "set up the kill", by either legging it, or an attack to the back. Then just hack their necks off.

[Jonty]

Heh, I figure if I can leg, I can kill it.... So, I don't bother going for a knock down.

[Drew]

Depending on how much of a hurry I'm in, I either leg with a claid then go for the head or if I want to kill things quickly I leg with the claid then switch to my maul and smoosh the head.

[StrayRogue]

Well, I have only 25% redux, and in brig armor. If I'm caught in 7 seconds of RT in front of giants, I'm gonna get murdered.

[Drew]

Yeah I think you get a bit of pass in plate with a load of redux Jonty. I hunt the same thing Stay does (they shake stuns) in brig with 0 redux so not legging them is a *bad* thing.

[Fallen]

The entire argument is that pures NEED mana to hunt. Squares do not NEED stamina to hunt. This draws back to how "crappy" the feint change is when people equate the whole "pures don't go offensive" crap as a dominance over the way of the Squares way of hunting. BOTH parties are limited in ways, while hunting. One by mana, the other by stance. >>

Stancing for squares allows them to be hit and proceed to get repeatedly hit until either they get away or die. This is attrition, and is what the GMs were attempting to develop.

However, with pures, getting hit for a stun is most usually death, with little room for attrition aside from CoS. Yet with every new attack spell they are making it so that the attack is not worth the mana unless chanelled (read Hard RT), with an open hand.

Squares hit in offensive = Attrition
Pures hit in offensive = Death

CoS is a start. Stone Skin sounds like it would help. Clerics are straight out of luck.

Do pures have trouble hunting? Not really. However, I will not agree that squares have it too easy until GS becomes a fully self-cast environment. Group spells last only when joined to the group. Other than that, if you want a spell, a pure has to be specially trained in lores to cast it at you (120, ect), or you use a magical device or a scroll.

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Fallen]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<However, with pures, getting hit for a stun is most usually death, with little room for attrition aside from CoS.>>

Dur, pures have spells. There goes that argument.

[StrayRogue]

Sounds like more Pure whining for me. Pures shouldn't be getting hit. However, I've yet to see a spell that NEEDs to be channelled to be effectively used to hunt with. The stancing element of a channelled spell is just a little bit of risk, 3 seconds worth for a pay-off of a greater spell effect. Sounds fine to me. And going to offensive is NOT a requirement of channelling either.

To take a risk, you must be prepared for the circumstances.

[Edited on 16-9-04 by StrayRogue]

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Fallen
Squares hit in offensive = Attrition
Pures hit in offensive = Death

CoS is a start. Stone Skin sounds like it would help. Clerics are straight out of luck.

I'd really have to disagree with you here. Like I said before, I channel 705 while going offensive frequently. And as I also said before there is no risk at all if I do it right.... Well, I don't. I take a lot of risks. I do get hit sometimes, and I only get minors.... I've been stunned a total of 3 times while hunting OTF and the rift, and each time my cloak destroyed what hit me, and I did not die. Not that the stun was that long anyhow.

This while wearing plain ole 4x LBP.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Jonty


This while wearing plain ole 4x LBP.

Buy my exceptionally padded breastplate plz Jonty.

[Fallen]

Dur, pures have spells. There goes that argument. >>

And squares dont.

"Join up for 4 hours of free DS"

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Fallen]

[Fallen]

I'd really have to disagree with you here. Like I said before, I channel 705 while going offensive frequently. And as I also said before there is no risk at all if I do it right.... Well, I don't. I take a lot of risks. I do get hit sometimes, and I only get minors.... I've been stunned a total of 3 times while hunting OTF and the rift, and each time my cloak destroyed what hit me, and I did not die. Not that the stun was that long anyhow.

This while wearing plain ole 4x LBP. >>

Don't you group hunt/MA? Always bring a buddy.

[Fallen]

Sounds like more Pure whining for me. Pures shouldn't be getting hit.>>

With that logic, neither should squares.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Fallen
Sounds like more Pure whining for me. Pures shouldn't be getting hit.>>

With that logic, neither should squares.

No. Like forever, pures have cast their spells from behind the protection of their spells and the security of stance defensive. Squares, being a physical, macho bunch, forsake defense for raw offensive power.

[Fallen]

No. Like forever, pures have cast their spells from behind the protection of their spells and the security of stance defensive. Squares, being a physical, macho bunch, forsake defense for raw offensive power. >>

Yeah, your right. They should give squares reparations for having it so rough in the past. Five million in silver and a handful veil iron studs to place all over their rugged battle armor of doom.

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Fallen]

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Fallen

Don't you group hunt/MA? Always bring a buddy.

Most of the time, yes. But my character are fully capable of hunting solo.... I've done it for a long time untill recently.... Care to see a log?

Here ya go buddy....

[Fallen]

Heh, just giving you a hard time, Jonty.

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Fallen
Heh, just giving you a hard time, Jonty.

You fuckin bastard, you made my warrior miss a hunt. :lol:

[Fallen]

HAH!

[Xinister]

This thread has went through many topics of discussion.

So to get back on the initial post, yeah those changes to some CML suck for those that use it.

Xinister

[Fallen]

Yep. A mod could probably create three threads from this one alone. I have noticed little emphasis is placed on keeping topics...on topic. I am not complaining, just an observation.

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Fallen]

[Jonty]

And this is basically how my warrior hunts plane three without Cmans. I skip aiverns 'cause they're to small to aim at.


[The Rift]
A huge three-masted ship floats in midair here just above the ground, sails rippling gently in the slight breeze. Deck hands from on board make noise as they move about, adjusting cargo and preparing for voyage. From the crow's nest high above, you can see the ship's falconer directing large hunting hawks through aerial warm-up exercises. You also see a n'ecare.
Obvious exits: east, west

* Nitid has disconnected.

A n'ecare swings a heavy flanged mace at you!
AS: +396 vs DS: +404 with AvD: +30 + d100 roll: +73 = +95
A clean miss.

.ambush n'
stance off
ambush n'
You are now in an offensive stance.

[Script finished!]
You swing a massive vultite balestarius at a n'ecare!
AS: +448 vs DS: +314 with AvD: +37 + d100 roll: +76 = +247
... and hit for 100 points of damage!
Mighty swing separates head from shoulders.
You hear a sound like a weeping child as a white glow separates itself from the n'ecare's body as it rises, disappearing into the heavens.
The n'ecare falls to the ground motionless.
Roundtime: 9 sec.

.search
stance defensive
You are now in a defensive stance.
loot
You search the n'ecare.
You discard the n'ecare's useless equipment.
It didn't carry any silver.
It had a pink rhodochrosite stone on it!
It had nothing else of value.
The last vestiges of the n'ecare are caught by a dank, cold wind and blown into oblivion.

open my cloak
Sensing your intent, a swarm of tiny spiders suddenly appears from beneath the folds of your spidersilk cloak and weaves an opening in the silk.
get stone
You pick up a pink rhodochrosite stone.
put my stone in my cloak
You put a pink rhodochrosite stone in your spidersilk cloak.
loot
close my cloak
Could not find a valid target to loot.

[Script finished!]
Sensing your intent, a swarm of tiny spiders suddenly appears from beneath the folds of your spidersilk cloak and seals the opening in the cloak with their silk.

Repeat above until fried. Only one shot last hunt wasn't a one shot kill; I got hit for a minor because of it.

I pretty much stick to n'ecare, but here's the occasional warlock.


hide
Roundtime: 3 sec.
You attempt to blend with the surroundings and feel confident that no one has noticed your doing so.
.ambush war

A swirling wind blows by you!
stance off
ambush war

You are now in an offensive stance.
You leap from hiding to attack!
You swing a silvery sylvan infantry adze at a Vvrael warlock!
AS: +448 vs DS: +279 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +72 = +276
... and hit for 164 points of damage!
Gruesome, slashing blow to the side of the Vvrael warlock's head!
Skull split open! Brain (and life) vanishes in a fine mist.
The Vvrael warlock crumples to the ground motionless.
The very powerful look leaves a Vvrael warlock.
The white light leaves a Vvrael warlock.
A Vvrael warlock glances around, looking a bit less confident.
The deep blue glow leaves a Vvrael warlock.
The brilliant luminescence fades from around a Vvrael warlock.
The light blue glow leaves a Vvrael warlock.
Roundtime: 9 sec.

[Fallen]

Ambush is godly. Was before, still is. I think the game would benefit from a pure type ambush feature. It would add alot to mechanics.

[Jonty]

This is the risk I'm posed with while channeling 705.... I purposely went into offense so I could get hit. N'acares usually swing under 400, but this one used some special skill to swing higher.

A n'ecare glows with an ice blue light!
A n'ecare swings a heavy flanged mace at you!
AS: +511 vs DS: +455 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +45 = +136
... and hits for 15 points of damage!
Torn muscle in your right leg!

[El Burro]

The key for a square is getting the DS of the critter down. Your warrior uses ambush from hiding to accomplish this. Mine doesn't hide so I depend on feint to drop it. Stance dancing (waiting for the critter to swing) with older magic using critters for my style of hunting would be very tough (probably preventing me from hunting them) without the use of CM's.

CM's level the playing field in this regard.

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by El Burro]

[Drektor]

I need cmans to hunt in otf.

Pures shouldn't be getting hit for high endrolls like squares do. There is no reason for it with their DS. Also, I've yet to see a reason for my sorcerer to leave guarded stance. Hunted that way for about 3 years now and working just fine.

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Ambush is godly. Was before, still is.>>

Clearly you don't ambush.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Ambush is godly. Was before, still is.>>

Clearly you don't ambush.


Yeah, I have to agree with Bob here, I ambush with a claid, which is the most overpowered weapon around and it still leaves much to be desired.

I'm not saying it's not good, but any pure who argues that playing a square or semi is easier, well, probably doesn't play either of them.

Once you make it to level 15 it's really smooth sailing from there to 50 as a pure, I can't comment after that, but up to that point there is no real comparison between the two of them.

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Drew
Once you make it to level 15 it's really smooth sailing from there to 50 as a pure, I can't comment after that,

It's still easier.

[Stanley Burrell]

Feint used to be at least as or more effective in stance defensive. That's what made it awesome.

Tru.

[Drew]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v24/backwardhatclub/26-7.jpg