| Shattered Kingdoms https://shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/ |
|
| Stance https://shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17004 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | ardithV2 [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Stance |
I'd like to say that these option does give us more...well, options but there's just some things that really bother me about stances. Quote: Your stance determines how you react to combat. Aggressive combatants
are more likely to hit and will dish out more damage but are also more likely to be hit themselves and expend more energy when attacking. Defensive combatants are less likely to be hit and can concentrate on using their shield for increased effectiveness and leg defense but have a reduced rate of attack with both weapons and spells. What I've noticed is that the reduced attacks from using a defensive stance really hurts. It's just not an equal trade to be fighting defensively when I've noticed that I don't tend to be hit any more on an aggressive stance than defensive. I can only assume that it refers to the chance that an opponent will "miss" an attack at this point because I seem to dodge, parry, and shield block wonderfully while under mood aggressive, and it seems to help me do more melee damage (albeit probably just a little more), and to hit more accurately. While under defensive stance I've also noticed that the help file is not true in that it states that shields can be used for leg defense. You still take far more damage when your legs are damaged while under this stance. With sacrificing 1 melee attack per round and spellcasting taking double the amount of time to cast, it seems that the penalties are just too great to bother with using this. I've found that aggressive or neutral are simply preferable to defensive. While one can use a very fast weapon like an epee to get around the slowdown of melee weapon speed, weapons like these just don't do near enough damage to even make it worth trying. The best way to state this is that the faster I do more damage to my enemy, the less damage I myself will take. The increase in spellcasting time is exceptionally brutal. I can't even see this stance being a viable option for players of paladins and hellions. Or anybody else that uses spells. Why though, does it seem that the penalties for choosing a defensive stance far more extreme than what is supposedly supposed to be the penalties for an aggressive stance? |
|
| Author: | ObjectivistActivist [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I did some very extensive testing of stances some time ago, though I didn't test weapon speed issues. I tested weapon damage and defensive capabilities of each stance. There is literally no point to ever using stance defensive. It will only hinder, not help you. Stance neutral is okay, sometimes, but even then the penalty to weapon damage ends up hurting more than the "penalty" to evasion on aggressive, because the fights last almost twice as long. Yes, nearly twice as long just between aggressive and neutral. For defensive, you have to add half again as many rounds for combat, ultimately equating to even more damage taken over time (because defense skills don't fire more on stance defensive or neutral than they do on aggressive, and actually NPCs outright miss more often on aggressive too). Evidently there was a bug in dodge that made it fire more often in aggressive than in defensive that was supposedly fixed, but though I haven't repeated my testing extensively, I still see dodge fire just as often as it previously did (read: prior to "bug fix"). The bottom line is this: while intended to give more options, there still is never any reason to be in any stance but aggressive, even for casters, because you will take less damage in aggressive than in any other stance. Period. |
|
| Author: | Gilgon [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The point to using speed defensive is when you are not relying upon your own damage to win a fight, which happens often (large group vs NPC, large group vs large group and you are tank, small group but relying upon non-damage spells to win the fight) I want to see logs of all of your 'extensive testing', folks. I remember the last time extensive testing was done by Ardith he concluded that sanctuary no longer worked. As a warrior I personally use aggressive and normal all the time and switch back and forth. If I were to have specialized in a 1-hand weapon I would also use defensive. 'Extensive testing' ftw. |
|
| Author: | ObjectivistActivist [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't need to show you my logs of extensive testing of "speed" defensive. I showed them to Dulrik, the person who matters. |
|
| Author: | Gilgon [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ObjectivistActivist wrote: I don't need to show you my logs of extensive testing of "speed" defensive. I showed them to Dulrik, the person who matters.
Cool. Pass on the message - "Sanctuary is bugged". |
|
| Author: | Orac [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gilgon wrote: The point to using speed defensive is when you are not relying upon your own damage to win a fight, which happens often (large group vs NPC, large group vs large group and you are tank, small group but relying upon non-damage spells to win the fight)
As a warrior I personally use aggressive and normal all the time and switch back and forth. If I were to have specialized in a 1-hand weapon I would also use defensive. 'Extensive testing' ftw. That was completely my undestanding of it as well. As soon as I tried out mood defensive. Besically mood defensive is for group pks where the front line is tanking and other people behind them can do damage. Like a second rank paladin behind a merc casting bog and stuff. Again I am also always agressive with warriors as well, with very little variation on that. Scouts too. I'd have to agree with Algnons assessment all the way from start to finish. I also don't believe in 'extensive testing' much. I think things tend to get exagerated. Most of the stuff I try out myself and I wouldn't call these try outs extensive testing. 2 cents. O |
|
| Author: | Rial [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it kinda makes sense in small battles for mood aggressive to be more effective. In a 1v1 battle I definetly would think the more aggressive fighter has an advantage, backing up his enemy and what not. Obviously mood defensive has its uses though. I notice a big increase in dodges and parries on mood defensive. In large group battles it makes perfect sense to have a tank on mood defensive while the rest of your side is mood aggressive. |
|
| Author: | WarlordPayne [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Defensive stance helps a hell of a lot against NPCs if you're using a shield. I have frequently switched to a defensive stance and just flat out stopped taking damage. I don't know if any evasive skills trigger more often or not but your shield soaks up much more damage in a defensive stance. |
|
| Author: | Syndal [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The only time I could ever imagine, and have ever actually USED defensive stance was with a shaman, who had like 30 heal vials. And the only spell I cast was spirit horde. The increase to spell-casting time is so stupid it isn't even funny. Why am I casting slower when I'm defending than when I'm trying to do everything I can to hit with my weapon? If anything you should cast slower while in aggressive stance. The only people the spell-time thing affect are Shamans, Paladins and Hellions. And if a Paladin or Hellion is busy trying to focus all their attention on swinging their weapon, they should OMGZ CAST SLOWER. If -anything- you should cast slower in Aggressive AND Defensive, and cast normally in Neutral. |
|
| Author: | Travorn [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You shouldn't cast slower, but you should have a higher chance of failing to cast the spell while in an aggressive mood. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|