Shattered Kingdoms :: View topic - Should going prone remove stances?

Unofficially chiming in as a player:

I would love not a single thing more. When I caught back up with current events, I stood against the idea of stances being used to balance a class while in the same turn utterly obliterating the ability to stay in that stance.

The turn or two (or is it more?) it takes for a swashbuckler to get back on his feet and re-stance is enough to get him (or anyone) killed. Unless bash gets changed to have a horrific downside (which if it hasn't happened yet I doubt it ever will), I feel like the bash-nerfing-stances issue is a top one - but only primarily swashbucklers. I feel like specialize and fury don't exactly lend one to be at a disadvantage while in neutral stance, but it definitely nerfs certain build styles for mercenaries.

There's a huge change in playstyle for a mercenary going to aggressive or defensive stance. This affects all warriors and favors the approach of only going for massive damage output.

Swashbuckler is really only viable with a hammer skill to buff accuracy for more parrying and a hammer spell to prevent prone so they can actually use their stances.

Going from Hammer to not hammer on my last swashie was a boggling difference. I went from competitive to 'I might as well stand in the back row and heckle while playing general'.

Heckle is amazeballs, but it makes swashie unable to compete vs multiple melee opponents (because you need to land it on all of them) which I feel is what they should excel at, personally.

ninja_ardith wrote:

There's a huge change in playstyle for a mercenary going to aggressive or defensive stance. This affects all warriors and favors the approach of only going for massive damage output.

Characters are not forced from aggressive to defensive, nor defensive to aggressive. It's going from defensive/aggressive to neutral, which is not as nearly so drastic a change as going from hedgehog to neutral. Playstyle for people going defensive or aggressive is as much in equipment and specialization as it is the stance. Stance is a nominal improvement compared to equipment choices - so no, this does not favor or punish any specific build. It nerfs them both equally, but absolutely minimally compared to what swashbucklers get taken for.

Yes, this is a mild issue for all warriors, but let's be real: swashbucklers don't get specialization or equipment change options in that way. Their stances were designed to balance them. Stance differences between aggressive/defensive and neutral for mercs/barbs are completely secondary (and minor) compared to equipment and specialization choice - which they have the freedom to make beyond what a swashbuckler can.

Author:	Edoras [ Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:48 am ]
Post subject:	Should going prone remove stances?
I know that going prone removing stances was placed next to the swashbuckler changes for wolverine/hedgehog stance, but having -all- stances be reset when going prone has really thrown the entire balance of the game out of whack. Can we please have prone not reset stances to neutral? As an added caveat, maybe going prone while in hedgehog could send the swashie into defensive, whereas going prone while in wolverine stance sets the swashie aggressive? But really please, just please. Can we please revert the change where going prone resets your stance?

Author:	Sadr (2015) [ Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
Unofficially chiming in as a player: I would love not a single thing more. When I caught back up with current events, I stood against the idea of stances being used to balance a class while in the same turn utterly obliterating the ability to stay in that stance. The turn or two (or is it more?) it takes for a swashbuckler to get back on his feet and re-stance is enough to get him (or anyone) killed. Unless bash gets changed to have a horrific downside (which if it hasn't happened yet I doubt it ever will), I feel like the bash-nerfing-stances issue is a top one - but only primarily swashbucklers. I feel like specialize and fury don't exactly lend one to be at a disadvantage while in neutral stance, but it definitely nerfs certain build styles for mercenaries.

Author:	Galactus [ Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
If something like this is necessary, I would rather have it happen rarely. Some sort of crit chance bases on size vs size, and str vs dex? You get the point though.

Author:	ninja_ardith [ Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
Sadr wrote: Unofficially chiming in as a player: I would love not a single thing more. When I caught back up with current events, I stood against the idea of stances being used to balance a class while in the same turn utterly obliterating the ability to stay in that stance. The turn or two (or is it more?) it takes for a swashbuckler to get back on his feet and re-stance is enough to get him (or anyone) killed. Unless bash gets changed to have a horrific downside (which if it hasn't happened yet I doubt it ever will), I feel like the bash-nerfing-stances issue is a top one - but only primarily swashbucklers. I feel like specialize and fury don't exactly lend one to be at a disadvantage while in neutral stance, but it definitely nerfs certain build styles for mercenaries. There's a huge change in playstyle for a mercenary going to aggressive or defensive stance. This affects all warriors and favors the approach of only going for massive damage output.

Author:	Sadr (2015) [ Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
ninja_ardith wrote: There's a huge change in playstyle for a mercenary going to aggressive or defensive stance. This affects all warriors and favors the approach of only going for massive damage output. Characters are not forced from aggressive to defensive, nor defensive to aggressive. It's going from defensive/aggressive to neutral, which is not as nearly so drastic a change as going from hedgehog to neutral. Playstyle for people going defensive or aggressive is as much in equipment and specialization as it is the stance. Stance is a nominal improvement compared to equipment choices - so no, this does not favor or punish any specific build. It nerfs them both equally, but absolutely minimally compared to what swashbucklers get taken for. Yes, this is a mild issue for all warriors, but let's be real: swashbucklers don't get specialization or equipment change options in that way. Their stances were designed to balance them. Stance differences between aggressive/defensive and neutral for mercs/barbs are completely secondary (and minor) compared to equipment and specialization choice - which they have the freedom to make beyond what a swashbuckler can.

Shattered Kingdoms https://shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/

Should going prone remove stances? https://shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25175	Page 1 of 5

Author:	woahboy [ Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
Swashbuckler is really only viable with a hammer skill to buff accuracy for more parrying and a hammer spell to prevent prone so they can actually use their stances. Going from Hammer to not hammer on my last swashie was a boggling difference. I went from competitive to 'I might as well stand in the back row and heckle while playing general'. Heckle is amazeballs, but it makes swashie unable to compete vs multiple melee opponents (because you need to land it on all of them) which I feel is what they should excel at, personally.

Author:	grep [ Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
The question is whether or not stance is meant to be a "paper rock scissors" mechanic with swashbucklers having Spock and Shotgun into the bargain, or if it is meant to be a more active skill than that. From there, the mechanic can be balanced to promote the desired experiences and behaviors. Right now it looks like most arguments are suggesting that stance is supposed to work how it always has, and we do not have confirmation that this postulate holds true in the mind of the designer.

Author:	Vinnen [ Sat Nov 01, 2014 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
woahboy wrote: Swashbuckler is really only viable with a hammer skill to buff accuracy for more parrying and a hammer spell to prevent prone so they can actually use their stances. Going from Hammer to not hammer on my last swashie was a boggling difference. I went from competitive to 'I might as well stand in the back row and heckle while playing general'. Heckle is amazeballs, but it makes swashie unable to compete vs multiple melee opponents (because you need to land it on all of them) which I feel is what they should excel at, personally. I don't know, I liked swashie in the fist, I just stink at playing.

Author:	Edoras [ Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
Well, out of the people who voted, the playerbase seems to be speaking pretty loudly on this. Would you be willing to revert the prone removing stances change in a future update, Dulrik?

Author:	ninja_ardith [ Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should going prone remove stances?
Sadr wrote: ninja_ardith wrote: There's a huge change in playstyle for a mercenary going to aggressive or defensive stance. This affects all warriors and favors the approach of only going for massive damage output. Characters are not forced from aggressive to defensive, nor defensive to aggressive. It's going from defensive/aggressive to neutral, which is not as nearly so drastic a change as going from hedgehog to neutral. Playstyle for people going defensive or aggressive is as much in equipment and specialization as it is the stance. Stance is a nominal improvement compared to equipment choices - so no, this does not favor or punish any specific build. It nerfs them both equally, but absolutely minimally compared to what swashbucklers get taken for. Yes, this is a mild issue for all warriors, but let's be real: swashbucklers don't get specialization or equipment change options in that way. Their stances were designed to balance them. Stance differences between aggressive/defensive and neutral for mercs/barbs are completely secondary (and minor) compared to equipment and specialization choice - which they have the freedom to make beyond what a swashbuckler can. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/