Shattered Kingdoms

Where Roleplay and Tactics Collide
VOTE NOW!
It is currently Mon Nov 25, 2024 3:13 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Should going prone set your stance to neutral?
Poll ended at Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:48 am
Yes 17%  17%  [ 5 ]
No 83%  83%  [ 24 ]
Total votes : 29
Author Message
 Post subject: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:48 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 8:43 am
Posts: 5614
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
SK Character: Pilnor, Surrit, Berr, Rall
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?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:11 am 
Offline
Immortal (Inactive)

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:11 am
Posts: 179
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:04 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:21 pm
Posts: 906
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:12 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:21 pm
Posts: 4452
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:16 am 
Offline
Immortal (Inactive)

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:11 am
Posts: 179
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:23 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:53 pm
Posts: 503
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:35 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:50 pm
Posts: 5522
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2014 1:44 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:07 pm
Posts: 362
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:35 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 8:43 am
Posts: 5614
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
SK Character: Pilnor, Surrit, Berr, Rall
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?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should going prone remove stances?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:54 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:21 pm
Posts: 4452
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group