Ok first things first this is not a rant. Keep your personal OMFG overpowered crap out of here.

After spending the last few days doing heavy work on systems and combat, and doing testing percentages and whatnot i've been thinking.

Who as a knight (and as a non-knight but with an informed opinion) is happy and content to play the luck game?

From memory here is a list is everything that is random and their approximate numbers is applicable. This is to do with knights.

Forging - NA
Venom rate - (50% - 75% for champions)
Smite down/hack down hitting 1/2 limbers (50%)
Other swing afflictions hitting the intended limb (call it 33%)
Deepwound Afflictions going on (%'s based on wound level and dexterity)
Parry - % Based on combat
Stance- % Based on combat and what stance you're using
Dodging in general - Dex
Missing in general - 90% rate at trans unless you're specialised.

And knight related offence.

Crucify - 50% chance for cross to break limbs or do bleeding on the tick
Contagion - 20% chance of a certain affliction coming off.
Darkmoon - x% chance to hit with certain affliction.
Heretic - x% chance to hit for a certain mental affliction.


Pen and paper muds generally have chance built it, other games do as well however they aren't so heavily based. Every World of Warcraft you can get bashing crits on other players, making classes like shamans and rogues either godly or crap.

I am aware the idea is you stack up your chance to get these as high as you can depending on what you want but it's still very iffy.

I'm not having a bitch here but what do you guys think? I personally think with all the luck based things going on (like my 10% chance of getting a 3 combo instakill on Narsrim) and hitting a bad string of luck or a good string of luck takes away a lot of the skill from being a warrior, and also a lot of the planning. The best you can do is set up some deepwounds, and swing away hoping you'll get a spot of good luck and all your intended afflictions go off.

Finally based on luck, i think it's very difficult to balance warrior combat because we have the potential to be either incredibly godly, or just swing weapons around missing everything in sight and getting nowhere, and there is room to defend the fact that I can score 4 salve afflictions in a combo (2 regen on breakleg and another 2 salve ones) or perhaps doing stun stupidity fractureskull slickness in a crush combo too because on the flip side, i can do no afflictions whatsoever.

Opinions from educated people only and leave the personal attacks off.

I know right now with virtually no combat, and just, my main defs and hindering and whatnot, and the nifty Dracnari HP, at lv 53, alot of knight's murder me easily... BUT, if I keep them hindered well enough (AKA do my job) it is not so bad, granted if I get hit once I can not usually recoup health but that is not a game thing that is a mimi thing.

Point being, I have faced warriors who just could not hit me, not cause I was dodging or stancing or parrying or had a boss towershield of doom or arties or massive fae-dodge or was whoring aeon like a mugwump on drugs...they just...kept...misssing....over...and over...and with an occasional hangedman with aeon it was just...sad

Not sure if I count as "educated" enough to post here Murph but, having fought you maybe 3 times, and say Daevos and a few lower warriors, there is a HUGE discrepency, BUT, one that same coin, having fought the same warrior x times in the arena, I have seen them come at me like a bat out of hell and cut me up in less than 13 seconds easily... and then come at me and just miss completly, not like one miss, but enough misses to make my hindering them near 100% I had one spar where I got hit one time, granted it killed me, but...you see

I think there needs to be a certain level of randomness, but I suppose I am for tweaking the numbers just for fun.
love-mimi

If you were less random, you'd need changed. If you only had to get critical head wounds to be assured a bashbrains, in the most extreme case, it would be absolutely insane. A nice middle ground wouldn't hurt though, I'd think.

Let us get the flaming over with.



There is an alternative. Let us assume that a target not actively stancing/parrying/shielding/dodging/ect. is basically a stationary target. There is no reason a top might warrior should miss them more than %1 of the time. If an endurance drain was factored into some of those protections, a warrior would still be accomplishing something by attacking, even if they are not racking up wounds and damage.

ZOMG NERF ALL THE WARRIORS!!!

Murphy, if you want less luck in your fighting, choose the Krokani race... Just try it! Thats why those races have specializations, it reduces the luck factor.

I think the idea he is presenting is (one that Gwylifar mentioned oh-so-long-ago) that when people choose the "Warrior" archetype, they expect to find more of a tactical game rather than "Ooh, i hope bashbrains hits!" style of fight.

I agree.

But it is tactical, if you hit random limbs in a random order your not going to beat the person your hitting.

I use to have my attack macro be jab X swing X.. it never killed anyone.

I have a theory about the percentages which helps level the playing field but I've got to run.

No it doesn't.

I think it would be great if warriors got a less luck-based offense. HOWEVER, if this became the case, your wound afflictions would require major nerfage, as the luck basis is a large balancing factor for them. As it stands, warriors would be simply ridiculous if they could choose 100% of the time which afflictions they wanted to use.

aye, I think that're pretty much what we're asking for...

I doubt anyone will mind if our wounding and ailments are toned down a bit if they're in turn more reliable.

Time for a Richter real-world analysis:

If you hit someone with a mace, are you always going to hit them exactly as hard? What if they're dodging a bit, you might nick them. Or if you aim really well, and you're good, you might hit them square on, and do much more damage (you know, like, killing someone in a three hit combo ). The luck factor, as it is dubbed, is very much needed. If we hit exactly the same, every time, based on our skill level and any other factors, that would get boring, and we would indeed need nerfage.

Then yes, give us some nerfage. I'm not silly I quite agree that if I could rely on my offence (sure leave the luck in stancing and dodging that's always been fine IMO) 100% then it'd need a nerf.

I have always said if i could have some reliablility but be underpowered as a physical class then bring it on, it would require one to possess more skill and less reliance on luck, especially at the top tiers of fighting.

It would be a lot easier to balance without so much of that luck factor in there because you know what someone is capable off even 90% of the time and thusly you can balance it.

how come nobody plays dwarves?

if axelord got the upgrades i wanted, I would be a dwarf axelord.

The balance penalty, low strength and eq penalty just don't make for a very nice warrior class. give em 1 point of str and remove balance penalties and make axelord a nice class and i'll join.

I would play a dwarf if dwarf mages were practical.

Because we can't be whorish as dwarves.

Dwarves are still cool.

Once upon a time, there was this dwarven Moondancer named Tuek who was so whorishly tanky that the gods upgraded all the other races around them...and left dwarves to languish. Unfortunately, this left the main problem behind: the Moondancer guild really just needs to be disbanded and replaced with Ialie's rainbowmancers.

Bah, Tuek was annoying.