I guess the point is that normal faelings are better as warriors than Tae'dae and Igasho. And thats kind of depressing.

Aye, I don't think that makes much sense at all. A 6-inch person wielding needles may be phenomenally quick, but no matter how painful and annoying he may be, he's unlikely to kill someone with them for a long, long time.

I watched you and Murphy fighting for quite a while and kept discerning and assaying to watch how stances and parry affected the blows. I found that in a way more useful for gauging the results than being in a fight myself, partially because I could spare the equilibrium for all those assays (and discern doesn't cost equilibrium), and compare them to the blows and their results in the log.

It seemed plain to me that stances had about the effect I expected them to have based on previous experience, but that there was an awful lot of dodging that wasn't explained by stances. Parrying also didn't seem much changed.

well on the test server i had a much easier time as a normal faeling than an aslaran ur'guard... Though, due to magnagoran RP, im not inclined to be one, i dont know I never considered faelings to be a bad race for a warrior after they got that lvl3 bonus. :shrug:

They would have been okay but a damage knight would still kick their ass if it was just damage being looked at. DPS can be equal but that doesnt mean that the two have the same real damage output. Thats because the hits arent consistant and it possible to defend against hits. Thus having to do 4 instead of 2 hits to reach 2k damage over the same length of time is actually a minus. Doing 2 swings all you have to do is find an unparried part connect and there you go 2k, but with 4 swings youll swing twice deal 1k then youll have to think where to swing again considering they could have moved parry and stance within that time.

except you'll less frequently miss a bigger slowpoke than you will the 17 dex faeling, and the faeling then gets to poison you a lot more. also, the faeling will get much faster (and plenty accurate) crushes/lunges, and so on.

I was talking about then Maelon, so size had nothing to do with dodging.

Also i said if it was just damage being looked at. The thing is with poisons is you cant exactly rely on them given theres a 50/50 chance of them going off then a 33% chance of shrugging if trans resilience, so it comes out to 1 out of 4. Considering most cure balances are 2 seconds, and 4 swings is at least 8 seconds if you get all 4 in, it becomes insignificant. Since they couldnt get the wounds either the damage knight would still out perform them. The old damage knights were actually the only ones capable of wounding people since the one on the receiving end couldnt apply health due to the damage received. So the faelings would have been okay, maybe a bit better than Aslaran, but they wouldnt have exceled so much given what was said and would have very little means of killing someone experienced. They werent as bad as some people were putting the out to be though.

One advantage of the large and slow damage is more chance of a death blow. For example, if I do 1200 damage every 6 seconds and you do 600 damage every 3 seconds, once I get you to 1200 and swing you are dead, whereas you would have to wait another 3 seconds to get the remaining 600 knocked off, during which time I would have sipped health and eaten sparkleberry.

That sounds good in theory, but in practice damage over time wins out, unless the burst damage is significantly higher than a person can heal within those six seconds. Thats also ignoring additional factors like hinderance, evasion, rebounding, shielding, parrying, and dodging.

One thing that bugs me about this entire thing, is while I know the system is quite a bit different here... for the longest time and still today, in my belief, Rajamalan Knights in aetolian are far better and more effective than a large tanky knight. If I'm wrong, I don't see how. The majority of the more top knights I've ever met were rajamalan. However, that was never seen as a major racial imbalance. It just happens that some things are better than other things. Certain races aren't good at anything and are never used.

If you honestly play for RP purposes, I know a Mhun Monk who is happy as a monk. Mhun monks aren't good... they are horrible, I would rather be a high intel class as a monk for atleast I could kaichoke someone and do damage. Regardless, he chose his class and race as roles and he plays them out. He doesn't beg for upgrades or downgrades, he lives life.

So your point is that Faelings should be best here?

Sidenote, I was a Rajamalan Knight but that doesnt mean that I would like speed to dominate here as it did elsewhere. Also Rajamalan fit the archetype of a warrior RP wise, until the recent balance upgrade of the Faelings, they were never considered warriors gameplay wise, and definately not RP wise.

Further note, Rajamalas were nerfed to hell on Achaea because they were thought to be too good.

Still, did people in the other IRE games expect everything to be exactly balanced for ever class? Every race to be perfectly fit for every job?

But Tehn, there are some races that are useless here for ANY guild, like Krokani, Trill, and Furrikin.

I dont think anyone has asked for that. But races made to be warriors, should be good warriors, races made to be mages, should be good mages, and races made to be guardians, should be good guardians. And races made to be able to assume any role shouldnt excel far past the races that were made to specialize.

Ok daevos, and you dictate what was intended for what? That's right? Also, you guys need to consider that all this was brought to the front because of a new racial specialization being introduced. If those races that are sub par receive buffs, then specializations, they could just as well have the same problem. That has to be considered. A specialized race is SUPPOSED to be better than a non, right?

Why cant a faeling be a warrior??? Especially since shadowcaster faeling and plain faeling druids and wiccans are subpar to every specialization mage and mugwumps.

The only faelings that should be warriors are the shadowlords.

However, they should be worse warriors than strength warriors? Right Daevos? All your posts seem to make me think so...

They should not be vastly superior to all other warriors, and they were. I played as one on the test server with my current artifacts, and I'll tell you now, I obliterated almost everyone I fought much easier than I do as a Viscanti. Even had had almost exactly the same health as my Viscanti, and a sip bonus instead of a penalty. With steal and nightkiss, my burst damage was damn near my burst damage as a Viscanti but much much faster.

Edit: Also my point was that normal(ie not specialized) were better warriors than Igasho and Taedae, and that shouldnt be the case.

Faeling can make a damn good druid, if you take runes. And you guys get +1 int/con, so you're even better, if not by all that much.

While decieving... +1 con isnt that great especially when you are adding that to 8 con