Glad you have me ignored Ceres, that way i can post about how much of a bad fighter, RPer and general player you are and I'll get no reply back from you.

who else doesn't like Ceres?

*ignore ceres*

Anyway, I kinda have to agree with the argument that says writhing/tumbling/etc of the small sizes makes up for the pathetic con and strength they have to suffer. I'd hate to see their advantages taken away just because larger races can get perma-webbed or whatever. I'd much rather see some other balance, if a change is actually needed, that allows differences to maintain but also a sense of fairness.

Well at the moment small size is way better than bigger size, and being perma-hindered is a big thing.

Don't take away their advantage, but moreso give us a good amount of stun reduction to make up for the webbing penalty. At the moment most races are balanced on int and con and speed, but size is still an issue.

I:

Strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree.

Ceres your opinion is invalid sorry, please come again. You have no idea about game balance and only want to make yourself stronger with everyone weaker so you can "pwn" them easier

I strongly reccomend the Ignore User function to anyone aged 12 or over.

(Sorry, Murphy!)

Stun resist would be a good option for balancing out the sizes.

wouldn't mind stun resistances for the larger races myself. The poison thing makes sense, and you're right generally speaking about metabolism Elryn, though there are exceptions. I'm not really for that though because it wouldn't be good for balance, and would just make warriors have an even harder time of things if other stuff wasn't looked at.

once I found out that the stun wasn't in the favor of the large races, I thought to myself, good, our advantage is to have it fail when friends summon us from bad situations (being that with the issue with tackle, that can't really even be considered yet).

Yeah, I don't mind stun resistance either, but why would delaying affliction effects for large races give warriors a hard time?

I don't see the logic in delaying afflictions personally, but meh, look where logic has got me so far?

actually, I mistook what you'd suggested, I thought you meant they might be slightly more resistant to poisons because of their size, I was imagining how fun it wouldn't be to fight all the aforementioned large guardians with even a little bit more poison resistance, heh. Not to mention warriors really don't need more defense against it.

Having the poisons slightly delayed, though, seems like a worse situation. Getting hit, then starting the counterattack and finding out "oh, this just in, you're paralyzed and stupid from that flurry back there" doesn't sound like it'd be too helpful. Poisons working any time after the strikes associated with them sounds like a bad idea, worse for afflictions in general. If it worked for more general afflictions, and I imagine your suggestion is only for those that might need to be metabolised or fight your metabolism (and thus not include, say, web), people would start stacking things that the writhing time didn't allow before. A shadowlord putting delayed mantakaya with web, for example.

Size is fine. Knights already have high damage (strength) and high tankiness (constitution), they need to have some disadvantage (in this case, writhe time from size). The rest of us have high damage (intelligence) and low tankiness (constitution).

Size isn't fine when you can get small knights, and not all knights have tankiness.

The insane writhe time is rediculous without a bonus of a stun reducstion.

In addition to faster writhe/tumble, small size also makes you harder to hit by warrior's attacks. As for affecting stuns, I have tested with 15 and 12 size after diminished and I failed to notice any difference. So having small size is definitely an advantage. In fact, I often get enlarged during combat as hinderance. And anything larger than size 15 wont have enough time to use tumble to escape Souless, or can be easilyweb/hangman locked.

It is unfair to say large races have higher str and con etc so they deserve the disadvantage. Small races usually have faster eq/balance, high int/dex, sip bonus etc to counter the low con.

Good idea..no clue why I've not done that already.

*clicks ignore user on Ceres*

But the knights that are big are the knights that have tankiness...

...so...

what were you saying again?

He's saying...

Small knights get:
useful (and sometimes downright scary) writhe
see above for tumble
more difficulty to hit them
more opportunity for poison if they're faster (as smaller races tend to be)
more wounds from dex and speed (as they also tend toward good dex and balance)

Big knights get:

Tankiness

and...

Tankiness.

Which is great and all, but it can be unimportant in many situations, such as if your enemy is locking you up and rubbing you with soulless, or cutting your head off with high precision, dex, and quick/heavy wounding, while healing against your slow strikes with a sip bonus. Tankiness is certainly nice to have, but guardians don't tend to kill their enemies with the fury of cosmicfire and even with swords you don't need to do amazing total damage, necessarily, to kill your opponent.

As I said, strength knights need SOME disadvantage. And tankiness will serve you quite well against mages and other knights, it's just guardians you'll run into trouble against.

Oh, and you forgot to list your biggest advantage... you know... massive damage?

I find it utterly wrong that Narsrim can enlarge me once, then lash lock me indefinately. It's worse than even shieldstun.

As far as "some" disadvantage, he's not arguing that big knights don't have "some" disadvantage or that they shouldn't. I listed several. There's plenty to choose from if you're looking for "some" disadvantage for the big knights.

I didn't mention damage because, though the large knight players are the notorious heavy hitters, that's not because there aren't huge advantages to being small, the faeling knights are a relatively new thing, remember?

Small knights do comparable (or slightly better last I'd seen) damage over time, get better than double the poisoning opportunity, and get better wounding per strike (ie, a whole lot more wounding over time). So no, I didn't bring damage into it.