I will admit error in that assessment, I just assumed that it was the same as disembowel since I have no practical experience using it. Although that does not change the fact that the affliction itself is not currently worthy of being a critical wound, I would even say it's not even worthy of being light wound, crotamine is better.


I think one question has to be answered before this argument can ever be resolved is what should warrior balance should be based on? From almost every one of your posts, it seems that you are of the opinion that you should be the standard. Because on one hand you state that there is no problem with something, because you don't personally have issue with it. Then on the other you display two weapons that each have approximately 4700 credits on them. Now that may be an insignificant amount to you, but it is extremely doubtful that anyone else shares that view.

Also I wonder have you actually ever fought as a warrior without artifacts on your weapons? Have you ever evaluated warrior balance without extraordinary augmentations?

I will answer your last question, yes I have. I have a katana without artifacts on it. Melanchthon has made a nice one for me. It is very fast, and with venoms it hinders healing quite well. It does take longer to gain wound levels on people, but shouldn't that be expected?

Next, I have stated over and over again that balance has to consider both ends of the spectrum. I will not support suggestions that will overpower those on the upper end. I do support ideas that will not overpower the upper end, but give the entire spectrum more options and abilities to work with. I've made similar statements multiple times, but each time they seem to be ignored. Others have made suggestions that are pretty darn good, and will help the average warrior. Those same suggestions will not in turn make it so that people with artifact weapons will find it significantly easier to run through their opponents.

Last, I have put up there the total information concerning the weapons I possess. Why have you and Ixion not placed yours up there yet? If you are going to insinuate that my weapons are superior to what either of you possess, then show and prove by displaying them for all to see.

I assume you get double artifacts only because it's a two-handed weapon, verses one-handed?

Doesn't that work out oddly in calculations though? Wouldn't two-handers end up having a slightly higher maximum potential then double wielders with arti's on both sides? Unless two-handed runes are only half as effective and half as expensive, so you need two, but that still doesn't make any sense...

Well, then obviously I must have been absent when you were supporting these numerous ideas. How about this though, why don't you outline every suggestion that is damn good for the warrior archetype and give a short explanation about why it is. Then do likewise for any recent suggestions that would overpower artifacted warriors, and explain why as well. It's just that this argument is fast becoming pointless, despite the fact that the vague assertions and poorly done personal jabs have been amusing, when it could be constructive.

On the weapon stats issue, there are two reasons that I have posted mine. First of all, I just have no desire to make this a purely personal argument, as you seem to be entirely too intent on doing. Secondly.........I am definitely not interested in equipment measuring contests, but to each his own eh.

Two runes on a Two-Handed weapon are equal to one on each one-handed weapon (Since one-handed weapons are wielded in pairs). The over all bonus is the same for the artifacts. (It is a bit different for dwarven runes and weapon auras though)



Of course you are absent. You have not been an envoy for a good while. I suggest you talk to others who are envoys to find out what is going on.

Evidently you did not read my reasoning for asking you to post yours. You brought it up first. You are the one that insinuated that my weapons are superior to what you possess. So I am asking you to prove what you have been trying to imply. You and Ixion should prove it, or remain quiet about it. Turning around now with the excuse that you have just given does not cut it, since you were one of the ones who brought up the subject of my weapons in the first place.

At no point did I claim that your weapons were superior to mine, because I had no wish to get into a egotistical battle about who is better than who. My point was that your perspective was colored by the fact that you were heavily artifacted in a way that few if any warriors can match.

I'm still privy to a lot of what goes on with the envoys as well. But that's beside the point, answer the question. Debate the issues, rather than solely focusing on attacking others and proclaiming that you are god.

My point is that you complain about things that are not really problems. Your solutions to some things that are actually problems would overpower those who are already doing quite well with artifacts. Been my same line of reasoning from the get go. Each time you choose to ignore it, because that line of reasoning is not what you desire to hear. It hinders your goals, and I do believe that bothers you.

Also, you just made a statement in the last post about you not seeing me support ideas that will help the archetype. I point out that you do not see it, because you are not an envoy. You then come back with the response that you are privy with what is going on. If that is the case, why tell the lie in the previous post you made? Are you being lied to, because if you are truly privy to what is going on in the Envoys you would know that just until recently one person could veto an idea and stop it cold. That has been changed, but over my time as an envoy I have not vetoed anything. I have given my concerns and we all discuss it back and forth. If the majority disagrees with me, then I have gone along with the majority decision. So I suggest you get a new source, if that source is feeding you false information.

It sounds like Daevos is arguing that non-arti'ed warriors aren't powerful enough, and Geb is arguing that arti'ed warriors are already to powerful.

The way I see it they could both be true, which would make you both correct. The obvious solution to both of those arguments that I see would piss a lot of people off though, so I'll keep my mouth shut, and let people speculate.

Why don't you give some examples then?

Guess the issue is that the ideas you claim to support have never been defined, nebulous concepts and vague assertions have been all that you've presented. Although, it is a fact that I am not a envoy, while I still have some sources, I am not particularly favored like some. I do not have all the access that an envoy would have without actually being the envoy of my guild. All I have to go on is what I see and hear, from envoys, and from the forums.

For example, I've seen your responses to issues raised about warriors, like our debate way back about accuracy rates. When you claimed fervently that it was only the warriors ability to miss attacks that balanced the archetype, and yet refused to respond to one question poised to you about that opinion. Do you think someone would think it fair, if they were killed by a overpowered ability, but was told that it was balanced because it had a chance to fail. I've actually raised that question numerous times to you in different forms, and yet still you've run from it. Also I've seen your opinion about how allheale cured regen cured afflictions here, while similar curing methods do not work on restoration cures elsewhere.

Also you keep stressing this point about balance including artifacts in the equation. That never should core issues be addressed if there is a chance that a member of the class who has artifacts will be overpowered as a result. But my opinion differs, in that it is my belief that since there is such a disparity between warriors that don't have artifacts and those that do, the artifacts themselves should be reconsidered. Then the archetypes balanced from that point on, bringing the archetype closer to a medium. Also that chance should not play such a significant role in the combat of any class.

I will go with your last paragraph first. I do agree that artifacts give warriors a more significant boost compared to their non-artifact having warrior brethren. So their benefits (including the weapons that were god adjusted after the change in elemental runes) should be reduced. Right now, some warriors are able to produce damage that is more than 60% of a robe wearer's health in one combo. I have personally told some mages that I have done that to, that yes it is insane. Then again, I've been saying that same thing since the beginning. Same with the wounds some of us artifact warriors are able to acquire. People need to either be able to heal more wounds per application of health, or a lower wounding cap should be established.

Ok, now on to the first paragraph. I supported the bleeding increase on amputate and the chance to fall when the person leaves the room if a leg is removed. I supported the suggestions that are being sent up the pipeline right now. There is one I did not agree with, but it was changed back into a form that I can agree with (You should ask Ethelon to give you a list of what has been suggested). I have suggested many times on the forums for a 75% affliction rate for Two-Handers (do a search, should be easy to find). I also support the change to the slit-throat cure, since a 75% poison affliction rate would make slit-locks too easy to acquire for Two-Handers. Oh, and I've also suggested that two chest afflictions that required a prerequisite affliction, should be possible with just a change of the affliction from being given at heavy to critical wounds. I also supported the suggestion that power attacks that miss, should not expend any power (Though I do feel they should be able to miss).

You made the statement that I never support my reasons for why I feel a suggestion is overpowered, but what I have noticed is that you never accept the reasons I give. Like the example you used above about giving warriors 100% accuracy against other players except when hitting a stance. I told you that the change would over power those who are on the upper ends of damage and wounding ability. It would make it so that light targets would have an even harder time surviving those who can generate damage that is +60% of their health. It would make it a lot easier for those who can acquire 2500+ wounds in one combo acquire severe wound afflictions on a person that may remove limbs, pin a leg, decapitate a body. I also stated that since we raze extremely quickly, Two-Handers can even ignore shields and rebounding with Cleave, regain balance twice as fast when we do miss, and can bypass many defense with an expenditure of power (which also has the side effect of greatly increasing the wounds given by the attack), a chance to miss is needed to balance out what can be done to those who lack heavy armour.

Ok, now what I find funny is that you are trying to make it seem like I support overpowered abilities, and you are only trying to balance everyone. Though, I do not ever remember you making one suggestion that reduces the power of an ability you possess. I do not ever remember you coming forward on your own and saying, “You know what? This ability I have is overpowered”. So I suggest you first try to bring the outliners closer to the norm, before you try to give out abilities that will make the outliners absolutely insanely powerful. People already complain about how hard the outliners hit, how many wounds we do, so on and so forth. Therefore, I return to my reoccurring point that balance has to consider the extremes, or something that boosts one group may absolutely overpower those on the extreme upper end of said group.

So now I put the ball back into your court. What suggestions can you come up with to remove the overpowered nature of some warriors compared to others? Please consider all abilities like artifacts, blessings, favours, and even Titan status. If you truly feel you want to bring us outliners closer to the warrior norm, then help come up with suggestions that will do just that, before you push forward suggestions that will overpower us compared to the rest of the warrior population in the present state of things.

See, I don't think that warriors should be balanced based on artifacts. Especially when the basis seems to focus only on artifacts that benefits the archetype, without any consideration to the ones that affect us negatively or the races that are specifically geared towards facing us. There are actually so many factors that play into warrior balance, that the water is muddy. You have demesne effects that passively heal both wounds and health damage, skills that completely heal all wounds, archetypes that can passively hinder, skillsets geared towards avoidance, skills that increase the ability to heal wounds, inaccuracy, etc. So not attempting to include all these factors in an evaluation would probably to lead to one that is flawed. I can only assume that you ran into such a problem here, because increasing the amount of wounds that health heals, or further tampering with weapon stats, would hurt warriors as a whole, rather than just the extremes.

Well, it seems that we can agree on the amputate changes and the suggestion about poison affliction rate. But I take issue with the slitthroat change; I feel that it does not address the issue at all. Because the change as I see it is that it will be a delayed smoking cure rather than a mending one, but it seems that the chansu venom was forgotten about. That will lead to issues down the road if the change is accepted in its current form. I preferred instead to address the issue differently, by changing the whole alignment of curing hindering afflictions. It was detailed in the fourth envoy report of the Ur'guard, a change to calamus so that it would be a smoke cure and a change to anorexia so it would be a salve cure. Similar to how other IRE games handle it, but sometimes being unique just isn't better. Also I have doubts that you actually tested CollapseLungs before placing your suggestion. If you had, you would have known that there are issues with the affliction, and it is unworthy of being a critical wound. It has been bugged but envoys should address such problems as well eh. Obviously I don't agree with warrior power skills missing either. But I will address our accuracy as a whole later.

Accept is synonymous with agree in my opinion, so yes I obviously didn't accept your reasons, because I think they are flawed and am willing to debate them. Although it does amuse me still that you continue to run with all due haste from my question. I thought it was a pretty simple one as well, but I'll go into detail this time. Warrior accuracy is reported to be roughly in the 90 percentage range. Now what makes an ability more overpowered at 100 percent than it would be at 90? Will the victims of the success of the ability's use care if they were told that there was a 10% chance that they wouldn't have suffered? I think not, and that was demonstrated in the past in the numerous forums posts about Murphy for example. Often people would complain about the fact that he was able to bashbrains in a six hit combo, and his defense about it not being insured was definitely ridiculed. To me, the fact that there is so much chance involved in warrior combat is just another thing that blackens the picture, and lessens the ability to analyze the archetype adequately. Personally I would have no issue if warrior damage and wounding extremes were found to be excessive and thusly addressed, but only if the accuracy issue was addressed first.

Well, if you want my credentials, you can have them. I was involved in every seasonal Ur’guard envoy report before the switch to the wiki format. I worked with Valek in the early days to test warrior damage and wounding capabilities extensively, and make suggestions that would address problems both that benefited us and that negatively affected us. I was actually the first warrior to discover the use of shieldstun in combination with dual blades, and supported Valek’s idea to lessen the stun on the ability so that it would not be overpowered. I also supported his concerns about numbing which initially didn’t require power and could be use indefinitely to tank the pure damage groups, with the higher range of health that warriors have. When Murphy was envoy, I was the one who convinced him that there were issues with elemental runes, and that we should suggest that the percentage of modification be reduced.

As an envoy myself, I pushed for the removal of thunderclap as an ability accessible to both Titans and Demigods. As well as the lessening of the influence of champion artifacts in combat, with a specific focus on the Warrior artifacts in particular. I also tried to address issues with my own class such as the ease of behead and slitlock. I wanted behead to be placed in a separate category from other critical wounds, because it was the only lethal wound and because I wanted the criteria to not be based solely on chance as it is. Another solution was chosen to address that issue, but that’s just how things roll sometimes. I actually already mentioned my suggestion for slitlock, but I’ll reiterate. I want to change the actually dynamics that allowed slitlock to exist, by changing the cures for calamus and anorexia. It was not accepted, but I still think it was the best solution. Also I was one of the envoys that suggestions lunge/assault/etc be blocked by shield and prismatic which was a large downgrade to the warrior archetype. So while I can not say that my time as envoy was unblemished(I made some suggestions that were actually not well-thought), I’ve always been willing to defend any suggestion I make, and admit error if I can not logically do so. Guess that’s one of the benefits of never allowing my ego to become too involved.

They really still need to.

For the record, Nico tested the champion helm about 2 weeks ago and it was still giving a 33% increase to wounding. As per Estarra/Admin (it was either Estarra, Roark, or Lisaera... but I'm thinking it was Estarra) at the first envoy summit, it was never supposed to give that much (I forget exactly, but I'm thinking 10-15%).

Thus, it is a bug.

======

As for champion artifacts, my staff should have another feature. I mean, I get +20% damage, which while nice, does not compare to:

passive entities that: knock off balance, aeon, blackout, paralyse, drain health/mana, etc.

helms that: give you a 75% poison afflicting rate, +33% wounds, +damage, +damn good head protection

versus my staff: +20% damage, I can meld 2x faster (not flood, meld)



Funny guy. I could be wrong, but weren't you fired as an envoy for going off like Amaru?

Or we could just do away with most of the perks of the champion arties instead of making them all rediculous. Champions should be good before the arties, not because of them. They just provide too much of an overpowering influence on combat.

If you can find a log of that show me please, I am not doing 48% wounding (helm and arti rune) So it may be some type of Celestain helm thing or something is amiss. If you have time some point we can test it too.. I suck at math so you or Forren can do the calculations



Estarra already said they stay for now Forren, no since and kicking the dead dog any more, yes I agree they all should be nerfed, especially pets and helms... but for now they stay

What champion is bad before the artie, but good with it? I hear this complaint a lot, but I've never actually seen a solid example to back this up.

If someone is good without the champion bonuses, wouldn't they make them just a bit too powerful? It's like saying infinity plus one is more than infinity... or something.

Why should it make you better then?

The point of the champion artifact is to reward a champion. If someone is good with the artifact, they are good without the artifact. I personally do not feel the artifacts make/break anyone nor do they push anyone over the limit.

Why? The champion pets are easily countered. I utterly loathe the handmaiden and grim horror as blackout/soulless is tedious and annoying. 1-on-1 this isn't much of a problem, however, because the handmaiden and grim horror are easy to kill. In fact, you can get criticals on all champion pets. I can usually take it out (or in the arena, get it shielding so its half as fast) before someone can charge soulless.

There is no real need to counter the champion staff/cudgel. If 20% extra damage per staff is going to kill you, you likely were going to die anyways.

The champion helm is imo the best of the three. I think it does make some people (correction: Murphy) too powerful in terms of wounding. I don't mind the increased venom rate or the increased damage - but as I said, my opinion of the wounding being too much stems from when it added +33% wounding. If it no longer does this then it shouldn't be too much of an issue.





If there were no other artifacts, this would be valid; however, that isn't the case. My cubix, for example, makes me better at bashing, raiding, and all around doing whatever I want to do more so than any champion artifact. It has insane combat potential (now you see me, now you don't), etc. etc. etc.

My cubix makes me significantly better. Why, therefore, shouldn't champions receive something that makes them better? I don't feel the champion artifacts make anyone significantly better (using Patchou as an example, I was able to slay anyone without Patchou than I could with Patchou - Patchou just made things a wee bit easier from time-to-time).

According to tests that I did recently with Flacarealah, the champion helm does still give a +33% wounding bonus. I don't have the specific numbers however, you might want to try asking her.