Yeah, I see where you come from, though I think cubix is more of a distraction/escaping tool than an actual combat tool. And looking at the actual combat arties, I do think champion artifacts are far better, or at least, a nearly comparable level of effectiveness can only be achieved with huge credit investments.
I agree with you though, that Magi/druid artifacts are the worst, so to say. The only benefit they give can be achieved with a 1800 credit rune as well, the specific advantage they give (the faster melding) is not compareable to the higher poison rate the warrior arties give. So, following that line, I'd say the champartie usefulness is guardian (since those peteffects can't be achieved by anything bought), followed by warriors (which can be bought, but only for insane costs) and then mage/druids, which are just one artifact, basically.
Now, the problem is that the champion artifacts STACK with the other artifacts.
A solution might be that the arties don't stack, eg, the damage Mage-staff gives doesn't stack with the 20% magic rune. Again, the guardians would be hard to balance there, since they give effects achieveable by nothing else. A solution for this might be to remove the special pets and give guardians a new artifact, like a shield, maybe, as good or a bit better than the artifact shield, and with a special skill, like parrying a % more or something.

You have a bit of revisionist history going on here...

On thunderclap, every envoy agreed that it needed to be removed. Many envoys were very vocal about it and placing it in their reports multiple times. Also, though you agreed that it was overpowered, you sure did not restrain yourself from using it in a Thunderclap+Cleave combo on people. You even tried to distract a complaint about your use of the combo by bringing up some other cheap moves others do, instead of just admitting the combo was overpowered and refraining from using it.

Next let's talk about your role in changing elemental runes. Terenas suggested:





Your reply to that was:


Bah used in that context does not give me any indication that you agreed with Terenas.

On month later with the winds of change foretelling that elemental runes will be downgraded, you made this post:



So even later on, you put conditions on agreeing to a downgrade to elemental runes from a 50% conversion rate to a 33% one. So it was the weight of all of the envoys and the community over all that helped get that conversion change; you initiated nothing in that regard. Even then, you did not accept the need for the change on its own merits. By your own words, you only felt the runes should be downgraded if warrior afflictions are boosted.

Now on to your claim you were trying to address the issue everyone had with assault allowing easy beheads. When those easy beheads were possible, you used assault extensively to gain them. People complained about the problem, and many envoys agreed. You on the other hand tried to deflect the problem by conducting tests, but only on yourself and your buddies, trying to show that it was impossible to acquire a behead in two attacks. Though, those tests you conducted did not use assaults. You also went into an extensive discussion about how things should only be balanced at omni-trans (Remember that?).

I also remember the discussion about the ease at which Pureblades can get slit-locks on people. I pointed out that it was easier for a Two-Hander to gain a slit-lock on someone compared to a BM. I also supported my statement with the fact that you were using Senso pretty much exclusively during that time period assault was bypassing shields. Instead of admitting that what I stated was the truth (and I know from both ends that it is definitely true), you tried to make the claim that BM had an easier time acquiring it but they have better means of acquiring the kill. You also went on to say that Slit-locks were not a big deal, because of Green and Gedulah. Wait, let me just quote your own words:



Here is another statement given by you where you had a chance to accept that the problem needed to be fixed on its on merits, but instead only gave your support on the contingency that something be received in return.



These examples show that you did not initiate downgrades to abilities you possessed that were considered problematic. They show that you grudgingly added your support to what others were suggesting, but only if you were given something to compensate for your lose. There are more examples of such that can be searched out and/or recounted by people who were there.

Perhaps if you took the other path and made suggestions for upgrades with contingencies about factors that may overpower them are taken care of first? A good example was Ethelon’s Two-Hander affliction rate suggestion. He suggested the upgrade to a 75% poison affliction rate for Two-Handers be contingent on the previous downgrade suggestion for Slit-Throat. If he had just suggested the former without the latter, the former suggestion would have made Slit-locks even more overpowered than what the player base considers it to be now.

Edit: I forgot to add that my statement about you accepting what I said did not mean that you needed to agree with it. I was just pointing out that I have given my reason many times, but for some reason you comeback each time and say that I have given no reason. So I am saying you are not accepting the fact that I have given a reason for my opinions.

First of all, correct me if I'm wrong but do you really need to follow the playbook that closely. I know it's recommended that you focus only on attacks and ignore all arguments that you can't logically counter, but really you don't have to adhere to it that much.

Anyway, it seems that you have dug deep, but not without your own brand of revisionist history as well. I mean just look at this accusation you made about thunderclap+cleave or whatever. The first time I even heard about such a combo was when you tried to taunt me about needing it to beat you. Never once did I even actually use the ability at all in one on one battle. though. To be serious, why would I? It was a flawed combo, the balance lost from using thunderclap was significant, and cleave does not bypass parry or stances. It would have been simply idiotic to waste power on thunderclap in a duel. Also my issue with thunderclap itself only stemmed from the fact that it could be used in combination with other titans/demigods to instantly decimate groups of up to thirty people. Otherwise, I not only would have raised questions about thunderclap itself, but also the skills that share significant portions of its coding. Namely Maelstrom, Fury, Pollute, etc. which all have the added bonus of not only working through shields, but also completely destroy the defense as well, although there are slightly different requirements for utilization.

Also here is my envoy suggestion for it in the fourth Ur'guard report:



Well, the truth of the matter is that I’ve always been a fan of conditional arguments. If there are issues across the spectrum isn’t it better to address them all and brings things closer to a median, rather then address one and tilt things toward either extreme. The thing is that while there were numerous posts about the ridiculousness of elemental runes, there were few if any about the issues that effected warriors negatively. Back then:

• Lunge and Crush had a more substantial power cost and did not go through rebounding.
• Assay didn’t exist.
• LegTendon didn’t knock prone and was cured by an herb(while being defined only as a critical wound).
• Piercearm didn’t have a chance of disarming.
• SliceEar didn’t stun.
• PunctureLung did not cause significant endurance draining.
• PunctureChest had insignificant blackouts.
• Rend didn’t cause any wound damage.
• Haymaker couldn’t be targeted.
• Brokenjaw didn’t cause pain when drinking or chewing.
• Brokennose didn’t prevent sniffing or snorting spores.
• HeartPierce didn’t exist.
• Precision didn’t exist; instead Accuracy was the second stat of a weapon.
• Wound damage was static based solely on armour.

So yes, I thought that elemental runes shouldn’t have been looked at in isolation, it was an issue. But there were other issues as well that needed to be addressed.

I remember that test quite clearly actually, in a FFA I killed Munsia by beheading with two assaults to her head. Obviously, she then created a thread complaining about it, so I did two tests to see how possible it was to actually behead someone in two attacks. My test subjects were Ixion and Rakor. With Ixion, I had him removed his helm completely, and just assaulted until I beheaded without him healing anything, it took me five tries to be successful. With Rakor, I verified that he was inept in Resilience as Munsia was then gave him a chain coif to wear. It was slightly lower in cutting defense than Munsia’s robe but still comparative. I found that it was impossible to reach the critical state with two assaults even on a less protected head than Munsia had. I also did an additional test to see if there was any other possible cause, and found out that wound damage is not healed upon entry into the arena. Later, it was also discovered that Munsia actually forgot to raise her hood, thus her head was completely unprotected. Feel free to look at the post if you wish, and stop making clearly false statements.

http://forums.lusternia.com/index.php?show...=6398&st=80

On slitlock, yes at the time I did think it was easier for Blademasters to acquire it. Simply because my thinking back then was more linear, I looked at it solely from my own perspective as a warrior(ie lower wound damage). It was easier to me for a BM to acquire slitlock by damaging the head a small bit then focusing elsewhere to divert parry, before using haymaker to attack the head with senso. Four strikes meant that there were more chances that slitthroat as well as a senso would hit simultaneously. I also thought that it was one of the few tools that two handers had, so obviously I was of the opinion that the extreme should be lessened, but also that the other issues should be addressed. Just seems that you are grasping at straws now though, what significance did the ease of slitlock in BM vs PB hands matter to the argument? And why haven’t you defended any of your own assertions, or even attempting to respond to the logical questions poised to you regarding accuracy?

It is simple really; extremes are often highlighted, while small issues that add up to larger problems are often ignored. Thusly it is a wise tactic to use the extremes to bring light to the smaller issues. In short, as long as the whole picture is presented, what does it really matter which side is revealed first?

Oh, I do find amusing that you use the 75% affliction rate example again. It says to me that you did not actually read my earlier post, since you are presenting something as fact when it is actually in dispute. The suggested change to slitthroat is simply not well-thought, and I would love to see you prove me differently.

Sidenote - Even though I responded to most of your points, I think basing whole arguments around the past rather than the present is pretty silly. Nothing is static.

I remember that Munsia thing, and also a wargames where I wasn't wearing armour-- talk about getting beatup .. yeowch!

On thunderclap, you did see the part where I said you agreed to it being overpowered right? I did also point out that you used the attack in combos a couple of times. Heck, you used a Thunderclap combo on me twice. You tried it out near Bondero Bay when it was 3 of you versus 2 of us. I remember us killing one of you, and then you and another killing the person with me. The last part of it was you two attacking me, and then you Thunderclapped. I could not immediately Cubix for some reason. What I do remember is that you ended up swinging at me again and I dodged it (I was a Faeling at the time), and I was able to Cubix away. You also tried it up on Limbo, and then ran when I survived it there. You popped up from a Cubix, Cleaved me, and then the next round used Thunderclap. So please do not come here now and try to say that you never heard about it until I shouted about it, because that shout was in direct response to your attempt at using it to kill my character on Limbo. Also, the main point of me mentioning it was that you continued to milk Thunderclap for all it was worth, though you admitted that it was extremely overpowered.

Also, I pointed out that you were not on the lead in any such talks about fixing problems. You were brought along grudgingly as per the points I made. Since you pointed out situations where you said you had done certain things in the past to have your own overpowered abilities fixed, it was valid for me to actually bring the past into questions to counter your points. You can't one moment use the past, and then the next moment say it is nullified when the past proves you wrong.

Other issues were and should be brought up, but something that is overpowered should not be held in place until other things are fixed. You are suppose to point out the problem and work to have it rectified, not point it out and then hedge it with the idea of allowing you to keep using it until the other problems with your archetype are corrected first. That was my point; you do not try to fix problems on their own merit. You have this idea that if you feel there is something wrong with some other ability you posses, then it is perfectly ok to keep an ability that is blatantly overpowered until the problem you feel you have is fixed.

Here is the reasoning that was given for the suggested change to Slitthroat's cure. First, making it a smoke cure means that it will take 3 afflictions to pull it of instead of the two needed now. So it will be impossible to just assault a person with a high precision weapon and gain a slit-lock on the person in the first hit. The fighter will actually have to have extraneous help to accomplish the goal, or fight a person who is a pretty poor curer. The whole idea was to give it a bit of parity to how normal locks work, but still allow it to be a bit stronger than normal locks since it is not as easy to acquire as just drawing and throwing hexes at a person (since poison can be shrugged, affliction rate is not 100%, and the balance recovery on attacks are on average a lot slower than the hex EQ recovery speed).

Your statement that it was easier to acquire slit-locks on people by Blademasters is patently false. The time period in question was when it was possible to Assault/Lunge right through a shield or prismatic barrier. It was during that time that some Pureblades could assault right through a shield to give a person a Slit-lock in one attack. I know this from personal experience, because you used head Assaults constantly against me try to gain the slit-throat affliction, with the only venom being placed on your weapon being Senso. Your excuse that Senso was only used to help slow the healing of wounds did not hold water with me, because the only way to truly use Senso to hinder curing was to gain a Slit-lock on a person. I also submit that others agreed. There are examples where Terenas pointed out the ease at which a Two-Hander could acquire the slit-throat affliction, pointing out the greater precision Two-Handed weapons are able to acquire and how it was possible for them to acquire the affliction in just one assault to people unable to wear Greathelms (This was also during the time when it was possible to use assault to behead a person right through shields and prismatic barriers).

Ok, I think I will be the first to end this back and forth conversation on the boards. If you want to continue it, you can contact me via messages. Quite frankly, I know that we will rarely if ever see eye to eye on this particular subject, and so I will just agree to disagree with you.

Ok, I do have a question on this, Granted slitlock is not too difficult for a PB to pull off, but with the other locks still out there and not being addressed, won't this make the PB even less feared than they already are?

On thunderclap, you did see the part where I said it was the possibility of multiple thunderclaps that I had an issue with, right? Hell, you even voiced the same opinion almost verbatim once before when Thunderclap was discussed. Actually I’ll even quote it for you.



Also I thought I told you to stop making clearly false statements, you can not tell me that I did something that I know I didn’t. But as I said earlier, and your posted statement agreed with, I had no problem with Thunderclap by itself. So my only objection to using it in duels was that it was tactically unsound.

Speaking of the past, yes I do think it is silly to base whole arguments on it, but no I'm not particularly bothered. As I said earlier, I'm willing to defend any choice I've ever made and admit error if I was wrong. That philosophy flows from the fact that I tend to learn well from my own mistakes, and I understand completely that I'm not perfect.

This is reiteration as well actually, but I'm of the opinion that balance should be based on full evaluation. Often when issues were raised about warriors, it was said the whole archetype was overpowered. There was rarely any focus on specific issues, but instead blatant ranting about the archetype as a whole. You were actually guilty of this as well, when you attempted to prove that warriors were too strong, by showing a log of me hitting you with one combo. At no point did you bother to include all factors that may have been at play, or isolate elemental runes as the primary, instead you targeted warriors as a whole. Then even went on to use the flawed data in later arguments regarding warriors. Never once did you back up any of your statements arguing that warriors were overpowered with firm data.

Actually, I have to admit I was wrong here; I took a moment to flow through every aspect of the suggestion and realized that I was forgetting a factor, specifically the fact that the cure for asthma had been changed to a salve. But I have to say that I still would have preferred my suggestion for addressing it by changing the lock affliction cures in a different way, because it would have addressed all instant locks rather than just one.

The evolution of this argument has been interesting as well as predictable to me, but the focus was and still is warrior combat. As I’ve stated before, I believe the primary issue that makes it difficult to balance warriors is that there are so many factors that muddy the waters. But I guess I shouldn’t just state something without clearly showing what drove me to the conclusion.

Factors:

• Direct Accuracy – I’ve done quite a few tests in this area, and found out that warrior accuracy closer to the low 80s than 90s.
• Limb Accuracy – This is actually a problem only with slashing maneuvers. But you can find the data on my own tests that went over both limb and direct accuracy here - http://forums.lusternia.com/index.php?showtopic=8836&hl=
• Venom Affliction – Understandably with wounds, venoms have only a 50% chance of afflicting, but it is another roll of the dice added to the equation.
• Wound Affliction – The advent of maneuvers took some of the chance of affliction out of the equation, but only as it relates to specific affliction. There is still an unspecified amount of chance involved in actually getting affliction. I may test it at some part, but the chance involved is understandably, while still undeniably another layer.
• Parry – A form of passive defense against a warrior primary form of offense, necessary, but yet another layer.
• Stances – Another form of passive defense against a warrior’s primary form of offense, also necessary, but another layer.
• Rebounding – Remnant of other IRE games, and yet another layer.

All those factors are completely unique to the warrior archetype with the exception of venom affliction. Adding artifacts to the equation just further skews things, both beneficially and negatively from all points of view.

But to refocus on the original topic of this thread, I’ve always been interested in the baseline idea behind this game’s warriors, specifically escalation of offensive power as a result of prolonged engagement. Most of my ideas regarding wound damage, wound healing, and wound states have actually stemmed from that interest. That’s why I oppose such ideas as lessening wound damage or placing further caps on precision, rather than solutions that would lead us closer to the ideal instead of away. For example, I support the reconstruction of the wound table, so that the light and medium states are not so small in comparison to the higher states. That is a solution that will still lessen a warrior’s ability to be powerful initially while not harming our sustained pressure. But also I believe that there are issues with specific critical wounds. There are some that are clearly not worthy of the requirements that they have, and now you propose to add another to that list with Collapselungs. The affliction that is actually weaker than its current prerequisite, because it does not work as intended, specifically in the blackout area. Also it doesn't even retain the benefits of puncturelung in the form of endurance draining, making it is just an extremely difficult to attain asthma affliction. In summary, Critical Wounds should all be worthy of being called such.

But anyway run, run fast, run far, and don’t look back.