Geb2007-03-19 12:27:52
QUOTE(Tervic @ Mar 19 2007, 08:44 AM) 391785
15% to stop 100% of the damage from warriors (but not wounds, whoopdeedoo) or 15% to stop 50% (or less, usually less) in the case of non warriors. Also, last I checked cosmicfire was 50/50 magic/fire with no cutting or blunt, and bard songs were 100% magic, unless that got changed. Therefore the only classes that the rune has ANY effect on would be mage/druid and warrior. However, it is only about half as effective, if that, against mages as it is against warriors.
I feel that the inequality is reasonably clear.
I feel that the inequality is reasonably clear.
You also forget that mage damage does not also give wounds, nor does it give venoms and wound afflictions. The rune does not stop a warrior from acquiring wounds nor the afflictions they give. The rune does not stop the venoms on a weapon from being given to the person who has the rune, and last warriors with elemental runes have 66% of their damage reduced, not 100%.
Oh, and you are mentioning cosmic fire and the bard songs like they do any significant damage that really needs a reduction. The only abilities that can do any significant damage are pretty much the staff attacks and high powered warrior weapons. Those other abilities you mentioned are pretty laughable when it comes to being able to actually damage kill a person.
Geb2007-03-19 12:31:33
QUOTE(Ixion @ Mar 19 2007, 08:48 AM) 391786
Geb was just reminding that it effects more than warriors. However, generalizing about "every class" is pretty worthless. Even against mages, the damage reduction when the RoA procs is quite insignificant.
Who generalized about "every class" is worthless? I made a very specific statement in saying that it reduces the damage on every attack that has a cutting and blunt component to it. It amazes me how little people actually read a statement, and yet comment on it like they really payed attention to what they were reading.
Trakis2007-03-19 16:20:25
In terms of the usefulness of the rune, it may not be as good as the +5 stat rune, but what it is good for is a weapon upgrade that you won't have to trade in to upgrade later. What I mean is, it's possible to add the bleeding rune, and never have to worry about trading it in for another rune later on. With the +5 stat rune, if you wanted to upgrade it to the +10 stat runes later, you're going to have to swap your 150 credit rune in for a 50 credit loss.
Xenthos2007-03-19 16:21:26
QUOTE(Trakis @ Mar 19 2007, 12:20 PM) 391849
In terms of the usefulness of the rune, it may not be as good as the +5 stat rune, but what it is good for is a weapon upgrade that you won't have to trade in to upgrade later. What I mean is, it's possible to add the bleeding rune, and never have to worry about trading it in for another rune later on. With the +5 stat rune, if you wanted to upgrade it to the +10 stat runes later, you're going to have to swap your 150 credit rune in for a 50 credit loss.
Personally, a 50 credit loss is less of one than a 200 credit loss-- which the bleeding rune seems to be, really.
Unknown2007-03-19 17:04:30
QUOTE(Trakis @ Mar 19 2007, 12:20 PM) 391849
In terms of the usefulness of the rune, it may not be as good as the +5 stat rune, but what it is good for is a weapon upgrade that you won't have to trade in to upgrade later. What I mean is, it's possible to add the bleeding rune, and never have to worry about trading it in for another rune later on. With the +5 stat rune, if you wanted to upgrade it to the +10 stat runes later, you're going to have to swap your 150 credit rune in for a 50 credit loss.
That was my logic. It doesn't matter to me that others find the bleeding rune to be worthless and not worth the upgrade. I'd like to have all upgrades one day, and this one will not have to be traded in. Of course, if I want, I can trade in my bleeding runes the same as any others, so that's almost a moot argument there.
Ildaudid2007-03-19 17:24:43
QUOTE(Trakis @ Mar 19 2007, 12:20 PM) 391849
In terms of the usefulness of the rune, it may not be as good as the +5 stat rune, but what it is good for is a weapon upgrade that you won't have to trade in to upgrade later. What I mean is, it's possible to add the bleeding rune, and never have to worry about trading it in for another rune later on. With the +5 stat rune, if you wanted to upgrade it to the +10 stat runes later, you're going to have to swap your 150 credit rune in for a 50 credit loss.
As I see it, unless your a PB or AL, get a +5 stat (150cr) or get an elemental rune (350cr). Since like Xenthos said its not a huge loss of credits when you trade it in. But if you are a PB or AL, get the Bleeding rune (200cr) simply because in the end, you are gonna need 2 bleeding runes on that weapon anyways to get any significant bleeding out of people.
Aiakon2007-03-19 18:14:37
I have two bleeding runes on my sword. I'm not sure what difference it makes.. but I do get a lot of death from bleeding kills...
Ildaudid2007-03-19 20:59:13
QUOTE(Aiakon @ Mar 19 2007, 02:14 PM) 391860
I have two bleeding runes on my sword. I'm not sure what difference it makes.. but I do get a lot of death from bleeding kills...
I think from what Geb told me, he did about 400 extra bleeding from his 2 bleeding runes.
edit - that was on an amputate, not sure if it is 400 on a lacerate too. And Geb can get quick amputates because he has his sword equipped with 2 of each lvl 3 artie (just in case people thought it was an easy afflict to get because Geb amputates people rather easily)
