I was pointing out that even with 800-1000 hammer hits, good fighters would still rip you a new one.

I'd watch a girl with big breasts playing golf. Golf is generally fairly boring to watch, but maybe this will make it a bit more interesting.

Isn't that part of the point though? When damage passes a certain threshold skill becomes pointless. This is not a situation where you have 10 (more?) seconds to run (briefly) before a 15 power inquisition combo goes off. This is a situation where if you do not have the right race and the right levels you just die in 2-3 rounds of combat. The only thing skill would help with in this situation would be allowing you to escape, you could never win.

I personally just think there is too much of a gap between the level 80 Faeling in robes and the level 100 non-Faeling in plate. Unless all damage is % based you can not balance around that wide of a gap. If all damage is % based though the downside of low con only applies to PvE. Picking a low con race should open you up to more vulnerability to a damage kill but it should not mean fights become hopeless.

Geb hasn't been a lowbie in awhile, he hasn't died in the first ten seconds of a fight in a long time.

ooh! Squeaky hammers with smile-face arties!

Heh, I guess you have not read my other statements about the warrior damage problem. I've agreed that it is overpowered at the moment and needs to be fixed. Some warriors are doing significantly more than 800-1000 damage per swing duel-wielding damage weapons in aggressive stance. For some, the range is in 1300-1600 per swing, or 2600-3200 per combo on soft targets.

Warriors have been doing 800-1000 damage per swing by dual-wielding damage weapons since when I was a mage (some even getting near 1300+), and yet I was still able to kill them. So the damage ranges she gave were no where near the overpowered range we are talking about now. So your point and her statement does not coincide, since 800-1000 a swing is manageable by cloth wearers, which I have been one and have experienced hits that were significantly higher than that as one and still won. Therefore, when I said even if she was doing 800-1000 per swing good fighters would still defeat her, it was with the knowledge that 800-1000 a swing is entirely manageable (which I know from experience).

Ethelon:

I have not been a demigod that long. Heck, before I became a monk, I was still only 82nd level. I never got above 75th level as a mage.

Fair enough and I will definitely concede that you know far more about the damage ranges and when they cross the line than I do.

My understanding it that a warrior should be able to get a damage kill easily if their opponent does not hinder their offense in any manner (just using passive system healing). I am not sure what a fair baseline is for how many rounds of attacks it should take, but it should clearly be more than 2-3 (the same logic should apply to any kill situation as well, though damage seems to be the one that often has this issue).

She specified hammers, Geb. 800 damage per swing on a hammer is nasty when you consider the high wounding and how much faster the damage wracks up.

I've also pointed out in multiple posts that the problem with damage is due to the aggresssives stance. It carries over to all of the weapons, which is why I did 1900 to Mariello with my Klangaxe.

Also again, even if she did 800 - 1000 with hammers, she still would be defeated by good fighters. Thoros or Desitrus could hand her his hammers and she hand him her's, and either would still defeat her. So my point is that even once the problems with warrior damage are fixed, she will still be on the losing end of most fights with people who know what they are doing until she actually fixes her real problems.

Ahh the old nerf-bonecrusher threads. These have been around for so long. My comments:

Firstly, girls with boobs and golf is awesome. They need to start topless golf tournaments to really liven up the sport.

Secondly, bonecrushers have always been a toughie to balance. :censor: anyone remember the brief month or so where you could blackout with jab to head? Or prior to that I know geb remembers the chain knockdowns (back when it used to remove balance and make prone instead of stun) you could permabalance lock someone, then break legs and just keep going.

wounding hammers should have about 34 damage base on them (without arties, that's with max wounding, rest put into speed). 800-1000 damage per hit, plus the 1k+ wounds desi must be putting out, too much for you average numpty to handle, but your top fighters will still kick ass. Hell when geb was a mage he was scary as, yeah you could kill him at times but if you didn't have your a game on he'd take you apart. Same with any top fighter, it's the first to make a mistake.

Also find myself agreeing with geb about skill. Arties help, but a good bonecrusher still kicks ass with a club.

Im think Im with a lot of people when I say when you're fighting a bonecrusher you just

Shouldn't all skills take about the same amount of time to get their kills off. Instead of being lol'instapwnt? Or am I just being dumb again?

It's more ok for a bard to wtfpwn you than a warrior, but not by much. Warriors have attrition to fall back on in the end. Still, no level 70+ player should die in less than eight seconds, no matter who you are. Even if your archetype's defining skill was "10p: increase damage output by 400% for eight seconds, after which you die if you haven't killed something."

Rubbish, all classes should be able to wtfpwn quickly if they get it right. EG 10 P worth of crushes, knockdown smitedown. It's doable, but it's also preventable. You just have to get it right. Especialy if said warrior ha sspent thousands on his weapon, he's meant to be powerful.

Yeah, but I think he's referring to all the people of fairly high level (like me) dying in four to eight seconds regardless of hindering/healing/defending.

Anyone seeing any improvement on the damage? I saw the post but haven't been slapped around by any of the usual crowd since then.

I haven't tested it yet, but from what I heard you should notice an obvious decrease in damage taken. If this is what I would consider something you could survive in just robes... I'll get back to you on that once I test it more myself.

It was around 28%

Just to be sure-- it's intended that you need decent robes, parry, stance, shield, etc. to hold your own versus a warrior. Not just robes. (And if that's not what you meant, well, I'm sure someone else can benefit from the advice anyways.)

Well, of course having the full load of equipment is a requirement to be effective in Lusternia pvp. So is being transed in various skillsets so you can at least survive certain weapon based tactics ((Stance Head as a requirement to fight monks is a perfect example)). My point of determining if the damage is too high or not is all those things being used by a normal robe wearer, since they are the primary reason for the change, and not splendors like myself.

28% percent would be a good number honestly, give or take depending on the target. Did the change to the formula affect buff stacking ((The biggest cause of the problem, ie 28% is the number reached after buffs)) or base damage ((Ie 28% reduction to damage before buffs)), or some mixture of the two? Personally, I hope it wasn't off base because for all the complaining of some higher end damage, I have run into less buffed warriors who hit like monks without the speed and more wounds. I'd feel for them if my regeneration was able to just soak their damage.

Level 77 is not a high level.