You're forgetting that you actually have far LESS risk, due to your increased tankiness. Without mob damage scaling, constitution becomes vital to effective PvE.

Regardless though, I think that the dodge of mobs should be removed, either that or let it affect all classes equally (which I am against for RP reasons). It doesn't make sense that a cavefisher dodges better than a hummingbird.

True against many mobs, but not necessarily true. Knights at least can't proof themselves as throughly, and most of the races deemed to have "tankiness" often have severe vulnerabilities to some sort of non-physical damage or another. While most damage is of some physical nature there are plenty of attacks that are not, and when they hit that vulnerability, they hurt. A lot. Additionally, "far less" is blatantly false. Most of the things mob wise that get people killed at higher levels seem to do so with such a degree of severity that usually either anyone could run, or nobody could. While I'm sure there is some window where vitality and surge matter, neither of those will save you when you are permanently off balance or writhing or some such.

Now, against, say, lobstrosities or something, a knight is probably better able to stand there and kill one while X amount of others are hitting them, but they are still killing them one at a time like everyone else.

And while casters bash best for well less than half of the total trip to demi, it is not meaningless that they do so either. As was pointed out, most people never see level 85.

This is a really odd thing to say rika. Maybe thats why i <3 you.. but tis odd nonetheless..

1. I was commenting specifically on aquamancer and cantor bashing because I was an aquamancer and now a cantor for a significant amount of time. You would ask someone like me to take pointers on a warrior regarding aqua/cantor bashing? hehe.. If you wanted to ask about cantor/mage bashing it is better to go ask the real McKoy dontcha think?

2. Xenthos has numbers, but I have mine own. I doubt his is more correct than mine. Simply because mine are not imaginary, nor are they predictions, or conjecture or anything I pulled out of my hat. This are real data samples that I got bashing 8months as an aquamancer and now 7months of data as a cantor.

3. Now so as not to leave you hanging and hoping people take me by my own words because "i said so".. here is a very simple analysis why cantors bash better than aquamancers

3.1. Staffcast is not more powerful than minorsecond. In fact, I could argue the opposite is true.
3.2. Staffcast has base 4s. Compare this before when I was pumping minorsecond every 2s as a mugwump pre-racial. I get sad when i remember those days. The only time I can almost sneer at monks when comparing kills. I vividly remember that very first day when i got maestro and hunted illithoid and I was "ohh the times I wasted. Why oh why did I not shift sooner".. (was a merian aqua with 19int for reference)
3.3. Post-racial and now a human, I'm slower but its still 3s per minorsecond. Still 25% faster (btw, 25% is not a huge enough gap?)
3.4. The change making charisma affect song length has ushered an age where bards can now hunt with song effects up. Two in particular affects bashing greatly:
-- Song skill that boosts damage
-- Song skill that regenerates willpower - this is the more important one. Before, as an aquamancer, I cannot really go on extended bashing periods. Going on 2 hours or about 150-200 illithoids/worms, and depending on how many times i twirled staff.. I would be forced to meditate or go ask someone to kill me in arena to regen willpower.

As a cantor, I am able to go on extended bashing periods- A lot of times now -of about 4-5hours non stop. Willpower is not an issue anymore

Now, an aquamancer is tankier than a cantor, ill give you that. With stoneskin, raisestaff, psiarmour, and biofeedback.. they are tankier by far (Though a spiritsinger with batbane, songeffects, spirits and familiar is close).. this is partly countered by the fact that cantors have access to lowmagic's yellow..

Anyway, people can believe me or not.. But my own experience leads me to believe cantors are just better bashers than aquamancers.. and I stand by what I experienced firsthand.

nuff said

Where did I do that? There is a base miss rate (5%), and NPCs have a dodge rate against physical attacks on top of it. Higher NPCs seem to have a higher % dodge rate than lower ones.

And, to Nezha: You're comparing to Bards, who have a faster attack (I'm not sure if it's the same damage or more, but even with the same damage, 25% faster means 25% less time as you said). Not quite the same thing as the Warrior comparison, since the crit-rate per attack is the same.

My numbers are just an exploration into the whole "crit rate meaning that Warriors are so overpowered in high-end bashing" theme that was going on for a while. They are not intended to be actual numbers, but a demonstration that if the base number is tweaked right (and calculations are done with the crit rates-- the actual crit rates, which Roark has access to-- taken into consideration) it is very possible to get some DPS numbers for balancing purposes. There is no need for "double attacks" or whatever. Especially not for Bards.

Actually, you can prepare proofings. See, most denizens attack with physical damage and one more extra type of damage. Just wear a cape proofed against that damage and change cape when you go up against denizens with other types of damage. Merian, a typical "caster" has level 2 weakness against fire and electricity. Mugwumps are even weaker on that accord. Lucidians are weak against BLUNT off all things and fire. Sure, Loboshigaru still are weak against magic and fire, but so too have several "caster races." Far less is not blatantly false. I've bashed with every single celestian guild, and when warriors can tank three peeps where I can only tank one, it is "far less". Yes, part of that tanking is because the Paladin had a race with higher constitution, but look back to the previous point. Vitality and surge also create bigger windows to get out of perma balance and writhe, which is in itself not a CLASS issue, but an issue with the monsters and bashing in general. Greater tankiness also opens up abilities to hunt harder creatures earlier. Some classes can hunt Astral at level 55, some can't. That plays a huge factor on experience gain.

And to those people who never see level 85, it doesn't matter too much wether bashing is balanced or not. But for those of us who do want to reach demigod, it is a pain when all you have is Cosmicfire and Cudgels.

This. It should be more even along the whole stretch, not have an inflection point where certain classes flip places and the gap slowly widens.

Besides reworking the entire system, the easiest way I can think of doing it is that if your first swing kills a mob, your second swing either never happens or it hits the corpse. I could have sworn this was changed to happen for monks, but I could easily be wrong. That way you can balance it around damage per equilibrium or damage per balance, instead of damage per attack. You could have a class hit 10 times per arm balance, but if they could only ever hit one thing per balanace, and they did 10x less damage per swing than someone with one attack, it would seem to be pretty balanced.

So, as I was saying, I swear Xiel can hunt a lot faster than me.

Actually, Loboshigaru have L1 Fire resistance. L2 magic is the only weakness (and monks have a better chance of mitigating it than warriors, since you can proof greatrobes/splendors).

Well that just further strengthens my case. I was certain though that there was a race with level three magic weakness and level one fire weakness... oh well.

It's Xiel, he breaks everything so he doesn't count.

I wanted to bring up as well, given that we are discussing the differences in bashing ability, the differences in influencing.

While Knights are exemplary bashers, they are likely to be substantially worse off than other archetypes in regards to influencing, be it in revolts, or in normal bash-fluencing.

Among the reasons why:

• Insofar as knights are likely to select a high CON race, the same races are also likely to have low CHA, disadvantaging them in the inlfuence area to a high degree.
• Specialized races for knights, apart from the low base CHA Viscanti, all lose CHA in favor of the STR and CON gains, again disadvantaging them in regards to influencing.
• Knights in a general sense lack the abilities that increase CHA that some other archetypes have. (Yes they have some, but not as many options as other Archetypes).
• Influencing is equilibrium based, and races that knights select are more likely to have an equilibrium penalty.
• The same critical hit issues that make knights good bashers do not exist in influencing.

Thus, if we go out of our way to make everyone as good as knights at bashing, then we should also go out of our way to make sure knights are as good at influencing as everyone else.


...


Yes, this is a little tongue in cheek, a little not. Bashing is still the most common method of gaining XP and circles, though there are a good number of heavy influencers now. But when people love to point out how great at bashing knights are, while ignoring that the game has dimensions beyond bashing in which knights are comparatively deficient, and other archetypes are substantially stronger at, it needs to be brought up.

That's a very good point. The only reason it loses a little validity is because, as you said, bashing is a much better source of xp.

Now, if they added in Influencing criticals, that could change.

I can just imagine it being like "You made an amazingly good point!"

I took Talkan's advice and went Faeling Knight... I laughed at him at first, but... While surged I have over 6k health which isn't much, but it helps. At my level, the speed of my attacks and rate of critical hits smoke anything that stand in my way. Oh, and I influence SO much faster than I bash - I probably at least double the xp I get bashing when I influence.

And - Tae'dae are really good at influencing too, so... Yeah. Really high charisma and from what I can tell the penalty for eq isn't even noticeable - maybe influencing balance doesn't count towards normal equilibrium since the speed is based on charisma... Who knows!

It counts...and it's noticeable. Not huge like it used to be, but it's definetely there.

Good luck in PvP as a non-specced Faeling.

No. It's not. At all. Influence eq is 100% charisma.

Idea for Guardians.


Methrenton and Ashtorath are hated by all as afflictions go. Make them do 2-3x the normal damage for a symbol. You can trade combat ability for hunting speed.

Celina is right. It is noticeable. I tested between Faeling with 16 charisma and Tae'dae with 16 charisma. It's noticeable.

No, it wouldn't. When you buy credits, they come with the following disclaimer:

Lusternia is a functioning and changing world, and while we guarantee you will not lose any of the credits you buy, no such guarantee can be provided for what you purchase with the credits themselves. We wouldn't be in business very long if this happened frequently, but as it is a world, your actions have consequences, and the actions of others can result in consequences for you. It's this dynamism in the nature of the world that people enjoy about the game. Thus, it is possible that the perceived or real value of the things you purchase with credits, or your ability to use those things, may both rise and decline during the course of play.

Nobody's denying that warriors and monks are enjoying much better bashing than the rest of the game. Why go to all the trouble of complex solutions that make PvE and PvP work differently for a majority of the game when the solution - nerf warrior and monk PvE damage - is quick, simple and easy? Levelling is already incredibly easy in Lusternia. Why make it even easier?

People who went warrior and bought runes just to maximise hunting obviously recognised there was an imbalance. If they expected that imbalance to last indefinitely, they're just silly.

I'm not saying people would like it - there'd be whining on the forums galore - but that doesn't mean it would be unfair.

No, all you've really proven is that it's not against the rules. That doesn't mean it would be fair. And I don't see why you say leveling is incredibly easy; relative to what?

And it's always better to fix balance issues by buffing the weaker side rather than nerfing the stronger side. Everyone is happier that way.

Take a look at WoW, that's been their strategy since day one, and I would say that game is doing pretty well.