Actually thought it was fun for you to ask a question that can be even pseudo serious.

Minimum time was set at 10s, if the cross loves you (aka the chance it breaks limbs always makes it break them) and you have a faster eq AND you shrivel AND still have power to sac.. which means sticking ecto. The only way to 10s sac was force dig which has never been a reliable or used method. I had Forren writhe off a 'balance lock' (scabies, epilepsy, aeon, ectoplasm), because he caught the small span of time he needed to start it, that wouldnt be nearly as hard without aeon of course which is also unreliable.

Standard time to sac without trying to force dig... hmmm (does some steps).. assuming they cure flawlessly? You wont pull it without alot of luck. If they have decent curing... 30-50 seconds, assuming they arent watching for it.

You can stop a balance lock easily enough without even running.

Thanks for the question though

Do you mean prevent a balance lock, or stop one that has already been started? Those are two different things. Example, being balanced lock would exclude your statement of stopping it without running, since the very nature of a balance lock means you can't run anyhow.

Also, if a person cures flawlessly, you should not be able to pull one off at all. If neither side makes a mistake, it should be a draw which means a sacrifice should not be possible to obtain.

Clearly all skills should work like DEATHTOUCH. No one would complain anymore. Everything would be -perfectly- balanced. Amirit?

I know I'm not a combatant, but I'm curious why the defense of a balance lock is that it's required to Sacrifice. It seems a silly argument. If Sacrifice requires someone to be locked for almost a minute, it's Sacrifice that needs changed, one would think.

Not necessarily true. It would be more correct to say why the defense of such an easy balance lock is that it's required to Sacrifice.

I guess my question then turns out to be, "Why does Sacrifice mattter, if warriors don't need it to be a viable kill for their archetype?" If BC and ninja locks need nerfing, it would seem an easy matter to tweak their skills instead of how balance loss works mechanically.

Why IS a warrior trying to sacrifice? Are your hammers not good enough for you?

Because you add their health to yours when they get sacrificed......and for bragging rights.

Well...uhm...shoot, now I'm thinking about if you let Thoros Sacrifice the Mag Demisquad and get 30K health, damn that's scary...

It's only health, not max health.

A successful sacrifice would make your health look like this:

Health : 22052/11026 Endurance : 33508/33900 Power : 2p |
| Mana : 8360/4180 Willpower : 23966/26400 Reserves : 0% |
| Ego : 5100/5100

I'd argue that Sacrifice should, by SOME means, be fair for Ur'guard to accomplish. It should not be easy for them as they do have other more viable methods of killing someone. (Behead/Brainbash). It should be easier for a Nihilist to accomplish as it's part of their bread and butter, though right now. It seems easier for an Ur'guard than a Nihilist. Which makes me sad. Poor affliction classes, they have been left behind.