Another update where we got pooed on...

SweetieBot - Lothranis

Lolgasmic - Raging Tide wrote: »

SweetieBot, Please Analyze Slivaf - Dreamweaver

SweetieBot has read Slivaf - Dreamweaver's last 17 posts!
Here's some neat stuff SweetieBot has learned.

General Stats:
Forum name: Slivaf - Dreamweaver
Join Date: May 2009
Last Post Date: 10-26-2013
Total Posting Days: 1640
Total Posts: 900
Average Posts per Day: 0.5

Activity:
Posting By Hour Chart
Posting By Day Chart
Posting By Subforum Pie Chart

Writing Stats (what SweetieBot read):
Total Words: 5586
Total Sentences: 437
Average Words per Post: 328.6
Average Words per Sentence: 12.8
Average Sentences per Post: 25.7
Average Syllables per Word: 1.4
Average Letters per Word: 4.2

Most Used Words (count): (common words excluded)
Word Cloud
skill (48)
effect (39)
melee (28)
chance (26)
skills (21)
class (21)
damage (19)
edit (19)
quite (18)
game (18)

Most Used 3-Word Phrases (count):
"the fact that (8)"
"a 25 chance (8)"
"a lot more (7)"
Most Used 4-Word Phrases (count):
"a 25 chance to (6)"
"new effect has a (6)"
"new effect gives a (5)"
Most Used 5-Word Phrases (count):
"new effect has a 25 (4)"
"effect has a 25 chance (4)"
"gives a 25 chance to (3)"

This took me 44.2 s to finish

Slivaf - Dreamweaver

Lolgasmic - Raging Tide wrote: »

Walls...... of....... text.......

walls of red text doesn't help the wall of text. f:worry

Would pink help my case? /o\ I really don't think it would. :$

Though I guess I do see your point. /o\

opkossy

Please do me a favor when quoting me and just break it up with the responses. makes replying easier than when your response is in the quote since I don't want to go into your post directly. x_x

Responses to the two of you are separated by a good block of space! Apologies in advance for the wall of text!

Keep these points in mind: melee skill vs, ranged; bows have highest base damage of all weapons; aim low demon has 25% chance to stun for 3 seconds; drake's bash has a 1.5s cast, so bm only gets to utilize 4.5-6 seconds of the stun (sage vs. demon), where an archer can utilize about 7 seconds of the immobilize; and bms miss way more than archers do. Each skill has same chi cost and cooldown. I think these 2 skills are fairly balanced.

The sage and demon have a 25% chance of a seal/stun, but at that low of a chance it's not something that can be relied on. It's a nice bonus when it happens but it doesn't change the fact that the skill can still fail entirely given the cost. Remember that since freeze isn't a stun, your opponents will still be able to react and counter appropriately barring glitches like freezing someone as they fall. So with this skill example, BMs get the freedom of an opponent who has to use a genie, apoth, be capable of tanking damage, or die. An archer's aim low, on the other hand, will have an opponent that will still be capable of retaliating or putting themselves in a position to retaliate in any case where the opponent is also ranged. For a melee class, there will still be the option to close the gap, use a ranged skill if available, or attempt some form of leap/teleport. Of course, this all assumes that the skills in question aren't in cooldown and nothing glitches. Though, personally, I prefer not to consider glitches as something to be relied on when discussing the class. (Seriously freeze glitch when falling is stupid and a total pain to be on the receiving end of.)

As for missing the attack itself, it's a price all physical classes pay, which is why I don't really argue against that. As much as it annoys me to setup a combo on a phys class only to have the key skill miss, it's something I've come to accept long ago.

Making the freeze itself, which is also a kiting tool of sorts for an archer, have a 100% chance of success when maxed outside of the usual issues for CC skills, to me is fair since the class does have to risk missing and the skill does cost a spark. Were it a stun, I'd be against the 100% success thing, but as it is not a stun, I feel it would be more fair for it to not have the additional chance of failure.


Aside from that, I agree that the skills are both well done for what they are. While axes are the second highest weapon damage type in the game, a physical class cannot reliably go pure str the same way a caster can go pure mag (and get a better magic attack bonus) or an assassin/archer can go pure dex. So it's only natural that their skills make up for this by having extra damage. Basically, I feel that while the base damage difference between bows and axes alone isn't big enough to warrant the damage gap between the two skills as a comparison, so using that as a point is a bit off. Instead, the way that players are forced to build their characters is what I feel justifies it completely.

It is a fact that, for melees to survive in group situations, their armor has to be better-developed. Range classes can, with proper kiting tactics, get by with a top notch weapon and crappy gear, an impossibility for melees. I think this is essentially what Slivaf is saying. This is a common situation; I know countless ranged classes with +12 r9rr weapon, but only +6 to +10 armor, with only perfect garnet shards, and they get by quite well, unless an archer spots them lol. To have a decent shot at surviving +12 weapon damage as a melee though, armor should be +10 or better with GOOD shards.

Short answer: I basically agree, but since I'm more here for the skills than a discussion of range vs melee I'm moving on.

Longer answer: Like I said in the edit, the combination of range and gear is a great advantage for mass PvP. I like doing NW on sub-100 characters and my characters with range can get away with a lot of BS despite being 2-shots (yes I usually react well enough to handle the first hit even from R9s or what have you on lowbies) due to range and kiting. Meanwhile my melees in the same type of gear and level range have to be more careful about engagements and how I handle opponents even though the melees will die in the same 2 hits. It's not something I don't overcome and I regularly find myself focus fired on my lowbies after long enough or prioritized over higher geared members of my team simply because I can overcome it and **** people off in the process, but it is a thing.

Well stated. On a philosophical note, is it 'OK' for bms to default to support role in mass pvp? I can see a melee thinking this is a bit unfair, though in 1vs1 a bm does just fine. On the flip side, archers become the deadliest in group pvp, but aren't so strong in 1vs1 pvp. I definitely hear archers thinking this is unfair. Personally I think that this state of affairs is appropriate. My own damage in group pvp is fairly subpar, and in group situations I default to healing and debuffing support. Each class has strengths and weaknesses. Expecting to be good at everything is ... well you know my thoughts on that already, lol.

When it comes to 1v1 vs mass PK, I simply believe that all classes should generally, at the least, be able to hold their own in 1v1s without having to rely on sheer luck. As things currently are, that's not the case for archers. I don't think any class that excels in one area should excel in the other as well when it comes to killing directly, much like how sins have problems in mass PvP because they tend to get focus fired and they aren't built for handling large groups (though having a sin for support in there can make a huge difference depending on the sin). An overhaul of skills so that archers don't rely so heavily on autos and become more skill based than luck based... maybe even fixing the self-buffs, even if they aren't the greatest, would go a long way. They don't have to be made to be super awesome in 1v1s as that's not their place, but allowing them to generally hold their own without needing luck would be nice. Kinda like how once genies came about and the level of gear rose above TT90 +3 with 2x dlawless citrines, venos went from being OP with a QQbird to kinda screwed in 1v1 without a lucky streak even though they were still valuable for mass PvP.

Yes you are right those in better gear have a far easier time closing those gaps, but before it, there is quite a few who struggle to no end to do so. I also agree that the fact that archers deal half damage up close really does rather suck, but still they do have options to remove them self from a sticky situation, after all that trouble the melee went through to even get near them.

Not to mention the fact that even if a melee is on equal gear footing with a caster/archer that he is after, the melee will be far more likely to be taking hits from multiple people... so yea... melees don't have it that easy pre end game. (yes some melee classes fair a lot better than others. Still ignoring it, and asking for a boost in damage or defense seems quite unfair to meleers who are already struggling before end game gear, and are still at a bit of a disadvantage even when in equal gears... more so in mass pvp though.)

I think it's quite unfair to ignore lower geared people like they have no say/clue what goes on in end game pvp... there are some advantages that stick through all the way until the end. Though aye they DO become less noticeable the better gear you get that opposes that innate ability.

Very true for mass PvP. For 1v1 it's kind of a game of cat and mouse since you don't want to punish a caster to instantly lose when a melee gets to them, but you also don't want it to be so that a melee can never get to them. Plus you want the melee to be able to threaten the ability to kill them once close. After all, the battle loses its meaning if I can sit there and tank you all day even if you get close to me. However it also loses meaning if you reaching me means I'm dead or you can't actually reach me.

That being said, a large part of the survival issue in mass PvP is going to come from gear gaps. Take PWIC as an example. Yes, the melees have to deal with damage on their way, but with adequate support from their team and their defensive options, it becomes less of an issue for them to get close and then be the ones supporting their team. However, that was in an equal gear environment where the ones with superior teamwork and skill would win. Going against different tiers of gear, like what tends to happen in NW, will skew things a good deal because then it has to be factored in. Prior to endgame, if your gears are relatively even as a melee, you still won't have too many issues as long as your opponents are around the same gear level and one side doesn't have vastly better teamwork/skill than the other.

Now when the gap in skills AND gear are all over the place, that's when melees have it the roughest when they aren't in endgame gear. It's also why I try to discuss on the assumption of relatively even gear and skill. After all, it doesn't matter how skilled you are if you're a 2-shot once you get caught... but at the same time if your opponent is a complete idiot who gives you too many chances you can potentially take them to live another day and/or dispatch of them... given the assumption that the gap in your gears isn't so large that even with them being stupid you can't do much. See how much of a pain it can be to try and account for that already? And that's just a loose example without bringing into account the chaos of mass PvP where even a ranged character is just as easy prey for a better geared ranged character as a melee is.

... but I'm straying from the topic and doing what I said I wouldn't so moving on!

I am fully aware of that fact, (hell if you hadn't pointed it out yourself, I would have...) of course stuns/"100%" cc skills will NOT go through if prevented by an anti stun, I merely brought up that point to show how when a melee has to close gaps, they get near, expend that chi, only to have it miss/wiped cleaned... it isn't fun, nor do I think it's fair to act like archers have the only skills that are worthy/in need of change. Not to mention pre-endgame they DO struggle to close those gaps, and even when they do, procs/skills, a casters/archers ability to react quite often before a melee even has time to stun them. (Sure they can't do it all the time, but most of the time they can, and there is quite a significant amount of people who can, (EDIT) either wipe the status effects clean ridiculously easy, or just leaping/running out of what get's melees near them a bit easier. Though I am not saying I want this to change. That is how it should be... - the wiping status effect clean ridiculously easy.)

I need to focus on the bolded here first. I'm not saying archers are the only ones who could use a skill revamp. In fact, I did point out the silliness of one of the assassin skills as a comparison to both a skill I felt could use improvement (Aim Low) and one I felt was balanced (Drake Bash). However this is the archer subforum and I was posting about archers and as a response to a post about one of their skills. So I am going to focus more on the archer side than that of other classes here. Frost and blazing scarabs, for example, are both skills I feel venos have needed to have reworked for... a long time now. The new expansion is actually doing something about those, though some of it seems a bit concerning, but as no one's really brought them up here and it was irrelevant to my point for me to do so, I simply chose not to address it.

For the rest, I generally agree on my melees but, bar luck of something like purify spell/tidal or me missing, I still appreciate it happening when it's skill and reactions. After all, if I run in and attempt to use a stun, then they take a countermeasure only for me to follow through with a seal, it's a display of skill on both of our parts. Compare that to me using something like sage deep sting (95% success chance) on someone who has their resources exhausted and for it to hit them and... fail because the RNG didn't like me at that particular moment. Or hitting a 5 base dex robe with HF since I know they can't handle it and a HF combo will get me a win but instead of the debuff landed I'm greeted by a miss. Yeah missing is part of being a phys class, but man that can get annoying at crucial moments! b:laugh

Point is, if someone's countering me in a 1v1 scenario, I want it to be about skill and not luck. For mass PK... it's a can of worms filled with too many randoms for me to really discuss completely outside of general things. Which all comes back to why I feel that the change to Aim Low suggested would have been a fair one: It reduces the luck element somewhat and makes skill play a larger role. And remember, any time an archer uses any skill that performs any kind of a debuff (IE: Aim Low), that's a skill that's guaranteed to not purge you. Though I only bring up that point because purge is something that was getting thrown around earlier.

What aim low of assassian's are you looking at? Do you perhaps mean the knife throw? Also at the risk of being a broken record that no one likes to listen too... they still have to close the distances, and if they're badly geared there is almost NO way they'll be getting near others long enough to make use of it... archers on the other hand would make good use of aim low.

Tackling slash. It's Aim Low on steroids. Better relative (and potential) damage, grants chi, works every time, and lasts longer... on a class that can choose to make use of that with either APS or DPH with ease. Totally stupid even when you factor in that they're a LA wearing melee class and before accounting for tidal/focused mind and nerves. Hence why I used it as the example for an poorly balanced/imbalanced control skill that can still be compared to Drake Bash and Aim Low.

As for knife throw... well that's a 35m range skill so they don't have to worry about any gaps with that. Bonus to them for being able to follow up that knife throw with a telestun from the same range making closing the gap a non-issue for 1v1. Oh and did I mention that it can interrupt with demon version guaranteeing it? Yeah..... For mass PvP, they have stealth and it's unlikely that people will be spamming detect pots until after they've been spotted, so barring a higher level sin, closing the gap wouldn't be much of an issue... though surviving after that and making themselves useful would be even if we assume relatively even gear.

I think you misunderstood my point there, I meant simply that if a 1 spark skill doesn't miss, than neither should a skill that costs more chi to use, especially when that chi could have played a vital role else where. (I.E stuns on another person that wasn't close enough to be effected by hf. <-- using hf/stuns as an example as I am aware that other classes deal with this very same issue.)

Shocked I found this one since your responses are in red! Good thing I actually read through before quoting!

Do you mean the skill missing or failing here? I was talking strictly about failing. Missing, while annoying, is something physical classes have to live with. A chi heavy skill failing entirely, on the other hand, even when it hits? Yeah that's... not really that good at all. The easiest skill to compare it to for BMs is Drake Ray as that fulfills the same overall area for the class, even if the skills themselves have different status ailments. For different examples, it would be like if Seal of the Gods had a 10% chance to fail on a target, or Headhunt (though I'll admit this is a poor comparison due to spark cost differences), or something similar.

And what you say about chi is exactly what I mean about no archer using aim low if they don't need the freeze... except on top of the missing that they have to deal with as a physical class, they still have a chance to burn the spark on a fail without even being able to say it was their opponent being skilled and countering the skill... or... you know... the RNG hating them and deciding that that's to be the skill that procs purify spell or that tidal blocks (which can kinda be considered countering it I guess) or whatever.

If Aim Low cost less chi? Yeah the chance of failure would be completely warranted. In fact it would be absurd if it didn't have the failure chance. If it were a stun, again it would be totally warranted because ranged stuns are just ~THAT~ dangerous and most of them do have a chance to fail even with their chi costs. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, it is neither of those things and thus the chance to fail on top of missing considering the cost and damage is a hindrance to the skill that really shouldn't be there.

Again the reason I keep bringing up that point, is to try and get you/others asking for a boost to look at it from a different perspective. I.E: If you boost the damage or defensive abilities of a casters/ranged class it will EFFECT melees even more.. even the ones in end game gear.... as... if they were taking hits from 3 or more people that had insane defenses + ridiculously hard damage that can be hard to tank/take until they get them all down.

Ergo yea... I don't particularly like the idea of archers, or casters getting more damage added to their skills, nor defense. EDIT: (but I am fairly sure that they will be getting damage boosts whether I like that fact or not... I can deal with that side... but no ty on the defenses)

It's why I also made sure to point out teamwork before. When it's two evenly matched teams, it becomes a question of teamwork and skill. Your team supports you to get you close to the enemy. You support them once you're close. In something more chaotic and when a gear/skill gap arises, it becomes less the skills themselves and more the fact that one side already has a major advantage over the other.

So like I said, if archers had better skills overall, they really wouldn't be validated to complain and their defenses being sub-par would be completely justified. However since right now they're more luck based at the end of the day, both things get called into question. Especially with things like the evasion self buff that doesn't help much and is constantly overwritten, the blazing arrow that can't be rebuffed even though the damage boost isn't that significant overall in PvP, or the 45 chi defense charm that pops in one hit from even undergeared players attacking an endgame archer. Grace is great but easily interrupted once you've figured it out and just as easy to time poorly due to a combination of human error (understandable) and things outside of our control. Combine that with the archer skill issues that have already been discussed a note of and the fact that they seem to be getting ignored in favor of trivial updates to DoT skills and... yeah complaints were bound to happen.

I'll give you that one to an extent, but really what is there to be terrified about? If the melee isn't that well geared, or even if it, if there is a few casters/archers around... the melee could be eating dirt in no time at all, not to mention the fact that all it would take to make a melee a pretty much non threat, is coordinate sleeps, seals etc on them and keep your distance to make sure he or she isn't able to do any of that. Casters, nor archers are dumb enough to just sit there as a leeroyer comes barreling in. As I said having to close that gap while in pre end game gear is FAR from easy especially when they have to deal with multiple attacks. (Though, yes it is true that bms when left alone is a bit of a scary prospect for opposing people... still doesn't change the fact that if they're not endgame, it wont take much at all to mop the floor with that bm. Also yes again better gear helps with that, still pre end game... just no... too easy to kill them.)

Well those statements are true for a coordinated group of enemies against a lone melee. If the group of enemies is uncoordinated, it gets skewed. If the melee has support, it gets even more skewed. Though why any reasonable melee would run into a large group of enemies without anti-stun and/or some form of damage reduction/immunity is another question entirely. Even with that, though, the very fact that it's enough of a threat to keep people from bunching up shows my point. If it really weren't something to fear at all, people wouldn't really give a damn and the melee rushing in wouldn't be considered a priority target either.

And yes, I didn't really go in-depth in response to that as it's more of a tangent that goes away from the skill discussion.



Didn't really respond to the rest because I agree with your general point and don't feel like I should continue the derail by arguing the specific parts I disagree with. Apology accepted, though, as it's pretty easy to make that sort of assumption in general. :P

Edit:

EDIT: Yea now that I think about it more, I think that is my issue. /o\ (The fact that other meleers seem to be far better at being able to actually support... (A barb and its extraordinary ability to absorb an insane amount of damage, and sins ability to be a big enough nuisance that people tend to pay attention when they're there/they can do things to make it harder for them to be taking down/actually kill if left alone for a bit.) (EDIT) Though it is somewhat true for a bm, it is FAR easier for a barb, or sin to stay in the frey, and ignore gear/being ganked better than a bm.... albeit it once those skills run out/are on cooldown life undoubtedly becomes harder on the sin.

Yeah. BMs have it especially rough there as the original "off-tank" class from when Barbs were designed to absorb damage and BMs were more of a jack-of-all-trades. So, much to my frustration at times, it really shows when you aren't at the top end gear but are still attempting to make a difference and the natural advantages the "original" tank gets and the newer classes that were designed with the evolution of the game in mind kinda show you up. Thankfully the skill rebalances have been working on this and I can feel useful again, even if I have to work harder for it on BM, but sometimes I really wish I had invoke instead of having to burn an apoth when doing stuff on my BM.

Lolgasmic - Raging Tide wrote: »

I agree, useless skills are useless. My barb is a real skill spammer in PvP, archer is 80% auto attack and 15% Stunning Arrow. (5% whatever else, inb4 someone calls me ****)

Yeah. This is what I really find issue with. It'd be nice if the skills had more use instead of being so much about auto attacks and praying for lady luck's favor.



And just as a reminder, because it'd be a bit silly to get into some heated discussion where we stray so far from the original point that we forget about it. My original point here was that I disagree with Burnout feeling that Aim Low being changed to 100% success if it hits is unfair for... reasons that can be gleamed from the walls of text!

Slivaf - Dreamweaver

OPKossy wrote: »

Please do me a favor when quoting me and just break it up with the responses. makes replying easier than when your response is in the quote since I don't want to go into your post directly. x_x

Agreed, I have always hated responding to wall of texts like that. :$ That way definitely made it easier for me to respond to you, but harder for you to do the same. I'll have to remember that. :$

OPKossy wrote: »

Very true for mass PvP. For 1v1 it's kind of a game of cat and mouse since you don't want to punish a caster to instantly lose when a melee gets to them, but you also don't want it to be so that a melee can never get to them. Plus you want the melee to be able to threaten the ability to kill them once close. After all, the battle loses its meaning if I can sit there and tank you all day even if you get close to me. However it also loses meaning if you reaching me means I'm dead or you can't actually reach me.

Exactly right. :$ This is what I have been trying to point out along with my other points, I don't always convey my messages in the best way possible/let alone the most understandable way.

OPKossy wrote: »

That being said, a large part of the survival issue in mass PvP is going to come from gear gaps. Take PWIC as an example. Yes, the melees have to deal with damage on their way, but with adequate support from their team and their defensive options, it becomes less of an issue for them to get close and then be the ones supporting their team. However, that was in an equal gear environment where the ones with superior teamwork and skill would win. Going against different tiers of gear, like what tends to happen in NW, will skew things a good deal because then it has to be factored in. Prior to endgame, if your gears are relatively even as a melee, you still won't have too many issues as long as your opponents are around the same gear level and one side doesn't have vastly better teamwork/skill than the other.

Agreed yet again. :$

OPKossy wrote: »

Now when the gap in skills AND gear are all over the place, that's when melees have it the roughest when they aren't in endgame gear. It's also why I try to discuss on the assumption of relatively even gear and skill. After all, it doesn't matter how skilled you are if you're a 2-shot once you get caught... but at the same time if your opponent is a complete idiot who gives you too many chances you can potentially take them to live another day and/or dispatch of them... given the assumption that the gap in your gears isn't so large that even with them being stupid you can't do much. See how much of a pain it can be to try and account for that already? And that's just a loose example without bringing into account the chaos of mass PvP where even a ranged character is just as easy prey for a better geared ranged character as a melee is.

... but I'm straying from the topic and doing what I said I wouldn't so moving on!

To be honest I for one am glad you did, as there was a realization on my part that I hadn't previously realized until you/I strayed from the topic. (That being the fact that, other melees don't really seem like they're forced into being a support thanks to their built in skills/ability to get to others MUCH easier than a bm)

Agreed yet again, however as you pointed out/undoubtedly know, its far easier to get away with being a 2 shot on a ranged/magic class than a melee. :$ Also very true about ranged characters being just as easy preys as melee, still they do have that easier potential of fighting back/locking the overpowered ranged down... but yea that goes back to what you pointed out already. (Difference in skill levels/the chaos of mass pvp.)

OPKossy wrote: »

I need to focus on the bolded here first. I'm not saying archers are the only ones who could use a skill revamp. In fact, I did point out the silliness of one of the assassin skills as a comparison to both a skill I felt could use improvement (Aim Low) and one I felt was balanced (Drake Bash). However this is the archer subforum and I was posting about archers and as a response to a post about one of their skills. So I am going to focus more on the archer side than that of other classes here. Frost and blazing scarabs, for example, are both skills I feel venos have needed to have reworked for... a long time now. The new expansion is actually doing something about those, though some of it seems a bit concerning, but as no one's really brought them up here and it was irrelevant to my point for me to do so, I simply chose not to address it.

Yea that part you bolded came out slightly wrong, BUT I am going to leave it as that, especially since you got the gist of it.

OPKossy wrote: »

For the rest, I generally agree on my melees but, bar luck of something like purify spell/tidal or me missing, I still appreciate it happening when it's skill and reactions. After all, if I run in and attempt to use a stun, then they take a countermeasure only for me to follow through with a seal, it's a display of skill on both of our parts. Compare that to me using something like sage deep sting (95% success chance) on someone who has their resources exhausted and for it to hit them and... fail because the RNG didn't like me at that particular moment. Or hitting a 5 base dex robe with HF since I know they can't handle it and a HF combo will get me a win but instead of the debuff landed I'm greeted by a miss. Yeah missing is part of being a phys class, but man that can get annoying at crucial moments! b:laugh

Aye VERY annoying indeed, missing may be a part of life as a melee, but still annoying. Lol

OPKossy wrote: »

Point is, if someone's countering me in a 1v1 scenario, I want it to be about skill and not luck. For mass PK... it's a can of worms filled with too many randoms for me to really discuss completely outside of general things. Which all comes back to why I feel that the change to Aim Low suggested would have been a fair one: It reduces the luck element somewhat and makes skill play a larger role. And remember, any time an archer uses any skill that performs any kind of a debuff (IE: Aim Low), that's a skill that's guaranteed to not purge you. Though I only bring up that point because purge is something that was getting thrown around earlier.

I am in agreement with you yet again, so much in fact, that you swayed me... I agree the change Quil made to aim low does seem fair enough, albeit I still don't like the fact that skills that take more chi can miss, and still take the chi. (even if it's rare... and aye all classes have to deal with it.) I also don't like how this will undoubtedly make it harder for melees to get near others, dealing with all the ranged stuns, and sleeps before even getting to a caster, or archer. (Archer would have both a stun, and sleep.... a ranged one at that.) It so won't be fun being on the wrong end of that.

OPKossy wrote: »

Tackling slash. It's Aim Low on steroids. Better relative (and potential) damage, grants chi, works every time, and lasts longer... on a class that can choose to make use of that with either APS or DPH with ease. Totally stupid even when you factor in that they're a LA wearing melee class and before accounting for tidal/focused mind and nerves. Hence why I used it as the example for an poorly balanced/imbalanced control skill that can still be compared to Drake Bash and Aim Low.

As for knife throw... well that's a 35m range skill so they don't have to worry about any gaps with that. Bonus to them for being able to follow up that knife throw with a telestun from the same range making closing the gap a non-issue for 1v1. Oh and did I mention that it can interrupt with demon version guaranteeing it? Yeah..... For mass PvP, they have stealth and it's unlikely that people will be spamming detect pots until after they've been spotted, so barring a higher level sin, closing the gap wouldn't be much of an issue... though surviving after that and making themselves useful would be even if we assume relatively even gear.

Aim low does have (wait for it... and yea I am aware you likely realize this) range on it's side, where drake bash, and even tackling slash doesn't (granted tackling slash has a VERY small range) Still aim low has it beat... but ONLY in the range department/(EDIT) the fact that sleep CAN miss albeit 90% seems at the very least... decent.

OPKossy wrote: »

Shocked I found this one since your responses are in red! Good thing I actually read through before quoting!

Do you mean the skill missing or failing here? I was talking strictly about failing. Missing, while annoying, is something physical classes have to live with. A chi heavy skill failing entirely, on the other hand, even when it hits? Yeah that's... not really that good at all. The easiest skill to compare it to for BMs is Drake Ray as that fulfills the same overall area for the class, even if the skills themselves have different status ailments. For different examples, it would be like if Seal of the Gods had a 10% chance to fail on a target, or Headhunt (though I'll admit this is a poor comparison due to spark cost differences), or something similar.

Both really, missing or failing, both entirely suck especially when the chi is so valuable... sure chi is valuable regardless of what class you are on, but I do feel melees who use chi for a skill and miss, or fails entirely suffer for it more, since they are often in the thick of battle, meaning if a barb for example tries using armageddon, but it ends up missing/failing his chi gets ate up. (sure its only 2 sparks) but it would mean he would either have to hit, or be hit while having beastial rage active to be able to invoke/sunder. (He would also need to have the time to get back into tiger form.) EDIT: Also Aye I am indeed aware that missing on a melee is part of life for them, but still it is NOT fun.... especially when it isn't an archer/sin/bm they're missing on... I guess that it the game's luck playing too much of a role in mass pvp at times. Though fortunately misses are quite rare.

OPKossy wrote: »

And what you say about chi is exactly what I mean about no archer using aim low if they don't need the freeze... except on top of the missing that they have to deal with as a physical class, they still have a chance to burn the spark on a fail without even being able to say it was their opponent being skilled and countering the skill... or... you know... the RNG hating them and deciding that that's to be the skill that procs purify spell or that tidal blocks (which can kinda be considered countering it I guess) or whatever.

Aye but if aim low fails for an archer, at least if they use it and it fails they are still in all likely hood at a distance, which allows them time to turn tail and run, whereas if a melee uses chi and it misses/fails... well you know. :$

OPKossy wrote: »

If Aim Low cost less chi? Yeah the chance of failure would be completely warranted. In fact it would be absurd if it didn't have the failure chance. If it were a stun, again it would be totally warranted because ranged stuns are just ~THAT~ dangerous and most of them do have a chance to fail even with their chi costs. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, it is neither of those things and thus the chance to fail on top of missing considering the cost and damage is a hindrance to the skill that really shouldn't be there.

Sleeps/immobilization are dangerous to melees (as a melee would be literally unable to counter attack... they aren't to a caster, but ranged stuns those are dangerous to both.

OPKossy wrote: »

It's why I also made sure to point out teamwork before. When it's two evenly matched teams, it becomes a question of teamwork and skill. Your team supports you to get you close to the enemy. You support them once you're close. In something more chaotic and when a gear/skill gap arises, it becomes less the skills themselves and more the fact that one side already has a major advantage over the other.

Agreed. :$

OPKossy wrote: »

So like I said, if archers had better skills overall, they really wouldn't be validated to complain and their defenses being sub-par would be completely justified. However since right now they're more luck based at the end of the day, both things get called into question. Especially with things like the evasion self buff that doesn't help much and is constantly overwritten, the blazing arrow that can't be rebuffed even though the damage boost isn't that significant overall in PvP, or the 45 chi defense charm that pops in one hit from even undergeared players attacking an endgame archer. Grace is great but easily interrupted once you've figured it out and just as easy to time poorly due to a combination of human error (understandable) and things outside of our control. Combine that with the archer skill issues that have already been discussed a note of and the fact that they seem to be getting ignored in favor of trivial updates to DoT skills and... yeah complaints were bound to happen.

Main reason why I conceded about the hypothetical change to aim low, albeit I still have my worries about it.

OPKossy wrote: »

Well those statements are true for a coordinated group of enemies against a lone melee. If the group of enemies is uncoordinated, it gets skewed. If the melee has support, it gets even more skewed. Though why any reasonable melee would run into a large group of enemies without anti-stun and/or some form of damage reduction/immunity is another question entirely. Even with that, though, the very fact that it's enough of a threat to keep people from bunching up shows my point. If it really weren't something to fear at all, people wouldn't really give a damn and the melee rushing in wouldn't be considered a priority target either.

And yes, I didn't really go in-depth in response to that as it's more of a tangent that goes away from the skill discussion.

Aye your right it does show your point, I so didn't mean for it to sound like it wasn't a threat, still it is easier not to be scared of it, if you know most bm's/melees can't even make it through 1-2 END Game casters/some well played/placed stuns, seals, sleeps etc. (Though that is more to do with the groups skill as you said. :$) Also aye I haven't ever run into a group of ppl without my anti stun active, but that so doesn't stop me from getting killed... I'd have to go in charmed and/or with apo active and/(more or) stay NEAR my group to be able to effectively pull that of.

OPKossy wrote: »

Didn't really respond to the rest because I agree with your general point and don't feel like I should continue the derail by arguing the specific parts I disagree with. Apology accepted, though, as it's pretty easy to make that sort of assumption in general. :P

I am glad you did even if you didn't have to accept it. :$ ^^ (In other words thank you for doing that. :$)

OPKossy wrote: »

Edit:
Yeah. BMs have it especially rough there as the original "off-tank" class from when Barbs were designed to absorb damage and BMs were more of a jack-of-all-trades. So, much to my frustration at times, it really shows when you aren't at the top end gear but are still attempting to make a difference and the natural advantages the "original" tank gets and the newer classes that were designed with the evolution of the game in mind kinda show you up. Thankfully the skill rebalances have been working on this and I can feel useful again, even if I have to work harder for it on BM, but sometimes I really wish I had invoke instead of having to burn an apoth when doing stuff on my BM.


Yeah. This is what I really find issue with. It'd be nice if the skills had more use instead of being so much about auto attacks and praying for lady luck's favor.

Absolutely Agreed.

OPKossy wrote: »

And just as a reminder, because it'd be a bit silly to get into some heated discussion where we stray so far from the original point that we forget about it. My original point here was that I disagree with Burnout feeling that Aim Low being changed to 100% success if it hits is unfair for... reasons that can be gleamed from the walls of text!

While it took these wall of texts me hinting around at things/not being too clear... the reason why I agreed with burnout, and still have my doubts about aim low is up above. (I don't like the sound of a 100% sleep chance, as melees would undoubtedly be effected by it the most, even if it could still miss, or was already at 90%... being slept, and stunned by so many people so doesn't sound fun, as we will eventually undoubtedly be caught a time or two being immobilized, and hurting quite a bit thanks to the ranged sleep/stuns.

Also while a lot of this is just saying I agree... I wanted to see how this would look. b:quiet *hides*

HideYoHubby - Archosaur

Slivaf - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Nah archers dont have it anywhere near as easy as a caster, but they still have range on their side, and superior damage to that of melees. EDIT: I will not buy into that bs about but meleers have more hp/their gear refine for more hp. Whether you all like it or not that range + superior damage plays quite the role in mass pvp, and is quite the advantage over any melee. (A ranger/caster, CAN attack a melee for a lot more, and they can do it from anywhere, and they can often gank a melee far easier than if there were melees after a caster/archer.... so yea I am standing by that point. It IS a REALLY useful intangible for you all.

Besides I am perfectly happy on my seeker/barb when I can nw.

Honestly, only reasonable melee class to compare archers to is sins as both classes are supposed to be killing people. Barbs are just support class, BMs too, Seekers more of half ranged class. Now if you are going to claim archer dps > sin dps, you know nothing.

But meh, as far as my own personal experience goes, I have fought basically everything relevant on Archo with subpar gear myself on sin. Only classes I can beat most of the time at endgame are sins(Our sins are just terrible), Barbs (vit builds, dont really hit too hard) and archers(Outside of full +12s). Seekers are sorta there, I dont think I could beat even remotely skilled seekers of R9T3 +10 tier in 1vs1 but ours are just god horrible most of the time. Casters with their damn proc are just ehh, decent refines on armor and its more useful to just lock them down outside of fight than even try to kill them due puri proc. BMs are just way too beefy with too much CC to drop down, from sins PoV.

Ps. Nobody has argued range isnt advantage, you are the only one with obsession of nerf hammering archers cause of range, even when you agree casters are far more broken. Oh yeah and the cleric who writes walls nobody bothers to read anymore.

OPKossy wrote: »

Compare that to me using something like sage deep sting (95% success chance) on someone who has their resources exhausted and for it to hit them and... fail because the RNG didn't like me at that particular moment. Or hitting a 5 base dex robe with HF since I know they can't handle it and a HF combo will get me a win but instead of the debuff landed I'm greeted by a miss. Yeah missing is part of being a phys class, but man that can get annoying at crucial moments! b:laugh

Oh, I had moment like that on my archer in TW yesterday. I saw enemy key psy demon spark, I get in position to Stunning arrow them. Shot the skill, see nothing on buff bar "damn it failed" only to see that miss 1s later floating around to really agitate me. So worth to have those 50% accuracy rings <.<.

FaceRolI - Sanctuary

Slivaf - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Besides I am perfectly happy on my seeker/barb when I can nw.

EDIT: The messed up thing about this all is the fact that you all seem to be so baised about your class, that you all seem to think I am trying to take away your range/superior damage.

1) but a barb is a melee char!! are you only happy on seeker because you have ranged skills? you should be so so unhappy :<

2) pretty sure most PWI players have played every class by now. you can't actually do anything in terms of PWI skill balancing so people probably don't think that. If I had to guess at what people do think it would be along the lines of this guy is amusing/annoying/who is this guy?/y so srs/mmmm.... peanut butter b:thanks

Slivaf - Dreamweaver

HideYoHubby - Archosaur wrote: »

Honestly, only reasonable melee class to compare archers to is sins as both classes are supposed to be killing people. Barbs are just support class, BMs too, Seekers more of half ranged class. Now if you are going to claim archer dps > sin dps, you know nothing.

But meh, as far as my own personal experience goes, I have fought basically everything relevant on Archo with subpar gear myself on sin. Only classes I can beat most of the time at endgame are sins(Our sins are just terrible), Barbs (vit builds, dont really hit too hard) and archers(Outside of full +12s). Seekers are sorta there, I dont think I could beat even remotely skilled seekers of R9T3 +10 tier in 1vs1 but ours are just god horrible most of the time. Casters with their damn proc are just ehh, decent refines on armor and its more useful to just lock them down outside of fight than even try to kill them due puri proc. BMs are just way too beefy with too much CC to drop down, from sins PoV.

Ps. Nobody has argued range isnt advantage, you are the only one with obsession of nerf hammering archers cause of range, even when you agree casters are far more broken. Oh yeah and the cleric who writes walls nobody bothers to read anymore.



Oh, I had moment like that on my archer in TW yesterday. I saw enemy key psy demon spark, I get in position to Stunning arrow them. Shot the skill, see nothing on buff bar "damn it failed" only to see that miss 1s later floating around to really agitate me. So worth to have those 50% accuracy rings <.<.

Even though I am fairly sure I replied to something similar already, I am going to post this again.

I just want you all to stop ignoring it like it isn't an advantage, consider it/what meleers have to go through to even get near those of you who choose to play a caster or archer class.

FaceRolI - Sanctuary wrote: »

1) but a barb is a melee char!! are you only happy on seeker because you have ranged skills? you should be so so unhappy :<

2) pretty sure most PWI players have played every class by now. you can't actually do anything in terms of PWI skill balancing so people probably don't think that. If I had to guess at what people do think it would be along the lines of this guy is amusing/annoying/who is this guy?/y so srs/mmmm.... peanut butter b:thanks

1. I am so not sure how you picked that up from my complaint's. Lol... (It's oh so wrong.)

All I was trying to do is for you archers and casters who are asking for a damage boost, or defensive boost, take a serious look at what a melee has to go through. Perhaps some of you have, and just quite simply don't care/don't really realize what a meleer has to go through. Especially bm's.

2. ^^ Lol.... who knows. :P

Aye, your right I am sure everyone (arguably too strong of a word) has played every class, and everyone has an opinion on which they feel is the weakest. For me... well you all already know which I feel is the weakest. :$

Burnout - Harshlands

OPKossy wrote: »

And just as a reminder, because it'd be a bit silly to get into some heated discussion where we stray so far from the original point that we forget about it. My original point here was that I disagree with Burnout feeling that Aim Low being changed to 100% success if it hits is unfair for... reasons that can be gleamed from the walls of text!

And my point is, EVERY class had to deal with this. I don't know why archers suddenly get to think their class needs so much help that they don't have to deal with the same stuff others have to deal with.

You say aim low costs a lot of resources, but wanna know what you have to do to get off Mountain's Seize in pvp? The majority of the time you have to burn 4 sparks - 2 for sutra, 2 for the actual skill. How many people let you get off a 5-second channel in pvp without interrupting/immuning it?

Back in event gear days I spent hours fighting a certain skilled BM who couldn't be killed solo except by a full sutra-ult combo while stunned. You know how sad I was when it failed to stun him? It meant another 5-10 minutes of fighting. Four sparks just to get a skill that barely does more damage than two gushes, and then it doesn't even stun the target?

Anyway PWI skills are littered with these types of little cantrips, all designed to annoy the **** out of you the rare times they actually happen. Same thing with psychic - except their Earth vector fails a full 15% of the time.

Asterelle - Sanctuary

Burnout - Harshlands wrote: »

And my point is, EVERY class had to deal with this. I don't know why archers suddenly get to think their class needs so much help that they don't have to deal with the same stuff others have to deal with.

A glance at the 4 strongest/essential debuffs across various classes shows you are wrong.
Having a 1 spark debuff with both a chance to miss and a chance to fail is rare.

Wizard debuffs:
Undine - 0% chance to fail (and burns def charm) - 0% chance to miss - 0 chi cost
Spark - 0% chance to fail - 0% chance to miss - 62 genie energy
Force of Will - 0% chance to fail - 0% chance to miss - 0 chi cost
Mountain Seize - 5% chance to fail - 0% chance to miss - 2 spark

Sin Debuffs:
Headhunt - 0% chance to fail - 5%~30% chance to miss - 2 spark
Throatcut - 0% chance to fail - 5%~30% chance to miss? - 1 spark
Shadow Teleport - 0% chance to fail - 0% chance to miss? - 1 spark
Tackling Slash - 0% chance to fail - 5%~30% chance to miss - gives 50 chi

BM Debuffs:
Roar of Pride - 0% chance to fail - 0% chance to miss - 35 chi
Heaven's Flame - 0% chance to fail - 5%~40% chance to miss - 2 spark
Drake Bash - 0% chance to fail - 5~40% chance to miss - 1 spark
Blade Hurl - 0% chance to fail - 0% chance to miss - 35 chi

Archer Debuffs:
Stunning Arrow - 10% chance to fail - 5%~30% chance to miss - 0 chi cost
Aim Low - 10% chance to fail - 5%~30% chance to miss - 1 spark
Blood Vow - 0% chance to fail - 0% chance to miss - 1 spark
Thunder Shock - 0% chance to fail - 5~30% chance to miss - 30 chi

Eoria - Harshlands

Roar does have a chance to fail though unless it's demon.

Quilue - Sanctuary

Super important Qui here to set you straight on channel + cast, since apparently a post here wanted to derp that cast takes away from debuff duration.

Channel is the time it takes to prepare a skill, cast is the time it takes to deliver a skill. If you watch carefully, during channel, the channeling bar fills up; during cast, the filled channeling bar stays on the screen. Most skill effects manifest at the same time the channeling bar is disappearing. Both parts of the skill may have animations associated with it.

For melee classes, channel animation may not be observable if they are short; but cast animations are very obvious. BMs performing axe skills are spinning or slamming their axe during the cast time; similarly, the Roar lion animation is seen during cast time.

For ranged classes, there may be a channel animation and a cast animation. Usually the cast animation is the projectile moving to the target. Look at Glacial Snare, for example.

Damage and any debuffs are dealt near the end of the cast animation, not before. This means when a BM stun says 6s, no he is not spending almost 2s of that stun doing cast time. This also means when a wizard seals you, no he is not spending 2 whole seconds of the seal time as cast time.

What one may actually observe is that since Roar has greater AOE than certain weapon ranges, a BM may be spending time moving to the target afterwards.

What one may also have observed is that characters do not transition smoothly between moving and attacking. The pause after Roar even after the spell has finished casting (channeling bar is gone) is a manifestation of this transition time. If you Roar a target when it's out of your fist range. You will find that your pause comes after moving in range of the target. However, you can move immediately after the stun comes out.

Attack skills that transition into a physical attack naturally, like Stunning Arrow or Drake's Bash, do not exhibit such a pause unless the target manages to move out of range during cast time.

HideYoHubby - Archosaur

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

Shadow Teleport - 0% chance to fail - 0% chance to miss? - 1 spark

Never noticed one miss so I dont believe it can miss.

DionDagger - Dreamweaver

HideYoHubby - Archosaur wrote: »

Never noticed one miss so I dont believe it can miss.

Tackling slash however can. Missed on a barb and a cleric today, I was salty.

Aeliah - Dreamweaver

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

A glance at the 4 strongest/essential debuffs across various classes shows you are wrong.
Having a 1 spark debuff with both a chance to miss and a chance to fail is rare.



Sin Debuffs:
Throatcut - 0% chance to fail - 5%~30% chance to miss? - 1 spark

Minor correction: demon throatcut is 95% chance (relevant since still a lot of demon sins running about)

Burnout - Harshlands

Quilue - Sanctuary wrote: »

Damage and any debuffs are dealt near the end of the cast animation, not before. This means when a BM stun says 6s, no he is not spending almost 2s of that stun doing cast time. This also means when a wizard seals you, no he is not spending 2 whole seconds of the seal time as cast time.

We still spend the majority of it in animation lock. Wiz spends 2 seconds in animation lock for FoW, and we get ~3.5 seconds of DD time after that. It's a horrible spell in terms of offensive utility for that reason, although the near-instant seal effect is extremely useful to react to enemy actions. I guess it's the tradeoff we make for having a spell that interrupts almost instantly on-demand. It's also the main reason why a good wiz makes a backline that much safer - they can completely **** over any BM who doesn't have IG effect on. Only other class that can defend vs a BM rush is Mystics, but they actually require decent reaction times to get off a knockback/seal in time.

It's very common for an archer to wait till charm tick and ~80% hp before using stunning arrow to finish people off. There's almost no wait time to fire off an arrow after stunning, so it has both defensive and offensive utility, though less defensive utility than wizard's FoW, since its so easy to stun-immune it.

Bhavyy - Raging Tide

Burnout - Harshlands wrote: »

We still spend the majority of it in animation lock. Wiz spends 2 seconds in animation lock for FoW, and we get ~3.5 seconds of DD time after that. It's a horrible spell in terms of offensive utility for that reason, although the near-instant seal effect is extremely useful to react to enemy actions. I guess it's the tradeoff we make for having a spell that interrupts almost instantly on-demand. It's also the main reason why a good wiz makes a backline that much safer - they can completely **** over any BM who doesn't have IG effect on. Only other class that can defend vs a BM rush is Mystics, but they actually require decent reaction times to get off a knockback/seal in time.

It's very common for an archer to wait till charm tick and ~80% hp before using stunning arrow to finish people off. There's almost no wait time to fire off an arrow after stunning, so it has both defensive and offensive utility, though less defensive utility than wizard's FoW, since its so easy to stun-immune it.

wtf are you talking about

Aeliah - Dreamweaver

Quilue - Sanctuary wrote: »

Super important Qui here to set you straight on channel + cast, since apparently a post here wanted to derp that cast takes away from debuff duration.

Channel is the time it takes to prepare a skill, cast is the time it takes to deliver a skill. If you watch carefully, during channel, the channeling bar fills up; during cast, the filled channeling bar stays on the screen. Most skill effects manifest at the same time the channeling bar is disappearing. Both parts of the skill may have animations associated with it.

For melee classes, channel animation may not be observable if they are short; but cast animations are very obvious. BMs performing axe skills are spinning or slamming their axe during the cast time; similarly, the Roar lion animation is seen during cast time.

For ranged classes, there may be a channel animation and a cast animation. Usually the cast animation is the projectile moving to the target. Look at Glacial Snare, for example.

Damage and any debuffs are dealt near the end of the cast animation, not before. This means when a BM stun says 6s, no he is not spending almost 2s of that stun doing cast time. This also means when a wizard seals you, no he is not spending 2 whole seconds of the seal time as cast time.

What one may actually observe is that since Roar has greater AOE than certain weapon ranges, a BM may be spending time moving to the target afterwards.

What one may also have observed is that characters do not transition smoothly between moving and attacking. The pause after Roar even after the spell has finished casting (channeling bar is gone) is a manifestation of this transition time. If you Roar a target when it's out of your fist range. You will find that your pause comes after moving in range of the target. However, you can move immediately after the stun comes out.

Attack skills that transition into a physical attack naturally, like Stunning Arrow or Drake's Bash, do not exhibit such a pause unless the target manages to move out of range during cast time.

I disagree with this. From what I've observed, this isn't always true. Some skills have a long cast time. Roar of the pride for blademaster has 0.6s channel and a whopping 1.8s channeling. Ask any bm 'does he get to use all 6 seconds of stun' and the categorical reply is 'no way'.

I tested roar of the pride on my bm, and here's what I noticed:

-6s appears to be how long the stun icon stays on the target
-~4.5 seconds of time that stun icon stays on target after bm can move again (aka, when cast animation finishes)
-stun icon appears on target shortly after cast starts... roughly 0.5 seconds afterwards by my guess

How to make sense of these results?

For one, the status effect (stun) definitely isn't landing near the end of the casting animation. Just think how easy it would be to avoid a bm stun if you had (0.6+1.8=) 2.4 seconds to react to it before the stun can actually land on you.

Secondly, the bm definitely doesn't get to use all 6 seconds of the stun; by my best timing, it feels like 4-4.5 seconds. I used a stop watch.

Finally, how do we explain the stun animation not landing immediately after your channeling ends? My best guess is simply 'ping'. The status effect doesn't show up immediately because the information has to go from my computer(stun being sent) to server (check if person has anti-stun in, if not apply stun) back to my computer (see the stun status effect). With my ping of ~300-400 ms, that beautifully accounts for the ~0.5s delay.

(This also explains why I rely on a more 'predictive' style of play, because often due to my ping I cannot react like somebody living on the east coast of USA would be able to; in theory with a great connection I could see the channeling of roar start, hit fortify, and expect my fortify to kick in BEFORE the stun arrives, but for me that is just not possible.)

Anyways, this is a very important point. A theoretical skill with 0.1s channel and 5 seconds cast should affect you at the end of channeling; however the person delivering this skill to you would simply be stuck in a casting animation for 5 seconds.

Bhavyy - Raging Tide wrote: »

wtf are you talking about

See what I just wrote above. Animation lock = casting animation = cast time.

Burnout - Harshlands

Aeliah kinda has it about right. Archers don't notice cast times only because all their cc skills have .6 cast time. Go use FoW lvl 1 on a wiz, and watch the seal wear off before you even get to finish channeling the next spell.

HideYoHubby - Archosaur

DionDagger - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Tackling slash however can. Missed on a barb and a cleric today, I was salty.

Who claimed it cant miss? Seriously...

Aeliah - Dreamweaver

Eoria - Harshlands wrote: »

Roar does have a chance to fail though unless it's demon.

Question: when lvl 10/sage roar fails, does it fail entirely, or does it fail per target?

Walpurga - Dreamweaver

per target

Quilue - Sanctuary

@Burnout:
I jumped the gun talking about all skills doing effects near the end of cast time, it's not the same with every class and not even the same with every skill. I doubted it with wizards because I see damage dealt nearly when nuke projectiles hit them. With seekers though, you can see people drop and then the animation fly to a corpse with say, Gemini. So yeah you might be right.

@Aeliah
Re-read what I posted about Roar or go watch your BM again. The stun definitely does not appear at the beginning of the cast animation. Roar channel is only 0.6s long, for it to stun at the beginning of cast would mean people get stunned before the lion's head comes out.

I said characters always pause in transition between movement and attack, but the cast time itself is over. Try it with Drake Bash and see if you spend 1.5s pausing after stun. Stuns where an auto-attack follows typically do not exhibit such a pause. You see the BM immediately enter the subsequent attack animation unless the target moved further away during cast. I said stun comes out near the end of cast, so you should not be paused for the entire duration of the cast.

Also, you certainly do not wait 1.8s after Roar stun to move. Either you lag like **** or you are bluffing.

Aeliah - Dreamweaver

Quilue - Sanctuary wrote: »

@Burnout:
I jumped the gun talking about all skills doing effects near the end of cast time, it's not the same with every class and not even the same with every skill. I doubted it with wizards because I see damage dealt nearly when nuke projectiles hit them. With seekers though, you can see people drop and then the animation fly to a corpse with say, Gemini. So yeah you might be right.

@Aeliah
Re-read what I posted about Roar or go watch your BM again. The stun definitely does not appear at the beginning of the cast animation. Roar channel is only 0.6s long, for it to stun at the beginning of cast would mean people get stunned before the lion's head comes out.

I said characters always pause in transition between movement and attack, but the cast time itself is over. Try it with Drake Bash and see if you spend 1.5s pausing after stun. Stuns where an auto-attack follows typically do not exhibit such a pause. You see the BM immediately enter the subsequent attack animation unless the target moved further away during cast. I said stun comes out near the end of cast, so you should not be paused for the entire duration of the cast.

Also, you certainly do not wait 1.8s after Roar stun to move. Either you lag like **** or you are bluffing.

Naaaah, lol. You, like many others, make the mistake of thinking that 'seeing damage over my head' is the same as when 'damage actually arrived'. The damage arrived BEFORE YOU SEE THE # OVER YOUR HEAD.

One example of obvious mismatch between when damage arrives and when you see the damage over your head: phoenix valley, with 234230 mobs hitting you. After doing an aoe, the damage the mobs dealt to you scrolls over your head for minutes after you finish the aoe. Yet I can assure you that there are no ghosts still hitting you after the mobs have died, lol.

Another great example is the seeker skill 'gemini slash'. Anybody who has fought a seeker can attest to the lag on seeing the damage this skill does. The seeker does his blade affinity for the -channel then fires the skill off. Your hp plummets/you die. Then 1-2 seconds later, the # of the damage pops up over your head. I assure you that you didn't die BEFORE THE SKILL HIT YOU LOL.

Oddly enough (sarcasm alert) the status icons you see work in a similar manner. I checked again: the BM stun definitely arrives near the beginning of cast animation. If you were right, the bm should have six seconds to use the stun. This just isn't true. Instead of just speculating, go and actually time how long the icon lasts after the cast is over. (I'm sure we can agree that during cast, you cannot move/do other skills. Measure the time from when the cast bar disappears to when the stun icon disappears from your target, and you should get about 4.2 seconds).

This holds true for all of the skills I can think of, and is particularly obvious on any skills with long cast times.

An archer example: try moving your character in a line then telling an archer to stun you. You'll suddenly stop moving, then see the yellow ball of the stun animation fly into you. If your theory was correct, you wouldn't stop moving right until the moment the yellow ball collides into your character.

A cleric example: razor feathers has a very slow line animation between the cleric and the target, yet the actual damage arrives sooner. I've seen players actually fall over dead before the slow animation of razor feathers actually appears to arrive at their character.

And our bm example: if you genuinely believe that a bm stun arrives at or near the end of (0.6s channel + 1.8s cast), you should be able to see the bm start to channel roar, and simply...walk out of it (think a base movement speed of 5m/s, and ~2 seconds of walking time = 10 meters = you are outside of stun radius). Or, you should be able to watch the 'lions head' of the roar start to form, hit fortify, and expect it to block the stun that, according to you, arrives at/near the end of casting. Thats just not how it works, lol.

To repeat myself, the stun is definitely 6 seconds. However, the bm himself only gets to use 6-1.8 = 4.2 seconds of that stun, because his character is locked in a 1.8s casting animation.

In short, yes, you really DO get stunned before you see the 'lion's head' of aoe stun. You just don't see the stun debuff on yourself until (ping) milliseconds later. If you still think that the stun arrives after 2.4 seconds, you aren't just lagging in game, you are lagging mentally as well.

Quilue - Sanctuary

I look at when damage inflicted by watching when someone drops during the period of a cast time. Some damage points are near the end, some are at the beginning.

Have you noticed no BM is agreeing with you? They would be quick to jump at a statement about their own class if it was wrong. Cast roar, hold movement key, watch stun duration as you move away. It's not 4.2s of stun while you are free to move. That's something that should be easy to check, yet you still talk out of your *** and theorize.

Or, like I said, try it with Drake's Bash, and see if you pause for 1.5s of stun time before attacking.

Slivaf - Dreamweaver

Quilue - Sanctuary wrote: »

I look at when damage inflicted by watching when someone drops during the period of a cast time. Some damage points are near the end, some are at the beginning.

Have you noticed no BM is agreeing with you? They would be quick to jump at a statement about their own class if it was wrong. Cast roar, hold movement key, watch stun duration as you move away. It's not 4.2s of stun while you are free to move. That's something that should be easy to check, yet you still talk out of your *** and theorize.

Or, like I said, try it with Drake's Bash, and see if you pause for 1.5s of stun time before attacking.

That argument about 'no bm's agreeing with you' is weak at best.

EDIT: What I mean is this:

It's quite unwise to try and speak for everyone, who may not be speaking up as NO one knows what is going on in the minds of the quiet ones, there is undoubtedly people on both sides of the fence so to speak.

I for one will refrain from commenting on it, since I haven't done ANY testing on it, however if I had, I would have gladly "corrected" her.

It is POSSIBLE that others have noticed the very same thing about ROTP, but aren't coming here to say anything about it for various reasons, but it also very possible that you are the one in the 'right' about it.

Perhaps one of the reasons why bm's haven't paid attention/complained about it, is due to our own lack of killing power even if we had the full 6 seconds... (if what you said is true) most of us would still be unable to charm bypass. Though if Aeliah is right it certainly isn't helping a bm's ability to kill others. I for one am too lazy to do the testing at the moment... I have more important fish to eat. *noms on fish sticks*

EDIT: I gotta say I am really curious now... not that I don't have enough to QQ about already... rofl... *hides*

Aeliah - Dreamweaver

Lol, wtf. You are making stuff up. 'Pause'? I said nothing about 'pause'. What do you even mean, you aren't making any sense. Something that apparently happens after the cast is over? Irrelevant. As I've repeatedly said, I counted the time from when the casting bar disappeared (and duh, you can't use another skill before the casting of the stun finishes) to when the stun debuff disappears off of the target. 4-4.5 seconds. Timed with a stopwatch. 6 second stun - 1.8 second cast = 4.2 seconds; 4.2 seconds falls within my test data of 4-4.5 seconds. It seems pretty simple to me: the stun from BM's roar is applied right after channeling ends. Yet you didn't address any of this. No, you are just trying to pull a stupid arguing trick: when you can't logically argue against any of my points, you just create something new to argue about. Pause after casting? What nonsense.

I did my testing. I even tested Drake's Bash, and as far as I can determine, the same thing applies (my bm has lvl 10 drake's bash for a 6s stun duration; timing from when casting bar disappears to when stun debuff disappears seems to be under 5 seconds).

BM's aren't commenting? Puh-leze. As far as we know only a single bm has been following this thread, and all he said was 'I haven't tested it'. Do you even have a BM Quilue? And in general, even if you did, would you have thought to test this? Would other bms? I'm doubtful.

@Slivaf, I also didn't say anything about whether this was *fair* for BMs or not, though I'll say now that I think it is fair (think about it, if the stun landed at end of cast you'd have a hard time ever stunning anybody).

So yeah, from my stopwatch time-tests, I conclude that the stun status effect is applied right after channeling ends, or at least, very soon after; I theorize that the ~0.5s delay I see can be accounted for my ping.

Really though, what I am mostly interested in the mechanism behind when all status effects actually get applied. Any skill, any debuff(s). My hypothesis is that, regardless of the animations we see, status effects are applied right after channeling of a skill ends. I'd like to see more information about other skills that support/don't support this hypothesis, preferably with stopwatch tests. Preferably from people who don't give 'I'm oh-so-clever' one-liner responses, lol. While perhaps not the subject of this particular thread, I think any serious pvper would be interested to know if the damage/status effect(s) of skills land at the beginning, middle, or end of cast time (or if it varies randomly from skill to skill).

On that note I'll make a new thread for this particular question!

Burnout - Harshlands

From what I've seen the effect seems to land ~.5 seconds after the end of channeling, possibly due to lag. I get 70 ping in other games but 200+ for pwi at all times.

Testing ressurect (1.5s channel, 1.5s cast), I'm rooted for a full 1.5s after cast, but only 1 second after the effect actually shows up on me.

Going from that it seems consistent with force of will as well - 5 second effect, 2 second casting time, but I get ~3.5s of dps time.

So I'd assume BM's don't get a full 6 seconds, but around 4.8'ish seconds of dps time after completing roar.

The same goes with casting fortify as well though. If you see the BM channel roar it's too late, because it has a .6 second channel while it takes half a second for the anti-stun immunity to actually show up on your char. Considering the average human reaction time of 220 milliseconds + 200 ping, if you fortify in response to a roar it's too late.

FaceRolI - Sanctuary

There is a delay but you can fort if you see them channeling roar. just need to be fast

moving to gen discussion thread. b:bye

Slivaf - Dreamweaver

Aeliah - Dreamweaver wrote: »

@Slivaf, I also didn't say anything about whether this was *fair* for BMs or not, though I'll say now that I think it is fair (think about it, if the stun landed at end of cast you'd have a hard time ever stunning anybody).


On that note I'll make a new thread for this particular question!

While I may have implied one thing, I only meant that line that I believe your replying too as more of a joke.

I quite frankly don't care if it turns out to be the case, (which really it does make sense what aeliah is saying about the delays of casting) it would arguably need to change to an instant cast, and not land at the end of the cast for us to still be able to stun + get the full 6 seconds out of it. Still even if that is what would happen I can't see many bm's being able to kill others well at all. Especially when alone.

---

but yea... way too off topic. xD

Quilue - Sanctuary

Uh no...you don't even have to be alive to finish casting a spell that you have finished channeling. Therefore, it is decidedly better for stuns to manifest at the end of cast time.