Make Halloween Madness great again

Sorry sorry it's shaman that doesnt

@Erelei I think you are confusing the 'two handed' weapon flag with the 'two handed' skill. They have the same name, but they aren't the same thing at all. The two handed weapon flag allows both parry and two handed, but the two handed defense is not two defenses. It is only one defense.

You are talking a lot about parry differences between weapon classes, but I'm not sure how that necessarily relates to shield block and two handed.  That is a comparison among weapon types, not among defenses. While the weapon chart is comprised of numbers, they answer a different question: How does weapon type x compare to y in z category. As related to defenses, the weapon chart does beg other interesting questions, such as: If I use a dagger against a paladin (they don't know it), will I hit less more than with a sword (which they know) (dagger is -2 attack compared to sword)...at what point does weapon prof > weapon type? Interesting, but not our current topic.

The favoring of str/dex is also interesting information, and the assertion that base dex (as opposed relative dex) is a factor in two handed does lend some strength to your statement that high dex is good for two handed. I think everybody already agreed on that. Best case is obviously high base against low base.

However, the full assertion that high dex two handed is BETTER than shield block falls apart.

As @mya has pointed out, even the difference in mace and staff parries isn't enough to cover the base defense chance gap between shield and two handed, much less when considering the other perks of shields (item stats/two disarms). Use anything other than a staff and this gap gets bigger. Then you start to add in unfavorable conditions (if you don't know the weapon involved, hitroll, and the other factors that Mya didn't add in) and you will see that shield block becomes stronger and stronger.

Using the information thus far presented, I think we can safely say that shield block > high dex two handed in defensiveness.

However, if you could show that with base dex factored into Mya's equations that it tips the balance in two handed's favor, you'd have a good argument. It would only apply in favorable circumstances, but you'd be technically right for those rare circumstances. If it were overwhelming in favor of high dex two handed, first I'd say you have just identified three major balance concerns (1. base dex affects two handed too much, 2. shields are useless, and 3. two handed base chance caps way too high) but your original assertion would be correct and that despite the perks of shields, you should go two-handed for defense.

I don't want you to be right because that would point to another known design flaw in the game. Shields are completely defensive, so they have drawbacks. You can't use a floater/bow and your offense drops way down (1. two handed skill allows better offense, 2. two handed weapons have better stats than one handers, 3. two handed weapon types are better generally). Although we already know that the better defense that shields provide DO NOT compensate for these drawbacks for melees (which do not choose shields over dual wield/two handed unless they specialize in shields), if shields didn't even have a defense advantage over two-handed (or dual wield), the design would be so poor as to be broken. It is already pretty much broken, but at least not in pure, absolute defense. Thus, communers will continue to use shields as non-specialists instead of two handers.

2 hours ago, Anume said:

Malch was a very correct and 100% integer IMP. Don't slander him please. 

Not everyone may have liked his ic decisions, but he never cheated.

I included Malch because he continually said he was coding things behind the scenes (for years) when he clearly was not. This was a repeated and sustained lie which is a major integrity problem. Later we learned this was due to his inability to code which is a competence problem for a coder (as well as another sustained lie). The game lost half its playerbase under his watch, another benchmark for competence. He also chose some very ineffective staff (chayesh and chueh jump to mind immediately (chayesh for compentence; chueh for perhaps the worst integrity of any FL staff member to date), which is a judgment failure and competence issue. So while I do agree he had a good personality and his heart was in the right place, I don't think I've inappropriately slandered him. I don't believe Malch directly cheated in game like viri/crypt/behrens.

This isn't to say that he didn't have good points. I can also think of several good decisions that he and Behrens made (e.g. choosing great staff such as @Raargant and @Anume probably being the best). Behrens was much, much worse than Malch by any measure.

edit: Now that I think of it, chueh may be a remnant from pre-behrens staff chaos, but he was certainly around

.... you can't have two handed block without parry. I'm not confusing anything. Like I said. Disagree. I'm not here to argue what you or mya considers correct compare to what I consider correct. 

If what you use works for you, fine. I'm telling you, from a code stand point, that two handed (which is parry and block, since you can't just have two handed block.. ) is better. 

You guys have the old code. Use it to your hearts content.

Well, if you bring parry into the equation, two handed + staff parry easily goes over shield block. I don't think that was Cel's point though.

Question here is, does two handed + staff parry > shield block + holy hands.

Well, I agree with your first part @f0xx, but not your reiteration of the question. The original statement, in its original form, was:

Two hand block with a high dex race > shield block

--

Not two handed + parry, not holy hands, not different weapons, not even overall defensiveness of some cleric or warrior...just a comparison of two defenses: high dex 2hand and shield block

--

I think @Erelei has made it clear that wasn't exactly his intended statement, so if we substitute: parry +  two handed block with high dex race > shield block, we are all back into agreement.

I'm not arguing with Morl, just showing some rough math based on the old code and what Morl said. Like I said in the other thread, arguing code with the coder about a code you don't really know looks makes me look very stupid. And I prefer to look stupid in private.

27 minutes ago, f0xx said:

Well, if you bring parry into the equation, two handed + staff parry easily goes go over shield block. I don't think that was Cel's point though.

Question here is, does two handed + staff parry > shield block + holy hands.

I assume you are speaking of clerics. In my view shield give you an edge when you don't know your opponent weapon. So if you know your opponent weapon, there is no question that a two-handed weapon is the best defense. If you don't, I expect things to get muddy like in my example above. Where your cleric meele offense will have a lot more impact and both your races and stuff. Bottom line, know weapon - 2handed, not know - situational. And that it's not taking into consideration monks cursed "corpse maker" disarm of 2handed weapons.

And this is the beauty of FL. :D

It's like "Two hand block with a high dex race > shield block". Sure this will most likely be true in some cases. And untrue in others. This is where the player experience gained in hundreds of PK's will come in.

@Celerity I think you may be nitpicking here. What I think you are trying to drive at is whether two-handed block > shield block.

While Erelei is coming from the fact that, you can't just have two-handed block... because if you are two-handed blocking, you also get a chance to parry because you are wielding a two-handed weapon.

However, indulging the argument I would then conclude, solely comparing just two-handed block to shield block, shield block is better. However in the game, there will never be a situation where you only have a chance to two-handed block without a chance to parry. So the question is, why are we having this disagreement? We all are in this to make the game a fun and better place. Everyone just wants to rules lawyer it on up and muddy the waters... bunch of savages! I love you guys ;)

Anyways, @Pali you make very valid and agreeable points. The time investment I think is something that is a growing issue. It has in the past been something I have dismissed frequently in discussions when I have tried to convince friends to play. Comparing the time invested to the same time they would spend in other games. I think in retrospect that the issue with my argument is that the time investment is at the forefront of the discussion. In my observation of the typical gamer, if they know they have to invest serious time into a game to "have fun", they are significantly less likely to start. However, if they aren't aware of said needed investment, and just start playing the game, those hours can quickly tick by, which is what I think happens to many of us. That being that when we role a character and plan out the outline of what we want, we don't necessarily think about how much time that is going to take. However, if we first start with how much time it is going to take, I think we start talking ourselves out of committing to the creation and the character dies before it exists.

We are all well aware of the situation regarding the playerbase and many great solutions that in theory could/should work to help. However, maybe we should take a long hard look at the time sync required for certain aspects of the game. If we are discussing time to become leader of a cabal, I would say that should be left as is. Time to be able to apply to become a qrace/class... that I think we should consider rolling back a bit on. Given that we have made leveling to 50 a much quicker task (I may even argue for a slight bump in the increase in that), it still leaves many sitting around logged in but not engaged. Yes, they can RP (and should), but sometimes the game state (players logged in) is not conducive to this. For my latest qrace/class I had to sit around and wait (I did RP when I was able) for 10+ hours before I could apply. It really became a chore at times because I just wanted to get to the next stage.

Maybe one solution would be to change the rule regarding not being able to be in a cabal while applying for said qrace/class. This would at least lend the player more options for keeping them busy while that time ticks by. I think if we can get players to not think about the time they are investing in the game, through distractions such as cabal warfare, RP, involving quests (this is by no means to say you as the staff, both present and past have not taken steps to do just this) to keep the player distracted, it makes the game an easier sell.

7 hours ago, Cephirus said:

The time investment I think is something that is a growing issue.

It's a growing issue because we're growing old. ;)

3 minutes ago, Pali said:

It's a growing issue because we're growing old. ;)

Lets not forget you can PINN a char solo in a 10 hour session.. I've watched people do it faster...

Times have progressed. Training speed is now like lightspeed. In comparison to a few years ago things have come a long long way from where they were even 3-4 years ago.

The time required to rank up has never been an issue to me, because that is time spent with a tangible goal and reward - I feel like I'm playing the game while doing it, whereas when I log on at 50 and see nobody on, I find myself going through a simple routine that isn't terribly engaging (I lost count of how many times I solo'd Steel with Vaelrasa to see if certain things were in).  Like Cephirus, I tend to actually think that it's a bit too fast now.  My issue isn't really time sinks, it's time sinks with uncertain purpose and goals; to keep the conversation on track, it's time sinks intended to obtain what amounts to a wild card that I don't really know if I actually want.  I didn't mind Vaelrasa spending 30ish hours at 30, because I knew what it was I was aiming for - I also already knew that my previous experiences playing bmgs had been less than satisfying, so Vaelrasa turning out to be so as well wasn't a shock or a disappointment, just a risk that I'd knowingly accepted.

To be clear, this isn't a gamebreaking issue as far as I'm concerned either - I mentioned above that I've never played any of the qclasses, and while I doubt I'll ever play all of them, chances are that I'll aim for at least one of them on a future character (preferably less aim for, and more just keep my options open).  My real concern is that I'd get it with a character I like the RP of, and the new class would frustrate me enough to wreck my enjoyment of the character.  I had a lot of ways Vaelrasa's RP could have gone, but I simply did not enjoy being a battlemage, and that was enough to ruin the character as a whole for me.  It'd be nice to have a decent notion of what it is I'd be getting myself into before I decide to sink in the time, and a little bit of silliness during HM could provide that notion.

I do want to acknowledge that the game and staff have continuously progressed towards greater openness and transparency - I don't want you to think I'm ignoring that.  But sometimes we stick to traditions simply because they are traditions, not because they still fit the times, and I find myself wondering if keeping qthings secret for the sake of mystery is one of them.  Speaking only for myself, I've found that having a good idea of what I'm getting into doesn't ruin the mystery for me, it makes me more willing to try getting in.  One of my favorite games ever is Europa Universalis IV, but I'd never have picked it up if I couldn't have seen it being played first - I mean, how much fun can moving numbers around on a map be?  Apparently, it's 700+ hours of fun, because I'm far from done with it.

so is dodge > 2h (minus parry)

I just have to know........................

Egreir with the massive necro... 

Also... 2500 posts!

Gonna need that Rudy emoji for this one...