Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Is this going to be addressed in 3.1? It really should be as it makes Backstab useless vs Barbs(not joking).
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
Gort you need to be a less Bawce barb and it doesn't work as well.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>> It's like MAF but it doesn't wear down and can't be dispelled.
It's not nearly as effective at absorbing damage as MAF. I welcome the barrier tweaks, but that really wasn't what I was posting about. This is a very specific case with Backstab.
I've actually posted about it twice in the past and talked with 2 GMs about it, but it seems to have been ignored.
It should be apparent at this point, and I'm surprised that no one else seems to be aware of it. I'm not going to give numbers here because they aren't necessary.
Fully buffed without tenacity, Loggrim with eliminate was landing heavy+ backstabs on Gort and knocking 10,15,20% vit away. Biggest shot he ever landed was ~25%
Fully buffed with tenacity, Loggrim with eliminate was landing light/grazing hits on Gort, and knocking 0,1, rarely 2% vit away. I don't think I ever seen one shot go over 2%.
Like I said, this isn't a surprise. It's been the case for a long time and I'm surprised no one else seems to be aware of it. These numbers are from ~2 months ago after the backstab rewrite and first round of eliminate changes(alpha strike), but the underlying mechanics are still very relevant.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
It's not nearly as effective at absorbing damage as MAF. I welcome the barrier tweaks, but that really wasn't what I was posting about. This is a very specific case with Backstab.
I've actually posted about it twice in the past and talked with 2 GMs about it, but it seems to have been ignored.
It should be apparent at this point, and I'm surprised that no one else seems to be aware of it. I'm not going to give numbers here because they aren't necessary.
Fully buffed without tenacity, Loggrim with eliminate was landing heavy+ backstabs on Gort and knocking 10,15,20% vit away. Biggest shot he ever landed was ~25%
Fully buffed with tenacity, Loggrim with eliminate was landing light/grazing hits on Gort, and knocking 0,1, rarely 2% vit away. I don't think I ever seen one shot go over 2%.
Like I said, this isn't a surprise. It's been the case for a long time and I'm surprised no one else seems to be aware of it. These numbers are from ~2 months ago after the backstab rewrite and first round of eliminate changes(alpha strike), but the underlying mechanics are still very relevant.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
How does Tenacity stack up against Snipe? Thieves have more than one tool at their disposal. Backstab may not be the best option against barbarians. If Snipe is a viable method for attacking/killing a barbarian, I don't see that there's a problem with Tenacity vs. Backstab.
________________________________________________________________
"I only automatically kill players when they're asking for it or it's funny. Or both." ~GM Raesh
________________________________________________________________
"I only automatically kill players when they're asking for it or it's funny. Or both." ~GM Raesh
Barriers are mathematically challenged right now, and slated for a rewrite in 3.2. I'm not sure if time will allow me to add any tweaks once 3.1 hits live. We'll just have to see.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
