Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Archery, THW (maul, or not), polearms, TWC, ambushing (any form), even hurling - all are faster than UAC. Fact. Wanting a comparison to the other slowest combat method further cements the point. UAC ... is ... slow. There's all this flashy stuff that goes on with UAC but what it boils down to is you *can not crit kill until you are tiered up.* Unless you find some magical way of tiering up faster it'll continue to be slow. UAC isn't some complicated beast or insanely difficult - it's pretty straight forward, and slow. If you swap to another form of combat and familiarize yourself with it like UAC you *will be* more efficient.
I'm not saying power hunting is all there is to this game (certainly not) but power hunters *will not be using UAC*. It's just too slow.
Yeah I was hunting cyclops today and I noticed several instances where it took 2-3 jabs to get a tier up opening. We're both level 27. On the upside I dropped my .5x TWC ranks for 10 ambush ranks and it seemed to help quite a bit with aiming punches.
Also, that UAC is just as efficient at killing as sword and board is the point we're all making. :)
Monks just need a bit of juice to our open tiering chances is all. It doesn't even have to be anything huge and it can come in different forms via innate, cman's, spells, etc. Its perfectly reasonable to attach some sort of cost to the increase. We also need a few other touch ups, my personal favorite is the increase of 1 asg 1202 innate boost.
>>Also, that UAC is just as efficient at killing as sword and board is the point we're all making.
Chances are with most things you'll kill them quicker with sword/board then you will UAC unless you have no real idea of what you are doing. A large majority of creatures are just as easily killed with an axe to the head as any two-handed weapon.
Chances are with most things you'll kill them quicker with sword/board then you will UAC unless you have no real idea of what you are doing. A large majority of creatures are just as easily killed with an axe to the head as any two-handed weapon.
>We also need a few other touch ups, my personal favorite is the increase of 1 asg 1202 innate boost.
See, I liked your tier-up chance 1209, but I DON'T like the ASG 1202 boost. Your argument behind it was that Monks are behind the other Squares in terms of armor strength . . . but why do they need to be equal? They are getting into heavy armor with no spell penalty or maneuver penalty. Thats a HUGE bargain for 1 ASG group. They are amazing at dodging, and even better, their dodging isn't hurt by the armor they do wear. They have great PF costs, so that too sets them up well for even semi-caster redux. Even on top of that is Blink, which can come in handy when hit.
So why, with all of that, do they need to have higher ASG faster? Isn't that a fair penalty for all these strengths?
That there is an issue with tiering-up seems true, and I think that should be addressed with offensive changes, not by compensating with more defensive benefits.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
See, I liked your tier-up chance 1209, but I DON'T like the ASG 1202 boost. Your argument behind it was that Monks are behind the other Squares in terms of armor strength . . . but why do they need to be equal? They are getting into heavy armor with no spell penalty or maneuver penalty. Thats a HUGE bargain for 1 ASG group. They are amazing at dodging, and even better, their dodging isn't hurt by the armor they do wear. They have great PF costs, so that too sets them up well for even semi-caster redux. Even on top of that is Blink, which can come in handy when hit.
So why, with all of that, do they need to have higher ASG faster? Isn't that a fair penalty for all these strengths?
That there is an issue with tiering-up seems true, and I think that should be addressed with offensive changes, not by compensating with more defensive benefits.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
The 1202 boost is essentially for one reason and that's getting mbp at 75 without requiring 30 in ML Transform enhancives. It would still require 1x in ML Transform though. The other armors come a bit earlier but chain is still far behind when rogues/warriors/hybrids could get it, mbp at 75 is still way behind that even.
Monks already have a huge negative that balances out the lack of spell/maneuver penalty, that's the robes CvA which is an effective 33-38 TD penalty over plate. And plate is really what we're talking about since the lower AG's also have the benefit of lower spell and maneuver penalties while still having better CvA than our robes not to mention lower training costs.
Even with the boost we'll still not be equal, but it will reduce mbp from ridiculous to doable at 75. Without it we'll still need a +3 enhancive at level 100 to get mbp along with being fully 1x in the lore.
I'd just settle for getting mpb at 75 with 1x lores and not change the lower ones but I thought a level 0 boost might be easier to implement.
I think the idea was that the minor spiritual circle would makeup for the lack of CvA which sounds great in theory. In practice, warriors get someone to cast 101 and 107 on them and are way ahead on TD. Or, they just wanted us to have a huge weakness and it is certainly TD. It's unfortunate, though, because we're supposed to be squares but are quite a bit more squishy than paladins, rogues, and warriors while still having the TD vulnerability. Yes, 3x dodge for us is cheap but it's pretty cheap for rogues too (and warriors can still 3x it).
At the moment I'm not really having any issues with physical DS and that's with 4x armor and up to 1220 in spells, none in the minor spiritual circle. I do think we should have access to parry mastery. It certainly makes sense for someone who is supposedly a master in unarmed combat to be proficient in parrying attacks. I'm not understanding why that wasn't included in their list of CMs.
For the most part that TD is going to be a non issue until you hit capped hunting grounds or you hunt warcamps.
One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is iharmony be removed as a martial stance and just make it a combat maneuver. Also give it the ability to remove all status affects when manually activated, 40 stamina to remove one affect seems a bit extreme to me. Maybe scale the cost where one affect is 30 to remove and each additional affect adds 10.
One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is iharmony be removed as a martial stance and just make it a combat maneuver. Also give it the ability to remove all status affects when manually activated, 40 stamina to remove one affect seems a bit extreme to me. Maybe scale the cost where one affect is 30 to remove and each additional affect adds 10.
Slippery mind worked well for me in foggy valley where the pra'eda and spectral shades had about 20% chance to ward me. When I first learned slippery mind I had expected it to be useful against all spells cast at me (I read it how I wanted it to read!) It would be treading into song of noise territory I guess if it started hindering boil earth, spikethorn, and bolt spells. I didn't keep the maneuver however as at level 30+ it is simply easier to find another hunting ground if warding is a problem. Also it wasn't a character defining maneuver for my monk. My rogue picked it up however and it helps a good bit in the bowels.
Lochiven
>That's too bad. In the majority of cases, speed > power. If you can kill your target in 3 seconds with one weapon, why use a weapon that takes 5 (or in this case, 12)? Sounds like UAC might be a good backup style, but the power hunters would probably be better off with a ranged monk build (at least in later levels).
I understand your point, but as you point out, the game has no shortage of other one-hit kill methods, with minimal investment. Which is a problem, frankly. The UCS won't be a power hunter's dream style, but I'd rather move other combat styles closer to unarmed combat, than the other way around.
>Hunting with a group though and UAC efficiency nose dives
Yes, this is an unfortunate side effect of the aforementioned ability of other combat styles to so easily one-hit kill. I've toyed with the idea of allowing group-based automatic tier-ups and front-loaded RT attacks that take you up a tier, but I think either one would compromise the design intent.
>Maybe if Coase implements UAC bandits people will start realising (and complaining about) just how effective the UAC is at finishing off its targets.
UCS critters are indeed on my near-term project list, but I intend to put out a few normal creatures before moving onto grimswarm and bandits.
>The design mistake was in Voln. Smite shouldn't have been tied to the UAC, but because it was monk's UAC advantage had to be nerfed to make smite reasonable for other professions too.
I am not entirely sure what you refer to here. The mechanics of smite are identical to the other unarmed combat mechanics, and it is intended as an unarmed combat attack usable by unarmed combatants.
I understand your point, but as you point out, the game has no shortage of other one-hit kill methods, with minimal investment. Which is a problem, frankly. The UCS won't be a power hunter's dream style, but I'd rather move other combat styles closer to unarmed combat, than the other way around.
>Hunting with a group though and UAC efficiency nose dives
Yes, this is an unfortunate side effect of the aforementioned ability of other combat styles to so easily one-hit kill. I've toyed with the idea of allowing group-based automatic tier-ups and front-loaded RT attacks that take you up a tier, but I think either one would compromise the design intent.
>Maybe if Coase implements UAC bandits people will start realising (and complaining about) just how effective the UAC is at finishing off its targets.
UCS critters are indeed on my near-term project list, but I intend to put out a few normal creatures before moving onto grimswarm and bandits.
>The design mistake was in Voln. Smite shouldn't have been tied to the UAC, but because it was monk's UAC advantage had to be nerfed to make smite reasonable for other professions too.
I am not entirely sure what you refer to here. The mechanics of smite are identical to the other unarmed combat mechanics, and it is intended as an unarmed combat attack usable by unarmed combatants.
>Hunting with a group though and UAC efficiency nose dives
>>Yes, this is an unfortunate side effect of the aforementioned ability of other combat styles to so easily one-hit kill. I've toyed with the idea of allowing group-based automatic tier-ups and front-loaded RT attacks that take you up a tier, but I think either one would compromise the design intent.
Not fully understanding of the experience distribution..but if each person involved needs to do a certain % of the total damage done to the creature, could the UAC provide phantom damage* done based on A. completing a tier up B. Creating or following up on a weakness
I figure if I have jabbed something and caused it to favor his right leg (low damage, but certainly a distraction) and also a chance to tier up using grapple, I could then grapple the creature. Most likely I'd aim for the leg for this Good tier causing it to go prone yet for another mildly low damage output. At this point even if someone else kills the creature in one shot, I certainly setup the kill for them even if my total damage done doesn't back that up.
Lochiven
*I don't mean phantom damage similiar to the hidden damage of 702/711 where it actually removes that blood from the creatures healthpool. I mean more like the phantom damage ambushing used to use in order to determine what crit rank would be received.
>I've toyed with the idea of allowing group-based automatic tier-ups and front-loaded RT attacks that take you up a tier, but I think either one would compromise the design intent.
What about FoF based tier-up? Or a % increase to tier ups based on group size? After all, with the distraction caused by a large group of opponents, the monk would be more able to exploit small advantages in the targets distraction.
Maybe a 10% increase in tier-ups with two in group, 5% increase with 3 in group, and an additional 3% for every continued group member. Just a kind of fuzzy idea to show the concept.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
What about FoF based tier-up? Or a % increase to tier ups based on group size? After all, with the distraction caused by a large group of opponents, the monk would be more able to exploit small advantages in the targets distraction.
Maybe a 10% increase in tier-ups with two in group, 5% increase with 3 in group, and an additional 3% for every continued group member. Just a kind of fuzzy idea to show the concept.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg."
>What about FoF based tier-up?
I'd think there ought to be a tiering bonus if FoF applies to the UAC attack or if someone else already has better position on it.
If I feint a critter, it sets it up for everybody. If I jab a critter it only sets it up for me. Others in the group ought to get some advantage too.
If might be a nightmare to code, but if possible, the sort of thing I'd like to see is everybody in a room having the possibility of an getting opening for their next attack when anybody jabs.
For example. 3 monks jump a bandit.
First monk jabs and gets an opening for punch. Second and third monks might also get an opening but don't.
Second monk jabs and fails to get an opening, however third monk gets lucky and has an opening for jab as a result. First monk already has an opening and this persists with no chance to be switched to a different type.
Third monk jabs at good. First monk still keeps the punch opening, but second monk has another chance and fails again.
First monk punches at good and gets an opening for grapple. Since its a punch, there's no roll for the others to get an opening.
Second monk is fed up with not getting jab openings and kicks. Since FoF is in effect by this point, and there are other monks with good position, there are bonuses to the chance of a lucky tier. Second monk gets lucky for once and kicks at good. The bandit doesn't get lucky.
Third monk loots the dead bandit.
Or a GUARD/PROTECT equivalent but for UAF and tier percentages rather than DS and block/parry percentages.
>Not fully understanding of the experience distribution..but if each person involved needs to do a certain % of the total damage done to the creature, could the UAC provide phantom damage* done based on A. completing a tier up B. Creating or following up on a weakness
My experience of using the UAC is that its easy to do enough damage to fry in these cases by just using punch/kick at decent, but its an unsatisfying style of play.
