Report 1553

Report #1553
Skillset: Knighthood Skill: PowerAttacks
 Org: Institute Status: Rejected Nov 2016
Furies' Decision:
Rejected. We are in consensus with a number of Envoys who state that this is not
a global Knighthood issue; individual specialisation should create reports as
needed to tweak their wounding rate.
Problem: Pre-Overhaul, Warriors both built wounds and dealt afflictions at the
same time. They could also get to heavy wounds much quicker to deal the
significant regeneration-cured afflictions or slitlocks, which were a core part
of Warrior offense. Post-Overhaul, dealing afflictions comes at the cost of
wounds, and it's much harder to build those wounds especially in group combat.
This leads to a situation where Warriors are mostly relegated to spamming the
most effective light wounds modifiers in groups.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #1: Change each power move to it's own syntax. Each power
 move would bypass parry and do double the wounds as
 normal (10/24), but also allow a modifier to be used
 as well. For example: ASSAULT <target> <bodypart>
 <modifier>. Exclude instakills from the available
 modifiers.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #2: Same as Solution 1, but only normal wounds (5/12) +
 modifier, with the option to do no modifier for
 additional wounds.
Player Comments:
---[Wobou on 10/28 @ 06:28 writes]:
I support solution 1.
---[Raeri on 10/28 @ 07:37 writes]:
Supported, Solution 1.
---[Synkarin on 10/28 @ 13:27 writes]:
I happen to like the 'wound OR afflict' choice warriors have to make now. Pre-
overhaul, warriors had to focus on avoiding numerous levels of RNG (parry,
stance, rebounding, natural misses, swing hitting wrong bodypart, getting the
wrong affliction etc). That focus on warriors has been removed, and shifted over
to a decision between wounding or afflicting. If anything, I would support
solution 2, to let them get a boost to wounding (without the modifier) or add an
affliction for the power cost. I do think warriors are strong in groups, things
like openchest for AL, twist for PB, pulp for BC can be really powerful in
groups. I think in general, warriors are in a good spot, but some individual
specs can use adjustments.
---[Shedrin on 10/30 @ 13:45 writes]:
I think those modifiers demonstrate the problem. Besides AL (I assume you mean
OpenCavity), they don't require wounds, and don't require a bodypart targetted
so they can bypass parry. This is the opposite of how I think Warriors should
operate.
---[Synkarin on 10/30 @ 15:04 writes]:
I did mean opencavity but don't those abilities scale with certain effects?
Twist via bleeding and pulp via bruising? My point was have various ways to
approach group combat as a warrior. I don't consider twist/pulp 'light level'
afflictions due to the scaling. Is there some general problem with keeping the
'wound or afflict' choice with sol 2? You are wounding in general, but choosing
to spend power to either wound more, or afflict?
---[Shedrin on 10/30 @ 18:34 writes]:
With Solution 1 vs 2, it's a matter of what level is thought to be reasonable.
My preference is Solution 1, as I think heavy modifiers should be available
reasonably quickly if they're going to be utilised at all, due to commonness of
a target being dead or escaped by the time heavy wounds is reached. Due to
wounds not doing anything by themselves, and the lack of passives available to
Warriors, I think it's necessary to be able to build wounds and afflict
simultaneously. Solution 2 will help as well, though I think not to a level
that's effective enough.
---[Falmiis on 10/30 @ 21:25 writes]:
I'm also of the opinion that warriors are already not doing badly in groups and
I think that is why we've had such a hard time coming up with ways to buff the
strength of some specs in 1v1 since it's hard to buff them in 1v1 without also
buffing them in group combat.
---[Synkarin on 10/31 @ 23:33 writes]:
I don't really think any warrior actually struggles to build wounds 1v1 right?
Heavy isn't that hard to get to already. If individual specs are struggling with
hindering afflictions, we should address individual specs and not all warriors.
---[Shango on 11/1 @ 07:03 writes]:
I support solution 1.
---[Synkarin on 11/2 @ 00:37 writes]:
By the way, two warriors can have a person to heavy wounds instantly (40 wounds
1H, 48wounds 2H) and four warriors can have someone to crit instantly (80 wounds
1H, 96 wounds 2H). I don't think it's an issue to get people to heavy wounds 1v1
or in groups.
---[Shango on 11/3 @ 10:03 writes]:
Issue isn't often the Heavy wounds mark as much as it is Critical wounds, which
is what every kill method requires for each spec...with some requiring more than
one bodypart being also heavy in addition. Axelord needing the entire midline
for instance at heavy with one being critical. Lot of time spent to manage that
requiring massively extended fights 1v1, and even in groups with the Warrior
being the main pusher for the kill (which I tend to find myself in somehow
despite being fine just being support)...it's rather difficult to manage in any
kind of effective manner. Taking into account the usual hinders, parries, and
time curve for Power use and regeneration to manage, I believe the focus of this
Report was to assist in getting that final kill rather than just wallowing at
heavy.
---[Wobou on 11/3 @ 13:35 writes]:
I think the problem with the whole afflict or wound dynamic is that some specs
are really heavy on low wound ice affs (BC for example) and when they choose to
afflict they are only truly sacrificing 1 wound because they are forcing you to
apply ice to that body part. On the other extreme if a PB wants to use OpenChest
they are sacrificing 12 wounds because openchest causes haemophilia which does
not use ice. I think in the case of this report that spending power allowing you
to do both is fine, but going forward I think we should even out that disparity
between afflictions/specs somewhat. For example we could make it so performing a
non ice affliction sacrificed x number of wounds based on 1h/2h instead of
removing all wounds but now I'm rambling off the topic of this report.
---[Synkarin on 11/4 @ 00:44 writes]:
@Shango - are you really struggling to get to crit in general? I didn't seem to
have issue being an AL or BC. You should be outpacing wound curing in general,
so as long as you are applying the pressure, it should be building. I just don't
see solution 1 as necessary. I don't see warriors as weak in groups that they
need that kind of help. I don't see them as weak 1v1 that they need that help.
If individual specs need help, buff individual specs not all warriors in
general, or the discrepancies remain discrepancies. I also was reminded that the
warrior special report has not been completed, and I think we should hold off on
this report in general until that is added in and we can re-evaluate where
warriors are at. Quite a lot of changes that potentially affect this report are
in that special report.
---[Synkarin on 11/4 @ 00:54 writes]:
I just had a thought, does this work with one handers to allow them potentiall
20 wounds and 2 affs for 4p? Or 10 wounds + 2 affs w/ sol 2? There is already a
huge disparity between 1handers and 2 handers, and this would just expand that
even further. I don't think I can support this anymore with that in mind.
---[Shedrin on 11/4 @ 02:39 writes]:
Multiple warriors can burst wounds quickly, though multiple of any class is
strong, and some with that number can just straight kill you in one round. For
1her vs 2her, the extra wounding of the 2her makes for a very large net
difference in wounds when curing is accounted for, and the modifiers
aren't/shouldn't be equal, with 2hers generally having stronger modifiers
(though this isn't the case as much as I think it should be, yet).
---[Synkarin on 11/4 @ 12:44 writes]:
Even with the extra wounding, there's still a large disparity between 1h and 2h.
1hers allow such a greater flexibility in strategy that I don't know if the
extra wounding accounts for that. I'm not really interested in expanding that
discrepancy. If anything, I would maybe limit this report to 2hers and exclude
1hers all together.
---[Shedrin on 11/4 @ 15:26 writes]:
I'm actually not opposed to limiting to 2hers. I think some other ideas can be
made for the 1her specs.
---[Raeri on 11/13 @ 02:50 writes]:
Would also support the above comments re: 2h.
---[Tremula on 11/13 @ 20:22 writes]:
Solution 1 supported.
---[Demartel on 11/14 @ 17:47 writes]:
I don't think this is the way to go with warriors. I don't feel they are having
issues with wound building, though some specs do suffer with lack of low level
hindering. If we need to address any warrior deficiency I would prefer it to be
on a case by case level.
---[Synkarin on 11/25 @ 03:13 writes]:
Thinking more on this, I don't think this report is needed at all. Warriors
don't have issues building wounds in groups or 1v1, this is just unnecessary. I
think it's better to work on individual specs instead of general buffs to
warriors at this point.