Assasin Survey

[BidAccount]

Originally posted by Phuze
hmmm..

well mate tbh i dont even own a SB.. so i am probably being much more objective than you are.

Well you already mentioned 2.5 > 2.2..

DF = insta after evade = 9s stun
whereas
FrostyGaze chains off Comaback which is after evade... which gives enemy 2 chances to avoid a 6 SEC stun... (harder to pull off yet less time?)

combined with LA nerf..

etc etc etc.

And this is where most make the mistake.

Isolated and partial pieces of information, assumptions and absolutely no testing, data or understanding of game mechanics.

Look at Haldars post above and the comment on hasted weapon speed - that is understanding of data and game mechanics.

 

[-RG-Jaond]

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
And this is where most make the mistake.

Isolated and partial pieces of information, assumptions and absolutely no testing, data or understanding of game mechanics.

Look at Haldars post above and the comment on hasted weapon speed - that is understanding of data and game mechanics.

You must be fucking stupid if you dont think that is unfair

Originally posted by Phuze
DF = insta after evade = 9s stun
whereas
FrostyGaze chains off Comaback which is after evade... which gives enemy 2 chances to avoid a 6 SEC stun... (harder to pull off yet less time?)

 

[BidAccount]

Originally posted by -RG-Jaond
You must be fucking stupid if you dont think that is unfair

Any idiot can post partial information, out of context, without testing and call it unfair.

And that covers 95% of the content of this board.

 

[Haldar]

stun ratio concept

currently:

chance to lang Dfang each given round:
25% (chance for infi to evade) * 75% (chance that SB will NOT evade) = 18.75%

chance to land CB-FG each given round:
25% (chance for SB to evade) * 75% (chance that infi will NOT evade CB) * 75% (chance that infi will NOT evade FG) = 14.06%

Dfang is 33.(3)% is easier to land than CB-FG.

so infi currently have
9*18.75%=168.75 stun ratio
while SBs have
7*14.06%=98.42 stun ratio,
and now we see that Infi's stunning abilities are (168.75-98.42)/168.75=71.46% more powerful than SB ones.

To preserve stun balance, either CB-FG stun should be 33.(3)% longer than Dfang's - 12 seconds instead of 7 (12*14.06~=168.75) or Dfang stun should be 25% shorter than CB-FG - 5.25 seconds instead of 9 (5.25*18.75~=98.42)

[edit]
i do not mention facts that
1. CB-FG are medium+ to hit
2. Dfang is high+ to hit
3. FG is 39 spec
4. Dfang is 50 spec
5. FG is offhand
6. Dfang is mainhand
bcoz i beleive that impact of these differencies is rather small and generally balances itself.

 

[BidAccount]

Re: stun ratio concept

Originally posted by Haldar
currently:

chance to lang Dfang each given round:
25% (chance for infi to evade) * 75% (chance that SB will NOT evade) = 18.75%

chance to land CB-FG each given round:
25% (chance for SB to evade) * 75% (chance that infi will NOT evade CB) * 75% (chance that infi will NOT evade FG) = 14.06%

Dfang is 33.(3)% is easier to land than CB-FG.

so infi currently have
9*18.75%=168.75 stun ratio
while SBs have
7*14.06%=98.42 stun ratio,
and now we see that Infi's stunning abilities are (168.75-98.42)/168.75=71.46% more powerful than SB ones.

To preserve stun balance, either CB-FG stun should be 33.(3)% longer than Dfang's - 12 seconds instead of 7 (12*14.06~=168.75) or Dfang stun should be 25% shorter than CB-FG - 5.25 seconds instead of 9 (5.25*18.75~=98.42)

[edit]
i do not mention facts that
1. CB-FG are medium+ to hit
2. Dfang is high+ to hit
3. FG is 39 spec
4. Dfang is 50 spec
5. FG is offhand
6. Dfang is mainhand
bcoz i beleive that impact of these differencies is rather small and generally balances itself.

To be honest Haldar, I'd stop at the 4% difference in chance to land the stun. Which isn't that significant and certainly doesn't warrant a 12 sec stun. 4% less chance (18% v 14%) to land a 2 sec shorter stun for 39 spec rather than 50 sounds pretty much OK to me.

The rest takes in too many variable factors as ID'd above including spec and costs, class base damage, other styles in the line etc.

 

[Driwen]

Re: Re: stun ratio concept

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
To be honest Haldar, I'd stop at the 4% difference in chance to land the stun. Which isn't that significant and certainly doesn't warrant a 12 sec stun. 4% less chance (18% v 14%) to land a 2 sec shorter stun for 39 spec rather than 50 sounds pretty much OK to me.

The rest takes in too many variable factors as ID'd above including spec and costs, class base damage, other styles in the line etc.

it isnt 4% though haldar made a mistake he forgot fumble/misses.

misses is atleast around 10% or even higher and you can ignore fumbles. So that 25% *65%=16.25% versus 25%*65%*65%=10.5%.
Besides if you evade twice directly after eachother, you can try and land DF twice, while you cant do that with FG as you are trying to land FG (or you land CB twice, but it doesnt give you a second chance on landing your stun).

And you should look at total difference of percentages, but the relation between the two and 16.25/10.5= 1.54, which means that DF is 50% easier to land than FG and that would actually be more when you take higher missrate (which I seem to have with my spear).
Besides this is assuming that DW actually halfs evade, which isnt even certain and let alone wether the cap is involved then or not (which i assume it isnt tbh). So even if it halfs your evade than you can still evade for 30% as your uncapped evade was 60%(before DW came in the picture). Higher evade is again in the advantage of the infil so versus non DW'er the infils advantage on landing a stun gets even bigger.

So assuming both styles have same base hit chance and assuming DW'ing halfs your opponent capped evade and a 10% missrate the chance is 16.25% versus 10.5%. Now as FG needs two rounds to land you could take that into account and calculate the extra chance for df landing on that second round, which is 1.4% extra*.


*: .25*.35*.25*.65 = (chance on first evade)*(missing DF)*(evade on second evade)*(hitting DF)=0.0142

 

[Ironfoot]

Re: Re: stun ratio concept

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
To be honest Haldar, I'd stop at the 4% difference in chance to land the stun. Which isn't that significant and certainly doesn't warrant a 12 sec stun. 4% less chance (18% v 14%) to land a 2 sec shorter stun for 39 spec rather than 50 sounds pretty much OK to me.

It might be 39 spec but it actually costs more than Dragonfang

training 39 + 39 in 2 spec lines costs more than training 50 in 1. Remember you cant just say its at 39 LA because LA is useless without base weapon spec which invariably is trained to at least the same level of LA

allow me to show you in case your math is a little sub par

SB to train to 39axe 39LA = 1558 points
Infil to train 50 thrust = 1274 points

difference = 284

 

[old.Nol]

Originally posted by Skopti
I just had the misfortune of reading through this whole thread and now understand why you dont see many DAoC Excalibur meets.

Maybe it should be made a compulsory part of posting on these boards. Maybe if people here had to meet each other face to face every couple of months there wouldn't be so much venom and downright rudeness/arrogance to one another.

Or maybe there would just be one almighty punch up.

It's amazing how some of the meekest mildest people turn into raving lunatics when they know the anonimity of there PC persona prevents them form getting a slap up the side of the head.

People like you give me faith again A nice mature post in a pathetic thread.

 

[BidAccount]

Driwen/Haldar

These figures are interesting, but the presentation and methodology is a little misleading. I'd note:

- that whether it is 4 or 6% difference the figure are so small as to make presentations of '50% easier/better' very misleading indeed.

- 39/39 v 50/1. Yes the second is cheaper, but I'm not convinced it is more effective. Plus the former is far more flexible - especially if you get the str/dex thrust line (which I hope you do)


The numbers relative to each other are misleading - if you start adding in other stun styles - diamondback, anihilation, slam etc the disparity that the calculated comparison you've done would seem even larger.

I think the front half seems fine - whether 4 or 6% for less spec points on the single line (the dual line comparision has got a lot of open questions to look into). I think these figures should be shown to the 'infils have a 50% chance to stun - its too easy' brigade to educate them.

 

[Haldar]

i think the 50 vs 39 argument is irrelevant here, bcoz 99% of rvr time of any char is spent when this char is already 50, and assasins generally do not level up solo from 39-50 either - when such stun is a necessity (sp?) - and when u group or get PLed - this stun is practically useless.

 

[Haldar]

I think the front half seems fine - whether 4 or 6% for less spec points on the single line (the dual line comparision has got a lot of open questions to look into). I think these figures should be shown to the 'infils have a 50% chance to stun - its too easy' brigade to educate them.

anyway, 18.75 is 33.(3)% greater than 14.06, and 9 is 28.57% is greater than 7 -- "it's too easy" still stands

 

[BidAccount]

Originally posted by Haldar
i think the 50 vs 39 argument is irrelevant here, bcoz 99% of rvr time of any char is spent when this char is already 50, and assasins generally do not level up solo from 39-50 either - when such stun is a necessity (sp?) - and when u group or get PLed - this stun is practically useless.

I did. 1-50 cold hard unbuffed solo. Did have good gear though courtesy of alts and crafting characters. but no bots, and no pling.

Percentages can be misleading, and are most often used for effect and to sway opinion. At the end of the day its a 2 second shorter stun that is 4-6% harder to land at a lot lower spec. I don't see this as a significant issue. The poor game engine that then continues to recognise the last attack as evaded for the next 3 shots - now that is an issue that should be rectified. Once a reactionery style is used it should reset the last style flag to 'neutral'.

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
- that whether it is 4 or 6% difference the figure are so small as to make presentations of '50% easier/better' very misleading indeed.

its 6% or actually 7% (as you have two rounds to land DF in just like FG ). And yes the relative value is the one that matters if you compare them if you had a chance on landing DF with 7% and FG had 0.001% that is still 7% difference, but its not like FG will ever land now is it?
What is misleading is claiming that the difference is just 6%, without even looking on what the actual numbers are and how relative it is. Infils have 50% more chance on landing DF than SB's have, that isnt presenting numbers wrong that is just a fact. However you should not forget that DF is lvl 50 style while FG isnt, but then dont forget that DF is 50% easier to land in an assassin vs assassin fight and dont forget that infils have more specpoints so getting lvl 50 in thrust isnt that costly compared to SB's.
Anyway its a pretty pointless discussion as you, donttouchpoopy, dont believe DF is overpowered and will not believe it unless you have seen 100 log of fights showing a 70% chance on the infil winning the fight and even then you will probably claim that you just need to have purge up to win. To be honest I dont think any RA should balance the game, but as assassins have lost IP it does in archers vs assassins fights.

 

[lorric]

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
I did. 1-50 cold hard unbuffed solo. Did have good gear though courtesy of alts and crafting characters. but no bots, and no pling.

Percentages can be misleading, and are most often used for effect and to sway opinion. At the end of the day its a 2 second shorter stun that is 4-6% harder to land at a lot lower spec. I don't see this as a significant issue. The poor game engine that then continues to recognise the last attack as evaded for the next 3 shots - now that is an issue that should be rectified. Once a reactionery style is used it should reset the last style flag to 'neutral'.

(claps ands over ears)
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

And thats what every argument u put forward sounds like to me u ask for figures and Horft gives u them and ur still giving the same replys, your just a forum troll fishing for flames and baiting for all your worth

 

[BidAccount]

Originally posted by lorric
(claps ands over ears)
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

And thats what every argument u put forward sounds like to me u ask for figures and Horft gives u them and ur still giving the same replys, your just a forum troll fishing for flames and baiting for all your worth

Don't be stupid now - try hard for me please.

The point of numbers, figures or statistics is that they are open to evaluation and interpretation - which is what is happening here.

I don't like the use of percentages when dealing with very small figures because it is misleading. For example a 3 second stun is only 1 second more than a 2 second stun - its relatively inconsequential. But you could say its 50% more - which makes it sound much more severe and significant.

Here its misleading to talk percentage terms - the numbers are too small for this.

And Hroft's analysis is good - apart from that element of the presentation, and the conclusion of a 12 sec stun is erroneous. But up to that point its sound.

This however doesn't prove DF is overpowered. It proves that the % chance to land it is lower than the trolls believe, and slightly higher than the chance to land FG. But I fully expect you, and others, to bury your head in the sand and wilfully ignore this.

 

[-RG-Jaond]

:sleeping:

 

[BidAccount]

Originally posted by -RG-Jaond
:sleeping:

Bit like that really.....

 

[Haldar]

I did. 1-50 cold hard unbuffed solo. Did have good gear though courtesy of alts and crafting characters. but no bots, and no pling.

u are an unique then, and leveling assasing solo to 50 deserves respect. but >95% of assasins make/made their 50 lvl not soloing.

Percentages can be misleading, and are most often used for effect and to sway opinion. At the end of the day its a 2 second shorter stun that is 4-6% harder to land at a lot lower spec. I don't see this as a significant issue. The poor game engine that then continues to recognise the last attack as evaded for the next 3 shots - now that is an issue that should be rectified. Once a reactionery style is used it should reset the last style flag to 'neutral'.

man, it seems to me that u are trying to look more stupid than u are.

2 second shorter -- but this 2 seconds are 28.5% (!) of SB stun and infi can dish around 200 damage in those 2 seconds, which are 10% (!) of average SB.

4% difference - it is not 4% diff, it is 33% difference in fact! Doh, i wish ur stun had a 1% chance to land, and mine 10% - and i'd say "hey chap, 9% is not that much, relax m8"....see the flaw??

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
I don't like the use of percentages when dealing with very small figures because it is misleading. For example a 3 second stun is only 1 second more than a 2 second stun - its relatively inconsequential. But you could say its 50% more - which makes it sound much more severe and significant.

yes here its important to just say its just 1 more second, but here you are talking about time to do damage and 2 versus 3 second might mean one more free swing. But when talking about the difficulty of landing a style its good to keep an eye on the relative difference between the two styles, which you seem so willingly to ignore.

But I fully expect you, and others, to bury your head in the sand and wilfully ignore this.

just like you are doing with anything that proves DF is possibly overpowered, you always keep screaming give me numbers and when we give some way of numbers you scream this isnt the numbers i meant, I need log of real fights. I am pretty sure you will even then continue to point out all the faults in the fights, just to keep on denying that DF is slightly overpowered.

 

[Whisperess]

Originally posted by lorric
(claps ands over ears)
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

And thats what every argument u put forward sounds like to me u ask for figures and Horft gives u them and ur still giving the same replys, your just a forum troll fishing for flames and baiting for all your worth

Agreed.

I'll give you an in-game example of difference in how hard they are to land.

Was in a fight with an infiltrator they same night as I respecced to SZ to try it out again ( was SZ when leveling up since it was easiest to level with - so I'm not unfamiliar with the LA styles ). Comeback landed 3 times in that fight - Frosty didn't land once.

It's not 'cause I didn't use the Frosty style - no, it's because first and second attempt was missed ( go go differences in efficiency of debuff poisons! ), third attempt was evaded - BAM Dragon Fang landed and I was a dead SB.

If comeback itself would've been a 6 sec stun directly after evade - I would have had a much greater chance to win that fight - but it isn't.

Here's another thought for you: Even if I would have landed Frosty once during that fight - chances are pretty high that I would not have evaded the attack that the infil made between those hits - leaving me with either anytimes/frontal pos or positionals ( possibly missing out on one style due to moving around ) - with Dragonfang you're guaranteed to be able to pull of 'off evade' based attacks like for instance the hamstring/leaper combo which is rather lethal. During 9 secs I reckon I could pull of 2-3 hamstring/leaper combos depending on if I'm hasted or not

That - my 'friend' - is why I believe changes need to be made to Dragonfang; but only for the one class that has access to it and also access to Evade VII and 2.5 specpoints per level; or changes to the class itself.

 

[BidAccount]

If anything I'm neutral on DF being 'overpowered' - what I'm saying is case unproven.

If it gets scaled down then fine - but I'd expect to see all melee stuns scaled down relative to one another.

Sorry whisperss - but thats the kind of anecdote we can all post. 3 fights yesterday in a row, and no df until the last hit of the last fight - but thats the way it goes.

 

[behatch]

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy

Sorry whisperss - but thats the kind of anecdote we can all post. 3 fights yesterday in a row, and no df until the last hit of the last fight - but thats the way it goes.

wow them sb's or whatever were lucky

anyway,i can say from first hand exsperiance that i have to use purge in nearlly ever fight with a infil

but i also waste purge,even if i get slammed by a rr2 arms and am duoing ill still waste it,just natural reaction to press number 9 when stuneed-from the infils

tell me again,why u dont tell people who you are pls

and what the hell donttouchpoopy is

 

[BidAccount]

Originally posted by behatch
wow them sb's or whatever were lucky

anyway,i can say from first hand exsperiance that i have to use purge in nearlly ever fight with a infil

but i also waste purge,even if i get slammed by a rr2 arms and am duoing ill still waste it,just natural reaction to press number 9 when stuneed-from the infils

tell me again,why u dont tell people who you are pls

and what the hell donttouchpoopy is

Flipside is a celt tank tried to slam me 3 times in a row and I evaded all 3 - I also had all 3 df shots parried or blocked, but thats how the random number generation goes.

And donttouchpoopy? Ties in with the 'how to solo an infil to 50' deal. Small baby, late nights with small child on one shoulder and lots of time till dawn, nappy changing and the phrase 'don't touch poopy' as a plead/request to small wriggling baby.

 

[behatch]

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
Flipside is a celt tank tried to slam me 3 times in a row and I evaded all 3 - I also had all 3 df shots parried or blocked, but thats how the random number generation goes.

And donttouchpoopy? Ties in with the 'how to solo an infil to 50' deal. Small baby, late nights with small child on one shoulder and lots of time till dawn, nappy changing and the phrase 'don't touch poopy' as a plead/request to small wriggling baby.

not supprsed if he's a s/s tank they have strong defense

 

[BidAccount]

Originally posted by behatch
not supprsed if he's a s/s tank they have strong defense

Was surprised to see a celt s/s tank - they're pretty rare. They all just like their big donkey kong hammers.

 

[behatch]

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
Was surprised to see a celt s/s tank - they're pretty rare. They all just like their big donkey kong hammers.

lol,altho them hammers are pretty cool,but then again you dont see a great deal of hibs,but there numbers are riseing /cheer

 

[Whisperess]

Originally posted by donttouchpoopy
If anything I'm neutral on DF being 'overpowered' - what I'm saying is case unproven.

If it gets scaled down then fine - but I'd expect to see all melee stuns scaled down relative to one another.

Sorry whisperss - but thats the kind of anecdote we can all post. 3 fights yesterday in a row, and no df until the last hit of the last fight - but thats the way it goes.

Once again you dodge the rest of the post and only pick on things you can - trying to freeze out the rest.

Point is - you have to land one directly after evade - this is easily done with backup styles, you don't even have to see that you evaded and change styles, the stun lands automagically.

I can't see the reason to why SB's only evade based stun for less duration than infil one should be more difficult to land! ( and more difficult than Diamondback too ).

The 'but it's a lvl 50 style!!!!!111' argument does not hold since you get 2.5 specpoints per level and don't give up points elsewhere to get to 50 thrust compared to what an SB would have to.

You get 453 points more than SB's / NS's.

These extra points are enough to raise weapon from 41 -> 50 alone. So don't give me that crap excuse.

Second point was that you are automatically able to land the highly damaging 'off evade' styles when stuns land, whereas Shadowblades have to evade one extra time after comeback has landed to be able to do this.

I'm not arguing that the style Dragonfang in general should be nerfed; it's the combination of DF, Evade VII ( this shouldn't be changed ), Str/Dex weaponskill & 2.5 specpoints per level ( this however should imo ) that I feel need to be adressed.

If you think the current situation is 'fine' - then you're clearly 'fotm'; no matter when you leveled your infil or why.

 

[lorric]

make DF chain off parry im sure the alb tanks would love it

 

[Whisperess]

Originally posted by lorric
make DF chain off parry im sure the alb tanks would love it

That would be ace - perfect for Mercenaries

 

[envenom]

the guy is fotm he only started playing after sbs got nerfed lol hes just like glottis but worse in his own way