Curse

Kenny Mack · Apr 18, 2008, 12:38 AM // 00:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix Tears

Either too instead of +1% Ap per point it should be +1 Damage, this way Strength would become a serious good Attack Buff Attribute, if it would increase permanent your damage by 16 points, also this would balance the damage ratio compared to Dervishs, which do compared to Warriors way to overpowered melee damage as base damage...

lol are u for real? dervish do more power at the sacrifice of lower armour in the form of AL70 instead of AL80, and also for them to reap high damage they need to sacrifice an additional AL16 which comes with the shield.

if a warrior wants high damage, he too sacrifices his shield for a hammer, albeit slightly less powerful than a scythe, but with a far more reliable damage range.

as blakecraw said, its not broken so dont fix it

Kenny

Div · Apr 18, 2008, 12:53 AM // 00:53

For people who don't understand or are too dumb to understand, the power of strength doesn't lie in its innate ability. Instead, it's good because of the powerful skills associated with it. Take energy storage or soul reaping for example. They have great innate effects, but most of those skills are absolutely horrible. You raise the level of those primary attributes for the innate effect. On the other hand, you raise strength because you want to run the skills that it provides: iway, body blow, bulls charge, bulls strike, disarm, enraging charge, flail, protector's strike, rush, warrior's endurance, sprint, and endure pain/signet of stamina for running. The AP is just a side effect.

Now before saying it's underpowered, try listing as many useful skills tied to any other primary attribute.

ccruzp · Apr 18, 2008, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Strength has shields and all important utilitys a warrior can ask from his class.
That and it inceases your damage when u actually need it ,during spikes when you are using skills.
Watch a few GvGs and Heros Ascent battles and you will see most top guilds running two warriors, that enough is reason NOT to buff it.

mystical nessAL · Apr 18, 2008, 09:03 AM // 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toxage

I actually think that strength is a pretty strong primary.

It aint strong, but aint weak.
You doesnt deal much damage with strenght, but it's definatly WAY more powered than tactics, therfore you will use strenght. I cant see any possible ways to improve strenght, maybe +x% dmg each point in strenght, or +1 dmg each 3 points in strenght.

Tyla · Apr 18, 2008, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Strength has those sexy skills.
Rush, Bull's Strike ect...

If you buff it, I think it will be overpowered.

Phoenix Tears · Apr 18, 2008, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Mack

lol are u for real? dervish do more power at the sacrifice of lower armour in the form of AL70 instead of AL80, and also for them to reap high damage they need to sacrifice an additional AL16 which comes with the shield.

if a warrior wants high damage, he too sacrifices his shield for a hammer, albeit slightly less powerful than a scythe, but with a far more reliable damage range.

as blakecraw said, its not broken so dont fix it

Kenny

rune slots are LIMITED and you can't cover with runes all negative conditions, like you also can't with shields. Shields iwll protect you ever only vs. 1 condition, so with Shield you will reach very high duration reduction ever only max for 1 condition.

Example:

A Warrior Character has like all other Professions 5 Slots for Runes.
A good balanced Warriors alone uses 3 of these 5 Slots alone for 1 Superior Rune of Vigor, 1 Attribute Rune, either Minor, Higher or Superior - and 1 Superior Rune of Absorbing to reduce received damage permanently by 3...
So our Example Warrior will have left 2 Slots for Runes, where the Players has the anguish of the choice, what to put in.

And there a Warrior has a great choice. putting in Runes for more Energy, more Health, increasing with minor, higher or superior runes maybe another attribute...

and even if you decide to take runes for condition protection, all runes of them protect only vs. max 2 conditinos, would mean, you could increase your protection for maximum only 4 conditions to 50% and like said,. the shield then increases the protection to 70% only for 1 negative condition, leaving our example warrior to get forced to permanently change shields in the battle !!!

And this would have the player also to do permanently, before the condition lies on the character, because conditions durations get only removed by that % of your protetion of the value the character has in the moment, when the character starts suffering of the condition.

This would be defenitely not be overpowered, having duration reduction of 70% max for just 1 single negative physical condition maximum, 3 others than maximum 50% and the rest is then 32% max that don't get affected through the runes, nor the shield.... in the moment.

And 3 energy for every ending negative condition on you is also imo not overpowered, it would balance the overpowered difference between Dervish, which come with 5 more max energy and have double the energy regeneration of warriors + getting additional energy reg through mystic, when enchants end on them.

If that is not overpowered over Warriors, then I really don't know...
Warriors need too a little Energy Management from their primary and 3 is not too high, Dervishs get heaven healed their health beneath energy ...
********

However, beneath all this stuff about +1 damage, or other side effects like I suggested with decreasing negative condition durations on them, with higher strength, I could imagien for Strength also, that it gives Warriors every 5 rangs +1 additional Life regeneration.

So would have warriors with R15+ strength +3 Life regeneration, would be also a good cool unique inherent effect for strength, instead of more damage, more max hp or whatever ...

HawkofStorms · Apr 18, 2008, 05:17 PM // 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowsRequiem

Compared to other classes it kinda is. But thats just looking at others primarys.... its good how it is.

Though saying +10hp per point is very retarded.

Agreed.

Sure, plenty of the skills in strength are good (granted, something like bulls you don't even have to really invest points into, you just take it for the KD). But strength's inherient affect is fairly weak.

That said, +130 health (people wouldn't use superior runes, the health loss from them would counter the health gain from this, similar to how signet of stamina is now) is way to ridiculous for the class that already has the highest armor in the game.

And tactics can't be saved thanks the paragon. If they just changed leadership to only work with paragon shouts then we wouldn't have half the problems with tactics.

The only other profession with so many useful primary profession skills is probablly monk.

C2K · Apr 18, 2008, 05:23 PM // 17:23

Strength is fine the way it is. I love innate armor penetration.

BlackSephir · Apr 18, 2008, 05:25 PM // 17:25

Strength is good the way it is. It has Bull's Strike after all :<

Kenny Mack · Apr 18, 2008, 05:32 PM // 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix Tears

rune slots are LIMITED and you can't cover with runes all negative conditions, like you also can't with shields. Shields iwll protect you ever only vs. 1 condition, so with Shield you will reach very high duration reduction ever only max for 1 condition.

Example:

A Warrior Character has like all other Professions 5 Slots for Runes.
A good balanced Warriors alone uses 3 of these 5 Slots alone for 1 Superior Rune of Vigor, 1 Attribute Rune, either Minor, Higher or Superior - and 1 Superior Rune of Absorbing to reduce received damage permanently by 3...
So our Example Warrior will have left 2 Slots for Runes, where the Players has the anguish of the choice, what to put in.

And there a Warrior has a great choice. putting in Runes for more Energy, more Health, increasing with minor, higher or superior runes maybe another attribute...

and even if you decide to take runes for condition protection, all runes of them protect only vs. max 2 conditinos, would mean, you could increase your protection for maximum only 4 conditions to 50% and like said,. the shield then increases the protection to 70% only for 1 negative condition, leaving our example warrior to get forced to permanently change shields in the battle !!!

And this would have the player also to do permanently, before the condition lies on the character, because conditions durations get only removed by that % of your protetion of the value the character has in the moment, when the character starts suffering of the condition.

This would be defenitely not be overpowered, having duration reduction of 70% max for just 1 single negative physical condition maximum, 3 others than maximum 50% and the rest is then 32% max that don't get affected through the runes, nor the shield.... in the moment.

And 3 energy for every ending negative condition on you is also imo not overpowered, it would balance the overpowered difference between Dervish, which come with 5 more max energy and have double the energy regeneration of warriors + getting additional energy reg through mystic, when enchants end on them.

If that is not overpowered over Warriors, then I really don't know...
Warriors need too a little Energy Management from their primary and 3 is not too high, Dervishs get heaven healed their health beneath energy ...
********

However, beneath all this stuff about +1 damage, or other side effects like I suggested with decreasing negative condition durations on them, with higher strength, I could imagien for Strength also, that it gives Warriors every 5 rangs +1 additional Life regeneration.

So would have warriors with R15+ strength +3 Life regeneration, would be also a good cool unique inherent effect for strength, instead of more damage, more max hp or whatever ...

lol, wut? that has nothing to do with my comment, my comment was in reference to ur previous one about how warrirors with a buff to strength would hit as hard as dervish's

all i said, was that warriors have slightly less offence in exchange for a far superior defence.

read comments before u go insane and write an essay

The Meth · Apr 18, 2008, 05:32 PM // 17:32

99% of warriors in PvP are using strength, and the other 1% fail. Why on earth would the attribute that is used 99% of the time need a buff?

Tyla · Apr 18, 2008, 05:40 PM // 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Meth

99% of warriors in PvP are using strength, and the other 1% fail. Why on earth would the attribute that is used 99% of the time need a buff?

It isn't really the attribute itself, moreso the skills.
Take away the skills, and you've got yourself a new Spawning Power.

Nerfing the skills and buffing the attribute can be done, but saying that, it's fine as it is because of the skills.

MithranArkanere · Apr 18, 2008, 05:42 PM // 17:42

The main strength of Strength it's in Strength skills.

It does work with all melee attacks... but it should work also with Bow and Spear attacks.

Afterall, the more you tense the bow, the stronger the shot.

Chronos the Defiler · Apr 18, 2008, 07:27 PM // 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

The main strength of Strength it's in Strength skills.

It does work with all melee attacks... but it should work also with Bow and Spear attacks.

Afterall, the more you tense the bow, the stronger the shot.

I think it does...it does not state "melee attack skills"

MithranArkanere · Apr 18, 2008, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Oh...? Why do I though It affectged only melee attacks...?

Doh! It affects skills only, not normal attacks. I knew there was an exception.

Well,it's ok, then. It works for all attack skills.

Arkantos · Apr 18, 2008, 11:12 PM // 23:12

Warriors are already very powerful. Every warrior is going to spec into strength already because of the key skills in the attribute line. A buff to strength is unnecessary and will cause warriors to become overpowered.

Fear Me! · Apr 18, 2008, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by shru

Strength is actualy one of the most powerful primaries out there. Like others have stated, it's passive ability may reek, but the skills in the line are some of the strongest and most varied of any other primary attribute. If you think warriors need a bigger incentive to invest in strength other than the ability to wield a shield and use the skills in the attribute, you're not playing the same game as me.

/notsigned. I agree with above poster. The passive ability may suck, but using it as a point of argument to buff strength while disregarding strength's main advantages makes a moot point.

The Lost Explorer · Apr 19, 2008, 01:13 AM // 01:13

Why not change Armor Pen. to Aden. Gain every rank you have in Str. it gives you an extra 1% chance of getting double the Aden.?

I dont think it would make it overpowered due to it being chanced.

Lhim · Apr 19, 2008, 01:42 AM // 01:42

At least Warriors have some awesome skills in their primary attributeline. No need to change its inherent effect therefor.

street peddler · Apr 19, 2008, 02:38 AM // 02:38

the skills in strength are what save it from being the worst primary (probably one of the best). Though its inherent effect is probably the worst.