Curse

la_cabra_de_vida · Apr 19, 2008, 02:42 AM // 02:42

Strenght has some of the best skills in the game in the line, it needs no change.

Damuffinator · Apr 19, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

I must agree that I think strength is a LITTLE bit underpowered. 1% armor pent isn't going to do very much, even at 16 str, it might add a few extra dmg, maybe like 5 or 6, but thats not going to make much of a difference.

I think the +10 health idea is actually a good idea, or maybe it should be 1.5% armor pent perhaps.

N1ghtstalker · Apr 19, 2008, 02:41 PM // 14:41

the title only made me lol
strenght is good as it is
why? cuz you cut chunks of out of a guy's armor with ease
it's fine so let it be
and strenght has good skills as people said, the strenght attribute is fine as it is
tactics needs a buff but not strenght
/notsigned

Melissa Is HOT · Apr 19, 2008, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lost Explorer

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.

That's called a nerf, not a buff.

13% pen> 13% chance to gain double adrenaline.

Pyro maniac · Apr 19, 2008, 05:34 PM // 17:34

strength's inherit effect is bad, the skills in it are godly and the profession itself is unique in it's skills and armor

October Jade · Apr 20, 2008, 04:34 PM // 16:34

I would like to see a coherent, logical explanation for the decision that Strength should only apply to attack skills. If warriors' true purpose is to spam 1 2 3 4, then the damage from the build-up attacks becomes even more negligible in comparison. Making such a distinction just seems silly and inane; Strength should affect all attacks instead.

This is less a buff than a correction to what was a stupid differentiation in the first place.

MithranArkanere · Apr 20, 2008, 05:40 PM // 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by October Jade

I would like to see a coherent, logical explanation for the decision that Strength should only apply to attack skills. If warriors' true purpose is to spam 1 2 3 4, then the damage from the build-up attacks becomes even more negligible in comparison. Making such a distinction just seems silly and inane; Strength should affect all attacks instead.

This is less a buff than a correction to what was a stupid differentiation in the first place.

That's a good point.

Critical Strikes affect ALL hits.

And Primal Rage would be more logical like that.

moriz · Apr 20, 2008, 05:46 PM // 17:46

armor penetration on ALL ATTACKS? are you insane?

Arkantos · Apr 20, 2008, 05:49 PM // 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by October Jade

I would like to see a coherent, logical explanation for the decision that Strength should only apply to attack skills. If warriors' true purpose is to spam 1 2 3 4, then the damage from the build-up attacks becomes even more negligible in comparison. Making such a distinction just seems silly and inane; Strength should affect all attacks instead.

This is less a buff than a correction to what was a stupid differentiation in the first place.

Sometimes you have to forget about logic in order to keep balance, which is what ANet clearly did when they made strength.

Savio · Apr 20, 2008, 05:58 PM // 17:58

Balance isn't decided by roleplaying fluff "logic" crap, it's decided by balance logic.

jhu · Apr 20, 2008, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

armor penetration on ALL ATTACKS? are you insane?

why not? critical strikes affects all attacks, not just attack skills.

farmpig · Apr 20, 2008, 06:10 PM // 18:10

Why not +1 hp for each level in str. For example if u have 10 str u have a +10 hp bonus. The skills linked to str are quite useful, over buffing str will cause unbalance imo.

JR · Apr 20, 2008, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimaSlash

Considering that warriors generally don't go for high armor targets...

Where do people get this idea that armor penetration is better against high armored targets?

Strength is fine. It's definately not one of the stronger primary attribute lines, but currently it is worth speccing into and is not breaking the game. I see no reason to change that.

ensoriki · Apr 20, 2008, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhu

why not? critical strikes affects all attacks, not just attack skills.

thatws why daggers are weak

Savio · Apr 20, 2008, 06:24 PM // 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Where do people get this idea that armor penetration is better against high armored targets?

Some sort of percentage crap, where you deal x% more of your base damage vs high-armored targets. It's something like you deal 30 damage to 60 AL targets, you get 10% more (+3 damage) with AP, while you deal 10 damage to 100 AL targets and get 20% more (+2 damage) with AP. 20% is bigger than 10%, so obviously AP is better versus higher armored targets.

That or people are stupid. Maybe both.

Marverick · Apr 20, 2008, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by October Jade

I would like to see a coherent, logical explanation for the decision that Strength should only apply to attack skills. If warriors' true purpose is to spam 1 2 3 4, then the damage from the build-up attacks becomes even more negligible in comparison. Making such a distinction just seems silly and inane; Strength should affect all attacks instead.

This is less a buff than a correction to what was a stupid differentiation in the first place.

Make it 1% armor penetration on every hit for every 2-3 ranks in Strength.

moriz · Apr 20, 2008, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhu

why not? critical strikes affects all attacks, not just attack skills.

and have you ever considered how much DPS a warrior can do by just autoattacking with a permanent 13% AP?

please at least think a little about the consequences, before making inane comparisons.

Red Sand · Apr 20, 2008, 07:36 PM // 19:36

As far as the original suggestion to change Strength:

/notsigned

Quote:

Originally Posted by October Jade

I would like to see a coherent, logical explanation for the decision that Strength should only apply to attack skills. If warriors' true purpose is to spam 1 2 3 4, then the damage from the build-up attacks becomes even more negligible in comparison. Making such a distinction just seems silly and inane; Strength should affect all attacks instead.

This is less a buff than a correction to what was a stupid differentiation in the first place.

It's a shame that it takes three pages to get a worthwhile comment.

shoyon456 · Apr 20, 2008, 08:27 PM // 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

thatws why daggers are weak

Which is why the critical strikes/defense A/D build needs to be nerfed... but thats another story.

As for strength, warriors are not supposed to have e management, and strength serves a warriors purpose just fine imo.

Tyla · Apr 20, 2008, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoyon456

Which is why the critical strikes/defense A/D build needs to be nerfed... but thats another story.

Critical Defenses is bad.
Selfish defense is bad.

But that's another story for another thread.