Curse

BSSuperman · Dec 29, 2006, 11:27 AM // 11:27

DISCLAIMER - I have no intuitive and comprehensive understanding of the game mechanics and how damage is calculated - these are just ideas thought up on a coffee break and if anyone so much as shows me maths and numbers to crunch, Ill scream like Zoidburg and blubber into a puddle of nerves. JUST DONT DO IT !!

(And if these ideas seem 'overpowered' then if someone can do the number crunching, why not suggest a more balanced version)

Oki looking over some recent (and maybe not so recent) threads it would appear that as a primary, Strength is kinda lacking with its inherent bonus. -(IMO it kicks buttocks) 1% armour penetration just seems to be rather skimpy when compared to the inherent bonuses of expertise, divine favour, soul reaping etc.

What I propose is, is to change the way Strength works. Instead of 1% armour pentration per level, just change it to x% chance to hit as 25% armour pentration (stacking) in order to really see some skills come into their own. Pentrating Chop becoming 50% armour pentration if pulled off correctly. /glee.

Also in order to make Strength actually seem like 'hey my Whammo has muscles bulging out of his ears' make strength have an inherent effect on conditions. Like for example - My HUGE Hulk of a Whammo Krushnargh the Allpowerful with 16 strength has just planted his axe firmly between your eyeballs and scored a deep wound. Surely this deep wound should (in theory) last longer than Weaknose the Impotent's pathetic tickle of a blow with his Strength of 3. Make the conditions last longer. Like +0.5 seconds per level of strength. This conditions being bleeding, weakness, deep wound and crippled. Thus making Strength actually have an all encompasing effect over the entire spectrum of attack skills that use conditions.

Shuuda · Dec 29, 2006, 11:45 AM // 11:45

Strengh's effect is lacking, but there are a great range of skills in the attribute.

Redfeather1975 · Dec 29, 2006, 11:50 AM // 11:50

The passive effect itself is lacking, but it's made up by the number of skills available that really do help to round out and support any warrior build in a great number of ways.
If the passive effect was made a lot better, than skills would need to be moved or it might create a significant 'no-brainer' effect on making warrior skills (ei. always wanting 16 strength for every build).

Not A Fifty Five · Dec 29, 2006, 11:52 AM // 11:52

saying warriors need a buff?

strength may be weak, but no need to help a good class' primary

Shadow Kurd · Dec 29, 2006, 12:13 PM // 12:13

Strength is pretty the good,,, I think the rituals primary is pretty useless for anyone else than rits and necro's

Antheus · Dec 29, 2006, 12:56 PM // 12:56

Extending conditions is just as worthless.
- Conditions are easy to remove in pvp, where battles are long.
- Mobs die at least twice faster than conditions last in PvE.
- There are classes which can spam useful conditions, such as AoE blind, max degen or dervish AoE effects.

At 16 strength, the damage increase is around 32%. At 10, it's 20%. That's not so bad. It's like second customization on a weapon, and applies to every hit (minus AP skills).

Granted, you could argue that that merely adds 1 point of damage in certain cases, but then again, should customization then be removed as well? It's worthless by this logic. Same for lightbringer title.

Not A Fifty Five · Dec 29, 2006, 01:27 PM // 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antheus

Extending conditions is just as worthless.
- Conditions are easy to remove in pvp, where battles are long.
- Mobs die at least twice faster than conditions last in PvE.
- There are classes which can spam useful conditions, such as AoE blind, max degen or dervish AoE effects.

At 16 strength, the damage increase is around 32%. At 10, it's 20%. That's not so bad. It's like second customization on a weapon, and applies to every hit (minus AP skills).

Granted, you could argue that that merely adds 1 point of damage in certain cases, but then again, should customization then be removed as well? It's worthless by this logic. Same for lightbringer title.

at 16 strength that damage increase is about 10% lol strength only applies when using skills.

BSSuperman · Dec 29, 2006, 01:34 PM // 13:34

Hey, hey hey hey!

I agree that the skills in the strength tree are pretty cool - but Im creating the thread for a discussion for more along the lines of the actual primary attribute itself.

Antheus · Dec 29, 2006, 01:55 PM // 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not A Fifty Five

at 16 strength that damage increase is about 10% lol strength only applies when using skills.

I took it from here:
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Armor_penetration

At 16 strength:
Against AL 60, the damage increase is around 20%.
Against AL 80 around 25%.
Against AL 100 around 32%.

That is, going by the estimate that damage is doubled for every 40 AL reduction.

The definition of what an attack is is a bit vague though: "damage-dealing attack"

Not A Fifty Five · Dec 29, 2006, 01:56 PM // 13:56

well what I mean is, if you use something like gash, strength will apply, if you just whack your sword, it wont. so the majority of hits dont have strtength backing them up

Toutatis · Dec 29, 2006, 02:03 PM // 14:03

As far as the actual primary attribute goes, Strength is not the most useful at face value. But, as others have pointed out there is a lot more to an attribute than just what it does - it's important to take into account the skills that are linked to that attribute as well. One could just as easily argue that the necromancer's Soul Reaping was less useful (in terms of PvP at least, where deaths are more limited and there's less of a chance that the necro will be in range of each death to get the inherent bonus). But then looking at the skills linked to it, it's not as useless as it might first appear.

Although one possible idea for Strength is to add a small health increase with it. Dervishes already get a health bonus thanks to their armor, so why shouldn't Strength offer a comparable health bonus? Or maybe a health bonus with a corresponding energy penalty (as brawn starts to override brains)?

warriorsmiley · Dec 29, 2006, 02:04 PM // 14:04

If you want to test out the primary attribute go to the isle of the namless and hit the 60al targets with wildblow and the 3 warrior weapons at 16 for each, since it ALWAYS Scores a critical you well get the same damage all the time. First you hit it with 0 strength and then you hit it with the normal strength you as a warrior would run (which is around 8-9 for me) and see how much added damage it gives you that would be the true test of the attribute. I personally dont ever see a reason to run high strength for the added armor penetration you will more then likely get more damage by pumping your weapon attribute up. While the skills in the line are pretty good and useful itself as a primary isnt as good.

SpeedyKQ · Dec 29, 2006, 02:08 PM // 14:08

Strength may be weaker than some, but warriors have enough other advantages to make up for it.

BSSuperman · Dec 29, 2006, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by warriorsmiley

I personally dont ever see a reason to run high strength for the added armor penetration you will more then likely get more damage by pumping your weapon attribute up. While the skills in the line are pretty good and useful itself as a primary isnt as good.

There you go - this is why strength is always looked upon as the token primary attribute. Armour pentretation doesnt keep up with the damage dealt by higher weapon attribute.

Which is why it would be cool if strength actually did something other than 1 point armour penetration.

BSSuperman · Dec 29, 2006, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by warriorsmiley

I personally dont ever see a reason to run high strength for the added armor penetration you will more then likely get more damage by pumping your weapon attribute up. While the skills in the line are pretty good and useful itself as a primary isnt as good.

There you go - this is why strength is always looked upon as the token primary attribute. Armour pentretation doesnt keep up with the damage dealt by higher weapon attribute.

Which is why it would be cool if strength actually did something other than 1 point armour penetration.

I mean c'mon - at higher levels your using upto 13 then 14 then 15 (or even 16 :gasp

attribute points to get 4 more measly armour pentration - and even then you're not even looking at the intrinsic bonus of strength you trying to get longer charge/sprint time. Or longer time in stances.

With my MM i make sure that he has minimum 10 soul reaping to ensure that he has enough NRG to bring up another servitor. I dont even have any Soul Reaping skills. . . . . . all 2 of them.

Winterclaw · Dec 29, 2006, 07:21 PM // 19:21

BSS, the inherent bonus isn't all that but with NF strength gets some really nice skills that make me rethink not using it much.

Relambrien · Dec 29, 2006, 10:05 PM // 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antheus

Extending conditions is just as worthless.
- Conditions are easy to remove in pvp, where battles are long.
- Mobs die at least twice faster than conditions last in PvE.
- There are classes which can spam useful conditions, such as AoE blind, max degen or dervish AoE effects.

At 16 strength, the damage increase is around 32%. At 10, it's 20%. That's not so bad. It's like second customization on a weapon, and applies to every hit (minus AP skills).

Granted, you could argue that that merely adds 1 point of damage in certain cases, but then again, should customization then be removed as well? It's worthless by this logic. Same for lightbringer title.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember a post in an old thread about vampiric versus sundering saying that Strength wasn't really armor penetration...It's more like it just adds damage based on what the target's armor WOULD be, and then that damage is itself mitigated by armor...If anyone could confirm/deny this, thanks.

Oh, and strength doesn't apply to every hit, just every skill hit.

Hand of Ruin · Dec 29, 2006, 10:24 PM // 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

BSS, the inherent bonus isn't all that but with NF strength gets some really nice skills that make me rethink not using it much.

Skills are just a quick-fix, the attribute it's self should be addressed. IMO, it should be something like "1.5% armor penetration when fighting in melee".

That would make it worth putting points into.

shardfenix · Dec 29, 2006, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not A Fifty Five

saying warriors need a buff?

strength may be weak, but no need to help a good class' primary

Warrior is a crappy primary class, attribute wise. Even at 16% armor penetration (strength 16) you're only taking away 9 armor from a caster, which means your damage is being increased by 5%. So on your strongest attack skill, you are adding 6-7 damage tops at max strength.

The only advantage to warrior primaries are the strength skills, most of which are good, and the ability to put weapon proficiencies to rank 16.

NeHoMaR · Dec 29, 2006, 10:48 PM // 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

The only advantage to warrior primaries are the strength skills, most of which are good, and the ability to put weapon proficiencies to rank 16.

What about 80 armor and shield?