and we're due. ;)

I'm listening. I'm more interested in cool play style ideas than I am about pure number tweaks, but I'm listening regardless.

Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey

Ye Age Olde 3x CM Debate

---

As much as I like to point at this one, it's been pretty clearly stated that this will be a no-go. Which is really pretty understandable, considering what imbalances it could cause to any number of systems. However, to a lot of us it seems like the quickest and easiest fix for a number of post-cap issues wherein, without dedicating a a gigantic amount of TPs to spells and sacrificing one of the core profession highlights (damage reduction), warriors tend to fall behind other professions, particularly semis. So really the 3x CM debate unearths some of the work we'd like to see.

So to lay out some of these observations, from my own personal experience, and it's been touched on a bunch in this folder, it starts with AS- at cap, there's little if any further growth except for learning spells, which I still don't really believe should be the destination for the quintessential square. 3x CM, which would be a pretty major longterm post-cap investment (especially at 16/12 tps per rank) would mitigate that with an added 50 AS, keeping the profession a bit more competitive.

It'd also come with 101 more CMPs to play around with at the far post-cap game (so if we're maxing skill ranks, that's approximately three 5 rank skills and a handful of prereqs), giving warriors the option to pick up other CMs and further flesh out the profession, along with better offensive and defensive capabilities in regards to opposing maneuvers (I wouldn't object to diminishing returns on this post-202 ranks or 2x/level). This does solve the diversification issue, where I would assume most players of warriors only stick to the tried and true core of CMs while many of the skills, useful and flavorful as they may be, just kind'a lie fallow.

So the tl;dr for that is- AS falls behind at cap compared to other professions and lack of diversity due to CMP costs.

So instead of 3x CM..

---

First, I'd advocate lowering CMP costs. If not across the board, then for a lot of the fallow skills and the passive skills like Cunning Defense, Movement, Focus, Side by Side, etc. Across the board would still be fantastic in regards to diversification though- in general use, many of the offensive CMs are just not worth using until Rank 4, and even then from personal experience, even with Rank 4 of Sunder Shield (something I sacrificed some of those passive cores for to mitigate AS issues via tactical setups), ofttimes it's a no-go on like level mobs. Rank 5, I think I'd see far more success, but the prereqs and cores have most of my CMPs tied up. It's still pretty useful though, don't get me wrong.

So with lowering CMP cost, some tweaks in some of profession defining skills would be pretty keen as well. So for today, let's take a peek at Weapon Bonding as a start.

Bonding Level	Effect	Swings/Flare
1	Bypass Block/Parry (but not Evade)	4
2	Lil' Damage Weighting (+5/Somewhat?)	6
3	Lil' DS Pushdown (-25?)	8
4	-1 RT	10
5	Doublestrike (+returning)	12

I might be one of the few dudes who keeps his bonding flares set to random- but most warriors to my understanding just set it to 5 and be done with it. This is because the other flares are a little lackluster at best. I would vote upgrading the abilities some. Some le suggestions on that, with the Swings to Flare staying the same..:

Rank 1, toss in possibly a free Disarm and/or Sunder Shield attempt (weapon permitting, using the warrior's ranks in those respective CMs, and not flaring at all if the warrior has no guild/CM training in either) that would potentially flare at base 10% +5% per Bonding Rank post-attack roll (so a 35% chance at Rank 5), and also bypass Evade at Rank 5.

Rank 2, maybe change it from what I believe is a phantom flat +5 damage weighting (somewhat) to both damage and crit weighting, with a number uptweak- +5 (somewhat) base +2 per Bonding Rank achieved, so a max of +15 (exceptional) phantom damage/crit weighting.

Rank 3, instead of a flat 25 (I'm pretty certain that's the number, which isn't too shabby actually), possibly either 25 base +5 for each Bonding Rank (so basically a reverse Spirit Strike, wherein instead of a +75 AS, the target gets a -75 DS at Rank 5), or a DS pushdown of something like 10% base, +5% bonding rank (so 35% DS pushdown at Bonding Rank 5).

Rank 4, maybe -1 RT base, -1 per Bonding Rank, going no lower than of course 1 RT (like a stamina-free Quickstrike).

Rank 5, a +5% per Weapon Spec rank in the bonded weapon's type for a third swing, which could activate a fourth swing at +4% per bonding rank, fifth swing at +3% per bonding rank, sixth swing at +2% per bonding rank, and seventh swing at +1% per bonding rank (free focused mstrike at regular swing RT and no stamina cost or Mstrike cooldown). So a 25% for a third swing, 20% chance for a fourth swing, 15% for a fifth swing, 10% for a sixth swing, and %5 for a seventh swing.

I'm not too certain if those numbers seem a little extreme or not, personally. In lieu of those, of course, maybe just halving the Number of Swings to Flare, making leaving your Bonding flare set to random even more lucrative and active and being able to count a bit moreso on your flare if you decide to just keep it set to a particular one.

I'm a bit tapped out for like, further suggestions right this minute now (but I swear I have a bunch, not just uptweaks and numbers junk to CMs, but flavor/screen dressing/etc as well and things like passive Weapon Skills (ala Shield Maneuvers)), but I do want to say first, THANK YOU ZISSU for being open to hearing some of our junk out and second, by no means at all do I think the profession is unplayable or nerfed to not-funness or anything of the sort.

As things stand right now, after trying every profession in the game, there's a reason why I've only ever capped a warrior; for my playstyle and what I want out of the game mechanics-wise, I've found playing one to be the most fun, particularly and especially since ye olde change from GSIII to GSIV. I just get the inkling that once the level cap of GSIV was put in place, maybe it wasn't expected that so many of us would hit it and then far surpass it.

-james, bristenn's player

---

You think to yourself, "FFF-"

A giant white bunny hurls a powerful lightning bolt at you!

You evade the bolt by a hair!

I doubt this is going to be a popular observation, but the maneuvers that warriors tend to dump the most points into are probably the ones that need the most work. To say it another way, if all capped maneuvers were equally powerful, or nearly so, there wouldn't need to be "must-have" maneuvers.

No, the maneuvers that warriors tend to dump the most points into are Surge, passives, and defenses, because the active offensive abilities are so lackluster. Feint is a good setup and doesn't use up CM points. No offensive skill is as powerful as AMBUSH or MSTRIKE except Berserk, which is also a guild skill.

If you nerf the passives, people will for the most part keep training passives and defensive cmans, because that won't magically make the unused ones better. They'll just continue to spend CM points on less useful passives and be less happy about it.

Here are some CM builds I found in PC threads ( http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?102896-CM and http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?105803-Best-Combat-Maneuver-Choices ). I've bolded the abilities other than Surge that might actually be used actively:

Skill name Mnemonic Ranks

Mighty Blow mblow 1

Sunder Shield sunder 4

Subdual Strike sstrike 3

Specialization I wspec1 3

Weapon Bonding bonding 5

Combat Mobility mobility 1

Combat Toughness toughness 3

Surge of Strength surge 3

Parry Mastery pmastery 3

Cunning Defense cdefense 5

Spell Parry sparry 3

Griffin's Voice griffin 3

(But I'm guessing sstrike is for defensive purposes.)

Skill name Mnemonic Ranks

Combat Focus focus 5

Twin Hammerfists twinhamm 1

Hamstring hamstring 2

Headbutt headbutt 2

Charge charge 4

Stun Maneuvers stunman 2

Subdual Strike sstrike 2

Specialization I wspec1 5

Weapon Bonding bonding 5

Combat Mobility mobility 2

Bull Rush bullrush 2

Surge of Strength surge 1

Block Mastery bmastery 2

Cunning Defense cdefense 4

Griffin's Voice griffin 3

Skill name Mnemonic Ranks

Combat Movement cmovement 3

Combat Focus focus 2

Mighty Blow mblow 2

Specialization I wspec1 4

Weapon Bonding bonding 5

Combat Mobility mobility 2

Surge of Strength surge 4

Parry Mastery pmastery 2

Executioner's Stance executioner 2

Skill name Mnemonic Ranks

Combat Focus focus 2

Hamstring hamstring 2

Subdual Strike sstrike 2

Specialization II wspec2 5

Coup de Grace coupdegrace 2

Weapon Bonding bonding 5

Combat Mobility mobility 2

Combat Toughness toughness 1

Surge of Strength surge 5

Parry Mastery pmastery 3

Cunning Defense cdefense 4

Griffin's Voice griffin 3

>Coup De Grace
>Dazed to this combo. It's just not something you can setup properly. It needs to be reworked or remove the stun needed component. It's hard enough with timing. Cairn's Cry or Symbol of Sleep is all we got. Those are intense to even try.

Haymaker is the existing setup for coup. UAC also works pretty well. Cairn's is horrible because prone critters are substantially immune to it.

...

>No, the maneuvers that warriors tend to dump the most points into are Surge, passives, and defenses, because the active offensive abilities are so lackluster.

More because once you have a couple there's no need to have any more, and the guild supplies those anyway. The only actives I spend CMan points on are RP moves where I just have a few ranks to do the move rather than all the ranks to do it effectively. 15 RP moves for the price of one fully trained active is a pretty good deal in my opinion. If there weren't shield points, I'd be spending some of my passives on an active shield move instead, but right now there's no need for any of my points to be spent on active CMans and if there were any more points available they'd just get dumped into even more passive buffs. CMan points could be capped at level 50 rather than level 100 and it would probably make for a better game because I wouldn't be quite so invulnerable to critter CMans as I am now. (Monks are horribly short of manoever points, but they only get 1/3 the amount that warriors have available, warriors could quite easily lose a few)

>>I would say that you make rash decisions.

Maybe, maybe. But - I know a certain warrior who only casts spells from scrolls. What I mean to say is - for some of us, there are non-mechanical backstory related reasons not to want to change certain things.

I know it's odd - and it may not be the case here. But I would hate to see that die - and it's the very definition of 'choice'. So - perhaps finding a way to make both work is more better?

Doug

And that's the last I'm going to bother to comment on this theoretical CM/425 change unless a GM chimes in, because we all know it'll never happen.

>>Moving numbers around won't change a character's backstory

No it won't, unless as you propose a character has a backstory that relies on the very existence of some capability that subsequently changes because someone is playing with numbers, and not with characters.

I can certainly understand if you and others don't wish to acknowledge this possibility. I'm not even sure that's part of the reasons for so strong a stance from FirePheonix. It may be all numbers to him as well, for all I know.

But - I will ensure my point is understood. Play with numbers all you like, but don't close 'general' avenues of game play, please. Thank you. Although I am sure you probably don't want to acknowledge the point, since it doesn't support your driving perspective.I'm faced with this exact type of negativity all the time. Betcha didn't know what negative really means. . .

>>And that's the last I'm going to bother to comment on this theoretical CM/425 change unless a GM chimes in, because we all know it'll never happen.

Ahh, yep. I figured. . . Ok - I'll join in, unless some other well-intentioned but significantly altering suggestion comes back to the fore.

Still think you're missing the easiest of all solutions, though - just let warriors 3x CMAN.

Doug

Cross-check me on this, but. . .

if you are using a shield, with thrown, you've not really lost any DS in offensive, unless your weapon is a defender weapon.

And ahead of the curve, if a shield doesn't work with thrown - fix that!

Doug

>>You've lost around 70 melee DS (exact number depending on stats and enchant). . . Its not utterly terrible for a plate wearer, but its not negligible either, particularly if facing a flaring or heavily weighted opponent.

Is that all Parry DS? If so - make thrown function like brawling (always present if hand is empty) unless the hand has something (then add in the weapon enchant +2). Meaning for most average (vultite) thrown folks, in offensive it would be 5 DS lost.

>>Monks are the ones that are short here, not warriors.

Let monks play, too. I don't subscribe to the 'you can't have it, because I must have it' mentality.

>>I get that there's a change of identity required on capping, but adding extra flab to an already flabby skill isn't going to chance that. There'd be more choice if the flab was cut, than if it was added to.

Now, this. . . This is worth exploring. I fundamentally agree - but I'd also bet 99 out of 100 players wouldn't. This is not intuitive from a game play perspective, and as such ends up being one of those views 'forced' on a player base. Still - concept A+ and deserving of discussion.

Doug

I don't know much about all this but for me personally allowing haste trinkets to be made even at such a high level now would make me happy. Still pissed off about that change.

I'm listening. I'm more interested in cool play style ideas than I am about pure number tweaks, but I'm listening regardless.

Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey

I've been wondering about Warriors. I've got one that's passed level 20something that I play from time to time.

I got a few response from some that play warriors about how they utilize their spells or plan to utilize some later as they earn more TPs post-cap (though I was hoping to hear from a few more, perhaps more will respond). From the couple of response, it was kind of what I was expecting, I just wanted reassurance from those that have a capped/post-cap trained warrior.

>My opinion is that they aren't necessary at cap, but they are key for adding power post cap. My analysis of my brief forays into post cap areas, rapidly ended by death or lucky escape, is that I need to learn 430 before coming back.

RATHBONER

>I believe that spells are common practice once the core physical skills are achieved. That being said, I dropped down from 3x dodge to 2.5x dodge to learn 425 alittle faster after I capped because I was impatient. My warrior will stay at 425 for a while but I believe 430 is a common goal for the TD

>I frequently eblade my wooden weapon so I can hit things in the confluence.

CAVEMANIAC

If a warrior pushes to 425, they gain +25 to AS and the trade off is the hit to redux due to knowing so many spells.

If that same warrior were to push to 430, they'd have an AS boost of +27 from spell 425 and +15 DS/TD from 430.

If by some chance this warrior played long enough, earned enough TPs, they could max out their spell ranks of 101 MnE. I figure they'd max MnE to 101 and ignore MnS since they don't really need to learn 101 or 107, these spells are easily found on scrolls or can be shared from spiritual casters. They'd want to max out their AS boost and DS/TD boost, but I could be mistaken....however, I just don't see any "must have" spell from the MnS list for a warrior. If this warrior hit 101 MnE ranks, they will have maxed their 425 bonus (at 75 ranks) to +50 AS. They will also have maxed out their possible 430 bonus to +50 DS/TD.

If a warrior could 3x CM, that extra 101 ranks would make up the difference 75 ranks of MnE spells would give them. Extra 101 ranks gives +50 AS boost.
However, you're still missing out on the possible DS/TD boost of 430.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I was thinking of a trade off for warriors. I'm sure some would hate it, some would love it and anyone else not in one of those groups wouldn't even care.

The removal of a warrior being able to learn spells, but gain the ability to 3x CM.
Once a warrior hits level 100, open up CM to be 3x. This way they can start to train up extra CM. They earn 101 extra cman points, plus they can earn +50 AS from the extra 101 ranks.

I was thinking of a small boost to DS and ETD from high CM training. Nothing exciting, but a little something to offset the potential loss of learning 430. Maybe every 5 ranks of CM over 202 get a +1 to DS/TD. That'll grant +20 DS/TD.

A warrior that hits 303 CM, they'll have +50 AS and +20 DS/TD.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but thought it might be an interesting thing to suggest and see what others thought.

-Drumpel

I understand the desire for 3x CM but not at that cost. I have to agree that it would be a large loss in utility, offense and defense. It cannot be understated how much of a hit this would be for any warrior hunting in the rift or spell burst areas