v0.10 Terminate vs Eviscerate

DiscOH

Artisan
Is everyone ok with Terminate being a strictly inferior OHKO?

I think it's a little strange thematically to have fighters better at stealth kills than rogues. Is the 1XP discount worth only being able to use it from behind?

Should the skill be buffed, given a larger discount, given more frequent purchases, or left unchanged?
 

Tantarus

Squire
I think both of these skills should have their pre-req costs reduced by half and their costs normalized between both to 4 XP per buy.
So let me get this straight you want melee to have as many KO effects as casters who have the disadvantage of range?
 

DiscOH

Artisan
I think both of these skills should have their pre-req costs reduced by half and their costs normalized between both to 4 XP per buy.
This would make fighter 1hko strictly better than rogue 1hko. Don't you think that's a problem?
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
False equivalence. Parry can defend for an ally, Dodge cannot. They’re functionally different, if similar. Terminate and eviscerate are not. One is a lesser Eviscerate with no advantages.
 

Tantarus

Squire
False equivalence. Parry can defend for an ally, Dodge cannot. They’re functionally different, if similar. Terminate and eviscerate are not. One is a lesser Eviscerate with no advantages.
Sure, but my point is rogues get a worse 1hko, but a better defense. Where as fighters get a better 1hko but a worse defense. These abilities are not in a vacuum. So it is okay for terminate to be worse if it balances out in other skills.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
I think Rogues should be better at offense and Fighters should be better at defense. The system is currently backwards (and no Parry is not better than Dodge, that is a ridiculous argument). The problem is the Owners have no idea what their design goals are for the system other than Earth Casters should heal and Celestial Casters should be able to do everything else magic related.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
Celestial because most of the owners play them.
I think it's a little unfair to put it that way. It seems more likely that when designing abilities in the past everything new and cool has been deemed "magic". There seems to be an assumption that "regular" abilities can only do damage, interact with the physical world by destroying items, or stop physical attacks.

By lumping everything else as magical the game is doing a massive disservice to everyone that doesn't player a scholar.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Celestial because most of the owners play them.
Evidence, please?

Edit: Honestly, this kind of accusatory post isn’t going to help create better dialogue between us and the owners. While I agree with the position that the current proposals unfairly favor C Scholars, devolving to an argument of self-serving decisions isn’t helpful and I doubt it has any accuracy.

Plus, you’re lumping Emily into that group, and I sure as heck don’t like that.
 
Last edited:

Darkcrescent

Knight
Chicago Staff
Marshal
Celestial because most of the owners play them.
I'd be curious to know as well how many do. Just by my recollection between SoMN, Chi, SoMI, Trav only 1 was a Celestialist, and he was a templar(or Scholar, either or).
Fighter: 1
Earth Scholar: 2
Celes 1
So that's 25% had Celes as a main right there between Upper Midwest; Not sure on East Coast, but I believe for West maybe 2 of the 3 owners are C caster mains (never played with SFs owner that I'm aware of).

I certainly could be wrong.
 

Ruki

Scholar
I know that the owner in Calgary (when he's not npc) plays a celestial adept. Although he's much more a rogue/alchemist over a caster.
 

Tantarus

Squire
Evidence, please?

Edit: Honestly, this kind of accusatory post isn’t going to help create better dialogue between us and the owners. While I agree with the position that the current proposals unfairly favor C Scholars, devolving to an argument of self-serving decisions isn’t helpful and I doubt it has any accuracy.

Plus, you’re lumping Emily into that group, and I sure as heck don’t like that.
I have been told by people that should be in the know that the ratio is very weighted toward celestial.

Regardless, it is not accusatory per say. But that plus the weighting toward celestial that you say you agree with does lead one to believe there is at the very least bias, be it intentional or unconscious bias.

I would guess it is more unintentional. Just by the nature of it, if the people making the rules understand a certain class better, that class is more likely to get attention, right? It does not have to be malice. But wands, golems, spirit storing high magic. Refusal to even let earth share in wands. The Trend has been there for some time. Now melee getting nerfs, earth getting no love and celesital still coming out on top by alot. Feels bad man.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
No, I’m not interested in that discussion, because it’s not constructive to furthering dialogue.

If we’re down to slinging mud like that, count me out. It’s simply toxic and unhelpful.
 

Tantarus

Squire
@Draven
Yes we should get back on track of discussing how to make the game more even and playable for all classes. But it is also fair and natural for people to be frustrated with nearly 8 years of celestial dominance when looking at it continuing going forward.

Back to the topic at hand, I do think that it is awkward to take away PTD from fighters and changes there stuff to 1 swing. It really blurs the lines between fighter and rogue and takes away alot of there distinctness.
 

mythic

Knight
Owner
Calgary Staff
I know that the owner in Calgary (when he's not npc) plays a celestial adept. Although he's much more a rogue/alchemist over a caster.
Actually, I'm all rogue with Cspells to 5h level so I can quick cast Spell shield from MIs. When 2.0 hits, I will like be straight Rogue or Scout. I rarely cast spells with my current build.
 
Top