How well would you have done in tourneys with this warrior?

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Apr 15, 2004 Posts: 2960

Quote:

I just did it in Apprentice's 12-15-4-17-21-4-11
RND1 - ST 2MIN WIN
RND1 - LU 2MIN WIN
RND3 - SL 2MIN WIN
RND4 - LU 1MIN LOSS
RND5 - AB 2MIN WIN
RND6 - AB 2MIN WIN
RND7 - LU 1MIN WIN
RND8 - AB 1MIN WIN
RND9 - PR 3MIN WIN
RND10 - LU 7MIN LOSS
RND11 - WS 6MIN LOSS

For the record I also have this exact same RU, just need to go back and look how he did. I'll update it here after I check the tourney NL's

Update on my warrior with same #'s as warrior in question. 7-3 in Champs, 8-3 in Adepts, and 7-3 in his 1st shot at Challengers. I have always planned to bump ST once he got to Challengers (so I guess it's time

Your warrior with the exact same numbers as Bartender's warrior, does he have Little damage?

I'm not going to argue that it isn't possible for a Little damage LU to TV in basic (I do realize that I said "never" in my previous post, but what was meant is that I would never expect a Little damage LU to TV, not that he never can). However, I think this is clearly a situation of throwing enough mud against the wall and having something stick. The principle is poor, even if it sometimes succeeds.

The point of my original post is that Little damage is debilitating except for TPs and ABs and Bartender's lack of success with this warrior should be expected and is not a result of poor managing.

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:22 pm

Action wrote:

I see no problem with taking a chance on little damage. If you get normal hoorah! If not then it is a project and one worth executing. While some people can do with the advice that there are styles other than Aimed Blow, Lunger and Striker some can do with the advice that, overall, always going the safe route and middling through things isn't going to get you the best you can out of the game. Would it have TV'd as a little damage parry lunger or parry striker? It doesn't really have the parry does it? If it was tremendously blessed in parry it would come with a mediocre base of 10 to go with normal encumbrance and normal hit points. Eh. I think that if you did not take the chance on little damage and make it a LU or ST and made it a defensive style with those physicals you would be the one shoehorning.

So by advocating a defensive warrior for this rollup am I going the "safe route" or shoehorning? Pick one!

The question is not whether this rollup as a PL/PS would TV ... I don't think either version would TV rookies. The question is, assuming Little damage (which is the most likely outcome) whether the rollup would perform better as a PL/PS or as Bartender's LU version.

The Plunger version of this warrior starts with 6 parry and 10 defense at mode. This is more than enough to handle most strikers' attacks, and the 15 CN/WL will allow survivability. Its strong riposte and init will allow it to seize the initiative and take down offensives, who are likely lighly-armored offensives with a low CN. Light damage is relatively unimportant in this scenario. This sort of warrior could easily go 3-3 in Rookies, and with good learns and bonuses even further.

I personally find this more interesting, logical, and compelling than trying to make a high-CN, low-damage warrior an offensive phenom.

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:15 pm

Ah, but as a Lunger, this warrior is defensive!

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:08 pm

Managerr wrote:

Ah, but as a Lunger, this warrior is defensive!

Have to agree with this. And as a LU it will have even more defense than as a PL. I would want more parry if I were to go PL.

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:26 pm

One Armed Bandit wrote:

Quote:

I just did it in Apprentice's 12-15-4-17-21-4-11
RND1 - ST 2MIN WIN
RND1 - LU 2MIN WIN
RND3 - SL 2MIN WIN
RND4 - LU 1MIN LOSS
RND5 - AB 2MIN WIN
RND6 - AB 2MIN WIN
RND7 - LU 1MIN WIN
RND8 - AB 1MIN WIN
RND9 - PR 3MIN WIN
RND10 - LU 7MIN LOSS
RND11 - WS 6MIN LOSS

For the record I also have this exact same RU, just need to go back and look how he did. I'll update it here after I check the tourney NL's

Update on my warrior with same #'s as warrior in question. 7-3 in Champs, 8-3 in Adepts, and 7-3 in his 1st shot at Challengers. I have always planned to bump ST once he got to Challengers (so I guess it's time

Your warrior with the exact same numbers as Bartender's warrior, does he have Little damage?

I'm not going to argue that it isn't possible for a Little damage LU to TV in basic (I do realize that I said "never" in my previous post, but what was meant is that I would never expect a Little damage LU to TV, not that he never can). However, I think this is clearly a situation of throwing enough mud against the wall and having something stick. The principle is poor, even if it sometimes succeeds.

The point of my original post is that Little damage is debilitating except for TPs and ABs and Bartender's lack of success with this warrior should be expected and is not a result of poor managing.

Knowing that RR had succeeded with the same rollup I asked for and got a lot of help from him. I think he then wrote that he TV'd Adepts and champs and got normal damage after second ST train. Don't know if he raised ST before TV'ing, though.

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:28 am

Managerr wrote:

Ah, but as a Lunger, this warrior is defensive!

A defensive that burns endurance as fast or faster than any other style ... and who has favorite rhythms likely to be high ... and who can't damage his way out of a brown paper sack ...

Not to mention the skills he's going to get. All of the Attack and Initiative he will learn will not help his defensive prowess ...

I'm not saying the warrior sucks. I'm sure after 10 FE and 20-30 more skills it would absolutely crush most arena warriors. I am also sure that in AD he would tear it up after getting normal/good damage. I am just saying (again) that not every good rollup has to be a striker, lunger, aimer, or TP, and that there is a place for other styles at the Tourney table, at least in Basic.

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:47 am

The problem here is the little damage. Any issues you have with a Lunger/TP having little damage, is only going to be magnified by choosing an off-style (such as PL) for this roll-up.

In general, if you want to run an off-style (for tournament play), you need to make sure the roll-up is solid to cover the deficiencies of the style--not the other way around. Because this roll-up is lacking, you choose to cover it by going with the making the most skilled (LU) or the most scummy (TP) warriors possible.

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:54 am

Managerr wrote:

The problem here is the little damage. Any issues you have with a Lunger/TP having little damage, is only going to be magnified by choosing an off-style (such as PL) for this roll-up.

In general, if you want to run an off-style (for tournament play), you need to make sure the roll-up is solid to cover the deficiencies of the style--not the other way around. Because this roll-up is lacking, you choose to cover it by going with the making the most skilled (LU) or the most scummy (TP) warriors possible.

What tourney rollup grade would you give this warrior? A B-?

PL is superior to LU in some areas, most notably Parry, end burn, and weapon selection. I concede LU's other strengths (which are significant). If you know you are about to fight a pool of warriors that is 80% TPs, STs, and ABs, which style is the better choice?

I had a PL go 5-3 in Rookies at the FtF. We'll see if that warrior can improve in later basic tourneys ...

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:21 am

I don't think it really matters what is best "Offensive or Defensive" for this guy since he can clearly go both ways and be successful. Neither of you are wrong, it all depends on what the manager in question wanted at the time, in this case he wanted a LU which was a vieable choice and may wind up kicking some major but in ADM and Primus later on. I applaud Bartender for having the cihonies to shoot for the stars. He didn't reach them in basic but he may reach other galaxies later on once he is freely able to fix his physicals.

Go Bartender!

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:25 am

Obregon wrote:

So by advocating a defensive warrior for this rollup am I going the "safe route" or shoehorning? Pick one!
.

The safe route of a warrior who will start out mediocre and fade away later or taking a chance against little damage for a warrior that will give you much more for a longer time. This is NOT a parry based roll up without SHOEHORNING it into one. LOOK at the parry. Middling, safe route yada yada the same thing. Are you quitting Turf War? Confused

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:54 am

Quote:

What tourney rollup grade would you give this warrior? A B-?

C for me, but for most people this is probably a B.

Quote:

PL is superior to LU in some areas, most notably Parry, end burn, and weapon selection. I concede LU's other strengths (which are significant). If you know you are about to fight a pool of warriors that is 80% TPs, STs, and ABs, which style is the better choice?

Lunging. If the answer were PL, then you would see a lot more PL's out there.

Quote:

I had a PL go 5-3 in Rookies at the FtF. We'll see if that warrior can improve in later basic tourneys ...

I have tons of PL TC's--I think it's the most under-rated styles in the game which many people surprisingly have forgotten how to run (considering it's popularity in the 80's)--but at leas to me, a PL roll-up looks nothing like a Lunger--it should actually have Parry. (Most times I'm thinking PL or WS or offensive-TP?)

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:24 am

Obregon wrote:

What tourney rollup grade would you give this warrior? A B-?

With little damage, I give it a C. It might become a B in some manager's hands as a TP, but not in mine. I don't think I can TV with it.

---
I would also agree that PL's are underrated, with the 2nd best natural rhythms and the best (tied with rippers) natural weapon faves. That said, their natural learning holds many of them back (no riposte/decise). I'm sure that strikers with bad fave learns have TC'd many times in basic. PL's not so much.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

I am working on quite a few PL's through the tourney pipeline now.

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:55 pm

Obregon wrote:

I'm not saying the warrior sucks. I'm sure after 10 FE and 20-30 more skills it would absolutely crush most arena warriors. I am also sure that in AD he would tear it up after getting normal/good damage. I am just saying (again) that not every good rollup has to be a striker, lunger, aimer, or TP, and that there is a place for other styles at the Tourney table, at least in Basic.

Yeah, she took off around 10 FE and went undefeated for 13 fights before going to the Isle. And I do agree with you about not every good rollup having to be made into one of the power styles. Around the time of rolling this particular warrior up, I had just made a 21 WT a PS and a 21/17 a PL. I was also running two scums and one OTP (out of a total of 15 warriors) or I would have made it an OTP. And I was only running one LU in basic at that time. (Right now I have none.)

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:58 pm

One Armed Bandit wrote:

Your warrior with the exact same numbers as Bartender's warrior, does he have Little damage?

Yes he did, I eventually trained out but not until after he had a Master in Attack. Which is probably why my TL in App's this time did so well (Started tourney with AE+ 3 ATT and Expert +3 in DEF, finished Master+1 ATT and AE +5 DEF).

One Armed Bandit wrote:

I'm not going to argue that it isn't possible for a Little damage LU to TV in basic (I do realize that I said "never" in my previous post, but what was meant is that I would never expect a Little damage LU to TV, not that he never can). However, I think this is clearly a situation of throwing enough mud against the wall and having something stick. The principle is poor, even if it sometimes succeeds.

I wouldn't use your comparison, I only have 4 Tank LU's that have started little damage 1 SZ 3, 2 SZ 4 (same RU), and 1 SZ 5. They also happen to be the 4 smallest I've rolled up (next biggest is a SZ 6, most are 7 or 8, with an occasional 9)

One Armed Bandit wrote:

The point of my original post is that Little damage is debilitating except for TPs and ABs and Bartender's lack of success with this warrior should be expected and is not a result of poor managing.

For once I actually agree with you Shocked

But I still wouldn't make it anything but a LU (and yes I agree with Asur on the grade)