Sorry to interrupt face to face talk but....

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:29 am

But I have a question for you striker runners out there. How much does clumsiness affect a striker? Does it steal away from his decise? Does it do nothing at all or not matter? Logically speaking it would seem to me that if a warrior is clumsy he could hardly be decisive but I've managed to nab a RU that shows he can have a 9-11 decise starting but no matter how I arrange the numbers he's going to be high end clumsy or low end slightly uncoordinated. What are the thoughts Question

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:44 am

Owsly wrote:

But I have a question for you striker runners out there. How much does clumsiness affect a striker? Does it steal away from his decise? Does it do nothing at all or not matter? Logically speaking it would seem to me that if a warrior is clumsy he could hardly be decisive but I've managed to nab a RU that shows he can have a 9-11 decise starting but no matter how I arrange the numbers he's going to be high end clumsy or low end slightly uncoordinated. What are the thoughts Question

We would not let a clumsiness rating bother us. We suspect clumsy only affects maybe defense, maybe attack hit location, probably drawing backups, and maybe nothing. Since this is a ST, we would not think any of these possibilities mattered a lick.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 1020

Low deftness (at least below 11) is a poor idea for a striker.

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:15 pm

I would echo Consortium. I mostly ignore coordination and it doesn't seem to hurt. It isn't clear that it hurts or helps warriors to me, either.

If I was guessing from my experiences with a couple of VERY LOW speed/deftness warriors, it wasn't the coordination that made them succeed or fail.

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:59 pm

Seem to have noticed coordination affecting getting up after a knockdown.
YMMV.

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:00 am

Quote:

Low deftness (at least below 11) is a poor idea for a striker.

Just curious to know your reasoning behind your statement. My opinion is that low deftness on any class probably isn't good but I also think out of all of them ST and SL would be the least affected. Just my thought which may be entirely wrong Confused

So if you don't mind sharing your reasoning I'd like to hear it Cool

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:27 pm

Owsly wrote:

Quote:

Low deftness (at least below 11) is a poor idea for a striker.

Just curious to know your reasoning behind your statement. My opinion is that low deftness on any class probably isn't good but I also think out of all of them ST and SL would be the least affected. Just my thought which may be entirely wrong Confused

So if you don't mind sharing your reasoning I'd like to hear it Cool

My thoughts, as in inexpert manager, are that when you go below 11 deftness on a striker, you give up far too much in the way of skills. Just dropping to 9, you lose 2 skills each in attack, defense and parry, and 1 riposte skill. Strikers are already hosed in attack compared to just about any non-defensive style in the game, so if you can't HIT first and hard, you're already handicapped. Speaking of hitting hard, below 11 deftness, you're drastically limiting your weapon selection. Sure, the SS helps strikers out jump everyone else, but what about that guy in plate? If you don't have the strength for the big guns (BA, GA, GS, HL, WH?), at least at 11 deftness you can go with a longsword (I suppose a BS could work as well), and you've got a few more attack skills to help put that guy down. Against light to medium armor, you're denying yourself the SC, arguably the best overall weapon in the game.

OTOH, I think SL and BA CAN do fine with the lower DF, since they aren't giving up nearly as much in the way of attack skills.

Just my $.02.

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:40 am

Everyone wants more skills.
DF is wonderful for that.
So all styles like DF.
But a lack of DF, in general, only "hurts" the lack of skills.
Hence, many/most styles can run just fine with lower DF.
We run these styles with low DF (realizing WE want DF, too) to success
BA, LU, SL, ST, TP

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:33 am

I asked merely because I'm stuck with a low DF whether I like it or not on a roll up starts with a 3 and adding 6 in this case isn't logical and I felt that striker was one of the better options but wasn't quite sure about the clumsy factor. I very much appreciate all the input Exclamation

I learned some things as well as it helped me decide ultimately what I'm going to do with my roll up. Shocked

Thank well everyone's great help Very Happy

Advanced Master Poster Joined: Apr 15, 2003 Posts: 312

The Consortium wrote:

Everyone wants more skills.
DF is wonderful for that.
So all styles like DF.
But a lack of DF, in general, only "hurts" the lack of skills.
Hence, many/most styles can run just fine with lower DF.
We run these styles with low DF (realizing WE want DF, too) to successBA, LU, SL, ST, TP

Well - that depends on your definition of "success" - if it's running 60%+ in an arena, probably ok. If it's TVing/TCing in a tourney - strikers with a low DF, IMO not so much....

Agree with BA/LU - prefer to have some DF on SL, and especially TPs... (though my best TP ever started with a 9)

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:29 am

Chief wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

Everyone wants more skills.
DF is wonderful for that.
So all styles like DF.
But a lack of DF, in general, only "hurts" the lack of skills.
Hence, many/most styles can run just fine with lower DF.
We run these styles with low DF (realizing WE want DF, too) to successBA, LU, SL, ST, TP

Well - that depends on your definition of "success" - if it's running 60%+ in an arena, probably ok. If it's TVing/TCing in a tourney - strikers with a low DF, IMO not so much....

Agree with BA/LU - prefer to have some DF on SL, and especially TPs... (though my best TP ever started with a 9)

We consider 60% in an arena a success, BUT in this last tourney we
1. TC'd a 7 DF basher
2. TV'd a 7 DF ST. That is success, too.

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:33 pm

The Consortium wrote:

Chief wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

Everyone wants more skills.
DF is wonderful for that.
So all styles like DF.
But a lack of DF, in general, only "hurts" the lack of skills.
Hence, many/most styles can run just fine with lower DF.
We run these styles with low DF (realizing WE want DF, too) to successBA, LU, SL, ST, TP

Well - that depends on your definition of "success" - if it's running 60%+ in an arena, probably ok. If it's TVing/TCing in a tourney - strikers with a low DF, IMO not so much....

Agree with BA/LU - prefer to have some DF on SL, and especially TPs... (though my best TP ever started with a 9)

We consider 60% in an arena a success, BUT in this last tourney we
1. TC'd a 7 DF basher
2. TV'd a 7 DF ST. That is success, too.

I'm pretty sure the Adepts TC (SL) also had a 7 DF

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 1020

Slashers are fine with 7DF, and in fact I believe with their high initial attack rating it is wise to place stats in other physicals to compensate their damage and endurance burn.

Strikers with 7DF, while I TC'd with one back in the early 90s, I cannot recommend the design now. Strikers big nemesis these days are PR's and dodgey Lungers/Aimers. Low attack increases that difficulty. Strikers in the Rookie and Apprentice range can TV with a low deftness if their matchups are favorable and they learn the decise to keep up their speed advantage (the primary advantage they would have).

I think it plays into the hands of managers who run PR's and LU's to design these ST's; therefore, I would recommend you consider this when undertaking this design.

Advanced Master Poster Joined: Apr 15, 2003 Posts: 312

The Consortium wrote:

Chief wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

Everyone wants more skills.
DF is wonderful for that.
So all styles like DF.
But a lack of DF, in general, only "hurts" the lack of skills.
Hence, many/most styles can run just fine with lower DF.
We run these styles with low DF (realizing WE want DF, too) to successBA, LU, SL, ST, TP

Well - that depends on your definition of "success" - if it's running 60%+ in an arena, probably ok. If it's TVing/TCing in a tourney - strikers with a low DF, IMO not so much....

Agree with BA/LU - prefer to have some DF on SL, and especially TPs... (though my best TP ever started with a 9)

We consider 60% in an arena a success, BUT in this last tourney we
1. TC'd a 7 DF basher
2. TV'd a 7 DF ST. That is success, too.

1.

I said I didn't have a problem with a basher starting with a low DF.....
2. what class? my guess is rook-app-maybe inits - I'd be surprised if that warrior could TV adepts on up

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 pm

Chief wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

Chief wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

Everyone wants more skills.
DF is wonderful for that.
So all styles like DF.
But a lack of DF, in general, only "hurts" the lack of skills.
Hence, many/most styles can run just fine with lower DF.
We run these styles with low DF (realizing WE want DF, too) to successBA, LU, SL, ST, TP

Well - that depends on your definition of "success" - if it's running 60%+ in an arena, probably ok. If it's TVing/TCing in a tourney - strikers with a low DF, IMO not so much....

Agree with BA/LU - prefer to have some DF on SL, and especially TPs... (though my best TP ever started with a 9)

We consider 60% in an arena a success, BUT in this last tourney we
1. TC'd a 7 DF basher
2. TV'd a 7 DF ST. That is success, too.

1.

I said I didn't have a problem with a basher starting with a low DF.....
2. what class? my guess is rook-app-maybe inits - I'd be surprised if that warrior could TV adepts on up

Inits.
But why the "clarification"? A success is a success and it responds to the initial question that , of course, a 7 DF warrior of certain varying types can be a success. (Not a godling. A success.)