Fencer Archive
Thread: FAQ: Is getting Master Brawler worth the Extra Points required?
actually...and this actually is my opinion, and only going off what minimal posts i see you post on the "fencer" boards.
your words, seem to always be in a judging manner when Raph posts. Just a little note I see thats all.
You may or may not mean it, I just thought you should know my and other's (your 1 star bandit mayhaps?) perspective
Especially for a profession without a knockdown.
I was a master swordswoman/doctor for a very long time and held my own both in pve and pvp.
I recently mastered brawler on my way to master fencer, and it is a WORLD of difference in the amount of utility and power at your hands with those extra skills.
Warcry 2 is literally and in every way twice as powerful as Warcry 1. It hits more often and delays for 20 seconds. You time that right with the 30 second immunity and you can keep someone or something out of action for 2/3 of every minute. That's a significant amount of time and usually well more than you need.
Intimidate 2 lasts far longer (I'd say offhand more than twice as long without having timed it) which also helps tons as you just have to drop it on something once for the duration of most fights. For those wondering what Intimidate does here's an example: I've seen ATSTs go from hitting often at 800-1200 damage a shot to missing often at 400-600 damage a shot. That's tremendous.
Lunge 2 for a class without knockdown can make or break a fight. You get your timing down and mix a lunge 2 with a warcry 2 and the fight is yours. That's 20 seconds they're on their backside taking 50% bonus damage from you.
The rest of the skills/mods in Master Brawler are not so attractive, very small bonuses and effects. But those three skills alone make it a must have in my opinion for any melee class (and yes even TKAs and Pikemen) wishing to do very good in melee.
-Shi
StGabriel wrote:
I don't think it helped that Raphayl edited the original post to remove the statement that I said I disagreed with and to change the comments there to be more in line with what I was saying and then still accused me of making a "mystery conclusion" without mentioning the edit. I reread the FAQ and I even I was half-convinced that my reply was completely out of line until I realized that it had been changed.
I did not remove the statement.I did however change a "will not" to a "might not" in the indicated statement... but the statement is still there. That was not the only change. I received a few PMs regarding the wording of a sentence here or there, and I edited them to more accurately depict what I was trying to express. The same held true for the "will not" to "might not."
Depending on your opponent, "will not" is not always correct. An extremely accurate opponent can change this from "will not" to "might or might not," just as in your example with a Master TK. It really depends on just how much Melee Defense you have and just how much Accuracy your attacker has.
This is a FAQ, and needs to be accurate. I made it clear (I think... I might we wrong) in a pre-Faq that I had posted that would do my best to keep the FAQ accurate. This means I'm going to need to edit them from time to time, either because the game changes, or new info comes in, or because I made a statement that is commonly misinterpreted or I made a poor choice in words. In this instance, I felt that I usedpoor wording when I said "will not", and therefore corrected it. I felt if you, whom I normally consider to be very astute and rational, had gotten the wrong idea of what I was trying to say, then other people probably would too. In my eyes that adds up to poor wording. There was no alterior motive. However, I suppose I can see how you may have thought there to be.
I was not aware (at the time) that this was the "mystery conclusion" that you were referring to. When I wrote that statement, I intended it to be a very general basic statement... not a defining conclusion of how the Accuracy vs. Defense calculation worked.I was under the impression you were referring to someequation (like Noules000's) that I had supposedly posted somewhere, and was asking you to let me know where you found it. I didn't consider the statement we are now referring to asa "conclusion" to how the mechanics worked, so I wasn't thinking along those lines. Now that I know what you are referring to, I understand. If I had been aware of this, I would have mentioned the edit since it specifically applied to the argument.
As for "being out of line", I didn't find your information to be out of line. I think I just tookoffense to the way you presented it. We Correspondents are intended to work together and support each other, not tear each other apart, particularly in a public forum. You took me by surprize by the way you presented your challenges, and gave me the impression you were trying to discredit me in front of my peers. Everything you said could have been said in a PM, and the changes would still have been made, but without the need for this back and forth that only serves to confuse the community. That did tick me off a bit. However, in retrospect, I apologize for becoming defensive.
In my defense, think for a moment how you might feel if I came to your forum and argued some nit-picky point with you, instead of trying to supportyou? What kind of confidence would that inspire in those whom you were appointed to serve and represent? Do you think they might start to wonder if they could count on anything either of us said? I don't want that to be the case.
StGabriel wrote:
I also don't like that you didn't state your revisions of the FAQ when replying to me. I think it painted me in a worse light.
I may not have made mention in this faq about modifying the FAQs as necessary to remain current and accurate, to include when I make mistakes.I think I included it in a pre-FAQ post that I had up for a few days before the root FAQ was posted.[You should see the one about Weapon stats (I think I was half asleep when I did that one) it almost had to redone from the ground up. I don't have a beef with needing to correct them when there is a mistake.] Since any post that is edited says so clearly at the bottom, along with a time and date stamp of when the change took place, I thought it was pretty obvious that I had edited it, especially to a fellow Correspondent. No deceit was intended, but if it came across this way, I do apologize.
StGabriel wrote:
I currently have about 7 pages of posts that have been systematically one-starred by what looks to be multiple people.
I'm sorry to hear that Gabe. Personally, I wouldn't have noticed, since I have my rating system turned off. For all I know all of my posts are sitting with 1-star. It's not going to affect my attempt to serve my community. Even if I didn't, everyone on this forum knows my position on the Star Rating system. (Posted a lengthy thread on my disapproval of what I called 1-star Generals.)
I think this whole thing got off on the wrong foot when I tried to compliment you (and tease you in a friendly way)when I said that arguing that Noules000 formula that you hadn't tested was more accuratethan another formula thatyou not only hadn't tested but hadn't even seen wasn't like you. That was a compliment, you dork!
At least it was meant to be. As far as this game goes, and the math involved, you normally want to see all the facts and proof before you commit to belief in anything... a descrtionary trait I admired and respected. Thisjust seemed a bit out of character for you, at least to me.
Also, changing the "will not" to a "might not" was also a compliment. It means I agreed with you on that point. I took the humble path and changed my wording to reflect yours.
When you came back with all the sarcasm and petty remarks about accepting that we have cells and so forth, that put me on a completely different road. You turned my extreme respect for you into resentment, and the whole thing degraded from there.
With these misunderstandings out of the way, it's my hope that we can go back to the way things were: Mutual respect, consideration, and support. At least that's how I felt about you, and would prefer to return.
Edited for typos.
Message Edited by Raphayl on 12-23-2003 08:37 PM
glad to see the two best correspondents share views and objections. It not only shows that your working hard, but it shows your love for the game to indulge too much time and effort into different tests and number crunchings
I salute you both, for your intelligence and for your humbleness to back down and let the other know how things really are, and to do it all where people can see that strife die with a good handshake =)
but i still like Raph better (ducks into her guild hall and hides from Gabe)
I don't think toughness protects against ranged attacks.
I think it's only melee. If I'm fighing a mob with a spit attack the spit attack hits me for 300 pts of damage while the mob only hits me for 90-100.
(using master TKA master brawler toughness mods here)
The best people to ask about whether toughness works for both melee and ranged (in my experience it is melee only) are TK's their toughness is way above ours and the difference is far more noticable.
I have trained in TK and while I was doing thisthe amount of damage I took from blaster was never reduced by Unarmed Toughness or One Handed toughness. I would be hit for the same amount no matter what weapon I held (VK or Gaffi) unless I was in melee where a mob that would hit for 200ish would do 130ish when I was using 1hd and 90ish unarmed (master fencer &TK 2.3.0.4)
So if it's supposed effect both melee and range damageI'm certain it wasn't working for me 