Why classes become overpowered

[Znurre]

Originally Posted by magnet

No, MegriM stated a lot of times that he doesn't test balance with PvP fights, only through war (look for posts by MegriM with RvR and PvP as keywords ).

Knights seem hard to kill because they're not "insta killed" by your barb like all classes, but this is needed. Barbs should be able to go cast Brain Piercing to a rushing Barb, the problem is that 3 Barbs rush at once, you cancel one area then 2 are coming and gonna kill you because they hit so hard (often 1500 even to Barbs!).

As for Army of One it is good only if you have precise block lv 5 too, or else it gets wasted by all the -health modifiers (or Throat cutter ;p). That's why I hate it as it is, 500 mana for AoO + 450 for deflecting barrier (protecting other warriors -- including you ) and you are left mana less. You need to keep some for Precise block every 30s and so you can't cast damaging skills, and obviously can't cast an area (since you can't have Shields 19 + Vanguard 19 + an area, since every knight *needs* tactics).

Then there's mindsquasher too . Now if you see the edit of my previous post, you see that a knight will have to sacrifice attack for such a passive anyway.

The mana is the problem for the Knight.
I rather see that your suggestions with mana regen for Knights gets implemented than a passive resistance skill.

I loved those suggestions.

[magnet]

Originally Posted by Znurre

The mana is the problem for the Knight.
I rather see that your suggestions with mana regen for Knights gets implemented than a passive resistance skill.

Me too -- but I think the dmg resist has more chance to happen. In any way, Knights need more dmg resist.

BlooD proposed a passive which at different levels "caps" the received damage at once (lv 1: 1400, lv2: 1200, lv3: 1000, lv 4: 800, lv5: 600), but I think my proposal is easier to implement (the code already is there for acrobatic) and doesn't discard completely the armor value. Still, I'd like Blood's proposal better of course, I'm just afraid it won't happen any more than the mana regen thingy .

[Vroek]

It dont seem fair to improve knights to an extent that barbarians wouldnt stand a chance, even in terms of RvR based balance.
Warriors usually clash them being balanced 1v1 is very important even with RvR standards. Its not like the knights 800-900 SC go by unnoticed
How much your SC hit for with off with their heads and onslaught 1.4k ?
Compare that with Matons hit and think about him having -100% protection -100% evasions.

[magnet]

Originally Posted by Vroek

It dont seem fair to improve knights to an extent that barbarians wouldnt stand a chance, even in terms of RvR based balance.
Warriors usually clash them being balanced 1v1 is very important even with RvR standards. Its not like the knights 800-900 SC go by unnoticed
How much your SC hit for with off with their heads and onslaught 1.4k ?
Compare that with Matons hit and think about him having -100% protection -100% evasions.

I'm lucky if SC does 800 on a Barb, it's more often in the 700s (when it does the 225%, else it's more like 250!), precisely because of Frenzy. -100% protection may change the end result a bit but not to the point of being a disadvantage compared to instakilling Knights imho. -100% Evasion isn't such a big difference since lately I have seen Barbs resist (without protection dome) as much as evade...! Of course it *is* a huge difference in RvR terms, but on 1vs1 in the end the advantage goes WAY towards the Barb; so when talking 1vs1 Barbs have it better imho (now, depends on Barbs, some who don't go for insane damage are OK).

And SC with 1.4k I only saw that on some low-level with no armor... I'm happy with 1k hits though and not complaining about Knight damage. Those 1k hits are *only* on mages. Archers and Barbs have it around 700, Knights around 900...

I think it would really make sense if Knights had a defence at least as good as Barbarians and Archers, I mean, they're supposed to be the tanks, not the Barbs nor the Archers. And as I said blocks are in exchange of damage -- and you put as many points in damage buffs as I put in blocking buffs.

[Angelwinged_Devil]

Originally Posted by magnet

I'm lucky if SC does 800 on a Barb, it's more often in the 700s (when it does the 225%, else it's more like 250!), precisely because of Frenzy. -100% protection may change the end result a bit but not to the point of being a disadvantage compared to instakilling Knights imho. -100% Evasion isn't such a big difference since lately I have seen Barbs resist (without protection dome) as much as evade...! Of course it *is* a huge difference in RvR terms, but on 1vs1 in the end the advantage goes WAY towards the Barb; so when talking 1vs1 Barbs have it better imho (now, depends on Barbs, some who don't go for insane damage are OK).

a lot of algorithms are fucked up, specially with a barb, try different protection manipulating spells in the arena with a barb and normal shots. It was weird

[makarios68]

I have only fairly limited experience playing warriors. However:

Using my barb, i lost against plenty of other barbs 1v1, but never against a knight.

So in my limited experience, knights and barbs are not well balanced, 1v1 at least...

[misaccc]

I proposed the damage reduction spell too...and im still for it...we knights seriusly need it...we are supposed to be tanks but an archer can tank more then us....

Oh and why is everyone talking about imbalance in barbs vs knights?Imo that fight is very balanced...