why the change with TWF?

[Roman]

Where is the fallacy of logic in that?

Let's see. Oh yes. When using a paralyzer, you are kept from using greensteel. Not Using greensteel = less DPS.

Again, you're using pure theory and half facts to derive metagaming implications. Don't do that. It's more than probable that standing still with greensteel will be far more effective than standing still with a paralyzer.

1 person sacrifices DPS on a single weapon to improve the DPS of 3-7+ other melee. Your argument is weak.

[bobbryan2]

1 person sacrifices DPS on a single weapon to improve the DPS of 3-7+ other melee. Your argument is weak.

The only 'argument' I have is one of cautioning people against jumping to conclusions. That argument is one of many ways your conclusions can be in error.

You do not have the factual basis for any of these metagaming conclusions. You do not know how much DPS is gained by TWF standing still, because I haven't seen exact attack rates for moving and for standing pat.

And even if we did, you are not even addressing the fact that most creatures can be attacked without moving. So the DPS loss going from greensteel to paralyzing, in many cases, is completely lost, and the DPS improvements you allude to never occur.

Finally, it doesn't even make sense in real world scenarios. If you could paralyze effectively at high levels, people would actually do it against cleaving orthons and things that caused high amounts of damage.

My arguments are weak huh? I'm not the one prophesizing the second (or is it first) coming of tumble combat.

[Roman]

The only 'argument' I have is one of cautioning people against jumping to conclusions. That argument is one of many ways your conclusions can be in error.

You do not have the factual basis for any of these metagaming conclusions. You do not know how much DPS is gained by TWF standing still, because I haven't seen exact attack rates for moving and for standing pat.

And even if we did, you are not even addressing the fact that most creatures can be attacked without moving. So the DPS loss going from greensteel to paralyzing, in many cases, is completely lost, and the DPS improvements you allude to never occur.

Finally, it doesn't even make sense in real world scenarios. If you could paralyze effectively at high levels, people would actually do it against cleaving orthons and things that caused high amounts of damage.

My arguments are weak huh? I'm not the one prophesizing the second (or is it first) coming of tumble combat.

What you're saying is you need more data to understand the implications, because you lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or doing more research.

[bobbryan2]

What you're saying is you need more data to understand the implications, because you lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or doing more research.

No... I'm saying YOU need more data to understand the implications, because YOU lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or by doing more research.

[Yargore]

What you're saying is you need more data to understand the implications, because you lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or doing more research.

You're the one making the claims here.
He is basicly saying that you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

[Vivanto]

Oh... missed another roll. The answer of course is that you can attack while running, but that you can't attack while tumbling. So when the enemy is in a state of transition, you are given the choice to tumble after him and do nothing or run after him and do (admittedly less than optimal) damage.

I'll take the damage the enemy option over the no damage option any day.

Almost. The real problem with tumbling is that you are stuck in the animation for a definite time period. Regardless if you can or cannot attack during that time period, you simply may not want to move that far or not-attack that long. Maybe just 1 lil step in a split second is enough while you will timble half the screen away.

[Roman]

No... I'm saying YOU need more data to understand the implications, because YOU lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or by doing more research.

You have already demonstrated that you lack the ability to understand my conclusions by needing to be educated on the tumble skill, of which you displayed a gross lack of understanding.

Your inability to understand what I am saying does not make it invalid. It just makes you ignorant.

[bobbryan2]

You have already demonstrated that you lack the ability to understand my conclusions by educating you on the tumble skill, of which you displayed a gross lack of understanding.

Your inability to understand what I am saying does not make it invalid. It just makes you ignorant.

I, at least, understood that you can't attack while tumbling. A point that seems to have been lost on some.

[Roman]

I, at least, understood that you can't attack while tumbling. A point that seems to have been lost on some.

You also can't attack when the mob is out of attack range, so your point is moot.

[Thorzian]

you're ignorant. no you're ignorant. you said this. no i didn't, i said this. no you didn't. yes i did. no he did't. yes he did, he's ignorant. no, he isn't, you are.



annoying you yet? cuz i'm sick of reading it.

[bobbryan2]

Almost. The real problem with tumbling is that you are stuck in the animation for a definite time period. Regardless if you can or cannot attack during that time period, you simply may not want to move that far or not-attack that long. Maybe just 1 lil step in a split second is enough while you will timble half the screen away.

That is 'a' problem with tumbling. But I'm pretty sure the wind up, the action, and the wind down all taking time during which you can take no other actions (most importantly) attacking is the primary issue.

It's too time-intensive. This is the same reason that shield blocking in direct response to most attacks wasn't really useful in the end game. It simply wasn't responsive enough to react with the speed you needed it to react to.

These were both attempts to make combat 'seem' very active, but both were far less effective than simply trying to dodge or chase with the movement keys. Movement doesn't interrupt attacks or have wind up and cool down animations, and so movement is always going to be more reactive.

[foxx]

How was THF always better than TwF?

I was gonna ask the same thing.

[Absolute-Omniscience]

You also can't attack when the mob is out of attack range, so your point is moot.

The mob will never be out of range if you run when he start to run.

[foxx]

Yeah, as I mentioned elsewhere, my first trip back in I was gulping haste pots thinking I'd gotten hit with a Slow spell.
(lvl 6 FvS)

Dunno. Going to let it steep a while and see what comes of it. Slow motion swinging is not pleasant at this point.

make haste clickies,

[Thorzian]

I was gonna ask the same thing.

because of burst damage. i'm not going to say either method is better. i have both and i like both. but against mobs with middle hp's the 2hf is better. especially now with frenzy 3 axe weilders out there. a 500 hp crit is hard to ignore. not all monsters are boss monsters.(where 2wf is better)

[Roman]

The mob will never be out of range if you run when he start to run.

In an ideal world, under perfect conditions and for a single mob that is actively engaged that may be true.

However, due to dps lag, I have often found mobs have moved further away than I could immediately react to.

Or Mobs have teleported far enough away that tumble is faster

Or my engangement is done, mob is dead. And I need to move to the other side of a room to the next engagement.

Why not take a 25% boost in movement speed and preserve your attack chain? Seems silly not too.

[foxx]

It requires less feats and does more damage, what more could you possibly want?

dunno , seems like more attacks per round equals more damage. <shrug>

guildy has an awsome thf yet seldom out dps.s the tempests, or monsters.

[bobbryan2]

dunno , seems like more attacks per round equals more damage. <shrug>

guildy has an awsome thf yet seldom out dps.s the tempests, or monsters.

Remember, THF gets glancing blows against a single target as well as multiples. The added benefits of multiple glancing blows could... "could"... actually be greater than the one extra swing every 4.

However, the real kicker is the fact that TWF benefits from most buffs twice as much as THF. The fact that bard buffs, divine favor, prayer, and most other straight damage enhancements give a double bonus to TWF is what pulls it firmly away in this game.

When comparing unbuffed, vanilla fighters, THF is pretty darn good. It's just that that's not typically the standard in raids.

[foxx]

What you're saying is you need more data to understand the implications, because you lack knowledge. That is called ignorance, and is easily fixed by asking questions or doing more research.

ouch.

[foxx]

[QUOTE=bobbryan2;2420784]Remember, THF gets glancing blows against a single target as well as multiples. The added benefits of multiple glancing blows could... "could"... actually be greater than the one extra swing every 4.




agreed as does my guildy who has an awsome THF and all the glancing/splash damage.




However, the real kicker is the fact that TWF benefits from most buffs twice as much as THF. The fact that bard buffs, divine favor, prayer, and most other straight damage enhancements give a double bonus to TWF is what pulls it firmly away in this game.




agreed, again.