Slight update: Combat change

[sabinati]

treehugger vs kaios fight to the death plox

[treehugger318]

Sting
Weight: Melee Combat

Valorous Strike
Weight: 1.75 * Melee Combat

I'm sorry if this is too much information for you to handle

[BadMotel]

I'm sorry if this is too much information for you to handle

Actually the opposite, wtf are you trying to say?

[Onionfighter]

If 2 people have the same amount of LP, chances are the melee player will have less combat skills than the other one, because the melee player not only needs melee but also UA, unlike the unarmed player. Therefore the unarmed player will take the defense bar away sooner than the melee player and making the battle much easier for him. Not to mention he'll also gain IP and defense much faster.

Let's not forget that using a shield gets a 1.5 defense multiplier. Also consider that getting twice the skill in something costs about 4 times as much lp.

Edit: defense multiplier is 1.25

[treehugger318]

Let's not forget that using a shield gets a 1.5 defense multiplier. Also consider that getting twice the skill in something costs about 4 times as much lp.

Even so, Oak Stance provides more defense AND IP. That without counting that you can switch to Death or Glory or Bloodlust when you have more than enough defense.

Face it, UA is better than melee in every way. People only carry swords nowadays for the coup de grâce.

[Kaios]

I don't understand what you're even trying to prove any more. Your original point was that it is unfair that to have a melee based fighter you also need unarmed, but to be just unarmed you don't need melee.

I stated that what is probably the core reasoning behind this is that a sword does heaps more damage than an unarmed punch. Then you spout off in to some self righteous, hormonal teen rage about damage not affecting anything in combat. All the meanwhile throwing out insults about how I am ignorant or something. I am only trying to state that you are incorrect in this assumption of damage not mattering.

Damage in combat matters. A sword can 1 hit KO someone with no defense bar, where as unarmed it may take several punches to take them out. In that time someone can run, gain ip and gain some defense and then before you know it the tables have turned. Or they can just escape from you if that is what they are trying to accomplish.

Melee combat can be very powerful if you know how to use it in combination with unarmed and vise versa. There is no such thing as a "Melee build" or "Unarmed build." Only one of them (unarmed) is required if you plan on being a useful combatant. Melee is not required, it only adds to your ability to easily dispatch your foes.

I understand the need for you to keep arguing and insulting me so you don't feel humiliated for being wrong, and I openly accept any further responses from you as a sign that you have conceded to me, and admit that there are people with different view points and opinions than your own.

treehugger vs kaios fight to the death plox

[treehugger318]

Damage is useless, no matter how long your post is and how much you babble about being right and me being wrong. You can easily kill someone by taking out the defense bar with unarmed and using sting. You don't even need melee.

And throughout this entire thread you still haven't given a reasonable answer to how it's balanced for players who use unarmed to not need melee while players who use melee do need unarmed.

[Onionfighter]

Damage is useless, no matter how long your post is and how much you babble about being right and me being wrong. You can easily kill someone by taking out the defense bar with unarmed and using sting. You don't even need melee.

I don't think you have ever been in a real combat situation.

And throughout this entire thread you still haven't given a reasonable answer to how it's balanced for players who use unarmed to not need melee while players who use melee do need unarmed.

W3 I had very little ua, and I did just fine.

[BadMotel]

Dude, wrong on both accounts. *facepalm*

If you have no melee, or even just significantly less than your opponent, then when you "easily" zero my defense with punches, then I can up my d at least 1 tic before you can land your final sting, and it won't get through my d. Sure, you might have help or time your moves to get the next one faster, but it's no for sure.

You need to go UA even if you are melee heavy because maneuvers rock. If the same maneuvers existed based on MC as UA, then everyone would go MC because swords do waaaaayyyyyy more damage. It only makes sense that the more powerful skill needs to be balanced some way, like making you also take some UA.

[treehugger318]

You need to go UA even if you are melee heavy because maneuvers rock.

And why do maneuvers need UA? Why is there no delta variable for Shield, for example?
UA already has many more benefits than melee, without even counting Delta.
People don't even talk about "combat skills" anymore, just who has more UA than the other.