Who are you?

[joojoo1975]

yea i'm not understanding either. you do 3 to 1 ua ofver mc so basically you would had 300 ua and 100 melee?


when i did UA, the biggest hurtle was not the fact if i was standing toe to toe with an equillivant fighter, it was the equipment. u get past that blue bar, and it's curtains, for the simple fact of the dmg that descent qual sword, and lets face it if you got 60Q helm and rings, we should assume a 60Q sword as well.


so i guess if we r talkin about equal odds, the ua guy doesnt have to spend ponts in melee, while the melee guy does. is that what your meaning?

[Skorm]

yea i'm not understanding either. you do 3 to 1 ua ofver mc so basically you would had 300 ua and 100 melee?


so i guess if we r talkin about equal odds, the ua guy doesnt have to spend ponts in melee, while the melee guy does. is that what your meaning?

yes

[bmjclark]

Yes skorm, it's only really reliable to do damage with that if u have alot of str and are full martial because they could have really good armor. I just prefer this way so i do have the oppurtunity to do damage with a sword, but i mainly fight with UA.

[Skorm]

Yes skorm, it's only really reliable to do damage with that if u have alot of str and are full martial because they could have really good armor. I just prefer this way so i do have the oppurtunity to do damage with a sword, but i mainly fight with UA.

well tbh, 3 secs whit full advantaje+ uac= hell to your enemy, i see what can be done whit your build,i actually like it, might try it next world( i am just married to uac on this one)

[EyeOfRa]

Both, depending what your doing. If I'm dealing out justice, and the person is taking it. I like to go for a UA approach, draw it out. Enjoy myself y'know? And then when I get bored and they stop being fun, I give em a quick stab, or a punch to break their defense first.
Personally, I don't have much experience in 1v1 in a real fight, never have to bother with armor and shit. I think, against someone using melee whose higher than you, go with UA, you'll need the extra Ip since you're not likely to score a hit with a sting. Keep the sword in hand though ^.^ if your evenly matched or more, go with sting.

On anything less than a bear, (other than ants) I use the usual punch, flex, sting. Approach, to lazy to chase them down. On a bear I just use my trusty sling ^.^

[joojoo1975]

but here's the thing.

it's all about the numbers. if your going against a higher numbered apponent, your pretty much fucked as they will have better defence and should be able to break your bar first. of course talkin 1 v 1 here.

if he gets adv then he'll just end up winning. if your UA and think your gonna do the sand in eye move, good luck, because that has a cost of 40% attack. we tried it out and it was only a delaying move, something i wouldnt suggest for a 1 on 1. and if your thinking bout evil eye, really long cool down there.

but like i said, after all the sparring me and my village mates did, we came to the conclusion, it's a numbers game.

[TeckXKnight]

I have consistently defeated opponents with higher UA and Melee than myself. It's something I've grown accustomed to. Panic your opponent and throw wrenches in their plans constantly.

I've mostly done UA for maneuvers but knowing your maneuvers better than your opponent means life or death. I've also found that most people give up and just sort of slump into death once you've broken their defense bar. Get used to the idea that combat is dynamic and that, if its UA vs UA, as long as your opponent does not have Delta 2 on you, you'll be able to put up a good fight. It will be tough and you'll have to be clever about it but you can win most fights.

Always know your limits though and I advise training against multiple stronger opponents simultaneously to get used to it. 3v1 was my ideal number for what to be ready for as most raiders that attacked me tended to be in groups of 2-3. Building up init against all of them and never giving any one an opening was always critical. The only problem I'd run into with 3v1, with opponents being higher in skills than me, was that if they coordinated against me, they were just too fast for me to compete with. In a single volley they could break my defenses and put me on the defensive for the rest of the fight.

Death or Glory has saved my life more times than I can count and working on percentages rather than base numbers helps a lot. No Pain No Gain is also an old friend of mine. Everything above 1shp is buffer, as far as I'm concerned.

[joojoo1975]

yea the no pain thing was something that my melee buddy beat me constantly with. till evil eye.


but yea, it took us hours and hours doing different combos to see what worked and what didn't.


but i don't think we're talkin bout a what if scenerio.


basically what is better melee or UA. and for my money is melee because of the items.

[TeckXKnight]

I'm going to have to say Melee too because of mobile combat and combat weight.
As Burg pointed out though, if you're just standing there exchanging blows, UA is almost always going to win.

[rozn]

well, they are making steps in trying to balance out the two.

but honestly if you came against a peep with the same score as yours, yours being Ua and his melee and he had 2 rings that gave him 20 points. do you think you would beat him?


hence hwy i am saying Melee seems to be better for now.

I would say UA is much stronger in a 1v1 fight if ur both just standing still beating on each other, +melee from items or not (also assuming 1 person has say, 300 UA and the other has 300 melee, but neither cross skills over if that makes sense). I think personally that a mix of UA and MC is best. I personally go about 3:1 (ua to mc) sometimes a bit more MC then that, the IP cost on MC just makes it weaker in a standard fight.

exactly how does this works? fight whit uac and do the killing blows whit mc ?

If you have more then just one opponent and dont have time to punch the KO'd person to death you just use melee and he dies faster.