Unarmed or Melee combat?

Krask · Post by **Krask** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:48 pm

I was wondering what the effects of both are because i've seen alot of people mentioning unarmed and hardly anyone mentioning the mc skill, is unarmed better than melee in terms of tanking damage etc.

Post by **TeckXKnight** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:24 pm

If you're taking damage in combat, you've already lost. MC Is just too slow compared to UA so if you want to win battles, you need at least a comparable amount of UA over your opponent. If they have 4x as much UA as you or more, you've already lost. Melee is great for damage though.

Krask · Post by **Krask** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:43 pm

Ok so UA is significantly more important?

Post by **TeckXKnight** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:52 pm

Since it ties in with Maneuvers so heavily, yes.
http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Combat_Actions#Maneuvers

Potjeh · Post by **Potjeh** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:50 pm

You should note however that punching someone to death can take a lot of swings, while a single sword blow can take out the opponent if you catch him low on defence. Of course, lowering the defence in the first place is better done with unarmed. So you either go pure unarmed, or unarmed and some melee for quick finish.

Norsu · Post by **Norsu** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:34 am

Related question, is the wiki accurate in saying that delta depends solely on unarmed combat? Even if one of the combatants has a sword equipped? Making moves involving delta extremely effective against melee fighters and useless for them to use against unarmed fighters?

Example, combatant A (melee 100, ua 1) fights combatant B (UA 100, melee 1). Combatant B uses death or glory and gains 10 initiative? Bloodlust refills his entire attack bar, oak stance fills half the defense bar?

Everytime I see a screenshot of a raid, all involved parties are using shields and swords, so I thought I'd try melee this time round, but that seems like an insurmountable disadvantage to overcome. Are they just putting the swords on when the opponents blue bar is empty?

virus_128 · Post by **virus_128** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:41 am

Norsu wrote:Related question, is the wiki accurate in saying that delta depends solely on unarmed combat? Even if one of the combatants has a sword equipped? Making moves involving delta extremely effective against melee fighters and useless for them to use against unarmed fighters?

Example, combatant A (melee 100, ua 1) fights combatant B (UA 100, melee 1). Combatant B uses death or glory and gains 10 initiative?

sure, all warriors must have UA at least 1\3 of MC. Don't forget about shield, valor. Shield have 1.25 MC modificator when u r defensing, and valor 1.75. It's mean, that 100 MC guy can defense like 125 ua while dodging and remove defense bar like he has 175 using punch.

Norsu · Post by **Norsu** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:44 am

virus_128 wrote:
Norsu wrote:Related question, is the wiki accurate in saying that delta depends solely on unarmed combat? Even if one of the combatants has a sword equipped? Making moves involving delta extremely effective against melee fighters and useless for them to use against unarmed fighters?

Example, combatant A (melee 100, ua 1) fights combatant B (UA 100, melee 1). Combatant B uses death or glory and gains 10 initiative?
sure, all warriors must have UA at least 1\3 of MC. Don't forget about shield, valor. Shield have 1.25 MC modificator when u r defensing, and valor 1.75. It's mean, that 100 MC guy can defense like 125 ua while dodging and remove defense bar like he has 175 using punch.

Sure you can defend like you have 125 UA, but you can't refill half your defense bar with one move. I think gaining 10 initiative from one move is pretty much GG already no?

virus_128 · Post by **virus_128** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:47 am

Norsu wrote:
virus_128 wrote:
Norsu wrote:Related question, is the wiki accurate in saying that delta depends solely on unarmed combat? Even if one of the combatants has a sword equipped? Making moves involving delta extremely effective against melee fighters and useless for them to use against unarmed fighters?

Example, combatant A (melee 100, ua 1) fights combatant B (UA 100, melee 1). Combatant B uses death or glory and gains 10 initiative?
sure, all warriors must have UA at least 1\3 of MC. Don't forget about shield, valor. Shield have 1.25 MC modificator when u r defensing, and valor 1.75. It's mean, that 100 MC guy can defense like 125 ua while dodging and remove defense bar like he has 175 using punch.
Sure you can defend like you have 125 UA, but you can't refill half your defense bar with one move. I think gaining 10 initiative from one move is pretty much GG already no?

yes, but if you want to be warrior and don't want to up your ua, u must have some thousands melee combat

Norsu · Post by **Norsu** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:02 am

Ah yes of course, I was missing the obvious when thinking about hybrids, assuming 50 melee and 50 UA = 100 UA, when in reality you get about 65-70 in each before you get 100 UA. Still, that leaves your defense lacking, although offensively you're strong with valorous having ~120 effective weight when compared to his punches. Overall UA seems to come out significantly ahead still...

Hmm with 90 in melee you could get around 42 in UA... never mind me.

Unarmed or Melee combat?

Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?

Re: Unarmed or Melee combat?