From the sound of it you made the change because you want to buff them, while they actually need pretty drastic nerfs, at least from a warband perspective.Penril wrote:Instead of complaining, you guys should be making SW proposals in the BDF now that UF is no longer an issue (buffing these classes was hard in the past because "but UF would make it incredibly OP!").
I will be moving SW/SH proposals over other classes. If you have any ideas, let us hear them.
[SW] M2 Changes
Forum rules
Before posting in this forum, please read the Terms of Use.
Optional: Start your topic title with your class in brackets (e.g., [Shaman]). It helps others find your post faster.
Before posting in this forum, please read the Terms of Use.
Optional: Start your topic title with your class in brackets (e.g., [Shaman]). It helps others find your post faster.
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
Rip Phalanx
Ads
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
Yeah, I think SW could use a little love. Not sure about SH, but I trust some of the SH's I have talked to.
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
I would love to see some changed to the SWs happening. 

Eldoir Duskoath SW 40/71 Shadowmaster of the Eternal Host
Strike swiftly aim true
Strike swiftly aim true
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
Just keep in mind that bombing is the one thing that makes both classes the monsters they are. Any buff to SW, even singletarget, needs to take into consideration that they have access to the (bugged) bomb mechanics even in a singletarget spec. All it takes is expert skirmisher to be able to pull of some seriously overperforming aoe damage. Hell, I've even played fester SW with it, completely viable even without popping M2.
Rip Phalanx
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
I could be wrong, but I believe the aim is to make Scout and Assault specs more attractive (Skirmish is king due to heal debuff + Powerful Draw). And most of the ideas we came up with for buffing those 2 trees ended up with "UF would make that OP".
Also, I didn't make the change. It was Torque and the lead team (though I pushed pretty hard for it, I admit).
@lefze understood. That is a bug though, so hopefully it will be fixed soon. If not, i am sure we can think of something to do with it.
Also, I didn't make the change. It was Torque and the lead team (though I pushed pretty hard for it, I admit).
@lefze understood. That is a bug though, so hopefully it will be fixed soon. If not, i am sure we can think of something to do with it.
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
well, take for example scout, balancing it would be as easy as making UF 50% damage and 25% castspeed, at the same time nerfing expert skirmisher to 25% would make bomb sw/sh more in line. Assault would benefit less, but 50% UF should make balance there a bit easier.
Edit: Yes, I know it's bugged, but as I understand it fixing the range bug is kinda hard to pull off.
Edit: Yes, I know it's bugged, but as I understand it fixing the range bug is kinda hard to pull off.
Rip Phalanx
- footpatrol2
- Posts: 1093
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
That's not correct.narlok1992 wrote:\ Every nerf/buff a.k.a tweaks are neccesary.
I dunno... maybe HTL should be fixed. Just a friendly suggestion. It's kinda just as fundamental as guard is... Maybe that's why we exist in such a range heavy meta atm... This whole thing might not be such a big deal if HTL was fixed.
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
Honest question... why do you guys think HTL hasn't been fixed yet?
Ads
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
Ohhh I know! Order bias.Penril wrote:Honest question... why do you guys think HTL hasn't been fixed yet?
<Salt Factory>
- footpatrol2
- Posts: 1093
Re: [SW] M2 Changes
https://github.com/WarEmu/WarBugs/issues/10145
I posted on this stuff MONTHS ago also... which can be found in the bugtracker.
I posted on this stuff MONTHS ago also... which can be found in the bugtracker.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest