new dagger Q

    • new dagger Q

      Honestly being able to stack to 3 in 1 hit is pretty OP on these new daggers

      Reference look at swords, they must hit 3 players to get 2 stacks with an aoe Q, and have no option of getting a 3rd from the single swing.

      Also swords have 40-50% resilience penetration while all daggers have 75% but their raw damage numbers are nearly the same, making daggers the superior option.
    • Yeah, I think Apples taste better than Oranges too.

      Sword stacks give them movement speed, a massive amount that makes them insanely powerful in small scale combat. Daggers get a damage bonus, and also take more damage with it up. They're completely different abilities. They're completely different weapons with completely different loadouts for completely different scenerios. They aren't comparable beyond what may be technically more viable in the meta or not. In that scenario, Swords are far from underpowered lol.
    • Acoustic wrote:

      Sword stacks give them movement speed, a massive amount that makes them insanely powerful in small scale combat. Daggers get a damage bonus, and also take more damage with it up. They're completely different abilities. They're completely different weapons with completely different loadouts for completely different scenerios. They aren't comparable beyond what may be technically more viable in the meta or not. In that scenario, Swords are far from underpowered lol.
      so what your saying is " I pLaY DaGgEr"
    • Acoustic wrote:

      Yeah, I think Apples taste better than Oranges too.

      Sword stacks give them movement speed, a massive amount that makes them insanely powerful in small scale combat. Daggers get a damage bonus, and also take more damage with it up. They're completely different abilities. They're completely different weapons with completely different loadouts for completely different scenerios. They aren't comparable beyond what may be technically more viable in the meta or not. In that scenario, Swords are far from underpowered lol.
      Imagine if swords dont have speed bonus... it could be worse than axes. Swords have almost no debuffs, counting only on damage and durabilty. Btw i think swords are far from underpowered too. Top tier damage, chasing potential and some durability. The only downfall is the lack of debuffs, but the others pros compensates it.

      About stacking charges, spears can max charge with one hit too. But spears cant get much from it charges, since Q hit delay is very huge. It is a melee weapon with Q ranged delay... lol
    • yiconomics wrote:

      Pick up some daggers, and duel me in town for 50M blappo. Let's see how OP they are.
      Clown.

      blappo wrote:

      1v1 will never be balanced u town warrior its basic logic.
      It can be balanced if defensive items are given more utility variety on a per-gear-piece basis.
      Adding another utility to the items that have only 1 purpose as of now (Adding skill interrupt to fiend cowl, as an example) should in theory create a soft-counter meta where fully countering your opponents gear set is much less possible.
      Although I'd rather see the dead weapon lines and gear pieces balanced out first.
      - You're a monster.
      - Am I?
    • Hattenhair wrote:

      It can be balanced if defensive items are given more utility variety on a per-gear-piece basis.
      the logic of 1v1 gear never being balanced

      if you have 10 items 1 will be strongest 1 will be weakest in direct comparisons.

      If you have the counter to any 1 weapons you then have the stronger of the direct comparison.

      So as long you literally will always have a weapon that is stronger, and if it has a counter it is then weaker.
      Balance is not achieved by creating all items equally, but rather by direct imbalances. IE counter, then counter counter, counter that counter and so on.

      this is why 1v1 is silly to balance, because it is the most obvious that its imbalanced and always will be. its a swap war of gear, in duels and CD you cant thus you have people breaking crystals, unless they are running 1 of the strongest builds, then they inspect and still may run.
    • Acoustic wrote:

      Yeah, I think Apples taste better than Oranges too.

      Sword stacks give them movement speed, a massive amount that makes them insanely powerful in small scale combat. Daggers get a damage bonus, and also take more damage with it up. They're completely different abilities. They're completely different weapons with completely different loadouts for completely different scenerios. They aren't comparable beyond what may be technically more viable in the meta or not. In that scenario, Swords are far from underpowered lol.
      lol jokes on you cause it doesn't give them the negative effect of assassin's spirit bud however daggers are meh spears and carrion caller out shine daggers by alot now daggers are fine right where there at
    • blappo wrote:

      Hattenhair wrote:

      It can be balanced if defensive items are given more utility variety on a per-gear-piece basis.
      the logic of 1v1 gear never being balanced
      if you have 10 items 1 will be strongest 1 will be weakest in direct comparisons.

      If you have the counter to any 1 weapons you then have the stronger of the direct comparison.

      So as long you literally will always have a weapon that is stronger, and if it has a counter it is then weaker.
      Balance is not achieved by creating all items equally, but rather by direct imbalances. IE counter, then counter counter, counter that counter and so on.

      this is why 1v1 is silly to balance, because it is the most obvious that its imbalanced and always will be. its a swap war of gear, in duels and CD you cant thus you have people breaking crystals, unless they are running 1 of the strongest builds, then they inspect and still may run.
      Ofcourse there will be better options anyhow, im not arguing over that.
      My proposition is to decrease the dead-end one-sided encounters, where one opponent is practically rendered helpless because all of his gear is fully countered by the enemy.
      - You're a monster.
      - Am I?
    • Hattenhair wrote:

      blappo wrote:

      Hattenhair wrote:

      It can be balanced if defensive items are given more utility variety on a per-gear-piece basis.
      the logic of 1v1 gear never being balancedif you have 10 items 1 will be strongest 1 will be weakest in direct comparisons.

      If you have the counter to any 1 weapons you then have the stronger of the direct comparison.

      So as long you literally will always have a weapon that is stronger, and if it has a counter it is then weaker.
      Balance is not achieved by creating all items equally, but rather by direct imbalances. IE counter, then counter counter, counter that counter and so on.

      this is why 1v1 is silly to balance, because it is the most obvious that its imbalanced and always will be. its a swap war of gear, in duels and CD you cant thus you have people breaking crystals, unless they are running 1 of the strongest builds, then they inspect and still may run.
      Ofcourse there will be better options anyhow, im not arguing over that.My proposition is to decrease the dead-end one-sided encounters, where one opponent is practically rendered helpless because all of his gear is fully countered by the enemy.
      i would just allow swaps, more risk of gear, but more likely to win if your smart.
    • blappo wrote:

      i would just allow swaps, more risk of gear, but more likely to win if your smart.
      Just bringing more gear over meticulously designing your own personal set to try and balance it out against different encounters? eh....
      That would make bringing gear swaps mandatory to compete like it was in 2v2 HG's not long ago. Its just unintuitive cancer.
      - You're a monster.
      - Am I?