Nerf - Hell Hounds!

[Propheteer 7,139]

personally the current fighting system needs to be scrapped due to it being too easy, and be reverted to pre-ff

(and if someone from the dev team reads my post, valrei mobs aren't hard because they are hard, they were looked into because having things like 45sec-1min long bashes are ######.)

 

just my opinion though

Edited November 10, 2014 by Propheteer

[MrGARY 12,421]

So basically this means that 1-h weapons are at a disadvantage vs them, since those tend to create longer battles because of lower damage, which means more chances for the hellhound to hit.

 

1h weapons are at an advantage because a shield can block a lot more than any weapon can...

[Argustin 249]

i am below 50fs, 30 wep skill and 10 shield skill with my alt. Kill them with full hp (Have lt wep tho).  -1 . As usuall i suggest making them easier to see and maybe make them bigger? Size of a bear or something. Would be cool as they are the "Hellhounds" not "hellpuppies"

[Klaa 4,872]

Ooo Hell Puppies... I like that.

[Chlodovech 246]

-1.

 

Strong and OP are not synonyms.

[Taltos 175]

-1

[KanePT 699]

1h weapons are at an advantage because a shield can block a lot more than any weapon can...

Well, that's true, but if you kill them in 2 strikes, you don't need to block much.

Its like fighting defensively. Even with large shield and longsword, you'll take more damage fighting defensively than offensively, specially at lower sub-skill levels. Simply because even if you block most of the hits, you don't do anything close to the damage in other stances, which means you take twice (or more) as long to kill something, which means that you'll accumulate damage.

Like i said i can speak out of first-hand experience because i play daily with my brother's char who uses aggressive and 2h sword, and simply out-damages the hounds. Sure in tougher critters like some champs and trolls the 1h+shield is at an advantage because those fights are inherently longer and you usually won't 2-hit those things, so the most defensive build does help in those cases. Just not with hell-hounds which are basically glass cannons.

[SotG_is_OP 357]

personally the current fighting system needs to be scrapped due to it being too easy, and be reverted to pre-ff

(and if someone from the dev team reads my post, valrei mobs aren't hard because they are hard, they were looked into because having things like 45sec-1min long bashes are ######.)

 

just my opinion though

Don't forget they do like 5 in a row, ignore armor, chuck you off your horse into a wall that won't let you /stuck out of it, then your horse bugs out and can't be ridden until next server restart.

[BrQQQ 2,854]

Well, that's true, but if you kill them in 2 strikes, you don't need to block much.

Its like fighting defensively. Even with large shield and longsword, you'll take more damage fighting defensively than offensively, specially at lower sub-skill levels. Simply because even if you block most of the hits, you don't do anything close to the damage in other stances, which means you take twice (or more) as long to kill something, which means that you'll accumulate damage.

Like i said i can speak out of first-hand experience because i play daily with my brother's char who uses aggressive and 2h sword, and simply out-damages the hounds. Sure in tougher critters like some champs and trolls the 1h+shield is at an advantage because those fights are inherently longer and you usually won't 2-hit those things, so the most defensive build does help in those cases. Just not with hell-hounds which are basically glass cannons.

You use defensive where it makes sense, which is when you don't want to get hit. If your intention is to kill something quickly, you don't use defensive.

While a 2h weapon might do almost twice the damage, it has much longer swing timers. With every miss with a 2h weapon, you could do maybe 1.5 swings with a 1h weapon (obviously depends a lot on type of weapon).

They both have their advantages and disadvantages, one is not clearly better than the other, especially not against creatures like hell hounds.

[iann 10]

No nerfs. Tired of nerfs.

[AlexLong 128]

I hate hell hounds, even with my high fighting and good gear they give me trouble.

-1 to your idea. One day I will get them.

[KanePT 699]

You use defensive where it makes sense, which is when you don't want to get hit. If your intention is to kill something quickly, you don't use defensive.

While a 2h weapon might do almost twice the damage, it has much longer swing timers. With every miss with a 2h weapon, you could do maybe 1.5 swings with a 1h weapon (obviously depends a lot on type of weapon).

They both have their advantages and disadvantages, one is not clearly better than the other, especially not against creatures like hell hounds.

Actually me, and well the statistics, disagree with you. 2H is clearly better vs hellhound. Don't get me wrong. I use 1h sword. But 2h, against hellhounds and other defensively weak critters, is far superior. Specially against hellhounds who die fast but also hit hard.

The longer the fight carries the more damage you'll take.

Of course i'm comparing characters with simmilar skill levels, both above 70fs, both with high ql enchanted weapons. Although, its a bit skewed against me, the enchants, i had 2 longswords made, one with AD other with SHD, and the AD one is too damaged to use atm, so i've been using the anti-troll one, which kinda skews the data a bit in favor of the 2h (which has AD).

[bwg 537]

I have over 70fs and my 80+ huge axe takes out HH in 2 hits, I normally receive one hit from him.

I say two hits but it's more like 1.3 hits as I do way over 50% in that initial whack.

[darthryan 588]

Actually me, and well the statistics, disagree with you. 2H is clearly better vs hellhound. Don't get me wrong. I use 1h sword. But 2h, against hellhounds and other defensively weak critters, is far superior. Specially against hellhounds who die fast but also hit hard.

The longer the fight carries the more damage you'll take.

Of course i'm comparing characters with simmilar skill levels, both above 70fs, both with high ql enchanted weapons. Although, its a bit skewed against me, the enchants, i had 2 longswords made, one with AD other with SHD, and the AD one is too damaged to use atm, so i've been using the anti-troll one, which kinda skews the data a bit in favor of the 2h (which has AD).

Unless your one-handed fighter has decent shield skill and a decent quality shield, the analysis doesn't work.

[BrQQQ 2,854]

Actually me, and well the statistics, disagree with you. 2H is clearly better vs hellhound. Don't get me wrong. I use 1h sword. But 2h, against hellhounds and other defensively weak critters, is far superior. Specially against hellhounds who die fast but also hit hard.

The longer the fight carries the more damage you'll take.

Of course i'm comparing characters with simmilar skill levels, both above 70fs, both with high ql enchanted weapons. Although, its a bit skewed against me, the enchants, i had 2 longswords made, one with AD other with SHD, and the AD one is too damaged to use atm, so i've been using the anti-troll one, which kinda skews the data a bit in favor of the 2h (which has AD).

But what is your shield skill? With decent shield skill, you will hardly take any damage. 2h might be nice in the beginning with low skill, but later on shield+1h weapon is at least just as good.

[silakka 2,360]

I wish they were slower and had a smaller aggro range.

Give low skill, and hit way too hard. Bad thing is that they're almost as common as spiders.

Too much hell for the newcomers

[Nmenth 83]

A nerf to spawn rate would be the only thing I'd really agree to. They are unnecessarily abundant.