Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reef" data-source="post: 9445676" data-attributes="member: 4533">Duelling definitely feels reliable!&nbsp; Other than the fact you can still roll a 1 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.As to why not make this a flat bonus, I’m obviously not privy to their thought process,&nbsp; but personally, I’d hazard it’s down to:1) Duelling already exists.&nbsp; Adding another style that basically duplicates it, but with a different weapon group, seems like a wasted opportunity for differentiation.&nbsp; Which is obviously a goal this time around (with masteries).2) with testing, they may have found the base reliability, and the joys of avoiding 1s was enough to make this an attractive choice to a large enough group.&nbsp; It may not need to be mathematically more optimal if it already is competitively attractive.Anyway, I don’t mean to get down in the weeds with this.&nbsp; And I certainly don’t want to stomp on anyone who is having fun theorizing more powerful options.&nbsp; I’m just positing that this style existing is not proof that the designers are too dumb to do the math.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reef, post: 9445676, member: 4533"] Duelling definitely feels reliable! Other than the fact you can still roll a 1 :). As to why not make this a flat bonus, I’m obviously not privy to their thought process, but personally, I’d hazard it’s down to: 1) Duelling already exists. Adding another style that basically duplicates it, but with a different weapon group, seems like a wasted opportunity for differentiation. Which is obviously a goal this time around (with masteries). 2) with testing, they may have found the base reliability, and the joys of avoiding 1s was enough to make this an attractive choice to a large enough group. It may not need to be mathematically more optimal if it already is competitively attractive. Anyway, I don’t mean to get down in the weeds with this. And I certainly don’t want to stomp on anyone who is having fun theorizing more powerful options. I’m just positing that this style existing is not proof that the designers are too dumb to do the math. [/QUOTE]

Verification