Zerker TL report feedback...lol ( a must read )

[BidAccount]

So who else can't wait till 1.62

There will be much celebrating and rejoicing!

 

[Arnor]

Originally posted by StormriderX
6 hr raids to get 3 x animist gloves != win

<rolls an animist>

 

[AbPoon]

Originally posted by Ekydus
FUCK KNOWS how you'd feel if you'd have gone and rolled an Albion character which on average does less then 1/3 of the Midgard damage. It really makes you think...

Youve got a pally, your not a tank, ok?

 

[old.Sko]

Originally posted by StormriderX
6 hr raids to get 3 x animist gloves != win

can you say BD boots ? =D

 

[stunned]

Originally posted by Ekydus
FUCK KNOWS how you'd feel if you'd have gone and rolled an Albion character which on average does less then 1/3 of the Midgard damage. It really makes you think...

Atleast Your char can hit my char. Whereas You block me 3 of 4 swings.

 

[StormriderX]

New quote from the zerk thread:

Just to try to cheer you up, you aren't so bad. You still out-melee skalds. We hit for about 200-300 a round buffed. So, even though you are highly gimped, considered worthless by just about everyone, and laughed at by savages, skalds still suck too. What do skalds get? We melee horribly, run really fast, and die in about 3 rounds.

Woot Mythic... what's your list of screwed over Mid classes at now?

Warriors
Thanes
Berserkers
Skalds
Shadowblades
Hunters
Pac Healers
Runemasters
Bonedancers

Looks like Savages are going to get added soon as well.

Lets get a list of Mythic's overpowered Alb and Hib classes

Paladins
Reavers
Infiltrators
Scouts
FRIARS
Clerics
Ice Wizards
DoT Cabalists
MINSTRELS
NECROMANCERS

MANA ENCHANTERS
Rangers
Nightshades (I got hit by close to 20 nightshades for +600 in conventional melee, each round (Many were lurikeen)
Blademasters
Bards
Druids w/ Group Purge
Wardens

Mythic has no right telling very many Midgardian classes that they are too overpowered when friars can hit for 1000+ with a good hit and 1-3 mana enchanters with MoC can kill 50+ enemies in seconds.

Mythic, stop trying to force Midgard to eat crap and go take care of all the other realms' abundant overpowered classes.

Another thing is we Percival Midsare getting really pissed at the /level 30 still being on for Hibernians. On Friday Saturday and Sunday the server population was about 2k max. Mid's numbers never got above 550. We go out to the frontier to find ourselves outnumbered 4-1 by Hibs... In Mid Hib and Alb at the same time. We don't just lose one keep at a time. We lose three... all by Hib... and all in about 5 minutes time.

Get a clue of how much you are screwing things up. You nerfed Mid so that 30% the players /leveled and left... and at the same time introduced a system that causes the other realms to fill up at alarming rates.

Seriously, you taking your lazy ass time at fixing things isn't going to help anyone. You need to put in some overtime and pull some all-nighters, because you are losing your grip on things at your current rate of progress.

 

[old.Tzeentch]

Originally posted by StormriderX
New quote from the zerk thread:


Woot Mythic... what's your list of screwed over Mid classes at now?

Warriors
Thanes
Berserkers
Skalds
Shadowblades
Hunters
Pac Healers
Runemasters
Bonedancers

what so screwed about warriors? skalds? pac healers? RMs? BDs ?

hunter is in similar position to other archer classes, SBs got hit by the LA thing which is bad and zerks got 'fixed' so to say..

but this guy seems to think every class should be fucking uber

each class should be a 'piece' of a group, match em up and you got a decent grp for combat..

he seems to want each class with cheap RAs and high damage tables or sth

 

[Jergiot]

Originally posted by StormriderX
New quote from the zerk thread:

Just to try to cheer you up, you aren't so bad. You still out-melee skalds. We hit for about 200-300 a round buffed. So, even though you are highly gimped, considered worthless by just about everyone, and laughed at by savages, skalds still suck too. What do skalds get? We melee horribly, run really fast, and die in about 3 rounds.

Woot Mythic... what's your list of screwed over Mid classes at now?

Warriors
Thanes
Berserkers
Skalds
Shadowblades
Hunters
Pac Healers
Runemasters
Bonedancers

Looks like Savages are going to get added soon as well.

Lets get a list of Mythic's overpowered Alb and Hib classes

Paladins
Reavers
Infiltrators
Scouts
FRIARS
Clerics
Ice Wizards
DoT Cabalists
MINSTRELS
NECROMANCERS

is this guy retarded or something? (not storm, the dude he is quoting )

paladins - balanced (could use determination tho, not the cheap kind)
reavers - they on hybrid table so balanced, woulda been a huge issue if they were on tank table, but they not, so..
infils - will own next patch yes, sb nerf etc.
scouts - lmao, joke of the year atm hunters>rangers>scouts k?
friars - hybrid, balanced, just cause thanes suck ass it dont mean that this class is overpowered.
clerics - another joke?
ice wizard - lol casters with 1, maybe 2 usefull spells. k
dot cabalist - rather have cave specced shaman in chain kthxbye.
minstrels - balanced imo, they needed love cause its friggin boring being nothingelse then a speedbot. (yes skalds could use some lovin to)
necro - another hilarious joke. in what way is this sucki class overpowered in rvr?

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by Jergiot

scouts - lmao, joke of the year atm hunters>rangers>scouts k?

actually its ranger>hunter and i have no idea how its with scouts and hunters in a fight a hunter could prolly beat a scout, but then again a scout is a better archer and slam is also a nice utility. But rangers have 5% extra evade, vulnerable vs crush which is better than slash which hunters have and rangers have slower bow+better melee in the end. Ok they might not be the better archer AND better melee'er than a hunter, but they can beat hunter at one of them all the time. So no hunters arent the best archers out there, they aint bad either and I enjoy playing mine alot, but the best archer he is NOT.

 

[svartmetall]

Originally posted by Jergiot

friars - hybrid, balanced, just cause thanes suck ass it dont mean that this class is overpowered.

That's the spirit!

I wouldn't nerf Friars at all, I'd just give Thanes some sweet lubbin'...make sure the most equivalent Hib class balanced with those..and go for it.

 

[StormriderX]

Agree on thane loving. Shame you nearly never ever see one about nowadays.

 

[Puppetmistress]

Originally posted by StormriderX
New quote from the zerk thread:

It's not new, I quoted that post on page 2 off this thread you Stormie

 

[Ekydus]

Originally posted by StormriderX

That pic is funny on so many levels.

Seriously, nerf LA again.

 

[Jergiot]

Originally posted by driwen
actually its ranger>hunter and i have no idea how its with scouts and hunters in a fight a hunter could prolly beat a scout, but then again a scout is a better archer and slam is also a nice utility. But rangers have 5% extra evade, vulnerable vs crush which is better than slash which hunters have and rangers have slower bow+better melee in the end. Ok they might not be the better archer AND better melee'er than a hunter, but they can beat hunter at one of them all the time. So no hunters arent the best archers out there, they aint bad either and I enjoy playing mine alot, but the best archer he is NOT.

when i say hunter>ranger its cause hunters have that annoying pet. its bluecon, its hits u for around 100 wich is nice, and it cuts ur blocking/evading down by 50%. hunters hit harder and are resistant to rangers pierce. dont think many rangers are slash specced tbh.

scouts were maybe better archers when daoc was released. not anymore, the diff between bow dmg between the 3 archer classes is very small now. and the range dont really matter unless ur ina keepdefence. when a scout fights a hunter, and lands slam, its pretty much useless, cause he cant use bow cause of pet.
Hunter _is_ the strongest of the 3 archer classes, even if the difference aint so big. oh btw hunters/rangers have AP. scouts dont, dont really see the logic in that x[.

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by Jergiot
when i say hunter>ranger its cause hunters have that annoying pet. its bluecon, its hits u for around 100 wich is nice, and it cuts ur blocking/evading down by 50%. hunters hit harder and are resistant to rangers pierce. dont think many rangers are slash specced tbh.

a pierce specced ranger WILL beat a spear specced hunter most of the time. So rangers ARE better than hunters. Yes the dog is irritating, but it also get mezzed which the rangers damage add doesnt. Hunters have slow weapon which means it is hard to land a reactionary, certainly vs someone like assasins and a ranger.
It is proven that scouts are the best archers, but by very little and that rangers are the best in melee of all archers. Hunters are the worst archers (having 5.0spd as slowest bow and with RF you dont need a fast bow) and are 2nd in melee. You can argue that hunters are better than scouts. Hunter vs scout might always go to hunter, but that doesnt mean hunter is better as scout might win more vs other classes as scout bow is better and noticable vs a hunter. But all I am saying is that rangers are the better melee'er(yes even with the pet) and archer than hunter. So its atleast ranger>hunter>scout ..

 

[StormriderX]

I'd say scouts are the most 'group friendly' of the 3 imo.

 

[Jergiot]

Originally posted by StormriderX
I'd say scouts are the most 'group friendly' of the 3 imo.

agreed. problem is that albs allready need 4-5 classes to do a balanced grp (not a whine). so there is no room for a scout in that balanced grp. things are they way they are..sadly x[

 

[Jergiot]

Originally posted by driwen
a pierce specced ranger WILL beat a spear specced hunter most of the time. So rangers ARE better than hunters. Yes the dog is irritating, but it also get mezzed which the rangers damage add doesnt. Hunters have slow weapon which means it is hard to land a reactionary, certainly vs someone like assasins and a ranger.
It is proven that scouts are the best archers, but by very little and that rangers are the best in melee of all archers. Hunters are the worst archers (having 5.0spd as slowest bow and with RF you dont need a fast bow) and are 2nd in melee. You can argue that hunters are better than scouts. Hunter vs scout might always go to hunter, but that doesnt mean hunter is better as scout might win more vs other classes as scout bow is better and noticable vs a hunter. But all I am saying is that rangers are the better melee'er(yes even with the pet) and archer than hunter. So its atleast ranger>hunter>scout ..

btw, im talking about solo when buffed etc. so we are talking about the same thing here

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by Jergiot
btw, im talking about solo when buffed etc. so we are talking about the same thing here

uhm you mean that you just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing or that we are saying the same thing?

because buff bots havent got many effect on a ranger vs hunter fight, except that the pet isnt buffed (as you want to be unnoticed till you strike) and so will be less valuable in the fight. But ranger is a better melee'er because off DW and the damage add (and 5% extra evade).

 

[Jergiot]

Originally posted by driwen
uhm you mean that you just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing or that we are saying the same thing?

because buff bots havent got many effect on a ranger vs hunter fight, except that the pet isnt buffed (as you want to be unnoticed till you strike) and so will be less valuable in the fight. But ranger is a better melee'er because off DW and the damage add (and 5% extra evade).

that really depends on how he is specced tho.

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by Jergiot
that really depends on how he is specced tho.

a pure melee ranger vs a pure bow hunter. Yes off course the bow hunter will be better at bow, but shit in melee.
A ranger can out melee a hunter and be around the same with the bow as a hunter or the ranger could go for the same melee as the hunter and out archer the hunter. Thats why rangers are better archers than hunters.

quivna fought a melee specced hunter and the fight could have gone both ways, but the pet was buffboted which in reality it almost never is . Anyway both are RR6 (maybe quivna was RR7 by then) and quivna has 40 bow and 34 stealth where as the melee hunter has 39 bow and 25 stealth (and 50 spear). So the ranger has better stealth and a better bow and around the same melee.
Now I dont think quivna is fantastic it is just a fight that is logged and has been discussed between a ranger and a hunter that i know off, to show you that rangers are indeed on average better than the hunter.

 

[Jergiot]

Originally posted by driwen
a pure melee ranger vs a pure bow hunter. Yes off course the bow hunter will be better at bow, but shit in melee.

hum that would be the same way the other way around? Oo

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by Jergiot
hum that would be the same way the other way around? Oo

oops its late anyway thing is what i tried to say and did later on is that ranger can have same melee as a hunter and be better in the bow or be better in melee and have same or better bow.

 

[Jergiot]

Originally posted by driwen
oops its late anyway thing is what i tried to say and did later on is that ranger can have same melee as a hunter and be better in the bow or be better in melee and have same or better bow.

hum how is that possible? ranger has 5 lines to specc, hunter has 4, same points. thats not true what ur saying x[. and what hunter lack in bow dmg they sure make up for it with speed. and with relics they are doing more dmg then scouts/rangers with bow.

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by Jergiot
hum how is that possible? ranger has 5 lines to specc, hunter has 4, same points. thats not true what ur saying x[. and what hunter lack in bow dmg they sure make up for it with speed. and with relics they are doing more dmg then scouts/rangers with bow.

now

35 stealth
44 weapon
40 bow
24 CD
21 PF

thats a valid spec of a buffbotted ranger (atleast according quivna's guide). Ok so 24 cd means 41% of swinging off hand, if off hand weapon is the same as your main hand. You would be doing 141% damage on average compared to an 1 hander. Now you have a 4.2 dps damage add and 44 weapon.

Now to get 140% damage of an 1 hander with a 2hander I believe you need to spec 50 weapon, which means that with 40 bow (which is advisable) you will get either 26 stealth and 32 bc or 25 bc (stopping at a speed buff) and 33 stealth. You will have a rather grey doggie (tbh no id at what level he will be), but its usable to pop stealthers with. But he doesnt help with hitting I believe as he is grey.
Now 32 bc and 26 stealth the pet does make up for the damage add (allthough he might attract agro mobs on you and activates reactives on armours which the damage add doesnt do), but thing is that with realm rank the CD spec will keep improving .68% per RR. So after a few RR the ranger will do more melee damage than the melee hunter and have a better bow damage.

thing is BECAUSE of their 5 specs they can better divide their points and so getting more back for the same points, which hunters can not. And getting relics in this is nice, but thats just for this server and you shouldnt balance things on assuming that hibernia will never have melee relics . Besides that I do like my hunter, because I enjoy its pet but it simply isnt true that hunters are better than rangers .

 

[jatski2]

we still got savages

 

[AbPoon]

Remember all Mid 2h weps do 115% dmg not 140% :>

 

[Driwen]

Originally posted by AbPoon
Remember all Mid 2h weps do 115% dmg not 140% :>

even spears where there is actually no choice of going 1handed?

edit: guess it should be otherwise swords would be useless or hunters would have other code for swords which they dont


so that means that uhm rangers are rather easy better than hunters

 

[Gahldir]

Originally posted by old.Tzeentch
what so screwed about warriors? skalds? pac healers? RMs? BDs ?

hunter is in similar position to other archer classes, SBs got hit by the LA thing which is bad and zerks got 'fixed' so to say..

but this guy seems to think every class should be fucking uber

each class should be a 'piece' of a group, match em up and you got a decent grp for combat..

he seems to want each class with cheap RAs and high damage tables or sth

kinda hilarious guy, I agree.

most of those are infact the better ones in thier area