Server Status

[Cwall]

Originally Posted by Macken [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can't remember beta name.

I now understand why a minority of people can't understand why free trade pvp is the only way.

They are still stuck on trying to figure out if re-charging is a good idea or not.

I cannot expect a community who doesn't even understand the consequences of re-charging to understand such advanced concepts as the consequences of +/- 4 level range pvp.

Those of you who are still confused and who are not ready for pvp 102, can send me a tell in the months and years coming up when you feel you have advanced far enough in pvp intelligence to try the advanced courses.

lol i can't believe you still think anybody gives a shit about what you say

[Lovely]

If anyone wanna waste their time farming clickers before 50 I highly welcome them. You won't even have enough PP to recharge them anyway unless you waste 10 levels farming platinum to kill a few people at low levels.

If anything should have a nerf it's Golem Metal Wands. They are so overpowered it's almost beyond retarded. You strip every single buff a player has in 0.1 second and then easily kill them. Recharging them for 300pp is no issue at all. Casters can farm way over 1k per hour at several locations and you don't even need half a Golem Metal Wand to ensure 100% victory in a battle.

Personally I don't really care if you nerf recharging or not but if you do. Then Golem Metal Wand is the one to nerf the most. Same with Ivandyr's hoop but I think it's already been nerfed due to blue99 abusing it on raids?

[Galacticus]

Evil 50 mage 32 Bard 21 sk



Spell System - Generally Good / Bad? Any tweaks needed?


Generally Good. I would like more evidence of resists on different resist gear levels. I have noticed my MR go up but my ability to resist magic effects has not gone up with it from what I can recognize. There needs to be some solid testing with resist numbers.

I want to see at 0 fire resist you never resist fire spells , and when you have like 150 you always resist them.



Dynamic PVP System - Since it's been working now.. Good / Bad?

I think PC cons should reflect the Dynamic PVP system. I like how it worked while leveling, but once I hit 50, I would target someone from a distance, they would con blue, and I chase them across the zone just to see they are out of my level range, you can con blue to a 50 at like 38 or something.

PvP Range - Seems good to me.

I think that the melee damage that mobs do to players is too high/hit too often OR players aren't hitting hard or often enough. It should be a one to one ratio.

The way that damage should scale for players is much like how the mage pets are. At 35 my mage pet would quad for 28 with some 8/38 weapons. At 35 a warrior with the current system would have a round like this: miss miss 18 12.

I remember it would always be more dps to use 1 handers for pve. My friends Ranger and Warrior both do way more damage with a 2 hander.

[Macken]

Originally Posted by Cwall [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol i can't believe you still think anybody gives a shit about what you say

I thought it was obvious to everyone that I don't care what anyone of you thinks. I merely point out the obvious truth, and wait for time to elapse so that i can say i told you so 6-12 months from now. I did it on VZTZ and i'm doing it now. I can go back to pwnedemu.com forums or whatever they are and it's full of prognostications that ALL came true. It's an "i told you so" bonanza extravaganza.

You all are a bunch of clueless morons and this last 6 months on this forum has enlightened me as to why I'm always at the top of all the leaderboards and #1 on those that i actually try at.

It's because you are no competition. And the reason you are never any competition for me is because you are all confused and have no clue what it is you are doing.

My greatest fear on this forum is giving out too much information and clues to those who are wise enough to catch on.

However, Cwall, you are not one of them.