To Foreful Entry / BDA

[Nirgon]

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

Lower numbers and higher difficulty is what i always wanted. 18 to 24 good people should get anything down as its currently tuned. No 60 for inny b/s.

From what ive seen trak and vs are a little too squishy. Vs had less total hps because he lifetapped the shit out of the raid so if you didnt have dps he was a tough hombre. Trak.... I cant put my finger on it yet. I mean i soloed him on my sk in pop, but he just seems off for the era we are in.

Trak aoe WAY too easy to resist.

[quido]

What makes you say that, Nirgon? It's not all that easy really, even with like 350-400 resist poison.

[Hurley]

Yes i can tell. We have rejected apps because someone is masking or behind a proxy. I don't see the harm of viewing behind one, just apping.

[Versus]

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

Trak aoe WAY too easy to resist.

It wouldn't matter if it was straight unresistable, he dies before he gets a 3rd one off anyway, and the first one is eaten by a single person.

[hatelore]

I can agree on vs, he seems pretty weak. I thought the whole purpose of needing a warrior and enc's runes on vs encounter was because he proc'ed his lifetap on every swing. At least that is how I remember it in kunark times years and years ago. Warrior engages,discs ,when warrior disc was done enc's spammed runes until next disc warrior gained aggro? Maybe I'm wrong, this was many years ago, but I seem to remember it that way. not trying to derail thread.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh yes exactly, the guy i was refering to was asking about p1999 and i said the app was on FE. Dbl confounded. Also p99 doesnt block web anonymizers either.

blocked my proxies [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Oh well, someone might have gotten banned on it or something >.>

[Autotune]

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

I can agree on vs, he seems pretty weak. I thought the whole purpose of needing a warrior and enc's runes on vs encounter was because he proc'ed his lifetap on every swing. At least that is how I remember it in kunark times years and years ago. Warrior engages,discs ,when warrior disc was done enc's spammed runes until next disc warrior gained aggro? Maybe I'm wrong, this was many years ago, but I seem to remember it that way. not trying to derail thread.

lmfao, derail it from what...

[Jacquouille]

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

Packets of death, bro.

I've heard you play guitar.

this is for you, I happen to find it rather decent.

http://soundcloud.com/beatconnexion/01-sunburn

[hatelore]

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

I can agree on vs, he seems pretty weak. I thought the whole purpose of needing a warrior and enc's runes on vs encounter was because he proc'ed his lifetap on every swing. At least that is how I remember it in kunark times years and years ago. Warrior engages,discs ,when warrior disc was done enc's spammed runes until next disc warrior gained aggro? Maybe I'm wrong, this was many years ago, but I seem to remember it that way. not trying to derail thread.

and the reasoning behind this was because with (evasive?) disc, vs can't reheal from his lifetaps since the warrior evades most of the swings. Then rune spam also kept vs from healing until next warrior could gain aggro and disc. But my memory may be bad. I wish oricalum from inny played on here, he would know(since he tanked vs for us back then)

[Diggles]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]