Curse

aron searle · Jun 03, 2006, 12:17 PM // 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avaith Faer

When that happens, then I'll start worrying about it. Hasn't happened yet. Therefore, I'm not worried about it.

Sure, it's easy enough to list out a few skills on a forum and say "pwned" but how many monks out there are actually using that build to save the turtles from a rogue Assassin (or any character for that matter)? Maybe a few.

Maybe.

Ive been using a similar build for weeks on the kurzic gate npcs, 30% of the time though its a waste as some git opens the gate. I dunno whats the point of blocking the gate if people are just going to keep opening it

Anywho

Ive used it a few times on the turtles to great sucsess, TBH though i find the kurzic side more fun atm because its more of a challenge, the luxon side is just to damn easy to win.

Chris Blackstar · Jun 03, 2006, 03:26 PM // 15:26

From what I have read, clearly the Luxion players have a bigger advantage over the Kurzick player at the Fort Aspenwood mission.

Main advantage is that the luxion side has no time limit to meet to order to win. A good team or even a bad team could simply smash their way threw to victory, while the kurzicks have little choice, but to wait untill the timer is done, and giving amber may repair the gates, but it does little to increase the build time.

Another advantage is that Luxions can constantly attack, while Kurzicks are undermaned because the need amber runners, also a disadvantge is that Kurzick players have to open the gates to go throw them, how easy woulf it be for Luxions to take advantage of this flaw.

Lastly Luxion reenforcement spawn alot more feqently then Kurzicks NPC's. Some say take the mines, well I always seem to get ganked since Luxions have advantage with fire power that they always have one or two spawn campers at the mines.

Lastly the people who say the game is balenced should read there own writing, some say I win 90% with luxion and 70% with Kurzicks, well how is that balenced, in a balence situation it should be very close to even, maybe more like 90% luxion wins to 87% Kurzick wins.

Face it, the only time I win is when the Kurzick team is good and the Luxion team is not. I would like to see two well balenced teams on both sides play, and see who really has more of an advantage, I beat it will be the Luxions.

Clearly they only play were they have an advantage and all those player who say it is balenced are Luxion players who play on the Kurzick side, most likly lying to keep the mission from being NERFED!!

Ira Blinks · Jun 03, 2006, 03:54 PM // 15:54

I don't know about 90%, but after I stopped running amber (yeah, i got sick and tired of playing lameass utility role) I only won if like half of the Luxon team quits due to leechers. Why? Because Kurzik side required specific roles to play. Because Kurzik side required to bring counters to Luxon builds. And from what I saw that is just not happening... For all time playing Aspenwood I only saw like 2-3 people (counting myself) bringin Verata's Aura.

konohamaru heaven · Jun 03, 2006, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Blackstar

From what I have read, clearly the Luxion players have a bigger advantage over the Kurzick player at the Fort Aspenwood mission.

Main advantage is that the luxion side has no time limit to meet to order to win. A good team or even a bad team could simply smash their way threw to victory, while the kurzicks have little choice, but to wait untill the timer is done, and giving amber may repair the gates, but it does little to increase the build time.

Another advantage is that Luxions can constantly attack, while Kurzicks are undermaned because the need amber runners, also a disadvantge is that Kurzick players have to open the gates to go throw them, how easy woulf it be for Luxions to take advantage of this flaw.

Lastly Luxion reenforcement spawn alot more feqently then Kurzicks NPC's. Some say take the mines, well I always seem to get ganked since Luxions have advantage with fire power that they always have one or two spawn campers at the mines.

Lastly the people who say the game is balenced should read there own writing, some say I win 90% with luxion and 70% with Kurzicks, well how is that balenced, in a balence situation it should be very close to even, maybe more like 90% luxion wins to 87% Kurzick wins.

Face it, the only time I win is when the Kurzick team is good and the Luxion team is not. I would like to see two well balenced teams on both sides play, and see who really has more of an advantage, I beat it will be the Luxions.

Clearly they only play were they have an advantage and all those player who say it is balenced are Luxion players who play on the Kurzick side, most likly lying to keep the mission from being NERFED!!

The only reason why the kurzicks seem to lose so much (I before you say I am wrong hear me out I played on both sides) is becasue of the larger population of people and that gives them alot less people that do not know what the heck that they are doing. A lot of the time I even observed a lot of them don't even follow a basic stratagey alot of the time other than scatter. They only real advantage I see with the Luxons are a smaller group of regular players and a basic stratagey in playstyle. Things could be changed a little bit, but the advantage isn't much game mechanics in the imbalance its more on the players themselves. If people could listen to the basics such as run amber, Defend, Repair the and etc the kurzicks would have a much greater chance of winning more often. In a sense I guess you could call me a Luxick since I play both sides. ^_^

Sagius Truthbarron · Jun 03, 2006, 05:26 PM // 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zardeone

From my experience, Luxons have 3 monks all the time, kurzicks have zero monks all the time.

When I bring my monk for kurzick then they tell me I'm noob and kurzicks don't need monk.

Imo, the random team stuff is crap. Allow teams of 3 people to enter in a random team of 3 teams of 3.
That way you get 9 people on each side.

THen you have some real strategy instead of the "Who is running amber?", "Where's the monk?", "Someone help me recapture the mine... PLEASE", "/ragequit"

^that is the real problem

I agree.

I just go Luxon becuase you can get wins every 1-10 minutes. The Kurzicks have to sit there and dredge out the whole game for the same ammount of faction it could take a Luxon only 1-3 minutes for.

Sure, you might face that one team with the good Boon Monk hiding behind the wall when your team is full physical, but that only happends once in a blue moon.

I don't think it truely has much to do with an imbalance between sides, though. It has all to do with the skill of the players. The Luxon side is much easier to play and really requires brute force. The Kurzick side takes strategy. Most people cannot comprehend any form of strategy (well, atleast most Guild Wars players.)

ChildeOfMalkav · Jun 04, 2006, 12:18 AM // 00:18

Wow some of you Kurzicks are coming off as the stereotypical emo whiners. As others have said, there really is no imbalance (nothing is perfectly balanced)

The only real problem are the players themselves. If you are complaining that you have to play certain roles (ie amber runner, gate protector) then go ahead and quit the game because strategy and teamwork is obviously too much for you to handle.

Oh and one thing that I do wish to see changed on the Kurzick side is allowing the gatekeepers and Gunther to accept amber while they're fighting. It seems a bit unfair that you cant even turn a battle around even if you have amber coming in just because those NPCs are fighting.

Also, the Kurzicks only have a disadvantage because of the large number of AFK bots. That's really the only reason for most of our Kurz losses.

Symbol · Jun 04, 2006, 12:24 AM // 00:24

Quote:

Wow some of you Kurzicks are coming off as the stereotypical emo whiners. As others have said, there really is no imbalance (nothing is perfectly balanced)

Wow, thanks for sharing that with us. That was really an eloquent and _totally_ convincing piece of rhetoric.

Quote:

The only real problem are the players themselves. If you are complaining that you have to play certain roles (ie amber runner, gate protector) then go ahead and quit the game because strategy and teamwork is obviously too much for you to handle.

No, see, we're complaining all that "teamwork" and "strategy" are really required by one side only. I'll give you one guess as to which one that would be.

ChildeOfMalkav · Jun 04, 2006, 12:28 AM // 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Symbol

No, see, we're complaining all that "teamwork" and "strategy" are really required by one side only. I'll give you one guess as to which one that would be.

Boohoo. I prefer playing on the side that "needs" strategy and teamwork. If you hate it so much go play Luxon then. Just because you percieve that one side or the other needs less/more strategy or teamwork does not mean a significant imbalance exists.

As I said there are only some annoyances that I wish to be fixed but you and others are just coming off as whiney sore losers.

Symbol · Jun 04, 2006, 12:34 AM // 00:34

Quote:

Boohoo. I prefer playing on the side that "needs" strategy and teamwork. If you hate it so much go play Luxon then. Just because you percieve that one side or the other needs less/more strategy or teamwork does not mean a significant imbalance exists.

Who said I hate it? I like playing on the Kurzick side for precisely that reason, it requires some strategy and teamwork. But this has what to do with balance? Nothing!

So please take your content-free ad hominem argument and shove it.

Quote:

As I said there are only some annoyances that I wish to be fixed but you and others are just coming off as whiney sore losers.

And you're coming off as a gigantic idiot.

ChildeOfMalkav · Jun 04, 2006, 12:40 AM // 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Symbol

Who said I hate it? I like playing on the Kurzick side for precisely that reason, it requires some strategy and teamwork. But this has what to do with balance? Nothing!

Thanks for proving my point. This has nothing to do with the percieved imbalance stated by the title and OP of the thread. So why the hell are you so pissy?

Quote:

So please take your content-free ad hominem argument and shove it.
And you're coming off as a gigantic idiot.

Haha hyprocrite.

Ira Blinks · Jun 04, 2006, 12:43 AM // 00:43

ChildeOfMalkav
counter suggection: go and play Kurzik if you think it is balanced.

Zio · Jun 04, 2006, 12:45 AM // 00:45

I'm new to the area and have been playing it quite a bit lately, from the Luxon side...

It seems to me that if half the Kurzicks weren't AFK, they could actually win. The few matches I've been in where Kurzick was actually all there, they'd either win or put up an awesome fight before losing.

ChildeOfMalkav · Jun 04, 2006, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ira Blinks

ChildeOfMalkav
counter suggection: go and play Kurzik if you think it is balanced.

I AM kurzick. I even stated some annoyances on the Kurz side that I experienced. Any more bright ideas?

Ira Blinks · Jun 04, 2006, 12:54 AM // 00:54

ya, quit bein liar and smartass

ChildeOfMalkav · Jun 04, 2006, 12:56 AM // 00:56

Yes I am lying because obviously anyone who is Kurzick cant possibly think that the mission is balanced right?

Symbol · Jun 04, 2006, 02:02 AM // 02:02

Quote:

Thanks for proving my point. This has nothing to do with the percieved imbalance stated by the title and OP of the thread. So why the hell are you so pissy?

Are you retarded? Whether the scenario is balanced has nothing to do with whether I like playing it or not, despite your persistent efforts to make that the issue.

Quote:

Haha hyprocrite.

Do you even know what "ad hominem" means?

ChildeOfMalkav · Jun 04, 2006, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

Gee let's see. You've attacked me plenty of times calling me an idiot and now a retard instead of sticking to attacking my argument and you say that I'm using ad hominem arguments?

Yes you ARE a hyprocrite.

Symbol · Jun 04, 2006, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Quote:

Gee let's see. You've attacked me plenty of times calling me an idiot and now a retard instead of sticking to attacking my argument and you say that I'm using ad hominem arguments?

Lol, too bad you didn't use google before you posted.

An ad hominem argument is an attempt to discredit an argument by putting the arguer on trial. In _your_ case it mean bringing up whether I like playing Kurzicks as a response to the question of whether the scenario is balanced.

(Though I suppose there's always the possibility that you have no idea what you're talking about so you just responded with a total non-sequitur).

Asking if you're retarded isn't an ad hominem argument, it's a response to your (incredibly stupid) post.

Quote:

Yes you ARE a hyprocrite.

Really? I'm not the one calling people whiny, emo, losers am I? I mean, that's the extent of your "argument", which is to insult everyone who disagrees with you and to declare by fiat that no imbalance exists.

If that's what you're going to post, then I have absolutely no problem questioning your intelligence, and you have absolutely no grounds to protest.

Unless you want to look like a hypocrite that is.

Eet GnomeSmasher · Jun 04, 2006, 02:34 AM // 02:34

Who the hell cares? The fact that you're constantly flaming him and using insults makes you look petty.

Symbol · Jun 04, 2006, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Quote:

Who the hell cares? The fact that you're constantly flaming and using insults makes you look petty.

I see no reason to be civil to those incapable of civility. You can call it petty if you like.