Curse

Hunter Sharparrow · Apr 14, 2006, 03:37 AM // 03:37

ok eat, eat me...

Quote:

Dude, if you're using Lightning Reflexes on a warrior, you clearly have no clue at all. In fact, your whole post lacks logic or any sense with no argument to back it up. Please stop posting.

Well lets see, the only skill I currently have to increase my attack speed is Frenzy (I don't use my warrior often) so I can use that and take double damage or i can use Lightning Reflexes and get the increase in attack speet and have 75% chance to evade attacks. Man tough one...not sure what I want, take double damage or evade attacks. I could get "I will Avenge You!" but that requires dead allies first so I couldn't use it from the start. It would be nice as a back up but not to begin a fight with. Berserker Stance would be a good starter, I would have to say it is equal to Lightning Reflexes and which one I use would depent on the situation. Will I need the bonus adrenaline or will I need a way to avoid skills like distracting shot or distracting blow to be able to use my skills? Actually Frenzy, IWAY, and Berserker Stance are the only warrior skills (minus elites) that allow you to attack at a faster speed and none of them allow you to block or evade any % of attacks. As for apply poison..take apply poison and use it with sever artery and you got some serious hp degen that will last for a decent amount of time (even though it only works on flesh enemies). I could also get a pet and not just supply a party with one tank but rather two tanks. So with that you are mistaken and are the one without a clue.

If expertise did what it said it does and nothing more than the only none ranger skills it would have an affect on are the attack skills. So for a R/W the warrior attack skills (aside from the adrenaline ones) use only 5 energy so the expertise that only would bring them down to 3. A whole two points. Sure it adds up with the more energy you have but a ranger has more than enough energy to handle the warrior's 5 energy attack skills so if they were to make energy storage affect the ranger skills only it really won't even make a minor difference. I would just rather see it do what the description said nothing more nothing less.

Let me get this straight. YOU make a post with no "logic or any sense" and "with no argument to back it up" as to why I have no clue at all, telling me that my post has no logic or any sense.....and the such...Can you be any more of a juvenile, hypocritical, delinquent?

Eet GnomeSmasher · Apr 14, 2006, 03:50 AM // 03:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter Sharparrow

Well lets see, the only skill I currently have to increase my attack speed is Frenzy (I don't use my warrior often) so I can use that and take double damage or i can use Lightning Reflexes and get the increase in attack speet and have 75% chance to evade attacks. Man tough one...not sure what I want, take double damage or evade attacks.

AHAHAHAHAHA!

*chokes back laughter* Yes...5 seconds of pure attack speed with a recharge of 45 seconds and evasion is OBVIOUSLY better than frenzy. What was I thinking?! AHAHAHAHAHA!

I dont know what the hell you're ranting about on Expertise but it's working just fine. You make no sense whatsoever.

vaxmor · Apr 14, 2006, 04:54 AM // 04:54

Lots of awful suggestions posted recently, nerfing ranger xpertise so 1/2 assed monk beast master builds can work is plainly stupid.

Its fine - learn 2 play.

quickmonty · Apr 14, 2006, 04:58 AM // 04:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by cce

I propose that expertise is made roughly 1/2 less effective
(maxing out at 36% instead of 65% effiency), but that energy
costs of affected skills is reduced and/or their effects
increased proportionally to maintain game ballance.

Yes, I read the entire OP. I just quoted this section because it seems to be the heart of your proposal. By making this change you reduce the effectiveness of the expertise attribute. As it is now, the more attribute points you put in expertise (allowing fewer points in other attributes) the less it costs in energy to use certain skills. If you reduce the effectiveness of expertise and reduce the costs of those skills you throw a lot out of balance. First, rangers can greatly reduce attribute distribution in expertise and place more points in other attributes, causing a needed rebalance of all the ranger skills. Second, you negate the main reason for taking ranger primary, the advantage of the expertise attribute. This allows other primaries to use ranger secondaries in such a way as to cause more inbalance in the game.

IMO it works fine the way it is, and I don't see any need to make changes that will throw a lot of things out of wack. Or, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter Sharparrow

ok eat, eat me...
Can you be any more of a juvenile, hypocritical, delinquent?

Can we keep it to discussion and do without the name calling?

Hunter Sharparrow · Apr 14, 2006, 05:50 PM // 17:50

Quote:

Can we keep it to discussion and do without the name calling?

Wait this isn't a flame post? Could have sworn it was with all the other people flaming and all. Thought I would just join in with all the fun. Didn't think it was going against any of the rules (despite what the rules are) because everyone on these forums seems to do it without any admin stepping in and enforcing the rules. And this is suppose to be one of ANet so called "Elite" forums? Hahahaha.

Quote:

AHAHAHAHAHA!

*chokes back laughter* Yes...5 seconds of pure attack speed with a recharge of 45 seconds and evasion is OBVIOUSLY better than frenzy. What was I thinking?! AHAHAHAHAHA!

I dont know what the hell you're ranting about on Expertise but it's working just fine. You make no sense whatsoever.

Since it only takes five seconds to kill an enemy (if it takes you longer than your the one that needs a clue) then yes it is better. Plus if that enemy is a boss guess what? No 45 second wait. Also running areas where the enemy can cripple you with attacks then having the ranger running skills that allow you to dodge the attacks is quite helpfull in running certain spots.

You really must have a 2nd grade reading level because what I was saying is if expertise is changed to do only what it says it does then that change would be almost unnoticable so I too think it is fine the way it is.

Str0b0 · Apr 14, 2006, 07:55 PM // 19:55

I so do not see the point in this. When you decide to take on a secondary class it is understood that you are not going to get the benefit of their primary attribute. Where the stupid part comes in is trying to combine the energy skills of a ranger with say a warrior primary who has a pathetic energy pool. Why do they have a pathetic energy pool? Because they have adrenaline.I also do not think that you should limit expertise to ranger only skills no more than you should limit fast casting to mesmer only skills or energy storage that only allows elementalist skill to utilize that reserve. If people can't be bothered to find a synergy of classes or skills that's their own look out. Expertise is not broken you just don't like how it works. Just because something does not function the way you think it should does not mean it needs to be fixed. If anything needs to be fixed it's the attitude of people that think everything needs to be nerfed down to the point of being patheticly useless.

Also I think it bears mentioning that if you take something as a SECONDARY profession you aren't supposed to utilize a whole buttload of their skills. If you wanted to use a whole bunch of ranger skills then you should have made a ranger primary. One or two ranger skills in a skill bar, even the high energy cost ones, will not break someone. There again you just have to recognize the limitations of the class. Warriors are not meant to trap for example. Their energy pool cannot support it. However a warrior with say troll ungent and apply poison, they can handle it. I mean yeah it will eat up all your energy in two casts but if you think of the synergy of the skills and how often they will be used it's not that bad. Apply poison is a prep so you will hit that before even entering combat. Ok no need to cast that for another 24 seconds. Alright troll ungent then. 5 energy, that's a mid battle thing. Energy management in the form of bonettis would be in order here as well. If you look at it Expertise is the ranger's only method of energy management outside of utilizing skills from the secondary class. If this get's nerfed it will make Ranger primaries ineffective since their energy pool will not be able to keep up with the demands of their skills. Expertise works just as it was intended to work because Rangers do not have adrenaline like warriors, they do not have the energy pools of casters so they have expertise to help them out.

I guess the assumption at ANet was that any other class would either have the energy pool to support the cost of the skills or they would have adrenaline which they would utilize more heavily than energy. It's a fairly valid assumption too considering that you would think that most people would have the sense to realize"Hey these skills are energy heavy maybe I need to either use a primary with an awful lot of energy or I need to use a lot of adrenal skills and save my energy for the ranger stuff."

Eet GnomeSmasher · Apr 14, 2006, 08:20 PM // 20:20

I really should stop responding to your garbage posts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter Sharparrow

You really must have a 2nd grade reading level because what I was saying is if expertise is changed to do only what it says it does then that change would be almost unnoticable so I too think it is fine the way it is.

Quote:

second maybe change it so it only has an impact on ranger skills.

You want Expertise to only affect Ranger skills and you say the change is "almost unnoticable?" Again, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Quote:

If expertise did what it said it does and nothing more than the only none ranger skills it would have an affect on are the attack skills. So for a R/W the warrior attack skills (aside from the adrenaline ones) use only 5 energy so the expertise that only would bring them down to 3. A whole two points.

Sorry, but my "2nd grade" reading skills can't comprehend what you're trying to say here. I don't see your reasons for this proposal or why it's necessary. Heck, I just can't understand what the heck you're saying here.