It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
i'm a rebel
Overthinking it. Don't rely on defense, smash them serpent noobs!
Dude. Lol. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they didn't read your post. They just think (gasp) that you're wrong.
I don't really know what to tell you if you think peace is hard to stick as priest.
Dude. Lol. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they didn't read your post. They just think (gasp) that you're wrong.I don't really know what to tell you if you think peace is hard to stick as priest.
"One of the only good examples remaining just blipped out of existence, as the exact solution to the exact problem I prosed regarding snipe/ret was implemented. And yet the same voices were there, repeating almost exactly the same exact thing that you're saying now."
I was a very strong proponent of the no sniping into retardation! So apparently not the same voices!
I do not disagree with you to disagree with you. Only your ego tells you that. I disagree with you because I believe you are wrong, and I have explained my opinion with more than "I don't like you. You're wrong." I have read your posts, I have pointed out your false premises, and I have explained how I, as someone who has played a priest and does not seem to struggle with it as you do, know that priest is not as weak as you seem to believe. Tesha, another solid priest, has the exact same opinion of the class (that it is strong, not weak).
We all know you think you're right about everything. We all know your opinion on the matter. Who is the troll?
Edit: The -only- thing that makes me not want to fight serpent as priest is evade. But that's true of apostate and alchemist, too, and has nothing to do with priest defense.
But people build aff stacks generally by leading curare. If they already have curare, they're not attacking. If bedevil reflects curare, it's because they didn't already have curare. Curare is used very, very frequently. Bedevil procs roughly 30%-40% of the time. As for anything needing a counter to healing... yes, any affliction class that requires locking needs a counter against healing. You can heal me asthma/angel aura, you can't fitness/touch shield. You can heal me asthma/heal, you can't fitness/fitness something else. If you can heal me asthma/heal, then this is probably unintended. Once again, if Healing is too good, then the fix should be to balance it, not leave it broken and add other equally but oppositely broken things to compensate for them.I proposed half a dozen solutions that don't involve this silly tit for tat broken mechanism trade-off that don't buff priest, but balance things out to work well for everyone.One additional suggestion that I'd be 100% fine with is if they just made Heal and Heal <aff> simply use full equilibrium, like normal active cures - so that the only aspect of Priest healing that in any way is better than fitness or magi/sylvan (that they can Heal/shield), can be eliminated, and there will be absolutely no justification for forced bedevil to continue to exist.I don't have logs so I can't help you with your problem against serpent, unless it's purely theoretical. If you run into this problem in practice, get some logs and we can take a look at what's going on. Otherwise we're just debating theory blended with opinion, which isn't going to lead to anything beneficial. I'm basing this on a combination of pure combat theory and a large amount of experience playing as a serpent, priest, bard, magi, and all five fitness classes, versus the exact same list of classes, among others.In a previous post, I described in incredible detail, in theoretical terms, several different reasons that Passive bedevil does not actually do what most people think it does. I know from personal experience that most people who haven't played priest (and most people who haven't written vastly complex affliction status/probability tracking systems) that people who haven't delved this deep into things would probably read what passive bedevil does, and simply assume that it's reflecting 30-40% of afflictions back onto people, and this simply is not true. There are frequent and completely realistic scenarios in which even if the proc rate of passive bedevil was 100% guaranteed, passive bedevil can still result in a ZERO percent chance of actually reflecting an affliction that they didn't already have.
Xinna said:I have read your posts, Oh, you clearly stated that you weren't going to.I have pointed out your false premises,You pointed out a few insignificant, and subjective, statements that you don't agree with, not "false premises". A crack in a wall isn't going to make it tumble, even if it actually is a real crack.and I have explained how I, as someone who has played a priest and does not seem to struggle with it as you do, Isn't this exactly what you just berated me for doing? Completely foregoing an actual valid argument, and simply stating that you're right because it happens to be your opinion, and you're automatically correct because of how brilliant you think you are?Also, I never stated that I "struggle" with priest, or even with passive bedevil. Putting those words in my mouth is a pretty obvious attempt to make a class problem look like an Ernam problem, which accomplishes two things for you: continuing to damage my reputation, and simultaneously helping achieve your goal to leave Serpent/Bard vs. Priest in its broken state. It isn't a secret that those two classes are coincidentally the classes of your two main characters, and that they both frequently engage in PK against priests. Guess what, Manu was cool with 55% damage area-wide doppie-warps, too.Nobody had a problem with enfeeble/absolve, either, as long as they simply accepted the fact that they had to be at exactly 100% mana at all times. There was a massive portion of the forum community that said that it was fine, because it was "balanced" by the fact that it didn't work from 100% mana - and that people should just stop whining about it. (Those people also used rhethoric and misdirection, as you are doing, to belittle and marginalize the people asking for it to be fixed, in an attempt to somehow "win favor" with the jury by attacking the character of the people pushing for it to be fixed.I, as someone who has played a priest and does not seem to struggle with it as you do, know that priest is not as weak as you seem to believe. Tesha, another solid priest, has the exact same opinion of the class (that it is strong, not weak).This is a straw man argument. You've created a completely different argument that you know nobody would agree with, and replaced my actual statements with your own, in your reply.If you want to argue against someone who believes "priest is weak", then you're going to have to find someone else. I did not say that "priest is weak" nor do I believe that to be true, at all. I said something entirely different, which you have yet to actually reply to, directly, with anything other than repeatedly stating that you simply do not agree.
Bedevil is fucking dumb in all incarnations and should be totally repurposed.
What part of Makarios said no, did you miss?
Makarios said:The main problem with healing isn't that it can cure any affliction. We could cut it down to impatience/asthma/a couple other big ones and likely there'd be no tangible change. The issue is that it is able to be combined with other abilities (its selling point), particularly abilities such as shield, permitting the user to actively attempt to escape a situation with fly/leap/etc. This essentially let's you continue to escape the situation while allowing you to optimally heal afflictions, something (assuming equal skill level of both players and no extenuating circumstances) that isn't reasonably counterable. There are options of course (knife sigils was the big one), but these are all based upon the priest not being aware of the appropriate counter measures, which isn't something we can really assume when making changes.There is however something to be said for the lack of any form of active heals on the class with active bedevil up. The change I'd personally be inclined toward would be something along the lines of allowing the eq-based untargeted heal to work with [passive] bedevil up, but to have an affliction to stop it. That's a purely spontaneous thought however; we've not talked about it at all and I haven't really considered implications. I'm pretty sure that's the most extreme change we'd make though, given the existence of their passive healing and fairly hindering offense.
There is however something to be said for the lack of any form of active heals on the class with active bedevil up. The change I'd personally be inclined toward would be something along the lines of allowing the eq-based untargeted heal to work with [passive] bedevil up, but to have an affliction to stop it. That's a purely spontaneous thought however; we've not talked about it at all and I haven't really considered implications. I'm pretty sure that's the most extreme change we'd make though, given the existence of their passive healing and fairly hindering offense.
Probably the part where he told you that Passive bedevil was not "the most significant defensive weakness in the game" and said no to your suggested solutions. Why am I arguing with you? Good night.
Wait. Now I have two mains, and one of them is serpent?
I am learning so much about myself in this thread.
Edit: Isn't Shecks a bard? I will fight bard you as priest me literally any day, Ernam, and then you will complain about how crap bard is and how OP priest is.