anti wood genie? >:

Longknife - Harshlands wrote: »

Psychics might commonly do this simply because combined with Psy will, a Psychic is capable of fully resisting 5 of the 10 classes for a good 8 seconds. It can be surprisingly potent in situations that are heavy on venos-mystics or seeker-archer-cleric, though they're still "backup" genie skills that don't see nearly as much use as some others. They're also heavily useful vs. mystics and seekers, both of which rely on specific combos which are predictable and can be appropriately cancelled out with the use of Psy will and those genie skills. Beyond Psychic though? I don't think anyone else gets much use out of them.


As for the OP, git gewd scrub.

+1 this.b:cute

Marengo - Lost City wrote: »

I remember now... Seems it's that sin who said we "choose r9r weap for proc only", that we can use another weap to hit harder (which weap hits harder than r9r he didn't clarify though) claimed venos can stunlock decently in foxform and that he even saw that b:shocked and some other inviable and hilarious things. Nuff said b:sweat

Warsoul mag sword has higher average than the r9rr pataka, or did you miss that too? I also said a lot of CASTERS, not specifically veno's, get r9rr for the purify, whether of not they PvP because it is useful in PvE as well.

The only thing halarious is you know little to nothing about my class, yet i know a lot about yours. Except maybe the fact we can aps, because all sins do that ya know. *sarcasm*

Pro tip: Stop being bad.

killeresras wrote: »

Magic def for LA is higher than p.def for arcane.

This is false. Casters only need to worry about pdef while LA needs to worry about both. Currently even with an elemental cube neck and cards, casters in the same gear match my mdef with their pdef, sometimes surpassing it with the wizard stone barrier, fox form, or mystic verdant shell.

killeresras wrote: »

So of course casters get more mag dmg to deal with the higher def.

3 pdef buffs in game, and 1 mdef buff available to all classes. While casters have 33% higher attack due to multiplier rates and the ability to stat base 3 str with a decent tome, just as barbs and bm's can stat base 3 dex. However, caster multipliers work on every 100 mag, and phy attack multiplier work on 150 str/dex. Which is 50% more attack, but yet they get 300% more defense against our attack than we do theirs.

killeresras wrote: »

AA gear comes with like 250 while mag goes into the 700s+. This is what the difference in atk is accounting for.

Magic can now go into the 880's and 900's.

killeresras wrote: »

Also I said sin atk is on par with other p.atkers 2000 difference is not much when sins more for make up for it with extreme crit and zerk rates.

He said base, meaning only refines and no stat piont's. The difference between the sins and other classes is about 1.6-1.8x damage. An archer in the same gear as I will have about 27-30k high end phhysical attack, while my high end is just shy of 18k. Once again, this has been tested, but i'm too lazy to post a calc.

killeresras wrote: »

You also seem to forget that we cast which takes channeling sins stab which takes no channeling so yall can probably hit 2 times for every 1 mag atk and

So explain to me how casters can have 90% chan i r9rr full armor? Don't tell me it's not possible because Aeliah, has proven it is. The equal your damage out put over the course of one critical attack, a sin has to crit or zerk, both times. Thats the balance, stop looking at the fact we are critting and look at the actual damage.

killeresras wrote: »

those always are crits dealing just as much with 1 quick atk than we do casting.

Every class has skills with almost 0 chan, and even sins have channeling. It's generally shorter due to the fact we are a MELEE class, but it's there. I guess you forgot you can snipe someone from about 30m away, even if they are in decent gear.

killeresras wrote: »

I said on par with not equal to. 2500 is not much of a difference to justify being able to crit every hit and possibly zerk. With crits sins far outdo the other p.classes.

I once hit a sin for 44k after a spell combo, shortly after, a seeker hit that same person for 67k, with lower weapon refine.

Fact: Sins are primarily main DDs while venos are primarily support.
Assumption: Sins hit harder than venos.

Above is a fair assumption as consequence of the fact above it. Assuming you agree that this is intended and reasonable as a means of differentiating the classes, the real question is by how much? Or more specifically, by what amount would this be too OP or broken? This raises the question as to in what situation; Peak damage of a single skill (with/without spark/debuffs/buffs/purged), or average over time at 2/3/5/10/XX seconds? Squad, solo? 1vs1, 1vsX, XvsX? Specifically, venos vs sins? Including damage from bramble/DoTs? Gear/War Avatar/shards/level/build? Will situations that require someone to wait out tidal, bramble hood, feral etc be taken into consideration for overall damage output? And this is just scratching the surface.

See, the statement that sins are OP vs ____________, is a qualitative statement and ignores all of the above questions. "How much damage does a sin do?"-"Lots." "How much damage does a veno do?"-"Less." These answers still fail to answer any of the quantitative questions raised above and are only realized through subjective experience. In this, however, everyone is right regardless of which side they are on as we only have our own experience as a truly trusted reference point. This applies to any class comparison.

Which brings us to this on-going (years now) debate: Those who remain fixated on their qualitative beliefs, you're absolutely right! Good job! And nice thing is, that's everyone! Those who want a quantitative answer, would need to explore it fully before being certain that they would be indeed correct.

In the end, this argument is moot. This goes for both sides. Those seeking a quantitative result will never be able to truly explore everything to the satisfaction of those with their heels dug in in favor of their qualitative knowledge. Nor will those with a qualitative approach to this question ever get their counterpart to agree without presenting well flushed out data that agrees with their stance. No one is about to spend their time to actually do this comparison to such degree of depth. And even if it were done we would remain unsatisfied with the results if they didn't match any of our subjective tolerances, experiences, and expectations. Should someone actually go over it in such detail, they might never present it if it were oppose their beliefs as it would definitively place their failure in their own skills. Or worse (and more likely), it would just raise more questions.

Should we ever come to an unquestionable answer that were to put A as always being better than B, stating that it isn't balanced is akin to saying it's unfair his rock beats my choice of scissors as there was no way I could win in that match up. Rock, scissors - "Damn. Lost again.. Rock is OP." If you're so concerned, the option of paper, or even rock! might be more to your liking.

This thread is QQ. Nothing more. And this post is my personal record for the longest wall-of-text STFUP (P for Please as it's more polite and I'm desperate) response. b:chuckle

venos broken nuff said b:avoid