Jump to content

Photo

R.I.P


  • Please log in to reply
318 replies to this topic

#301 Aqueous

Aqueous
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Auchindoun
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 756
  • Talents: Blood

Posted 16 March 2009 - 04:40 PM

Jesus christ so you insist on proper statistical language, when I show you you are completely fucking wrong you retreat to the fact that 'you weren't trying to quantify it ' but you were saying 'it was one of the factors'.

A correlation of 0.66 is nearly meaningless. You keep trying to escape the conclusions of your statements after people mathematically show that you are incorrect you weasel out of what you are saying with dumb semantical arguments.


Fucking fucking fucking fucking.

Fucking fucking.

See what I did there?

How the fuck did you show me I was "completely fucking wrong"? By throwing up a bunch of third-party based data and typing "HOWZ DEM APPLEZ"? LUK, I JUST SHOW'D A GRAFF OF STUFF, I WIN.

No offence, but this entire discussion has been arguing about the validity of those very results so simply posting them in discrete form does nothing to reaffirm their validity, all it does is dress them up nice and pretty.

The point is I didn't MAKE any mathematical conclusions because I, like you, don't have enough data to support any conclusions. You yammering on about numerical quantities indicative of class balance is like me saying "There are no other forms of life in space because I've not encountered or seen data on them" - your data is INCOMPLETE because you're trying to quantify trends in a video-game that has over 10 MILLION PEOPLE playing it.

At most you can say the data is SUGGESTIVE of something, and that something is DKs are OP. What you CAN'T do is use it as a staple argument for an absolute statement, if you do you just look like a retard.

So quit being a moron. I stated that the basis of your complaints isn't as simple as you seem to think it is and you've done nothing but bitch and whine about something you haven't even interpreted.
  • 0

#302 Aqueous

Aqueous
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Auchindoun
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 756
  • Talents: Blood

Posted 16 March 2009 - 04:42 PM

Class Representation in WoW census vs Class Representation in SK gaming chart:
Posted Image


SICK CORRELATION BRO. That 0.6631 Pearson's Coefficient sure is significant.


Congrats, you just plotted a graph with 2 variables, now try to quantify the other 6+.

That's right, you can't, so shut the fuck up trying to quantify it into a "DK's are OP so them losing Glyph of BB without a replacement is fine because this graph says so".

God damn, so you believe aesthetic pleasure trumps class balance? You got owned on every single fucking point and now you are saying that they shouldn't change this because of FUCKING AESTHETICS.


I got owned on every single point? Haha, says who? You?

Wait: You just got owned on every single point, dude. SEE, I JUST WONT THE ARGUMENT!

Seriously, awesome argument there :), not to mention once again you're reading shit that ISN'T IN MY POSTS. Where's the word AESTHETICS come from? MECHANICS, retard. AESTHETICS would be how PRETTY the class is not how WELL it plays.

This is why I use technical language, because otherwise shit just gets into the land of "read it how you want to read it" which is precisely what you've been doing the entire thread.

Anyway, end of argument = Glyph of BB replaced by new Desecration, Unholy DKs keep a viable close ranged and repeatable snare. That's the end all and be all, and that's enough arguing with illiterate retards over a video-game.
  • 0

#303 Mekila

Mekila
  • Junkies
  • Goblinclass_name
  • US-Spinebreaker
  • Rampage
  • Posts: 278
  • Talents: Blood

Posted 16 March 2009 - 04:46 PM

WTB snaring runic power dump. The new Death coil Glyph needs to add a snare effect when diseases are on your target, or perhaps Unholy blight can be a moving frost trap.
  • 0

#304 Mearis

Mearis
  • Members
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • EU-The Venture Co
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 1,367
  • Talents: Discipline

Posted 16 March 2009 - 04:49 PM

Congrats, you just plotted a graph with 2 variables, now try to quantify the other 6+.

That's right, you can't, so shut the fuck up trying to quantify it into a "DK's are OP so them losing Glyph of BB without a replacement is fine because this graph says so".


You insisted on 'knowledge of statistics' and chastised me for improper language. You ran the gamut of arguments from 'DKs need this for PvP' to 'DKs are over-represented because there is a lot of them' to 'DKs need this snare for this transcendent aesthetic pleasure that I cannot define'.

In this case, I have proven that you were mistaken and that total population number DOES NOT correlate with success in Arena. I am perfectly well aware of Simpson's Paradox and confounding factors (go ahead, wiki and pretend you know what they are) but I would like you to come up with a possible factor that could explain the lack of correlation that we observe. Do you understand why a Pearson's coefficient of 0.66 shows that barring confounding factors (be very careful, you'll jump on this phrase like a ninja even though you completely don't understand what it means) the reasons DKS are succesful in arena is not dependent on their population number?

Just admit you enjoy playing an overpowered class and lack any ability to form a coherent argument, you'll still seem like a dumbass, but at least you will be an honest one.
  • 0

#305 Kellhus

Kellhus
  • Members
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Emerald Dream
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 134
  • Talents:

Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:00 PM

In this case, I have proven that you were mistaken and that total population number DOES NOT correlate with success in Arena. I am perfectly well aware of Simpson's Paradox and confounding factors (go ahead, wiki and pretend you know what they are) but I would like you to come up with a possible factor that could explain the lack of correlation that we observe.


I disagree with your analysis, unless I'm misreading.

You didn't seem to corrolate arena representation with arena ranking - or better stated: just because there are more warriors accounted for on the census doesn't mean more warriors have active arena teams for them to actually be ranked with SK on. Seems to me the relationship you would care about to make your conclusion would be only players on active arena teams - which is how I, right or wrong, always took the arguement to begin with.

DK's being new, and the first arena season being available to them, means there will be an over-whelming number of Dk's with arena teams. They should, staticially, be over-represented in every measureable bracket of the arena right now, and to a varying degree it will be because of how many there are. As the ranking goes up, the weight population has starts to decrease somewhat I would guess(?) - but I can't imagine it decreases to the point of ever being irrelevent.

Keep in mind this isn't an OP/no op arguement, this was soley about the data in the graph.
  • 0

#306 Aqueous

Aqueous
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Auchindoun
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 756
  • Talents: Blood

Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:15 PM

You insisted on 'knowledge of statistics' and chastised me for improper language. You ran the gamut of arguments from 'DKs need this for PvP' to 'DKs are over-represented because there is a lot of them' to 'DKs need this snare for this transcendent aesthetic pleasure that I cannot define'.


1. You chastised yourself.

2. Way to go, once again, of reading INTO my posts. IN REALITY, I "ran the gamut of arguments" as follows:

-DK's MAY be over-represented because there are alot of them.
-DK's need this snare so the class runs smoothly (I don't know where aesthetic came from there maybe you need to look the word up in the dictionary to understand what the fuck it means or actually, you know, READ my posts rather than reading INTO them).

In this case, I have proven that you were mistaken and that total population number DOES NOT correlate with success in Arena. I am perfectly well aware of Simpson's Paradox and confounding factors (go ahead, wiki and pretend you know what they are) but I would like you to come up with a possible factor that could explain the lack of correlation that we observe. Do you understand why a Pearson's coefficient of 0.66 shows that barring confounding factors (be very careful, you'll jump on this phrase like a ninja even though you completely don't understand what it means) the reasons DKS are succesful in arena is not dependent on their population number?


Actually, yes I do. The gradient from the origin to the point on the graph is indicative of the relationship between the two axes. The slighter the gradient, the less "successful" that class is, and of course no negative gradients would be found as that is inverse proportionality.

And the lack of correlation between the classes is because of a variance in their high-level arena-representation.

However, you've proven nothing but that DK's success isn't dependent on their population (something I could've told you myself anyway). You've still not proven any of the other "confounding factors" to be hold no weight on the data however, and in fact you can't, which means resoundingly you've proven absolutely nothing beyond DKs being successful independent of their population, which is only the first point on my original post (which, ironically, was simply a model to measure class viability by and not an argument).

And that's based on the data you DO have and the data itself is woefully inaccurate. You're correlating total class population to top arena representation whereas an accurate comparison would be total class arena representation to top arena representation since there will be inconsistancies in the % of a class that actively Arenas.

Due to these inconsistances, both here and in the rest of the plausible data, using any form of analysis for "proofs" is like trying to prove God exists because of the Bible - ie, retarded.

Specifically with relevance to the topic at hand not only have you proven nothing of consequence but you've posted nothing of relevance for the last 10 pages of the thread.

Oh, in addition, spouting jargen isn't the same thing as understanding the concepts behind something - just thought I'd poke that your way. There's a diffence between being precise and specific with language and being "technical" or using jargen. The former means your sentences actually make sense, the latter is simply an attempt to assert psuedo-dominance of a topic (ie, retarded).

Just admit you enjoy playing an overpowered class and lack any ability to form a coherent argument, you'll still seem like a dumbass, but at least you will be an honest one.


Says the guy with the inability to read:

The DK class in their current incarnation are OP, I'll openly admit that. I don't think they're as OP as they were, nowhere near, and I don't think they're so OP they're "broken". However, even if the class is OP it doesn't mean it's ok to just leave bare mechanics left untouched, which leads me to the issue highlighted in this thread.


This was contained within my original post on this argument on Page 28, so as you can see I already admitted and declared my opinion that DKs are overpowered. Like I've said several times in this topic: learn to read the post not what you want to see.

It's embarrasing to see someone go to such lengths as to statistically analyse a set of data but to lack the reading comprehension indicated above.
  • 0

#307 Mearis

Mearis
  • Members
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • EU-The Venture Co
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 1,367
  • Talents: Discipline

Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:26 PM

However, you've proven nothing but that DK's success isn't dependent on their population (something I could've told you myself anyway).


I am seriously at a loss. You were arguing the exact opposite 2 pages ago when I pointed out that DKs were more than 10x as common than warriors.... Why did you even bring it up?

You've still not proven any of the other "confounding factors" to be hold no weight on the data however, and in fact you can't, which means resoundingly you've proven absolutely nothing beyond DKs being successful independent of their population, which is only the first point on my original post (which, ironically, was simply a model to measure class viability by and not an argument).


....

Err so you are saying, I proved you were incorrect, yet you knew you were incorrect, and I cannot prove there are no counfounding factors? If I could prove there were no confounding factors I'd expect to win a Field's Medal AND a Nobel considering that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THERE ARE NO CONFOUNDING FACTORS.

As best as I can parse your confused phrasing:
You have proven that I am incorrect, but you cannot prove there aren't any confounding factors, therefore :SMUG:

Specifically with relevance to the topic at hand not only have you proven nothing of consequence but you've posted nothing of relevance for the last 10 pages of the thread.


Ok, let me go over some absolute facts:

- DKs are over-represented in Arena at high rating.
- DKs over-representation is NOT due to a population imbalance.

Let's go over opinions:
- DKs need a physical snare that cannot be removed because otherwise that leads to 'clunky' mechanics. You refused to clarify what you meant by 'clunky' beyond vague aesthetic statements.


Oh, in addition, spouting jargen isn't the same thing as understanding the concepts behind something - just thought I'd poke that your way. There's a diffence between being precise and specific with language and being "technical" or using jargen. The former means your sentences actually make sense, the latter is simply an attempt to assert psuedo-dominance of a topic (ie, retarded).


You were the one who insisted on 'precise' terms, then you reject mathematical descriptions because they are jargon. I am sorry if this is somehow confusing you. You thought you could score cheap points quibbling over some very minor semanthic points, then immediately retreated and insisted that you didn't want to quantify what you were saying.

It's embarrasing to see someone go to such lengths as to statistically analyse a set of data but to lack the reading comprehension indicated above.


Look, this is the old 'trick' in the book. Sure, DKs are overpowered, but nerf this incredibly tiny inconsequential thing and DKs will be fine. Druids claimed that the travelform speed nerf and the cyclone range nerf were sufficient to reign them in, look at old posts if you do not believe me. I am very very sure that I understand statistics better than you.

Class balance opinions are completely subjective, representation in arena is not. You may of course advance alternative theories as to why certain classes are over-represented that do not involve class balance (as a matter of fact you drew a completely ridiculous dichotomy between class mechanics and class balance) but unless you can offer a reason they remain just completely artificial speculations.
  • 0

#308 Thunderace

Thunderace
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Kel'Thuzad
  • Blutdurst
  • Posts: 501
  • Talents: Discipline

Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:30 PM

<3<3
  • 0

#309 evenn

evenn
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Kel'Thuzad
  • Nightfall
  • Posts: 1,164
  • Talents:

Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:40 PM

ITT:Non-dks who haven't gotten gladiator or even 2200 cry about an ability being implented that has the exact same effect as an ability we already have. Blood boil 50% physical snare vs frost fever/heart strike/desecration 50% snare.
  • 0

#310 Aqueous

Aqueous
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Auchindoun
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 756
  • Talents: Blood

Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:49 PM

I am seriously at a loss. You were arguing the exact opposite 2 pages ago when I pointed out that DKs were more than 10x as common than warriors.... Why did you even bring it up?


I stated that class populus affects arena representation, which it does. I said nothing less, nothing more. We're not talking proportionality coefficients here (which is what we use here to describe general covariance), just pure representation.

If DKs have 30% representation and you increase their populus by 50% then on average their representation will increase accordingly. It may not be a 50% increase, as the relationship involves confounding factors aswell, but it WILL increase. Therefore, it AFFECTS arena representation.

That is ALL I said, and at the time you hadn't legitimately eliminated their populus size as a reason for success (note: I specifically say 'success' not representation). In other words I was saying you hadn't proven my first point, A, wrong with relation to DKs (at that point in time).

After you posted the graph, you had, but that didn't come until AFTER my post.

Err so you are saying, I proved you were incorrect, yet you knew you were incorrect, and I cannot prove there are no counfounding factors? If I could prove there were no confounding factors I'd expect to win a Field's Medal AND a Nobel considering that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THERE ARE NO CONFOUNDING FACTORS.


Which is exactly WHY YOU DON'T OPEN YOUR MOUTH WITH RESOUNDING ARGUMENTS OF SELF-IMPORTANCE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ELIMINATE CONFOUNDING FACTORS - I LIKE CAPS TOO!

If you can't produce an argument without confounding factors it's usually a very, VERY good idea to be UNASSUMING and give credence to the fact that it is nothing more than a statistical SUGGESTION, which is actually the basis of any statistical 'argument' with confounding factors - it is merely a SUGGESTION.

And if you'd been reading, you would've seen I already stated that in a previous post at the top of this very page:

At most you can say the data is SUGGESTIVE of something, and that something is DKs are OP. What you CAN'T do is use it as a staple argument for an absolute statement, if you do you just look like a retard


And I'd already said as much in my ORIGINAL post aswell. If I had known you knew statistics I would've said it as within this post. However, your apparent choice to omit those factors from your argument suggested you did not.

And again if you would - you know - LEARN TO READ, you would've seen that on my very first post I listed many of the confounding factors as a REASON for not wholly believing such obstinate arguments as "DKS ARE DEFO HIGH REP COZ THEYRE INSANE OP". In the very beginning, I said that BECAUSE those confounding factors exist there is NO point attempting to draw a DIRECT and DISCRETE correlation between them.

Attempting to do so, as you did (*chuckle*), is retarded.

As best as I can parse your confused phrasing:
You have proven that I am incorrect, but you cannot prove there aren't any confounding factors, therefore :SMUG:


Since my original post was ABOUT the existence of confounding factors I don't see how you proved I am incorrect unless we're allowing paradoxical statements now. My post was like a model for the "requirements" you'd have to eliminate to produce a full-boiled argument. You eliminated one, so what? There's many more. I didn't say that particular requirement was the only one did I? Nor did I say that the populus is definitely the SOLE or DETERMINING factor.

Since you can't eliminate all of those requirements with mere data, you can't produce a full-boiled argument with mere data either. Therefore, attempting to do so, like all the people who quote SK-Gaming stats try to do (like you), is pointless.

Ok, let me go over some absolute facts:

- DKs are over-represented in Arena at high rating.
- DKs over-representation is NOT due to a population imbalance.

Let's go over opinions:
- DKs need a physical snare that cannot be removed because otherwise that leads to 'clunky' mechanics. You refused to clarify what you meant by 'clunky' beyond vague aesthetic statements.


I refused to go into depth over clunky mechanics because the current argument hasn't the capacity for it. In short, taking the time to actually discuss with you what constitutes "clunky" would probably result in a myriad of tangent arguments with you attempting to pick up every individual word you could to validate your overall argument.

Thus, I passed on it.

In a brief description: clunky means that some, or all, of the mechanics of the class don't "mesh" - they work AGAINST each other and they sometimes trivialise one another.

Example 1: TBC Spell Reflecting Offensively - trying to Spell Reflect CCs in TBC when playing offensively was essentially pointless because the time it took to weapon swap twice and regain your swing timer the effect had often already expired and/or MS had fallen off plus you'd lost several thousand damage on the target.

This is an example of clunky mechanics. Spell Reflect is trivialised here because the entire REASON for doing it is to create pressure but BY doing it you lessen pressure.

Example 2: Chains of Ice Offensively - the purpose of CoI'ing someone is to get into melee 99% of the time. Why do we get into melee? To deal damage to them, to try to kill them. What point is there in doing this, however, if CoI happens to directly reduce (and if you use 2 in succession, it completely removes...) controlled damage?

Similar example to offensive Spell Reflection, you essentially cancel out the entire point of the skill BY USING IT.

THAT is clunky. THAT is why Glyph of BB was needed and THAT is why Desecration was changed so that it would fill that role.

You were the one who insisted on 'precise' terms, then you reject mathematical descriptions because they are jargon. I am sorry if this is somehow confusing you. You thought you could score cheap points quibbling over some very minor semanthic points, then immediately retreated and insisted that you didn't want to quantify what you were saying.


I didn't use precise terms, I used precise ENGLISH.

And as I think I demonstrated, your jargon isn't confusing me it's simply boring me.

Look, this is the old 'trick' in the book. Sure, DKs are overpowered, but nerf this incredibly tiny inconsequential thing and DKs will be fine. Druids claimed that the travelform speed nerf and the cyclone range nerf were sufficient to reign them in, look at old posts if you do not believe me. I am very very sure that I understand statistics better than you.


And who measures what constitutes a "tiny inconsequential thing"? You? No thanks. We play the class, we measure that is consequential. This is significant. If it was inconsequential I wouldn't be here.

In addition, it's a bit rich to claim me admitting DKs are OP as the "old trick in the book" considering I said that in my original post (as quoted) BEFORE THIS ARGUMENT EVEN STARED. It would only be an "old trick" if the context of this argument existed, but since it didn't, I don't see how there was an agenda; unless I somehow time-travelled back to that point in time and THEN posted it of couse. It was nothing more than a genuine and honest opinion.

Class balance opinions are completely subjective, representation in arena is not. You may of course advance alternative theories as to why certain classes are over-represented that do not involve class balance (as a matter of fact you drew a completely ridiculous dichotomy between class mechanics and class balance) but unless you can offer a reason they remain just completely artificial speculations.


Good class mechanics allow higher skill cap, thus they do actually influence class balance. There's your reason. This is why TBC Warriors were traditionally considered to have a low skill cap, because much of their strength were RNG (which is also poor mechanics, arguably) and their mechanics were also clunky.

They did well, contrary to it, because the class was so powerful, it synergised perfectly with healers and best of all the most insane healer: Resto Druids.

On the flip side of the coin, Rogue mechanics were fairly pristine (sans Vanish bug) thus the class had a high skill cap. They did well down to this more so than Warriors, and thus a large gulf in skill of Rogues was found from 1700 to 2.2k+

It affects arena representation, even more so now with PvP being so fast paced classes that are "slowed down" by clunky mechanics (like Warriors) are doing badly. It takes a Warrior too long to initiate the same amount of moves as a DK does, and thus they're doing badly.

Anyway, that's enough for me, this is getting ridiculous. Night night.
  • 0

#311 Vague

Vague
  • Members
  • Gnomeclass_name
  • EU-Al'Akir
  • Blackout
  • Posts: 232
  • Talents: Frost

Posted 16 March 2009 - 06:29 PM

ITT:Non-dks who haven't gotten gladiator or even 2200 cry about an ability being implented that has the exact same effect as an ability we already have. Blood boil 50% physical snare vs frost fever/heart strike/desecration 50% snare.


<3

Was thinking the same :D.
  • 0

#312 dotswtfownd

dotswtfownd

Posted 16 March 2009 - 06:35 PM

this thread is a nightmare
  • 0

#313 elorahnahimi

elorahnahimi
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Shattered Hand
  • Ruin
  • Posts: 544
  • Talents: Affliction
  • RBG: 2469

Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:49 PM

ITT:Non-dks who haven't gotten gladiator or even 2200 cry about an ability being implented that has the exact same effect as an ability we already have. Blood boil 50% physical snare vs frost fever/heart strike/desecration 50% snare.


ITT: one time gladiator death knights that are going to spend the next 3 season in the 1900 bracket trying to defend an overpowered class.
  • 0
What this game really needs is a Duelist mount. It can be the same model as the Gladiator mount, but maybe have a gimpy leg and only be able to fly around in circles. I'd still ride it.

#314 Bigcritz

Bigcritz
  • Members
  • Worgenclass_name
  • US-Kel'Thuzad
  • Nightfall
  • Posts: 240
  • Talents: Fire

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:22 PM

My ideal fix to this would to make desecration instantly apply a 7 second snare for 10% movement speed per point in the talent.

Then the desecrated ground effect would give you the dmg increase and slow targets who run over it for 5 seconds after gaining the debuff (from the ground).

For the lazy:

Make it so its an instant snare application, and even after they're out of the snare they are still snared afterwards for a few seconds.
  • 0

#315 Tahaa

Tahaa
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • EU-Eitrigg
  • Embuscade / Hinterhalt
  • Posts: 1,344
  • Talents: Discipline

Posted 16 March 2009 - 10:25 PM

Man this thread sure derailed on statistics. It's not my field but one should always be wary of statistics afaik, it's very hard to prove something, only thing you can do reliably is disprove. I think you disproved the fact that DKs arena success is dependant on global dk population, and we all know they're op. They're given tools for snaring beside the bb glyph next patch, hopefully their output will go down, we'll just see how it'll play out.

DK, as a melee class, need a reliable low-cost snare (and no ranged crazy damage but that's another topic). It being weaved into base spells may be too op, but having it bound to runes is crippling for their damage. I maintain a snare with RP would have been a more stable solution, but Blizz doesn't look that way atm. I still have faith, if it's way too imba they'll change it.
  • 0

#316 Kane49

Kane49
  • Junkies
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • EU-Zirkel des Cenarius
  • Blutdurst
  • Posts: 303
  • Talents: Marksmanship

Posted 16 March 2009 - 10:38 PM

soo..much...text....
  • 0
SEASON 5 PALADIN DEATHKNIGHT HERO

#317 Leafy

Leafy
  • Leafy
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Auchindoun
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 1,081
  • Talents: Restoration

Posted 17 March 2009 - 12:13 AM

giving non ms classes mass damage just isn't the way, and its the only reason this game is so unbalanced right now.. they gave feral druids/ret paladins/death knights amazing damage.. and when you stack this with ms in 3v3 the damage cant be healed..


Exactly exactly exactly. I said this a million times and wrote a fucking essay about it but all those dks/rets/ferals went ape on me.


sup coelus
  • 0

Druids were not weak in S5


Druids weren't weak in s5 at all, some people realized how to play them and beat dk teams, some didn't.


#318 Auvvey

Auvvey
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 745
  • Talents:

Posted 17 March 2009 - 12:26 AM

Exactly exactly exactly. I said this a million times and wrote a fucking essay about it but all those dks/rets/ferals went ape on me.


sup coelus


Eh, I've always told other ret paladins to shut up about 2v2 so the game can not suck ass.

But its okay baby, we still have each other.
  • 0

#319 Aqueous

Aqueous
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Auchindoun
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 756
  • Talents: Blood

Posted 17 March 2009 - 12:33 AM

Exactly exactly exactly. I said this a million times and wrote a fucking essay about it but all those dks/rets/ferals went ape on me.


sup coelus


Hey dude :).

Personally I view MS as a utility so classes without MS should simply get an additional utility or 2 instead rather than mass damage.

My ideal fix to this would to make desecration instantly apply a 7 second snare for 10% movement speed per point in the talent.

Then the desecrated ground effect would give you the dmg increase and slow targets who run over it for 5 seconds after gaining the debuff (from the ground).

For the lazy:

Make it so its an instant snare application, and even after they're out of the snare they are still snared afterwards for a few seconds.


Yeah agreed, this would be my choice of Desecration's function too.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<