Strength has a counter, Evade/Blocking.
Affects all attacks, not only strength.
Quote:
Soul Reaping, doesn't have a counter at the moment
The whole 'counter' POV doesn't make to much sense to me anyway. Countering is about skills, not attributes.
[/quote]Spawning Power's counter is any possible dmg. [/quote]
And that is the silliest of all, like saying damage is the counter to runes of vigor, or even your character's existance.
You've been driving the counter-POV into the absurd. Nice try, but it's not a usefull aproach, counters is about skills and their interaction, not attributes.
[quote]Critical Strikes, Stoneflesh Aura, Block/Evade. Leadership.....I think Paragons are underpowered anyway. Mystycism, Enchant strips and Energy Draining.
Quote:
Weakness was always underpowered anyway!
Hold on, 66% taken from physical damage is not underpwered.
And isn't bleeding underpowered? Is poison not underpowered when compared to burning? The more power an effect has, the harder it should be to apply. The (proposed) change to weakness makes it more powerfull, but it is still as easy to apply as always.
And the effect is unbalancing. Some - already underrepresented - classes are far more affected then others. The possible effect on balance should be carefully looked at and the this whole change looks a bit ad-hoc.
25 Jan 2007 at 01:17 - 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaconSoda
Everyone these days fights to their last breath to defend their beliefs
Look at yourself first, It didn't help opening your post with calling this concern "throwing a hissy".
25 Jan 2007 at 01:27 - 52
we should change the title of the thread to weakness overnerfs our beloved touch ranger build due to energy constriction  yes, weakness as presented over the weekend was abused, people will develop counters I'd guess, and I'd further postulate that due to some clear abuses involving this condition it may be that this exact change will not be adopted. I'd also like to point out that the thread here will do nada if the goal is to block this particular change. I think either there probably already is a thread discussing this issue in the test weekend forum or there should be. I think we got us some very good points in this thread, on either side....like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy Awien
T
Hold on, 66% taken from physical damage is not underpwered.
And isn't bleeding underpowered? Is poison not underpowered when compared to burning? The more power an effect has, the harder it should be to apply. The (proposed) change to weakness makes it more powerfull, but it is still as easy to apply as always.
While as I've posted that my personal opinion is that the mechanic change isn't life threatening (in the form of suicide induction), this is a good point. Weakness would in fact be strengthened by this change and perhaps a de-spamification is warranted. Keep in mind how readily blind can be spread though, and which IS worse? The old weakness IS quite good against melee oponents... but it didn't effect skill damage.
25 Jan 2007 at 01:30 - 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaconSoda
Ranger being my first class since April 2005, I know full well how much help Expertise is, and how high of energy cost good ranger skills are. What eactly was it's counter before? Quickening Zhepher? That's right, nothing. Energy storage has a counter, exaustion. Divine Favor has a counter, Scourge Healing, Defile Flesh. Fast Casting has a counter, Arcane Corundrum, Frustration, Migraine. Strength has a counter, Evade/Blocking. Soul Reaping, doesn't have a counter at the moment, but that's alright, Anet will think of it later. Spawning Power's counter is any possible dmg. Critical Strikes, Stoneflesh Aura, Block/Evade. Leadership.....I think Paragons are underpowered anyway. Mystycism, Enchant strips and Energy Draining.
Now we can add Expertise to that list, with Weakness. Soul reaping is affected too, but to a lesser extent. But like all those other counters, Weakness is easily averted . Condition removal, c'mon! Weakness was always underpowered anyway! Now it's actually useful. Instead of throwing a hissy, learn how to adapt. We did that with the AoE nerf, we can do it here.
GO AHEAD! CALL ME A NOOB! I DARE YOU! (let the flaming begin!)
Fine... this shows that you don't realize that the counter to a ranger is e-denial. It's the rangers achilles heal, and the one most people don't realize. Though, rage as one, has started to clue some people into this moreso.
Expertise is a double edged sword, it both amplifies a small starting supply and an inferior regen rate. But by the same token it also amplifies energy denial. If I burn 8 energy off a caster w/ their 50'ish pool... they don't care, even if they are running on regen... 8 energy is less than the average 10 energy cost of a spell. But that 8 energy to a ranger reflects the energy to activate 1 or 2 skills and is far harder to deal with. It's just as damaging to a warriors energy bar as well, but the warrior also has adrenaline making it much harder to deny.
Monks have the same problem, divine favour is very similar to expertise in this aspect, while expertise produces the same effect for reduced cost, divine favour amplifies effect for the same cost. A large reason why monks have never had and never will have top-flight emanagement is simply because they're designed like rangers to be very efficient w/ their starting pools and regen. This is the reason edenial can be so devasating against these two in particular.
Monks also have it better than rangers... 8 energy above is a spell and a half, and they regen 8 faster. Similarly skills which reduce energy regen have less effect, losing 1 pip out of 4 is much less devastating than losing 1 out of 3.
You might say fine... both classes get drained to zero. The ranger has enough energy to do something in 2s. But do what... any effect worth only 2 energy has to have some drawbacks or be fairly weak. In fact, the only two things which commonly pop up in PvP in this grade is distracting shot and trolls (which is legendarily easy to interupt). The vast majority of the PvP rangers bar costs start at 4, 4 energy is 4 seconds regen... it takes a caster less than 4seconds to get back 5 energy, and similarly 6-7s to activate a 15 energy skill like cripshot, is practically the same as the time it takes a caster the time to toss out a 10 energy spell.
I've stated long before that if you want to 'fix/change' the ranger and expertise long term you'd need to reduce the effect AND GIVE THE RANGER 4 pips regen like every other non-adrenal class in the game. As it now the first 8 ranks or so in expertise simply amplify the rangers starting 3 pips to roughly 4 pips the same as all the other casters. It's not until you can get up to the 12-14 regime that it starts to get juicy and functiong as some kind of emanagement in the classic sense of giving you more energy over time than your opposition.
The only reason why thumpers can operate at 9 expertise or so, is because they're using 5 energy skills designed for use by a 2 pip regen class while making their own energy look about 4-5 pips and in some cases also cashing in on adrenaline at the same time. It also is a prime case of highlighting how weak the bow is in comparison to every other weapon and especially the only other ranged counterpart the spear.
However, the problem w/ weakness is that is ALREADY PUNISHED RANGERS. Let me repeat that... everyones going nuts over this new effect. But weakness reduces damage by *66%*. So before you were paying regular price for 66% reduced damage, which made it roughly as valuable as bleed or poison. After this change, you were paying 25-50% more for 66% reduced damage. Since many rangers are so consciously or unconsciously aware of their real energy costs, this of course stoked a lot of angry replies.
Not every condition needs to be blind/dazed strength. Weakness was fine as it was, SPAMMABLE and EASILY APPLIED. And a very strong defensive condition, not as good as blind, but given it's applicability, reasonably strong. The problem was that people still saw themselves getting hit and other secondary effects still being pulled off. Compared to blind they 'think/feel' the condition is worthless in comparison.
One final point to mull over... if rangers ever became game dominant forces. How long would it take spirit shackles to come out of it's semi-retirement. Shackes right now is rediculously broken (lose 5 energy per attack), it can stop a dervish, assassin, or ranger in their tracks.
25 Jan 2007 at 01:39 - 54
Ha ha, now my warrior want to thumb those pesky rangers with his devastating hammer, before they cripple him of course. And use deep wound as the cover condition! My warrior has always has a deep-seated hate to the bunny thumpers.
On the same subject anyway, should dazed affect not only spell caster but also the projectile attack? How a dazed person can aimed anyway?
25 Jan 2007 at 07:28 - 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetdoc
I can't think of a skill that can apply Dazed once every five seconds...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sir Mad
No, because Dazed cannot be spread as often as weakness. Compare it to crippling if you wanna compare it to a condition used in PvP, or blindness. And yes, you see that a lot. As said by Evisold before, covering a condition is easy. So is reapplying it. If dazze is uncommon, it's because of the recharge time and energy cost of the skills causing this condition (and the unreliability of some of them actually).
Why is dazed unreliable? Because you can't cover it even if you want to, not well enough to depend on. If you look at the post I quoted, I said that maybe the weakness skills do need to be increased a little on the recycle time. It matters not too much though, because it's still a condition. Yes, it will add more pressure. So will all the buffs to the hexes that were introduced. Why don't we see more threads whining about that instead? The metagame is changing. I suggest some people learn to cope with it.
If you could cover a condition as well as pretty much everyone in this thread seems to think, you'd see Concussion or Broadhead on every single ranger's bar. Who wouldn't want to take it? It sure would make spikes a lot more successful, wouldn't it? That was my point, not that dazed is comparable to weakness. I don't know how you would get that from what I wrote.
25 Jan 2007 at 13:56 - 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jesh
Why is dazed unreliable?
|
I was talking about the skills causing this condition. The skill with the shortest recharge time, Concussion Shot, dazes only if you catch a spell. The same goes for Beguiling Haze and Skull Crack. Other skills like BHA won't hit the target if he's moving at all. That's what I had in mind.
And if you check the list of skills causing this condition: http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Daze you will notice the vast majority are elite skills.
Now concerning BHA and Concussion Shot that "would be in every single ranger's ranger's bar", I won't repeat what I said earlier.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lennymon
*snip*
Yes that's my opinion as well. I actually find the new effect of Weakness very interesting, and the problem for me doesn't come from it, but from the fact skills causing this condition would be unbalanced with the new effect.
25 Jan 2007 at 15:03 - 57
Naturally, if they keep the changes to Weakness then the related skills will have to be balanced accordingly. This is pretty much a given.
That said, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to have Weakness be a useful condition. And before people start repeating, "But it was useful!," let's get serious. No one ever used Weakness for its own sake. It was used either as a trigger condition for another skill, or it was applied as an added bonus to a skill you were using for some other reason. Weakness has always been the bastard child of the condition world.
If the changes stick it might shake things up a bit and I don't see that as a bad thing. It seems to me that Anet is gradually boosting the pressure and force teams to specialize in how they deal with that pressure. Hexes are getting strong, but mass hex removal is mostly either expensive or elite. Now conditions are getting stronger and while mass removal is comparatively easier, application is also easier. People will have to start making hard choices about whether they want to bring Divert Hexes or Restore Condition, and then they might lose to heavy melee pressure with no overload on hexes or conditions. If your team tries to bring counters to everything, your offense will suffer. The end result, as far as I can predict, is faster-paced gameplay. Teams without adequate counters will break much faster.
This isn't just about Weakness. This is the general trend I see in the evolution of GW. Love it or hate it, that seems to be the way we're headed.
25 Jan 2007 at 15:42 - 58
I don't know why the hell you people care so much about this. Let's say you are playing pvp and the opposing team has a person dedicated to spamming weakness on everyone (which would be a complete waste of a slot). How long do you think he can keep up spamming enfeebling blood? Probably not very long, so what? The other team brings a bip also? I don't think so.
Either fight with weekness on you or bring a condition removal on either your bar or your monks bar. During the preview weekend I was playing "zergway" or whatever the hell it is and we actually went up against a team with a necro that had enfeebling blood.
If some of you don't know what zergway is it's basically 3 warriors with steady stance and desperation blow and fear me that just run around and kill stuff and 3 paragons who pretty much just spam shouts and heal stuff. Anyway, since we are talking about weakness destroying our breakpoints, lets say that the paragons had 12 in leadership and the warriors had 9 in strength. IF weakness was on everyone constantly then, the paragons would only get 5 max energy from shouts and the warriors would only gain half armor from their shields.
You know what the best counter for the so-called "uber weakness" is? Hmm..try killing stuff? It took a whole 5 seconds to seperate the warriors, 1 per monk and 1 on the necro, and then another 15-20 seconds to kill them. Whether the team was coordinated or not it doesn't matter. If you have someone spamming weakness on you then either:
1)kill him
2)remove weakness
3)Forget about weakness and do whatever you are supposed to do.
There is a reason monks in gvg have those strange secondaries, for example warrior and assassin. Even though it helps them stop those warrior spikes, they can also manage their energy by not using skills whenever they are recharged.
If your expertise gets so messed up by being lowered by just 1 then learn when to use your skills and stop complaining.
25 Jan 2007 at 20:56 - 59
I don't really care to spent much time on replying the that came out of the keyboard of some retarded monkey.
Don't come here saying we don't know our skills, retard.
26 Jan 2007 at 00:58 - 60
Personal attacks don't help anyone.
26 Jan 2007 at 05:12 - 61
Quote:
1)kill him
2)remove weakness
3)Forget about weakness and do whatever you are supposed to do
.
Imo thats a really dumb thing to say.
Lets consider ways to stop the A of grenth dervish shall we. By your logic people shouldnt compain at all because you can simply
1)Kill him/her
2)Interrupt the skill
3)Forget about the Avatar of Grenth derv and do whatever you are supposed to do.
Never mind that each of your points has large problems and sub-difficulties to do.
26 Jan 2007 at 08:51 - 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jesh
Personal attacks don't help anyone.
The troll should have kept that in mind when posting.
26 Jan 2007 at 17:52 - 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haijiibirdhead
.
Imo thats a really dumb thing to say.
Lets consider ways to stop the A of grenth dervish shall we. By your logic people shouldnt compain at all because you can simply
1)Kill him/her
2)Interrupt the skill
3)Forget about the Avatar of Grenth derv and do whatever you are supposed to do.
Never mind that each of your points has large problems and sub-difficulties to do.
|
|
If you can't live without your precious enchantments or you can't kill a person then don't even bother playing the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy Awien
The troll should have kept that in mind when posting.
what?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amy Awien
I don't really care to spent much time on replying the that came out of the keyboard of some retarded monkey.
Don't come here saying we don't know our skills, retard.
Since we are going to flame each other I guess we can start with your english. I don't really care to spent??? much time on replying the that came out of the keyboard of some retarded monkey????? Did you let your autistic brother type for you again?
There's a little thing called "L2P" you should go try it.
26 Jan 2007 at 18:21 - 64
So it's about spelling now? Well, it is weakness and not weekness, and the word monkey was spelled correctly. Oh, and your use of punctuation needs a little more attention.
26 Jan 2007 at 19:22 - 65
I've heard rumors that spelling (and Antartica) may play a key role in Chapter 4, but that's neither here nor there.
To return to the previous topic, among the few spirited defenses of this change to Weakness, none have made it clear to me, how it improves game play. I'd deeply appreciate the kind of well-reasoned explication that, for example, Amy Awien, XvArchonvX and SnipiousMax have posted on a number of topics elsewhere. One poster noted a global trend towards speed which, in and of itself, doesn't imply quality, and may in fact preclude depth in some situations.
26 Jan 2007 at 19:54 - 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalPlantagenet
...One poster noted a global trend towards speed which, in and of itself, doesn't imply quality, and may in fact preclude depth in some situations.
If I'm understanding this correctly (and I'm still working on my coffee...), you're saying there could be an argument for making the change to weakness while leaving the spammable factor in? In one sense yes it would still be 'balanced' in that it'd be available to anyone to spam, but on the other side wouldn't this defeat the purpose of balancing if everyone brought it because it was effective cheap and spammable? I'd like to see conditions be harder to remove slightly more dangerous overall and harder to apply personally (yeah old skool Ranger thinkin), but if one is easy to apply and has a good effect I think its safe to assume it will see a lot of use. This basically precludes the assumed goal of making more builds/skills playable right?
26 Jan 2007 at 20:07 - 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by lennymon
If I'm understanding this correctly (and I'm still working on my coffee...), you're saying there could be an argument for making the change to weakness while leaving the spammable factor in? In one sense yes it would still be 'balanced' in that it'd be available to anyone to spam, but on the other side wouldn't this defeat the purpose of balancing if everyone brought it because it was effective cheap and spammable? I'd like to see conditions be harder to remove slightly more dangerous overall and harder to apply personally (yeah old skool Ranger thinkin), but if one is easy to apply and has a good effect I think its safe to assume it will see a lot of use. This basically precludes the assumed goal of making more builds/skills playable right?
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I wasn't making that argument at all. Rather, I was asking one of the defenders of this change to Weakness to offer a clear and well-reasoned exposition of how it would improve game play, not just for Rangers but for any or all professions simply because I don't see how it can.
My personal point of view at this stage, is similar to your own.
27 Jan 2007 at 05:54 - 68
Weakness with the change now is a viable condition in itself - it will make for a more varied solo-metagame which I think can only be a good thing. Condition removal choices are strong at the moment.
You can argue that all the previous weakness causing skills were balanced around the previous version, but they weren't. Weakness in itself was a joke. It saw use in comboing into various skills (Dev->Crushing->Fierce, Enfeebling Blood->Oppressive Gaze), but as something that would be run for itself it was garbage. Those skills were never balanced, they were allways horrible. IN it's old version enfeeble could have lasted for 60s and nobody would have particularly cared.
They might need a slight tweak now, but overall they look well balanced. Weakness is a weaker condition than Blind when dealing with physicals and a weaker condition that dazed when dealing with casters, however it's easier to apply and has some utility in both.
Will it mess around with breakpoints? Yes. That's the whole point of this change, to make it a condition with some potential. Is it overpowered? I'd argue personally that if someone can keep weakness on you for 21s without you removing it, then you're going to lose anyway because you clearly don't have counters to conditions. In the short run (5-10s), it's not going to punish you particularly hard and if you can't remove it in that time then you may as well resign yourself to losing anyway because you're facing someone built on conditions and you have no counters...
Does it excessively impact classes? There is no class that is really immune to it - monks play for enchant length breaks, warriors play requirement breaks on shields, elementalists look at breaks for just about every utility spell they have, mesmers commonly run at 14 dom only because there's no point beyond it, rangers are obvious, assassins get hit on CS, ritualists nobody cares enough about but they do have important breaks, paragons their leadership gets hit and dervishes mysticiism gets a major hit.
27 Jan 2007 at 15:40 - 69
Well said. I do think the Weakness duration on current skills will have to be shortened a bit for the change to be balanced though.
27 Jan 2007 at 17:13 - 70
DGB: You premise this on the assertion that the previous weakness was not a viable condition. This is a false assertion.
Even right now on the master of whispers I carry either enfeebling blood or enfeeble, as well as shadow of fear for PvE purposes. What is the net result of those two skills? I know quite a few people who will swear by enfeeble/enfeebling bloods old utility. (some of whom just were holding hall of heroes last night, and most of whom are hardcore PvP players).
One, any physical attacker has it's attack speed cut in half (50% damage reduction in damage).
Two, any physical attacker has it's DAMAGE cut by 66% due to the weakness condition.
The net result, of those two conditions is an astounding 16% damage output by physical enemies, but by far the larger portion of the effect comes not from the hex, but from the unbuffed/underappreciated weakness condition!
I repeat my earlier assertion. Weakness was a viable condition in it's own right before this. Simply not appreciated in it's effects. People still saw people hitting them, and don't realize how much it was helping them by reducing damage output. People saw themselves still getting hit, and drew the incorrect conclusion that it was less valuable than the harder to apply blind. They could clearly see, blinded foes have that nifty on-screen visual and you can know someone missing you w/ that is due to blind. People see the (weaker IMO) bleed and see someone slowly degenerating and think it's helping them more.
So I'm sorry, the loss of one rank on most things isn't that significant FOR MOST CLASSES... ohh the fireball hit for 8 less before armor (which means after armor it hit for probably only 5 less). Physicals still need to contend w/ the 66% damage reduction! And now on top of it you're asking rangers in particular to pay 50% more for 66% reduced effect?! This strikes me as a solid law of unintended consequences result here. I'm against any easy to apply condition reducing anyone from 200 down to less than 150 attribute points as well as garnering it's prior damage reduction effects.
30 Jan 2007 at 17:53 - 71
First, many thanks dgb, for your clear, well-supported response, which in turn prompted Falconer's incisive comments which I find particularly pertinent.
One of the most complex issues in Guild Wars, (and many other games) is understanding the magnitude of an effect. You can see the developers trying to deal with it, for example, by providing the turtorial zones to help novice players understand the various types of range zones and the effect of skills in them. One of Falconer's key points is that players often don't understand the magnitude of the current effect of Weakness. This change would only make it more inscrutable.
Monks and Warriors may be the two most common of the core classes. They also may be the most difficult to play well. Monks, in particular, require exceptional strategic insight. At any given instant he or she must choose one of many problems on several characters to solve. This change to Weakness makes measuring the severity of that condition on a character significantly more difficult to judge, particularly in a PUG in which the particulars of a ranger's attribute point settings may not have been shared.
Again, thanks to you both.
30 Jan 2007 at 18:03 - 72
I think it's just another condition that needs to be removed, I mean there are much worst things then this, dazed and blind for example.
The arguement about the rangers expertise attribute, well what do you rather be? Blinded or have -1 on expertise?
The arguement about Warriors weapon attribute, mmm as far I remember PvP weapons are all r9, you re running 9 on weaponmastery? Oh and anyway, if you have weakness on you, you're not going to deal much dmg anyway, with or with not right attribute, If you are doing pve then ask mhenlo to kindly remove it instead of healing breeze you.
The arguement about Warriors sentinel armor, mm I honestly dont know many warriors that dont use gladiators armor but anyway, its just another condition, deal with it, I rather have weakness on my monk then dazed and I rather have weakness on my ranger then blind ^_^.
Just my 2 cents.
30 Jan 2007 at 18:53 - 73
the change to weakness was only temporary for that "test weekend" it wasnt a permanent change....thats what it says on wiki under updates.
30 Jan 2007 at 19:08 - 74
It's not just another condition to remove. Weakness already has a strong negative effect on characters that inflict physical damage, including rangers, by reducing damage by 2/3.
Although the proposed change, to lower all attributes by 1, seems to be intended - or so it is argued - to extend it's effect to casters, but it affects those professions that were already strongly affected by it - rangers, assasins, paragons ... - more then these casters.
It is not about condition removal, or which negative condition you'd prefer your character to suffer from. In designing a (team and character) 'build' many choices and compromises have to be made and the change in weakness will have it's effect on these choices. A stronger 'push' to reduce the negative effect of the changed Weakness would reduce the characters abilities in other area's.
30 Jan 2007 at 19:57 - 75
I think weakness and a lot of the other skills were buffed for pvp use. the point was that they never see the light of day except as a cover condition or a cheap way to fulfil some requirement in pvp. For example blind bots use enervating charge to cover the blind. I ~believe~ the intention is to make these skills viable in pvp without completely unbalancing pve, the change to weakness makes it useable in pvp, but perhaps too much so, in light of which I wouldn't expect it to remain as is. The condition change alone is viable but in order to make it balanced in pvp it would take a fair number of ancillary changes that I think Anet probably won't have the time to do.
Weakness as it is pretty much doesn't do so well, while on the surface -66% damage seems great, it isn't in reality since it only affects the base damage. Any skill +damage in unaffected, rendering it a weaker condition for pvp. If you want to shut down a rampaging thumper/warrior/cripshotter you blind them, it works better.
I'm for the changed paradigm in theory, but the more I think about it I come to the conclusion that even if it sticks it will be less effective than the testing weekend. This is due mainly to the Discord thing (others likely would crop up though). Perhaps if it did something like reduced a ~random~ (used) attribute by 2 points or just shortened it's duration?
30 Jan 2007 at 21:34 - 76
Bleeding isn't particularly usefull, as it is, except as cover. Perhaps it is more useable by itself when the degeneration is increased to the level of poison. Or perhaps bleeding and poison should both be boosted to give the same degen as burning?
A boosted Weakness might indeed better be accompanied by a shorter duration, or making it harder to apply.
31 Jan 2007 at 00:00 - 77
Bleeding is still better than Weakness.
-
31 Jan 2007 at 02:49 - 78
Amy, if you playing in HA/GVG/TA or anywhere conditions matters and dont have condition removal, then you fail and its not weakness fault ^_^, I gave a very good point, dont come and tell me that its just not another condition that needs to be removed because it is, and a blind or dazed is much much worst then that, so deal with it, and stop crying.
31 Jan 2007 at 02:53 - 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch Masterr
the change to weakness was only temporary for that "test weekend" it wasnt a permanent change....thats what it says on wiki under updates.
Yup... which is why i grew bored of this topic. If they decide to implement this retarded new weakness in the next 'Test weekend' (Anet seem to be calling skill updates weekend events now, will the fun ever stop!?) when they become permanent, subject to change from small updates later on (sure.. on those that are found to be overly abusive/powerful, like they'll care about the ones that suck).
31 Jan 2007 at 07:59 - 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legendary Ultimatum
I gave a very good point ...
|
No, you didn't, there was hardly any point in your post that had any merit. You also did not address any of the points given earlier, nor do you seem to even understand the full effect of this change.
Quote:
... and stop crying.
|
And this is such a strong point?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dutch Masterr
the change to weakness was only temporary for that "test weekend"
True, and the changes were supposed to be discussed. That's why I posted here, to point people to the Test-forums.
| |
