UnKnownAngel
Leading Contributor
* ...waits for ciz post about making repent work in pk again lol *
InnerSight
- Thread starter Arma
- Start date
Arma
Active Member
"We have balance already, why do you want to fuck it up?" - If you can't understand that your own comment here is making a direct connection between the buff I'm asking for and you saying it will ruin the balance of the game then you need help.
You scream about the balance of the game are you Thanos? And yet then you turn around and say "Oh but it wouldn't make Wizard's OP" So then what is the bloody problem? You're basically saying "Well this buff wouldn't change anything about Wizards" and yet at the very same time "REEEEEEEEEEEE THE BALANCE THE BALANCE OF THE CLASSES REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
You can't seem to give me any evidence other than pulling some bullshit numbers out your ass "105%!!!!!!!!! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" Well done I can make up a number too and say "well in fact Inner-Sight is only 5% so this buff would bring it up to 10% making the total 100%!!!!"
You claim this has nothing to do with PvP. Now the reason I assumed you were against this was because 99% of this game when it comes to arguments about the classes and their skills is due to PvP.
So by your own words! YOUR OWN WORDS you have to argue the point that this buff shouldn't go through because it will effect the balance of the classes when it comes to PvE... You've done nothing to support this instead you've, as I've stated pulled numbers out your ass and then screamed about a balance.
So either shut the fuck up or go gather the stones.
UnKnownAngel
Leading Contributor
Why is this flaming so much? I love a flame but I honestly cannot see where the issue lies to be honest. In my opinion it's not a game breaking request and the simple answer is yes or no by a gm
Where are the devs!
Where are the devs!
deanouk23
Active Member
Think this is one of the awkward after sex things.
UnKnownAngel
Leading Contributor
Lol we gonna see that part soon. We are at the full blown argument stage and make up sex is probably over due
Arma
Active Member
Because it's exhausting trying to talk to someone who clearly has a much lower intellect. It's like talking to a child. You try to put forward points and instead of a decent reply you get utter bullshit as an answer then the idiot sits back and smiles like he's said something clever. He's done nothing but utter rubbish and scream about balance without giving any evidence or in fact anything really to back up why the buff shouldn't go through.
If he had said "Well if you buff up the skill X will happen" but he hasn't done that at all due to the very simple fact. There is no reason why this buff shouldn't go through when it's exactly the same buff that the Warrior and Taoist have just with a lower duration.
UnKnownAngel
Leading Contributor
Isnt ultimate enhancer 10mins now ? You said it was 5, it got changed I'm sure, and damage field was extended previously from 90 sec to 5min too. Maybe someone can confirm but I am sure that what happened, so yeah if that's the case then there must be a reason that inner sight hasnt been increased, unless it was overlooked. Who knows, we need a reply from the big man
Arma
Active Member
I'll log onto my Taoist now and quick check
Just checked. Level 3 Ultimate Enhancer is 300 seconds
I know I might seem and sound unreasonable but in my mind I see no reason why the spell can't be extended to have a 5 minute duration. If the big boss replies and says "well this is the reason" I'll settle down.
Last edited:
UnKnownAngel
Leading Contributor
Either way, the UE is rightly longer, it's a party buff. I think damage field and inner sight should be viewed the same, but separate from UE. As they do not work the same in terms that those are personal and the taoist can cast his on other players.
Arma
Active Member
Well in that case would anyone be against having Damage Field and Inner-Sight as 5 minute duration's and UE as a 7 minute or longer duration? Since it is a party buff?
Maybe bring it in line with the other defensive buffs Taoist's give. Soul Shield and Blessed Armour I think they are called?
UnKnownAngel
Leading Contributor
Fair enough, you would expect me to know UE duration, I think UE should be seen as a separate skill for the reasons I said plus the fact it is not a free cast, it cannot be used without amulet equipped like the others.
I also think damage field was actually 180 sec and it was increased, damage field & protection field, had the same length of time as berserk and the other 2 got changed because someone asked for it on forum. So yes I agree innersight should be the same time as the others. It wouldnt break the game at all or even affect it what so ever.
I also think damage field was actually 180 sec and it was increased, damage field & protection field, had the same length of time as berserk and the other 2 got changed because someone asked for it on forum. So yes I agree innersight should be the same time as the others. It wouldnt break the game at all or even affect it what so ever.
UnKnownAngel
Leading Contributor
Yeah those ones are 10mins, I dunno I dont feel like I'm at a disadvantage with 5mins on a Tao, clearly doesnt affect me because I got it wrong and I use it every day!
I can see your point on inner sight though
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah I thought that dean, but I just dont feel like that's ever going to happen. As probably the same as many others I have full set of f1 - f8 dedicated to buffs
I can see your point on inner sight though
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah I thought that dean, but I just dont feel like that's ever going to happen. As probably the same as many others I have full set of f1 - f8 dedicated to buffs
deanouk23
Active Member
Only thing that puts me off playing tao, feels like you have to decide to leave spells out, which shouldn't be the case.
If you just want to insult me then do it in game though pm. No need to air your dirty pants in public.
I have given a perfectly reasonable explication but because it’s not leading towards the result you want, your not happy.
I will try one more time though.
You have clearly read the forums, there are many posts about skills. I think it can be agreed by most that we have balance. Let’s call that a whole pie. What your asking for is an extra time buff (Another slither of pie).
Now personally I couldn’t give a hoot if this buff was increased (And you keep eating pie), but where does it stop? “Oh wizzies just got this extra buff so can warriors have this?” (Please gm can I have some ice cream with my pie) Believe it not that last bit was was the foundation to my thoughts behind first post on this thread, maybe I should have been clearer.
Yuni I’m sorry to have caused you grief over this, I hope you get your extra Pie!
Arma
Active Member
"Now personally I couldn’t give a hoot if this buff was increased" - Well that made me laugh for a solid 5 minutes.
If the spell got buffed you wouldn't even notice. The game would carry on like normal nothing would change in the slightest. I can bet 100% if one of your friends in your guild made this post you wouldn't of questioned it for a second.
People bringing forward ideas for change allows a game to grow and develop, it seems to me that you wouldn't change anything about the game ever. No game is balanced. We like to pretend they are so we don't get angry and how unfair games really are.
What is wrong with changing a few things? As you said I've looked through the forums and many changes have been asked for some of them minor some of them major. As with the PvP thread where I believe someone asked for a skill to have a 1 minute cd instead of 20 seconds. Now that is a radical change and could warrant a large argument over with both parties showing the downsides and the upsides to such a change.
I'm not so short sighted to not see others points as when it was pointed out UE is a group buff and should be viewed differently to Damage Field and Inner Sight. Well then I put forward the idea of having Inner Sight and Damage Field to 5 minutes while UE goes up to 7 minutes or maybe more.
The one point you have made finally. Is that is one class gets a buff doesn't that open the door for the other two classes to start claiming they want buffs too. THANK YOU. At least now we can have a proper discussion about it, where you have put forward a valid point to your side of this disagreement. However you're talking about what "Might" happen not will happen. If the GM of any game did as you do no game would ever have changes done to it. And anyway as we have seen. People can ask for a buff doesn't mean they will get it. I doubt Inner Sight will get buffed but I just put forward the idea just in case. And if the spell does get buffed and people who play other classes start asking for a buff I'm sure there will be people to either show their support for such a claim or on the other side show that the buff they are asking for is either too powerful or just dumb.
You have mentioned about one of your warrior skills getting buffed. I don't see a problem with that in the slightest. The issue I brought up is you can't compare it to Inner Sight. I never said it shouldn't have an increased duration at all. If people want the GM to buff or nerf a spell they have to provide evidence to back up their claim. Mine was that there are two other spells in the game that do the same thing (Excluding Taoist's being able to share their buff) and yet the Wizard's duration is lower. You could claim your skill has the lowest duration in the game and it's a pretty valuable skill and when you're in the middle of a boss fight that lasts between 9-12 minutes having such a short duration on a skill is tough. (I don't know I'm just guessing since I don't have a high level warrior) but at least you've shown evidence to back up your claim like I did with mine. And it's the same for when you want to argue against someone's claim. You have to bring evidence. Solid evidence not just "If that happens then something else might happen and then that has a chance to lead onto something else"
If you look at back your first post you gave no level of evidence to back up your claim all you did was say "Lets talk about two other different spells" and "Wizards have enough anyway" You have to understand that, that seems like you came into this thread just to start an disagreement with no real way to back up what you claim.