Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 67

Thread: Ranger spell review

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donquix View Post
    You realize 611 is a disable right? It's not just "616 does more damage"
    You know what else was a disable? 616. 9 out of 10 it stunned those that could be stunned. It dropped to the ground those that were hit by it. This "immobilize" effect, while I am not knocking the spell, isn't the problem. The problem is that these are requirements to enhance a spell to a pre-existing level. 616 alone now does shit damage, shit criticals, shit disables, AND you throw in the fact that adepts and seers are now dodging your ass like they are shaolin fucking monks.

    Also, I'm still irritated at the fact that there has been no official documentation, even on the spell review sheet, other than "Convert to SMRv2". It was the SINGLE most non-descriptive spell change out of the list. Now you know why. Because they couldn't even come out and say what the plan was because they knew it would be shit on, like what is being done now.

    It's always better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drumpel View Post
    That kind of change would work better for a class that utilize Rapid Fire:
    incant 611 and incant 616 in 2 seconds, instead of 6 seconds (well, technically about 4 seconds)

    Nothing better than standing in front of a target, hoping it doesn't get a chance to kick your ass while you're waiting for your casting RT to end just because NIR thought it was fun to require setups for the new 616.


    This is the biggest argument to de-nerf the spell that I have with the changes right now

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    If the current change to 616 is any indication of what a knock down/disabler spell that worked well is getting changed into, I'm concerned they're going to nerf the shit out of 410 once they shift it over to SMRv2.

    Or they'll design some stupid setup spell to make 410 more powerful....like needing to cast 402 first on the target or maybe having 409 boost 410 effectiveness if you can successfully ward the target.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    5,778

    Default

    Naijin wants longer combat. Not surprised spike thorn was merged and put behind setups that will add to total attack times.

  5. #35

    Default

    more rt = more fun!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khorpulent View Post
    more rt = more fun!
    Longer durations for everything makes the game more fun!

    Remember when they changed how you can enchant by building in a limiting factor (essence pool) and a secondary limiting factor (slowly building essence based on the pulse system) , with a tertiary limiting factor (slow reduction to the amount of essence you can earn per kill based on the creature level, then slap on some penalty for having essence in your pool while you're trying to build it up), on top the already in place restrictions (item properties and their difficulties) to prevent wizards from enchanting any item they wanted too fast?

    Remember when they nerfed rapid fire to have a restrictive cool down period with EMC?

    Remember when a strongly trained EL:F wizard had decent kill rates with 519?

    Remember when they split the Haste spell (506) into two spells and neither one is beneficial enough on it's own, so you still need to cast 506 for certain tasks that 535 doesn't cover? What kind of stupidity is that?


  7. Default

    You want more faster? Give us $10,000 dollars for these nifty boots!

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeletor View Post
    You want more faster? Give us $10,000 dollars for these nifty boots!
    $27,000 *

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    minneapolis
    Posts
    155

    Default

    This may have already been mentioned but it looks like once u hit 100 ranks of ranger, especially for a melee build, its worth more putting tps into lore? For tangleweed etc..

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galactic View Post
    This may have already been mentioned but it looks like once u hit 100 ranks of ranger, especially for a melee build, its worth more putting tps into lore? For tangleweed etc..
    I'm in the minority here, but IMO Summoning is worth it from the get-go. Without it, it's like our spells don't do what they're designed to do 75% of the time.

Similar Threads

  1. Paladin spell review
    By Dendum in forum Gemstone News
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 03-30-2015, 09:14 PM
  2. Ranger Spell
    By SoulSeer in forum Ranger
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-03-2012, 12:31 AM
  3. Paladin Spell and Lore Review
    By Fallen in forum Paladin
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 09:07 PM
  4. Ranger spell changes
    By Drew in forum Ranger
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-01-2004, 10:12 PM
  5. Ranger spell training?
    By gcstader in forum Ranger
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-22-2004, 10:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •