Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Gravity Nerf...

  1. #51
    Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Creelo View Post
    No one reads. My message is simple: I would have preferred SE keep Distract I/IIs numbers as they currently are (-35/-50 base) along with Gravity I/II still giving Evasion -10/-25. This would only help Rdm and this would prevent the nerf on WSs like Mordant Rime/Rudra's Storm.

    It's literally that simple. I wanted to just leave this thread altogether but the fact that people just don't get it boggles my mind.
    It was gotten weeks ago. SE choose not to go that route. Does that boggle your mind that much?

    For what its worth, if it was changed as you say, you'd still have /Rdms giving -45 eva, compared to Rdms giving -75. -30 more eva compared to the current -15 more doesn't magically make that more desirable. Specially when a Geo gives several times that difference in -eva, and they're still not magically wanted.
    (0)
    7/10/14

  2. #52
    Player Trangnai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    98
    Character
    Rivicus
    World
    Asura
    Main Class
    RDM Lv 99
    When it comes down to it. I think he is just stating a simple fact of "why even do this?". Meanwhile we are all sitting here defending SEs decision. Some of the best WSes and JAs had Gravity Linked to them for the evasion down effect of the status (because Melee Jobs are really going to kite, right?). If the nerf wasn't done these skills would have more use on top of rdm being able to bring more to the table.

    Creelo is simply trying to make a point and people are running in like "Well the numbers say this!" and his only response can be "You only have those numbers thanks to me...". I think while we all understand and stand by SEs decision we also haven't simply asked why it was even necessary to begin with. None of us understand how a lil more evasion down is considered broken by SE. I fail to understand myself. But the removal of Gravity's Eva down effect doesn't hinder us too much.
    (1)

  3. #53
    Player Creelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    265
    Character
    Creelo
    World
    Sylph
    Main Class
    BRD Lv 99
    Quote Originally Posted by Malithar View Post
    It was gotten weeks ago. SE choose not to go that route. Does that boggle your mind that much?

    For what its worth, if it was changed as you say, you'd still have /Rdms giving -45 eva, compared to Rdms giving -75. -30 more eva compared to the current -15 more doesn't magically make that more desirable. Specially when a Geo gives several times that difference in -eva, and they're still not magically wanted.
    Was it? According to the last few posts by others before my post today, it seemed quite the opposite. And anyways dude, at this point I really don't care if they change it back lol, because I know they won't (I've even stated in this thread they probably wouldn't). I'm just tired of people not understanding my perspective, when I personally feel it's not very difficult to grasp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Creelo View Post
    I would have preferred SE keep Distract I/IIs numbers as they currently are (-35/-50 base) along with Gravity I/II still giving Evasion -10/-25. This would only help Rdm and this would prevent the nerf on WSs like Mordant Rime/Rudra's Storm.
    I was just simply stating my opinion; I truly cannot break it down more. What I would have preferred is nothing but a buff for Rdms and /rdm alike over the current potency and options of Gravity/Distract, yet there are still people that argue against it. This boggles my mind.

    Malithar, my mind is not boggled at all over SE's response or balance logic lol. If you actually read my post before jumping the gun to attack it, maybe you'd understand where my frustration is directed.

    And finally, I've never said this kind of adjustment would automatically guarantee a party spot for Rdm; I've just said it would be a nice extra tool for Rdm over what they currently have, thus ultimately helping their job, especially in party play. And -30 is twice as big as -15... that's a pretty significant jump in the gap lol
    (1)

  4. #54
    Player Creelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    265
    Character
    Creelo
    World
    Sylph
    Main Class
    BRD Lv 99
    Quote Originally Posted by Trangnai View Post
    I think while we all understand and stand by SEs decision we also haven't simply asked why it was even necessary to begin with. None of us understand how a lil more evasion down is considered broken by SE. I fail to understand myself. But the removal of Gravity's Eva down effect doesn't hinder us too much.
    This is basically it, I think. For me, I'm just questioning if it would have been a big deal had they gone with Distract's -35/-50 in addition to Gravity still giving an evasion down effect. Like did a situation like this ever cross their minds during developing these new Rdm spells? Considering what other jobs can bring, would that extra bit of evasion down be that broken?

    Since SE has clearly stated that Distract's number couldn't even exist without Gravity losing its Evasion down and they aren't going to reinstate Gravity's Evasion down too, it really is all moot. I just find their "balancing" act ridiculous. And ultimately like Trangnai has said, it really isn't that big of a deal; it just irked me some when reading the patch notes weeks ago.

    I'm sorry if I offended anyone during this thread.
    (1)

  5. #55
    Player Babekeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Windurst
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Trangnai View Post
    Some of the best WSes and JAs had Gravity Linked to them for the evasion down effect of the status (because Melee Jobs are really going to kite, right?).
    Shadowbind says hi.
    (0)

  6. #56
    Player Damane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    715
    Character
    Damane
    World
    Phoenix
    Main Class
    DNC Lv 99
    Quote Originally Posted by Creelo View Post
    This is basically it, I think. For me, I'm just questioning if it would have been a big deal had they gone with Distract's -35/-50 in addition to Gravity still giving an evasion down effect. Like did a situation like this ever cross their minds during developing these new Rdm spells? Considering what other jobs can bring, would that extra bit of evasion down be that broken?

    Since SE has clearly stated that Distract's number couldn't even exist without Gravity losing its Evasion down and they aren't going to reinstate Gravity's Evasion down too, it really is all moot. I just find their "balancing" act ridiculous. And ultimately like Trangnai has said, it really isn't that big of a deal; it just irked me some when reading the patch notes weeks ago.

    I'm sorry if I offended anyone during this thread.
    distract II -50 eva is comparable to Blade Madrigal (when cast with fully upgraded gjallarhorn no less) or 1 Geo/indi-Precision. frazzle has probably the same potency as geo/indi-languor. Saboteur distract II is -110 eva (every 5 min!), thats basicly almost 2x soul voice madrigals cast with a gjallarhorn (+5 songs!). I think SEs decision to remove gravitys evasion down while makeing distract land on almost anything is pretty reasonable and a good decision by itself. Would you rather have seen distract not land on almost anything but keep the -evasion on gravity?

    all they need to do now is make Temper castable on PT members and make Afflatus Solace work as a SJ and RDM would be in a very very very good competitiv spot against whm or as support role against cor/brd/geo.
    (0)
    Last edited by Damane; 07-28-2014 at 06:06 AM.

  7. #57
    Player
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,098
    I'd be ok with a Temper II spell that can be cast on other players, not Temper itself however.
    (0)

  8. #58
    Player
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    453
    i'd rather have an entemper effect where other players in your party get it when you strike the enemy. Less casting, more meleeing!
    (2)

  9. #59
    Player
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,098
    That works too, though it'd likely take away from en-spells as a result, something I'd rather them fix than replace honestly. : /
    (1)

  10. 07-29-2014 12:49 PM

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6