I am pretty sure,
>that if the Imms held
>a vote here on who
>agrees with this change, it
>would be like 75% (against)
>vs 25%, if not more
>even.

They put a poll already that was horridly biased and leading towards the answer they want. It came down quickly when protested.

Yes, fighting
>classes will be a bit
>weaker in the low ranks,
>but they will still beat
>the crap out of mages,
>shapeshifters included.

At low ranks beating the crap out of mages is nothing to write home about.

And if you
>tank for your group from
>time to time, your defences
>will be perfect or very
>close to perfect by rank
>25-30 (depending on your int).

More people then I can count have sounded off on this by experience. Ive seen posts stating there are people in mid 40s with 2 skill improvements after tanking the way through. This is not what I call improving smartly.

>Roll up a
>warrior, rank a bit, see
>how the skills progress. And
>if it actually goes bad
> like by rank 35 you
>still have 90% parry), come
>and post about it here,
>then the imms might actually
>listen to you. Otherwise, you
>are just wasting your time.


I havent played in couple weeks for multiple reasons but from what I hear, nobody has 90%+ at rank 35. Of course the imms keep eluding to ways to make them improve "just as fast" or "faster" we also hear fromt he battlefront that tanking groups apparently does NOT do the trick. SO...maybe the imm's mort have nice defences. They know how to do it, I would bet anything that the majority of them grin when they see some improvements coming their way in their defences.

To think that a person with straights 75%s tanks even remotely as well as a person with JUST his defences perfected is absurd.

POSTER'S DISCLAIMER: "Of course....I don't play anymore, but its just my 2 cents."