|
Kstatida | Wed 08-Feb-17 12:45 PM |
Member since 12th Feb 2015
2214 posts
|   |
|
#66887, "RE: That doesn't matter."
Edited on Wed 08-Feb-17 12:45 PM
|
>Warriors may be less likely to have higher GOMs due to lack of
>AOE, but that would be the only difference.
Which effectively is the only aspect of antigank code that matters in 2 on 1. So long story short, it seems that the only class that is impacted by 2 on 1 anti-gank code is bards.
Which is why I propose raising the threshold specifically for them.
|
|
|
 A bard anti-gank code suggestion
[View all] , Kstatida, Wed 08-Feb-17 09:07 AM
  RE: A bard anti-gank code suggestion,
Jormyr,
08-Feb-17 01:38 PM, #23
  I knew I was good,
Ganky bard (Anonymous),
08-Feb-17 02:47 PM, #24
RE: I knew I was good,
Jormyr,
08-Feb-17 03:00 PM, #25
It's not about Zagaer,
Kstatida,
08-Feb-17 03:10 PM, #26
RE: It's not about Zagaer,
incognito,
09-Feb-17 02:05 AM, #30
Mind sharing your edge points with me?,
Ganky bard (Anonymous),
09-Feb-17 02:29 AM, #33
Yeah, Daurvryn, give him EP so he can gank,
Murphy,
09-Feb-17 02:36 AM, #34
Worry not, I'm gonna share some with you,
Ganky bard (Anonymous),
09-Feb-17 02:40 AM, #36
RE: Mind sharing your edge points with me?,
incognito,
09-Feb-17 09:52 AM, #38
See above,
Kstatida,
09-Feb-17 09:07 AM, #37
As implemented, code is counter-productive,
Saagkri,
08-Feb-17 12:48 PM, #19
I think it's based on current GoM,
Kstatida,
08-Feb-17 12:51 PM, #20
Songs never fail 1 v 1,
lasentia,
08-Feb-17 12:56 PM, #21
Correct,
Saagkri,
09-Feb-17 01:25 PM, #41
Kill 20 people solo and you're back on track,
Kstatida,
10-Feb-17 04:18 AM, #42
It looks to me like this is one thing (not that there a...,
TJHuron,
08-Feb-17 09:58 AM, #6
This isn't about the sole purpose ganking character,
Kstatida,
08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, #9
Been there since my first bard ,
lasentia,
08-Feb-17 12:05 PM, #14
My fiends were useless as a Elf Romantic.,
TMNS,
08-Feb-17 03:44 PM, #27
I agree but not re high int issue,
incognito,
09-Feb-17 02:08 AM, #31
the only edge we can afford these days,
Murphy,
09-Feb-17 02:39 AM, #35
I actually don't like this,
lasentia,
08-Feb-17 09:33 AM, #4
On the other hand,
Kstatida,
08-Feb-17 11:23 AM, #8
Well no,
lasentia,
08-Feb-17 11:51 AM, #10
Warriors don't have AOE attacks.,
Murphy,
08-Feb-17 12:03 PM, #12
That doesn't matter.,
lasentia,
08-Feb-17 12:09 PM, #15
RE: That doesn't matter.,
Kstatida,
08-Feb-17 12:45 PM #18
I looked at it.,
Murphy,
08-Feb-17 10:15 PM, #29
RE: On the other hand,
Grembolin (Anonymous),
08-Feb-17 11:55 AM, #11
Nobody cares,
Murphy,
08-Feb-17 12:04 PM, #13
Butthurt?,
Grembolin (Anonymous),
08-Feb-17 12:12 PM, #16
About what?,
Murphy,
08-Feb-17 10:40 PM, #28
Haha,
Grembolin (Anonymous),
09-Feb-17 11:05 AM, #39
Your hatred for ragers is obvious,
Kstatida,
09-Feb-17 12:21 PM, #40
You've posted the log.,
Kstatida,
08-Feb-17 12:27 PM, #17
RE: You've posted the log.,
Grembolin (Anonymous),
08-Feb-17 01:21 PM, #22
I'd like to see them lower the anti-gank threshold acro...,
Sarien,
08-Feb-17 09:09 AM, #1
Knowing your bias,
Kstatida,
08-Feb-17 09:12 AM, #2
The current super-gank bunch isn't limited to only gank...,
Sarien,
08-Feb-17 09:14 AM, #3
And you address it how?,
Murphy,
08-Feb-17 09:42 AM, #5
How I'd address it? Probably wouldn't be popular,
Sarien,
08-Feb-17 10:18 AM, #7
RE: The current super-gank bunch isn't limited to only ...,
incognito,
09-Feb-17 02:14 AM, #32
| |
|
