Haha - was wondering where you went.Ariannda Kusanagi wrote:Dd made my power go off by reminding me not to use reactive heals... actually maybe USING them is what cut power to my whole complex.
THANKS A LOT DDRAK !
Dd
Haha - was wondering where you went.Ariannda Kusanagi wrote:Dd made my power go off by reminding me not to use reactive heals... actually maybe USING them is what cut power to my whole complex.
THANKS A LOT DDRAK !
I much prefer DPS groups over the classic makeup. To this date, one of the best (and funniest) groups I've been in was 5 mages + 1 druid. Spam nukes + air pets = shitloads of damage output and pretty constant mob stun. Usually a baddie wouldn't be able to make it into the camp before it was dead, and even if it did, whoever had aggro just ran around for a couple seconds.Turaylon Soulshadow wrote:I actually preferred a bard over an enchanter in a group since I could just get on my friend's enchanter for buffs. Me, Cleric, Bard, Mage, Mage, Beastlord was probably the best group makeup I remember playing with. Excessive DPS always makes up for a bad Cleric if the tank is able to live through one mob.Kulaf wrote:Didn't need an Enchanter in a group.....that was just a crutch. A good Bard could fill in for any enchanter on almost any group content.
You said "I've never heard such a blatantly false statement in my life", oh really? That just comes off pretty melodramatic for what he said. It was just his opinion and that he dared use a word like "skill"in a way you didn't feel fitting.I don't feel it was an over reaction. It's not like I typed out a 6 paragraph essay or filled it with cursing and insults or anything. I'm just saying that Turaylon's use of the word skill seems out of place.
Well, here's the way I see it... The difference is in whether people can't or don't do it well. If someone was a bad cleric... I highly doubt (its hard to prove because I wasn't standing over their shoulder, of course) they were giving it their all and just not meeting the strenuous pressures of online gaming. If I had to wager a guess, I'd say its because they didn't give a fuck. For that matter, I'd say the majority of clerics did play 'well' for the most part. I grouped a lot in my EQ career and even more now playing Shards of Dalaya and I think maybe 5 or 6 clerics stick out in my mind as 'bad'. That's gotta be close to about 4 years of steady gaming and I can't recall too many sticking out as poor. And for the most part, I think they're bad simply because they don't pay attention. I guess it depends on whether or not you consider enduring boredom/paying attention a skill. To me, it just isn't.Ok, so then what is skill? If skill is doing something well that most others don't do well, then playing a cleric took skill. Not an important skill in the context of real life, but I'd still say it took skill. But yeah, I'd file that under the category of useless skills like being able to twitch my ear lobes.
That's a fundamental skill in cricket! Most of the strategy goes around getting the other team into a pattern and then surprising them by breaking out of it now and then.I guess it depends on whether or not you consider enduring boredom/paying attention a skill.
Uh, we're 15 years on from most of that drama. Anyone who still gives a damn more than "My God we were fucked up back then, let's reminisce over beers" has a serious, serious problem.but then I have to remember who I was and what I was remembered for haha. Not exactly the kind of reunion you'd want to walk back into.
Never a truer quote. I honestly cannot remember any of the issues from back then as anything more than part of the game that it was at the time. I look back on EQ fondly, it was part of lifes learning curve at the time for me and the social interaction was awsome.Ddrak wrote:Uh, we're 15 years on from most of that drama. Anyone who still gives a damn more than "My God we were fucked up back then, let's reminisce over beers" has a serious, serious problem.