Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

HasteFollow

#1 Jun 21 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
*
128 posts
Hate to be the bearer of bad news

The scholar ability "Accession" does not affect the white magic spell "Haste".

That is all
#2 Jun 21 2010 at 11:43 AM Rating: Default
**
629 posts
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


I feel better now.
#3 Jun 21 2010 at 11:43 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
597 posts
Banggugyangu wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


I feel better now.


Yea, as someone who has whm rdm sch all 75 I'm glad haste can't be accessioned.
#4 Jun 21 2010 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
*
183 posts
I'm gonna take a stab and say that when the next levelcap increase comes, they'll do the same thing with Refresh.
#5 Jun 21 2010 at 11:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
597 posts
RDM main gets refresh and accession with this update so we'll see in a few hours more like
#6Banggugyangu, Posted: Jun 21 2010 at 12:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm fine with refresh being acc-able. I'm ecstatic about haste NOT being acc-able.
#7 Jun 21 2010 at 12:13 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
847 posts
This is bad news?

I dunno, I'm too busy LAWLing over this.
#8 Jun 21 2010 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
957 posts
I don't get why they would make it not AoEable. It is a spell that you can cast on anyone, even outside your party. Heck, there was not a single mage job that could not benefit from this. So why exactly did the decide to implement this?

All I'm looking at here is SE saying "Enjoy your cycles" to the mage masses.
____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#9 Jun 21 2010 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,258 posts
Drakonite wrote:
It is a spell that you can cast on anyone, even outside your party.


This is likely the reason. Those spells you can AoE on entire parties outside your own, and maybe that would over power it. Refresh, can only be cast on party members, so it's limited to your party only.

Imagine a lvl 80 RDM/SCH AoEing haste on a lvl 40 party from outside.

Edited, Jun 21st 2010 1:22pm by Toioiz
____________________________
Signature Image
#10 Jun 21 2010 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
957 posts
Except, we get plenty of spells that can be AoE'd on an outisde party. Protect/Shell, Cures-ga (Even WHM can't do that), -Na's, etc.

Really tho, this affects my WHM more than it does my SCH.

____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#11 Jun 21 2010 at 12:29 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,258 posts
Drakonite wrote:
Except, we get plenty of spells that can be AoE'd on an outisde party. Protect/Shell, Cures-ga (Even WHM can't do that), -Na's, etc.

Really tho, this affects my WHM more than it does my SCH.



None of those can make a Zerg party kill kirin in 30 seconds.
____________________________
Signature Image
#12 Jun 21 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
112 posts
Toioiz wrote:
Drakonite wrote:
It is a spell that you can cast on anyone, even outside your party.


This is likely the reason. Those spells you can AoE on entire parties outside your own, and maybe that would over power it. Refresh, can only be cast on party members, so it's limited to your party only.

Imagine a lvl 80 RDM/SCH AoEing haste on a lvl 40 party from outside.

Edited, Jun 21st 2010 1:22pm by Toioiz


If that was the case, they could've easily made it so Haste could not be AOE'd when targeting non-party members.
#13 Jun 21 2010 at 12:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
957 posts
Quote:
None of those can make a Zerg party kill kirin in 30 seconds.


And this is different from before how? I can single handily haste the usual 15 DD's on my own.

All I'm saying is, it won't suddenly allow you to do something that you couldn't before, it just makes our life easier. I see no reason to not make it AoE-able other than to "Enjoy our cycles".



Edited, Jun 21st 2010 1:38pm by Drakonite
____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#14 Jun 21 2010 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,258 posts
Drakonite wrote:
Quote:
None of those can make a Zerg party kill kirin in 30 seconds.


And this is different from before how? I can single handily haste the usual 15 DD's on my own.

All I'm saying is, it won't suddenly allow you to do something that you couldn't before, it just makes our life easier. I see no reason to not make it AoE-able other than to "Enjoy our cycles".



Edited, Jun 21st 2010 1:38pm by Drakonite


You can't single handedly haste 15 melee in less than 30 seconds, allowing for other buffs and effects to stay on, and take down a mob. You can effectively cast 66% faster than you could before.

Edited to make my argument valid again.

Edited, Jun 21st 2010 2:07pm by Toioiz
____________________________
Signature Image
#15 Jun 21 2010 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,258 posts
GagBag wrote:
Toioiz wrote:
Drakonite wrote:
It is a spell that you can cast on anyone, even outside your party.


This is likely the reason. Those spells you can AoE on entire parties outside your own, and maybe that would over power it. Refresh, can only be cast on party members, so it's limited to your party only.

Imagine a lvl 80 RDM/SCH AoEing haste on a lvl 40 party from outside.

Edited, Jun 21st 2010 1:22pm by Toioiz


If that was the case, they could've easily made it so Haste could not be AOE'd when targeting non-party members.


They have no spells like this currently in the game, I would imagine it wasn't even a considerable option considering how much code they would have to go through to make this even work. Not to mention the complaints when they overlook 1 piece of code that causes it to function in a way differently than expected, then they get a black eye either way.

Edited, Jun 21st 2010 1:44pm by Toioiz
____________________________
Signature Image
#16 Jun 21 2010 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
957 posts
Quote:
You can't single handedly haste 15 melee in less than 2 minutes, allowing for other buffs and effects to stay on, and take down a mob. You can effectively cast 66% faster than you could before.


You can, as I have done it before, on multiple occasions. You can get Haste to be casted each 8 seconds, and casted at 2 seconds with fast cast (Essentially 10 seconds between each haste). Nothing stops you from recasting them when they start wearing off either.

My point still stands. All it does is makes our life nice, and we can't have that apparently.

____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#17 Jun 21 2010 at 1:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
136 posts
Probably the reason it isn't Accession-able is because of SMN's garuda Hastaga spell. Just a thought they trying to keep SMN with something no others have. That is my thoughts on why it isn't. I'm just happy SCH can get haste even if its from a sub.

Now to find out about that Libra and if its going to be funny or just -sigh- really this is a useful ability?
____________________________
Qualme(Hume)[CaitSith]
80BST,SCH
#18 Jun 21 2010 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
*
112 posts
Toioiz wrote:
GagBag wrote:
Toioiz wrote:
Drakonite wrote:
It is a spell that you can cast on anyone, even outside your party.


This is likely the reason. Those spells you can AoE on entire parties outside your own, and maybe that would over power it. Refresh, can only be cast on party members, so it's limited to your party only.

Imagine a lvl 80 RDM/SCH AoEing haste on a lvl 40 party from outside.

Edited, Jun 21st 2010 1:22pm by Toioiz


If that was the case, they could've easily made it so Haste could not be AOE'd when targeting non-party members.


They have no spells like this currently in the game, I would imagine it wasn't even a considerable option considering how much code they would have to go through to make this even work. Not to mention the complaints when they overlook 1 piece of code that causes it to function in a way differently than expected, then they get a black eye either way.

Edited, Jun 21st 2010 1:44pm by Toioiz


I still don't buy that. RDM's ability allows them to increase the duration of buffs they cast on themselves, if they cast the buff on anyone else, the spell will have it's normal duration. A similar principle applies here, so I don't think they would have to re-code the whole game just to make such a simple change.
#19 Jun 21 2010 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
508 posts
Toioiz wrote:
You can't single handedly haste 15 melee in less than 30 seconds, allowing for other buffs and effects to stay on, and take down a mob. You can effectively cast 66% faster than you could before.

Edited to make my argument valid again.

Edited, Jun 21st 2010 2:07pm by Toioiz


Well... that's kind of the point of accession, isn't it?

I mean, so what if you can haste 3 parties? If you've got an alliance of people doing something difficult you'll have the healers on hand to be hasting their own parties anyway. If you're not doing something difficult, then who cares? It's nothing important.
#20 Jun 21 2010 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
**
575 posts
Quote:
You can't single handedly haste 15 melee in less than 30 seconds, allowing for other buffs and effects to stay on, and take down a mob. You can effectively cast 66% faster than you could before.


Because you have to start your haste cycle AFTER it's spawned amirite?
#21 Jun 22 2010 at 9:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,258 posts
ItsAMyri wrote:
Quote:
You can't single handedly haste 15 melee in less than 30 seconds, allowing for other buffs and effects to stay on, and take down a mob. You can effectively cast 66% faster than you could before.


Because you have to start your haste cycle AFTER it's spawned amirite?


The argument of casting 66% faster still applies, as does the one where you have 1 mage doing what 5 mages used to do, allowing for more people to be on DD jobs, or alternate party setups that could be horribly broken.

But, I can tell people are no longer interested in "discussion" and more interested in "I want it so stfu", so I'll end my conversation here.
____________________________
Signature Image
#22 Jun 22 2010 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
957 posts
Quote:
The argument of casting 66% faster still applies, as does the one where you have 1 mage doing what 5 mages used to do, allowing for more people to be on DD jobs, or alternate party setups that could be horribly broken.


No, it doesn't. You can already do it with only 1 mage. And please do name the alternate party setup that could be oh so horribly broken if I could finish my haste cycle earlier.

Also, If you required 5 mages to haste 15 DD's, you had much bigger problems than hastega.

____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#23Toioiz, Posted: Jun 22 2010 at 10:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) In my example, you were hasting 15 DD's within a 30 second window, and you weren't in their party. 1 Mage couldn't *DO THIS* ever. If you had read my other posts, I'm *completely* for a Haste-ga type ability that is party only, but Accession + Haste in it's current form allows for so much more than that.
#24 Jun 22 2010 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
957 posts
Quote:
In my example, you were hasting 15 DD's within a 30 second window, and you weren't in their party.


First, you don't need to be in their party either to do it normally. Second of all, casting it faster is nice, but it won't change a single thing in a zerg (Because, as someone else said, you don't start casting after they pop it). And third, casting it under 30 seconds would require to be both on SCH main and burning celerity+acession, and 2houring for the last stratagem; which is counter-productive.

Casting it normally, or AoE doesn't change any tactic either. I would be just as free to do anything I could do after hastes, had I casted them 1 by 1 or AoE'd. The only real advantage here is that AoE form requires much less mindwork because casting it 3 times is much easier than 15. That's it, there is no other tactical advantage here, not with our current methods and even on the most extreme of scenarios (A zerg). It wil not break the game, nor allow anything new to happen.


____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#25 Jun 22 2010 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,258 posts
Drakonite wrote:
Quote:
In my example, you were hasting 15 DD's within a 30 second window, and you weren't in their party.


First, you don't need to be in their party either to do it normally. Second of all, casting it faster is nice, but it won't change a single thing in a zerg (Because, as someone else said, you don't start casting after they pop it). And third, casting it under 30 seconds would require to be both on SCH main and burning celerity+acession, and 2houring for the last stratagem; which is counter-productive.

Casting it normally, or AoE doesn't change any tactic either. I would be just as free to do anything I could do after hastes, had I casted them 1 by 1 or AoE'd. The only real advantage here is that AoE form requires much less mindwork because casting it 3 times is much easier than 15. That's it, there is no other tactical advantage here, not with our current methods and even on the most extreme of scenarios (A zerg). It wil not break the game, nor allow anything new to happen.




Ok, we can agree to disagree on implimentation, but we can both agree that an AoE haste from RDM/WHM/SCH would be nice.
____________________________
Signature Image
#26 Jun 24 2010 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,711 posts
I like how people are using Kirin burning as a basis for an argument when eventually the level cap increases will make Kirin zergs possible with a low-man alliance.
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#27 Jun 24 2010 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,574 posts
Sir Exodus wrote:
low-man alliance

My new favorite oxymoron!
____________________________
Lyonheart, like Eorzia, will be reborn in FFXIV!

FFXI veteran (Lyonheart and Lakiskline of Lakshmi)
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
#28 Jun 25 2010 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
*
237 posts
I'm pretty sure SE is concerned more about the receivers of haste than the casters. I'm sure they don't want to make zergs anymore efficient than they already are.
#29 Jun 25 2010 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
957 posts
baltz wrote:
I'm pretty sure SE is concerned more about the receivers of haste than the casters. I'm sure they don't want to make zergs anymore efficient than they already are.


Hastega wouldn't make them any more efficient than they already are.

____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#30 Jun 26 2010 at 8:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
136 posts
I'm pretty sure most HNMLs that are doing Zerg tactics on stuff have 3 SMN that could swap in for Hastega as it is. Just throwing it out there.

1 SMN for each party. Garuda > Hastega...o look Alliance hasted. Just need to haste the 3 people who dropped for smn and your good.

Edited, Jun 26th 2010 10:18am by Dolenithil
____________________________
Qualme(Hume)[CaitSith]
80BST,SCH
#31 Jun 26 2010 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
957 posts
And on top of that, SE Ninja-buffed SMN's hastega so it can now last as long as 5 minutes.


____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#32 Jun 29 2010 at 3:33 PM Rating: Decent
**
629 posts
svlyons wrote:
Sir Exodus wrote:
low-man alliance

My new favorite oxymoron!


Not an oxymoron whatsoever. "low man" means with less than the average number of people used by an average skilled group. In Kirin fights, technically, 3 parties could be considered "low man" simply because an average skilled group generally uses 4+ parties. "Alliance" by game terms simply means 2+ parties. It doesn't specify any number of players in said parties. You can essentially have an alliance of 2 players if you so choose. Whether or not that is an intelligent utilization of an alliance is irrelevant.

Also... I find it funny that my opinion about refresh-ga vs. haste-ga was sub-defaulted, but my first post which was essentially just me laughing hysterically was not... I still find the karma system to be retarded. lolz
#33 Jun 30 2010 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
957 posts
Quote:
Not an oxymoron whatsoever. "low man" means with less than the average number of people used by an average skilled group.


Not so much as less than the average, but more among the lines of "Minimum required people". The term is usually refers to skilled players that are capable of doing more with less; essentially expanding what they can kill with their limited numbers.

3 full parties isn't lowman at kirin, at all, specially because there's little that 18 people can't kill. Lowman Kirin would be the 8 man kill (That I can't find for some reason...), or 10 people like my LS does.

The only event (Barrinv AV/PW) where 18 people is lowman at the moment is Einherjar.



____________________________
It is better wither to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
- Pythagoras
#34 Jun 30 2010 at 8:27 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,574 posts
Banggugyangu wrote:
svlyons wrote:
Sir Exodus wrote:
low-man alliance

My new favorite oxymoron!


Not an oxymoron whatsoever. "low man" means with less than the average number of people used by an average skilled group. In Kirin fights, technically, 3 parties could be considered "low man" simply because an average skilled group generally uses 4+ parties. "Alliance" by game terms simply means 2+ parties. It doesn't specify any number of players in said parties. You can essentially have an alliance of 2 players if you so choose. Whether or not that is an intelligent utilization of an alliance is irrelevant.

Oxymoron means it sounds like it's self contradictory (which it does), but it isn't (as you pointed out). So I stand by my oxymoron label.

Edited, Jun 30th 2010 10:27am by svlyons
____________________________
Lyonheart, like Eorzia, will be reborn in FFXIV!

FFXI veteran (Lyonheart and Lakiskline of Lakshmi)
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
#35 Jun 30 2010 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
Jack of All Trades
******
29,122 posts
Quote:
Not an oxymoron whatsoever. "low man" means with less than the average number of people used by an average skilled group. In Kirin fights, technically, 3 parties could be considered "low man" simply because an average skilled group generally uses 4+ parties. "Alliance" by game terms simply means 2+ parties. It doesn't specify any number of players in said parties. You can essentially have an alliance of 2 players if you so choose. Whether or not that is an intelligent utilization of an alliance is irrelevant.


... Jesus Christ, dude, are you serious? I hope nobody brings you to any RL parties; you must be a real killjoy.

Regardless of whatever the game may tell you, I can assure you that nobody refers to any group smaller than 6 as a real alliance, regardless of how they are divided up. Likewise, nobody refers to a party of one person as a real party. Furthermore, while you might still be able to take a smaller alliance to certain things and still consider it lowman, in many cases, lowmanning something usually involves bringing a full party or less (more often than not, it's less than full party) meaning alliances don't even enter the equation. Thus, for these activities, a "lowman alliance" is inherently contradictory (and lulzworthy), much like how it's inherently contradictory (and lulzworthy) for me to say I soloed X NM with three backline mages healing and supporting me.

In summary, please get real. That or a sense of humor...

Edited, Jun 30th 2010 10:51am by Fynlar
#36 Jun 30 2010 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
372 posts
svlyons wrote:
Banggugyangu wrote:
svlyons wrote:
Sir Exodus wrote:
low-man alliance
My new favorite oxymoron!

Not an oxymoron whatsoever. "low man" means with less than the average number of people used by an average skilled group. In Kirin fights, technically, 3 parties could be considered "low man" simply because an average skilled group generally uses 4+ parties. "Alliance" by game terms simply means 2+ parties. It doesn't specify any number of players in said parties. You can essentially have an alliance of 2 players if you so choose. Whether or not that is an intelligent utilization of an alliance is irrelevant.
Oxymoron means it sounds like it's self contradictory (which it does), but it isn't (as you pointed out). So I stand by my oxymoron label.

ahh, the intricacies of the english language, how amusing. Or should I say "how annoying"? I think either would be applicable here...



fynlar wrote:
Regardless of whatever the game may tell you, I can assure you that nobody refers to any group smaller than 6 as a real alliance, regardless of how they are divided up. Likewise, nobody refers to a party of one person as a real party. Furthermore, while you might still be able to take a smaller alliance to certain things and still consider it lowman, in many cases, lowmanning something usually involves bringing a full party or less (more often than not, it's less than full party) meaning alliances don't even enter the equation. Thus, for these activities, a "lowman alliance" is inherently contradictory (and lulzworthy), much like how it's inherently contradictory (and lulzworthy) for me to say I soloed X NM with three backline mages healing and supporting me.

{rant}
a lowman alliance can be anywhere from 7-17 ppl still (although, the closer to 18 ppl the group has, the less likely I'm to say that it is lowmanning it). In terms of game speak, a 2 person group is technically considered lowmanning, duo'ing, and partying (which some might not consider a true party (and I spit on that notion, it is a true party, just with very few ppl)) all at the same time.
{/rant}
____________________________
The wise warrior will fight until he can no longer win; while the foolish warrior will never stop fighting.

MouserRDM wrote:

People think Dark Knights are the emo-boys of FFXI.

They ain't got nothin' on us Blue Mages. We kill monsters, eat their souls, and we don't even use barbecue sauce. And we're still hungry.

We're bastards.
#37 Jul 10 2010 at 5:20 AM Rating: Excellent
*
147 posts
*giggles* Am I the only one who finds it funny that a topic has been completely derailed and turned into an English lesson... in the scholar forums?

Serena
#38 Jul 10 2010 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,711 posts
svlyons wrote:
Oxymoron means it sounds like it's self contradictory (which it does), but it isn't (as you pointed out). So I stand by my oxymoron label.


Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#39 Jul 10 2010 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Jack of All Trades
******
29,122 posts
Quote:
{rant}
a lowman alliance can be anywhere from 7-17 ppl still (although, the closer to 18 ppl the group has, the less likely I'm to say that it is lowmanning it). In terms of game speak, a 2 person group is technically considered lowmanning, duo'ing, and partying (which some might not consider a true party (and I spit on that notion, it is a true party, just with very few ppl)) all at the same time.
{/rant}


Clearly, you are wrong. A true lowman alliance consists of one(1) person.

The game supports me here too -- when I'm doing Limbus solo, someone else checking the zone will get the message saying "The alliance in that area has ## minutes left in Limbus" or something to that effect. I'm a one-man alliance, bitches.







see I can argue semantics too
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (18)