Hate to be the bearer of bad news
The scholar ability "Accession" does not affect the white magic spell "Haste".
That is all
·Theme
- MMO News & Info
- Aion
- Dark Age of Camelot
- EVE Online
- EverQuest
- EverQuest II
- Final Fantasy XI
- Final Fantasy XIV
- FreeRealms
- Lord of the Rings Online
- Star Wars: The Old Republic
- Warhammer Online
- World of Warcraft
- BL2DB
- DayZDB
- Diablo 3 Database
- Dragon Nest Armory
- Guildhead
- LolKing
- MMOUI
- Rifthead
- SC2 Ranks
- TankSpot
- Tera Tome
- Thottbot
- Torchlight Armory
- Torhead
- Vindictus DB
- Wowhead
HasteFollow
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I feel better now.
I feel better now.
Banggugyangu wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I feel better now.
I feel better now.
Yea, as someone who has whm rdm sch all 75 I'm glad haste can't be accessioned.
I'm gonna take a stab and say that when the next levelcap increase comes, they'll do the same thing with Refresh.
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.
This is bad news?
I dunno, I'm too busy LAWLing over this.
I dunno, I'm too busy LAWLing over this.
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.
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
- Pythagoras
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
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.
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
- Pythagoras
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.
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.
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.
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
- Pythagoras
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
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
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
- Pythagoras
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?
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
80BST,SCH
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
- 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.
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
- Pythagoras
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.
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.
Sir Exodus wrote:
low-man alliance
My new favorite oxymoron!
Lyonheart of Lakshmi
lvl 99 NIN WAR BST THF BLM SCH WHM
Cooking 100.0+3+3
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
lvl 99 NIN WAR BST THF BLM SCH WHM
Cooking 100.0+3+3
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
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.
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
- Pythagoras
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
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
80BST,SCH
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
- Pythagoras
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
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
- Pythagoras
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 of Lakshmi
lvl 99 NIN WAR BST THF BLM SCH WHM
Cooking 100.0+3+3
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
lvl 99 NIN WAR BST THF BLM SCH WHM
Cooking 100.0+3+3
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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
Serena
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.
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}
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
Recent Visitors: 10
All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (10)