Nyet
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Nyet
-
-
PvP ranking = Seer>Seer>Seer>Seer>Scout/War/DG>Volc/TL/Sin/Monk>Sader/Ranger/CS>Rest.
PvE ranking = WK/AM>AA/Sader>Monk/TL/Ranger
Just use seer if you want to PvP ?
-
Would be broken af, I've made bow shells which would be insane for mages res reduce wise and vice versa, the ability to trade shells over would just invalidate the betting aspect for equipment. A shell on a wand with 2x dmg, enh + crit for e.g. could be pretty average on a wand but insane on a bow which could increase the price drastically.
-
@Kaizou Your main point is that there are other things archers can use to benefit them against res reduction. But that's also the main problem, being expected to sacrifice 150 enh dmg, crit chance etc. from an archer trophy just to survive vs res reduction is a bit stupid.
On top of that it's been mentioned archers are forced to use resistance tunics, they could easily be a tanky class if they weren't forced to use it just to survive, using 2x def would be much better. I think the issue isn't that there aren't other possibilities to increase res but the sacrifices that archer class has to make far more than mage / swordy just to survive at all. Which seems to be what you aren't understanding, your res can get reduced as a mage, yes but you're using a 2x def robe, if an archer used that they'd be hit 20k autos by an ele volcano with a good shell.
Your expectation of an entire class to sacrifice trophies / shells just to LIVE is a bit dumb in my opinion, no other class has to make such sacrifices.
On top of that just to take a consensus, all the people that have said no to this are mages so far, so that points out something pretty obvious which I said earlier, an archer buff which can be perceived as a mage nerf is just going to be hated due to the huge majority mage users on this server. Being someone that mained mage before archer, it's a very easy class to become very strong with, too easy in my opinion.
-
20 minutes ago, Webster said:
Dude, Nyet is constantly cyber bullying me in arena even though im not bad equipped
So what? I couldnt care less tbh. I know where i am standing and therefore can divide between constructive criticism and trashtalk.
If the trashtalk is bullying you too much just go forward and report it. Yes, its that simple.
Yeah Nyet the big bad wolf huff puff and blow your k-d down, grr I am cyber bully
-
5 minutes ago, Zenasso said:
Fortunately for me since I've learned to distinguish the pits from the sane ones, i do not have any blacklisting problems.
I only had a challenge in the rainbow battle and I realized the problem.
So I thought of a way to solve it and prevent someone else from finding into the same situation.There is a difference between a person who voluntarily insults you and one who blacklist you.
The blacklist is clearly an instrument of frustrated people since only 5% use it for its true use.
I'm not forcing Bash to do anything, if he arrive now and says that he can not do it, I'm right.
Surely if you think about these things or you are yourself a bully or play another game because it is clear what it means to be targeted in a community on group activities.
I'm not saying that if you're noob you must have the right to win the rainbow.
I'm saying that if you go there and lose YES you've lost but you DO NOT have to suffer the consequences from your team because they are stronger than you.
If an activity is open to all you do not have to complain that you have found a weak person you simply have to accept that(because if you find a troll in the enemy team I do not think you would complain that you failed to make an honest and perfect challenge)I'm not going to bother arguing, I've said my opinion on it.
Also, yes you got me dude I'm a bully! How dare I not agree with what you think and not think that someone being mean ;-; on a game is cyber bullying, I must be one too! Oh what a world so many bullies
-
12 minutes ago, Zenasso said:
1 Well excuse me for treating cyber bullying the same as real life bullying.
2 I think I’m well equipped for my level, I’m missing a thing or two but I’m not under equipped. Someone thought to tag me as trash or noob just because I was not smart and died first, against Seers nonetheless…
3 Even if I was under equipped no one should force me to NOT play the RB.
4 Hunting in arena is not a problem for me, the problem is the blacklisting(but for some who want to be in the arena to have fun it could represent a big problem)See point 2.
“people aren't allowed to be pissed off at you”
Oh yes they are allowed to, but they shouldn’t force me to leave any future RB for fear of blacklisting and hunt.
“In Rainbow Battle your negligence toward equipping yourself is making other players lower their chance of receiving a reward.”
Well cry me a river, didn’t you say it’s just part of being in a game? Are you scared of n00bs playing your precious game? Then suggest Bash to force only r8+10 to the RB lmao. Plus see point 2, I was not under equipped, I just saw how the people inside this pvp word are mad(and since you can not 'reason with the idiots is better to cover the names \ equip \ pet \ sp so that no one is persecuted because he does not have the top of the top of the equips)
“If you're going to be that delicate I would suggest doing PvE, the mobs can't be mad at you.”
Are you doing this on purpose? I’m trying to talk about a serious problem.This isn't cyber bullying, you're being childish and salty because someone blacklisted you and now you can't raid because you performed poorly in rainbow battle. If you truly have the audacity to claim that as being cyber bullying your perception of online harassment is jaded at best. This server disallows "Cyber bullying" so if you think that's what it is report it, until then you're just being a child in my eyes.
If you were well equipped, you wouldn't do badly. Maybe try being smarter next time, since you said you weren't smart..?
Nobody is forcing you to do anything, just like you shouldn't be trying to force a pointless change on players that aren't affected by this issue, there is no need for this change, you can host your own raids or join other peoples.
Blacklisting is at the players discretion, why should you performing badly not be a reason for them to blacklist? Anyone has the ability to blacklist who they want based on what they want, or do you want a suggestion that a GS has to approve reasoning behind a blacklist?
If anyone is trying to "suggest Bash to force" it's you right now from what I can see there isn't much reciprocation on your request and you're the one crying, I'm merely explaining why people are mad at you for losing a rainbow battle.
This isn't a serious problem you can read Point 1 my guy!
-
Regardless of whether or not it's a good idea and would balance things, the server is probably 60% populated by mages, community backlash on something seen as a mage nerf would be very likely, by that logic I doubt it'll be put in place.
-
10 minutes ago, Zenasso said:
But do you realize what you just said?
If you're at school and a teenager bullies you, you expect adults to say "resist!"
No ... they will tell you to report it and solve the problem at the root.
I've had many online gaming experiences and the story is always that because who creates and rules the games does not give a damn.
Seeing that the suggestions are analyzed here, I tried to propose a problem that certainly is not just about me.If you fear that this suggestion will ruin your rainbow battle, do not worry.
If someone without a name troll, take a screen or a video and send a ticket to report it.Did you understand that this thing did not happen to me alone?
This rainbow example is OBVIOUSLY extended to all other areas of pvp or pvm.
This is just the beginning to fight one of the areas of bullying because I do not even believe that one of you was not found to fight someone for a rainbow\arena\frozen crown lost and to have found a new enemy to manage in the arena or during the choices of members of a raid.Instead of saying "grow and resist, empowered and shut up" you should understand that all players are different and those who are weak and want to have fun must convince each day with idiots who make the threat his motto.
This suggestion does not go against the rainbow.
If you are strong, you will win
If you are weak you will lose
If you're lucky you find yourself the strong one or the weak one.
But at least if you lose you can not complain to anyone and you can not undermine someone else's gaming experience.Sorry, I hope I am misunderstanding but you're claiming that someone calling u weak in a game and hunting you in arena as a result of YOU joining a competitive game mode as an under-equipped player is on the same level of real life bullying?
Your issue is self-inflicted as a result of your lack of farming to equip yourself appropriately to do rainbow battle.
I wouldn't even consider this cyber bullying. This is just basically you saying people aren't allowed to be pissed off at you because your lack of equipment causes them to lose a game-mode where rewards are at stake. It's different if you're doing a PvP in arena and someone says you're trash and kills you, sure be mad whatever; there's nothing on the line, instead in Rainbow Battle your negligence toward equipping yourself is making other players lower their chance of receiving a reward.
If you're going to be that delicate I would suggest doing PvE, the mobs can't be mad at you.
-
This seems like more of a personal problem than something that will affect the majority and need action done on it.
Bringing examples of 1 person doing slightly worse and still flaming doesn't really validate the need for this to be in place. All I can say is improve your character, if you're strong and doing well you won't be flamed as frequently, if at all.
-
Also something to consider about this suggestion is that people purposely trolling you can't really face consequences, if they relog directly after the battle you can't prove it was a certain person that did it.
To be honest I'd rather stick with my point, even though PvP is a toxic community, you don't get flamed for no reason. If you're doing well you shouldn't get flamed, if you do; it's a game, get over it. It happens everywhere nothing new in rrb.
I find it hard to believe that you're getting "bullied" when you're doing nothing wrong, if anything I'd be happy bet you're the basis upon which your team lost.
-
If you aren't weak you shouldn't have to hide your name, if you're weak that's why you're being flamed.
I don't see the issue, just get stronger before you do Rainbow Battle since it's a competitive game mode, if not expect to face repercussions if you're the root cause for a team losing?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Webster said:
Lets break it down in a simple way.
Missing all resistance on archer armours leads to a need for an armour with s-all resistance for open pvp.
While swordsman/mage with the best resistances can barely reach the magic ~180 allres number without having to use an allres armour, archer is forced to use one to prevent himself from getting demolished by elemental damage in open pvp.
So the downside isn't only that archer has to spend more gold on good resistances, it's also that he needs to use an effect on his armour that puts him on a massive disadvantage, while swordsman/mage can play the s-def/hp-rec/anti-effect variations.
And PLEASE stop comparing the equip we got here to the equip on officials and any kinds of "intention" of it, we fucking have shadow gem here ?♂️
Pretty much what was said here, I clarified this in my comment earlier by saying it's not plausible on archer to have anything aside from overall res on a tunic if you plan on doing PvP.
Yet the other classes have the ability to go 2x def on top of their defence buffs due to their res increase. Don't really see how that's hard to understand.
@Kaizou The thing you're missing is that archers HAVE to sacrifice a stronger stat to even survive, whether or not they are meant to be "the lowest defence class" the reason you can tank and have the ability to is your high res stats allowing you to build "perfect" eqs which are 2x def, archers don't have that possibility, ignoring the defence buffs.
-
15 minutes ago, Kaizou said:
I still disagree on Mages having equal damage to archers, it is not equal in a sense that they both do different things, one isn't less or greater than the other as they work in different ways. There's also multiple conditions before our damage can go higher than normal (I'm also not arguing to give Mage's more damage, I'm just stating my point), such as ressistance reduce, I wouldn't say it is extremely high as in a previous post I stated that our ressistance reduce on our skills was not made with the involvement of the R8 Shadow Stone in mind, this was added in long afterwards and no user requested the item but I believe it exists due to players ressistances reaching over 160% all around and possibly higher due to avenger's and act 6 ressistance, perfections and fairy affinity, and like I said before, no one likes being reduced in ressistance, but it is still a game mechanic that was made to be utilized and opens other ways to kill the opponent aside from full attack builds, therefore the Shadow Stone is what gives players the opportunity for ressistance reduce builds to still stay viable in this current meta of Avenger and Act 6 ress sets, if ress reduce was made just to be negated by ressistance, then it would be a pointless mechanic or wouldn't need to exist in the first place. So what I'm saying is it shouldn't be the opposing opponents fault for having the ability to reduce ress, but its the fact that its a mechanic to be acknowledged and not outright ignored by boosting everyone's ressistances just so they cant be reduced, making elemental reduce a pointless existance.
Then there's the difference between my defence reduce and my opponents defence increases etc, as an example I'd say in a PvP I'd expect a Mage's damage to average around 5-7k boosts and maybe 1k-3k non boosts (from pure damage builds alone) vs a double defense user, but if I'm able to reduce 30% defence, and my opponent is using negative effects/ress increase + 30-33% defence, then my damage output could potentially reach 10k boosts and 3k-5k non boosts because my opponents defence is greatly reduced, but that is not due to the class in particular, that is due to my weapon subtracting my enemy which creates a difference in damage, but then that same 10k damage boost would remain consistent due to the fixation of mage damage rather than going up or down, so rather than the class being at fault, its the difference in equipment stats that changed the overall outcome of damage. What I do agree on is mage damages consistency which is what is unique about our class as we cannot deal critical hits.
And yes I do agree that Mages technically have the same amount as archers in terms of HP due to our shields + the large influx of HP from the books, which is why I believe the plausible change would be to make individual books for each of our classes rather than giving all of us the same HP/MP increases in order to keep the balance, but other than these imbalances, I believe our classes would be fine.
As someone that plays arena and fights multiple people, any shell aside from overall resistance just isn't plausible, similar to how 2x damage on any weapon is the only good option. Since that's the case I'm going to be hit 10k by mages consistently i.e. seer or TL.
Not to mention that even with sum6 kertos / vala as an archer if that's on overall 58/48/48/58 48/58/58/48 without a resistance tunic you have 140% on average for each res, with my res tunic I have around 170 on all (Average), any mage with a half decent wand reduces over that, 20% from trophy, 21% from wand, gun reduces 12% I believe? That's already 53% without even putting a shell on the wand or debuff.
At the point where you're getting reduced to almost 100 without a shell, then combined with the fact you're sacrificing 2x defence vs full attack sps and 2x damage wands, which Res Reduction built mages STILL have, you have no ability to tank.
It would be different if All res reduction was an S-% stat like overall / damage, then they would have to go full res reduction, but at the moment mages utilise full damage equipment and res reduction at the same time. An archer simply has no ability to survive with the current state of equipment especially in a 2v1. Yet a mage and swordsman have the ability to tank a lot more easily than archer and can output high damage.
Mages benefit from borderline the same shell as an archer 2x dmg, enh dmg, reduce def, Res reduce if you want, yet have the freedom to build 2x defence as they have such high resistances, then on top of that there's the defence buffs.
I simply can't see how anyone can believe mages don't do the same damage as archers at a minimum. Is 10% res for example really going to make such a huge change when mages can reduce over 100% res?
-
1
-
-
Thing is IMO, what archers are meant to be doing is what you're stating, be the least tanky and output the most damage. But as an average I would say mages are outputting equal damage with the extremely high resistance reduce, or the ability to go full attack on TL / Seer, a mages damage is far more consistent than archers at the moment considering concentration of magic is much higher than hit rate for bows.
On top of that like you've mentioned with HP books, it's hard to disagree mages are OP, they have higher HP than archers with the combination of a mana shield where it's a very unlikely possibility a mage will run out of mana they have constant damage reduction, high hp, high concentration on attacks and high DPS.
Imo archer needs some kind of buff, with the current state of EQS, Trophies etc. taken into account it's the weakest class.
-
17 minutes ago, Kaizou said:
This discussion is about base stats of armour pieces, and not specialists, I'm not here to talk about SP's like Seer and get off topic but dps does not = damage, they are two completely separate things and this discussion is not about dps. And before you see this as a defense to seer, I've already said this topic is about balancing of armour stats, which is what I replied to without regarding anything other than what is set in stone for each class from the beginning of the game, not SP's.
I'm aware, I just thought I'd point out your idea of balancing a class is a bit jaded to believe mage is balanced.
I don't see how 10% res is harmful when mages can easily reduce overall res to under 100 with a single debuff
-
1 hour ago, Kaizou said:
Archer has the highest damage output and therefore trades defensive attributes for it, this is just part of the overall class balancing.
Seer has highest DPS out of all sps, combined with highest defence stats, I wouldn't call that "overall class balancing"
-
9 minutes ago, Bash said:
But that being said more video evidence showing it as a game flaw and not someones response (Remember I don't know who is associated to who) will be better. There is no difference in a GS or someone who dislikes or likes Squizzy to respond and give their reasons why as it can be taken as a bias opinion. Anyone who responds yes will be attacked and their reasons will be invalid you guys have shown that in the past with other debates.
I am always willing to adapt and push forward, I learn from my mistakes that's why this network can boast it's lifespan proudly. This isn't something I take lightly at all and I hate dealing with Eagle Eye cases for this very reason. The only grounds we have right now to hold his ban is the log and the video you're right and the fact it was caught by a GS.
Just because I do not play the game now does not mean I don't know the game. I played NosTale years ago yes but believe me the technology behind the game has not changed and from a technical perspective I know more than all of you about this game remember that.
I've explained like 3 times now it's a ping issue, people without the same latency won't be able to replicate the issue, hence that's borderline an impossible request. Nobody will be attacked for their suggestion, I would love to hear their reason why they think it's a hack and I'll be happy to explain why it isn't. In fact I welcome that to happen.
So the reasons it's being held is because of a system that is not 100% correct, a video which has been replicated so pretty much just because Siseneri records every day and caught something suspicious? I just can't understand where you're coming from here lmao.
It is honestly very easy to see it's not a hack, just play the videos side by side, they literally almost look the same aside from the position of the player and direction they walk. I can run you through it live in arena if you'd prefer.
-
11 minutes ago, Bash said:
The system is redundant that is for certain (for most cases). There are many log systems in place for people who try stuff that just merely logs, people who speed hack (it's detected), people who use packet logger (it's detected) but unless someone is caught we don't do anything about it as a system saying "detected" isn't enough. This is why anti-hacks on games rather DC you then actually ban you as nothing is for certain. We have to be right 110% of the time when all you have to be right on is once and then you benefit so it's important to know the difference and how we process these things.
I can't go into full details on how we detect Eagle Eye for obvious reasons. I have probably described it a bit simple, it does more than I have described it wouldn't trigger all the time as a few other variables are thrown into the mix. There are many factors into why the system does log you though.
However, the evidence given shows something fishy is going on and when checking the logs it corresponds with the data given. I am only asking other people to disprove it as it gives you guys a better ground to stand on. I'd rather spend my day working than going back and forward in a thread, this isn't a pride thing for being wrong or an ego thing I'd rather be doing other things right now as well.
Unbanning Squizzy would be the easiest option but I stand firm on decisions made as the next Eagle Eye case to come through all it has to do is have a persistent friend to waste my time and voila they get unbanned. This is why I am asking for others to try disprove it so I can be certain.
I don't really see what different people disproving it have to do with anything at all. How does the evidence provided not prove the exact thing you're accusing of to be wrong? Kaizou has basically explained it himself and if you didn't notice, there is not a single piece of reasoning aside from your own from anyone saying Yes as to why they believe it to be a hack. However for pretty much everyone who has said no they are saying why they believe that to be the case? Is that not your idea of third party intervention?
I can understand why you aren't explaining how your system works, but if it has gone off when we've replicated which I can be sure it has considering the circumstances were exact then that adds more evidence to his case. People are not going to go out of their way to help because they either don't want him unbanned, couldn't give a shit or already believe as stated many times throughout the thread by people saying no the video says enough.
Sadly despite what you think this has nothing to do with my persistence, if I truly believed he was hacking and the evidence that we have presented to be insufficient I wouldn't be bending over backwards to prove otherwise. I admitted it was suspicious, I have said it's been disproved, if anything it's a learning curve for not only your GS team but perhaps for your implementation of adjustments to your system and the banning of people using eagle eye. At no point was anything he did in the clip outside of the capabilities of the game, if you played it I'm sure you would understand that.
-
3 minutes ago, Bash said:
It's the basis of the report and the evidence showed and the fact there is a log (usually on Eagle Eye cases we'd not find the log at the time of the report like this one, some we have banned because the log is there and there is sufficient evidence).
I think you need to take a step back and stop assuming this is being done on purpose here. I really don't care if he is banned or not and I have explained how I believe it's good to have players like him, so take a step back before I stop talking altogether as this is getting ridiculous now.
As I've said get other people to disprove it and I'll take it more serious. But as it stands the evidence is clearly showing he used something to help him and the fact we have logs stating possible Eagle Eye on the time of the case doesn't help his situation at all. This isn't a basis of you triggering the system 500x in a row this is the basis that we have visual evidence of something going on and a log by our system verifying something is going on. So a video disproving it by the player it is in relation to instead of completely neutral people doesn't help the case at all. If anything it is placed into the category you're placing the Eagle Eye detector from your side of the argument.
In the end I am not even pleased we're discussing this on the forums. I say to everyone else to move it to tickets and if this keeps going with the childish jabs that's exactly where it will end up again.
Right, but can you explain how your "system" which "picks up invis hits" is at all helpful in this case.
Your system would trigger for the video we sent showing evidence it's not a hack? I simply don't understand your argument here at all. Why would a third party get involved to disprove your allegation when as I've explained, it's based on his ping being based in Australia so they can't replicate exactly? And as well as that, it would've been in a ticket had Ryan not brought light to the situation so would've never been solved?
I just can't understand where you're coming from at all? If you want other people to be involved that's one thing, but your message to "Go public" was rhetorical? How could they have got involved?
If I'm honest, your system seems redundant and doesn't add any stability to your argument as I had stated, it would've gone off in the video we made as evidence.
If you can let me know your thought process on either of the two above it would be much appreciated. Also this isn't taking jabs, I am just truly struggling to see your side on this, hence I'm being forward with my replies and disproving your rebuttals.
-
10 minutes ago, Bash said:
I'm not assuming those who voted yes or no have an opinion of you. I couldn't care less what their agenda is that's exactly why I questioned the poll in the first place.
The only reason the system is not 100% is due to the fact that it registers a hit based on someone being invisible. This means something like an AOE can trigger it. You used a direct skill not an AOE that's the difference
The same can be said back. At this point your only opinion is a bias one at that. You're blinded by the friendship you have with Squizzy and that's dismissing your opinion. You even said it, it looks suspicious so how can it be avoided? Disproving it, why doesn't those who are defending you disprove it to without your help? More opinions showing it as a flaw in the system that counters the evidence put forward is where your best chance at me taking it serious. You don't go to someone in court "hey disprove it please" because ofc they're going to try and disprove it any means necessary. So why don't you ask members of the community (even people who hate you) to try disprove it as it's the same grounds your video is on.
Ok first off lets start with your "System" I am more than happy to hit u invisible 500x in a row if you'd like, that requires 0 skill it's a very simple thing to do, so that can easily be disproved, yes with a direct skill.
How can what be avoided? Saying something is suspicious doesn't mean it's 100% and I said that I tested with him and replicated your exact issue, so what seems to be the basis he's banned upon? First it's the invis hit as the sin was "not moving", then it's your GS team, then it's a fibi, now it's not using an AOE? Seems like you're clutching straws.
I have already showed you how it's a flaw in the system and you've ignored the evidence put forward, the people who are saying NO is because of the EVIDENCE given, why would they replicate the same evidence? It literally took 5 minutes for us to do and see how flawed the system is. Not only that but they may be unable to replicate since it's a PING ISSUE and he is in Australia.
And why are you even talking about court? They don't use lie detectors in court as they aren't 100% successful, so why does your "system" have any validity? Thanks for disproving that point I suppose?
If you truly think that the evidence is not showing it's a false ban I don't know what more to say, it's literally the exact same thing that happened, cast interrupt -> Skip cells -> Replace back to original position -> Hit invis, yet None of that actually happened on Ryan's screen as he lagged. Do I need to simplify this any more?
-
3 minutes ago, Bash said:
So basically everyone who votes yes dislikes him, plain and simple. So why create a poll if this was to be expected? I stated earlier you clearly have been adamant in the past for such reports with less evidence or obviousness. So what's the difference? I recall several tickets by you clearly stating Eagle Eye is being used yet it wasn't viable enough. Yours however shows a different story and it isn't because of who you are.
Don't suppose that's hard to tell when a comment comes from someone who dislikes Squizzy and voted YES. "Clearly not a hack but stay banned" and then it gets removed by a GS "as per request" despite being up for about a minute. It's pretty clear by the evidence shown to discredit what you're saying is a hack that it isn't the case.
Instead you've brought up a system which doesn't have 100% validity, hence shouldn't be used as evidence at all and a GS team that put simply A) Don't like him and will say it's a hack, B) Lack the gameknowledge to make a comprehensible decision or C) Aren't entitled to their own opinion as the other GS are the big bad bosses!
At this point the decision of your GS team are the only legs you have to stand on and any claim you make to say they are unbias is ignorance put plain and simple.
-
1 hour ago, Bash said:
As for the GS voting I'd appreciate it if they didn't vote on this and I'd appreciate it if alt accounts weren't made to make a situation look better. The outcome of this vote does not sway our decision.
Why shouldn't GS be able to vote on it? If it doesn't sway the decision they should be entitled to their opinion with the evidence brought forward. As for alts, I'm unsure if that's referring to me, but Tyralion isn't my forum account, so that's not the case if it does relate to me.
It seems like damage control to state all your GS agree it's eagle eye, then disallow the ability to vote on the thread. But yes it's counter-intuitive, as regardless of how it looks people that fight Squizzy and his friends will vote differently, if anything the more anonymous people / GS should have even more of an input, even though the GS are as a majority bias toward it.
P.S. No idea how an EE / SB GS has input to vote on a nostale question given no game knowledge. Also why is nobody stating the reason they believe it's yes? There's more than enough comments saying no and why it's not a hack, yet it seems nobody has an explanation for their yes vote?
-
But, in all seriousness I will admit upon initially seeing it, I did say it's suspicious to Ryan and that it's not looking good for him, but my opinion on that changed after testing with him. The fact that the "evidence" for hacking was replicated and shown to be false within no more than 5 minutes of testing pays dividends to show it isn't anything more than ping lag.
The lack of understanding toward the actual reason behind the ban is amusing to say the least, "The movement isn't the same", the fact the path of movement is used to discredit the evidence provided to disprove the allegations shows not only a lack of knowledge for the ban, but also ignorance to the evidence provided to bring to light that it's a false allegation at best.
From my point of view, being someone who has had oversight helping to fix the issue at hand, it seems that the basis behind the ban changes appropriate to the evidence provided.
Also interesting to add "All the GS team believe this is eagle eye" Within 1 hour GS votes no. YiKeS.!
-
Wow this Tyralion is clearly cheating too in this video, that is a for sure double ban!
add all element resistance to c25/48 archer armor
in Suggestions
Posted
@Kaizou
The thing that confuses me is how you claim to have "adapted" and are "perfecting" your mage as if to say it's almost perfect now.
I mean, your volcano at best has average / decent perfection, your weapons are res reduce based to utilise ganking / FC / Rainbow Battle, though your armour is made for a 1v1 with 2x def? If anything I'd say you haven't adapted at all, you've used the imbalance of your class having extremely high defence, the highest resistance and high damage. Your robe is obsolete to use in a ganking scenario, yet you have the ability to benefit from a mediocre semi-incomplete set that works in certain situations based on a mages resistance and defence buffs.
Regardless of whether or not you're using seer, the increased resistance combined with any defence buffs allow for 2x defence robes to be very strong when they shouldn't be.
To act as though you've adapted is far from the mark in my opinion, even in terms of element based volcanos I wouldn't say you're a major threat and from Rainbow Battle, which your wand is pretty much made for, your defence is simply lacking considering I've played against you first hand and that's in a scenario you should work best.
I just think you don't understand what adaptation is when your class is given all the stats on a plate, you just pick and choose even though they don't suit your build. Your c28 robe for example, 10% res stats on a TUNIC, would not be adapting, it would be too low and you'd get raped by any elemental sp, like it's been said many times, archers simply don't have that choice to use different tunic options.
My tunic has something like 23% all res 12% fire res and I still get hit high damage from decent volcanos. I'd just say it's easy enough to look at yourself when you're given half the stats off the bat.