Nice text, thats what i wanted to say

I just wanted to point out that its almost the same.

Buffbots are gone - Pots are still there


Same effect and impact

Similar but not the same, you said this.

Ill say this again if you dont like buffpots and charges is your problem. Buffbot isnt game mechanic, is external mechanic. Not all can pay money for second account.

And eclipsed you opened 1 topic about buffpots that was closed after your several qq and flames. Better stay ontopic and stop comparate buffpot and buffbot. Pots and charges are part of this game and you must live with them.

so...did barrels exist back in the classic days?

When bd had only 1 pet...

So if BD is getting fixed then barrels vanish?

XD

Fastmusic wrote:so you need money and time for Pots?
and just time for Buffbots right?

time=money?!

Everyone COULD spend time to lvl up a Buffbot AND everyone COULD spend time to get Pots...sooo...isn't it still the same?

Some would use BBs, some wouldn't...
Some would use Pots, some wouldn't...

The point i want to make is: On live almost everyone tried to get to a Buffbot to stand a 1vs1 against a Buffbot user.
Now its the same, Buffbots are gone but there are the Pots...so everyone who want to stand against a Pot-user willl have to have pots too.
Same story.

Oh brother, people never seem to run out of things to complain about.

By your logic people shouldn't have to level to 50 to compete against other who level to 50.

Pot's/charges are available to everyone equally, use them or don't. The difference between pots and bots is the former only requires ONE account therefore it didn't desciminate against those players who live in a box and couldn't afford the extra $15 and a half assed comp.

If you can talk the devs into upping the server cap and allowing 2 accounts I'm all for it, bots made the game much more enjoyable.

Please make Buff Barrel for PvE only and you get a better Server!

and buffbot buffs are way better than pots, and u could hide your buffbot somewhere (which you would have to anyway since the buffrange here) to also spam grp heals in fight/rez you after a lost fight etc. etc.

Buffbots are way more lame than pots in my opinion, although i am not really fond of pots and would appreciate them beeing removed

With pots, theres an imbalance between players who use pots and players who dont.

Without pots, theres an imbalance between classes with selfbuffs and classes without.

Which one is better?
Everyone can get pots, but not everyone can get selfbuffs.

Satz wrote:With pots, theres an imbalance between players who use pots and players who dont.

Without pots, theres an imbalance between classes with selfbuffs and classes without.

Which one is better?
Everyone can get pots, but not everyone can get selfbuffs.

I find it funny how after nine years people are still on about self buffs. You do realize that self buffing classes get them to balance the class? Now perhaps there's some Uthgard specific thing that messes this up but on live that's the purpose behind them.
If you gave the same self buffs to every class how well do you think those classes that normally had them would perform?

And i find it funny, that after the first years before the common usage of the buffbots came in, there are still people around who did not notice that there were mostly rangers, friars, wardens and thanes running around solo all that time.

It is indeed funny to see people who think that classes with selfbuffs, need their buffs to have a chance against simmilar classes without buffs. And here lets compare not ranger vs blademaster, but friar vs skald or thane vs pala or ranger vs minstrel.

Grendelrex wrote: You do realize that self buffing classes get them to balance the class?

Only casters have self buff for balance their class af... They dont need spec this lines for have them. Other clases that have sepfbuffs can choose have better weapon damage or stiles, or can choose better self buffs.

Satz wrote:And i find it funny, that after the first years before the common usage of the buffbots came in, there are still people around who did not notice that there were mostly rangers, friars, wardens and thanes running around solo all that time.

First years? Maybe year at best, I saw bots well before SI came out although it was mostly stealthers using them since there was almost no solo game in OF other than sneaks. Then the GG's started using them and boom, everyone had them. And where did you see Friars, Wardens and Thanes running around all the time? They were hardly played at all in OF, being a 50 Thane was my first toon I can tell you I never saw any others and getting a group was almost impossible. I don't ever recall ever fighting a solo Friar outside the BG's until ToA came out.

Satz wrote:It is indeed funny to see people who think that classes with selfbuffs, need their buffs to have a chance against simmilar classes without buffs. And here lets compare not ranger vs blademaster, but friar vs skald or thane vs pala or ranger vs minstrel.

Ranger vs Minstrel? Mini's have two forms of CC, AF chant, insta DD and a pet. If they forgoe stealth and run petstrel spec they could have a red con pet and 50 weapon with best speed and second best DD. They can deal with multiple attackers with aoe mezz, have a insta stun to allow them to either get away completely in a 1on1 or move off to pop pots or regen. If they want decent stealth they can lower their weapon to 39 and run in a stealth zerg which 95% of people seem to do giving Alb a HUGE advantage over Mid and Hib stealthers. They also(I think) have better armour although on Uthgard it will face Thrust(weak to) more often vs. a Ranger than live.
Rangers have good melee, can attack from range and will have usually better stealth than a Mini. Their armor is neutral or resistant to Mini melee damage.
I'd say a well played ranger fighting a well played petstrel would be the underdog. A high stealth smart Mini would make it about even with maybe the Ranger having the advantage if the Mini doesn't just take off when losing. Only thing is I'd suspect most Mini's are not solo.
Of course they are not similar classes, if you're going to compare a Ranger try, hmmm, other archers? Scouts have much higher defense and an anytime long stun. Hunters have better melee, a couple buffs and a pet. If they spec for melee like many Rangers do there shouldn't be much of an advantage to a Ranger but Scouts here will suffer from having old DW mechanics.

Friar vs Skald? Could be interesting, Friars are no where near as strong here as live and Skalds have dual CC and good melee. CC is strong here compared to live and Friars have no counters to it other than purge.
Again no where near similar classes, try a Skald vs Bard vs Minstrel.

Thane vs Paladin? Both are gimp here and I don't know pallys that well. Thane has a couple insta DD's and one buff a Pally could easily match. Pally's have better armour, better weapon and if they can twist well I'd give the Pally the edge.

Now the one caveat is that I don't know what all the custom Uthgard only things are. I've heard 2H's are borked etc.


P.S. just a FYI the game isn't balanced around 1on1's or class vs. class.

vangonaj wrote:
Only casters have self buff for balance their class af... They dont need spec this lines for have them. Other clases that have sepfbuffs can choose have better weapon damage or stiles, or can choose better self buffs.

Friars, Wardens, Druids, Clerics, Bards, Shamen and Healers don't need to spec for them. Granted you're not going to see too many Bards or moreso Healers soloing. The other self spec buff classes have their buffs in their unique lines, if they don't spec into those lines it's kind of pointless playing them.
Would you want to be a crappy Hero wanna be on a Champ at 50LW/42Sh/39weapon or 39 Valor for the debuffs and crappy S/C buff?