Deykari Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 They're a gimped class. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iusedtobesomebody Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 you're a gimped player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 I just read your signature, Deykary, and it made me laugh out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 That's only a small snippet too. The whole 'story' gave me a good chuckle. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Pff. You people are crazy. Zerks for the win. I've played two different warriors to fifty, and all I did was get owned hardcore by everyone. At least zerks can DO something to mages. Especially mino zerks *drool*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Pff. You people are crazy. Zerks for the win. I've played two different warriors to fifty' date=' and all I did was get owned hardcore by everyone. At least zerks can DO something to mages. Especially mino zerks *drool*.[/quote'] Really? Hm... last ogre warrior I had at 50 did fine, even against communers/mages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 I think it's just because in my opinion warriors are the absolute in requiring EQ knowledge, even more than zerks. And that's something I've always had a weakness with. Part of it may also have been that they were a storm giant and a halfling, respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Ah... yeah, neutral ogre is a pretty buff warrior... though most of the time I never had a hit/dam above 45. It's really more about having the right weapon combos for the right targets than having an insanely high hit/dam. Shamans were tricky, but if you could manage to fight them in the city where you could cure plague/poison, it wasn't that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 I think Warrior would be a better choice for learning than Berserker in the sense that Warriors are a little more survivable. Berserkers have a little bit more of an offensive boost at the expense of defense, and that can easily get you killed in the wrong circumstances. Of course, you learn something from everything, I always say that you should play something you like the sound of, because if you have fun playing something you will stick at it and you'll learn a lot more. Just my two pence. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 warriors have more of an offense (and defensive) punch than zerks..zerks have the variable luck status affect bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Well as far as rage goes, I have found it a big hinderance against melees - not often does the rage bonus make enough difference to outweigh the very noticable losing of a main defense when fighting other melees. Of course, that all depends on when you rage, but even trying to use it as surprise damage against another melee when they're almost dead, I have not had that much success. I once even found that against someone like a Warrior with defensive weaponry, I would not land a couple of rounds worth of attacks whilst raged and I would get minced up like beef. Of course, that's not saying much, considering my PK track record. It's great against casters/communers/rogues though, especially when you land a cheeky haymaker just prior to them using a skill. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archgold Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 i would say ranger. Any race will do. Advantages, well basically in a situation where a decently played ranger vs. decently played warrior, ranger has good chance of winning. Lore wise, you get a nice selection. Running skills, camo and quiet movement are nice. Not only that but you get a decent spell + charmies and insect swarm. Personally I don't classify rangers as a rogue class. You have to play them out melee or you're not going to get anywhere. Well that or monk. But monk even a not rlly trained monk gives you a good idea of prep and lagging skills/ that plus how to fight all classes, and what you're looking for to combat them.(i.e. more defenses, more dmg output...etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 That record looks about right. Remember that I was an Initiate for 10 hours, and that's plenty of time to get your rear handed to you horribly. Also, most of my big PKs weren't challenges. I don't fight fair if I can avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 :-d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Words to live by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 My two cents, The one melee class that will teach you both basic melee tactics, the need to have your consumables on hand at all times, as well as give you a feel for what eq you should focus on. Neutral Ogre war for warmaster. Seriously being warmaster will teach you more about pk than any other cabal I say, since that [WARMASTER] flag will evoke more challenges than anything. Also Ogres have that nasty vuln, but having 1400ish hp gives you a very nice buffer in which to screw up and still recover. But good luck, I do not recomend normal or small melees, I did that with elf, I have alot of experience with warriors, but bash/bodyslam from a giant will make you curse and scream at the screen and make you want to start assassinating the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 Also you should take into account the ogre racial bonuses, Given that they get bonuses with weapons period, you do not have to be ultra decked, nor will you need to get one type of weapon (fire giants) Also neutral will give you a huge selection of eq. But ogres will let you try to decide if you like having saves and hit dam, all hit dam, all svs etc etc. Also with the right warrior lore(s) you can pk almost naked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 I challenge anyone to do these combos well: half-elf/gnome/halfling/human warrior dwarf/duergar/werebeast/human zerk of that group, humans are going to be the easiest..warriors easier than zerks... maybe dwarf/duergar war..but I've not decided how strongly to rate them. no avatars, any cabal/align.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iusedtobesomebody Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 my gnome warrior had a 75% win rate. not exactly "well", but considering he was a gnome warrior, heh, not too shabby. Rae was a tough halfling warrior. Tyr was a beast. half-elf. hrmmm. can't think of any offhand. humans suck. (winks @ Behrens) they are only here for undead/demon/vamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 3.0 and after please. Player skill was a LOT lower then, and eq was a lot more available (not to mention the classes were very differently balanced). I had a human warrior in 1.0 that did really well and turned into a crusader... Looking at behren's human zerk's record doesn't suggest that they are particularly good. I wasn't around at the time, but I'm sure he was not --nearly-- as strong as one of the giant races would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iusedtobesomebody Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 bah, you didn't say a specific "point-oh". heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 bah' date=' you didn't say a specific "point-oh". heh.[/quote'] Well, if she is challenging someone to play one successfuly now, you'd assume 3.0 eh? Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iusedtobesomebody Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 I challenge anyone to do these combos well.. where's the word "now" in her post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 well..it is implied by the tense... If I had written.. I challenge anyone to have DONE these combos well... edit: You cannot "to do" into the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iusedtobesomebody Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 you can imply all you want, the implication has to be recieved, else it is lost. therefore, i refuse to be implied at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.