remove invisible rogue skill!!!!!

[sulla 127]

, you even got JEALOUS when Shyleen liked Slay, Jealous is an emotion and you wear black clothes allot

 

proof bro? or just more shit coming out of your mouth?

btw bro, i wore pink bunny 10x longer than black suit, you fail again.

hope winter god gets you wolk, good luck now bro  :lol:

[Skadii 0]

proof bro? or just more shit coming out of your mouth?

btw bro, i wore pink bunny 10x longer than black suit, you fail again.

hope winter god gets you wolk, good luck now bro  :lol:

 

can you just stop spamming, Mr. I hate BDs cause Shyleen likes them, I have proof bro of you saying your swords thirst for ___ blood and etc  :lol:

Better get me Wotlk, I have many of those gay screens from WoW too  :lol:  Pink bunny, LOLOLOLOLOL PINK LOLOLOLOL

[sulla 127]

can you just stop spamming, Mr. I hate BDs cause Shyleen likes them, I have proof bro of you saying your swords thirst for ___ blood and etc  :lol:

Better get me Wotlk, I have many of those gay screens from WoW too  :lol:  Pink bunny, LOLOLOLOLOL PINK LOLOLOLOL

 

photoshop? i dont fear it, as i said, good luck with wolk bro, good ducking luck.

[Mecha 118]

Cant remove invisibility. Its what makes them rogues.

 

In most rpgs, higher power / def usually has drawback of less mobility. In WS, 2 handed weapons prove this, with higher atk but less atk rate. But movement speed isnt affected by armor types. So for BALANCE purposes, heavy armor users are melee.

but rogue is melee, with light armor. They cant move faster, so they get stealth. Rangers are ranged. Check new DD classes, mage and warlock. Light armor but ranged. If you take stealth from rogues, they will have light armor, no range, and will again be UP. Leave it alone

[slay 2]

Damn I just know that Skadii is the kitty lover

 

 

Back to topic, don't remove the invisible ability coz it was fine but remove all the mc ally mobs around elf city that make rogue very annoying.

Do you know that mc have many mobs ally around elf city?

Do you know elf have very few strategic mobs ally around mc city?

[Kakoka 10]

i not exculiute, cuz there names wont be rouges 

[Zeusthegod 110]

Why the f**k u brought this dead thread back??

[baskentli 57]

let me guess,he is trying to get a new rank.

[Pvphealerx 12]

More than 40 people voted to remove stealth what???? Hahaha it's the only good thing about rogue...seriously wtf

[absalom 54]

This is a very old and dead thread you guys are reviving. Probably the dumbest idea I have ever seen, thread creator obviously never played an RPG before. Rogue = stealth.

Edited January 22, 2015 by absalom

[Hazelnut 600]

It was created at the beginning of emergement of new skills lol...

So it was fine, but reviving this topic isnt good cause on these days, no one complain about rogues' stealth!

[sulla 127]

I voted to remove stealth, it's not fair

[Hazelnut 600]

Lol Sulla, you are a rogue too.

[Legionn 88]

I never saw a rogue without stealth, did any of you?

[Saber 23]

Wow Necropost!

Instead of stealth make rogues blink!

[DarkXLight 8]

Lol, I made heaps of these topics....

[Corona virus 230]

Yah, next make it so bds have to use fists only

[Jswaaz 87]

I never saw a rogue without stealth, did any of you?

 

oh comeon rogue didnt have stealth in 2011 same with ranger no bless. ranger and rogue used to be worst classes lol

[sulla 127]

oh comeon rogue didnt have stealth in 2011 same with ranger no bless. ranger and rogue used to be worst classes lol

ranger was never the worst class in 2011, third best, after shaman and druid for awhile.

[Jswaaz 87]

ranger had least damage, due to only having bow. and only had dodge + power shot

 

BD + druid were better than ranger

 

however i can admit rogue was worse than ranger at the time. barbs at their prime i guess

 

no heal + no damage for ranger+ rogue. 2 skills. bad armor. 

[Hazelnut 600]

Yea druid and shaman was the best at that time. All magical classes had the greatest dmg. But all warrior classes were the worst i thought.

[Jswaaz 87]

back then barb and bd did more damage than rogue and ranger. or at least its safe to say they did the same damage, yet bd/barb had better armor

[sulla 127]

ranger had least damage, due to only having bow. and only had dodge + power shot

 

BD + druid were better than ranger

 

however i can admit rogue was worse than ranger at the time. barbs at their prime i guess

 

no heal + no damage for ranger+ rogue. 2 skills. bad armor. 

 

uhm no, if you actually played 0.7 you would know rangers were dealing 80-90 damage, BD's hit 30, plus starting at range advantage, they were the third best class in that era, beaten only by casters hitting 100+ and heals.

 

1.5 they gained scatter shot, keeping them still good and able to destroy every melee, again only shamans and druid were a match too any good kiting ranger, barbs and bds were not anywhere near equal to ranger, till charge and hamstring, followed by rogues which required lucky dodges, and by then rangers had blessing / trap to counter, so even before blessing rangers were always great.

 

 

same with ranger no bless. ranger and rogue used to be worst classes lol

 

never even close to the worst.

[Jswaaz 87]

i completely disagree, but feel free to >imply i didnt play 0.7

 

BD's didnt hit 1/3rd less than rangers, you really have a hatred for rangers everytime we discuss this game

 

rogue was the worst class 0.7. no stealth. no damage. no defense. 2 skills and ur gonna say with a straight face ranger was better than every class except healer? seems legit. no wonder everybody played ranger in 0.7

 

oh wait, nobody did until bless came out

 

why bring up 1.5 when im not even talking about that. this is strictly 2-skill era. back when nobody needed rangers or rogues for anything since they had the same 2 skills as bd and barb (buff + attack), but with less damage and less defense

 

cant stop laughing at you saying rangers did 3X more damage than BD's 

Edited January 29, 2015 by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Hazelnut 600]

As i have said, magical classes were the best, and warrior classes were the worst. Ranger and rogue were in the middle.

PS : I know this because my 1st char was a ranger. I had always thought that druids are awesome at that time. Greatest dmg + heal.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Nestly

[Jswaaz 87]

explain to me the advantage rogue had over barb/bd back when there was only 2 skills. enlighten me

 

no amp

 

no skills

 

no defense

 

same damage as tanks

 

all farm parties required barb/bd before amp

 

rogue/ranger were just toy classes

Edited January 29, 2015 by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[sulla 127]

i completely disagree, but feel free to >imply i didnt play 0.7

 

BD's didnt hit 1/3rd less than rangers, you really have a hatred for rangers everytime we discuss this game

 

rogue was the worst class 0.7. no stealth. no damage. no defense. 2 skills and ur gonna say with a straight face ranger was better than every class except healer? seems legit. no wonder everybody played ranger in 0.7

 

oh wait, nobody did until bless came out

 

why bring up 1.5 when im not even talking about that. this is strictly 2-skill era. back when nobody needed rangers or rogues for anything since they had the same 2 skills as bd and barb (buff + attack), but with less damage and less defense

 

cant stop laughing at you saying rangers did 3X more damage than BD's 

Rangers did hit 90, BD's did hit 30 per hit split on two atks. if you did not know that, you did not play 0.7, you registered on forum months after 1.0. so probably didn't from the way you speak, that's why i brought up 1.5, but purely 0.7? you will never be able to explain why ranger was the worst class then, or before then.

 

Rogues were better than barbs, and not the worst so even "rogues were the worst class e before stealth" is wrong, bd's were better than rogues due to more hp, but only slightly, that simple, t0.7 class PvP order:

 

shaman/ druid > ranger > bd > rogue > barb.

 

shaman/druid hit 90/100 dmg.

ranger hit 80/90

rogue/bd hit 30 x2

barb hit 20/30

 

all had around 500-600 hp average at rank 4, every class had the same defense.

 

Rangers are the third best class in 0.7, nobody can deny or ever proof it wrong, if they actually played 0.7, but seeing as you troll / bullshit half the time, i guess you would say that.

 

another thing you should note, in 0.7 there was a bug that made physical defence not work, meaning heavy armour or light armour, each hit would be the same.

 

explain to me the advantage rogue had over barb/bd back when there was only 2 skills. enlighten me

 

no amp

 

no skills

 

no defense

 

same damage as tanks

 

all farm parties required barb/bd before amp

 

rogue/ranger were just toy classes

This second post is full of fail.

 

Firstly rogues hit x2 more than barbs, everybody had no defence, even tanks, rogues did not have the same damage as barbs, only the same damage as bds.

 

All farm parties required casters > any class, by just swapping aggro, you could farm bosss by switching aggro each hit as duo casters, and let the other caster heal up, then take aggro, repeat, melee were actually useless, two rangers could stand at range aggro swapping any bosses too..

 

Rangers are range, and toyed melee with no way to counter kite, if you actually got killed by melee in 0.7 as any ranger class, that's not funny..

 

 

oh wait, nobody did until bless came out

back when nobody needed rangers or rogues for anything since they had the same 2 skills as bd and barb (buff + attack), but with less damage and less defense

 

cant stop laughing 

 

How could i miss this, so rangers and rogues had less defense and damage than barbs and bds in 0.7? 80 damage from a ranger. 20-30 damage from a barb, 30x2 from bd and rogue, what is less? 0? that's how much defence every class had till 1.0.

 

nobody played ranger?

nobody? xd

 

I think your confused.

 

Here's a video of 0.7, for people who have no clue about what they are talking about, count the rangers:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKpe8f3wDPE#!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2015 by Sulla

[Jswaaz 87]

now ur changing words

 

dps doesnt = damage dealt per attack, you implied rangers did 3X more damage. which is not true

 

tl;dr

 

i said they were toy classes, had no actual use yet. were popular strictly due to the idea of such a class

 

show me video of ranger dealing 3X more damage than barb and bd before amp update 

Edited January 29, 2015 by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[sulla 127]

now ur changing words

 

dps doesnt = damage dealt per attack, you implied rangers did 3X more damage. which is not true

 

tl;dr

 

i said they were toy classes, had no actual use yet. were popular strictly due to the idea of such a class

 

show me video of ranger dealing 3X more damage than barb and bd before amp update 

You said a lot of thing's, like they sucked due to bad armour, and barbs / BDS hitting more, but what you didn't know is all def was bugged.

 

"3x more damage"

I already told you to the figures, your problem for not reading.

 

Barbs hit 20-30 1x

BDS hit 30x2 average second hit was usually lower

Rangers hit 80/90 in BG gear.

 

You didn't play 0.7 or getting it mixed up with 1.0.

 

BDS and barbs / rogues were the only toys, no way to counter kite, no def due to bug, and dealing less damage than ranger's, go see the video above.

 

Another thing you did not know, as trying to claim barbs did more damage, they could not equip two handed weapons, stuck with one handed axe and shield. Explain how that is more damage than 80/90 ranger, even badly geared rangers hit 57-60, double barbs damage, you clearly didn't play in 0.7 and do not know the damage values.

Warspear Online 0.7 (Old war): http://youtu.be/3f-9kLivn0U

[sulla 127]

Here is a more accurate video for you on elfs, as you didnt play 0.7, or never reached the max ranks / endgame content like us to understand.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CGb4bw_LH8#!

 

Ohot the ranger, hits 70-80 on mobs, that had def (players had no def, so he would hit 80/90+)

 

The BD hit 33/22

 

ohot clearly out damages him and takes aggro, explain how rangers had no use? why all russians used rangers / druids for war? why 80% of warspear on every server was firstborn? due to them having two range classes, and mcs having two toy melees, hope that's enough to put you in your place, your fake with no facts.

 

First video showed barbs damage. (29-30). explain how that is higher than ohots on the second video.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Sulla

[Jswaaz 87]

ur video shows u hitting 112, barb 35, ranger 55?

 

3X damage confirmed

 

i only played 0.7 for one week, was enough to know nobody used ranger on elf side at the time. was toy class with no advantage over druid. all rangers made were just in preparation for future updates (the infamous "skill tree" that we never got, with like 40 skills)

[sulla 127]

ur video shows u hitting 112, barb 35, ranger 55?

 

3X damage confirmed

 

i only played 0.7 for one week, was enough to know nobody used ranger on elf side at the time. was toy class with no advantage over druid. all rangers made were just in preparation for future updates (the infamous "skill tree" that we never got, with like 40 skills)

Read the second post, them rangers were badly geared(and still hit more than barbs / bds, who you tried to say did more dmg than rangers).

 

Second video ohot is hitting 70-79 on mobs with actual def, on players he would hit 80-90, as defence was bugged on players, which you didn't know and tried to claim tanks were better due to high def..

 

Keep saying "3x damage", yet i never said that once.

 

rangers hit 80-90

bds/rogues hit 30x2 average

barbs hit 30 average

 

I said this 3x, proof on the videos.

 

This is endgame damage, you would never have reached it if only played 1 week.

 

Stagger also didn't work properly, a ranger could kite any melee with normal hits and kill them in 5-6 hits, before they could reach him, explain how rangers were toys to bds / barbs that they could never reach?

 

Like i said, rangers were the third best class, druids / shamans the top classes, don't bother if you only played 1 week there, it took almost a month to rank 4, "Unlive video" clearly shows everyone playing druid / ranger, you just keep trolling  with "nobody played ranger" lies..

 

Rogues were slightly better than barbs, due to dealing 2x more damage.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Sulla

[Jswaaz 87]

im well aware of stagger back then, was easy as pie kiting any melee without losing distance. ranger was a toy class compared to healers in the old days. i stand by what i said.

 

ur first post didnt say 30x2, it just said 30. then u changed it to 30 per hit. then u changed it to 30x2. ur original statement was bds hit 3x less than rangers with the math u posted before correcting yourself

 

just because they were ranged doesnt give them advantage over any healer. and towards 1.0 bds became stronger + bulkier. which was the timeframe when i started to end-game farm. which back then nobody wanted ranger/rogue for farm. that being one of few reasons i put them below tanks. this of course still strictly being before classes had 3 skills. not gonna lie i stuck to ranger specifically because of their "skill tree" class-evolutions. god knows what they were called back then, but they sounded cool.

 

i was not aware barbs could not equip 2h back then, for that i agree fault. however i still believe rangers/rogues to be below all healers. and id even be biased enough to put  all melee-damage classes in the same tier. it was all about dem heals back then. still is now but with less desperation 

 

as i said before, ranger/rogue was a toy class until they had actual skills to back up what they were supposed to be. stagger was non existent back then, but that doesnt prove rangers were better. elves used rangers because of the concept of being a ranger, not because they were overpowered. i always play ranger in every mmo i play. healers beat every class, and everything else was just for fun

[sulla 127]

im well aware of stagger back then, was easy as pie kiting any melee without losing distance. ranger was a toy class compared to healers in the old days. i stand by what i said.

 

ur first post didnt say 30x2, it just said 30. then u changed it to 30 per hit. then u changed it to 30x2. ur original statement was bds hit 3x less than rangers with the math u posted before correcting yourself

 

just because they were ranged doesnt give them advantage over any healer. and towards 1.0 bds became stronger + bulkier. which was the timeframe when i started to end-game farm. which back then nobody wanted ranger/rogue for farm. that being one of few reasons i put them below tanks. this of course still strictly being before classes had 3 skills. not gonna lie i stuck to ranger specifically because of their "skill tree" class-evolutions. god knows what they were called back then, but they sounded cool.

 

i was not aware barbs could not equip 2h back then, for that i agree fault. however i still believe rangers/rogues to be below all healers. and id even be biased enough to put  all melee-damage classes in the same tier. it was all about dem heals back then. still is now but with less desperation 

 

as i said before, ranger/rogue was a toy class until they had actual skills to back up what they were supposed to be. stagger was non existent back then, but that doesnt prove rangers were better. elves used rangers because of the concept of being a ranger, not because they were overpowered. i always play ranger in every mmo i play. healers beat every class, and everything else was just for fun

Not sure why you keep mentioning healers, i already said casters are better.. this is purely rangers v bd / barb / rogue, which now you avoid, as i proved you were wrong about bd / barb being better.

 

Rangers were the third best, not the worst like you claim, better than barb / bd / rogue due to being range and hitting far more, that's all, ranger were not a toy to any melee, you didn't farm, "Played 1 week", back then you would not have gotten very far, top farmers had rangers / casters, but mainly casters.

 

Don't try to compare rogues to rangers, rogues hit less, and were half dead approaching any range class, rangers were not toys and widely played, they lost to casters, but destroyed all melees, still a great class at the time.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Sulla

[Jswaaz 87]

if they always lost to any healer, they were a toy. along with any other melee. until an actual combat triangle existed

[sulla 127]

if they always lost to any healer, they were a toy. along with any other melee. until an actual combat triangle existed

Rangers could actually touch healers, and get them low in some cases, melees could not, you do know the heal was almost 20-40 only? rangers also could toy with rogues and barbs, 2 classes too play around with made them a great choice to be in 0.7, that's why they wer the second most played class in all servers.

 

back then barb and bd did more damage than rogue and ranger. or at least its safe to say they did the same damage, yet bd/barb had better armor

 

To sum this entire chat up, barbs and BD did not do more damage than rogues(bds only slightly more than rogue) and rangers.

 

They did not have better armour, as all defence was 0.

 

Best classes in order: 

 

shaman / druid > ranger > BD > rogue > barb

 

Ranger was not anywhere near the worst, videos prove the damage and popularity of ranger, only second to druid, that's all, till you can counter why a melee class with no def, and dealing less damage then a range class, was better, your entire original statements are false, next time don't bother unless you actually played more than a week..

Edited January 29, 2015 by Sulla

[Jswaaz 87]

my original statement implied barbs with 2h weapons, therefore assume im talking about 1.0 due to misunderstanding. and yes, back then rangers/rogues were toys. they buffed melee in 1.0 and ranger/rogue dealt less damage

[sulla 127]

my original statement implied barbs with 2h weapons, therefore assume im talking about 1.0 due to misunderstanding. and yes, back then rangers/rogues were toys. they buffed melee in 1.0 and ranger/rogue dealt less damage

Rangers were still not toys in 1.0, they could kite and started at range. 1.0 barely lasted long anyway.

 

Original statement said "rangers before blessing" only, not other skills so i figured you meant around 1.5, till you said 0.7, which would be funny as rangers were nowhere near the worst back then, which melees were terrible.

 

Either way, they could still kite any melee, so never was the worst or equal to rogue on any versions, making this pointless, not sure how someone can be that bad at playing rangers they call them toys.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Sulla

[Jswaaz 87]

>implying 2011 is 2015

 

1.0 rangers had less damage than bds, and less defense

 

yes they could kite much easier, but i was merely comparing rangers ability to beat bds similar to rogue beating barb... but at the same time all lose to healer. they buffed all melee by alot in 1.0 to the point where rangers were toys strictly for comparing damage and farm ability

Edited January 30, 2015 by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[sulla 127]

>implying 2011 is 2015

 

1.0 rangers had less damage than bds, and less defense

 

yes they could kite much easier, but i was merely comparing rangers ability to beat bds similar to rogue beating barb... but at the same time all lose to healer. they buffed all melee by alot in 1.0 to the point where rangers were toys strictly for comparing damage and farm ability

No range class was a toy, they start at range and kite, that simple, even in 1.0 people still farmed with rangers, "farm ability", just keep changing your facts and now even version, from 0.7 to 1.0, seem to be a little confused.