Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 241
  1. #141

  2. #142
    Community Member DaggomaticDwarf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California looking for Aussieee :)
    Posts
    816

    Default Nice Vid

    Quote Originally Posted by BigErkyKid View Post
    You're right, any class gets carried by STRIMTOM playing an Inq

    Here is his build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread...

    And all his other builds here: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...43#post6134043

    Boy he knows how to build.

    Dagg
    If A Dwarf falls in the forest does he make a sound? YES! Ah Gawd Dang Sons of a *BEEP*
    Guild leader of the "Order of the Never Empty Mug"-Khyber Server-Varda, Daggummet, Xotika, Angelheart, Annaleeza, Keirza, Gearszin, Iluvatar, Sindeamon, and Pippsqueek

  3. #143
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaggomaticDwarf View Post
    You're right, any class gets carried by STRIMTOM playing an Inq

    Here is his build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread...

    And all his other builds here: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...43#post6134043

    Boy he knows how to build.

    Dagg
    Strimptom is not a good player and his builds are messy. Go look at any of his build threads and check the amount of people telling him how to optimize.

  4. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaggomaticDwarf View Post
    You're right, any class gets carried by STRIMTOM playing an Inq

    Here is his build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread...

    And all his other builds here: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...43#post6134043

    Boy he knows how to build.

    Dagg
    People tagging Strimtom's builds. LOL. A quick and easy way to lose an argument, that's for sure.

  5. #145
    Community Member BigErkyKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komradkillingmachine View Post
    People tagging Strimtom's builds. LOL. A quick and easy way to lose an argument, that's for sure.
    I think he plays alright in the difficulties I have seen him play. As in his keyboard skills are very decent, he doesn’t mess up. I also know because he plays in my server. Let me up that, he is a good player with a powerful character (lots of twink gear and pls). However, I do not think he is s top builder by any stretch of imagination. He executes far better than he builds.

    That said, one of the friendliest players out there, he is good at power leveling and will take any pugger. So, please, no cheap shots.

    I just wanted to point out how you can tag on anything to inq, not even optimize gear or build, and it will carry you. It is the new warlock on a pre that doesn’t need to meet dcs.

  6. #146
    Community Member Bacab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    3,664

    Default

    Strimtom is a good dude and his channel is entertaining.

    I have watched his streams and I have yet to not have fun on one of his builds.

    He will even point out the weaknesses of certain builds and the strengths of them.

    I have seen streams where something bad happens and he calmly (usually) will explain what happened (user error, weakness of build, etc)

    I am certainly not a top tier player, so maybe I don't know what "great looks like" as far as DDO goes. But I do know he helps others have fun, and will help on forums or in game or explain stuff in a stream to ANYONE.

    Anyway, I think Dagg was pointing out that Strimtom pointed out that Inquisitor can be applied to really almost any class and made to work.

    The problem with Inquisitor in my opinion is that it does really good DPS (I tend to play Cleric, Bard, RM Arty (tanky potion chucker...its fun!))

    My current life is a pure Arty/Inquis and I am absolutely doing pretty well on lower Reaper; been soloing R3...that is really good for me.

    The thing is, it lets you tap into really strong SAFE DPS, and you can put it on literally anything.

    You can have access to a Quickened, Empowered Mass Heal...AND shoot things from a distance.

    I think Inquisitor could be dialed back a bit, but I don't want to see it nerfed into the ground.
    Last edited by Bacab; 09-06-2019 at 05:48 AM.
    "Hireling" and "Hjealer"
    Member of THACO on Ghallanda

  7. #147
    Community Member BigErkyKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bacab View Post
    Strimtom is a good dude and his channel is entertaining.
    I am certainly not a top tier player, so maybe I don't know what "great looks like" as far as DDO goes. But I do know he helps others have fun, and will help on forums or in game or explain stuff in a stream to ANYONE.
    Agreed. The whole issue was that some people were pointing out that he is not a top builder. He isn't, but he is decently knowledgeable of the game, and he is not on trial right now.


    The problem with Inquisitor in my opinion is that it does really good DPS [...] The thing is, it lets you tap into really strong SAFE DPS, and you can put it on literally anything.
    Yep, it will carry absolutely ANY class. Heck, even a monk INQ can do well since it has enough feats. Now that is the problem: if you are getting such strong results with unoptimized builds, can you imagine what people who actually build FOR INQ, as opposed to crutch on it to carry a weak build, can do?

    Combine it with the new Shiradi and you have a very powerful build, quite literally top tier DPS on a RANGED character. Plus it is not like INQ does not have some defenses, on top of the best of it all, exploiting AI pathing and the natural weakness of ranged attacks from mobs. 95% of the most dangerous special attacks and mechanics in the game are designed to counter melee.

    We are seeing a really worrying trend nowadays in DDO, which is that the natural checks against ranged DPS and magic DPS are being removed. It is now possible to focus on a single magic element and nuke everything, including the things that traditionally were caster checks. In terms of martial ranged, INQ allows for top tier raw DPS, something that you couldn't do as much in the past few updates.

    Melees can't really compete, given all the ´´melee range'', ''grazing hits'', and fortification business, which are natural checks to the power of the characters. A sorc these days can spam maximized lvl9 spells in quests and one shot rooms without having to worry too much about any of those things.

  8. #148
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigErkyKid View Post
    Melees can't really compete
    Are you kidding me? We went from sorcs flat out suck at high difficulties and there was zero, and I mean zero reason to play ranged to now melees can't really compete? The hyperbole is strong in this thread.

    Ranged DPS needs to actually DO DPS FROM RANGE! Otherwise it's not ranged DPS. Saying you must be in melee range to do any kind of reasonable DPS is killing an entire archtype of the game. Might as well just remove all bows, crossbows, etc right now.

    Sorcs need to actually DO BURST DPS! It's what the class is. It's a blaster, blasters don't pew pew, they go boom. If sorcs are one shotting the entire room, then you need to play at a higher difficulty.

    And OMG, a universal tree can improve any class...wait for it...universally! Whatever shall we do??!?!?

    This ridiculous notion that only the melee archtype should be able to do any kind of DPS isn't "balancing the game". It's pure "grass is greener" syndrom. Inquisitive is fun, maybe look at toning down or removing the adrenaline shot out of Shriadi, because I don't think that destiny needs it and if you're going to continue to nerf monks in even small ways (did you really need to shave 0.5W from monks in GMoF??), then how about you not put abilities that that autocrit for 400% damage on a simple timer in a tree that's already very strong.

    Inquisitive doesn't need to be nerfed. It's fine just as it is, and it's where bow rangers should be as well, period. Tweak the adrenaline shot in Shiradi and everything is fine. Stop nerfing wolves and monks and for God's sakes stop nerfing fighters and make 2HF feel better, especially in higher difficulties.

  9. #149
    Community Member DaggomaticDwarf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California looking for Aussieee :)
    Posts
    816

    Default You should quote the entire sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zretch View Post
    Are you kidding me? We went from sorcs flat out suck at high difficulties and there was zero, and I mean zero reason to play ranged to now melees can't really compete? The hyperbole is strong in this thread.

    Ranged DPS needs to actually DO DPS FROM RANGE! Otherwise it's not ranged DPS. Saying you must be in melee range to do any kind of reasonable DPS is killing an entire archtype of the game. Might as well just remove all bows, crossbows, etc right now.

    Sorcs need to actually DO BURST DPS! It's what the class is. It's a blaster, blasters don't pew pew, they go boom. If sorcs are one shotting the entire room, then you need to play at a higher difficulty.

    And OMG, a universal tree can improve any class...wait for it...universally! Whatever shall we do??!?!?

    This ridiculous notion that only the melee archtype should be able to do any kind of DPS isn't "balancing the game". It's pure "grass is greener" syndrom. Inquisitive is fun, maybe look at toning down or removing the adrenaline shot out of Shriadi, because I don't think that destiny needs it and if you're going to continue to nerf monks in even small ways (did you really need to shave 0.5W from monks in GMoF??), then how about you not put abilities that that autocrit for 400% damage on a simple timer in a tree that's already very strong.

    Inquisitive doesn't need to be nerfed. It's fine just as it is, and it's where bow rangers should be as well, period. Tweak the adrenaline shot in Shiradi and everything is fine. Stop nerfing wolves and monks and for God's sakes stop nerfing fighters and make 2HF feel better, especially in higher difficulties.
    He is right is some ways for an Inq, as Bacab stated, it is SAFE DPS. The Melee needs to worries about damage dealt as well as damage received.

    My beef is that they are not as OP as so many are trying to say. Are they strong, YES! The problem lies in the fact that it's a Universal tree. You don't lose anything from a class perspective, heck you can almost be a pure class and still benefit from all your class goodies like self healing, self buffing, CC. Whatever!

    Nerfing the tree is not nerfing the tree. It's nerfing these players who built their toons to maximize it's strength, in this case Ranged.

    Y'all don't have to defend Strimtom or me for that matter. I just ignore the whinny, self centered know-it-all Trolls that try to tell other how to play or pretend they are the most knowledgeable of all things DDO.

    Kill count doesn't matter folks, just like dog years.

    Dagg.
    If A Dwarf falls in the forest does he make a sound? YES! Ah Gawd Dang Sons of a *BEEP*
    Guild leader of the "Order of the Never Empty Mug"-Khyber Server-Varda, Daggummet, Xotika, Angelheart, Annaleeza, Keirza, Gearszin, Iluvatar, Sindeamon, and Pippsqueek

  10. #150
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zretch View Post
    And OMG, a universal tree can improve any class...wait for it...universally! Whatever shall we do??!?!?
    Universal trees should be weaker than class trees because of how easy to access they are. They might help make a few builds, but shouldn't BE builds by themselves.

    Notice the differences between Harper Agent, the very first universal tree, and Inquisitive, and just how far from the initial design they fell.

    Universal trees might play to the strengths of one class more than they do others (notice the synergies between monks/wolves and Falconry), but some things in there should be worth getting for everyone no matter the build (Harper has KtA, Vistani has many decent passives, Falconry too) while not overshadowing any other tree that class has access to, because the cost to getting access to a full class tree is limiting build options and multiclass choices, while there is no such limit for universal trees.
    Less limiting factors, less power.

    This is quite, quite obviously not the fact with Inquisitive. It's as strong, if not stronger for a crossbow user than Mechanic is for a pure Rogue.

  11. #151
    Community Member Maldorin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    410

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by DaggomaticDwarf View Post

    Kill count doesn't matter folks, just like dog years.

    Dagg.
    It does and it doesn't. But it can be a measurement of performance when comparing to a similar role or style.

    Example:

    Inqs FvS build kills 147
    Xbow arty repeater build 23
    Ranger bow build 15

    Conclusion:
    Buff inquisitive


  12. #152
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maldorin View Post
    Inqs FvS build kills 147
    Xbow arty repeater build 23
    Ranger bow build 15

    Conclusion:
    Buff inquisitive

    Ranger/bow: free
    Artificer: 995 DDO points
    Inquisitive: $40+ ingame effort, or $80
    Dev console Godmode: Priceless
    For everything else, there's Mastercard...

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    Universal trees should be weaker than class trees because of how easy to access they are. They might help make a few builds, but shouldn't BE builds by themselves.
    No, paid trees should be more valuable than free trees, else they won't sell.

  13. #153
    Community Member BigErkyKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zretch View Post
    Are you kidding me? We went from sorcs flat out suck at high difficulties and there was zero, and I mean zero reason to play ranged to now melees can't really compete? The hyperbole is strong in this thread.

    Ranged DPS needs to actually DO DPS FROM RANGE! Otherwise it's not ranged DPS. Saying you must be in melee range to do any kind of reasonable DPS is killing an entire archtype of the game. Might as well just remove all bows, crossbows, etc right now.

    Sorcs need to actually DO BURST DPS! It's what the class is. It's a blaster, blasters don't pew pew, they go boom. If sorcs are one shotting the entire room, then you need to play at a higher difficulty.

    And OMG, a universal tree can improve any class...wait for it...universally! Whatever shall we do??!?!?

    This ridiculous notion that only the melee archtype should be able to do any kind of DPS isn't "balancing the game". It's pure "grass is greener" syndrom. Inquisitive is fun, maybe look at toning down or removing the adrenaline shot out of Shriadi, because I don't think that destiny needs it and if you're going to continue to nerf monks in even small ways (did you really need to shave 0.5W from monks in GMoF??), then how about you not put abilities that that autocrit for 400% damage on a simple timer in a tree that's already very strong.

    Inquisitive doesn't need to be nerfed. It's fine just as it is, and it's where bow rangers should be as well, period. Tweak the adrenaline shot in Shiradi and everything is fine. Stop nerfing wolves and monks and for God's sakes stop nerfing fighters and make 2HF feel better, especially in higher difficulties.
    Hyperbole is your post, read it back.

    I run a sorc maxed at 80% peak capacity in end game and, let me tell you, better optimized melee were absolutely redundant in mid to low skulls.

    Leveling a melee is a flavor exercise, it is just plain worse, and the new reapers just made it even worse.

    We know the pendulum swings, but it is too much. I want all archetypes to be reasonably balanced, and you will see me supporting you when ranged is UP. However, atm, the game is back to caster ranger.

  14. #154
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigErkyKid View Post
    Hyperbole is your post, read it back.

    I run a sorc maxed at 80% peak capacity in end game and, let me tell you, better optimized melee were absolutely redundant in mid to low skulls.

    Leveling a melee is a flavor exercise, it is just plain worse, and the new reapers just made it even worse.

    We know the pendulum swings, but it is too much. I want all archetypes to be reasonably balanced, and you will see me supporting you when ranged is UP. However, atm, the game is back to caster ranger.
    There's no hyperbole in stating that DPS classes need to do DPS, and ranged DPS needs to do it from rage while burst DPS needs to do it in bursts.

    DPS is the sorc's job, don't complain when they do it, and certainly don't complain when they do it on low difficulties against trash mobs effectively. But hey, why not go back to complaining inquisitives, maybe trying to get two playstyles nerfed in the same thread is a bit too much to bite off.

  15. #155
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zretch View Post
    There's no hyperbole in stating that DPS classes need to do DPS, and ranged DPS needs to do it from rage while burst DPS needs to do it in bursts.

    DPS is the sorc's job, don't complain when they do it, and certainly don't complain when they do it on low difficulties against trash mobs effectively. But hey, why not go back to complaining inquisitives, maybe trying to get two playstyles nerfed in the same thread is a bit too much to bite off.
    No that's not hyperbole. However that doesn't change the fact that sorcs/inqs are better DPS than the playstyle that needs to always be in danger in order to get any DPS at all.

    Current balance is garbage. It doesn't matter if you think other styles/class should be brought up to the new par or if you think the over-inflated top needs to be brought down - current balance is pure garbage. The problem is evident, the fix is up in the air.

  16. #156
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigErkyKid View Post
    So, if I manage to enlist an all time expert in crossbows, and we give you the true DPS comparison, will that be sufficient to convince you?
    How about just starting with something (relatively) simple: whats the baseline rate of fire for the double crossbow stance versus a repeating crossbow (artificer archetype) versus a great crossbow (mechanic archetype).

    My casual gamer understanding starts roughly: a repeater throws out three bolts, a great crossbow one, and an inquisitive's plain dual crossbows throw out two.

    What I imagine a next simple step is factoring in doubleshot, so does that become roughly (for theoretically 60% doubleshot): repeater is 1*1.2 + 1*1.2 + 1*1.2 (I thought doubleshot is split evenly across each repeater bolt) vs dual crossbows at 1*1.6 + 1*1.6 vs great crossbow at 1*1.6? That comes to 3.6 bolts vs 3.2 bolts vs 1.6 bolts for repeater, dual, and great.

    Now what's next that starts to complicate it as far as just rate of fire? Factor in rapid shot, rapid reload, haste (or blinding speed) and ranged alacrity enhancements? And do those all affect repeaters differently from non-repeating crossbows? It sounds like they might based on the animations for repeaters.

    It would be great to see a similar kind of test for repeaters and great crossbows as shown here for dual crossbows: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=507098.

    The videos posted in this thread make inquisitive seem weak and slow compared to a sorcerer. I'm more interested in comparing inquisitive play style to the artificer/repeater and mechanic/great crossbow play styles, throw in bows too if you're motivated. It would make any power discrepancy more clear (at least, to me) if we had valid rates of fire for those play styles to compare and then move on to factoring in effects-on-hit from there, and other enhancements like crit range/multipliers. But right now I'm not sure where it stands just for rate of fire and the casual view above doesn't reveal any great advantage dual crossbows have over a repeater in terms of speed of applying hits/damage. If there is a power discrepancy but it's related to those other factors and not rate of fire, fine, but if you want to build that case, breaking it down step by step into the areas of rate of fire, on hit effects, and crit differences would be an argument I'd pay attention to and would be more productive in isolating *why* there's a major discrepancy.

  17. #157
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hit_fido View Post
    How about just starting with something (relatively) simple: whats the baseline rate of fire for the double crossbow stance versus a repeating crossbow (artificer archetype) versus a great crossbow (mechanic archetype).

    My casual gamer understanding starts roughly: a repeater throws out three bolts, a great crossbow one, and an inquisitive's plain dual crossbows throw out two.

    What I imagine a next simple step is factoring in doubleshot, so does that become roughly (for theoretically 60% doubleshot): repeater is 1*1.2 + 1*1.2 + 1*1.2 (I thought doubleshot is split evenly across each repeater bolt) vs dual crossbows at 1*1.6 + 1*1.6 vs great crossbow at 1*1.6? That comes to 3.6 bolts vs 3.2 bolts vs 1.6 bolts for repeater, dual, and great.

    Now what's next that starts to complicate it as far as just rate of fire? Factor in rapid shot, rapid reload, haste (or blinding speed) and ranged alacrity enhancements? And do those all affect repeaters differently from non-repeating crossbows? It sounds like they might based on the animations for repeaters.

    It would be great to see a similar kind of test for repeaters and great crossbows as shown here for dual crossbows: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=507098.

    The videos posted in this thread make inquisitive seem weak and slow compared to a sorcerer. I'm more interested in comparing inquisitive play style to the artificer/repeater and mechanic/great crossbow play styles, throw in bows too if you're motivated. It would make any power discrepancy more clear (at least, to me) if we had valid rates of fire for those play styles to compare and then move on to factoring in effects-on-hit from there, and other enhancements like crit range/multipliers. But right now I'm not sure where it stands just for rate of fire and the casual view above doesn't reveal any great advantage dual crossbows have over a repeater in terms of speed of applying hits/damage. If there is a power discrepancy but it's related to those other factors and not rate of fire, fine, but if you want to build that case, breaking it down step by step into the areas of rate of fire, on hit effects, and crit differences would be an argument I'd pay attention to and would be more productive in isolating *why* there's a major discrepancy.
    Having played all of the above I can tell you with the utmost confidence a Inq build with basic tree buffs and feats (tier 5 alacrity, blinding speed) fires significantly faster than a Great Xbow or Repeater. Inq builds without NHB still fire very fast and are quite viable whereas a Great Xbow build is terrible DPS without fusillade.

  18. #158
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Emerge2012 View Post
    ... a Inq build with basic tree buffs and feats (tier 5 alacrity, blinding speed) fires significantly faster than a Great Xbow or Repeater.
    But why? I'm interested in seeing someone break it down step by step. For example, I'd think maybe the 30% alacrity is a major factor, but:

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpone View Post
    Inquisitive Dual Shooter:

    Blinding Speed + Rapid Reload + Rapid Shot: 80.09 seconds

    Inquisitor’s Path: Jaded + Blinding Speed + Rapid Reload + Rapid Shot: 78.26 seconds
    That makes it looks like the alacrity contributes a very minor speed improvement. Inquisitive isn't 30% faster with the 30% alactrity vs without. So if you took that away, based on your play experience you'd still be firing significantly faster than a repeater. Why? I'd like to see someone isolate/explain the major cause(s) for it based on some kind of evidenciary argument. That might be both more useful to pressure Turbine and also potentially predictive for players who want to anticipate adjustments to those specific "overperforming" factors.

  19. #159
    Community Member BigErkyKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hit_fido View Post
    . If there is a power discrepancy but it's related to those other factors and not rate of fire, fine, but if you want to build that case, breaking it down step by step into the areas of rate of fire, on hit effects, and crit differences would be an argument I'd pay attention to and would be more productive in isolating *why* there's a major discrepancy.
    I'd be happy to, but the "all is fine crowd" greatly discourages that kind of work. It is not that the DPS formula is hard to use, rather that there is a lot of stuff that is unclear (discrepancies between text and effects, ambiguous descriptors, etc.).

    As for WHY INQ is op, first let's describe the tree:

    - Medium defenses (auto diplo, over dodge cap, stuns, knockdown)
    - Strong offense: ranged power, doubleshot, procs -- the DPS provided by INQ alone is better than a lot of PRE trees.
    - High ROF

    The key issues, IMHO,are:

    i) that it breaks the balance that we had between repeater and heavy xbow (bigger hits, but much lower ROF):

    it is overtuned for ROF given the hits and the full double shot they get (repeater pays for the 3 shots, dual xbow does not). Last time I checked repeater vs heavy xbow was something like this:
    So divide those by 60 seconds (rounded to 2nd decimal):
    Needle: 2.82
    Great xbbow: 1.67
    https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...ogue-vrs-Artie

    So it isn't really 1v3 shots for repeater vs GXB. However, INQ gets a 30% alacrity, much like GXB got to compete with repeater, but it is dual shot. See how that's broken?


    ii) it is such a strong DPS tree, that it allows for double stacking of damage:

    And it is too synergistic; very few archetypes can double stack in two strong trees like this. For example, another one is rogue and vistani. It is much stronger than rogue and fighter because it synergizes better. Currently rogue dagger is a tier 1 DPS build.

    It also provides excellent additional procs (law damage) on a tree that has high ROF. Obviously the synergy with sneak attack is massive.

    Enough for a start?

  20. #160
    Community Member Yamani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the states
    Posts
    1,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigErkyKid View Post
    The key issues, IMHO,are:

    i) that it breaks the balance that we had between repeater and heavy xbow (bigger hits, but much lower ROF):

    Was there EVER blance between repeater and any other ranged weapon? Repeaters were good for heroics that was about it.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload