Inda
Profile Options
#81
0
Dannicus on 06/11/2012, 01:54 PM - view
Because you can't just swap them out? The most obvious reason is that sorcs and archers are ranged, meaning they don't need to extend into the enemy's territory to attack. This is a massive advantage in groups of 4-5+ fighting. Who cares that a warrior can backstab straight to a sorc if they instagibbed once they do because he just teleported into your entire team.
Another reason is that warriors and slayers generally can't affect a battle like sorcs/archers/zerks can. Even just from a damage perspective sorcs/archers/zerks can burst much higher than wars/slayers and burst is what kills people. If a warrior is attacking me while I am attacking my target, I don't really care much if heals are coming to me outside of the 2-3sec of stun he does every 30sec. On the other side, I have to actually avoid every charge attack from a archer/zerk or if a sorc places a fireblast on me I have to get out of that area because that could kill me or drop me super low. This doesn't include things like hailstorm/mindblast/inescapable doom and other spells that slayer/wars have no real equivalent to. Archers don't have the aoe affects that zerks/sorcs do, but they make up for it with significantly better single target control.
Not really sure why you include priests though since they are outright the best 1v1 class in game and the best pvp healer in general outside some select 2v2/3v3 comps. I also think that most people agree that slayer damage and passive KD chance is a bit too high right now. Lancers generally have the best group utility of non-healers because they do pretty much zero damage. You are giving up a healer or dps spot on your team for more group control.
Why bother with either when they must be baby sat like this when they can be swapped for another class with more utility and more consistency of damage potential due to self sufficiency?
Because you can't just swap them out? The most obvious reason is that sorcs and archers are ranged, meaning they don't need to extend into the enemy's territory to attack. This is a massive advantage in groups of 4-5+ fighting. Who cares that a warrior can backstab straight to a sorc if they instagibbed once they do because he just teleported into your entire team.
Another reason is that warriors and slayers generally can't affect a battle like sorcs/archers/zerks can. Even just from a damage perspective sorcs/archers/zerks can burst much higher than wars/slayers and burst is what kills people. If a warrior is attacking me while I am attacking my target, I don't really care much if heals are coming to me outside of the 2-3sec of stun he does every 30sec. On the other side, I have to actually avoid every charge attack from a archer/zerk or if a sorc places a fireblast on me I have to get out of that area because that could kill me or drop me super low. This doesn't include things like hailstorm/mindblast/inescapable doom and other spells that slayer/wars have no real equivalent to. Archers don't have the aoe affects that zerks/sorcs do, but they make up for it with significantly better single target control.
Not really sure why you include priests though since they are outright the best 1v1 class in game and the best pvp healer in general outside some select 2v2/3v3 comps. I also think that most people agree that slayer damage and passive KD chance is a bit too high right now. Lancers generally have the best group utility of non-healers because they do pretty much zero damage. You are giving up a healer or dps spot on your team for more group control.