Troublemaker Education
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


3 Neutral

About ExaltedGeico

  • Rank
    1 Dragon Ball(s)
    1 Dragon Ball(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

509 profile views
  1. Note 1: Most if not all of my knowledge concerning the Swordsman class revolves around my experience in DBOG-- but I'd imagine the class will be quite similar in DBOUR as it was there. So if DBOUR were to change anything significant, then this guide may not be the most educative guide you can rely on as a source for what makes Swordsman function. Note 2: Naturally, when I do find out about changes they make I'll try to update this guide as soon as possible. Note 3: The first part of this guide will consistent of an overview of all of the Swordsman class' abilities, the second part will go into their different builds and the viability of each build-- while the final part will go into their equipment set ups for each build/tactic, and so forth. Note 4: If you're wondering when part 2 and 3 will be added to this thread-- it's whenever I feel like it. Making part 1 was tiring enough, so I'll probably do it today, tomorrow, or next weekend. Note 5: You're probably not going to want to upgrade your gloves as a Swordsman-- since past level 40/50, you can rely on sword skills entirely; physical or energy build. Part 1: The reckoning..... --Martial Artist Skill Tree-- --Swordsman Skill Tree-- --Passives-- Not all of these passives are necessarily good for you. Depending on your gear some aren't worth the SP.
  2. I don't know where you got the notion that the majority agrees that bots killed DBOG-- but even if there was a poll conducted that'd suggest people believed that, they'd be false. The game's still alive, that's just an inherent fact. There's a plethora of players who desire/have played on the test server, as well as the actual server; the game's very much alive.
  3. No, having more time isn't a matter of privilege-- it's circumstance. And besides, people who don't have that kind of time probably wouldn't be able to compete very well, regardless if it's single client only. Argument from not having the time to invest into RPG to say Multi-clienting is bad doesn't really work-- RPGs are meant to be time consuming, and they almost always will be and are. If you don't have a computer that handle 5 clients, then use 3 clients. If more than 1 client is too much for you to handle-- tough luck, you make up a small portion of the community. At that point, it'd definitely wouldn't be a matter of privilege-- just an unfortunate circumstance, really. Finding another skilled and geared player for a set class isn't exactly simple. There either is a geared skilled player of that class, or there isn't-- I don't see the point in having to go out of your way and wait who knows how long for a player that might never show up. You can try appealing to the genre of the game, but it doesn't even work in this scenario-- if you use 2 clients, one for your main, and another for that missing class-- there'd be 4 different people in total in that party, so it'd still fit within the purpose of that dungeon. So the idea that my points are only supporting your side of the argument is just inherently false. Even if there were only 2 different people in that party-- it'd still fit within the whole multi-player condition that you're trying to set for all dungeon related parties. Well, what about the players who don't have enough alts to fit all the classes in their party? Tough luck, just find a dende, right? Should be simple enough, if we're going by your argument. Although, I'd definitely recommend making alts for unpopular but viable speed party classes-- it'd save you lots of time and energy spamming chat. Don't bother trying to argue players soloing CC50 or lower with a single man army-- that's a moot and weak argument to make, especially since most of those who do solo it-- solo it for the accomplishment of having done the allegedly 'impossible.' They most likely wouldn't spam it continuously on their own, and if they need to spam it-- would spam with people that they know, or strangers via LFP chat. Killed what game? If you mean DBOG, that's false. DBOG is very much alive, it had over 70 pages worth of users trying to get into their testing server on their Forum. Daneos fixes bugs on a daily basis, and so forth. I definitely don't disagree with the notion that bots have damaged DBOG to whatever extent that they have-- but they've had their positives, like buffing the economy's zeni. Sure, most of us are here to play a multi-player RPG-- and that's what we'd do even with multi-clienting; it's what we did in DBOG. Of course, a lot of players have quit DBOG since the start of Open Beta; however, there were a multitude of reasons behind players quitting, botting was most certainly not the main reason.
  4. Well, lemme just start by stating that I didn't say a single thing that has proven your point. If you're going to make those sort of claims, extrapolate on why you're right. Simply saying I proved your point, without demonstrating that I did means nothing. This is why I wanted us to discuss this on Discord. You wouldn't have to waste your time and energy restating something while adding your reasoning if I could just point that out as you were making your arguments. Multi-clienters aren't really privileged. Multi-clienting isn't a privilege, period-- you invest time and energy into gearing and leveling up those accounts, none of that has anything to do with being privileged; you're not handed those characters and their gear/level. I'm not going to bother arguing against whether or not people should beg for buffs in open world or not-- since that's very subjective. I could spam bibles upon bibles for why I disagree with your notion, but you wouldn't be convinced. I'd argue because multi-clienters worked for their 2-5 accounts that it would be fair to have a more efficient farming method. If they had the option to multi-client, but didn't, that's entirely on them for being inefficient at farming. Sure, you could argue that CC50, and some of the lesser dungeons are supposed to be party dungeons-- but I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to solo them. If you had powerful enough gear back in TW, you could pretty much fodderize the first 20-30 floors or so with relative ease, it would just be time consuming. You could also argue that needing 5 different people spamming some of the harder dungeons would take away the opportunity of doing said dungeons with members who have a tight schedule. But having to wait an entire hour, if not longer, for a player with a strong Dende or Poko to join your party can kill the game for you-- especially if they join your party, you make a single mistake -> die, and they leave your party. Multi-clienting fixes that because you could use different classes to fill the spot of a rare classes like Dende/Poko-- mind you, these are just examples, it can be ANY class. My goal's not to negate your experiences with private servers that allow multi-clienting-- but that was hardly an issue in DBOG, for most people during the time that I played DBOG. It differs per community really. But that was hardly an issue until the population of the game started decreasing. That's when people stopped forming parties with other players for UD, and TMQ-- because they'd get tired of waiting a long time for another person to go with them, when it'd be quicker if they just did it by themselves.
  5. That isn't true at all, multi-client doesn't remove the necessity of other players helping you in DBO. You'd be assuming that everyone or at least the vast majority would create 5 accounts with at least one character capped out with good gear-- which by the way, a lot of people struggled to muster up the effort to cap one character, let alone get good gear on said character, and actually move on to gearing up their alternate accounts. Some managed to make 3 accounts in total, but only the small minority of try hards, myself included, actually managed to level up and gear up 3-5 accounts worth of players. The ones who were proficient with their usage of multi-clienting at best solo'd the world boss or up until CC50. In addition to the fact that only a small minority used this feature to it's fullest potential-- players like us still formed parties with other players for TMQ, UD, and CC. Of course, not all multi-clienters formed parties when spamming TMQ/UD, however, I'd imagine if any of them wanted good gear out of CC, they'd spam it with a strong party. Despite the dozens, if not hundreds of players multi-clienting-- only a handful, if any, actually solo'd some of the harder dungeons-- and on CC no one managed to get past floor 50 on their own. Even the players who COULD solo CC50, didn't like to spam it alone-- because it can be stressful managing 5 different accounts, trying to get them in the right position at the right time, dealing with the minions, healing, getting the boss' attention and so forth. If anyone did manage to beat floor 55 on their own, they most certainly did not finish CC up to floor 100, as it's nigh impossible to accomplish on your own. Not only would you get an entire squad worth of plus 11-15 accounts, but you'd need the skill to manage all of them at the same time-- and you'd need at least 2 computers to distract the horde of minions, while the other 4 characters damaged the boss, tanked the damage, and healed the tank. So the idea that multi-clienting destroys the fabric of what an MMORPG is supposed to be, is just outright ludicrous. It's simply not true. People will almost always try to form parties with others when dealing with endgame content, despite multi-clienting-- and multi-clienting is not cheating. Everything you obtain via multi-clienting is legitimate, you still spend hours upon hours farming for your armor, yourself mind you, not bots. This can very easily be worked around by making gift box items untradeable; no need to remove multi-clienting for that reason. I don't know why you would bring that up as an even remotely valid point against multi-clienting.
  6. Well, everyone has their opinion on matters concerning the game-- but the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not multi-clienting is good for the game, not "do you like Multi-clienting or not." My main argument never had anything to do with botting helping the game, it was more so to point on the pros to botting to combat the cons that Tempest brought up. Generally, people who actually farmed for their gear-- spent a lot more time farming than just a couple of hours. I was actually one of the unlucky ones when farming. I endured a lot as a f2p to get two sets of plus 12-14 gear in OB. I farmed for about a month straight, 2-10 hours a day. And this doesn't include the amount of crap I had to go through leveling my alternate accounts to where I COULD maximize my farming efficiency. Botting your way to plus 15 really didn't effect OB as much as you think it did-- back in PoB, the reason why there were so many players with plus 15 was due to a duplication bug, hence why there wasn't nearly as many in OB that were obtained via cheating.
  7. Do I honestly need you to spell out your arguments? No, not really. It's more of a debate tactic where you get your opponent to actually state their argument, instead of imply it-- that way if they backtrack and change their argument, because the opposing side is making valid points against them, it'd be the same as them conceding that the opposite side is right. Then there's the possibility that I might come up with a better argument for your side, then you would have if you had just articulated it yourself. I also don't want to ASSUME your argument, because over the countless debates that I've had with people, misunderstandings can drag on a conversation to be unnecessarily long. Now that we're past that~ Sure, I definitely see where you're coming from with your whole multi-clienting -> more botting. But now that we've hit the part of the conversation where we have to evaluate botting's effect on DBO. And just to clarify, I've got a pretty decent understanding for why botting is bad-- but for the sake of continuing the conversation, i'm going to try to refute that by bringing up factors that botters add to the game, and how that can benefit the player base; I'm playing devil's advocate at this point. Initially in POB when players botted the game, they increased the amount of zeni that existed in the economy-- causing the prices to sky rocket, making it difficult for new players to buy stones and so forth. But that economy buff is a double edged sword, it has it's negatives, but it definitely has it's pros. Some free 2 players decided to use that to their advantage, they were one of the first to start crafting back in PoB-- since crafted items were in high demand back then, a lot of players who owned an excessive amount of zeni would throw their money at them to buy their gear-- which in turn gave them MORE zeni to craft more items, making crafted items pretty common near the end of PoB. End result: Players benefitted from the economy buff because they could make as many crafted items as they wanted, which increased the amount of crafted items circulating the markets. Because they had the opportunity to craft these items, the idea that you could craft powerful items through crafting become common-- mind you, most players at the time back in OG DBO, and half of PoB's life span had NO IDEA how to craft/why it was relevant. I'd say the worst that came out of the botters in PoB, was the excessive amount of plus 15 gears-- but that wasn't even a matter of botting, that was an issue that stemmed from a duplication bug, if I recall correctly(correct me if I'm wrong). Outside of the whole crafting revolution that occurred in PoB, whenever players farmed for hours on end-- after the stone drop rate amp, mind you-- players were actually rewarded for their efforts. You'd get a couple of advanced stones and sell them for 100 million each or so-- and I remember that making farming, back in the day, very satisfying for my friends and I. Although the prices for the items in high demand skyrocketed, the prices for farmable items like stones did as well-- so if you knew how to farm, you could get almost anything you wanted. Kid clocks, dogis, good crafted armor, accessories, and possibly even plus 15 if you farm long enough. Is botting cheating? Definitely, there's nothing to retort to there. But it's not like the community can't adapt to the botting and make use of it to where those botters work for them. Botting has had it's pros and cons in PoB-- and if that's your main argument for why multi-clienting is bad, if you combine all the factors that make multi-clienting good, in additions to the pros that botting has versus the cons that botting has ~ I think it's pretty obvious that the side of multi-clienting being good would outweigh the opposing side single-client side.
  8. I don't really understand what "fine farming" is, to really give you a direct response-- it's vague. But were you able to continuously farm places like the amusement park, hotel, or really any massively populated area, without having to worry about dying? I'm talking like 12-15+ mobs per grab, and 1-2 shotting the entire horde.
  9. Alright, fair enough. At the very least you're capable of making concessions on accepting the other side's arguments. Glad to see that are some who can see where I'm from, despite disagreeing with me. I can definitely see how people forming a party with themselves can be troublesome for low end dungeons like TMQs, since they're easy to do, and sure-- multi-client could/probably contributed to the lack of players willing to form parties with each other in order to maximize their profits. But realistically speaking, it's probably mostly due to the low population of DBOG. Because during the first year of OB, or so, LFP chat was quite lively-- filled with players who're willing to form parties with you and spam dungeons continuously for hours on end. But as things went downhill for DBOG, people either quit out of boredom, or disappointment-- sometimes both. And so due to a lack of a player population, people couldn't find others trying to form parties with them. Well, DBOG was bad-- but not all of their decisions were inherently bad. I thought that they made a lot of cool additions to the game, the allowed use of mutli-client(which unfortunately is now not allowed, so much for not using them as an example of what not to do, right?), dogi balls in CC, increased difficulty of CC to deal with the amount of highly geared player spamming it, dogi capsules in TMQs, increased drop rate for stones, and so forth. But that's not to say they didn't make a lot of poor decisions, they most certainly did, but mixed in with those poor decisions-- they made positive ones. It's not a matter of being able to farm by yourself, as much as it is a matter of farming as efficiently as possible by yourself-- without needing plus 15, for example, to survive a group of mobs.
  10. No, the way that the project turned out is most certainly not due to multi-clienting as you seem to be claiming-- until you substantiate your argumentation, and actually back that up. Simply making the assertion that "That project and how it turned out is enough evidence as to why multi clienting is a bad thing" is hardly an argument. It's too vague an answer for me to response to, and is thus an incomplete comparison; which is a logical fallacy, mind you. If you're going to argue that the result of DBOG is why multi-clienting is bad, I'm going to need you to articulate how/what manner in which DBOG went downhill directly correlates to mutli-clienting. Otherwise, you're not making a connection between DBOG and mutli-clienting, you'd just be throwing around random terms, that as far you've substantiated them, mean nothing. Yes, I've talked to countless people on Discord, and no it's not a matter of whether or not I accept their argument, or understand-- I understand their arguments completely, most of their argumentation was either based off of anecdotal evidence, or incomplete evidence. Some argued that because they couldn't find party members to do TMQ with, therefore mutli-clienting is bad-- without taking into consideration that the population of the game might be why they can't find any party members. Some asserted that DBOG was dead, and they allowed multi-clienting-- therefore mutli-clienting is bad, without extrapolating upon why mutli-clienting is related to DBOG's downfall. That's why I won't accept any of their arguments, they can't completely back up their claims with concrete evidence. I've already fully comprehended their points, and I still find my argument to be stronger. How I'm the one who's unable to accept another's argument, when I've continuously broke down the opposite side's arguments and properly retorted to them, is once again, beyond me. I'm not sure why you're bringing up my maturity as if it were in response to something that I directed at you. It should've been completely obvious that was in response to Zolty being a problem child just like he was back in DBOG's forums. I wanted an intellectually honest conversation, and he hopped on with his edgy bull crap-- I didn't want that, so I told him to leave. There's literally nothing that I've said in any of my messages that'd even begin to hint at immaturity. I have a thought that I want to convey, and so I said it straight forwardly, that's all there is to it. I articulate what I want to say with literally no difficulty, how me wanting children like Zolty to leave makes me immature is beyond me. Even if I were just a kid who joined my school's "debate team," it's pretty clear that I'm more qualified to formulate an argument than most people here-- so my being in a "debate team" would've been a positive thing, if anything. And if you knew that was in response to Zolty, then good for I guess-- I've got nothing else to tell you really, he swung at me, so I swung back. I don't even know you bother to tell me that what I'm saying isn't going to change the minds of the developer's team. I thought I made it pretty clear in my first response that it was no longer my objective.
  11. Keeping the game grindy and without the option to multi-client's counter intuitive. By eliminating the option of multi clienting you're essentially killing off any chance of farming efficiently for most players in the community, and to combat this the developers suggest to change the drop rate. Now you're trying to assert that by not only removing multi-client, but to keep the drop rate the same? I don't think people would enjoy that at all. People were already complaining about how the game was really grindy back in DBOG WITH multi-clienting, it'd naturally be worse without it. Multi clienting isn't a negative for the same, for reasons that I posted in my first message in this thread. Multi-client barely affected the social aspect of forming parties in DBOG. The reason why you couldn't find players to do TMQs with was because of the lack of players. Everyone who needed to do TMQs had already finished, and the ones who needed it either quit-- or continued to play, struggling to find party members.
  12. That doesn't at all refute what I'm saying. There's quite literally no issue with my using a failed project as the foundation for my evidence pertaining my claims concerning multi-clienting being a good feature. Your attempt to try to correlate multi-clienting to the failure of DBO is fallacious, at best-- until of course, you prove that the reason why they failed was because of multi-clienting, none of your arguments only any water in comparison to mine. To give you an analogy for why your logic isn't necessarily true; lets say said failed project actually accepted ideas from their community -> developers accepting suggestions from their fan base results in their game dying out. Although that isn't inherently false, it's not necessarily correct either. You'd have to cite the ideas that the developers accepted, and then prove why those ideas led to the game's downfall. But even then, that'd most likely lead you to a different conclusion than developers accepting feedback= games dying out. This is how you make an argument: claim -> reasoning/evidence. If you can't make a proper argument, you're not going to convince me-- I don't accept baseless claims. Why are you here? It's pretty blatant that anything that has the slightest relation to do with an intelligent conversation is too much for you to handle. I don't want you posting a reply to this thread ever again; leave, go somewhere else. The point of this thread is to be intellectually honest, your nonsense isn't valued here.
  13. Read before replying: If you're interested in debating this with me, and want instant responses from me-- @ExaltedGeico on the DBOUR server. If you don't mind me possibly taking a day to respond, I suppose you could respond here. My objective is a honest and intellectual discussion. I don't want to hear nonsense that you can't prove. Make sure to only make claims that you could substantiate, otherwise you'll get hammered real quick. I had just made my forum account, and joined the DBOUR discord server when I found out that multi-clienting had a negative stigma. That it allegedly did harm to the game's community when said feature is enabled. So I decided to take matters to the game's discord server, see if I could convince the developers otherwise. I was met with good and bad news. The bad news being that they were adamant about their decision pertaining the fact that they won't ever allow multi-clienting. The good news being that they're working on a method to go around that, so it won't ruin the game's enjoyment for the community. I'm all for that, but my goal isn't to convince the developers that multi-clienting, yet. I was bored, and decided that a good of quelling that boredom is to make my first DBOUR thread and reignite discussion concerning whether or not multi-clienting being a good game feature. And do allow me to remind you that my current motive is not to convince the developers, it's to try to remove some/if not all of the negative stimga surrounding multi-client and it's viability within the game. One of the several reasons that I'm convinced multi-clienting is positive for the community is that it increases the game's life span. I know most of the people in this community probably won't like seeing bibles of text on a thread-- so I'll keep it short and simple. Multi-clienting enabled -> incentive to make a bunch of accounts -> costs time to gear/level up -> end result: time spent. It also saves the developers time having to worry about reworking the classes in a manner that fits with their new "drop rate." But they don't seem to be worried about that. To which some attempted to argue against that by trying to suggest that multi-clienting would ruin the game's life span. For example botting, ruining the social aspect of the game, and so forth. Of course there were more, but they weren't articulated as nothing more than gibberish-- so I don't feel that they even began to compare to the first two. For one, botting's an inevitable issue that you're going to have to worry even with single-clienting, and i'd imagine they could very easily get around it via sandbox. So realistically speaking, single-client doesn't solve that. And two, multi-clienting never ruined the social aspect of the game. Plenty of people multi-cliented, just about ANYONE in DBOG who had any form of decent gear multi-cliented. Despite that, people still formed parties and clapped plethoras of CC/other dungeon runs. The LFP chat was quite lively back when DBOG had a decent population. The reason for that being the sheer difficulty of operating that many accounts while dealing with high difficulty dungeons, AND the tediousness of having to get plus 10-15 on FIVE accounts. So that's not much of a valid counter argument. But alas, that was pretty much the gist of an hour long conversation that I had with the good peeps of #ideas-and-suggestions on their discord server. Oh, and just to add on to the counter arguments people tried to make against me. They also tried to argue that since other RPGs don't allow multi-clienting, that it's inherently a negative feature. But unless you can prove that the reason why they don't allow it is because it has a negative effect on the community-- I don't want to hear it. And if you're against it just because it's not a popular feature among the plethoras of RPGs, then I don't wanna hear from you either. That'd be a strong appeal to tradition, a weak argument at best.
  14. I had come up with the name "ExaltedGeico" a while back when I used to take DBOG pretty seriously. Since I took DBOG seriously, instead of reviving my swordsmen "Blancarot," which is literally just a play off of Kakarot-- but that's another story for another time, I was playing DBOG for it's pvp; it's what I enjoyed about the game back then. By the time Open Beta had started, I'd already had tasted just about everything that PvE had to offer-- so the only thing that kept me going was the thirst of dominance within the fields of "Ranked Matchs" or the PvP platform in Korin Village-- which inevitably resulted in my choosing a powerful PvP class: Shadow Knight. When I was in the process of picking the name for my Namekian, I decided that it'd be a good idea for me to name myself after a certain car insurance's mascot; Geico. A year later, I found out that the mascot's name wasn't actually Geico, it was Martin, but that's besides the point. Once I set my eyes on that name, I decided to go with it. But that doesn't answer the question of how I came to the name "ExaltedGeico," where did I get the prefix to Geico? Well, at the time I wanted have a really edgy and egocentric name as possible, so I added "Exalted." That's pretty much the gist of how I came up with my display name: ExaltedGeico.