Nov 11th 2011 5:49PM The previous tier, being BWD and BoT rarely coughed up the much needed offhand faster weapon. I would go in week after week and see nothing but intellect daggers drop. Smash cut to the Firelands, and now I have seen many a dagger drop, both main and offhand which sends out a rash of complaints from the rest of the raid. To be honest, it is getting a little ridiculous now to see gear drop each week that is only being consumed for offspec use, but I am not going to complain as I like the trend in rogue drop rates rising. Still, might only be my server. Thanks for the posts!
Aug 11th 2011 9:04PM I really liked this article and it showed me I really am going in the right direction. Uptime/positioning/and what abilities to use are paramount to successful dps as well as survivability. Anyone who thinks that any class type has lost its viability either does not know the class, or has just seen those who are still learning their class.
Whether its interrupting/stopping an enrage/applying tricks/disarming traps/stunning/ or just burning down a boss or mob, a rogue has not lost its viability, not to mention all those elementium lockboxes that need opening when there isn't a blacksmith to be found.
Keep the posts coming!
Rouge is a color, not a character class.
Kedrin of Hydraxis
Aug 28th 2007 2:29AM The first character I ever played was a rogue, and at times he can be frustrating to play. A rogue needs a good healer in a support position to keep dealing damage or else he is dead meat. I even know there must be some macros out there for rogues to deal combo damage and do different things faster than I can punch the keys. He is at level 70 now and the way to keep a rogue alive is to stock plenty of vanishing powder and use sprint when necessary.
Using a warrior now I find it frustrating at times that I cannot stealth, wish that I could because there are times when he grabs too much aggro.
Jul 9th 2007 11:17PM I wonder if they use any sounds in the app that are sampled from the BeeGees song.
Jan 18th 2007 6:04PM I noticed this phenom years ago and called it the Politically correct award of the year. When Tom Hanks won for Philadelphia I felt this way. I just didn't think the movie was that good. Schindler's List was clearly superior in a lot of ways, the best part of that movie was that the story and acting were good and I didn't feel manipulated into it.
Oct 20th 2006 1:55AM All I know is your blog got me to thinking about my top 5 stupidest movies I love so I will be doing that as my new Top 5 feature. I guess the main way I vote on it is I look over films I have liked to other people who thought maybe I should seek psychiatric counseling.
Sandler is like Jim Carey in that he pretty much plays himself in every movie, except that he doesn't. When you see Sandler in movies like "Spanglish" and "Punch Drunk Love" I just can't completely dismiss the guy. Similarly although Carey plays the same role in every movie, there is an exception to the rule like in "the Truman Show" and the Andy Kaufman movie.
I guess in summation I say: it takes all kinds.
Oct 20th 2006 1:41AM I guess the true answer to the Hannibal Question is answered at the box office. When making a movie of that type is no longer lucrative, that is the point at which no more will be made. I wish it were not true.
I just can't wait till they film a movie where they take some of Hannibal's "seed" and marry it with the egg of a woman with severe mental problems and we see Hannibal out in the year 2064 talking to his grandchild, an aspiring serial killer and he says to him "When I was your age, they didn't make ovens big enough to properly cook and prepare a human being..."
Sep 21st 2006 1:58PM I like Brian de Palma movies and I really wanted to like this one. But I didn't. I thought the acting was overdone. I found some of the images laughable at times. I was also wondering at what point I might see a comedian walk on camera as this movie seemed to be almost satirizing the Noir genre.
Saying that Brian de Palma makes movies and that we don't understand him are cop outs and condescension. I think your reasons for liking the movie are equally valid for my reasons of disliking it.
It takes all kinds.
Sep 18th 2006 9:34AM I can't help but agree concerning the whole social experiment being on the audience. I just don't see what all the fuss is about. The segregation of the races puts all the races on equal footing: something that previous segregation did not do. Sure they paid lip service then to "Separate but equal" but this time around it is "separate but equally miserable."
Secondly, unlike segregation of the past: you can leave the game at any time. And when was the last time that segregation led to the possibility of winning a million dollars?
Karma is a Bizzle fo Shizzle. As far as chickens go: all is fair in Survivor. If only they had put "Flicka" which reminds me of the name of a movie about a horse, under a box for the duration.