ArenaNet talk:Skill feedback/Elementalist/Searing Flames
|
Note: As of September 2, 2009 this page is no longer active. If you have suggestions for Guild Wars skills please go to Feedback:Main to learn how to submit suggestions that ArenaNet can use. |
Who ever posted this and the proposal is just ridiculous. Renin 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who would honestly miss this skill? People who are too bad to win with anything else? It would be good for the game to make this skill completely non-viable until it can get reworked into something more interesting and versitile. --TimeToGetIntense 06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would. It is the only Elementalist skill that does exactly what an Elementalist is supposed to do: high AoE damage for a high energy cost with a low recharge. I agree that it has insane spike potential, which may have to be adressed, but don't kill the essence of this spell. Warriors still have a higher DPS (which is weird, considering the fact that in just about any fantasy lore, it is the wizards who are the strongest damage dealers) but this skill at least allows Elementalists to enter the DPS competition. Nicky Silverstar 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, and to you Readem: I don't want THIS skill buffed, just the average DPS of Elementalists in general. And by DPS I mean the average damage dealt per second, measured over time. Not the highest amount of damage an Elementalist can deal in just 1 second (aka spiking).
Why? Elementalists are support characters :/. SF is not really viable anymore tbh. It is a gimmick comparable to FoC spike (but less effective). The only time this skill has truly been abused, was by ttgr on frozen. --Readem 09:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment removed by user "Sorry about that comment, I'd like to retract it. We already know that you don't want then to do damage and I do and there is no need to start another flame war. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Nicky Silverstar (talk).
- they are meant to do damage, if they dont then theres something wrong --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:62.13.9.2 (talk).
- bring as many extinguish as searing flames (i lol'ed after reading this) 76.26.189.65 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- they are meant to do damage, if they dont then theres something wrong --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:62.13.9.2 (talk).
This skill isn't really a balance issue coz no1 uses it in high-end PvP so I don't get the problem. Also lol@these suggestions, 50 energy XD. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also couldn't think of a suitable change, that's why my suggestions are bad. Using this skill on one ele makes for an interesting build, but using it on 6 eles is just abusive. I realize the design team wanted SF to be able to work over itself, so I didn't want to see the recharge changed. Either the AoE has to be smaller (adjacent) or the conditional damage has to be lower, or something else has to tone its spike abilities down. Constant mass-aoe burning is still good without the bonus damage. Also, someone forgot to test Glyph of Immolation or failed when they wrote its code. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Damage output is low enough to be an okay elite, energy cost also is also fine because within 10 seconds without any kind of energy management, you'll just burn right through your energy. I think they should once again scale down the burning effect to 1...3...6 instead of 7. Renin 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Damage output low enough? This is the best Ele damage elite in the game. Yes, people do use it in high end pvp, even to spike. You can't come here and say this skill is fine when it lets bad teams mindlessly win. Hell, I've seen heroway groups beat top 100 guilds with this. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Suggestion: make the ele lose 10 energy if it strikes more than one foe, reduce cast cost to 10. Fixed.
- Nah, can't be fixed that easily, PvE elementalist will all complain that it's too expensive. They've already scaled back the damage of Searing Flames, so I don't know how else they'll change it. I mean for me, it's one of the few offensive skill that an ele has in it's arsenal that can really compete different forms of PvP offensively, alone or in a group. Renin 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Suggestion: make the ele lose 10 energy if it strikes more than one foe, reduce cast cost to 10. Fixed.
- Damage output low enough? This is the best Ele damage elite in the game. Yes, people do use it in high end pvp, even to spike. You can't come here and say this skill is fine when it lets bad teams mindlessly win. Hell, I've seen heroway groups beat top 100 guilds with this. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I have run this in HA and such with heros even in GvGs and won but not because it's overpowered but because people are just bad at times. If you spread out it only hits one person and if that's too much get new monks. Honestly it's been nerfed enough I dont even use this in PvE anymore since Mark Of Rodgorts recharge was nerfed. You act like eles are energy machines or something, it's not exactly easy to manage as it is, at least not long term. Mirror of disenchantment is ftw use it. 74.229.66.241 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nerfed enough? It's exactly as it was during release. It was broken then, it's broken now. It's the scrubs that think "this skill is fine, everyone else is just bad." Maybe those people lose to this because it's overpowered? 72.235.48.41 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Damage output was nerfed enough. It was doing 120+ damage at 16. I still say leave it as it is or scale down the burning period and increase energy to 20. but that to me is too expensive for a spammable elite. Renin 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shard, I dunno... Honestly I found it very easy to play Monk against SF teams before it was nerfed. Maybe most people are bad? However if a lot of people still win with this, that's not OK. It's a degenerate skill and I support any nerfing of it. A rework would be nice, but that's not needed because we have Mind Blast. --TimeToGetIntense 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Damage output was nerfed enough. It was doing 120+ damage at 16. I still say leave it as it is or scale down the burning period and increase energy to 20. but that to me is too expensive for a spammable elite. Renin 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
ridiculous suggestion , this is was already nerfed enough , its perfectly fine , doesn't need anymore nerfs , i have never seen this skill in any type of high end pvp , only mind blast/freeze 189.70.157.205 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're an idiot. This skill has been reverted to how it was on day 1. It has, effectively, never been touched by any skill balances. "This has been nerfed before," even though that arguent doesn't apply to this skill, still isn't an excuse to leave something broken. Just because you suck at every other build does not give you a say in how the game should be. This is supposed to be a game of skill, not a game of skill bar. There's no skill involved in 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2. 72.235.48.41 16:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not an idiot because I do love this skill and do know that the damage output before was comparable to meteor shower. Playing 1, 2, 1, 2 isn't fun being killed by or maybe you just don't know how to counter such a build. The only revert they ever did was the burning duration but not the damage output. I'm not totally against nerfs but Shard's suggestion is bad, making it cost the user 50 energy is just ridiculous. The only problem I really see is when a big grup of eles use this other than that it's pretty much an okay elite. Just don't touch Mind Blast. Renin 11:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with renin, i don't see the problem with this skill. Just because some people doesn't know how to counter build doesn't mean they want a skill nerfted. Some skills has a perfect counter yet they go way overboard with the nerf and it hurts pve players the most.--Ridz16 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Explain to me this supposed obvious counter? Cause I've played as and against it, and the only counter is if the SF ele sucks. -- Armond Warblade
21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - 1)interrupt 2)dazed 3)anti-cast spell such as Vow Of Silence/Obsidian Flesh there are a lot of counter; if you have anymore questions don't hesitate to ask.--Ridz16 07:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- but then again, those 3 things I mention above also has a counter. 1)glyph of concentration 2)condition removal 3)enchant removal ........ its just like what they taught us in Isle of the Nameless, every skill has a counter, its just a matter of bringing the right ones at the right time. As I've mention if you have any questions feel free, I've played GW long enough to know everything.--Ridz16 07:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- LOL@ I know everything about GW. I don't know which is more stupid: The fact that you think interrupting 6 people every 2 seconds is a solution; or that you think Vow of Silence and Obsidian Flesh are viable.
- Balanced games are about viable counters. This skill has only one, and it's a 15 energy prot skill with 12 recharge, meaning in order for it to negate 6 SF eles, you need to bring 18 copies of it. At least at lower damage ranges, your monks can manage to outheal it long enough to kill some of them.
- Since you know everything about GW, why don't you name one skill from each profession that is a viable counter to six SF eles. 72.235.48.41 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- LOL @ 6 SF ele, you lose credibility there, lets talk about numbers. 6 mobieus strike sins can own those ele; 6 Dom mesmer can interrupt them and steal their skills; can you really kill 6 monks with 6 SF ele? you can have my account if that's possible; and ooh how about 6 toucher, let say all 6 toucher spam their skills on one sf ele at a time... oh might it would be pwnage. YOU wanna talk about numbers? multiple build professions, u got it. oh and asking me??? how to counter SF for each profession furthers prove your knowledge about GW. Thank you.--Ridz16 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I said name viable counters 6 monks, 6 sins, and 6 dom mesmers are not viable. Use evidence to backup claims, especially when they are baseless personal attacks. Come back when you know something about game balance and stop being a hypocrite, mr "lol you dont know how to counter SF and neither do I". You are allowed to post here when you know what the word "viable" means. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- another nerf/buff update came and SF is still untouch, thnx for your 50 energy cost idea, just makes SF no reason to nerf. LOL, you are the hypocrite one, you keep crying about how powerful this spell is and how you cant counter it, your 50 energy cost furthers prove you're just one of the people who isn't imaginative to counter this spell. I fought 2 SF in pvp with my dual air spiker and im the last one standing, so plz.. unless YOU have a proof that this spell is very powerful and maybe give a better idea how to nerf it better, then maybe anet will listen to you. lmao at 50 energy cost.... i tell you what, lets go meet in game and have 1v1 ill fight you with all profession to beat you using SF, it should be a ratio looking at our 1v1 is 6v6--Ridz16 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, he wants to 1v1 me. He obviously knows what balance is. The 50 energy was a joke, not meant to be taken literally. I guess some people just can't pick up on obvious sarcasm. I have an amended suggestion now, as you asked for. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 05:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- aww that's so cute, he says ppl cant take sarcasm and he takes my 1v1 joke so serious.--Ridz16 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey that's a great way of covering your ass. And your example of 1 vs 2 SF eles is so comparable to 6 SF eles vs whatever their target is. Ever heard of an exponential curve? -- Armond Warblade 01:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey that's a great way of covering your ass. And your example of 1 vs 2 SF eles is so comparable to 6 SF eles vs whatever their target is. Ever heard of an exponential curve? -- Armond Warblade
- aww that's so cute, he says ppl cant take sarcasm and he takes my 1v1 joke so serious.--Ridz16 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, he wants to 1v1 me. He obviously knows what balance is. The 50 energy was a joke, not meant to be taken literally. I guess some people just can't pick up on obvious sarcasm. I have an amended suggestion now, as you asked for. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 05:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- another nerf/buff update came and SF is still untouch, thnx for your 50 energy cost idea, just makes SF no reason to nerf. LOL, you are the hypocrite one, you keep crying about how powerful this spell is and how you cant counter it, your 50 energy cost furthers prove you're just one of the people who isn't imaginative to counter this spell. I fought 2 SF in pvp with my dual air spiker and im the last one standing, so plz.. unless YOU have a proof that this spell is very powerful and maybe give a better idea how to nerf it better, then maybe anet will listen to you. lmao at 50 energy cost.... i tell you what, lets go meet in game and have 1v1 ill fight you with all profession to beat you using SF, it should be a ratio looking at our 1v1 is 6v6--Ridz16 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I said name viable counters 6 monks, 6 sins, and 6 dom mesmers are not viable. Use evidence to backup claims, especially when they are baseless personal attacks. Come back when you know something about game balance and stop being a hypocrite, mr "lol you dont know how to counter SF and neither do I". You are allowed to post here when you know what the word "viable" means. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- LOL @ 6 SF ele, you lose credibility there, lets talk about numbers. 6 mobieus strike sins can own those ele; 6 Dom mesmer can interrupt them and steal their skills; can you really kill 6 monks with 6 SF ele? you can have my account if that's possible; and ooh how about 6 toucher, let say all 6 toucher spam their skills on one sf ele at a time... oh might it would be pwnage. YOU wanna talk about numbers? multiple build professions, u got it. oh and asking me??? how to counter SF for each profession furthers prove your knowledge about GW. Thank you.--Ridz16 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Explain to me this supposed obvious counter? Cause I've played as and against it, and the only counter is if the SF ele sucks. -- Armond Warblade
Shard's idea reworked
I sort of agree with Shard on the spike issue since it is 1 cast time 2 recharge and insane on Burning Isle since the burning condition is easy to meet. The thing is, there aren't too many skills with more than a few seconds of burning duration, so if you take Shard's suggestion of reducing damage and convert the lost damage to burning duration you have a solid AoE burning skill that isn't overpowered. Sure you could use Mark of Rodgort, but you need to hit all the targets which means you need Lava Arrows or something that recharges faster than 4 seconds. Shaving 40 damage off the top means an equivalent would be 40HP/(7 degen/second *2HP/degen)~ 2.85 seconds more burning. The added benefit is that you don't need to keep casting it all the time because the burning last a decent amount of time. --Life Infusion «T» 17:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I actually like the idea of "more burning, less damage." As long as noobs can't use 6 of them to win gvgs, I'm ok with it. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Any decent GvG team isn't going to lose to 6 SF Eles. They're so 1-dimentional it's just too easy to counter. The other team just has to spread out, and there goes most of its DPS. They would get rolled by a balanced team due to lack of defense. The average team has Aegis chain, Wards, and a blindbot, and they could still get routed, even with all that defense. The SF team would have an Aegis chain at most. SF is a fad, not a good spell. 76.89.81.150 03:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
i still don't see why to nerf this , if its about that lame searing flames at HA its just the new flavor of the month , if the whine still goes one and leads into a nerf i'd take Anon's suggestion , it' by far the best one 189.70.138.10 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you wanted to negate all the damage a 6 man SF team does, you would need 12 copies of Extinguish. That doesn't include the things they cast in between. ~Shard (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Anon's suggestion
Then you still have the Bloodspike issue...when there is enough of the Sfers, it doesn't matter if you interrupt a few of them. --Life Infusion «T» 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's a big difference though. Bloodspike, you can't prot against, you can only outheal it. SF, you can easily prot against. Even just using SoA basically kills a SF spike. 76.89.81.150 03:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
this suggestion is way better than the other pointless one that have been made , finally one suggestion that is not "ZOMFG KILL THIS PLS" 189.70.222.11 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to kill this skill. I just want to stop seeing scrublet SF spikes. Pressing one button over and over doesn't make you good, and it shouldn't make you win. 72.235.48.41 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah this suggestion is better than the original one Renin 08:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This suggestion Does kill the skill for pvp,in pve it may be a difrent story,this skill is perfectly balanced.Only noobs use it and theyll lose anyway.Lilondra 09:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW that will result in mesmers using this with FC and glyph of elemental power ;).Lilondra 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Been over this, how2prot SF spike? -- Armond Warblade
05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok in gvg you perform a split and they are f!ked in ha you do something called "to spread" so that it only hits one target and then you beat the crap out of there squishy bodies.Lilondra 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Riiiight... and HA maps are so open that you can put kilometres between your teammates, amirite? -- NUKLEAR
IIV 10:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- ur rite sir, ha maps r too laarge, maek dem smaller! --Cursed Angel
01:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- wai. make sf raep everyone with no way to protect against it ftw. 80.193.1.106 01:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- maek it armur ignoring end wit moar dameg --CA goes sf nuker 01:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- maek it armur ignoring end wit moar dameg --CA goes sf nuker
- wai. make sf raep everyone with no way to protect against it ftw. 80.193.1.106 01:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a really bad team that lets you outsplit them. -- Armond Warblade 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- ur rite sir, ha maps r too laarge, maek dem smaller! --Cursed Angel
The Most idiotic skill ever
Players do not even build their bar around this skill, all they do is spam this skill at targets and it automatically does what a great build is suppose to do and that is high spike damage (which remember there is a huge difference from using your build to spike than just spamming on one skill over and over again). Sure clicking on one window/skil bar might be valuable in a rts game like command and conquer three, but this is guild wars and your suppose to set your skills up as a build ot work with everything else and not just spam one skill over and over again. This skill does reward effortless play and it would be great seeing this skill be trashed into the trash pile of other elementalist elites and finally seeing a FIRE MAGIC SKILL BEING NERFED WOULD MAKE IT INTO GUILD WARS HISTORY!!!!
William Wallace 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop phailing,start thinking.You need energy to spam this so you need glowing gaze and you need fire attunement.It is prone to interrupts diversion and any kind of shutdown.If a build is only good becausr it deals damage i pitty the mesmers.Lilondra 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- /agree--Ridz16 09:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- This skill is the only skill that does what the elementalist was originally supposed to do: deal a lot of damage for an insane amount of energy. 145.94.74.23 11:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- hate to break it to you guys, but we eles were only meant to nuke in midlevel pve. Iv pvp, we are eitehr blind bots, prod runners or flaggers. -- NUKLEAR IIV 10:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of the energy cost, this skill does far too much damage - in an area, even. There's no realistic counter to this, as Auron explained. -- Armond Warblade 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless, it's still meh. AP nukers even have better e-manage imo. 80.193.1.106 01:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I LOL'd at the OP, because it's true. Every single update to eles since day 1 has been "Made (fire skill) do more damage. Lowered (fire skill) recharge" or whatever.
- Also, Every 4 times they use SF, they can use Glowing Gaze. In 4 SF's and 1 gaze, they gain back 32 energy, meaning every spike they do realistically is only pulling them down by 7 energy. SF would be great as a pressure skill, but should not be allowed for spiking. My modified suggestion is on my nerf list somewhere... Here. ~Shard (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless, it's still meh. AP nukers even have better e-manage imo. 80.193.1.106 01:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- hate to break it to you guys, but we eles were only meant to nuke in midlevel pve. Iv pvp, we are eitehr blind bots, prod runners or flaggers. -- NUKLEAR
- This skill is the only skill that does what the elementalist was originally supposed to do: deal a lot of damage for an insane amount of energy. 145.94.74.23 11:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing to fix because this skill is fine. The game needs a damage dealer that is not a melee character, and this is the only viable damage dealing caster. I'm glad Izzy thinks things through better than you guys do. 145.94.74.23 12:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think eles need to have unbelievable ranged damage when for the past three years, the game balance became a joke when eles got viable pvp damage? -- NUKLEAR IIV 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because it creates balance by offering alternatives. They way some people (like you) want to balance the game is by removing all damage dealers except melee, which I believe is a very, very bad idea. People should have alternatives, and the SF ele is one of the very few, or all you will get is a game where the person that can remove blindness the quickest will win. 145.94.74.23 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read the definition of balance lately? It's not "make it so any build is viable", it's "make it so skilled players can beat unskilled players". -- Armond Warblade 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read the definition of balance lately? It's not "make it so any build is viable", it's "make it so skilled players can beat unskilled players". -- Armond Warblade
- Because it creates balance by offering alternatives. They way some people (like you) want to balance the game is by removing all damage dealers except melee, which I believe is a very, very bad idea. People should have alternatives, and the SF ele is one of the very few, or all you will get is a game where the person that can remove blindness the quickest will win. 145.94.74.23 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think eles need to have unbelievable ranged damage when for the past three years, the game balance became a joke when eles got viable pvp damage? -- NUKLEAR
- Of course. No need to go into my arguments, or, even worse, admit that I might have a point. 145.94.74.23 19:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote a very detailed response to izzy's page. Please look into it. -- NUKLEAR IIV 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, and I appreciate it. I can live with good arguments. I cannot hate with the constant "you're a noob if you don't agree with me" attitude that some players have. You made a good point, and I'll yield. 145.94.74.23 08:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote a very detailed response to izzy's page. Please look into it. -- NUKLEAR
The irony is that imo sfspike>bloodspike. B-spike=nerfed a billion times. Air spike=same as b-spike. Izzy some how has the delusion that rolling a team in HA <2minutes spamming one skill is balanced.....Psychiatric Consultant 
15:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Metal Sazz's Issue
discuss my idea here,
Lol
This is funny... am I the only one that thinks the skill is good as it is? 
ShadowSong 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. --71.229 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yep you are. Everyone else has played PvP. -Auron 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Auron, I love you <3 ~Shard
07:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Auron, I love you <3 ~Shard
- Jesus christ, Auron, stop winning so hard. -- Armond Warblade 18:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jesus christ, Auron, stop winning so hard. -- Armond Warblade
- No, you're not the only one, but you are one of the few people that think that Elementalists should be allowed to deal damage, even if it takes them 4 skill slots just to deal DPS inferior to scythes, that is greatly reduced by any amount of armor. The rest of the metaplayers just prefer a physical damage dealer metagame. 145.94.74.23 08:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're not. But unhappy people are always the loudest. I do understand them though. This skill is fun, effective enough in PvE and PvP qithout the player having to activate their skills in a quarter-second window to work. Everyone does NOT want to be highly competitive everytime. Please respect the ones with other interests in the game than yours. --86.218.99.162 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You have no idea how many people play high-end PvP, so kindly not count what you cannot see. Pika Fan 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- And you have no idea how many people play casual PvP and PvE. So I guess we're even? --81.249.247.106 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- You have no idea how many people play high-end PvP, so kindly not count what you cannot see. Pika Fan 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
FunnyUsername's Issue
Discuss here :D.
