Talk:Expertise

Touch Spells

Since when are touch SPELLS affected? ~ Kurd

Go test it out, Touch Spells are considered touch skills, I don't know if it is a bug with the system, or a feature, but at this moment Expertise works with touch spells. edit: best way for you to test it out is to take Renew Life 15 energy touch ressurect spell, and bring a hero to sac themselves, then ressurect them, you will notice you do not lose 15 energy. Arcad1a 09:54, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Since nightfall — Skuld 10:16, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Ow..... ~ Kurd

Does Expertise affect secondary profession skills?

Wondering if Expertise affect secondary profession skills ? (Odin Son of Barr 15:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT))

It does, but only if that secondary profession skill is:

• an attack
• a ritual
• a touch skill

--Dirigible 16:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

WOAH touch of secordary, yay touchers, dont have to mess with energy mangentmet any more, cos 15 is only 5-6 energyAnnoying And Deadly 01:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Expertise affect pet skills?

Does expertise affect pet skills too? - Tulen elementti (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For each rank of Expertise, the Energy cost of all of your attacks, Rituals, touch skills and Rangers skills are decreased by 4%. Invincible Rogue 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The blue on the chart

What does the blue on the chart notate?

Perhaps add a note to the chart? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:BuddyBoller (talk).

Breakpoints. Looks obvious enough to me. --8765 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

nerf?

imo this needs to be hit with the nerf stick, stop all those R/Ds and R/Ws, like make it not work for melee attack skills? or make it function at 2% per rank for melee attack skills. because this just encourages rangers to play something that imo they werent created to be. plus i hate sway way :p. I dont have a problem with stuff like touchers, but these are imba tbh... Twiggie 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Most of the abused fame farming builds in HA rely on gimmicks based around expertise. We don't even see rangers as rangers half the time now but instead as dervishes and such. --213.105.215.60 01:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I really dislike Swayway, its so gimmicky. — AislingDubh 11:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it ( and I could be wrong ), there are 2 aspects that ANet wanted to preserve:

1) Prevent other classes to abuse rangers skills (hence the expertise attribute as a primary attribute)

2) In a more general way, allow the selection of a secondary profession to be viable.

The problem, I think, is when it becomes a one-way process: other classes cant benefit from the expertise attributes for rangers skills, but rangers benefit from the expertise attribute for any melee attack skill instead of only bow skills.

This leads to situations depicted above by 213.105.215.60. I even witnessed players calling others 'noobs' because they wanted to use a bow while having selected the ranger profession.

However, discussing how it is fair or not is beyond my reach because at the moment, we dont know what point ANet is trying to make with all this. In fact that may well be the real problem. Yseron - 90.29.49.68 12:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) IMO, while the R/D's are insanely broken (as were the R/W's) it isn't expertise at fault. The trappers have more of an effect than the melee imo (traps need to be target-single-foe, not daze, cripple, bleeding, blind and burning all eight foes because they're forced into tiny spaces because Heroes' Ascent map design sucks), and the thumpers and the like are only a problem because of their secondary class skills. Hammer Bash recharged too fast with RaO and worked too well with Bestial (and bestial obviously doesn't need nerfing). The R/D's are only powerful because Rending Touch is (scuse my french) really fucking broken while pious assault is only really broken. Also, escape needs to end on attack. That should have been a "duh" from the beginning. Those minor tweaks would leave expertise viable for expensive bow skills but not for overpowered secondary class skills.

TBH... ANet have failed on this build concept from the beginning. Shitway came out almost two years ago when guilds decided to run it during pre-nightfall GvG. Since then, ZoS and The Spearmen took it up as their signature builds, and thus shitway has gone suspiciously unnerfed for the longest time. While every other gimmick has fallen by the wayside (albeit eight or nine months too late, in the case of rit spike), shitway has continued strong and untouchable by the nerfbat. Hell, the build has hardly changed in those two years; weapon-spamming rits, Soul Reaping fueled necro healers, and trappers have been a staple since forever. The only thing that's been updated is the frontline; which also conveniently never gets nerfed. People only stop running the old version when the new frontline comes out. Ferocious strike thumpers were replaced by RaO. RaO were replaced by R/D. The original Ferocious thumpers weren't really abusing expertise, but all since then have. I think that's just anet's failure to balance the elite. Rampage as One should have had a "disables adrenaline skills for 5 seconds when used under RaO" clause, just as escape should have a "ends on attack" clause. Simple things like that ANet leaves out, and it makes the build ridiculous. -Auron 12:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You've made the point that R/Ds replaced RaOs which replaced Ferocious Strike Thumpers as the front liners. There seems to be an established trend here: an exploit of Expertise until some of the skills in the build were nerfed by ANet. Following on from that line of thought, surely it would make more sense to balance the expertise attribute properly, rather than keep fiddling with individual skills?

Personally, I'd like to see a bias towards bow attacks for expertise. I'm not sure if this is feasible though. — AislingDubh 17:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ye, I wouldn't mind that bias. Stuff like conc shot requires 13 or more expertise to be used even occasionally, and since daze gets removed so fast, it's hardly worth the huge cost. If they knocked expertise overall it'd kill skills like conc even more than they already are.

As much as fixing expertise would help in general, fiddling with the skills themselves is how to go in this case. The secondary class skills are simply broken. They're broken for dervishes, they're broken when used on W/D's, and they're broken when used on R/D's. If an escape ranger went around with a scythe but lacked the ability to remove enchantments every 8 seconds and cause deep wound almost as often, he wouldn't be too imbalanced. He'd still be an escape ranger with a scythe (and scythes have been hitting 120+ damage crits ever since NF release), but much of his imbaness would be curbed. Combine the proper nerf of Rending and Pious Assault with the sorely-needed "ends on attack" clause for Escape and those rangers would be balanced once again. However...

Tweaking expertise wouldn't fix shitway. Traps are the biggest problem with the build atm. Smoke Trap needs to be about 25 energy and cause only dazed. Spike Trap needs a longer recharge (or Trapper's Speed needs to be 15e or something). Or... to make traps more realistic... they should hit only the person that set them off, and not cause AoE condi stacks - which is stupid to begin with. When was the last time you saw a bear trap clamp on the legs of four bears at once? -Auron 04:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I quite like your proposal about the traps actually, although... isn't it logical for at least Dust Trap to remain aoe? — AislingDubh 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pfft the "realism" of traps. When's the last time you saw a near-naked person who could somehow manufacture infinite traps from no materials, making each one in just a few seconds? How do they carry an infinite number of arrows? When's the last time you saw someone throw the same spear 100 times, without needing to retrieve it? When have you seen the same sword last a thousand battles and not break? Have you ever seen enormous cities, with only a few plots of farmland anywhere to support them? Have you ever seen someone walk through lava and emerge looking fresh, with undamaged clothes and perfectly styled hair? Hollowboy 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the realism factor was the nail in the coffin on top of the fact that traps are ridiculously broken in Heroes' Ascent. Bonus points for figuring out that guild wars is a fantasy game - minus points for missing my entire point and instead ranting about crap that doesn't actually matter, and thus not succeeding in debunking my argument at all. -Auron 01:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think many of you are forgetting that expertise has already received many major nerfs. I remember when expertise worked for EVERYTHING that was not a spell. For ALL classes. Some people on this page don't realize how hard rangers have been hit lately. The only thing that needs to be done to "fix" this "problem" is to put an "ends on hit clause" on Escape. And I really don't even like that idea. Rangers are meant to be versicle. ~Aaron

When a ranger with a scythe is more effective than a dervish its not versatile, its broken. 204.68.144.233 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why you see so many rangers relying on their secondary profession is because the class is so limited. Bows are terrible for damage and beast mastery is worthless, what else is their left for you to do?? Play as scythe ranger or rely on your secondary profession so you can at least be something else other than a typical barrage ranger which is so boring or general interrupter.William Wallace 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

i think this either needs slightly nerfed, or changed so it doesnt affect touch skills, the only real way to deal with r/n touchers is to be a caster, or constantly have a snare, then again they usually have a skill to remove conditions or transfer them, so all thats left is casting hex snares. its ridiculous that when u play as a paragon,ranger(the normal kind..)warrior,assassin,or dervish, that the only real way to deal with them is to run away

Bow damage isn't pathetic. Poison tip signet, rapid fire, burning arrow, penetrating and sundering shots. I maul sins and non-godmode tree dervs with that. Casters don't enjoy it too much, either. Krelus Derian 02:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. Someone calling the ranger class "limited". Sign off wiki and RA a bit. You'll see rangers doing pretty much everything (even healing, although not too well). Personally, I think Vampiric Bite and Vampiric Touch should be changed much in the way Angorodon's Gaze was, lower the cost & lower the life stealing. However, by ignoring the toucher "problem" for as long as they have, it must not be high up on their list of to do's. On the otherhand, they should just nerf Expertise directly. Leaving the 4% for Ranger Skills is a must to preserve the profession, but it should only affect non-Ranger skills by 2% per rank. This makes sense, as a Rangers "expertise" is supposed to be a bow, traps, nature rituals or their pet NOT using a scythe or hammer. I believe the reason they haven't nerfed this yet is because they're too stupid to nerf something slightly. Everytime they "deal" with a problem, they beat it in to the ground until it's almost lifeless. Usually in one update. 72.81.247.139 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This missed the point so badly that it's amusing.

Premise: The ranger class is limited (2 of their 4 attributes are weak), therefore rangers overcome their limitations by relying on secondary classes' abilities.

Rebuttal: Rangers heal (using a secondary classes' abilities)

Rebuttal: Rangers life steal (using a secondary classes' abilities)

Rebuttal: Rangers use scythes and hammers (using a secondary classes' abilities)

That "proves" their reliance on secondaries, not the versatility of the primary class. Hollowboy 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your first point is flat wrong, your second point is three years out of date (touchers are so terrible, they aren't even worth mentioning anymore), and your last point is completely irrelevant since rangers have been doing amazing damage with their bows ever since burning arrow/mels shot/expert's dexterity buffs.

The class is broken because of what they can do alone. They used to be simply the best split class in the game, with the cheap abilities to block and run quickly, increased armor against elemental damage (and tougher armor than casters regardless), degen to kill stuff slowly and interrupts to make sure stuff didn't heal. On top of all that, rangers had traps and spirits, both of which were used heavily in many many gimmicks over the years. They have never had trouble finding a spot in a team because of how powerful they were without secondary class skills. People have, over the years, run additional utility in the form of secondary class skills - anything from mending touch and purge signet to distortion and blackout. That, however, does not mean they relied on those secondary skills to do their primary job - it was akin to warriors running pleak and ddagger (both of which were used in high rated matches, and neither of which proved that the warrior had to rely on secondary class skills to do its job).

Then anet had the bright idea to add a ton of damage on top of their already great soloing capability, so not only could a ranger defeat any class (period) on the split, it could now stay at stand and provide great spike assistance and key interrupts. Builds were reduced from 4-5 offensive characters to three (war war ranger), because that's all they needed to kill with the hugely buffed ranger damage.

And all that without a single skill from another profession. Compare that to, say, a ritualist, who can't even do its best job (full support) without using another profession's skills. Yes, a ranger is fine on its own - powerful to the point of actually needing its damage nerfed, all without the use of secondary profession skills. Your post doesn't "prove" anything, except maybe you not having played a ranger competitively. -Auron 00:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If expertise gets nerfed, then I think that Ranger should get 4 energy regen. Still disappointed that Expertise no longer effects shouts and chants. 97.122.89.109 03:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just adding to the list of OP frontline made insane with Expertise (and Escape) - now we have R/A and not only in gimmick city (HA) but overrunning every single arena in the game (well maybe not JQ lol). Seriously, just removing the word attacks from Expertise' description would go a long way. Let them be "OP" touchers and spirit spammers for all I care, but this superpowered frontline really has to go. 89.172.42.119 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rangers skills

typo in the description--it says "Rangers skills".

I sent in the support stub with the one wrong with that one junundu skill too >.>--Ʀєʟʟɑ 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Infuriating Heat

Any reason why Infuriating Heat is missing from the list? — Wolf2581 (contribs · talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The gods heard me. — Wolf2581 (contribs · talk) 21:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

BUG

Expertise doesnt work on Black Powder Mine which is a trap.--83.82.62.210 13:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a bug. Black Powder Mine isn't an attack, ritual, touch, or Ranger skill. --Irgendwer 13:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Expertise was updated to no longer directly affect stances or traps a good while ago. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 16:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

...or try that it effects RANGER traps but not other traps that aren't RANGER profession. You can still trap for cheap.63.117.247.103 05:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Highlight

Anyone else not like the recent change to the table's breakpoint highlighting (edited in by Falconeye)? It's hardly a big deal, but on a stark white background it has a rather annoying optical effect, much like trying to read yellow on white, which is pretty much the case.... The blue was much more visually friendly, defining the breakpoints much more clearly. As such I suggest it be reverted. Kruhljak (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In a first fast glance. I agree that the new contrast is poor in comparison with the older setting. Despite Falconeye having a history with several black marks...this time, the user seem to have followed Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Professions...and attempted to adjust colors profession specific-wise. However, if you check all main pages related, [Primary attributes list], the other Primary attribute tables do not follow the same pattern. Templates are not much of my field (yet), but I think you have good reason to create a formatting proporsal in the guideline talk section. Yoshida Keiji talk 12:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Professions doesn't apply here.

Just because a table appears in a profession article doesn't mean all elements should use profession colors. The consensus for showing breakpoints is to use a blue highlight or boldface. Falconeye decided on his own to alter that. I think it's fine to revert back. (Not every wiki practice is documented correctly or fully in Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting75.36.180.114 16:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. I have reverted the template to the version prior Falconeye's changes which had the following failures:

• Energy discount row was displaying the opposing percentaje of Energy cost which showed two lines for the same information and the discount can already be calculated from the primary attribute description itself.
• Falconeye made an unnecessary split and we ended up with TWO tables when all can be reduced to a SINGLE table...and yeah...this user has tendency to duplicate, triplicate whats already there...making atomic bloats...
• Breakpoints were hard to distinguish.

If anybody can show me where there had been "formed" concensus regarding: Blue highlight or boldface, please do, you have the guy who cares about Documentation and oftenly addresses issues in Formatting Guidelines. Yoshida Keiji talk 11:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for returning it to its original condition.

Consensus isn't only determined by discussion and documentation. It can also be determined by trial/error and common practice on the wiki. For example, the documented style for missions was to include two navigation bars -- one for the campaign and another for the region -- that was changed, but was never documented on the policy page. 75.36.176.88 05:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In the past, I was told that documenting on the policy page would be of no benefit (User_talk:Yoshida_Keiji#Gory_details), but with your comment...now I do find a good reason to do it. Because contributors both registered and IPs that come in later (future) will not know "what happened" and continue to proceed "mistakenly" by following out-dated guidelines. Which are the several reports I am filling up as of late... :S Yoshida Keiji talk 05:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That link appears to say that documentation isn't enough to keep the wiki uniform--it suggests you should document decisions, but be prepared for people to misunderstand, do something else, or for new consensus that isn't documented. The breakpoint table is a good example: it never got written down in a place you or I could find it easily. Even in a work place where people get paid to follow rules and regulations, it's hard to get everyone to do the same thing and write everything down to cover every possibility. 75.36.176.88 06:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)