User talk:Alaris

Hi

Hello Alaris, and welcome to the Guild Wars Official Wiki! Here are a few links to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything on my talk page.

Don't be afraid to edit - anyone can edit almost any page and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better.

• If you are new to editing wikis, have a look at our how to help article.
• For information on the way that our articles should be laid out, see the formatting section.
• To find out what you are and are not allowed to do on this wiki, have a look at our policy section.
• Articles should NOT be copied directly from GuildWiki - see this copyright section for details.
• For guidelines about personalized pages, see our user page section.
• Before uploading any images, you may want to read the policy on user images.

Best of luck and happy editing! --File:User Wacked 1 Link Sprite.gif Wacked 1 16:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Show preview

Just wanted to remind you of the show preview button (I'm sure you have seen it) :) It helps if you do a show preview and not press save page for every edit, because saving all small edits separately clutters up the recent changes more than necessary - Anja (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

RE: Suggestion page

Please don't move your suggestion page into the public space before consensus has been reached at Talk:Main Page#Wiki NEEDS a suggestions. Thanks. MisterPepe talk 12:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Guild Image: The Order Of Dii cape.JPG

The image you recently uploaded (Image:The Order Of Dii cape.JPG) does not comply with the Guild Wars Wiki image naming policy and has been tagged for deletion. Please feel free to re-upload the image under a correct name. Thanks, -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 05:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your daughter

I love it that your daughter plays and collects stuff... that's just nice. :) Sonya Gladgul 05:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And her favorite character in Dii was the Necromancer, followed by the Druid. She wants to be a zoologist, she likes the company. :) Alaris 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ranger talk

I actually started off as a R/Me, and recently switched to R/Rt, but I find it very useful. Depending on what you're doing, Barrage + any Rit weapon enchant is a really nice combo. For big groups, I use Barrage + Splinter Weapon. When I'm low on health, Barrage + Vengeful Weapon (I think, whatever has life steal on it...) is nice too. Other than that, I haven't really taken the time to see what else the Rt secondary can do for me, mainly because I started my new Dervish and got sidetracked. Sorry if I couldn't fully answer your question.

Stole something

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I took some userboxes from you. I wanted to know if that was alright. Thanks. If not, I will remove them. Click here to see > Alreajk

Thanks for asking, but you should not ask me. You should ask the people I stole them from ;D Alaris 14:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Guild table

Hey Alaris, I was thinking on how to make the presentation table color-coordinated with the guild infobox and alliance navbox. You can see the results in my sandbox. If you like it, feel free to port it over to the Guild page :). --Lensor (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I was going to, but thanks for changing it. Alaris 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouts links

I noticed on Barrage you changed the skill Find their weakness to [[%22Find_Their_Weakness%21%22|"Find their weakness!"]]. This confuses me. Why not just have the skill name like this [["Find their Weakness!"]]? I realize it doesn't link anywhere but a redirect to [[Find thier weakness]] could be added to that empty page. What do you think? Or is there something I am missing? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in wiki, I just edit it so that it works. From the user's point of view, either way makes no difference as you'd see the same link, and it would go to the same page. The only difference is that my way saves a redirect, and yours is easier to understand for coders. Either way is fine with me, as long as it works. Alaris 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertising sunspear skills

Sorry, I had to laugh when I read your line: "Xeeron - the idea is to inform players when they log in the game, rather than have them look for news on websites everyday. Link to wiki would be good though". First time someone told me that I missinterpreted myself (Read the very first post in that section) ;-)

I want both: Players being informed when they log in AND on the wiki main page. The later I can change myself, the former only ANet, that is why I brought it up there. --Xeeron 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad, it's been a long day. Sorry. Alaris 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, made my day a bit brighter by making be laugh, so no harm done =) --Xeeron 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Death leveling

Thanks for the help with the notes. Your edit lookes really good to me. I've been watching the attempts recently to add that you can get from lvl 15 to 20 with quest rewards, and it is just not so. I'm tempted to go do all the quests with a fresh character, just to prove it, and get the actuall final total for all quests.LeFick 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't actually put all the quests and XP and add the numbers if that's what you are referring to... But yes, there's been an ongoing war regarding the exclusivity of Survivor and LDoA, which is annoying at best because (1) nobody has ever achieved both, or we'd certainly see that, and (2) nobody in their right mind would do both using a friend to death level and hard-rez them, because instead of months of AFK it would be months-worth of playing, which would actually take years. Alaris 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As for 2, I've seen that done up to level 17. Backsword 22:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I forgot to mention that it's a bannable offense to use hard rez in pre-searing - hard rez'es don't exist in pre-searing aside from hacks and bugs. Aside from that, did they actually death level and use a hard rez, or did they use quest rewards to go from 16 to 17? It would be easy to do the second, and claim the first. Alaris 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For my own curiosity, as well as the WIKI, I have started a project on my talk page, and will do every quest listed, if possible. If you want to follow along, I'll be making updates there as I try a complete run this weekend. LeFick 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Headpiece in HoM

That's odd. Mine doesn't. And I even have the headpiece that fits the set. Perhaps some headpieces show, others don't? :S — Galil 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add: It doesn't show for neither my monk with Labyrinthine armor or my ranger with 15k Druid armor. I have the correct headpiece for the monk, but not the ranger. — Galil 06:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Twas an opportunity I couldn't pass up. I seen the space for a mass prank...and I did it. On Gaile's talk page. I win. Drago 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was a pretty funny prank. Worse part is, I remember that song from back when it was popular. I guess my powers of suppression aren't as good as I thought :) Alaris 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can I make a suggestion, I think that it might make ur page look better if u create diffrent pages for ur characters; see look at mine Shadoew and My User Page. I just think it might make the page look a little better feel free to use the coding if u would like, if u need the coding for other professions I can get u that. :o) Shadowphoenix

Wow, I am really impressed. Neat page. I'll think about it... thing is, I'm not sure I want to spend the time editing instead of playing :) -- Alaris 23:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Remember to tag guild images with {{guild image}} in the summery section before you upload it. Thanks! --People of Antioch talk 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol - I'm sad

I can't believe i play this game longer a day than you on average :P 1,185 hours over 10 months I think i'm addicted - hehe (In-Game Name : Dutchess Of Rose)

Slightly more than me. Besides, I have lots of things interferring with gaming... :) -- Alaris 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Refund Points?

You posted a comment on my suggestion concerning what the Charr special ability will be. I think you misunderstood what I said, but I'm not sure I understood what you said. Could you please clarify somehow? What are refund points?--Shai Halud 22:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi

Hey, I need other people to talk to other the ones in my head, head over my discussion page since I wanna come up with a more substantial GW2 suggestion/idea XD Renin 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Moa Chick

Hi. It looks like you like minipets as much as I do.

Check this out: {{User bmc}}

I can't find the page...? -- Alaris 23:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gw2 Suggestions

Hi Alaris, I've noticed that you seem to post pretty regularly on the GW2 suggestions page. These might be moved at some point to the new ArenaNet name space and at the moment there is a slow moving discussion about the community organising the content. You might have a few ideas to put in about what may or may not work - so please if you have any comments please chip in at ArenaNet_talk:Portal#...Suggestions or mess around with a possible layout at ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions. Thanks! --Aspectacle 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I linked your GW2 page here: ArenaNet:List of personal GW2 ideas Backsword 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My old paladin

could easily 1-shot your amazon. My blessed hammer hits for 12k. Now I'm playing Median 2008 though. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean this as an actual challenge, just a nice jest. Diablo 2 was a great game, and it's nice to see new mods coming out for it. Perhaps we'll meet in Diablo 3? -- Alaris 13:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 20:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lightning Trap 5 * 15k Backsword 14:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"What's wrong with a ranger using a ranger skill?"

Nothing at all - because that's not the issue at all. The issue is that RaO makes rangers better warriors than warriors of the same skill level are, not least because it's more properly named "Rampage as One Hammer and One Sword Warrior With Free Energy Gain To Boot".

RaO builds are a clear example of the secondary profession system going wrong - the secondary profession was, I believe, originally introduced as a bonus to your primary profession, not as a means to abuse your primary attribute.

On a completely unrelated note, your userpage is pretty neat. Could "Alaris Golden Sun" be a nod to one of my favorite games of all time?

-- Armond Warblade 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with RaO builds, I might take a look and educate myself. Thanks. Personally, I think that it's great that very diverse uses of primary & secondary pop up. I like the idea of R/W being as good as W/x (but admittedly, not better than). Not everyone is of that opinion, and I respect that.

As for my page, thanks. I'm not sure what game you're referring to, so probably not. I was looking for a name that would characterize the Paragon, and that would be good for a title hunter (which was the primary goal of that char when created). Aside from Alaris Blood Raven (my first R, build as R/N with summons, since deleted for good reasons), I don't normally make references to other games. -- Alaris 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Diverse uses of primaries and secondaries are all well and good until you get to the point where it takes zero skill to be better than a "proper" build - which RaO has always been at.

Golden Sun was the game I was referring to. -- Armond Warblade 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I find that "proper" and "takes zero skill" are very subjective terms. Skill balance has to be considered relative to gains, costs, and ease of use. RaO costs not only energy, but also the elite slot, plus two more skill to be usable... Is it really the case that it makes the users of such builds overpowered? I cannot tell, I've never used it. -- Alaris 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RaO is one of those skills that really favor using your secondary over your primary. In this case, a constant +25% move buff is unnecessary for a bow ranger, but throw a melee weapon on (where you have to chase a lot), then suddenly this skill makes sense. Is this a.net's intention? Hard to say. But, it's definitely clever use of a skill that other people simply copied and abused it. --8765 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's elite doesn't make it any harder to mash 5, wait for adrenaline, mash 1, 2, 3, 4, rinse and repeat. I've played similar builds with my monitor covered so I couldn't see anything that was going on and still killed way too many things to be balanced.

You'll also find that the energy cost is largely mitigated by Expertise and Scavanger's Strike.

And yes, RaO was specifically created for thumper builds. Izzy has stated such in a few places. -- Armond Warblade 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well well, guess I learned something today. -- Alaris 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Weapon spells

Finally, Salome, weapon spells are not broken, they are balanced. They are non-stacking, and if you maintain them on all your team members, you're run out of energy fast. Besides, if they'd be so broken, why are there so few ritualists used instead of monks?

Lemme try to learn you something like I did just above. :P

Weapon spells are unremovable - that's their perk. That's what they were designed to be, because at the time, Disarm didn't exist. As a result, you can only have one weapon spell on any one person at any given point of time. Sounds fair, right? You can shatter an enchantment pretty easily, but a weapon spell will stick, and short stopping it from going off in the first place or killing the target, you're not going to stop it. (We'll completely ignore the arguments about how bad unstoppable things are for the game, for now.)

So far, so good. You've got a semi-weak effect (let's be honest, Guardian is a great spell, but just by itself it's a bit weak - you need Spirit Bond, Channeling, Glyph Lesser, something, to support it and make it work to its full potential) that has the added perk of being unremovable. Sounds balanced to me so far.

Here's the problem: You don't have a semi-weak effect. You have an amazingly powerful effect that casts quickly enough to almost never be interruptable - did you know there's only two weapon spells in the game with a cast time longer than one second? One second is the standard casting time for a weapon spell, which makes it difficult to interrupt on your standard turret ranger. (It's a ton easier on a mesmer due to fast casting and 1/4 cast interrupts, but mesmer interrupts recharge a lot slower than weapon spells.)

Compare, if you will, Weapon of Warding (PvP) and Guardian. Toss Guardian on a guy, and he's immune to melee pressure (not melee damage; melee pressure) for a good seven seconds or so. Toss WoW on him, and he's essentially immune to melee damage for ten seconds - you get an extra three seconds duration out of it and they'll heal up any damage they manage to take. The downside is that you can't toss WoW on a second guy five seconds later, but the fact that soul reaping makes the cost essentially free makes up for that, even if the health regen didn't (though, honestly, the regen is powerful enough that it almost does).

If you're still not convinced, try comparing Nightmare Weapon and Conjure Flame. Conjure Flame is a pretty balanced skill - it adds a chunk of pressure, but it's got a lot of counters. If it's stripped, one way or the other, you're out of luck for a good half a minute or so (sometimes as little as ten seconds, but that's still a lot of pressure lost.) It's also elemental damage, which means it's vulnerable to shield swapping (not to mention armor in general). Nightmare Weapon, however, has a few things going for it: It completely ignores armor, which means you're guaranteed to deal a lot of extra damage so long as you can hit; it puts its bonus damage in "bursts", which is great for spikes or for working down the last bit of that guy's health; and it heals you for a good chunk, while you're at it (realistically, something around 100 hp per cast). Furthermore, it doesn't require an elemental weapon, so you can put it on your vamp bow or whatnot and do just fine. (Why don't people use Nightmare, then, you ask? Well, ranger spike teams tend to, and everyone else doesn't because... well, warriors can't manage the energy, and even then, few warriors use conjure simply because there's better things to use your slots on, such as Shock.)

As for why rits are so much less common than monks - well, if you went to HA, you'd find that they aren't. They just, as I said, are necro primaries. But the other thing you need to keep in mind is that you can't rely on the majority of people to decide things for you - the majority isn't always, or even often, correct. I'm sure you've heard tons of people tell you that paragons are weak because they've been nerfed so many times - are they right, just because they're the majority? Of course not. The majority of people, frankly, tend to be dumb - but that's another discussion for another time.

-- Armond Warblade 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not convinced. (1) Unremoveable things are not necessarily bad, it depends on opinion and balance. My opinion is that there's no problem with that provided it's balanced. (2) N/Rt gets energy, but Mo gets added healing via divine. Having played both, I can say that neither seems stronger than the other, but N/Rt is more difficult to spot as the healer in a group in PvP. Monk gets free heals instead of added energy, and also gets to use runes. (3) WoW vs. Guardian, added cost for added effect, and you conveniently forgot to mention that Mo also gets added heal for free. Not convinced. (4) Nightmare vs. Conjure, like costly spike vs. cheap pressure. Brutal weapon would be a better comparison. Nightmare needs to hit, btw. I use it for the occasional spike, but I'd use Conjure instead for long-term damage. It's costly and requires re-application too often. (5) So if I can't trust ppl because they're dumb, as you say, why should I trust you? I agree that many don't understand balance. I'm not a sheep. -- Alaris 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on RaO above... you taught me that Izzy made the skill for thumpers. You didn't teach me that the skill was unbalanced though... I'm not convinced. I personally think that players using skills from another profession is great fun. I got annoyed at N/Rt's stealing my job as Mo, but then again, they were not in demand nearly enough that my job was in any jeopardy, and I think it's great that such diversity can exist. It's a pain to balance, sure, but it's definately worth it. Killing that diversity in favor of RP considerations (like you should be good at what you do, not at doing what other classes do) is not worth it IMO. -- Alaris 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've played an N/Rt healer and a monk healer, and you don't think the N/Rt is overpowered, and you think the N/Rt is more difficult to spot as a healer in PvP, and you think divine favor heals are free, I can tell I'm not going to be able to convince you, mr. sheep. -- Armond Warblade 02:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How are the bonus from divine favor not free? And if you disagree that N/Rt's are harder to spot than Mo's, then fine. It only takes away from your side. Last thing, let's keep it civil, even if we disagree. That means no name calling. -- Alaris 02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where I called you a name, unless you didn't spot the 50-pixel-high sarcasm tags around "mr sheep". :P But nowadays, there's so damn many N/Rts in... pretty much every form of play... that there's simply not any other real reason why someome takes a rit secondary as a necro. (Unless, that is, they're carrying superpowered rit support skills, in which case they should be high priority anyway.) Divine Favor bonuses aren't free because you, well, you kinda have to dump a bunch of attribute points and a rune into making them effective. Did you know that MBaS will outperform all Healing Prayers staple skills at 13 resto, 13 healing, and 13 favor? I direct you here for more information. -- Armond Warblade 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting read. And sorry about missing the sarcasm... but on the internet, sarcasm fails. It's hard to guess intent when all we have is text.

What needs to be considered though is not the single skills, but rather the build in which it is used. Can it remove hexes? Can it do group healing? Can it do massive healing on one target? Can it protect, and pre-prot? Ultimately, Mo's and N/Rt's need to fill a variety of functions to be useful to their team. So take two commonly-used builds and compare them... it's a hard task, I know. Failing that, we could compare stats for teams with Mo's vs. with N/Rt's.

It's a shame that primary Rt's aren't more (or at least as) popular than N/Rt's. But then again, before Rt's and Paragons, only monks could heal or prot. Like I said above, and it's an opinion I will not let go of, diversity is a strong asset of GW. -- Alaris 04:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the whole N/Rt build can do just as much - or more - than the whole Mo/X build - if only because it can clump condition removal with flat heals, and hex removal is more than taken care of on other characters (who can more than keep up with the standards of midline support while they're at it via splinter, warmonger's, etc), which completely bypasses the point of "rits are supposed to be good at flatheals but bad at hex removal". Why bring hex removal when it's not something you need worry about?

Yes, it's a shame we're missing primary rit healers. The reason they're not really there is because hexes are such a huge problem that unless you have insanely overpowered energy management, you just can't afford to give up any hex removal anywhere - thus the "nerit".

I agree that diversity is great within Guild Wars, but it comes at the huge cost of balance. Let's take one simple example - you've pressured the enemy down so there's three guys at ~200 hp each. You could knock out one, maybe two of them with a warrior before the enemy monk has a chance to save the rest. With a derv... one chilling crit and they're all dead, or a wounding strike smash if, for whatever reason, none of them have DW. And, by the way, it's much easier to get to that point by using a derv than a warrior. See the problem? Dervs are also a bit more immune to spikes due to their inherent +health (yes, warriors have higher armor and non-hammer warriors have a shield, but there's plenty of pressure that completely ignores armor - start by looking at antimelee hexes and life stealing). The only real reason to run a warrior over a derv is that a derv has a lower "skill cap" than a warrior - there's only so much you can do with a derv, regardless of your skill level, due to things like slower attack speed and available skills, but this isn't the case with the shock axe. (This is, by the way, the reason why high-end players run warriors and monks over dervs and N/Rts.)

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, it's getting on 2 am... -- Armond Warblade 05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, I see trade-offs and the choices people make. These do not necessarily mean that those choices were made because imbalances exist. We would need some data and analysis to make conclusions like that. (1) D vs W: indeed, higher armor which can be bypassed. But dervishes also rely on enchantments which can be removed. And putting daze on a dervish is lots of fun. Or any hex that punish them per hit. Having played both in PvE, and against both, I would say that neither is inherently better than the other. I would say that, however, Dervishes tend to have higher damage output, but also be easier to kill or shutdown. Which is ok by me. (2) The problem with Rt skills, from what I see, is not so much that they provide good heals or unremoveable buffs in the form of weapon spells. The problem is that the Rt primary isn't built to encourage playing Rt skills on a Rt. I love the Rt profession, with many of my characters being /Rt, but I would not make a Rt primary... because its bonuses are too restrictive. Compare that to R, N, or even E or Me. What I would like to see is that the primary profession in GW2 is linked to a bonus that spreads well to a range of other professions, and thus that the profession should be known for its primary rather than its skills. Me is fast cast. E is energy. N is energy per death. R is cheap attacks. W is increased damage. Etc. With this mentality, it would not be a problem if Rt skills were used as secondary. But then, the Rt profession would also need a good worthwhile primary.

Some would argue that N, R, etc are broken because their primary allows efficient builds that use skills mostly from a secondary profession. I would argue that Mo, W, P etc are broken because their primary doesn't allow efficient builds that use skills mostly from a secondary profession. -- Alaris 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to actually play the game instead of doing this theorycrafting and PvE stuff, and look up the definition of "power creep". That's all I'm going to say - because, yes, these skills have their inherent pluses and minuses, but you're completely ignoring the fact that the downsides are completely ignorable. -- Armond Warblade 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. And downsides are not "completely ignorable" in GW, they usually require one or several skills to be used just to compensate for the downside, or limits your playstyle. You'll need a better understanding of scientific methodology and/or logical fallacies to win me over. BTW, I did look up the definition of power creep. What of it? -- Alaris 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic. Play the game and you'll start realizing that things are overpowered instead of bleating "this is balanced! this is balanced!" like the 90% of HA people that abuse it. -- Armond Warblade 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Special Awards

Naturally it wasn't coincidence! Congrats with your NPC! And people will now think you'll have named your character after the NPC :p --Lady Rhonwyn 07:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Grats. --Xeeron 11:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

grats ^^ - Y0_ich_halt 11:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Erasculio 12:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could not possibly name my characters after the NPC, cuz *all* my characters are older than the NPC! Thanks everyone! -- Alaris 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Alaris for your Namesake NPC!

--Silverleaf Don't assume, ask! 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

and lols on it being a luxon npcCrimmastermind 07:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My heart has always been with the Luxons. I wonder if they knew that...? -- Alaris 21:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work

Hey Alaris. You may know me as Prepare To Burn, that guy you sometimes here on AC. Can i just say, you are doing great work throughout the game, and for that, i congratulate you. Keep it up! --Burning Freebies 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ah I wish they would hire me though! I have so many other ideas that I could contribute... -- Alaris 16:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Signed edit

Did you mean to sign the edited main page Guide to luck titles; should the signature be on the main page? I didn't want to edit that part because I wasn't sure. Most of my edits have been typos and punctuation. --Drakora 16:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, force of habit... signatures don't belong on main pages, so that was my mistake. I went to fix it, but soneone else did it for me. Thanks for the warning! -- Alaris 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

GWI Invitation

Hello Alaris! I know I've seen your name show up a lot in the "suggestion" section of the site, and I didn't know if you caught wind of www.guildwarsideas.com yet. It's just a place where GW players can submit their suggestions where they're handled a little better than here on the wiki. Check it out if you'd like, and thanks for your time! =)

--Brokunn 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll check it out. -- Alaris 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

DS

You've played the Dungeon Siege series? I've played through them all, as well! I'm a big fan of that game series. Did you know that Dungeon Siege 3 will soon be in development? Play on! - Ara Ara 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DS3? Really? I thought they abandonned the idea with DS2 expansion and SS not working as well as intended... I'll be looking forward to it. Thanks for the heads up! -- Alaris 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

+1 points for you!

You understand balance better than all the self-appointed GW balancers. I wish there were more people like you, maybe we wouldn't be picked on one at a time by the "Anet sucks=cool!"-masses. 87.210.150.58 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you... I try to do my part. I was wondering, perhaps a feature on what it takes to balance a game, or add features, would go a long way towards reducing some of that misunderstanding. They want to help, but they just don't understand the complexity of the whole process. -- Alaris 00:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

/signed for the feature. While it would likely result in a post by someone claiming to be a programmer too telling that the whole thing was exagerated, it could potentially enlighten a few people. 145.94.74.23 08:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

/signed for feature :). --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I have only seen you talk about other "balancers" doing badly and saying Anet is doing it right. But frankly, that same Anet implemented bullshit like Palm Strike. I wouldn't call that a particularly good move and that's just one example from a lot more of failures. What do you call a balanced game? Where people mindlessly punch their keyboard? Where there are skills that are WAY stronger than similar other skills (Word of Healing for example)? I probably won't convince you but while most people on this site would be sucky balancers, that doesn't mean Anet itself is any good. The fact that I can easily give you examples of balance fail should say enough. Just consider that puh-lease. Dark Morphon 18:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have on many occasions, and while it is easy to consider balance when comparing single skills, it's obviously beyond most people to consider balance as a whole. Yes, there are things that might be improved, but on a whole, the game is ok: there are multiple equally viable teams in most PvP formats. That is balance and such balance is rare in MMORPGS. 145.94.74.23 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see on a whole that the total damage in one match has increased greatly over the years. I can see hexway being really bad and boring. That's not just single skills, that's entire concepts gone wrong. Dark Morphon 07:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should first have a metric before we evaluate, no? I'll loosely define balance as the number of high-end viable playstyles, that is, viable enough to be taken into competitive-level teams or to do difficult tasks alone or with H&H. Why do I choose this metric? (1) There's no point considering anything at low difficulty level, because there almost anything goes. (2) There's no point talking about builds because many builds serve the same purpose and play similarly. Thus I don't count those builds as essentially different. (3) There's no point talking about roles, because you can fulfill a role using various playstyles. (4) There's no point talking about individual skills, because they are part of a meta, a build, and a playstyle. We could argue that some skills define the playstyle... but then we'd still be talking about a playstyle.

Is there a game out there that gives me more high-end viable playstyles to choose from than GW? I'd love to know, because this is what makes GW so much fun. But somehow, I don't think so.

There's room for improvement, yes. But I haven't seen any other game out there that has beaten GW in terms of balance, by my definition of it. Except perhaps Starcraft. -- Alaris 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

@Morphon: the damage was increased (mostly) due to demands from the community, who frowned upon teams that were too defensive. They wanted faster games and thus damage needed to be increased. As for bad and boring, those are opinions and not reasons to balance a game upon. I know you mean their power though, but let me point out that hexes have always been more powerful than their removal.

@Alaris: That's a defenition I can agree with. As for starcraft is a good and a bad example in my opinion. Yes, it's superbly balanced, but it's also a completely different kind of game. I think a MMO, especially with this many skills, is a lot harder to balance (and Anet has defenitly noticed that). 145.94.74.23 07:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

@145 - Just pointing out that even across genres, it's hard to come up with examples of well-balanced games that promote diverse playstyles. Meanwhile, I'm having a lot of fun with my new Ritualist. I stayed away from it because I thought the primary was of very limited utility (and it is), but the profession is incredibly flexible and fun to play. I've played MM, healer, and spirit spammer (defensive, offensive, as well as combined). Although some might say that the profession is not balanced by considering only the primary, at least by my definition it is incredibly well balanced.

@Morphon - I remember PvP players complaining about Hexway and defensive builds being OP'ed. So if anything, they've restored the balance, or perhaps pushed it too far in the other direction... hard to tell from where I'm standing. But turtling is always frustrating to play against, and two turtling teams make for a very boring match. It's only normal to want offensive to be better than defensive. -- Alaris 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The starcraft comment was more in general, not specifically directed at you. Like I said, I partially agree with it. IMO, it's hard to truly balance RPG's, especially when certain professions/skills are designed to take out other professions. 145.94.74.23 06:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And that's exactly where you are wrong. Power creep is not only the increase of damage, it's the global increase of power. Damage has indeed gotten better but so have Healing and Hexes. The current meta is basically frontline tries to kill stuff, VoR mesmer stops the warriors and monks, Necromancers stop the warriors and monks try to heal stuff. Note that the entire midline just spamspamspams (Mesmers have total protection against interrupts, why would they not?). When more power comes into the game people tend to try and use the skills that have the best direct effect. Smart play and tactics are simply not worth it anymore. And that, my good sir, is where it goes wrong. That's what Arenanet should have avoided. Compare it to the Prophecies era. The games weren't overly defensive and yet the power was much lower. When turtling was a viable strategy (I think that was somewhere during nightfall?), it was pretty boring and bad. I agree. But what Arenanet should have done was decrease the power of defensive skills instead of increasing the power of offensive skills. You see, by increasing the damage the game was pushed into an Enchantment-meta with high damage. Very bad indeed. But what did Arenanet do then? Increase the power of defensive skills! Ah, now that is an obvious example of power creep. Hope I clarified this now ;). Dark Morphon 13:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

@Dark Morphon - Of course we'll use the skills that have the best effect. Of course frontliners try to kill stuff, and mesmers try to stop stuff, and monks try to heal stuff. Of course mesmers spam, that's what they're designed to do (aside from energy issues, which you neglect to mention). Tell me... (1) If power increases equally for every profession both offensively and defensively, how does that affect balance? (2) Did people really give up strategy, or are you just bumping into more casuals that are using FotM builds? (3) Is using strategy actually bad like you claim? (4) How is the faster pace and enchantment-meta and higher damage *bad* exactly? Is it possible that some people enjoy it? -- Alaris 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't balance based on opinion alone. At the very least, you need to support your claims with data. And you need to broaden your views to include that of other players. -- Alaris 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. I never said strategy is bad, where the hell did you get that from? Now, let's comment. First of all, Mesmers didn't always spam skills. If you'd support YOUR claims with data, you'd have seen every Mesmer worth his salt ran highly tactical Domination Magic bars which required proper timing. I don't know whether this is different in PvE land, but in GvG it is like I say. Power creep is bad because the amount of health a character has does NOT increase, turning the game gradually in Dragon Arena. Concerning point two, just observe. I did that today and saw no tactics such as bodyblocking, quarterchopping etc. Going to point 4, name me one serious GvG player (you know, those that actually PvP and those that even remotely care about balance) that liked the turtle meta or the enchantment meta or the current hex/damage meta, cause I have yet to see one. And don't come with AB players, cause they can still run their gimmicky builds if they want to since skill and skills don't matter there. Now, coming to point 5, basing balance on opinions is the only way to go. You will always displease some part of the community. But as long as you can't find a GvG player seriously enjoying the current meta, I see no point why not to change it. Dark Morphon 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) "Smart play and tactics are simply not worth it anymore." If that's twisting your words, it's not twisting them far. Even with FotM builds, those who use strategy well will do better than those who don't. So really, what you mean is that smart play and tactics don't roflstomp casual as easily as they used to, which we can debate about whether this is a good change or not. (2) Requiring proper timing requires both reflexes and lower ping. It's not clear that this would appeal to most players, although I see how this appeals to elites. But there are other ways to shutdown an opponent that also requires strategy, like using the right skills on the right opponents, or anticipating their moves to select which shutdowns to apply. (3) Still not clear why power creep is bad, as lots of ppl enjoy Dragon Arena. We agree turtling is bad. We agree that stalemates are bad. But I also enjoy a faster pace and a shorter game. (4) How do you define "not using strategy". Perhaps they are using different strategies. Or perhaps you're right, but you're just seeing more casual players that don't have good strategies. (5) Are you saying serious GvG players are sour? (just kidding) Why do you exclude from your poll the more casual players? I agree that a game should appeal to the elite, but it should also appeal to the casual if you want a customer base. Look at HA for a good example of elitism taking the fun out of a game. I would not want that to happen with the rest of GW. (6) You have as many opinions as you have people, which one do you pick? How do you know when your opinions have misled you? How do you know that your opinions reflect the playerbase? How do you know that your opinions will translate into something that actually works as intended? The world is filled with opinionated people. I don't believe that it is them who make the world a better place. You really need to consider the facts, to understand the principles, to understand the complexity, and to test your ideas. -- Alaris 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) I mean that strategic and tactical play make much less difference, if any at all, than they used to. In the old days, positioning made much more difference. That being good is what I will discuss at point {5). (2) With proper timing I mean using your valuable skills when they are most needed, this not only applies to interrupts but also to shutdown. Timing is a rather broad concept, really. But let's face it, do you really have to time the 3? Not really, you just throw Empathy on the frontliners on recharge and Backfire and Visions of Regret on the monks on recharge. Little timing involved in doing that. (3) Dragon Arena is fun, but I really prefer more strategic and tactical games over that. Just like above, in Dragon Arena it doesn't matter WHEN you use your skill of certain dead, though it can be dodged. I think the strategic and tactical elements of GvG are what appeals to people. Taking that away with power creep is just a pity. (4) I would say not using a strategy is when you just use your skills on recharge without timing those skills or thinking why you use those skills. For example, if you spam Flare you aren't using a strategy. (5) I think this is where the Guild Ladder kicks in. People that are casual players usually have a lower rating (I think that's pretty logical, or it should be) and are thus pitted against each other. This means they can play to equal people. Now, I think those people can be allowed to run gimmicky or mindless builds. It's when these builds start outclassing the tactical balanced builds that things go wrong. HA is infested with gimmicks. Hell, even the "balanced" build is a gimmick in itself. I think that's why mindless play, gimmicks and spamming are bad. Of course, there's also a different reason why HA is bad. Unlike GvG, it doesn't have a ladder. And, even worse, there's a title system that screws things up even more. I think that's the reason why casual people can't really play HA. The gimmicks are bad, but the lack of a good system that puts up equal players against each other is even worse. (6) I honestly do not know, but I think the best idea would be to make sure different play-styles ARE possible and reflected by the place you are playing. I most certainly think it's a bad idea to turn the entirety of Guild Wars into Dragon Arena. A good idea would be to make Dragon Arena accessible the entire year though, giving players more than one option. Dark Morphon 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

About that timing thing, in order to time something well, unless it's an instant kill spike, you'll have to react to something. So you'll need someone to start throwing things around. That's what the Mesmer hexes are for. They start the fight. Once the Mesmers start casting, you need to plan your hex removal, interrupts, non-casting interval, etc. Now, I'm not saying anything about the power of these particular skills. All I'm saying is, that not everything can be active or skill based. To prot someone skillfully, someone else will have to start spamming Flare. There will have to be some passive elements to make the active stuff worth activating. Do you understand where I'm going with this? 145.94.74.23 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you can't react to a skill-requiring skill? That's totally bullshit man :/. Look at a skill like, let's say, Bull's Strike. It takes timing to use (you can use it on stationairy targets but that's just a waste of energy and skillbar), so it requires skill, right? I mean, you have to pick a moving target. Now, there are at least two ways to react to this skill: Stop moving before your opponent can use the skill or get yourself Guardian or another block skill. So you have just reacted to a skill which requires thinking to use. Damage can be skill-requiring as well: Look at adrenal cost. You have to use your attack skills, which you have loaded for a considerable amount of time, when you and your team benefit from it the most. Another thing which takes skill and can be avoided? Interrupts. Just cancel your skill a few times to lure out your opponent's interrupts and then use it. That's a tactical trick that is NOT required on the current Mesmer VoR bar because you have Mantra of Concentration which stops any incoming interrupts. There is no risk, no reward for playing well. You just spam on recharge and your opponent goes down. And THAT'S what's wrong with so many skills in the current meta, but also in the Enchantment meta and the turtle meta. It's totally riskless. And that is what Arenanet hasn't avoided from happening and that is why Arenanet is NOT doing it right. Dark Morphon 10:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But I'm not entirely sure that the game you describe would be more fun than the current game I am playing. -- Alaris 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's your opinion of course, I personally prefer Guild Wars to be tactical like it used to be. It's something that's unique with MMOs, games like World of Warcraft reward it much less. Would you really think the game would be LESS fun if it was more tactical? Because I can't really see why you would. And, since most of the PvP community thinks the game would be MORE fun if it was more tactical, I think we should make it that for them. Dark Morphon 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think GW has reached a good balance. There is such a thing as too tactical, where the level of skill required to succeed becomes prohibitive to new or casual players. Positioning, interrupts, psych, fakes, e-management, defenses, timing... all that is exciting to competitive players, but it can get frustrating fast to new or casual players. I've played my share of tactical/fast-paced competitive games, and I prefer how GW works. Mind you, WoW was way too slow for me, which is why I say that GW has a good balance. -- Alaris 15:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, taste is not something you can argue about (well, you can but it's pointless). I'm glad you at least have thought about it. Have a nice day! Dark Morphon 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice day too! -- Alaris 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice day too! =D -- Alaris 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

@Dark Morphon: but in order to use Bull's Strike skillfully, someone has to start moving first. My point is, that passive effects (like autoattacking) are neccesary for the game to get the fight started. You need to have something to create a 'the right moment'. That was my point. Tactical skills are fine, but the right mix between tactical and (relatively passive) is what makes the game. Just like auto-attacking melee encourages kiting, which encourages snares, which encourage removal, etc. It's not meant as an absolute situation, but as an explanation why some passive stuff is ok. But skillful should be more rewarding, I agree with you there. 145.94.74.23 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, you talked about using Flare but this is a bad example since, unlike auto-attacking, it can't really be stopped. Auto-attacking in itself can actually be skillful. Dark Morphon 14:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Interrupts, Reversal of Fortune, Diversion...Backfire if they spam it. But the point was: some passive actions can be good for the game. 145.94.74.23 10:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it keeps the game tactical. It's a CORPG, after all. Dark Morphon 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)