Response to Izzy Status[edit]

What with Ranger Spike on HA and Shattering Assault build (maybe less important but still pretty powerful)? :> --Kain 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically, that means the remaining good Channeling skills for the Rit get nerfed into the ground? Along with the spirits getting another nerf. Good things in the future for Ritualists it seems. And the Three Monk Backline is because you nerf all other kinds of defense, bar the monk. --Deathwing 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They will be nerfed but very slightly, I'm probably just gonna make Ancestors rage a skill instead of a enchantment, and Splinter might get a number of enemies cap. ~Izzy @-'---- 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That will work then. --Deathwing 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deathwing splinter shouldn't be "insta win" on VoD just because NPCs balled up. Imho Ancestors' Rage should be viable only on Rit if it would stay in its current, overpowered form. --Kain 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that they are very strong, but I just see them being total trash after the nerf. Pre-buff Splinter and a 10/1/15 Ancestors'. --Deathwing 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Make Splinter Weapon PvE-only. Simple. 90.197.205.118 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing skills from PvP instead of balancing them? Brilliant! But sarcasm aside, I would rather have a mediocre skill that I can use then a great one that I can't. --

Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to see splinter weapon nerfed. I've no idea of its effect on PvP, but it is one of the few remaining skills that rangers use to get into pugged elite missions! I thought Anet was meant to be trying to encourage pugging. Its no more overpowered that a combo of Meteor Shower and Savannah Heat or SF. And its use in farming, well, yeah. But it is one of the few effective ranger (and rit) farms (it isn't even that, with loot scaling as it is and the areas where it is useful being grossly over-farmed). If you wish to nerf ranger (and rit) farms, then please, make it fair and do the same to eles, monks, and any other intensive farm build. Coming from a ranger, yes, I know this is biased, and yes, I know that there are a lot of good ranger skills to use. But in the cookie-cutter builds we are often left out. A community flaw, I know, not a dev balancing flaw. But nonetheless, I don't see why our neglect should be furthered. 88.66.176.190 00.03, 2 November 2007 (GMT)

Spiritway- reduce RaO duration (by about 2 sec), lower armor of all spirits. Dual clums build- the biggest problem are the sins, so change black lotus (maybe 4-5ish less energy back) and make impale a one second cast. Duration of clumsiness should be shorter and damage slightly higher so it's not a cast and last forever unless pulled spell. Ancestors rage- lower damage. lower recharge. Should be a good pressure skill, not necessary spike. Splinter weapon- make it so only 2-3 additional targets can be hit. Three monk backlines- Don't understand this, but ok. Recall- Shorter range (2/3 radar?), maybe much longer recharge (60-90 sec), or doesn't step when stripped. Blood spike- reduce andorogon's energy gain from 12 to 10. Make ss/og deal 60 damage at 14+ blood and reduce life steal to equal final damage output. Holymasamune 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused...how do you spike with ancestor's rage?

Bspike is gay, but very beatable. If you have decent monks who have eyeballs, they can stop bloodspike like it's a joke.

Again, recall is gay, but I don't think it's overpowered. Meta an enchant removal on the team you send back.

Three monk backlines are, yes, gay, but what are you going to possibly do to them? Please don't nerf heals and prots, forcing everyone to take extra defense. That is not the solution.

If VoD only affected direct damage instead of total damage taken, that would solve your splinter problem (and traps).

Clumsiness is good, and when you have two of them every 4 seconds it's gay, but that skill requires energy to spam.

Why isn't Deadly Paradox on your list?

Why isn't Scythe Damage on your list?

Why aren't any rit heals on your list?

Why isn't warmonger's weapon on your list?

Why isn't choking gas on your list?

Games of skill should be based on skill. Sorry that sounds obvious, but it seems like you don't already know that. Gimmicks should not rule this game.

Maybe if you looked at actual balance problems instead of minor balance inconveniences, this game would be good. Shard 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Cast it on your wars. Ancestors is 100~ spammable damage for 5 energy. Even if it wasn't targeted, it'd be better than anything the ele had. This needs putting back to its 10 energy cost, its only an error that it ended up at 5 (10e -> 5e+ exhaustion -> 5e). — Skuld 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancestors is also good with Ride the Lightning if two elementalists use it at the same time.

Why would rit heals be on the list? Anyway, I think Clumsiness just needs a shorter duration like ppl have been suggesting on the guru, and maybe shorten Ineptitude's hex duration too, but not as much as Clumsiness (2-4 and 3-5 sound good, maybe too long though). Ancestor's Rage and Splinter could use a slight nerf,ancestor's needs to be 10 energy and maybe lower the damage slightly (the max I would say to drop it is 20, maybe not even that much considering it should have a 10 energy cost) and splinter just needs reduced damage, maybe by 3/4 or 1/2 (hopefully not enough to kill channeling completely, since it lacks utility, and is mainly about pure damage, the main problem here imo). One way to fix 3 monk backlines, make the Rit actually useful in 8v8 for actual healing and support (change spirits, its kinda sad that the Ritualist's main focus, binding rituals, are probably the most useless part of the class, weapon spells and item spells are generally better), I dont see any other class really filling the role other than the paragon, and I get the feeling no one wants para's boosted atm. Now if the problem with the 3 monk backline was just because of the super defense, and not so much the fact that a team uses 3 monks, I have no problem with that, so I can't really comment since it seems reasonable to have about as much defense as you have offense, granted, LoD needs to be nerfed, and self healing/preservation skills need to be improved (LoD pretty much outshines self-healing, why take self healing when LoD covers that up for everyone on your team, all in one skill) imho. With spiritway, just nerf RaO already, I dont think you're going to make thumpers less of a problem any other way, just take away a little bit of its duration like holymasamune said. Definitely don't see why the armor of spirits needs to be brought down though, thought they were already easy kills :/.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 01:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

-Spiritway should be approached from an e-management perspective. Half energy gain from spirits. Nerf Energizing Wind to 15 energy instead of 10. Recall needs something like "If this enchantment ends and you are under the effects of a hex or below 50% health, then you don't teleport". If a guy overextends and gets snared, I don't want to just send him back home. I want him dead for being a tactical buffoon. To solve the Three Monk Backline, add more utility to certain caster attribute lines. Blood would be prime here. Take Blood Bond, return the regen to 1..3 and then slap on +1..5 damage reduction. Take Demonic Flesh, let it be cast on allies, and then reduce the recharge to 5 seconds. Conversely, to fight blood spike, I know that fixing the damage type so that it triggers enchantments would be kind of work intensive. I believe a decent solution would be to simply reduce all damage from life-steal if it his an enchanted foe by a third. If you want to get back to a pressure style of play, you might have to take a good look at LoD. Worst case scenario, you can seriously buff some PvE skills to make up for it.--65.95.71.26 03:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious, is there a reason that, despite now being seen with two copies in the dual-clumsiness builds, despite being the other major dominant build in HB, and despite being the only thing in the "overpowered skills" section that had so many complaints that it got forked off to its own page, Shadow Prison is not on the table? Riotgear 03:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you suggest to nerf it? 15 energy cost? Dark Prison wins. Longer recharge? Dark Prison wins. Half range? Dark Prison wins. I mean really, there isn't very many ways to nerf it and still retain its elite status compared to its non-elite counterpart. --Deathwing 04:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dark Prison needs to be hit too pre-emptively. Note that Dark Prison used to have a 45-second recharge, and got buffed to 30 later on, but nobody cared because it's not like any other part of the SP bar has a better elite alternative and SP was still better. The biggest problems with SP spike is that the Impale buff sent the damage way over the edge and allowed the KD to be kept in (compare Horns/BoS+Impale to Horns/Twisting), Black Lotus Strike has thrown energy concerns out the window (compare 10e Golden Phoenix Strike to BLS refunding its own cost and then some), and SP itself is a terrible, degenerate skill. One suggestion I heard for it was to end stance and disable non-attack skills for 7 seconds on both Shadow Prison and Dark Prison, which would effectively kick IAS and Impale off the bar. If I had a crack at it, I'd bump the recharge to 30, bump Dark Prison's back to 45, implement the skill disable, and see if that got rid of it. Riotgear 12:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

it means to remove ritualist in pvp?

ritualist is nerfed again and again, splinter weapon and Ancestor Rage are the last useful skills for ritualist, the the two skills are nerfed, why we need a ritualist in pvp?

pls tell me what is the function of ritualist?

a healer? weaker than monk

channeling spike? nerf and nerf again

spiritway? nerf and nerf again

the last position is to be a support class that use splinter weapon and Ancestor Rage, now you want to nerf them?

Or they could like you know....be "a healer" AND "channeling spike" rolled into one, with elite e-management to boot. --Deathwing 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How come you are working on the next skill update already Izzy? :O --Redfeather 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments on some points:

Spiritway - I think the main issue with spirits is, that many ritualist spells work better with many of them. For example, Mend Body and Soul gets better if there are lot of spirits. Also, all skills that heal spirits affect all spirits (Spirit boon strike, signet of creation) while spells that hurt spirits (spirit transfer, gaze from the beyond) only affect one random spirits. This should really be the other way round to encourage the use of single spirits. For example, mend body and soul should hurt all spirits in earshot when used, while spirit light should be changed to also heal one random nearby spirit when used (maybe instead of the no sacc clause). This would make spirit light very useful to keep up a single spirit with health loss like agony, while it is less useful with many spirits because then one would only heal a random spirit.
Dual Clums Build - Duration on Clumsiness and Ineptitude should be reduced a bit, so sitting it out becomes a realistic option --Lunk 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Izzy, would you also please consider buffing (or at least looking at) some of the clearly underpowerd 'older' skills like Magnetic Surge and Revive Animal while you're at it? That would really mean a lot for me, and I think for a lot of people. Nicky Silverstar 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

bloodspike vs infuser monk has always been a battle of energy. as long as the infuser can get enough energy to outlast the spikers, the infuser wins. however, bloodspike is always dangerous because all they need to do is get that one succesful spike in. then their energy levels will be decidedly higher than the monk's and they generally win after that. with all that said, bloodspike probably should've recieved a powerful nerf a long time ago. for high level gvg, they are an annoyance. for the rest of the people elsewhere, they are needlessly powerful.--Moriz 21:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiritway is more Soul Reaping abuse. That's it. The best solution to spiritway and bloodspike would be to address Soul Reaping, something that's really been needed for a while. Under normal circumstances, it's hard to get Soul Reaping to trigger consistently, and if it is triggering consistently, it means one of the two teams is getting rolled. When methods are used to exploit Soul Reaping (i.e. spikes, bone minions, and spirit spam), it winds up invariably provided an absurd amount of energy.

I'm not sure exactly what to suggest for it though. SR doesn't really have a good selection of skills other than Reaper's Mark and SOLS to be turned into a skill-oriented line like Strength, and the current functionality works fine (maybe even too well) in PvE. Then again, with GoLE available, I'm not sure it matters for most purposes. Riotgear 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maximum of 2 of the same primary profession in the same party.
Any skill that effect the whole party should be limited to "within earshot" or less, just like aegis. (LoD/heal party/etc).
With the new area limit to party wide buffs, restore 12vs12 to AB.
Add the costume ball as a new permanent game type, remove HB maps from TA/RA.
Remove SR Energy gain from spirit deaths.

--Just One More Thing 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No to the first point, it's needless limiting of creativity that still doesn't get rid of gimmick builds. Just because there are 3 of a profession on the same team doesn't mean they're all doing the same thing.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimmicks do tend to run 3 or more of the same profession. And because they do (or can), they are balanced around that fact, and ultimately made less effective because of it (for example the Paragon). The idea is not to balance around total party size, or multiple numbers of the same profession in a party, but just two of each maximum. Right now, balance is aimed at 8vs8 GvG but what works in that party size doesnt necessarily work in for example, 4vs4 RA/TA --Just One More Thing 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Counterexample: hexway. Aside from possibly using a monk runner (and thus having 3 monks), hexway didn't need more than 2 of each class. Limiting classes does more harm than it helps, and restricts a lot of perfectly valid builds such as 3-warrior builds, monk runners, et cetera. Furthermore, it doesn't stop people from abusing the exact same skills, but on a secondary. Again, limiting the number of a particular class in a team doesn't really do much to stop people from running gimmick builds, and does offer fewer options for those not running gimmick builds.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Making ritualist skills powerful without being overpowered in a team of them is a reasonably easy fix. Takee all skills which say something like: "For each spirit within earshot" like mend body and soul etc, and give them a maximum number of spirits they could count, like 3 or as little as 2 sometimes. You could even buff them slightly after that, meaning you could have 1 or 2 ritualists in a team making a big impact on things, without a team of ritualists making a total impact on things. --Ckal Ktak 09:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not an easy fix like you make it out to be, the reason ritualists are good in multiples, is because they use their spirit numbers to reduce their vulnerability. Until you can put one spirit on your bar, and actually rely on it to not die until you can put up another, then they will stay good with multiples, things like MBaS are just a slight boost to it.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 14:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, yesterday I played TA and for the first time ever, I actually enjoyed myself. Those new HB maps had a lot to do with it. I think another way to nerf certain gimmick builds is to make sure there are other goals than simply annihilating enemy teams. Nicky Silverstar 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritualist's are good skirmish characters ancestors and splinter don't need to be completely ridiculous for them to see use, pretty much everyone would run them if SP sins along with other dedicated splits didn't require a monk to deal with a lot of the time.

So now when the update is done i see nothing about blood spike except that wierd skill no one use, also spiritway didnt change any, the other points tho. --Cursed Angel 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hammer bash - Lose all adrenaline. If Hammer Bash hits, your target is knocked down. (50% failure chance with Strength 4 or less.)
Soul reaping - For each point of Soul Reaping, you gain 1 Energy whenever a non-Spirit creature dies within earshot.
All party wide buffs reduced to within earshot
Change cracked armor from a condition to non removable status effect, half all current durations where applied by skills, remove 60AR min req
Ursan blessing - Only Useable while in Norn territory

--Just One More Thing 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hammer Bash is end of thumpway, I like. I also don't see what else it would really effect - in fact, you could lower the requirement to 1 (because we all know how important it is for those low-level warriors to get their hammer bash out!) and I would still like it. Soul Reaping I don't know - let's see if it's fine as it is before changing it. Party-wide buffs to earshot? No, thanks, that'd be horrible for flaggers and orders alike. (And, what with idiots complaining that "anerf" is specifically targeting tombs, that's not a great thing for PR right now. I hate playing to the idiots, but...) Cracked armor: No, just change Aggressive Refrain to that. Ursan Blessing: It's PvE. Leave it or give it a bit of a nerf, but it was designed to be a bonus for those who get GW:EN, just like the sunspear/allegiance skills. Armond 18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Change to SR, not only removing the timer is halfing its area of influence to within earshot. I think party wide buffs are generally too powerful in range (just as Aegis was), tightening that would mean more thought goes into positioning of the caster and removes the easy role of the spamming passive defense utility buffbot who is normally away from the primary combat zone. Cracked armor doesnt really make sense as a condition, it also doesnt work well with AI. Being non removable and shorter duration would make it more useful as a killing blow. "Ursanway" is much abused and used in areas where it really is too powerful. limiting its use to where it originally was intended would move things away from its 1 skill win button function. --Just One More Thing 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nerfing party-wide buffs would force people to clump up and be vulnerable to AoE, because those buffs are necessary to counter the uberpowered offense we've had since nightfall. Cracked Armor works just fine with the AI, but spammed conditions don't (you're both thinking of Aggressive Refrain, which is the most common but certainly not the only source of cracked armor). I think "Ursanway" should stay simply because people will complain more and more that anet is nerfing PvE (re: recent [untrue] explosion surrounding pet corpse nerf). Besides, if people want to have fun with uberpowered skills in PvE, let them; it's not hurting anything. Armond 06:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt say thats true, within earthshot is still a large area, team mates can still be futher than nearby/adjacent to avoid any kind of mass AoE. An alternative could be to have all party wide buffs to be within earshot, any players outward earshot, but within passive range would only get 50% of that buff. So its less effective at the outer range. UB is very overpowered, and while that doesnt effect PvP, thats no reason to have clearly unbalanced skills in the game. Its a classic case of powercreep, areas prior to GW:EN have become too easy using it. --Just One More Thing 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move Mystic Regen to Mysticism
Ursan blessing - While active, primary attribute set to 0

--Just One More Thing 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make sunspear,kurzick,luxon,lightbringer,asura,dwarve,ebon vanguard skills, and other norn skills stick to their own area if your going to move JUST ursan blessing? PvE isn't hurting anyone, besides the npcs but they have no feelings or anything. And mystic regen is a nice skill and its not overpowered, a simple enchant strip will kill it or a team of people piling on the guy will kill him.

Buff Horns of the Ox and Trampling Ox to 5...22...25.

Prokiller88 00:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Izzy Hero Battle Thoughts[edit]

We've been talking about some tweaks to Hero Battles and I wanted to throw some of my random thoughts out there and see what people think. (These are not solid ideas, just brainstorming to see opinions)

Two Cap: Takes two people to cap a point
Shadow Stepping: Everytime you shadow step in Hero Battles, you get exhausted. (More radical but bad ideas would be like you cannot shadow step in Hero Battles)

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns? ~Izzy @-'---- 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Izzy .. thanks for the ideas.

The Shadowstep idea sounds kind of contrived and lame. Honestly ... banning shadowstepping in Hero battles sounds like a much better idea. It is truly overpowered in that format (with those maps/objectives) .. and there are many viable assassin builds that don't require shadowstepping so it's not like you're killing the class.
The 'two people to cap a point' is a great idea. Even with no other changes, Hero battles would be much more interesting if they came down to a series of 2x 2v2 encounters ... as opposed to the current 4x 1v1 encounters, which is quite dull.

IMO Shadow Steping should be reworked in whole GW not only in HB. Shawdow Steping was always bad for positioning, movement and tactics in GW. Idea of two people to cap point seems to be interesting. --Kain 01:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What about adding an "aftercast", like 1-2 seconds, for attacks after shadow-stepping? This would give more time for the "vitcim" to react, and the sin would have to pay more attention before jumping people. Oln 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Or just change the way that hero battles work, and not have every single map based around running around the map capping shrines? --Deathwing 01:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This point has been made before, but it bears repeating: Changing 'some' of the maps to non-running maps wil have ZERO effect on the current meta ... since the current 4x runner builds collapse to 4v4 quite well, whereas a 4v4 build cannot split. So as long as there is at least ONE running map ... you will see the current 4x runner builds. BTW, I think the cap point maps ARE good for the game ... nothing would be more boring than a series of 4v4 bloodbath maps (ala RA). The cap points just need to be implemented differently to make group skirmishes the deciding factor with running/capping a minor factor. I think the 'two people to cap a srine' idea might be a good step in this direction.

The Shadow Stepping change seems a bit drastic (might as well disable it altogether), perhaps a better option is to significantly reduce the range of all shadow stepping skills (make SP work only from half casting range for example, and skills like Recall/AoD/Shadow Meld at aggro circle range). The Crossing will always remain imbalanced even with those changes and should simply be removed from the map rotation in my opinion. The two cap thing is something I mentioned before but it's difficult to predict the impact it would have on build diversity. While it would allow for more options for the splitter builds, I think people would just continue to use 3 defensive characters which carry a few skills to buff an assassin in a 4v4 fight. Another option might be to reduce the solo capping speed so that they cap significantly slower than duo builds instead of not allowing solo capping altogether. The most important aspect about HvH that needs to be changed in my opinion is that people shouldn't be forced to split their team anymore nor should they be forced to hold shrines, in other words actual team builds with limited split capability should became a viable option. The morale meter has been the source of this problem and I would suggest removing that mechanic altogether and then work from there. In other words shrines should be capped because of the inherent bonus they give and nothing else (the mercenaries should also not count as an extra team member anymore). A possible change for example is to let the Central shrine give a morale boost while a "Victory or Death"-style mechanic could be introduced to decide the outcome of a battle in case of a stalemate. So in summary I would consider:

Reducing solo capping speed instead of disabling it.
Significantly reducing the active range of shadow stepping skills (aggro circle for Recall/AoD/..., half casting range for Return/Shadow Prison/...)
Removing the morale meter, thereby completely removing the ability for defensive builds to win solely by capping shrines. --Draikin 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Add the "two cap" without killing recall and HB will be more imbalanced than ever. And as for the shadow stepping disabling, what about "You lose all enchantments upon enetering the radius of the center shrine" on "To the Pain!"? No more center-capping with Recall on, and at the same time no dual Recall from the center or to the center.

Exhaustion on shadow stepping will mainly hurt builds using skills that shadow step twice like Aura of Displacement, but players who use Recall (which is the main issue here) surely can handle the exhaustion since they don't use it that often. It could maybe work, if the exhaustion is scaled with the distance of shadow stepping, so players who shadow step over a large distance with recall are exhausted more then players using short-distance stuff like Return. But i really would prefer a limit or shadow-step-range to earshot over the exhaustion mechanics.--Lunk 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Having the two-people cap is something I've been behind for a very long time. There would have to be some other tweaks to make it really mesh. Recall would have to be dealt with first of all, but I hope that's a given. The NPC shouldn't count as one of the two, but should count as a tie breaker if you have two and the other guy has two as well. I wouldn't recommend specific "Lose all Enchantments" or "Lose all Stance" tweaks for when entering certain shrine areas, because specific builds can be made to work around those restrictions. Instead of Exhaustion, have all Shadow Steps remove stances (for IAS) and disable non-attack skills (for impale). It's really less an issue of frequency as it is about ability and utility and the advantage of instantly closing a space. In Hero Battles, you can take your time to go for a Shadow Step kill, and wait a full minute between attempts. It's moreso the potency of jumping around, jumping ledges, and taking the AI by surprise. Banning Shadow Steps in Hero Battles would not be a terrible idea. What's the status on an AI buff? Heroes still refuse to cast ZB on themselves, and they'll never cast resilient weapon on anyone but themselves.--Skye Marin 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If Anet is willing to put the effort into fixing the problems with the AI it would be definitely improve HB as much as any update to the game mechanics would. I've done a lot of testing with the AI and I've added most of the problems I discovered to User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars AI issues. At the very least there are three main problems with the AI controls that should be solved:

The mercenary NPC should return to the location where you tell him to stay and no longer chase targets and stop in the middle of nowhere.
It should, in some way, be possible to select allies in the party window that are out of range (grayed out) so we can still order other allies to use a skill on them. For example if you implement the 2 people cap restriction, we wouldn't be able to order ally #3 to use a skill on ally #4 when they're both out of range. Furthermore, they shouldn't lose their target lock when you walk out of range of that target.
The skill activation delay needs to be reduced. When your hero takes 4 seconds before they use a skill you clicked manually then stopping assassin spikes becomes a serious problem. I'm not sure what's causing it but you can read more about it here: [1]. --Draikin 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I say leave shadowstepping alone as it is. Learn how to detect enemies approaching and identifying whether if it's capable of shadowstepping. Then prepare for it. Simple. Barinthus 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue involves fleeing enemies just as much as approaching enemies. Teams of 4 monks can use Recall to blink around the map, never caring about being overextended because, even if they are snared, they can get back to safety with no strategic loss, and forcing the opponent to waste his time hoofing around. A player with a shadow step on The Crossing map has a significant movement advantage because he doesn't have to spend the extra 15 seconds tracing the ramps and bridges. This means shadow stepping becomes the norm. It stagnates build choices, and significantly lessens the number of next-best alternative viable tactics. It's not nearly as simple to play against or with as you might think.--Skye Marin 03:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. What if shadow stepping were altered to be restricted to direct line movement? I.e. you can step towards a foe with no obstacles in the way of a straight line path to them, and you can recall to an ally with no obstables in the way of a straight line path, but if the path would require making a turn at some point, the shadow step only goes to the point where that turn would be made? That'd massively reduce the ability of people to teleport back to the frontline from inside an enemy base (due to the turns and pathways inside most GvG bases and HB maps), without entirely killing shadow step as a mobility option. Shadow step already does this if the destination is beyond radar range - it teleports you along a straightline path to the first place you'd have to turn. Why not make it work this way regardless of where the destination is? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you're on to something here.--Skye Marin 20:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, yeah this will really work. It's obviously a good solution for Crossing and Bombardment. Desert Sands still has one long shadow step, however, the bridges are pretty edgy, and because the fix would make Recall susceptible to enchantment removal, it would be risky to take. Three out of Four maps means Recall would not appear in Ladder Play. The problem would still remain in Beachhead in Tournament Play, but some fixes for that map are due now. They should extend / push together the rocks by the Mystic shrine to connect, and then add three big rocks in the water. Finally, open up or push forward the Mystic shrine area so it's not prone to nuking AI bugs. I think that would fix it nicely without drastic measures.--Skye Marin 02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like people are using a legitimate tactic to me. What I'm hearing is that this tactic is too good, not that shadow stepping is inherently broken. Maybe the problem is with the maps, not the game mechanic. Or perhaps the problem is with the fact that Hero Battle maps are so intensely focused on capturing shrines. From watching ladder play, very few people ever make TEAM builds using heroes. Whether it's shadow stepping or just stance play, people will put all of their energy into shrine work rather than actual combat. To me, that says that hero battles themselves are the problem. Instead of garnering points from shrines, why don't you make the shrines have benefits that greatly lend aid towards 4/4 combat while granting 0 points (but still +morale), instead of essentially forcing people to run 1/1/1/1 or 2/1/1? I gave up hero battles because of the micro management involved, and because I want to actually focus on fighting rather than putting all my effort into planting flags and micromanaging 4 peoples' shadow step skills. I think removing the point gain from shrines, but ensuring shrines are beneficial to have captured would help correct a lot of this. --Reklaw 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in fact not a legitimate tactic (or shouldn't be), since it allows highly defensive builds to capture the Central shrine and still keep the opponent from capping the Mercenary shrine. The whole point behind the Mercenary shrine was to stop holding builds from camping the Central shrine but because of shadow stepping that whole concept was ruined. The update that made every shrine contribute to the morale meter instead of just the Central shrine was a step in the wrong direction, since it reduced build diversity even more and made assassins and holding builds even stronger. I agree when you say that the shrines shouldn't give points to begin with since that's indeed the sole reason those defensive builds exist. It's just a question of how much changes Anet is willing to make, since removing the morale meter would probably require the most work. Letting the Central shrine give a morale boost in that case seems like a good start, since that's a shrine you would want to control (at least if Battle Cry is nerfed). The obvious problem with that is spiritway holding builds, in other words what happens when someone camps the Central shrine for 10 minutes? Do you let the mercenary continue to count as an extra party member to deal with that (still forcing you to attack a spirit nest), or do you include a "Victory or Death" mechanic to force the decision (for example you get X additional NPC's for each shrine under your control)? In any case shadow stepping will still have to be dealt with regardless of what changes to the mechanics they make, since as long as it allows you to shadow step from shrine to shrine it's going to remain imbalanced. Another possible solution (except for reducing the range or Aiiane's idea) is to introduce an environment effect like this: "any party member who's enchanted with a shadow stepping skill does not contribute to capping shrines". That would deal with Recall/AoD/Shadow Meld but not SP/Return. To stop those as well you could introduce another effect: "any party member that uses a shadow stepping skill no longer contributes to capping shrines for X seconds", although that's not much different from banning shadow stepping completely. --Draikin 13:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point why i don't play HB. As it was introduced i was very much looking forward to it, hoping for it to turn out to be a random free random arena. Something you can just do a quick match of without having to find and assemble a team first and something where you don't have the excuse to blame your team mates if you fail. The 3 Heroes in there are merely required because 1vs1 won't work on a game with limited skill selection and huge skill pool. Took me one match to see that in its current state i never wanna play it again. Remove the point gain on shrine captures or any similar change that makes keeping your heroes together and actually doing some fighting a viable option against splitting up and running around like mad and you have me in again. If i wanna play a game of "who runs fastest" i can easily wait on next boardwalk to play rollerbeetle again. 134.130.183.235 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow stepping even with an after cast you'd still be fine Hero AI wont react until ure dry HOTOing them (probably too late) 24.141.45.72 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

HA feedback[edit]

I started another page here /HA feedback please put any feedback about the new HA changes here, thank you. ~Izzy @-'---- 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

AB Changes[edit]

(not sure whether this should get it's own heading or not, if not, please put it under misc. It seemed appropriate with HA and HB both having similar headings.)

After the changes made to TA, and seeing the topic here about improving HB, I was wondering whether there was a chance of seeing improvements to AB. Specifically changing Kaanai Canyon and the Ancestral Lands, both maps which heavily favour one side. IMO they don't need replacing (I'd like to see them replaced with neutral maps, but this suggestion seems impossible to implement at this stage so I'll easily settle for some other changes) just weakening the large advantage of the defending party, creating more dynamic matches with more available decisions as far as offensive play is concerned. For example a few things I'd like to see which I think would really help lessen the advantage of the defending party:

Allow the teleporters to teleport opposing faction members. At the moment they do not, forcing the members to retreat through the gates. This change would allow for easier raid tactics vs. the homebase.
Let the Explosion Kits respawn every 1-2 minutes, again allowing the disadvantaged team easier access to the homebase, allowing more raid like tactics. Have repair kits respawn at a slower rate.
Change the NPC spawns at shrines to spawn the same number of NPCs regardless of being the defending or attacking party, to decrease bias currently inherent in these maps (applies to Grentz Frontier and Etnaran Keys).
Discourage people from solo capping, either through the 'Two Cap' rule you propose at Hero Battles, or by just noticeably slowing the rate of capping with 1 person even further.
If possible increase the amount or effect of Defiled Water. At the moment, you can near completely ignore it's presence on the map.
Possibly allow people to shadow step past gates and unlock them from the inside (if this change was added, there is no need for respawning explosives). Again it'd allow for more raid like tactics, however it could overpower the shadow step in AB and lead to a further rise of Assassin popularity (which is already quite high).

Good luck with the balancing. (and I need to learn to log in before commenting)Akirai Annuvil 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd also be nice if the Luxon/kurzick counterparts were actually identical. E.g. the necro and mesmer shrines are on opposite sides for Grenz frontier than they are for etnaran keys, doesn't sound like much, but try taking the mesmer shrine when the nearest elite NPC is an elementalist instead of a warrior and you'll see that this actually makes a difference. The defiled water is another such asymmetry, I feel it ought to be removed altogether. The change I'd like to see most is the skillsets of the NPCs. Currently, being a dervish is just asking for trouble since the necros, mesmers and eles will own you for various reasons. Something like these would be nicer:

Blank

Blank

Blank

The others I'm fairly happy with. --Ckal Ktak 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The elementalist shrine is a bit overpowered.. but people can live with it I guess 24.141.45.72 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing about shrines is that people designed to clear them should be clearing them. Sometimes it seems like the majority of ABers are just gankers, there to make themselves feel good about snaring and killing players out in the middle of nowhere. When those players try to take a shrine, they realize they can't. Dervishes, for example, don't really have any business trying to take a shrine on their own. They're support. --Reklaw 14:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually like solo capping. The point of AB is not to fight the mob, but to cap shrines. Everyone says not to mob and to cap. Because people do fight the mob, i feel like i am the only person capping. If you hurt solo capping, then those few that do cap may stop. The whole point of ab is its unorganized. It's like RA, it's something to do if you want to relax and not spend time setting anything up. In ab you dont have to set up teams, it's all PUG and after you start the match, usually everyone goes their separate ways (unless they go into a mob.--Zackattack 02:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you should be able to solo cap a shrine with any profession. A Warrior or a Dervish doesn't really have any business doing that. I can see an Assassin with the right build trying, but ultimately, if you want to be an efficient shrine capper, you're going to be a SF Ele with MoR and Firestorm, or possibly a Meteor Shower build. Beyond that, you're rewarding people for being stupid. AB is about capping shrines, and it traditionally is disorderly, which is why teams that actually do stick together, group up with stragglers and coordinate themselves find themselves successful. Even if you were to nerf the NPCs to accommodate people that are trying to cap with a bad shrine cap build, you end up making capping very, very easy for people that should be doing it to begin with. --Reklaw 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What I find amusing is that it's called Alliance Battles yet you can't take an entire team from your Alliance in. An Alliance v Alliance game like this would be awesome with proper organised teams instead of PUGs. It would change the way it's played and the complete concept of Alliance Battles completely, and probably for the better. Unreal Havoc 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like some of those ideas. I like solo-capping myself, because it helps the game more than it hurts. Sure it breaks the "team" aspect but AB isn't super serious PvP anyway. Vanguard

16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be super serious, just needs to have more reliable people to actually play with or against. No one is stopping PUGs from going, just let us take Alliance teams in, PUGs might take the game a bit more seriously then and actually attempt to be a bit more organised and attempt to cap properly. I also find that the report system isn't really stopping anyone from leaving either. Had quite a few leavers tonight on Grenz (no surprise). :(

Unreal Havoc 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I too would like the possibility for people to form alliance teams beforehand of 12 people; it would force people to be a bit more serious in case one of these shows up and have some planning beforehand. I'd also like the NPCs at shrines to be spaced out a bit more, to make them less easily affected by AoE (say from standing adjacent of each other to nearby). Alternatively, make them 'patrol' the area, which would take more development time then just spacing them out a bit more and is imo the lesser of the two ideas.Akirai Annuvil 15:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Misc[edit]

Designer's Notes[edit]

It would be great if some of the more fundamental changes included some form of reasoning from the designers. For instance, pets no longer leave exploitable corpses. I would really like to believe there is a good reason for this, but there is only a simple statement about it on November 13th's update. I just recently noticed this when I shifted my Necromancer to a Ranger secondary and couldn't raise any minions from my dead pet. I am left perplexed as to why. When I first rolled my Necro, my chosen secondary was Ranger for that reason alone. I always felt it was a great, fun little strategy, though the downside was obviously having all skills disabled for so many seconds. Synergy between classes is a great thing, yet I have seen a number of changes that squash such creativity with no explanation as to why. -- Hercanic 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

energy drain/denial & pve[edit]

I don't know where to put this. Pve fights don't last long enough for energy drain skills to be viable. I was hoping for a pve skill which makes monster lose energy twice as fast or something but we didn't got any skill like that. This is pity because the most energy drain skills remain useless this way.

Not sure where I read it, but I believe monsters are even worse e-denial targets because they have +1 energy regeneration, or something to that effect? I'm very certain I saw it stated by Izzy. MA Anathe 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In hard mode, IIRC. --Valshia 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, wanding foes to death has been more effective than e-drain/denial in pve. It might work, but it's a lot of effort when there's easier means to the same with BHA or killing that caster. Yukiko

01:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SV/AV + Famine....thats the beginning and end of E-Denial in PvE =P --ChronicinabilitY

01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I farmed spirit garden repose with spirit chackles + mind wrack, and also with spirit chackles and famine with my ranger Coran Ironclaw 02:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're farming edenial is crap in PvE, stick to some form of tank 'n spank. --Tankity Tank 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A good buddy of mine been a mesmer for a well over two years now, always said that monsters have energy regen superior to human players making energy denial like -1 or -2 skills just a waste of time. Biz 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not even the serious issue with PvE energy denial. In PvE your not facing the same foe for an extended period of time. Foes are defeated and replaced with new ones with totally new energy pools, wile you must recharge what your already using in order to start another battle.

This is just a failure of function, PvE is vastly different than PvP, PvE characters are vastly less effective, which is why they must have higher levels, natural health regen, and natural energy regen boosts, as well as swarming in order to compete with effectively controled, well designed and well synergized players.

It is sad that energy denail doesn't cut it against PvE foes based on its unique situation, and perhaps a double standard should be set in place to alter the way energy denial works on PvE targets. Cutting the cost and recharge in half would probably do the trick well enough, but no matter how much of the foes energy you destroy, ultimately you will beat that foe and than face another foe with an entirely new energy supply.

In the end though, you could consider these PvP only skills, wile they do not hold the limitation of use in PvP like PvE only skills, it is not as significant as the failure of "universal" skills which do not function well in PvP based on PvE value.--BahamutKaiser 03:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Energy denail was nerfed pretty hard a long time ago because when it's strong it's just not fun, Monsters get a +1 energy pip regen which makes it even harder to deal with their energy so unless your really overloading an insane amount of energy it's going to be really hard. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you(someone at anet) remove the +1 energy pip from all monsters then ? ^^ 18 October 2007

It's a balance thing, Monsters often burn through skills faster then players do and it really is not fun to flight monsters that don't cast skills, so it helps keep the combats more interesting. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from Mo/Me farming, it's not as though e-denial had ever been truly effective or entertaining in PvE. It's a lot of work on something that traditionally will die in a few seconds anyway. --Reklaw 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So? — Skuld 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So, it makes lots of mesmer skills useless? (spirit shackles) Jigoku 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Spirit shackles isn't actually a very good example, as it's one of the dynamic edenial skills that is actually semi-effective.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside of Farming of course. Jigoku 10:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out already by others above, edenial just will never be a really good dedicated build in pve (above mentioned farming excluded). For most monsters, the time you need to leech them dry you could better spend with just killing them. If you want a mesmer role in high lvl pve i would have asked for powerfull knock down immune healers in the top pve areas. That way monk shutdown or similar builds would actually be highly sought after in pve. But ANET already found a different (and imho much more boring) way to fix the mesmer pve problem. With those new pve skills and buffs to existing mesmer skills and with the rediculously high armor/lvl of monsters in those areas they now easily outnuke any elementalist. 134.130.183.235 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The +1 energy pip regen should be removed from monsters. 2. Give them energy management skills instead. Reason: It's not fun to fight high lvl mobs that spam their skills like crazy and never run out of energy. 87.189.247.181

if you remove it monsters will run out of energy, they always spawn out their skills as fast as they can so they should be out of energy too fast, that idea is just stupid. Also, their ai dont know how to use energy management skills.--Cursed Angel 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagee, the ai knows pretty well how to use the most energy management skills. If mobs wouldn't spam out their skills as fast as they can 1. Mesmers would easily have a better role in pve. 2. People wouldn't use tanks as much to suck up the crazy damage which is coming from endless skill spamming. 3. Energy drain/denial skills would became more useful in pve. 87.189.199.129 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't where the problem is. It doesn't matter how quickly a monster spams their skills or not, they are still going to get killed in the same amount of time. The only difference is that your party is taking less damage because monsters aren't spamming their skills. The suggestion isn't going to make e-denial more desirable. e-denial - the mechanic as a whole - does not work in a PvE system where the only... ONLY focus is wiping out hordes of monsters. (Terra Xin 14:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

And surving long enough to wipe out hordes of monsters, which generally favors front-loaded defense like BHA, Protection Prayers over back-loaded defenses such as Diversion and Energy denial. -- Gordon Ecker 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Spiritleech Aura[edit]

This has been going on for awhile now so I thought to tell you that the duration and the life steal are switched in game. Antiarchangel 16:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh thanks I'll get the text updated. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dev Only Skills[edit]

Where can I find a list of developer only skills here on GWW? I'm curious to find out what they use, for no particular reason... -- Counciler 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There really is only one Dev skill, it's called Bamph it does 999 damage, and if you use it on yourself it buffs you, makes you run faster gives up a ton of health and regen and makes it so things can't slow you down. We have other dev commands but we don't make too many dev skills. ~Izzy @-'---- 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we hack the game so we can use Bamph? C'mon... you know you wanna tell me....... :P -- Counciler 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it'll be a Server Side skill rather than Client side, and they won't test on servers we can access...i'd venture there is no way to do that! --ChronicinabilitY

21:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good start would be convincing server that you are GM =) just instant ban plus pending jail time in US =D Biz 05:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaat? Jail time? For pretending to be a GM? Woah.... talk about medieval methods of punishment. It's just a freaking game, people... -- Counciler 08:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give bamph to anyone for the simple cost of my retirement :P ~Izzy @-'---- 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you just picking on them Izzy or that a *true* dev skill?

Vanguard 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way, quick, everyone jump on Izzy for being corrupt. :P (Kidding.)

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not corrupt I've gotten it cleared with my boss, as long as I split it with him. And yes thats a true skill, I also did the art for the Icon, but someone would have to look in the dat to find it ;) ~Izzy @-'---- 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?

Vanguard 12:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Or watch the GW:EN preview video. :) Lord Belar 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the same icon as Knock, amirite? 213.84.164.125 09:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (corpselooter cba signing in)

Aggressive Refrain[edit]

Hopefully I can simply get an opinion out here without getting it turned into a bash-a-thon or anything.

My opinion on Aggressive Refrain? I think the armor debuff is an acceptable downside to a skill that can be kept up indefinitely without paying energy more then once for it, and grants faster adrenaline and damage. If I'm going to do more damage then normal, then I'm fine with taking more damage then normal. But do a lot of people a favor, and simply make the skill read "you have -20 armor while this is active". Re-applying Cracked Armor over and over serves little purpose, and just ends up becoming annoying; your monk can remove it, but half a second later it's back up; you get blinded, or start bleeding, and now you need to dodge Cracked Armor applications to remove even simple conditions, which in my opinion is a bit too big of a downside. People will deal with the armor debuff just fine; maybe not run as far into aggro, play a little more defensively, or simply drop the skill from their bars if they're not really running an offensive role. But having to work around the skill for such simple tasks as condition removal, just seems like an annoyance and a downside rolled into one. Give me a straight-up downside, and drop the annoying-as-hell part. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think -20 while attacking would be a good change. Another thing is that it can just be drawn (by a squishy) every time it's reapplied, so the downside can still be prevented. — Hyperion // talk 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. It does not change the intent of the debuff, but it does it in a more effective way. This is all assuming that the original intent was to apply -20AL and not to apply a condition. -- Counciler 01:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the reapplying-Cracked Armor makes this skill a bit too unwieldy for all the wrong situations - I'd rather see -20 AL while active, or -20 AL while attacking, and I think both would accomplish the same goal. There are better ways to make Cracked Armor more a part of the game than this.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's two kinds of annoying problems coming from current version: 1. when playing PvE, henchman Monks will waste their energy automatically removing the cracked armor condition. 2. with infinite supply of cracked armor with good duration, Paragon can use condition transfer skill like Plague Sending before spike in PvP to get multiple targets softened. Was this intended? --Toge 03:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply agreed, free supply of cracked armor to send, and constant application of a condition which henchmen cannot prioritize make this a disfunctional skill, it needs to have appropriate application, and it really should only reduce armor wile attacking, not unconditionally, since involuntary reapplication is a certainty with other chanters.--BahamutKaiser 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see the problems with this skill and while it has some potential for cool effects and might boost the use of "if the target has Cracked Armor"-skills, the downsides mentioned above seem to outweigh the few positive things it will accomplish. But that's just me.Nicky Silverstar 09:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I'm seeing on other discussion pages is this; a single Paragon, with Aggressive Refrain, is having trouble working around his own skill's downsides. Someone blinds him, and now it takes a lot more effort to get back up and running. Two Paragons support each other a bit better, helping to cancel out the armor debuff, and keep energy active. Conditions are still a problem, but that's fairly acceptable with two Paragons running. Then there's full Paragon "Paraway" teams. Theses teams are using at least one copy of Purifying Finale, which removes conditions as fast as they get applied, and completely cancels out the skill's new downside. Overall, what we've got is a nerf that's got the right basic idea to slow down this skill, but it's going about it in such a way that people are encouraged to use the main problem, Paraway teams. The other option is to start nerfing Purifying Finale, but that's just a matter of treating the problem rather then the cause; what are you going to do anyway, lower the duration and make Paraway teams simply bring more copies?

I think, for Paraway, what you've got to realize is that, as long as it's viable, any skill that can be chained will be chained. You need to make these skills balanced even if they are chained; maybe lower the effects and make them last longer. That way, a single Paragon can get a long duration, while a team of paragons won't really get any benefit from chaining the skill. You thus encourage less Paragons on a team, or at the very least, make full-Paragon teams more of a pointless thing and less of a broken dynamic. Also consider, longer durations means less triggers for Echoes. Take any random skill a Paragon can keep up indefinitely on his own, then double the duration and recharge. Now it's less useful for triggering Echoes, and it basically gains half the energy over time, while still being a useful skill. Just an option. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fun actually playing against it! =D It's made Body Blow actually amazing vs teams with paragons. (Deepwound, more damage than Evis, less adrenaline anyone?) and it also helps from the other side as well, when running it, since RC has come back into favor, having CA on the paragon just makes it more effective. Because of this i actually think its wuite nice. Can Blind and other conditions get covered by your own shouts reappliying CA...yes...but then thats your fault if you do that. --ChronicinabilitY

18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The loss of armor isn't much of a penalty for a Paragon. The 'cracked armor' condition is just annoying (especially for PvE). How about removing the armor penalty, and maybe putting GFTE and WY back to the way they were, and having AR as: "For 5..21 seconds, you attack 25% faster but have 10% chance to miss with attacks. This Echo is reapplied every time a Chant or Shout ends on you." (Or '33% faster' and/or '20% chance to miss with attacks' depending on balance)? - Innocence. 192.6.178.101 12:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

With the current Block-Way meta that is still being run quite effectively despite this update...that would KILL AR totally! --ChronicinabilitY

13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The 10/20% miss thing is good in theory, but you'd miss a few more times than you'd like, defeating the purpose of the entire thing completely.

Vanguard 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"For 5...21 seconds, you attack 25% faster. When this echo ends, if you have at least 25 energy and are under the effects of a shout or chant, Aggressive Refrain is reapplied."

"For 3...15 seconds, you attack 25% faster. If your maximum energy exceeds 5...20, this echo is removed. Otherwise, aggressive Refrain is reapplied whenever a chant or shout ends on you."

Some random thoughts on the skill description. I can't stand using a Paragon, though, so I'm probably the last person to be offering a suggestion. --Reklaw 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is laughable. All of the supposedly "enlightened" (translation: busy bodies, those who have nothing better or more important to do, meddlers) among you pushed to have these skills nerfed, AR in particular. "It's so horrible," you said. "I'm not smart enough or willing to make the sacrifices necessary to deal with this, so could you nerf it, please?" Now, it's been nerfed, and someone has found yet another way to exploit the nerf. "FOUL! FOUL," you cry. "Change it this way and that," you snivvel. All I can think whilst chuckling is that you are the ones who asked for this, so reap what you have sewn. The moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it, and when you get it, it may not be what you were expecting. Kinda makes you wish you'd just dealt with it, doesn't it? Kinda makes you wish you just played PvE, doesn't it? Oh wait, that's right...the PvE crowd was affected by this as well! Not only were we affected by the initial nerf, now we get an extra little bonus with the annoying condition. Once again, the PvE crowd gets to pay for the PvP crowd's ineptitude and (apparent) lack of intelligence. 71.178.201.136 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Er... right. So what you're saying is, if there's a broken tile on your bathroom floor, and you call someone to fix the broken tile, and they fix it by laying down carpet, you shouldn't ask them to change it to tile because, while the carpet does fix the broken tile, it's rather unwieldy in a bathroom? That's effectively what the case is here: yes, the problem is fixed, but it's fixed in a manner that's so much more unwieldy than it needs to be. The PvP crowd didn't ASK for the cracked armor change, in fact, they asked for exactly what they're asking for now, something like a constant -20 armor built into the skill.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that I've never thought anything was broken. Second...no, what I'm saying is that all of the busy-bodies should stop meddling because they've already done enough damage. I'll refer you back to the "moral of the story" in my last. Izzy (quite obviously) has a mind of his own and is going to do what he thinks is best and they can snivvel all they want about it, but in the end, it's Izzy's (and his team's) decision on what to do with which skill, and if they weren't prepared for what he might do, then they shouldn't have brought it up. I'm not familiar with you or the role that you play, so I don't know what your stake in this discussion is (PvP, PvE, SysOp, ANet Employee, etc.). I'm just a guy who logs on to play for about an hour a day. During that hour, I want to enjoy the game as much as possible and it sickens me when I log on to find out that my playing experience has been negatively affected by an aspect of the game that I don't deal with. That's bad enough, but then I find out that there are people on here who consider themselves "experts" on the game who have been adding their two cents and actually TRYING to make this happen! What arrogance! Who do you think you are? If it's not your job, then keep your opinions to yourself. It's one thing to post on a forum and say that you don't like this or that. That's something normal. This isn't. 65.248.178.173 15:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow...Nice rant. You could just lay off the guy, but that few paragraphs of anger was fun too. From what I can tell, it's hardly a complicated change and it makes sense to add it in, to me. I mean, Barbed Arrows has -armour when activating it, so its obviously an effect that can be added to skills. The guy made a perfectly fair suggestion and you ranted at him. Think about that.

Steak[edit]

Izzy, as a deviance from the typical whining and bickering that takes place on this hallowed ground; I bring you a new a fresh idea....

Eat more steak. Yes, tis true. Steak is eatable. And it is the steak that shall be eaten. The thing that shall be eaten should be steak. And the steak should be no less than eaten. So please, go get a steak. And eat it.

That is all. -- Counciler 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea may be fresh, but what if the steak isn't? Nicky Silverstar 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm..... well that depends. Is it turning greenish brown? Or was it out on the counter for a few hours after thawing? I would still eat the latter. -- Counciler 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would eat the former. --Deathwing 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh you sick, sick bastard. No really, you are now sick for eating green steak. :P (That was not a personal attack, FYI) -- Counciler 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Steak is indeed good. Armond 07:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this post amusing, anyone that talks to me often or has meet me in real life would know we eat a lot of steak at my house. Most Guild Wars players I talk to that come to Seattle stop by Casa De Izzy and eat steaks with Izzy, Lulu, Morello, and Freyas. Also if they are not chicken Lulu and I take them out paintballing so I indeed eat my fair share of steak. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Izzy, careful TheSteakIsALie. --66.130.10.27 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just look out for Christmas steak Isaiah. It's red on the top and green on the bottom. :/ --Redfeather 09:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I am SO quoting that.... -- Counciler 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This might ven go to his favorite feedback page. Which reminds me, I am curious to see what feedback is your favorite Izzy, though you problably have other things on your mind right now. Nicky Silverstar 07:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, from the Wiki alone? or overall feedback? ~Izzy @-'---- 21:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a section called Favorite Feedback on your page, yet it is completely empty. I assume it was designed for the wiki, but I am just a curious person, so overall sounds good to me too. ;-)Nicky Silverstar 08:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive Please![edit]

WARNING: This page is 230 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.

I think it's a little bit past overdue. -- Scourge 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I try and archive as much as I can but I can never keep up lol ~Izzy @-'---- 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've subpaged a few of the larger discussions, cutting it from ~250kb to ~130kb. It's still pretty big, but it's also a rather active page.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some Archiving today so hopefully it's better. ~Izzy @-'---- 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This page continues to be impossibly big. I have moved some of the skill discussions to the respective overpowered/underpowered pages (as Isaiah himself requested some time ago), but it's still big. Erasculio 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Puttin' on the Rits[edit]

I asked this elsewhere, and it seems to have been overlooked: Izzy, what can we expect as far as changes to binding rituals in the future? Based on what you've said in the past, it appears that there will only be plain old number-nerfs in the future, which isn't helping Ritualists get beyond the point of being a gimmick class (although it might take more than fixing spirits to resolve this particular issue). In a number of places there have been suggestions to change the mechanic on a basic level in order to avoid inelegant solutions to spirit spam (see also: 12 Oct. update). I've seen suggestions range from making spirits only affect one ally/foe, to having a health degeneration upkeep, to only allowing one binding ritual out at once; they may or may not be what is needed, but I don't even know if anything is being considered. I'm just curious if it is reasonable to expect Binding Rituals to ever see a transformation to a less broken system. (Mr.X) 05:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Either out of laziness or not coming to his wiki much, I'm surprised Izzy hasn't replied to this because I'd love to see a reply to this. Vanguard

21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not too sure, we probably will stay away from large changes that redesign a whole class, but then again it's never out of realm of possiblity, if I had to guess I would say we probalby wouldn't do anything too radical at this point, but who knows it wouldn't be the first time. I tried some with the exhaustion but that didn't go over too well, in the end it's an issue we need a solve and well probably try a handfull of exhaustion level stuff with it, before we would do something radical like redesign. I don't really see it as a Gimmick class currently thou, it has alot of issues and non are really being used in an odd horrible way. I just think the classes interactions with the game are not as fun as other classes, and cause some unfun behavior, I think they are less offensive then paragons to the meta. Either way thats my thoughts on it. ~Izzy @-'---- 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I loved the exhaustion changes....except for Wielder's Strike. --Deathwing 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So there are currently no plans to redo anything on the ritualist? Vanguard 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No there are currently no plans at redesigning the mechanics that Ritualist use, we are still trying to clean them up with skill changes. ~Izzy @-'---- 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than completely revamping spirits, maybe utilizing HP saccing and a different form of exhaustion could be helpful with spirits. Basically, my idea is, each binding ritual has no recharge time (like bonds), but once a spirit is up, the skill is disabled, and its energy cost is exhausted from your pool, and doesn't follow the standard recovery of exhaustion. Once your spirit is dead, your energy is back to normal and the skill becomes renewed. The HP saccing would be used instead the spirit killing itself, it hurts you (activation would have to be restricted similar to soul reaping so you don't die instantly in PvE), allowing the spirit to make full use of its health. Now, I think all the nerfs to spirits will probably have to be undone either way (burning and the health decrease) and change spawning power, to give you a certain amount of health regen (I'm thinking more like SLW regen) while you have spirit up (to help with the saccing, though it won't help that much), and maybe reduce the amount of energy exhausted, making it useful for the changed spirits. Not sure if this will really fix any problems with Binding Rituals, but its an idea, so......--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems even more complicated than just reworking the concepts.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how the coding is, if eternal aura can be done (when the spirit dies, it would instantly recharge the skill, which would be set to be disable for like 99999etc seconds), I don't think it would be too hard setting up the disablement, or exhaustion (again, spirit death would trigger the removal). I would think Spawning Power could work since Shaman's Insignia works. The HP saccing doesn't seem like it would be too hard since skill like Order of Undeath already cause you to sac life for what something you control does. I was just suggesting something that seemed pretty feasible to me at least, but Ive never seen how GW was coded, so I could be far off *shrug*.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you want the exhaustion to not go away like regular exhaustion would basically mean that you have to track it separately, i.e. not as "real" exhaustion, which defeats the point of making it "simpler to implement" as exhaustion in the first place. Not to mention, it's simply not intuitive in relation to how the rest of Guild Wars' skills work as far as recharge et cetera go.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustion, no I can't say I like the idea of that. It kinda steps into ele domain. But I do see your point. Sacrifice could work for some spells, as rits are related to necros, but I couldn't see myself sacrificing for binding rituals. Too severe. But I do have a quirky idea, which somewhat works like exhaustion. Which is to disable a portion of your energy for the duration of the spirits life. The amount disabled should be equal to the casting cost. However, unlike exhaustion, you don't recover from this until the spirit dies, in which you will be fully reimbursed. Disabled energy could otherwise look like exhaustion and grey out bits of the energy bar. However, the rits need something to compensate them for this change, such as faster casting/recharge, and/or allow for each rit to maintain any given number of the same spirit within the same area. (the same concept may even also apply to natural spirits too) However, doing this will of course disable larger portions of their energy, but it would be worth it. Personally this would make it much more enjoyable for me, and allow for many interesting combinations, but at the same time it shouldn't overpower or fundamentally change the rit. Just my opinion thou. --Yoh 08:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chain of Command[edit]

I'm not really sure where else to ask this, nor am I sure if you can legally answer this question. We know that all of the balance changes do go through you, but how exactly is the decision making structured? In short, if you know that a change needs to be made, how fast can this happen, what hoops do you need to jump through, and whom gets to make the final decision?

I believe the user page describes that he is the final authority and decider on skill balance issues.--BahamutKaiser 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And that does not answer the question that I asked. Izzy works for Anet which means he has people to whom he has to answer. He is not a coder and does not put the changes in himself. If one has ever worked in any corporate environment then one would know that there is paperwork and red tape that always have to be traversed. Does Izzy have to make drafts of all proposed changes and have them reviewed, perhaps having to resubmit them multiple times, or does it go straight from him idea to the coder's desk? I immagine that my question cannot be fully answered as I would expect Anet to not allow disclosure of its inner structure. Ultimately the answers to my questions can only be made by an Anet employee, while I certain a complete answer isn't possible any information as to how game changes are originally formlated, what standards or tests they have to pass, and how they eventually end up implimented in the game would be greatly appreciated.

Actually I think he is a programmer, and does make the changes himself. I remember one time an activation time was added to a skill, then later he removed that activation time and put it on another, and mentioned that he 'edited the wrong line'. I know this could mean a few different things, but I think it is most likely that he is a programmer and does make the changes to the code. 69.137.78.47 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ANet seems like a fairly small company, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to have someone in charge of skills to not be able to modify/update them. The opening post on this thread reeks of "I want to speak with your manager" like Izzy's some clerk at a cheap convenience store. -

HeWhoIsPale 12:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He has a team he consults with, I am sure. Also, a man named steven is responsible for Izzy's actions and all employees of ArenaNet, or so I have been told. 209.189.130.127 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Irony here is y real name is Stephen Isaiah Cartwright ~Izzy @-'---- 21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who he answers too because he's been given authority to make the decisions and changes. You can complain to his superiors if you are allowed or offered to even reach them, but Izzy clearly states that skill balance ultimately falls on him and he makes the FINAL DECISION. Do you need a dictionary?--BahamutKaiser 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain the process because I'm sure people are interested.

We have an established time frame we do updates, figuring this out is it's own process hehe.
I start off by sending some emails saying hey it's time for us to get another update rolling, I've put some data on our internal wiki lets meet and go over the issues.
James, Izzy, Morello, and Chaplan are the normal people who meet, we get together go over the issues, bring up new issues and generally have a meeting going over what the problems are and what direction we plan on going with fixing them. I normally draft up a list of changes, some are insanely radical some are simple, I normally stear away from buffs at this points unless they are to fix an issue.
After the meeting I normally draft a list of todo's mainly it's like "generate a list of defensive skills" or "List all runners currently being run" from that meeting and these lists I start to draft a more concrete update list, I try and balance the update with buffs and nerfs and fill in with different changes.
While making my list I normally talk to people on MSN, in game, read Wiki feedback, IRC, where ever I find interesting conversations about skills with people I enjoy talking too. Often they change my opinion, or further convince me a change needs to happen.
Once I've created a first draft I call another meeting, where we go over each change and ask how it effects the list of issues we created.
We all go through every change and make the call on each line, many get cut, some get added or changed, in the end we have a finalized list of changes. (note while James and I make the final call on changes, and James being my boss can over call me, but it's more of an iterative process, and rarely do we throw out changes without all agreeing. )
Once we have a finalized list of changes, I send it over to start getting translated
I then break the list down into 3 lists,
1. Code Changes(changes that I cannot do, I need a full blown coder to do, this is normally stuff where a skill changes functionality not numbers),
2. Text Changes(A list of all changes that need thier text updated and sent off to be localized)
3. Const Changes(minor skill changes that I can do without code, this is allmost all number changes, or flags/attributes, the vast majority of changes)
Once all changes are checked in, I send them over to QA, who goes through each change and bugs anything that has been done wrong or not done.
Once QA has signed off, Loc has returned with translated strings, and any last min tweaks are done, we write an artical explaining changes (morello does this a lot and we review it)
We hand off the list to Community, and prep an update note page
Once the update has gone through we post the changes everywhere we normally post stuff.
We all play the game, review the feedback, watch the forums, read the wiki, talk to people via messenger, in game, or anywhere we can find good conversation.
Throughout the week we talk about the changes, and see if they completed our goals or what effect they had.
We meet for a small meeting when needed talk about small changes tweaks or issues and make the call about what to do.

Thats pretty much the process, so as you can see while I start the meetings, do a lot of feedback make a lot of changes, and make a lot of the calls, there really isn't any one person saying yes/no it's a very iterative process and we learn a lot every time we do it. Hope this is helpful understanding how we do stuff. ~Izzy @-'---- 21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I wouldn't be a good firefly fan if I didn't answer: "It's the Chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin' command here." ~Izzy @-'---- 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Beta Testing?[edit]

Title might be a little misleading, but I figured Id post this just as an idea for future skill balancing, the idea is from a game (modded, but none the less, was a good idea) which used this method as a way to kinda of speed up the balance process (more than an update every other month, which is really slow and doesn't allow you to really do really big balances imo) without affecting the actual game. The idea was to run a seperate beta version (which in this case, would just be the battle isles) on top of the actual game (which would be where tournaments, events, and stuff were held, and in this case would/could also include PvE). The public beta version would be used to test out skill balances that you normally wouldn't try just because you thought it would have a negative effect, where as in the beta version you could test it out, since it wouldn't affect the actual game and would hopefully get a read on what the changes would actually do (sometimes your best judgment isn't always right). You would also be able to test balances while the ATs are going (iirc, you said you didn't do balances until these were over, dont know if thats actually the case). Now it would probably be a lot of work and be a little late considering GW2 beta is iirc, not too far away (a year or so?), but this could also be helpful with GW2 and keeping things balanced. Just figured Id put this out there either way, since it could very useful for future balancing.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is one big problem with this system in Guild Wars. Many of the skill balances are aimed towards changing the meta game. A test area separated from the real game would probably not give the right idea about the meta game that the changes would create since everyone on the test side would be mainly using the cahnged skills. A nice idea, but not suitable for this game imo. --

(gem / talk) 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends on who and how many is involved (the more people, and the smarter/foresighted people are, the better the testing actually is). I think most guilds would use this to stay ahead of the curve (mainly referring to GvG and HA, but AB, TA, and RA would have similar results as well, at least I would hope). That is guilds would use this not only to test out skill changes to see if there are any new builds that could be used, but to also check and see if old builds are still plausible, most unskilled players do tend to focus on the new changes, and only the new changes, but in the environment this idea was used, skilled/thoughtful players were also involved in this testing, and tested old tactics as well as new. I don't think the differences between the two games are important enough for this kind of idea to be that bad.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You suggest a limited amount of people in the tests? I thought it was a non-restricted beta area. Regardless of the amount of testers the meta would be different and the meta is what causes most balances. Serious exploit fixes don't need beta testing from the community, it's the meta effects which are unpredictable does, but the test area wouldn't give a perfect view of the meta changes that would result. --

(gem / talk) 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, Im not saying limited amount, I was generalizing about the guilds that are involved in GvG and HA that would most likely have quite a few involved in this because it would be very beneficial imo. If I still seem to be contradicting what I said in the first post, or you're still confused, than just forget what I said. Sorry if Im having troubles communicating my idea (hard to actually talk about, and my brain is kinda off today :P) The only reason the meta would be different than in the actual game, is because of the changes, you remove those, the meta would slowly become what it is in the actual game (it would be the exact same if everyone in PvP shifted to this, but I doubt that would actually happen, none the less, the meta would shift to what it is now either way). If you think that when the change goes live, the meta would be different than it was in the Beta (if that is what you are talking about, sorry I misunderstood you), that is somewhat true, but there would still be the week where the balance team would look at the skill changes, and if the change went in the wrong direction, it could be changed back afterwards. I never said you wont get some bad changes, but the idea is to get more changes all around (since you can test some of the wilder ideas that float around on some of the skill balance wiki pages without worrying about AT problems or anything like that), and at least have some test data to predict what effect it will have once the changes go live (any is better than none, even if it is slightly off what would truly happen).--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, That could be the requested "no-ladder gvg". But I thing that would be very complicated for gw1. Coran Ironclaw 20:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. :) Well, it might be useful for some changes although not all of them. I think implementing this to GW1 now is something that they wont do as they put most of their effort to GW2 now, but maby something like this could be put some some though in during the development of the new game. --

(gem / talk) 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be best to offer temporary changes to the game and simply allow them to play through, than remove them if they do not work. In this way your going to get the most feedback and quickest response from the most people. You could also offer a split server where players can log on and choose to operate new alterations in a seperated environement without rewards simply for test purposes. The problem is only volunteers and people who like them would get involved and test them primarily, and people who don't like it would likely just bleed their prejudice and dislike whether they tested it or not.

There comes a point where you have to weigh the best results for the game to satisfy a greater majority of players reguardless of what they say, even if the majority of people disagree with you. The simple fact is, people arn't educated and objective enough to develop improvements, very few people are rational and logical enough to recognize and accept things for the common good and better gameplay, and simply taking peoples word for it really isn't the bible. People should definetly be heard, but they should also be analyzed and taken for their interests and desires, and not their decisions and possitions, cause people will firmly stand for their own dissatisfaction and never know it.--BahamutKaiser 18:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, if you make more balances, then remove what doesn't work, you'll get way more of auron/readem/etc. whining here. Lord Belar 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So, Izzy should intentionally make the game worse just so people have less chances to complain? --Edru viransu 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out that every time there is a skill update, there is a horde of people rushing to complain/troll/flame about something, and claim they were having a rational discussion. Lord Belar 19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mentioned Auron, then. --Edru viransu 19:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a rational discussion? Lord Belar 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems to mostly be a rational discussion to me. --Edru viransu 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If I'm not mistaken, what Quicksilver Switch-Blade is referring to is the Singularity server for EVE Online. And yeah, it could be a sexy idea for GW2, if something like that were to be implemented. But of course, it's not really sure that it would work, since the EVE devs are much closer to the community than the GW ones (maybe even too close, some would say). And you really need the dev team to be completely open to suggestions from the player base and directly in contact with the community for this kind of thing to be worthwhile.

Just for reference, this is the Game Development Forum on the official EVE forums, where the players give their feedback directly to the devs regarding changes they see on the test server (and that's in addition to other subforums like Features and Ideas Discussion, EVE Technology Lab, EVE Localization Development and Discussion, and of course the CCP-heavy EVE Information Portal). Lots of feedback to and from the devs = FTW. =\ --Dirigible 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"The problem is only volunteers and people who like them would get involved and test them primarily, and people who don't like it would likely just bleed their prejudice and dislike whether they tested it or not." That's would be the skill balancers that read this page's job to discern whining without even testing (trust me, its more discernible than you would think). In the environment this worked so well in, the only people who wanted incentive were people who were hurting, and usually didn't know of the true advantage it gave.

"people who don't like it would likely just bleed their prejudice and dislike whether they tested it or not." They do that anyway, Izzy is in a position that pretty much is summed up by the phrase "Damned if you do, damned if you don't", there is no escaping whining and complaining (whether it is reasonable or not). To think it is amplified by this program, is doubtful.

"There comes a point where you have to weigh the best results for the game to satisfy a greater majority of players reguardless of what they say, even if the majority of people disagree with you. The simple fact is, people arn't educated and objective enough to develop improvements, very few people are rational and logical enough to recognize and accept things for the common good and better gameplay, and simply taking peoples word for it really isn't the bible. People should definetly be heard, but they should also be analyzed and taken for their interests and desires, and not their decisions and possitions, cause people will firmly stand for their own dissatisfaction and never know it." Your letting that fact, and the thought that almost every person is ignorant and stupid, blind you from seeing the true purpose and benefit of this beta program. Remember Izzy and the balance team would still be the people who chooses what goes through and what doesn't, and I would hope they would base their decisions on reasonable explanations made by people (sometimes even stupid people can come up with good ideas). Just because you think many on this page are wrong, stupid, and obviously biased doesn't mean they are, in fact, wrong (or in fact, stupid, or biased), and should be completely ignored. If I would evidence of how well this worked, it would be great, but unfortunately, its not plausible, because it seems to me people are coming up with every little small situation and exaggerating it, similar to how when a new campaign comes out with a bunch of skills, and everyone screams OP, but they actually play with them, they are not as good. In the end though, it comes down to the balance teams decision to actually implement this and the ability to actually make this happen late in the life of GW1.

Edit:Im not referring to EVE, Im referring to NBT HardCore mod, of MechWarrior4:Mercs.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

New condition: Deaf.[edit]

I know it's highly unlikely that this suggestion will ever find its way into the game, as this whole concept would require some profound considerations, a bunch of new/altered skills, the implementing of a new condition, etc pp. However, I think it's very nice, so I'll present it anyway - I'm talking about a new condition, named 'Deaf'.

Deaf - While deaf, you cannot be targeted by chants or shouts.

In a nutshell, I think this condition would have the power to 'solve the Paragon problems'. In other words: No further 'down-balancing' of the Paragon would be needed, some of the nerfs that already happened could be revoked.

Paragon energy gain would be hampered, because they gain energy via affected party members, and as deaf party members couldn't be affected, energy gain was reduced.
Echos wouldn't be as easy to maintain as they used to be: If deaf stays long enough on a target, its echos won't be fueled by new chants/shouts.
Previously unremoveable passive defense skills (like "Watch Yourself!" or Defensive Anthem) still couldn't be removed, but you could prevent specific (single) targets from getting the effect in the first place.

- TeleTeddy 12:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Downsides:

Complexity creep. More things to have to balance around.
Not a general counter. Consider Vocal Minority - sure, it's pretty much a direct counter to paragons, just like a "deaf" condition would be - but it doesn't balance out paragon power. Why? Because it's pretty much useless against anything else - just like a "deaf" condition would be. It's not worth bringing because if someone isn't running paragons, you've just wasted a skill slot.
Promotes rock-paper-scissors determination of matches rather than actual skilled play. This ties into the previous point, because essentially, if they bring X, and you bring a specific counter to X, chances are they lose. But if they don't bring X, and you brought a specific counter to X, then you've basically wasted that skill slot, and are less able to deal with builds that don't bring X than you would be if you brought some other skill that's actually useful in that slot.

The alternative to being a specific counter would be integrating such a condition into many other skills in addition to their current effects, but again, that creates more complexity creep and makes things harder to balance, not easier. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe following the same pattern we have seen on the Mesmer's Power interrupts, and make Dazed to affect shouts, chants alikes just as it does spells? It would make what's already a powerful and desirable condition to be a good counter, with the same problems it already has today (condition removal removes it completely), without being an "absolute counter" like Vocal Minority is. Erasculio 13:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But why would people bring skills with "Deaf" condition ? They don't even bring Vocal Minority or Cacophony, pvpers hate to bring specific counters because it makes their build weaker against everything else, at least thats how they think. 25 October 2007

Because "Deaf" would/should come with more utility/damage than Vocal Minority etc. One can think of skills that apply Weaken and Deaf at the same time, for example, or other combos where versatility is given - as far as i can tell there neither is a single skill that solely applies Deep Wound. We are talking about a condition, and not even a very powerful one, it should be applied very easily - without the need to bring an extra skill only for Deaf and nothing else, because - you're absolutely right with that - that's the problem with Vocal Minority, etc. - TeleTeddy 14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I love the idea, however it would really require a lot of tweaking. However adding a new condition on some skills could make it too easy to cover conditions, so I really thinks it is almost impossible to balance. --Faena 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dismember applies deep wound, with no other effects. Not that it matters, just thought I'd point that out. I think deaf is a decent idea, and anet has shown us that it isn't afraid to add new conditions. 69.137.78.47 18:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with merging Deaf with Dazed. That sounds like a more sensible approach. After all, if someone clocked you in the head so bad you can barely speak (i.e. cast a spell), its not farfetched to say that you can't understand others (i.e. hear shouts and chants).

Main advantage: Easy to implement.
Main disadvantage: It wouldn't change anything.

Daze is that kind of a condition that you remove quickly anyway - and if you don't, the fact that you can't benefit from shouts doesn't really matter... If you want to upgrade an existing condition to serve as anti-shout, I'd go with Weakness. Maybe the explanation for that would not be that neat, but it would fit the purpose better. Still would prefer a new condition though. - TeleTeddy 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maby this would be better of at the GW2 suggestion page? --

(gem / talk) 01:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, why? They're discussing changes they'd like to see in GW1, which has nothing to do with GW2's skills.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My earlier suggestion wasn't really to merge Dazed and the proposed Deaf above - I think one problem of the proposed condition is that it applies to the target of the shout/chant, while many of such skills are actually party effects that would still be allowed to work on everyone else within earshot who's not under Deaf. My suggestion is to make the current Dazed to work on shouts, chants and etcs - in other words, a Paragon would take twice as long to cast shouts/chants/etc, and would be easily interrupted when doing so. It would be a way to prevent not a single target from being under the effect of a shout, but rather to shut down the source of the shouts.Erasculio 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane: The first sentence of under this heading explains it pretty well: "I know it's highly unlikely that this suggestion will ever find its way into the game, as this whole concept would require some profound considerations, a bunch of new/altered skills, the implementing of a new condition, etc pp. However, I think it's very nice, so I'll present it anyway" I think this could work well if it were implemented from the beginning of GW2, but it's addition to GW1 is highly unlikely. --

(gem / talk) 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Many things presented are highly unlikely, but that doesn't make them automatically apply to GW2 instead. Chances are good that GW2 may not even have paragons, or shouts/chants, thus this wouldn't even be applicable. It's fine here, even if it's not implemented it's something to consider.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Many things are shaped like elbow macaroni. Yet they are not always pieces of twine. Please remember to poke the crust of joystick on Thursdays. -- Counciler 06:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, make Dazed: "For x seconds, your spells cast 80% slower and are easily interrupted, and whenever a shout affects you, you take 50 damage." 50 may be a bit too much, but it makes sense. If you have a headache, aren't you ultra-susceptible to noise? NeonCrusader 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

80% slower? 50% is plenty, trust me (I play caster and even double casting annoys me to no end, let alone the easily interruptible part). Another thing I want to add is this: while it may be cool flavor-wise to buff dazed to include chants/shouts, it is already an insanely powerful condition on its own (comparable to blind). It would probably be to much in 1 condition. Personally, I'd prefer something else (like weakness, bleeding or even a completely new condition) to be buffed, for the sake of balance. Something like Mute (you cannot use shouts/chants and spells you cast take 25% longer to cast) would be nice. It wouldn't be too specific, so it would have great utility, but it won't be overpowered either. Just my thoughts though. Nicky Silverstar 09:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply changing a few skills to make chants and shouts actually removable might be nice too, something as simple as Well of Silence not only preventing Shouts from being used, but also removing Shouts and Chants from foes within the well. The idea of ripping a Shout off doesn't quite make sense in some contexts, but Well of Silence blanking out everything would. Adding a "can't be affected by shouts or chants" effect to Dazed could also be an option; while, like Nicky said, it might be too much in one condition, at the same time, Dazed is already a tough condition to apply. But then you risk having Shouts become "Upside: unremovable and uninterruptable. Downside: half the skills in the game prevent shouts from working." -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 11:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, paragons are teh best profesioin evah, nerf it more i tink paragons ar to good nerf teh paragons more, jesterday i actually saw a paragon lucky he got kiled fast plx nerf tehm more --Cursed Angel 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No seriously what the hell are you thinking? Paragons suck so much it cant be compared to anything else, also who brings Vocal Minority into pvp? think again this condition would just be lame and izzy would never destroy the game with it--Cursed Angel 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Read again, and this time more carefully: This condition isn't intended to nerf the Paragon, but to prevent further down-balancing. - TeleTeddy 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So, where should u put this condition? on warrior attack skills? lol no it doesnt belong anywhere except probably as a mesmer or assassin shadow arts skill. Also there are no reason for izzy to nerf paragons more, and they wont give out more skills, and finally if you change skills from inflicting weakness or whatever to cause deaf people would stop use them in pve and also in pvp, chants are already interrupt able, he cannot make them able to remove. --Cursed Angel 23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just make Dazed make chants and echos cast 50% slower and cause shouts to only last 50% as long. This isn't rocket science. Then again, this is the Paragon we're talking about. Who cares what anyone does to them? They're nearly worthless outside of guild matchups anyway. --Reklaw 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, who cares about paragons.--Cursed Angel 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this daze-thingie would work. Nobody would apply daze against shouts and chants. It would be a annoying side-effect, but I don't think it would have any real impact. However, adding an anti-shout/chant effect to an existing condition looks like the better way to go, so here is my next suggestion:
The above mentioned effect should be inherent to Weakness, while Weakness could be renamed to Numbness or maybe Faintness. Weakness was buffed some months ago to reduce the victim's attributes, but it's still not that popular, the overwhelming majority of builds come without Weakness - so I think it could use a little buff. Right now it's inferior to Blind, because nobody cares about the attribute loss, and Blind does not only reduces the damage, but effectively stops attack skills from work (all kinds of Interrupts, skills that apply Conditions, Knockdowns, etc pp) - Weakness sure stops (reduces) the damage, but leaves you vulnerable to all kinds of utility. - TeleTeddy 09:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Assassin utility[edit]

← moved to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Underpowered Skills/Assassin ~Izzy @-'---- 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Save Yourselves[edit]

Hi, the skill "Save Yourselves!" currently seems to SET the base armor of party members to 100, while the skill description suggests that every party member would gain 100 BONUS to their armor. So currently the skill sets a 60 armor party member's armor to 100 and not 160 as it was probably intended. Could you please look into this? --Adul 18:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a cap on how much armor we can add via skills and such? I recall an update which added a cap to the armor boost/increase to which a lot of people moaned and whined about? Or is it my imagination? I tried to find this but couldn't find anything Barinthus 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Armor stacking bonuses are capped at +24 armor, however, it can be boosted higher if a single skill grants more than that. Thus, "Save Yourselves!" should still add 100 armor; however, if used at the same time as another armor buff the other armor buff won't have any effect as SY! is already above the stacking cap.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks for the clarification :) Barinthus 03:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having QA look into this as it should be adding +100 armor not increasing base. ~Izzy @-'---- 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This was QA's responce "“Save Yourselves” seems to be working as intended. The player has a higher armor value when wearing armor and using “Save Yourselves” than they do if not wearing armor.

With 60 armor lighting orb hit the Necro for 132. With “Save Yourselves!” on her it hits for 35.
With no armor, Lightning Orb hit her for 283. With “Save Yourselves!” and no armor it hit for 78." This was tested in PvP on Dev(with uber Dev hax) but it functionality is the same. So I'm pretty sure it's working correctly. ~Izzy @-'---- 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bit late, but yeh, my guild uses this skill a hell of a lot, I think we'd notice if it wasn't giving the full bonus :p — Skuld 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying. --Adul 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New Trims[edit]

Hey izzy wanted only to remmember you about the new and old trims :P Wegi 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems he always forgets :D 87.194.104.90 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Burton

And dont forget to reset the QP :P

Hey izzy why you don't code 1 or 2 methods wich automatically remove the old and give the new trims? I don't think such a method would be more than some 100 lines of code. Wegi 14:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'ved looked into this and it's a lot of work because the server that controls that doesn't know about Guild trims, the way I give out guild trims is pretty insane, I have to type a command that joins a guild, then I'm "In the guild" but not, then I change the cape trim on myself in order to change it on the guild. It's not the cleanest of process but without a ton of work from our server guys it's just not gonna be automated. TRust me no one wants it automated more then me.

It takes me about a week to get this done but I should have it done today or tomorrow. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is done, if you have any issues please let me know. ~Izzy @-'---- 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting skill changes[edit]

← moved to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Underpowered Skills

I moved what I could an Archived the rest, please put the skill stuff in the skill suggestions pages, Thanks! ~Izzy @-'---- 21:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

probably suggested before[edit]

but i figured that the best way to fix the reliance on lod would be to buff the other direct healing skills. we all know that if a team in HA or GVG gets their lod diverted then its just GG. but what if they had other skills that would work (although slightly less effectively) while its down. theoretically (in paper and pencil) it would lessen the dependance on superdefensive buffs by giving the monks the ability to keep up with the damage. good skills to buff would be some of the weaker healing skills. 98.196.45.234 00:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

could i perhaps get your thoughts about my suggestion? 98.196.45.234 00:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

HA suggestions[edit]

← moved to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/HA feedback

Useless skills[edit]

Dear Izzy, would you also please consider buffing (or at least looking at) some of the clearly underpowerd 'older' skills like Magnetic Surge, Revive Animal and Stone Sheath while you're working on a skill balance? That would really mean a lot for me, and I think for a lot of people. It wouldn't be hard to NOT make them overpowered, as they are totaly useless at the moment and they would need a HUUUUUGE boost to become overpowered. Even a little attention instead of no attention at all would really make my day. Thank you in advance. I won't whine, complain, get angry and/or call your boss if you ignore this comment. It is just a request, not a demand. Nicky Silverstar 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean magnetic aura, dear? (and swirly aura has been useless for 2 years now) Jigoku 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I meant Magnetic Aura. And swirling has at least the added bonus of protecting you from interrupt rangers...while earth has plenty of other ways to deal with melee (but you're right, they're both underpowered). Nicky Silverstar 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is easier to just nerf the skills that people are currently bitching about, then going back to Team Fortress 2. --Deathwing 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From a pvp perspective people don't want random skill buffs, it's not really a matter of him not wanting to put the time in.

I don't quite understand that. More viable skills->more viable builds->less problems with uber builds? One could change the 'useless' skills to counter the problematic builds. Example: Revive Animal: all spirits withing earshot lose x% health. Resurrect your pet with x% health. Magnetic Aura: reduce melee damage on you by 0-10? Making more skills (like Stone Sheath) cause weakness (to compensate for less blocking) would be another way to reduce melee damage, but not make melee people miss/be blocked all the time. I know they aren't the best examples, but I fail to see why it can't both be done. Nicky Silverstar 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not as easy as that. If you're forced to either take a specific counter or lose against build X, you problably will take the counter. So, when creating a build, you have to put in counter A, counter B, ... but you have only 8x8 (or even worse: 4x8 in small formates) skillslots. Every (must-have) counter limits your options, reducing diversity. - TeleTeddy 10:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not reading your post right but what does that have to do with buffing skills? and even if those (newly buffed)skills can't be used in PvP(or high-level PvP) they can be used in the rest of the game. Jigoku 10:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what TeleTeddy is referring to is a matter of time allocation - most of the PvP community would rather see Izzy spending time making sure problematic skills are fixed than tweaking skills which don't currently play a role, because buffing underpowered skills doesn't make overpowered skills any less broken.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What I tried to say, is why not try to fix problems be altering some underpowered skills? For example, blocking is too strong, but melee damage is too high not use blocking, right? By changing Magnetic Aura to reduce physical damage by X (instead of its current effect), you'd get the following result: damage is reduced, but interrupting/conditions - attack skills can still be used to their full effect. That makes MA a viable skill and an alternative to blocking (you either block SOME attacks, or reduce ALL damage slightly). Now, imagine you would do this to not just 1 skill but to a lot of skills. See how it can fix a problem, simply by presenting an alternative? You could even present this alternative combined with a small blocking nerf, and the problem would be solved. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it could be both. Nicky Silverstar 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is Nicky, a skill is overpowered in comparison to the skill base as a whole - thus in order to make it not overpowered, you either have to a) change the individual overpowered skill, or b) buff the entire skill base to bring them all to the same level. Buffing just a couple of other skills either a) doesn't do anything, because those skills aren't worth bringing against anything except the originally overpowered build, or b) creates a new overpowered skill, if it is worth bringing against everything.

It's a heck of a lot simpler to change 1 skill than to change hundreds.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I am hoping for both to happen, though I know you're right.Nicky Silverstar 19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That and we also don't want power creep here. --Ckal Ktak 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't, but an overzealous adherence to the nerf over buff policy will result in the opposite: a power slide, with the end result of everything being on par with mending or flare. A 50/50 nerf/buff would be ideal to prevent either unwanted outcome. Lord Belar 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Enraging charge makes sprint useless (same cost, same recharge, same duration but sprint doesn't give u anything when it ends). Make sprint a 33% faster boost perhaps.

Sprint also doesn't end when you hit someone. They're basically the same skill, except Sprint can be used consistently, whereas Enraging Charge is only good for a few seconds in combat. There's nothing wrong with Sprint, although I'd definitely rather take Rush. --Reklaw 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between buffing extremely underpowered skills ([[Revive Animal] anyone?) and power creep Ckal. You would have known that if you had read my first post. Nicky Silverstar 11:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, everytime you buff a skill enough to push it into the meta, you've done so by making players drop another skill first, meaning the buffed skill is better than the previous meta skills. Thus you've power crept. --Ckal Ktak 12:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The game isn't based on 'this skill is better than that skill', its about synergy. Some skills work better with others. You would drop a skill that doesn't fit well for one that does. If a skill is over 'better' than another skill, that's a problem in itself. 69.137.78.47 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, that's completely wrong. It's about diversity and having choices. I won't go into details, explaining basic concepts seems odd in this place. - TeleTeddy 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more fear on the balance team's part. There's always the possibility that if you buff something to the point that people will actually want to use it, a player, somewhere, will figure out a way to exploit it. Look at what happened when Keystone Signet was buffed. That's why you so infrequently see skills that NEED to be buffed in the update list. Fear. Impossible testing standards. Of course, if someone actually buffed something like Revive Animal, I don't see there being a Revive Animal gimmick build in the meta anytime soon. As of right now, there are a LOT of skills in the game that are either useless, woefully underpowered or represent a variant of an existing skill that might be too powerful if buffed. Sadly, most of these will never be changed, as GW2 is coming and the worry of changing the meta is too great to bother with. Say goodbye to Swirling Aura, Scavenger's Focus, Primal Rage, etc. - we never knew ye. Skills that are nearly clones of other skills should not have the opportunity to push the other out of the meta if buffed. Skills like that should merely be alternative skills that are better suited for specific situations, like the aforementioned enraged charged / sprint / rush. One is better in one build or situation than the other, but neither has forced the other completely out of the meta. And that's how skills should be balanced. --Reklaw 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When is Sprint better than Enraging Charge? Same cost, same recharge, Enraging has a LONGER duration, AND it gives adrenaline. --Deathwing 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Skill like otyugh's cry have buffed to usefulness and it didn't break the metagame. Jigoku 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...there is a huge difference between too bad to put on a skill bar, and being a game-breaker. --Deathwing 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Enraging Charge does NOT have a longer duration in combat. If you use it and hit a target ONE SECOND after you activate it, it will only last ONE SECOND. Your movement will NOT continue to be 25% after this has occurred. After you make a SINGLE HIT, you're stuck at your normal run speed until it recharges again. Sprint NEVER cancels in combat. I shouldn't have to explain this. It's right there in the skill's description. Sprint is for people that need to chase kiters for a long duration of time. Enraging Charge is for people that want to chase down a kiter to make a single attack and gain a little adrenaline. (Bull's Strike for example.) After they make that attack, their target will just keep right on running.

And Otyugh's Cry isn't used because Beast Mastery isn't a legitimately threatening attribute in PvP builds, outside of Thumpers, which aren't focused on employing the pet's damage so much as utilizing it for their own gain. It never will be until the pet system is fixed. (And it never will be fixed.) Build Compression is far too important to screw around with charm and comfort animal, a rez signet, a defensive or IMS stance and/or mending touch, Otyugh's Cry, a pet IA/MS and pet attack on a single bar. Pet builds don't bring any game. They're weak, and so they get left behind, because there are far better alternatives. They're worthless novelty builds as far as competitive high end PvP goes. If you can get a pet build to work in RA or AB or Aspenwood... congratulations, you've accomplished nothing. Otyugh's Cry is an excellent skill that assists a mediocre concept. So it's not the same thing. --Reklaw 01:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to maintain a speed boost they will use Rush. How many of the builds that are deemed "l33t" use Sprint? --Deathwing 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not many. I never use Sprint unless I have to. Its main function right now is to act as an energy-based cancel stance to things like Flail or Frenzy if you're using skills that drain your adrenaline, and hence won't allow you to use Rush. Sprint is an alternative skill that doesn't really come into play much, but it's still nice to have it there (I guess.) But you're right. Rush is a hotter dish. --Reklaw 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That just proves my points when a skill is buffed in to usefulness it doesn't mean that the skill will become overpowered.Jigoku 03:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reseting indent)As for the Sprint/Enraging/Rush thing. As a cancel stance, Enraging is just as good, with the same recharge and cost. So Sprint isn't the best choice for an energy based cancel stance. If you want a maintainable speed boost, Rush is better, since it can be up constantly, as opposed to Sprints 7-8 second downtime. The only place where Sprint could be used is in a build that cannot build adrenaline, but needs a maintainable speed boost. How often does this happen? 9 times out of 10, if not 100% of the time, you would be better off either taking Rush or Enraging. Buffing the recharge of Sprint a little bit would make it a little better at being a cancel stance, while still not being the dominant stance for a Warrior. I am pretty sure that these are the kind of buffs asking for. Not "Zomg 33% spead buust Zer0 ReChArGe!!!!111". But yeah, I'd say that all of the crappy skills will never be buffed, and the lists of underpowered skills may as well be deleted. --Deathwing 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Or in any build that isn't using a stance that needs cancelling, or any build with only one stance: Sprint. There are plenty of builds that can utilize Sprint, you just don't see many of them because they're attached to poor concepts, like the aforementioned Otyugh's Cry in BM. Sprint DOES have uses. Buffing a skill won't make others like it useless if the skills are separated by utility. --Reklaw 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just face it, sprint is a victim of power creep. It used to be popular as a frenzy cancel stance, not anymore. No one uses it in preference to rush or enraging charge not even in PvE. Needs a buff or rework. 33% speed buff+lower duration+faster recharge or something like that.

We're getting off-topic, here. Generally, buffing is an important part of adding diversity and keeping the game interesting. You just have to be careful with buffing: If the buff is too good, the buffed skill will become a problem, if the buff's too weak, nothing will change (aka wasted time & effort). There's a reason why there exists a whole section named underpowered skills. If you, Nicky (or anyone) want skills to be buffed, go to that section and make suggestions. If they're appropriate and fit into the greater image, then there's a good chance the buff will come in the next (or maybe next to next) update. Or in shorter words, don't just say: "Do something!", but help out in the process of finding approriate buffs. - TeleTeddy 09:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My intention was not to demand certain things, but to merely give inspiration to Izzy to counter the overpowered skills in the metagame in a different way: diversity. I know what you mean, but I'd like to note that I never said: "Do something!" and that I did offer suggestions, and I never said it "HAS TO BE DONE OR ELSE!". I am not that kind of person. Nicky Silverstar 12:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Been to that page, and made suggestions. Even after the hundreds and hundreds of responses on them pages, skills still don't get buffed. So saying to go post there is a pretty pointless thing to say. --Deathwing 12:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can say the same thing for posts here. Which is better, posts with no result on a non-topical page or posts with no result on a topical page?

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A heading of "Useless Skills" in the Skill Balancers talk page is non-topical? At least posts here give him the "new messages" thing. --Deathwing 17:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess he gets that new message thing every minute --Cursed Angel 01:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has noticed the skill "Swap" from assassin, one of the other many useless skills..

Hrmm, not really. I used this against Duncan the Black not too long ago. Swap the spirits, it really helps :p Rella 06:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spirits & Spiritway[edit]

Okay, here's an idea that aims at making single spirits (more) viable, while reducing effectiveness of spirit spam: Significantly raise health of spirits (maybe double the life they currently have):

Old chart:

Level	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Base Health	20	40	60	80	100	120	140	160	180	200	220	240	260

New chart:

Level	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Base Health	40	80	120	160	200	240	280	320	360	400	440	480	520

And now the important part: Add following line to all binding/nature rituals: When placing this spirit, for every other spirit within earshot, its life is reduced by 70.

Single spirits would not die that quickly, while - due to low armor - not being 'unkillable', if you take the time.
Bringing many spirits still would work, but they could be destroyed much easier now.
Placing order would become an important part of spirit spammers - enemies should be attentive to know which spirit was placed last, because it's the easiest one to destroy.
There would be limit on how much spirits you could place in one spot (depending on the spirit's level), however, there'd be no intractable limit.
You could reduce the effect by clever positioning.
Due to greater base life, Ritualist's primary attribute would have a greater effect.

- TeleTeddy 09:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Found out that i kill level 5 spirits with dancing daggers used once. Anyhow i wouldnt think izzy support both making spirits have more health and to increase max health gained by spawning power, also to limit the number of spirits in an area might be too hard to program as i think they focus on guildwars 2 now. --Cursed Angel 10:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my post? I ask because I see no connection between my suggestion and your reply. - TeleTeddy 14:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems good in theory, but this would make killing spirits, even if they were far away, much more annoying. (some)People would still try stacking them close together to slow down the enemies like those bridges on some AB maps. Even with some health loss with multiple spirits in earshot, they would still have massive health even after this theoretical buff.
Also, without stacking the spirits to produce the machine-gun type effect some attacking spirits have, the entire Spirit build might take a serious hit because the effectiveness of the entire thing would be rendered useless. Vanguard 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, i didnt read your post, it seemed too long. anyhow making so that each time you create a spirit makes all spirits within earshot lose 70 maximum health seems ok, it gives spirits more health when they are few and less when they are more. I guess izzy tried to make spirit spam harder but failed and made spirits useless instead.--Cursed Angel 17:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Im curious, would this even affect spirit spammers that are run in PvP, cuz arent they usually running offensive spirits with a little defense here and there, meaning they aren't to worried with health. Also, spirits need more armor, otherwise, they are still really vulnerable singularly and you can't recast it without some other skill due to their ridiculous recharge times. Then there is the fact that a lot of rit skills promote spirit spamming, so until you fix or change those, there will still be a spirit spamming problem.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem i see with this is that spirits like union and shelter would become very strong when they are the only one around as they would last indefinably, maybe not shelter, but defiantly union. Besides that, this is an ingenuous idea. I doubt it will come into play because gw1 will no longer receive updates to any effect because of gw2. --Lou-Saydus

17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Tip of the Iceberg[edit]

There is an ongoing problem where, in striving for game balance, skills with high visibility get weakened, and a larger number of skills are ignored, because they're just not on the radar. Currently, there is a somewhat narrow selection of viable skills, when one considers that there are 1,235 skills in Guild Wars, and over 1/3rd of these skills are just not viable for serious play. In general, on Izzy's section of the site for underpowered skills, classes range from 30 to 60 skills the community in general feels are underpowered, and this isn't counting the attribute lines seen as underpowered as a whole (ie. Smiting, Deadly Arts, Motivation, Communing)

Is there a plan or strategy in place for addressing these skills, beyond the negligible to moderate buffs to 0-5 skills with each given rebalance? Craw 17:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They are busy with GW2, so no. --Deathwing 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This subject has been brought up alot recently, but it should. Considering how long it took them to buff other useless skills, it's possible that they won't ever get buffed cause of GW2 in the making or it'll be months till they do buff them. Since Izzy seems to be against the way certain skills function (peace and harmony, skullcrack, e-management elites? etc), I think they should at least be completely reworked instead of being ignored. It'd be nice if they at least buffed skills to make them more useful in pve while keeping them balanced for pvp - one example would be the buff to Arcane conundrum that made it aoe. P A R A S I T I C 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Psst Izzy, don't forget Shadow Fang. Hex duration is currently set to the same number as the Deep Wound duration. They might even be swapped like Spiritleech but I'm not sure. <_<; |GD Defender / contribs 00:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if they had A LOT less skills in GW2 simply because they don't like to balance the number in GW. If they made all the skills we currently have equally useful, there would be a huge balance nightmare. The easiest method is to nerf the majority into uselessness/obscurity/gimmickness and balance the few in the meta. Kinda ironic campaigns are advertised with "50 new skills! omfg!!!" and then to balance the game 35 of them suck. Dancing Gnome 08:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if only 25% of the skills in Guild Wars were truly viable for efficient builds, that'd still be plenty of have a good amount of variety. The more skills you have at a truly viable level, the more difficult it is to balance them all.

Unless you make every skill identically, you're always going to end up with some skills being weaker than others.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they figured that out over a year ago, that's why they're lowering the skill count for Guild Wars 2. But they can't turn back the clock for GW1, and it would be nice if more skills were upgraded from complete trash to decent but not great. -- Gordon Ecker 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, most of the skills are "decent but not great". But not many people really want to settle for "decent".

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Most, but there's also quite a few in the trash category, many of which are elite. -- Gordon Ecker 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The point was more along the lines of something which markets itself based on the number of skills available should probably make those skills viable. Otherwise they could release a 5th game with 100+ skills and they all did the same thing current skills do but take 30 seconds longer to recharge, heal for 50% less, do 50% less damage and give 60% less energy. They are still new skills, just shit. Nerfing the extra skills into uselessness/unviability is stupid. Dancing Gnome 12:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - Thursday, November 08, 2007[edit]

← moved to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Update20071108

Congratulations Izzy ^_^[edit]

Thanks Izzy, the new update is so cool. I like how you changed Light of Deliverance and now we can use this cool combo Vigorous Spirit, Patient Spirit, and Release Enchantments instead plus have room for another elite. :) 70.132.2.120 07:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here, great job with the recent updates except the LoD part which was kinda dumb. Anyways, gj for killing sins and sway. However, sins are still runnable so all the hate posts below are useless. ~EB

Healer's Boon & Word of Healing on the Same Skill Bar[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Update20071108

Assassacasters[edit]

You failed to nerf dancing daggers spammers. Again. Even though 95% of the PvP community agree it is overpowered and allows beginners to kill decent players. 69.137.78.47 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What did you expect? This is just so he can say there was an update and how metagame changed after he drastically changed one skill (LoD). Other than that, nothing new, really. He's probably playing that other game now. 83.131.69.9 08:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't failed to nerf them, he simply hasn't nerfed them YET. It is hard to test the impact of certain changes if you make them all at the same time and Izzy probably thought these were more important. I'm sure they will be revised in a week or 2. Nicky Silverstar 08:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dancing Daggers is retarded becausew of Deadly Paradox which is... retarded. Someone who can't see how this is retarded should do an IQ test immediatly. You don't need 2 years to see that someone is... retarded. If Izzy can't see this is ..yes, the word retarded, then he's either playing other games (which he is), couldn't care less, or ... it's that word yes. 83.131.69.9 09:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say in a polite manner is that a worse thing than Izzy tweaking obviously overpowered skill, are people on this forum who support obviously overpowerred skill because they are... that word above. 83.131.69.9 09:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This isnt a forum retard.--Cursed Angel 09:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RC, hex removal, Diversion, Backfire, Ward of Stability, Aura of Stability, weaponset with +armor vs Earth Dmg, kiting. All that and more>>>>>>Assacasters. Come on, if you get pwned by Assacasters, you can not call yourself a decent player imo. BlazeRick 10:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and if each Warrior auto-attack was doing 500dmg, u would tell me to... take Signet of Midnight? And name all other blind/cripple counters right? The number of counters does NOT define whether something is overpowerred or not. If you don't understand that, then you're ... that word above. 83.131.69.9 11:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying "that word" when it's obvious you mean another is equivalent to saying the actual word - and is going against GWW:NPA. This is the second warning you've gotten, if you continue the next action probably won't be a warning.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pointless to argue, anon. The majority of contributors here don't have the slightest idea about balance, trying to argue with them is like talking to a wall. Well... maybe a wall that talked back. And gave really bad answers. -Auron 12:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Running around calling others "retard" is not what we do on this wiki. Read GWW:NPA. That's addressed to both of you. Backsword 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is wikki for a mindles exchange of oppinion? Last time I checked, even the wikipedia itself had some standard of quality. Like, you can't open the page "Bill Gates" and find out the guy is growing potatoes when he ain't. 83.131.69.9 12:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's quite possible to correct someone, even with authority, without calling them a retard.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is much more effective if you call them a retard, retard. LOL --Deathwing 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Really some one got to count number of times word implying severe mental retardation was used in this topic =D. Are we complaining about what was Not changed? Really? Id say there is no way you can kill a monk now with WoH healing for 250 every 4ish seconds with out some anti caster counters. Biz 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, each time someone break that NPA thing you all change subject, I swear alot when i dont write here, when i talk with friends and others. I believe that really noone gets offended by it. People dont swear cuz theyre angry or to prove their point, they just dont care if someone gets offended by it, because people who gets offended by the word "retard" probably are retards. --Cursed Angel 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what Izzy does in his spare time is none of our business. And in his work time he is always busy. Instead insulting him, we'd better ask Anet not to assign him any GW2 task, since he is is much needed for GW1.--Lumenil 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Really, each time someone break that NPA thing you all change subject, I swear alot when i dont write here, when i talk with friends and others. I believe that really noone gets offended by it. People dont swear cuz theyre angry or to prove their point, they just dont care if someone gets offended by it, because people who gets offended by the word "retard" probably are retards."........wow, this makes a lot of sense........on another note, the lack of maturity here is astounding.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I get a prize? --Cursed Angel 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel like increasing but spreading out the damage that Dancing Daggers causes over time and increasing its recharge would go a long way to correcting this imbalanced build. The issue is that it applies a huge amount of damage in a very small frame of time. I think it's a viable build, but you can't really protect yourself against it due to the time frame you're allowed, especially if you're focus is split, as a monk. After all, you can't block the daggers. You can't Prot Spirit the damage away. IMO the build would make more sense as a pressure build, with more focus on avoiding that 50% health marker than anything else. Even removing the KD of Entangling Asp in favor of something like Blind or Weakness (as a cover condition) would help tremendously in allowing people the chance to defend themselves. Nothing short of removing this build from the game will keep it out of places like RA, however. But who cares about RA? It's only 4v4. --Reklaw 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just move dancing Daggers to dagger mastery. Kills the build dead as it removes the DP synergy and forces and attribte point split, and while you're at it you're giving the real assassins a half decent lead. --Ckal Ktak 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're a real assassin, and good at what you're doing, that's more than enough of a lead. But still, DP is overpowered. By far. Armond 09:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you just remove the half casting time from Deadly Paradox, the combo would become interruptible, and give a monk a chance to use RoF before Signet of Toxic Shock hits. 69.137.78.47 00:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone doesn't understand that Dancing Daggers + Paradox = obviously blatantly overpowered, then that person either: 1) doesn't even play the game and 2) is retarded. I know Izzy doesn't play GW1 anymore since he said he's playing other games and working on GW2, but what of people posting in this forum? Make your pick. You can't post invalid comments and pose as some kind of experienced player. 83.131.70.249 11:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Imho assacasters are only overpowered because they can chanin knockdowns whilst doing effective dmg, the only real counter for it in RA is either balanced stance (PHAIL) or spirit bond, which is and energy drain... oh and btw all people do here is whine about NPA, I mean ffs change the bloody record. --82.32.65.254 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is such an easy fix...Change Deadly Paradox to Critical Strikes to match with Deadly Haste and =X SoJ sin problem solved. They won't be able to get 12 in both of their damage dealing attributes, so they'll be as stretched out as normal assassins. Nothing was wrong with Dancing Daggers before Nightfall was released, so I'd be extremely disappointed in the administration if that was changed, and the same goes for Entangling Asp. I am a bit confused as to why Signet of Toxic Shock was changed down to 15 recharge though... RitualDoll 08:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok whoever said Kite from sin caster, tell ure heros that in HB, and if ure kting... ure not fiting 24.141.45.72 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Augury of Death is the problem. It's also pretty annoying in other caster spike builds in RA so it would make the game that much more enjoyable for everyone if it didn't do Deep Wound anymore. Either increase the recharge to match Phantom Pain or remove the deep wound. That makes sense, right? But really, just remove the deep wound. I don't think you could find anyone who's experienced be opposed to that change. --TimeToGetIntense 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Deadly arts Attribute[edit]

Deadly arts, before Deadly paradox wasn't a very used attribute (if you remember before DP...you probably know what I'm talking about_. If and When Deadly Paradox falls, Deadly Arts will once again become almost dead except for expose defenses and Siphon Speed. Izzy if you are planning to take away deadly paradox (I sincerely hope you are) Then --Ensoriki 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)how will you save Deadly Arts? It be nice if you let every 2 points give 3% chance to auto recharge deadly arts skills. Though this isn't really a suggestion post., I'm sure your going fall Deadly Paradox, But how can Deadly Arts as a whole remain viable except for Siphon Speed,Impale, Expose Defenses and Shameful Fear (On secondary's I might add). Deadly Arts Is the "mesmer" like attribute an assassin has, providing moderate Offensive utility (and Shadow Ar4ts bringing the defensive utility). How will the attribute as a whole survive. Back in 2006 (before nightfall) If a sin wanted to make a Deadly Art's build, it wasn't as efficient as a Dagger build. A brief of forum threads from 1-2 years ago will show you that. Posts of "How to Make a good deadly arts build?" aroused, and no one could give a true answer on making a GOOD deadly arts build. --Ensoriki 22:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deadly arts appeared at first to try to be complimentary to Dagger mastery (Certain skills counting as leads and offhands as well as the hexes for the 'black' attacks). Problem with DP is that it brutally forces a divide between them, ruining any chance that they will work together in tandem properly. That and the attribute point spending.--Ckal Ktak 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For a proper Deadly arts build (thats not just all sin cast) you must virtually ABandon Critical strikes, which is a dent on your e-management and DPS without additional crits coming out.Its now possible to make a well balanced Deadly arts/Dagger build. Yet taking other skills from the line isn't advisable. The only skills I'd take in my DA/DM build are Dancing daggers/Disrupting and 1 of the elite shutdowns (siphon/shroud) everything else seems to weak, or to costly to take. So ya your right...it forces a division.

Making a "Deadly Arts build" always struck me as similar to trying to make an "Inspiration mesmer." It doesn't really work, both Shadow Arts and Deadly Arts are support lines, Deadly Arts is just a more offense/disruptive oriented one. The only reason "Assassacasters" are even viable is because Deadly Paradox is broken. Riotgear 05:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again.... So how does the attribute survive without Paradox. Its not about having a full deadly arts build, but having multiple ways of using deadly arts with more than 6/7 Mastery. Currently to make a fusion of Deadly arts and Dagger mastery, you really have to forego critical strikes OR shadow mastery (either/or) So if you ditch your primary, it should really be worth it. I've only come up with about 2 builds that can execute a DA/DM sin well. Theres tons of builds that use critical strikes, Crit bow/scythe/sword/axe/hammer/spear... all as assassin primary, and are still great, DA was 1 of the few things A-net did not look at while balancing factions before Nightfall came --Ensoriki 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I care more about not having braindead, degenerative gameplay than an attribute getting (ab)used. — Skuld 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What, hero battles? Lord Belar 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, when Paradox Dies this attribute almost fades into existance...AGAIN, and it doesn't need too.

Skuld, there will always be brain-dead crap....well atleast for GW1's lifespan. Competitive players like as little thinking as possible and crap--Ensoriki 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? PvP: Augury of Death, Disrupting Dagger, Impale, Shadow Prison, Siphon Speed, Expose Defenses... PvE: All of the previousl, Assassin's Promise...

Even without deadly paradox, Deadly Arts still sees plenty of use.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Profession Limits in Teams[edit]

I've seen this come up a few times, and apparently Izzy has even considered it. The idea behind limiting professions in a single team is that if you have, say, 8 players, you could only bring a 2 monk backline, 2 warriors, 2 necromancers, etc. This is nearly a Guild Wars 2 topic due to the fact that altering the freedom of being able to bring "unbalanced teams" is one of the things that makes Guild Wars what it is: changing it would be a major impact across the board for GW1. The more I think about the idea, the more I like it in terms of balancing skills. Of course, the more I think about how it limits people from novelty builds and coordinated spikes, the more I wonder on how people would circumvent things to get what they want.

If things were changed to a 2/8 format, you could in theory buff blood skills back to their former glory, remove interrupt aftercast from bow attacks, perhaps even reevaluate smiting skills. Whatever. There are dozens of examples of skills that have been cut down because of the fact that they're used in coordination with one another across 6 or more players. To me, an obvious problem is that people would just start running secondaries. Instead of 6 rangers and two monks you would find teams comprised of 2 rangers, 2 Rt/Rs and 2 A/Rs. The secondary system shoots this idea in the foot. You can't get rid of the secondary class system, and GW2 will have nearly that same system.

If this were "real life" as far as Guild Wars goes, you would see an army of a thousand soldiers ripping into a thousand Charr on a battlefield somewhere. If 300 of them decided to coordinate a spike, it doesn't really matter if you have Protective Spirit taking the full force of the blow; you will die. It's a stupid example, but if you think about it, it's obvious that Guild Wars is scaled for a certain combat scale. Anything below or beyond that and suddenly there are tremendous problems. 4/4 already has problems, as in TA, in the current meta, even having only a single healer sounds balanced but can have devastating results from a coordinated effort by the opposing team. Two healers suddenly becomes too much, which is why you see so many Heal / Support / Denial / Damage teams made to cover the extra damage but still retain damage output. In the "reality" of Guild Wars combat, balance doesn't work on a large scale. If you had a 20 man team, you couldn't limit professions to 2, or even 3.

So how do you remove spike capability so that a single player won't be nuetered? After all, if we really did have 20/20 matches, and had 20 people coordinating a spike, either protective skills would become insanely powerful or offensive skills would be insanely nerfed. I think it's perhaps why the limit format was brought down to 6/6 for a while - to try to compensate. There doesn't seem to be a way out.

Perhaps the answer is in splitting a team into groups. Instead of a 8/8 game, you have a 4+4/4+4 game. Skills become catered to formats of 4, perhaps 6 players or less. However, while this could resolve issues with defensive builds and skills, it doesn't resolve offensive spikes.

Perhaps the answer, then, is making skills have tiered damage and protective levels based on the number of players you're with? Perhaps health, energy and skill levels could increase as a result of having more members in your party. While this is impossible in Guild Wars 1, I would say, this would be right up Guild Wars 2's alley. In Guild Wars 2, you already split and receive boosts in power based on the levels of your party members, while attributes remain capped at a certain point, from my understanding. This would help resolve issues of player limits, spikes and health levels while still allowing a great deal of freedom in designing skills. The only issue I see in this idea is the learning curb. New players would most likely not understand why their health is 300 in a 4 player map, and suddenly skyrockets to over 800 in a 8v8 GvG match. But, they're noobs. They'll get over it. However, that still leaves skill descriptions. Do you have a skill like Rodgort's Invocation, for example, deal 100 damage against a 4 player group, 120 against 6 players, and 160 against 8 players? It gets very complicated. Do you even have to change skill descriptions in that manner? Maybe not. Maybe having a skill that does 150 damage against an 8 player group will work just as well against a 4/4 group. However, if such a thing was implimented, where would that push the meta? Would coordinated spikes become essential? Would pressure and denial builds become necessary over spiking if people's health were so high?

The more I think about it, the more complications arise. The end result, I think, is that skills and health would have to be catered to player limits in every kind of match. A TA match is completely different from a GvG match. You can't have skills like Guild Wars has and expect combat to be balanced from 1 on 1 to 1,000 on 1,000. It just doesn't work that way. So, to me, I think GW1 is broken in this regard. The current meta is essentially filled with mediocre skills because of this. If you buff them, there's danger of coordination. Guild Wars is full of band-aid skills right now, and it's hurting the game by not treating the wound. Unfortunately, from what I can see, there's no fixing it. Hopefully in Guild Wars 2, there will be a more complex system that automatically resolves these issues before they even begin. --Reklaw 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You've seen this come up a few times, and it's been shot down a few times, for the same reasons. Please just go back and read some of those instead of making everyone repeat it all over again. Lord Belar 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If this wasnt so gosh darn complicated, it would be an easy suggestion to implement. But aside from that this gives a great explination of the current balance. GW2 has addressed scale problems by promising that PvP and PvE will be seperate, so that a skill that is good in a 8v50 format is adjusted to an 8v8 format. And your arguement supports the 6v6 HA alot better than the excuse of finding parties easier. Good Insight, haven't read anything this detailed and compact before. Obie Quiet 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I always liked the idea of encouraging the use of multiple classes, instead of forcing. There should be no strict limits, but every class should give its team an inherent (non-stacking) bonus just for being there, and maybe this bonus could be scaled to group size, too. But then again, this is no idea for GW1 (it would be a nice surprise if they implemented sth like this in GW1, though). - TeleTeddy 11:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the party but that blood and air magic skills, that do damage, are only good (or were good) for spikes. Jigoku 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Changing those two lines would do nothing to what I'm talking about. Not even sure where you'd get an idea like that. --Reklaw 11:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Bandaid skills"? I agree with you that the number of combatants has a respectable impact on the balance of skills, but having many mediocre skills in the game wouldn't be so much of an issue if all the overpowered ones were to be brought down enough. I know that is very idealistic, and maybe impossible, but imo, the slower combat of the old days of GW were better. Though it may be impossible to balance every skill to fit every combat situation, scaling each skill to every combat situation would mean that skill descriptions would be a novel. Or worse, end up like City of Heroes descriptions: "Deal moderate damage" *shudders* I will cry the day Guild Wars stops giving us hard numbers. Please dont do that. I'd rather see a slightly impaired balance system with a great support staff backing it up making wise decisions about skill changes than a meta where There was no set system for damage. (don't get me wrong, a range of damage is great as long as the min and max are clearly stated.)

Band-aid skills are Nightfall and GWEN skills that were introduced to counter the damage or capability of a single profession or even a single build that was introduced / conceived before that time. I agree about slow combat - I was actually thinking about that today, about how skills like Diversion and Distracting Shot are catered to a tactical mode of play, to very slowly gain an advantage in an extended match of outthinking and outmanuevering your opponent. Or at least their old forms were. They've been buffed since then to compensate for the current meta.

I agree about ranges of damage and pure numbers. That's one of the things that makes GW what it is. It's an option, however: an undesirable option. I'm asking how to modify skills in different PvP situations. 8 Rangers in a 8/8 match will be a bigger problem than 4 rangers in a 4/4 match. I'd propose scaling health and perhaps energy based on match sizes, and having a general limit on how much DPS you can mete out. That is to say, a typical Warrior build's attack spike should not exceed 150 damage. An Assassin's should not exceed 250. A single skill should not cause more than 100 damage on its own. A single spell should not heal for over 100, boons and all. Things like that. A 4/4 match should set everyone's base health at 500, a 6/6 match at 700 and 8/8 at 900. Or something along those lines. I'm not saying those are what the numbers should be, but I think having goals for that sort of balance would help immensely with allowing skills to have unique functions while restricting their ability to spike down an enemy when used in coordination, which is a big problem in GW1's balance structure.

I believe what can accelerate a power creep in that sort of overall game build is a class like the Monk. If you are running around with 900 HP in a 8/8 match, spikes become absolutely essential rather than an option. (Or else your warrior spike of 150 HP will mean nothing.) That is, unless healing classes are also limited in how often they can heal and for how much. I don't mean make all healing spells worthless. If that was the case, games would evolve into massive team death matches in which it's so difficult to heal back damage that over a span of a minute or two, you watch a player's health bar very slow descend, unable to do much to put them back up to 100%. The trick here is in making heals focused on situations and tactics, like any other class. Skills like Zealous Benediction are a good example of this. It's a straight heal, but it's necessary to use it at a proper time to make it work at its peak performance.

I'd have to write out a huge development document to explain the necessary functionality of skill classes in a game balance like this. Generally, 4/4 games would be faster than 8/8 games. 8/8 games would not be the spike and massive heal fests that they are today, but would rather be based on slow attrition games of denial, positioning and timing. I feel like that's what Prophecies was until so many overpowered builds were introduced, and defense was outrageously accelerated to compensate. The current meta is way too fast, and far too unpredictable. --Reklaw 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I like your example of Zealous Benediction, I think adding (or changing) conditional effects on skills would help to reduce a mindless heal-fest (monks just come to mind). I have had thoughts... What if almost every skill currently considered "good" in the meta were to recieve a severe nerf and skills with denied potential (like supportive spirit "The other SS" lol) recieved a decent buff. This inversion would upset the meta to its core. (granted this would cause many imbalances, but thats why updates are so easily made on GW) I am ready for that complete upset. For the sake of not having profession limits that is. I can see peoples' reasoning for that; splinter VoD is rediculous (ty Izzy for the balance on that). However, Such a thing seems to go against what GW is, it seems like instead of trying to come up with good ideas (that is what every Imbalance was origonally) and force them into balance. I'm not opposed to sly tactics like splinter at VoD, I just think that the meta needs to be changed for the sake of change every once in a while. The focus of balancing seems to be on nerfing overpoweredness than ressurecting skills like supportive spirit and foul feast. Bring some old, dead skills back into the meta and see what happens. Forcing a balanced team onto everyone won't avoid the gimmicky type stuff. However, perhaps an 8v8 arena on the battle isles where such a rule is implemented. This would give ANet a preview of how it would work and allow players who want an autobalanced team to go at it where balance is king. :)

BLS change[edit]

It'd be nice to make something other than shock sins usable now. — Skakid9090 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see the horns nerf. gfg, use a warrior not a sin — Skakid9090 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. Pluto 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Game Update 11.13[edit]

Why Horns? For the love of God, why? --71.229.204.25 01:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Izzy, you have with your own hands, proven once and for all. There is no god, and there is no justice in the world. I'm going to redirect all religious people to your Horns of the ox update. I have shown the update to 3 people already, and they have now become athiest. You have killed religion, something Hitler could not even do. Please fix horns, Isaiah Cartwright, if my memory serves, you prefered AoD sins to SP sins. Yet you nerfed 1 of the staple skills in that bar. Re-evaluate that. --Ensoriki 04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I lol'd irl. Atheists over a skill rebalance? Armond 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Its that bad, as it wasn't balance. Black Lotus strike was a balance (loved it, nice job izzy, but the skill fails if you don't have a hex instead of not providing energy if you dont have a hex) The HotO nerf, was the worst Nerf Izzy has done since factions. --Ensoriki 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

-thanks for nerfing sins out of the game, now you just need to get rits, paragons, and dervs out ^^ -natures

Although a lot of people "invented" the SP build on their own, I remember sitting down and inventing it myself, after doing a lot of number crunching and testing the utility of various skills. I advertised what I'd found to my friends since the build was so woefully overpowered compared to other Sin builds. Horns of the Ox has a condition, but not a great condition as far as its means of KDing goes. It works almost all of the time. It's a utility skill, and utility skills don't need huge damage bonuses. Cripple is more difficult to apply, so I agree with Trampling, too. As someone that earned most of his faction using a SP Assassin, I totally agree with this update. I think a lot of people cry over these updates because they can no longer abuse an imbalanced part of the game. All of that said, I think the idea of an Assassin is that it should jump in, deal damage for a kill and then get out. The SP build embodied that notion. Too many Assassin builds are catered to constant attacks rather than... well, being an Assassin. It's not how the profession should work. Personally, I vote that the Assassin class was a very bad idea to begin with. Who in the world thought introducing a class that is only viable in PvP as either a gimmick or a compressed spike dealer? IMO, the class was only introduced because of all the tweener forum trollers that were crying for a Ninja class, like retards. In a modern meta ruled by defense due to an overpowered offense, which in turn is overpowered and uses compressed damage to get through the overpowered defense... well. It's just not good for any class. --Reklaw 08:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think an assassin / ninja profession would work if it was designed as a melee version of a Mesmer or Ranger rather than a spiker. -- Gordon Ecker 08:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reklaw your post is flawed. Horns existed BEFORE SP sins, and wasn't Broken in any way before them. If Izzy had gone after IAS's and Shadow Prison + paradox. The only ones who would be complaining arne the assassins who do love imbalance >.>. Go to Guru and see how much "support" I give for the SP sins...there is none =P They did not just nerf SP...hell they didn't even kill it. SP sins still live as long as Prison and IAS's exist for an assassin to gimp. thus they killed the AoD build also, They killed numerous other build aswell. Knock down doesn't need damage? The Hammer warrior doesn't get alot of + damage because the hammer warrior is almost 2x stronger than daggers. Thus they don't need the +damage as there damage is consistently awesome. The horn's nerf, just means that IZZy will destroy hand fulls of builds, ruin a skill instead of taking time to just kill the real problem. SP sins did not just use horn's they used other skills. Horn's nerf has killed something that been with the assassin. Horn's was never necessary on a bar, but it was nice to have. Tell me how the skill people didn't take all the time, because it wasn't necessary and was just a variant, is OP >.>--Ensoriki 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I could kill the SP sin's in 1 skill balance, without touching horns. Matter of fact ill post my suggestion for izzy to see in the over powered section. This destroys shadow prison unless the player brings the proper utility for it. (critical eye) Basically destroys its spike. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ensoriki .

Are you daft? All this did is force SP 'sins to find alternate energy management. See this and this. SP is far from dead, and killing HotO without dropping its recharge didn't do anything but kill a lot of the less-used and less annoying assassin builds. Like AoD, which Izzy said he loved. I guess I should have expected this nerf after he said he loved LoD right before he sodomized it, but there you go. --71.229.204.25 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think anything is really that wrong with the changes except for Expose Defences and Impale. At TWELVE deadly arts Expose lats for 9 seconds for 10E, 1C, 25R. At ONE Curses Rigor Mortis also lats for 9 seconds with 10E, 1C, 20R. So basically any assassin wanting to use this skill and having not picked a secondary yet would be mental to bring Expose over Rigor Mortis. Rigor is now better than Expose in every single way. Impale, cmon, seriously... you did your work of ruining SP with changing BLS to a lead (Good!) but this skill's activation makes it alot less useful. This skill involves a sin going into atleast 3 attribute lines and should have a faster activation as a reward. HotO and Trampling are hardly ruined people, it cuts their +Dmg. It doesn't stop them from causing one of THE most useful effects in Guild Wars.

Ineptitude and WoH are a bit annoying but self-WoH is still great and now I guess you have to be more skilled with the use of Ineptitude! You really needed somethng to stop N/Rt's and although this has probably totally destroyed them I don't care. Barrage and Magebane now rock even more! ...and another EW nerf, Bye bye spiritway scum! 137.222.211.141 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the Pet and Soul Reaping changes mentioned in the Update (in PvP) working? I swear that while watch a couple of HoH matches the necros where using the pet corpses as wells and minion fodder still. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.165.84.250 .

Change Black Lotus Strike back to offhand and 18e @ 13cs. You killed *so* many builds with this nerf, not just SP. What were you thinking?! Without double black, sins are practically *impotent*. The Ox damage nerfs are equally misguided. The damage was *never* a problem and there was *no* reason to reduce them so drastically. Sins are supposed to kill things. I know you know that. Either revert this entire update or make lead-offhand-dual instagib efficiently. I expect *nothing* less from an assassin, as should you, Mr. Izzy. I can't believe you caved in to all the complainers. You must know when to put your foot down. 121.97.81.130 14:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)shinde

sins have always worked without the black line. Stop being silly.--99.233.238.88 17:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah but double black-dual is THE most efficient way to score kills. lead-offhand-dual is like poking around not really doing anything significant. WHERE IS THE UPDATE REBUFFING SINS, IZZY? I know you want to, cuz deep down you have the heart of an assassin! 121.97.81.130 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)shinde

Just because its the best doesn't mean its fair. You want a L-o-D chain? Unsuspecting strike,Temple Strike,Death blossom.. an entire 25 energy, you gain 4 energy back from zealous and about 2 energy back in the time you have used DB from natural Energy regen = a pocket worth of 6 energy on you, then random crits. Temple strike shuts down your target. Then add Siphon Speed, And you have a snare/Speed buff. Add Disrupting dagger/Disrupting stab for interrupts for when Temple is recharging. The builds not great, just an example you CAN do stuff with L-O-D. It still needs a buff in general though.

Sin's don't need to instagib to work. The only problem with this nerf I have is really horns of the ox, it killed the AoD sin too (I used it...and it was pathetic)

Give your assassin some damn utility instead of just pressing 123456576767546745745754754 all the day--Ensoriki 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ensoriki, that build you posted is terrible, and you are retarded for liking the bls nerf. stop giving them bad ideas and stop posting because you are a bad sin. still waiting on the update re-buffing sins, IZZY. 222.127.223.69 04:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)shinde

Dear Izzy,[edit]

I've slowly and slowly been pulled away from this game. I've had my fun, left guilds, made new ones until it got old, and I'm not currently in one. The most fun I've ever had in this game was in a GvG when I run an assassin split - even BYOB, and have the ability to kill people who lack positioning or battle field awareness. I quit playing for about 3 days because Call Of Duty 4 is freakin amazing, but today I logged on. I logged on and downloaded this skill update. You completely killed the assassin class - the only viable option to splitting in this game, if it even existed with the insane buff to Word Of Healing/Glimmer/Healers Boon [which will makes splitting even harder]. So the meta combo is broke, impale is terrible, horns of the ox is a joke, and you cant get to your offhand on your second hit without gimping your bar. Thanks to this, I don't ever want to play this game ever again. I love ya, and have nothing against you, but this is just retarded. Hopefully you may read this and concider how terrible this update is ~ thanks for reading. Kenshin 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Izzy,

the amount of bad players you will lose to sin nerfs pales in comparison to the people who will actually find both gvg and HB fun and balanced now. --Thom Bangalter 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SP sins weren't unbalancing GvG, are you high? — Skakid9090 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They were in HB though, but that doesn't stop him from being high. :P Lord Belar 02:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to chime in a bit.... but i really dont care much anymore... Izz doesnt give a... and as such i'll enjoy the Bonus Pack and then be done with GW1... --Midnight08 03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't destroy a build and a class with the same nerf or it was a bad nerf. Does Izzy even have a set of rules to follow? That one should be pretty up there. Kenshin I 100% agree. This update is making me consider just dropping this game all together, but I think I'll wait it out and see if he changes them back.--96.233.54.238 03:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BLS is understandable the ox skills being nerfed killed so many potential combos and helped towards gimping some of the few effective sins left in the game. Give the assassin some utility next time instead of destroying the class. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:76.200.180.151 .

Change lod back, before I club myself to death. <3s from moocow. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.18.27.160 .

This is a clear example of how every update will lead to people being unhappy. After the first update, I had to endure guild members complaining about how sins were not nerfed. Now the sins get some skills adjusted and people start complaining about that... (within a few hours of the actual update, I might add. What's up with that?) How about trying the changes for a week or so to see how it affects game balance? Assassins had been pretty much reduced to the SP build. Time for some more diversity, if you ask me. Zophar 10:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Izzy,

thanks for finally nerfing terrible players. Now get to work with the rest of the stuff! :P --Akaraxle 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with assassins is just the concept of what they are intended to do can never be balanced. Get into the enemy backline, kill something, and escape before a warrior has time to reach you and do something about it. That just won't work. No one would ever use any other offense. So you can either nerf its attacks to the point where it cannot kill, making it useless, or you can leave it overpowered. The entire theory of what an assassin was intended to do was imbalanced to start with. 69.137.78.47 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This update was made of win. Pluto 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, Assassins should be, basically, super spikers. Instead of a Warrior, which has to build up to a spike, or an Ele, which has to ease into a spike, an Assassin stands in the backlines watching targets, so that he can jump in and use his skill chain, which is ALWAYS ready, for a spike that's slightly stronger than anything another class can dish out. The thing about Assassins is that people want to use them to outright attack people at full health, and expect to kill them without their opponent ever having a say about it. Sadly, that's what we have right now. That's also why no one ever uses anything differently. However, if sins were REALLY balanced that way, it would mean that they could basically never kill anyone one on one, unless that enemy was already at half health or so. --Reklaw 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you even care about PvE?[edit]

Izzy,

To start, I lead a 40+ member PvE focused guild. In reading all of your justifications for skill rebalancing, it all has to do with PvP. Do you even care about us on the PvE end? Do you realize what these changes have done to those of us who choose not to GvG or HA or TA or RA or anything else that involves PvP? You and your team are driving people away from this game, except for the club of people who PvP. These frequent nerfs just to spice up the metagame for PvP are ruining the scene for PvE players.

PvE skills were made to compensate things, and then those got nerfed here and there.

I'm not going to say it's all your fault, but you're the one who finalizes the changes.

Animals have always left corpses. What's the point in taking that away? Is it because of Tombs? Or is it because of some sort of popular FotM that needed to be taken away?

EW's nerf will make UW trapping less effective.

Also, 20 second Ineptitude recharge is pointless for us PvE folks. For HM, we need to be a little more powerful than the PvPers. For dungeons, we don't want to be bogged down further when we're already at a severe disadvantage to what we're up against.

Soul Reaping. People should just use more e-denial or find other ways around it. It's going to be useless, as are necros, unless you and your team stop messing with it.

Sin nerfs I expected, as did a lot of people. But simply wanting to shake up the metagame isn't a perfect justification for this.

Here is my proposal. Not that my advice holds much weight, but I am sure many share my opinion. Why don't you just change how skills function in the PvP and PvE worlds?

What I mean is this: PvPers can have their little metagame. The balance changes can affect them. Leave PvE skills alone, things aren't nearly as broken here because AI reacts differently to skills than other players do. Split the worlds and how skills function within them. I know it may require a lot of coding changes, but these nerfs are going to continue to ruin the PvE scene. They're the cancer that's killing it, as well as PvE guilds. These continued actions are going to choke the life out of it.

My guild and others are ailing because of it.

Every build has a counter. Once counters become prevalent, builds stop being used. Nerfs don't change that as much as one may think.

I and many others are seriously considering not buying GW2 as well as quitting this game because of all the constant nerfings. We're running out of ideas. Split the worlds, make PvP and PvE versions of skills that function separately. If people want a bridge, they can still take characters back and forth.

But I do ask: Do you even consider PvE before your team does nerfs? And if so, how much? We are one side of the world that obviously isn't considered as much as the other. I know people will say Eye of the North was for us. We appreciate Eye of the North. But we don't appreciate constant nerfs that weren't warranted by our actions. We're not happy with suffering because of things we didn't cause.

Seriously consider reversing a few things, especially the pet corpses and Soul Reaping. That is going to be largely unpopular and many are going to view this as unnecessary.

Thanks for allowing me to speak my mind here. I hope you read this, as do others. PvE players are not second-rate GW citizens, and our voices should be heard. We paid money to enjoy ourselves, and now that enjoyment is being slowly taken away for irrelevant purposes to our interests.

Tristan Darkedge - Guild Leader of The Misanthropes [TM]

There's only so much you can counter with 8 people. Unlike PvE, where you only have to build for your area that you are planning to play in, in PvE, your 8 person team has to be able to counter every possible build that can be thought out. This is done with versatile skills and general use of higher-utility skills that base their effectiveness on player skill instead of build counters. This is the way that the game has to be played simply due to the mechanics of the playstyle. Saying that something shouldn't be nerfed because there are counters to it is plain retarded. Have you ever tried to E-deny a necro spirit spammer? It's retarded. You're not going to be able to have any build that can pump out that much sustained and unmitigateable e-denial without it being abused and turned against other classes without as good of e-management, such as monks. So basically, while I agree with your premise that PvE-only skills should be looked at (ahem, Ursan Blessing nerf?), I believe Izzy will agree with me in that, in PvE, it really doesn't matter because you only have to build against one area, even if it is composed of multiple individual areas and that with that set goal in mind, it is very possible to make up several types of builds and strategies to beat it, no matter how skill balance is carried out. In PvP though, skill balance is very important and requires constant attention.

Oh, and Izzy,please buff the crappy skills that have potential instead of the ones that are pretty much relegated to trash. Notice how most of the really good balance decisions doesn't come from adjusting the numbers, but by changing skill descriptions 129.25.135.63 03:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As PvX player I second this (save for the PvE supremacy rant). You've just removed a fundamental aspect of the game. What's next, necros get -1 pip of energy regen because they have soul reaping? Its already bad enough he have the horrible crap that will soon be GW2 pvp to look forward to, but did you have to destroy GW1 pvp too? There goes my idea of founding a pvp guild...--Mortazo 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Um wow. PvE was affected by this? If your MM can play worth a damn he won't care about the pet corpse nerfs. In PvP, though, corpses are supposed to be at a premium; having dead pets allows for loads of level 0 bone minions, which are essentially free energy. EW nerf: take your time playing. This one also blew PvP out of proportion. If you're doing HM with Ineptitude, that's fine, but keep in mind there's better options out there (and always have been). There's no way around Soul Reaping, which is why it's being nerfed. Sin nerfs aren't "shaking up the metagame"; they're simply killing the overpowered builds. That's kind of what balance does.

Your suggestion of a PvE-PvP split has been suggested before, many times. It is not feasible. Read the old suggestions to find out why.

Every build should have a counter. The ones addressed in the current nerfs do not. If you played Hero's Ascent - which I'm not blaming you for not doing, as up until now it wasn't worth the time - you'd know that. Because there is no counter, Izzy is nerfing the build. It's about time, but he's doing it pretty well, I'd say. Armond 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, EW is not much worse than QZ. Even so, trapping is unreliable. Armond 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Protip: Underworld trapping = EW + QZ. You need both. --71.229.204.25 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I mean. You still have to wait for QZ to recharge; may as well wait the extra ten seconds or so for EW while you're at it. =\ Armond 08:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm? The main problem here is that EW is in Beast Mastery while trappers typically need to run high in Expertise and Wilderness Survival. Without a major investment in BM, EW's duration is so short you might as well not take spirits at all. --Valshia 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Protip: the UW is designed for multiple-player teams. Any builds that can solo it are beyond design specifications and thus have no real argument of "entitlement" to be viable.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell solo-traps UW, especially in a PvE guild? That's no fun. --71.229.204.25 07:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of underused, yet very potent PvX skills left. Try new things...not variations on the same tank/nuker/monk strategy, but actually NEW things. I do not mean this offensively, but some people tend to get a little stuck in their way of thinking in this game. Nicky Silverstar 07:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And FYI to 71.229.204.25; duo-trappers. Try it sometime, it's a hell of a lot faster and doesn't use either one of the Spirits for the run. Hardest part of the run is finding someone to do it with. --

Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When trapping UW with your trapper team, now you need 2 people who have 12+ points in best mastery because of EW, that really sucks now. 80.133.56.53 10:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My annoyance with the EW nerf is that it greatly restricts the domain of viable trapper builds. Yes, duo-trapping works without the spirits but I don't think we should be restricted to that in UW. --Valshia 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sir Tristran Darkedge, let me answer you point by point (I should be enough since good ol' Izzy should be busy fixing GvG).

PvE skills: some were retardedly good and took away what little skill you needed to be successful in PvE. "Save Yourselves!" ought to be next IMHO.
Animals: yes, it's because of spiritway.
EW nerf: how about you stop wiki-gimmicking UW with trappers like all the other 40+ PvE focused guilds and try to come up with something else (gods forbid, balanced)?
Ineptitude: PvP folks would've left it the way it was (seems like the problem is Clumsiness), but... you need to be more powerful for HM? Is this a joke? SY + 3 necro build much? You do realize that balancing skills for HM would utterly destroy PvP or even NM PvE, right?
Soul Reaping: due to its nature, it's never been a good primary attribute for PvP and has only been powerful when abused in multiple copies. And no, it's not possible to effectively e-denial it.
Sins: 1 2 3 4 5 kill characters have no place in Guild Wars, and it took Izzy long enough to make up his mind on the matter.

PvE is considered in the balance, but for obvious reasons (such as RL prizes at stake) PvP comes first. As much as we'd all like it, it's not possible to differentiate the way skills work in PvE and PvP because it'd require major redesign. We can only hope something of the sort will be done for GW2, since they're starting from scratch. --Akaraxle 13:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For the records, I'm a PvE only player and I'm very fond of the latest changes. With changes to things that didn't matter in PvE (like Soul Reaping getting energy from spirits), hopefully we may avoid changes that would matter in PvE (like a new nerf to how much energy Soul Reaping gives when minions or pets die). I also disagree with splitting PvE and PvP skills - both need balance, and I think often something overpowered in PvP will also be overpowered in PvE. Erasculio 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes because PvE & PvP aren't different at all and Oppressive Gaze & Energizing Wind was so damn overpowered in PvE and everyone run necro healers there too. Even if the only reason for the nerf is VoD or Hero Battles its automatically overpowered in PvE thats awesome logic. Often something overpowered in pre searing will also be overpowered anywhere else and if echo mending would be overpowered in PvP then it is also overpowered in PvE you are absolutely right. 80.133.91.145 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring all the extreme ends of the story, why aren't you running necro healers in PvE? Armond 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you running barrage rangers in PvP ? Its great in PvE it must be great in PvP too right ? You see, it doesn't work this way. 80.133.91.145 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm running necro healers in pve D: — Skuld 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PvP is much, much harder than PvE. No matter what's the attack speed or the level of the enemies, nothing beats players who are capable of adapting and planning ahead. As a result, a lot of things work in PvE and don't work in PvP (it is harder, after all); but many (almost all, IMO) of the things that work in PvP work in PvE, and many of the things that are overpowered against eight thinking human beings will be overpowered against a dumb AI. Erasculio 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, Erasculio. Firstly, I rarely play PvP, and 99% of the time I farm/quest in PvE. Sure, PvP is hard, but PvP and PvE are both harder than each other in different aspects of that part of the game. General, average Joe, NM questing PvE is easier than facing 6 experienced SFs, an RC monk, and an LoD monk. But is that team build harder to beat than, say, Rotscale HM? Gate of Madness HM? Also, to all of the ArenaNet skill balancing group, and to the player community I suppose, shouldn't a player be rewarded with good loot or HoH chests for figuring out a good build that takes advantage of what's given to them? IMO, it shouldn't be "Oh shit, this great team build is really getting used a lot in HoH. Nerf time!". Some person spends time capping/buying skills, looking over them, toying with runes and insignias, seeing how this could benefit from other party members' builds, choosing attributes, modifying weapons, and convincing other people that it works, then perfecting it just for the nerf button after a week or two of fun? Bring back pet corpses, too, please, as my cat doesn't suddenly go POOF when it kicks the bucket. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with the PvE/P skill split. Cap Barrage, you also get the PvP version of it. Because necro healers aren't title farming, and B/P isn't running through HoH. Calor - talk 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be fail. If you don't play PvP, don't try to compare them. Yes, they are just as good as the AI, if not better, no matter how overpowered the AI is - simply because making things attack faster and do more damage has many simple counters. Also, in PvP, people don't go out and buy equipment and unlock stuff; the good teams (which are the ones that start this stuff) are UAX, and simply look for the overpowered shit. Everything before actually using the build takes maybe half an hour, tops. And a week or two of fun? This has been going on for half a year. Anet isn't nerfing things because it's "getting used a lot in HoH"; they nerf because there's no counter and no feasible way to beat the build. If that affects PvE, too bad; Guild Wars was originally made for PvP, and it's about time the focus moved away from PvE and to PvP. Either way, if you don't fail at game, you can work around the nerfs in PvE. If you can't, I suppose you'll fall into the group of people that are complaining about the TNTF nerf? Armond 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Guild Wars was originally made for PvP, and it's about time the focus moved away from PvE and to PvP". Uhm. Ok...

br12 • 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason at all to balance guild wars for pve, those who plays it can get through every mission/quest with any skills they'd like. Also buffing skills for pve will destroy pvp totally, the balance for pvp is a thin line between good and bad, buffing skills for pve will make skills overpowered in pvp. Just go with whatever u like and complete whatever u want, its easy, but dont bother them about pve cuz izzy is deaf to ur whining. --Cursed Angel 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a paradox. Either players can get through everything in PvE with any skill, and so all skills are good enough, or PvE would need such powerful skills that buffing them so they're good for PvE would make them overpowered in PvP. The statement that GW has originally made for PvP is a falacy, especially when you consider how much more of the game (missions, quests, NPCs, text, voice acting, enemy models, enemy AI, etc) has been made for PvE than for PvP (not to mention how it has been said by those who work/ed with the game that it has always meant to be about both PvE and PvP). The problem of overpowered skills in PvE (or one of them) is how they remove the need for the kind of thinking Calor mentioned - if there's something obviously better than everything else, you don't have to think about what skills you are going to use, you just take the overpowered skills and that's it. Some nerfs in the game were like that, but there are still some skill combinations that are much better than everything else (for example, take someone with Spoil Victor, someone else with Spiteful Spirit and Reckless Haste, and even Gates of Madness HM becomes easy), be it thanks to the skills themselves being good (like Searing Flames) or to the mechanics of the PvE game (like the above example in Gate of Madness - the enemy AI does not always have hex removal, nor does it know how to deal with punishment hexes like SS, and the faster attack rate in HM make those skills even more powerful). Erasculio 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Erasculio, take your "fallacies" somewhere else. The game was originally made for PvP. When it first came out, the focus was entirely on PvP. Playing through the PvE gives your average player about zero reasoning as to why the game was named "Guild Wars", while simply looking at the term "guild verses guild" does. Since then, the focus has shifted almost entirely to PvE (re: Nightfall and EotN, and it started before then). Do your research before arguing. All skills are good enough for PvE, it's just that 95% of the population doesn't know how to use them and/or fails at game. Try finding me an area in PvE where you don't have a chance to be kicked if you don't follow a build that has been approved by the community at large (heal monk, tank, nuker, ursan, or mm, really). The vast majority of PvErs stick to these few builds and refuse to use or even accept any others. For your GoM example, it's always easy anyway. The most difficult part is Shiro and the Lich, and they... aren't. Take any sort of holy damage and the Lich dies easy. Take any sort of stance removal and Shiro does no damage. A Balthazar derv can take out the Lich easily, a Melandru derv can tank Shiro pretty easily, a couple Paragons provide the party all the defense it needs, and eles, mesmers, necros, and rangers can stuff them both full of conditions and hexes. (Now you're going to complain about Impossible Odds. This is why your Melandru derv is tanking Shiro and your Balthazar derv isn't.) Armond 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PvE players who find the game unplayable after the last update should do the rest of us a favor and leave the game. Izzy has enough to deal with without megabytes of hysteria from uncreative drones. —S3 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Armond, "research" would tell you that "Guild Wars" also happens to be the name of an event in the lore of the PvE game. Spare me the claims that 95% of the population doesn't know what it's doing (but oh look, of course you do!), and spare me the baseless claims that "The game was originally made for PvP" - if you haven't noticed, repeating the same baseless claim over and over won't make it true. It's obvious that a huge investiment in Prophecies was made for the PvE game - or do you think voice acting was free? That no one got paid to write all the text in the PvE part of the game? That no designer was hired to create the quests and missions? If you really think all that took considerably less effort and less resources than designing the PvP content Prophecies had, well, I guess logic and reason must be foreign concepts. Erasculio 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GW was designed to be a good pvp game with pve tacked on to make sales. PvE is where the money is. And a good proportion of players are ignorant, I won't make actual assumptions as to the numbers. Lord of all tyria 21:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to have such insight directly from the design team. Tell me, since you know so well the design decisions behind the game, how much of Prophecies' cost was invested in PvP, and how much of that cost was invested in PvE? Since "the focus was entirely on PvP", we would expect the great majority of resources to have been spent on PvP...Right? Erasculio 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And you are part of the design team? Any argument made with you goes round in circles. I'm done. Lord of all tyria 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's simple, IMO. We have a very large PvE game in Prophecies - unless Arena Net found a way to make a game without any cost, it had to take a considerable amount of both time and money to make it as it is. The PvP game itself is, in comparison, rather limited - when you consider number of maps, character art design and etc, there's no comparison between PvE and PvP. Therefore, the assumption that "the focus was entirely on PvP" would only be possible if it were possible to make the PvE without such investiment of time and money. Add to this how the GW staff itself has told us that, from the beginning, GW was meant to have both PvE and PvP well developed, and...We have evidence against that idea. Any evidence for it? Erasculio 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether GW was originally made for PvP or not, PvPers should not lose sight of the fact that "PvE is where the money is" (Lord of all tyria's own words). If PvP game balance has ill affects on PvE, GW (and GW2) will be dead from lack of sales. It is generallly not OK to narrow the number of viable builds in PvE for the sake of PvP balance. It's not good enough that there will always be another option to counter the environment in PvE, because the lack of variety in options will make many PvEers get bored and leave the game. And if too many PvEers leave, GW will be dead (including PvP). --Ctran 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So, pve players always find new ways to do what they liek, complete missions and farming, whatever a skill balance does to pve the results never hurt as much as the pvp would hurt if izzy balanced after pve. Think again, pve players who leaves only because of a skill balance dont have a life, u cant say that people leave cuz of izzy stay deaf to pve. The money, yes, its already in their hands, they care about the pvp community and thats what they should do, go to wow with all the other losers if u want roleplay or pve, enough said. --Cursed Angel 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Narrow the number of viable builds? Lack of variety? Prior to this nerf, everyone was playing B/P in tombs. Now that's some variety. The predictability in PvE leads to certain builds for every area which are considered to be the best. I'd say constant changes to the game balance are the only way to maintain variety, so be thankful. ;) - TeleTeddy 01:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Teddy, regarding B/P I agree with you. I play a B/P often, and even I don't think Barrage should have received a boost. What I was thinking of when I said narrowing viable builds was the Shadow Prison assassin nerfs. Horns of the Ox and Black Lotus Strike do have their uses in other assassin builds. But that's just a symptom. My main point is that skills should not be balanced for PvP without considering the impact on PvE. Those who say PvE impact does not matter are disregarding the feelings of a large section of the GW community, and without the PvE community Anet would not have the sales to continue to support their game. --Ctran 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PvE needs monster skill bars that vary. No matter how the skills are balanced, there will always be a best build for any given area. This is because of static skill bars. In PvE, it is the predictability and dumb AI that limit the builds, not the balance of skills. That and the unlimited energy on monsters, that doesn't help some builds either. --Deathwing 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pick your poison really. What works on Shiro/Lich/Abaddon/Whoever's AI isn't going to work against your human player. So you can make the PvE'ers happy, and make everything nice and fair for them, while leaving PvP in discombobulation and screaming because xxxxxxway is running rampant, or you can perfectly balance PvP, and leave PvE'ers kicking things because the only viable build is ursanway or something. But splitting the systems, imo, so that PvE skills aren't the same as PvP, would eb a logical (yet likely complicated) thing to do. Soul Reaping gets taken away in PvP for whatever reason. Fine. Pets have no corpses in PvP. Whatever. But those aren't needed to be nerfed in PvE. But on the other hand, say some solo build is taking PvE by storm, but is normal in PvP. Fix it in PvE, but the PvP version is unaffected. Cap a skill in PvE, you also unlock its counterpart in PvP. Seems viable, on paper at least, but I don't know how it can be implemented, coding-wise. Calor - talk 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution would be to add more profession-specific PvE skills. -- Gordon Ecker 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Erasculio. If you want more proof than this that the game was originally made for PvP, then god help you, and I'm an atheist. Armond 09:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

true, u cannot say that its a pve game, the name is guildwars ffs. also, im satanist. down with christianity!!--Cursed Angel 09:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, your entire evidence about how the "game was originally made for PvP" is a video showing that PvP is important? Despite how (very, very obviously) PvE is also important? Despite the obvious huge investiments that have been made in PvE, the ones that I have mentioned multiple times and you have completely ignored (which isn't really your fault, given how there's no counter argument to that)? The idea that the game has been made so both PvP and PvE are important is really that hard to accept? Erasculio 11:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Guild Wars was originally designed to be heavily PvP-focused, but ArenaNet decided at some point in the developement process to make PvE a major aspect of the game. Both PvE and PvP are important, I don't think it really matters which one more important, both sides of the community need to be respected, and asking ArenaNet to neglect one side of the game is asking them to shoot themselves in the foot. -- Gordon Ecker 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, Erasculio, did you really miss the part where Mike O'Brien said that "Guild Wars was designed from the ground up for play on a competitive level"? Armond 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, Armond, did you really miss the part where the game obviously had a huge investiment in the PvE game? Did you miss the comments that both PvE and PvP are important? Did you miss how large is the PvE game when compared with the PvP game? Have you noticed that you have not bothered to reply to a single of the many arguments behind why PvE clearly has always been important to Arena Net? Mike O'Brien's comment is exactly what I mentioned above - it makes clear that PvP is important. So is PvE. Erasculio 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

you just dont get it do you? First of i dont know why this is still discussed.. its like a war with pvp on one side and pve on the other, its not getting anywhere. but do you really think that the game should be balanced after pve? I mean.. alot of skills would destroy pvp completly and pve players can complete the campaigns with whatever skills they want, i've completed factions with my assassin and i only used deadly arts. Farming, there are no reason to collect 15k armors as they all give the same defense, there are no reason to get things anyway, grinding titles or farming is for nerds, but thats my opinion. Just accept it, izzy wont balance the skills so theyre good in pve, just look at mesmers, everyone would be mesmers in pvp if they got buffed to be useful in pve. the assassin is another pvp profession and is retarded in pve cuz izzy dont want it to be awsome in pvp, just face it, u roleplayers and farmers got ur pve-skills in eotn, nightfall had alot of pve too. lol i wrote too much. --Cursed Angel 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

...Oookay, where have I said that the game should be balanced after PvE? o.O IMO, skill balance in PvP is more important than skill balance in PvE, since PvE has different ways to be adjusted (like by changing the skills of the enemies and other characters there, or mob composition, or environment effects, and so on). The discussion above, and the point I was trying to make, is not that skill balance should focus in PvE and ignore PvP - that would be a disaster, IMO. Rather, my point is that GW is aiming (and has always aimed) to be a very good PvP game, and a very good PvE game. Not one or the other. Erasculio 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what do u do on the skill balancers talk page if u dont talk about skill balances, go bother Gaile cuz izzy dont care. Also, I see no problem with pve --Cursed Angel 17:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I was just mentioning how the above mentioned idea that GW was made as a PvP only game was wrong. PvE has some problems (like you said, Mesmers aren't that useful in some parts of PvE, but changing some elements of PvE design would make them more useful without a single skill buff), but like you said, that's a discussion for somewhere else. Erasculio 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Guild Wars was originally PvE http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PBS620H12HA Notice the guilds gathering to take on AI. ;) So the claim, "Guild Wars was originally made for PvP, and it's about time the focus moved away from PvE and to PvP" Is nothing more than a fallacy as Erasculio stated earlier on.

Oh yes I remember when there was no such thing as PVP only characters; you always had to start as a PVE character 134.154.249.239 19:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Skills available in PvP should balance primarily for PvP. PvP requires much more precise balance because any options that exist will be available to both sides. Any changes made that affect PvE, on the other hand, can be offset by either adjusting the content or by adjusting the PvE-only skills. That's the entire reason PvE-only skills were added.

Oh yeah, and MMs are easy mode, they always have been easy mode, crying about them becoming less effective is pathetic. Riotgear 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My MM hero always dies...Nicky Silverstar 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't take MM's with me. Way too slow for me. It is easier to just plow through the whole game with Paragons without even needing to stop for regen. --Deathwing 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, Anet is running a business here. The idea of a business is to please the customers (or at least a large majority), so they will come back and buy again (GW2). Im sorry to break it to you, but the majority of GW players do PvE, and even if GW was origninaly intended to be a PvP game, a lot more effort was put into making the PvE world a satisfactory experience. Just like PvP isnt about winning one battle in the HoH, PvE isn't about just beating all the missions. There are aspects of the game that have a very high replay value, like the UW and tombs. Changing the skills based solely on PvP is not the way to do it. Those of us who are more "hardcore" players might do a lot of PvP, and be fine with putting a lot of emphasis on that part of the game. In fact, most of the people reading or writing in this wiki would fall under that category. However, anet does not get any more money from us than the average joe who has bought 4 campaigns and plays 30 mins of PvE after work. The majority of player opinion needs to be considered, not just those who are most vocal. Ashes Of Doom 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As a primarily pve player, the main concern I've had with all these skill changes is that they haven't then gone back and checked that pve is still balanced at the appropriate levels. Pve is designed to have a certain level of difficulty and skill changes after that can have a big impact. The change to the WOH and how it effected the crystal desert showed this, but ANet have fixed that so maybe they are keeping an eye on it after all. PvE is generally more flexible than pvp because of the "you can just try it again" aspect, so I can understand why PvP drives most of the changes. Sadie2k 19:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, they can't go back and check if they're balanced for PvE. As the Crystal Desert update showed, they're better off (and it makes more sense) just changing PvE to suit the PvP changes. --Akaraxle 09:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny how he hasn't commented on this at all yet. 69.54.16.26 01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't, most of those comments are just blaming. He's just doing his work... PvP balance affects PvE, yeah, but PvE ir by FAR more versatile than PvP. When a skill is nerfed it gets out of PvP being replaced by more useful skills, in PvE most of them still work nicelly. - Rayd 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are more skills available for PvE, you know exactly what you'll be facing in PvE and can consequently stack your entire group to beat it, and the content can be adjusted if the skills become ineffective. There simply is no reason to balance skills around PvE, because there are other ways of keeping PvE in line. PvP is never so simple.

As for the increased PvE emphasis: A strong PvE component attracts more players, and the quality of the PvE campaign has been one of the major factors that discouraged people from getting GW1. PvP is more dependent on post-release support, and actually requires far less work to implement because it only requires a fraction of the content creation. I'm betting they also learned that quality is better than quantity, seeing as later campaigns shrunk in zone count while being significantly more polished. Riotgear 06:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I did pay for the PvE experience of GW. If you think PvP is all GW is about, why is there even a PvE world? If ANet and NCSoft doesn't care about the PvE players and says to me "screw you", then I'll just stop bothering GW, not buy anymore of their products, let them fall into MMO Hell with FFXII and EverQuest and the rest, and go play WoW, or at least spend my money on a company that cares about providing me with the services and products I request. It's coming to the point that if GW2 doesn't offer seperate skillsets for PvP and PvE, I'm just not going to buy it. I don't need to pay money to be subjected to all this grief...Mouret Chamdar

Observations on the Team Arenas[edit]

I played a lot of Team Arena recently, playing it is really fun. However, here is what I (currently) don't like about TA:

Gameplay issues
- Runner teams, mostly spiking. You can't snare them, because their build is prepared for that, you can't kill them, because they run all the time. If they ever manage to kill an enemy, they have won. If they do not manage to kill someone, the game's going to be very boring anyway.
- Spirit teams, mostly spiking. Nearly the same as runner teams, except that you can't engage them in within their spirits (if they can play), because that will get you killed eventually, leading to enemy victory. You can't kill them either, because again, their build is overly defensive.
- Minor, but I'll mention it anyway: Spots (on bridges) where you can't shoot or be shot at, because you have no line of sight (no matter where your target/attacker stands). Some people exploit that to be immune to ranger interrupts or spear chunkers.
Balance issues, sorted by relevance
- Warmonger's Weapon: Last night we saw a ranger with a pet and Otyugh's Cry (pet can't be blocked) and Warmonger's Weapon on the pet - it was a "bring blind or lose" situation. Warmonger's Weapon on a spear chunker, another very devastating possibility: Bring both, and you finally can't do anything.
- Paradox Sins: Not as good as they used to be, but still a problem. Knockdown spam is just so deadly in TA, because you either have to bring Aura of Stability (requiring secondary monk with specced prot prayers) or a second healer to mitigate it. In other words: You have to bring extra defense to withstand it, because your main healer is knocked down most of the time.
Minor Balance issues, sorted by relevance
- Corrupt Enchantments: It's so powerful in 4vs4 formates. Most builds rely on various enchantments (especially for defense), and there are few alternatives to that. Bringing a Corrupt Necro not only leaves you without enchantments (you can't rely on them any more at least), but adds insanely powerful pressure. In most cases, the possibility not to use any enchantments at all isn't a viable alternative.
- Bunny Thumpers: Still very strong in 4vs4, but you have to bring something vs melee anyway
- Spear Chunker/Pack Hunter: Very strong in 4vs4, too.
- I was going to list Ineptitude/Clumsiness Mesmers here, but that was cared for already. *g*

I'd wish I could offer some ideas how the (gameplay) issues could be solved, but frankly, I have no idea. Yet encountering runner-spikers is the most annoying part about playing TA. As for the spirit teams: Introduce some mechanism that discourages bringing huge amounts of spirits without destroying the possibility to bring few (see discussion above, for example).

Greetings, TeleTeddy 10:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So you want something to be completely gone with something you have a little problem with? ----InfestedHydralisk

18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I read it a few times now, and I thought hard - but I didn't get the meaning. Further explanations needed. - TeleTeddy 01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're suggesting line of sight blocks to be removed? How mindless do you want the game to be? — Skakid9090 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what he is suggesting. There is a common glitch in the game that pretty much works everytime, so all you have to do is stand against one of the walls on a bridge and you cannot be hit by projectiles. There is nothing actually blocking your line of sight, but the game says there is. It should be fixed is what he is saying. 69.137.78.47 23:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's bloody annoying in tombs. "Your view of the target is obstructed." I'M WHACKING HIM WITH MY BOW EVERY TIME I TURN TO FIRE! Armond 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pious renewal[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Underpowered_Skills/Dervish

Health Runes/Insignias and of Fortitude Weapon/Off-hand Upgrades[edit]

Remember back in Prophecies the game was balanced around players having about 480 health but now everybody in pvp just wants more health like around 600. It should be scaled back a bit by reducing the effects of Health Runes and of Fortitude Weapon/Off-hand Upgrades.

Suggested changes:

change of Fortitude to +5-15 health instead of +10-30
change Rune of Vitae to +5 health each
Minor Vigor +20 health.
Major Vigor provides a bonus of +30 health.
Superior Vigor provides a bonus of +40 health.

With these changes health/survivor insignias could be kept as-is. 134.154.250.212 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think playings having high health is a bad thing? 69.137.78.47 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

High health unbalances the game because extra health is like having extra levels but the game is supposed to be balanced around players at Level 20. You get 20 health per level gained. So 100 health is equivalent to Level 1; 280 is Level 10; 480 is Level 20; and 600 health would be Level 26. Let's say you equipped Superior Vigor Rune + 4 Runes of Vitae + 5 Survivor Insignias + 1 of Fortitude Mod that equals (480+50+40+40+30) = 640 health = Level 28.

Now how is that balanced at all because Level 28 > Level 20 (28 is much greater than 20) and of course you'd expect a Level 20 to lose to a Level 28 or 26 in a fight (one on one at least). This is also why PVE can be relatively easy because even though enemies in endgame areas are Level 24 and up, you the player can also match or surpass their level in a way by equipping health runes.

So what I'm suggesting is that health mods be scaled back. It will make the game harder in pve (some players won't like that) but more balanced in pvp (and maybe pve as well) like it should be. This kind of change was done before when Superior Vigors were nerfed to the current +50 health. But they need to be nerfed again with all the new Runes of Vitae, Survivor Insignias, and of Fortitude mods that have increased health way too much.

I would like to see maximum health with mods to be around 560 (Level 24) like it was in the days of Prophecies only. But even with my suggested changes, equipping Superior Vigor Rune + 4 Runes of Vitae + 5 Survivor Insignias + 1 of Fortitude Mod would yield (480+40+20+40+15) = 595 health = Level 26...that's better. I guess Survivor Insignias could then be changed to have a flat +5 health on any armor piece instead of +15/+10 for chest/leg. That would take the total down to 580...getting closer. Level 20s do have a fighting or reasonable chance against at Level 24/25 (560/580). But you should know the difference between level 20 (480) and 28 (640) is too much and that's why the high health due to the current health mods is a bad thing. 134.154.249.239 19:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The extra health is necessary in the current meta. The damage people can do now is ridiculous, and having the extra health is the only way to protect against some spikes. --Reklaw 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is by far one of the best suggestions I heard so far in this page. Everyone is yawning and complaining about this that are so crazily staple that they are a *must* for pvp. See Avatar of Grenth before the hammer, the Tree, etc.. BUt what about high health? however, Reklaw makes a point: High health is needed to survive the crazy spike-impa pressure meta which frankly should've been fixed by cutting the hearty auto attack damage wars, dervs and paras have. Also, DW, as ensign said looong ago, is a beast that needs to be looked at. But nerfing the health mods, let's take this a bit further: Lower the INSANE health penalties on runes - This has been coming for a looong time. Sup runes are used never, 'cause the health penalty is just crazy ass insane. Cut it back down to 50-45 health and maybe SUPERIOR runes are used more often. Izzy is so interested in fixing the diversity issue, he needs to hit things like rof, auto attacks, the imba defence that comes with shields, DW, but of course, he won't. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.107.157.205 .

You fail, in the game and in life.--User:Deathwing 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NPA much? You Fail is comment that, I'm sure, makes a lot sense to some people, but not those trying to reason. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.107.157.205 .

A suggestion this bad doesn't require reason. --User:Deathwing 21:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you scared of dying because you won't have 600+ health anymore? 134.154.249.239 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe when all the imba damage is nerfed, but until then.. — Skuld 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well how about reducing the health mods first, then using that to determine which damage sources need to be fixed. I hope Izzy is the correct person to talk to about this because it's not just the skills that need balancing but the equipment as well. 134.154.249.239 22:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Epic fail. Arguing that higher health means higher level is just fail. Dying Nightmares have 100 hp in normal mode and are level 18. Attribute runes of all kinds artificially raise your number of allocable attribute points, also raising your level in this sense. And again, until the game isn't so damage-heavy, yes, we do want our 600+ hp. (As for the skills and things that cause this ...) Armond 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, missed one. Armond 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Rangers. --

Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The game has been balanced around the maximum possible health with items/insignias as they are now. Reducing them now would amount to having to re-evaluate everything. There is no good reason to do this. Lowering health will promote spike builds in GvG.

Superior Runes should be -60 health to be more useful. 87.189.247.181 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I know everyone here seems to already hate pve, but think what the changes you propose would do to pve. The ability to have high health is key to many pve builds.Ashes Of Doom 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I encountered someone in AB who said I was a noob for not having 600 health in PvP...is it just me or are more and more people dictating how I should play the game? Nicky Silverstar 08:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

@247.181: Sure, the health penalty could be lowered to -60, but the uproar from every user who plays or ever played a 55 Monk, or 105 Dervish, or one of the many other low-HP builds? It just wouldn't be worth it to make a change like that. I think health is fine as it is; there's lots of wiggle room for PvE builds, and most PvP builds. Highly-tuned builds are always going to figure out ways to get the most out of what health they've got. Making a change to such a basic mechanic of the game just wouldn't have much of a positive effect. --

Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the health reduction is fine. Majors were brought down, if anyone remembers, because no one wanted to use them because the health reduction was too close to superiors'. Superior health reduction hits pretty hard, but you're also completely maxing out your atts. I think things are fine the way they are, even though it's painful carting around a sup healing on my monk instead of a major sometimes. --Reklaw 10:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The list of the IMBA[edit]

The following post is made under the assumption that Izzy wants diversity in the game.

The following post is made under the assumption that izzy wants balance in the game.

Izzy, for the past 2.5 years, GW is dominated by a few elite skills that have been increasing every campaign. NOw, these skills are not the FoTM.. They are a must if the carrier of this skill is to win at all. These skills are so frikkin powerful that entire classes are built around them. These skills need to be hit.

These skills have been running and ruining the DIVERSITY in the game. For a very long time.

Warrior:

Auto Attack Damage: This is insane. For no cost at all, no brains, no nuthing whatsoever, a CLASS is capable of dealing increadable pressure with just swinging a weapon - The damage on these weapons need to be hit, severely. As it is, every team in GW runs at least a single melee (Better teams run up to three melee) and, have an increadable DPS. Needs to be toned down.

Frenzy: It has been loong coming. The ability to compress these super dmg attacks even faster during spikes is just imba. If auto attakcs and weapon damage is not hit, this needs to be.

Ranger:

Savage and D shot: D shot is perhaps one of the most powerful skills in the game, that has been languishing other ranger skills for years now. Both savage and D shot is super glued to the ranger bar, just because of the icreadable utility. Needs to be toned down.

Apply poison: One of the best pressure skills in the game, less only to auto attakcs of a dervish. Needs to be toned down along with these nut job pressure auto hits.

Monk:

Here lies the big list of Imba..

Shield of Deflection, Regeneration, Guardian, Aegis: Are currently musts for countering the Super-god-ultra-meaga-terra pressure melee can output. With the (proposed) nerf to auto attacks, these need to be toned down to be more balanced.

RoF: Arguably the best skill in the game. Needs to be hit.

Spirit bond, Prot Spirit: Again, hits are called for. These skils stop spikes to a gigantic degree it makes my head spin. they are arguably better than infuse health, as they do not come with the half health penalty. Every monk and some secondary monks pack these.. everywhere. You must. they are so frikking over powered that they are more important to monks than air is to carbon based life. Needs tone downing.

RC: Laughs at every condition out there. (That means laughing at pretty much everything, as conditions like blind, DW, cripple is so powerful that you must have them, and this becomes a must also)

Draw: Needs to be a little teeny bit worse, draw whores along with an RC monk laff at conditons.

This list will be updated in time.

Mesmer:

Diversion, Guilt, Shame: Diversion is a 50 sec disable upon usage, is a bane for all active builds. You wanted activity, right , izzy? This needs to be brought down in reload, cost, cast, and effect. Just make is less dense.

Clums: Laffs at melee, very formidable dmage, and not that hard to spam. Needs an increase in cost.

Ele:

B-surge, B-flash: Owns melee, and, with the changes to melee, these will be need to brought down. On second thought, hit all blind, make it 66% miss, to make them less must.

Orb, Hammer, Fireball, Spike skills etc: While I am a fan of these skills, These Do need to be hit. They are, with the proposed nerf targets, will become serious spike skills. If Spirit is nerfed, So will all teh ele spike skills.

GOLE: Needs a big hit. The pinacle in energy management, this needs to be hit a little bit, to lower the output of many diversity reducer builds.

Necro:

Is pretty much okay, with the SR atm. Indeed, necroes are an okay class...

...on second thought, hit parabond, THE best hex there is that ups all of a hex bar by 1000%.

The entire hex mechanic needs to be adjusted. Monks need better hex removal. My proposition is this: Let hexes easier to apply,and make them easier to remove.

ParagoN:

Is a god.

Paragon's IAS, the possibly the best one in the game, needs a big down tune. WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES, as some people seem to have a bone to pick with this idea, complimenting nerfs with other nerfs, the IAS and the spear damage is insane. Tone it down, please.

Defensive Anthem: Needs to be minorly hit, and don't cry about "OHHH CASTTIMEMAKES LIKE IT BALANCED!!!" I am also proposeing to nerfranger interrupts, am I not?

DPS: Need I say anything?

I left the list undone, I'lll make the updates that I think necessary in the future. Please do not make judgemental comments and snide remarks until the list is done.

so someone wants everyones health brought down and another damamge o.O wats next u want signets to cost less energy :P«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º» 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

plx reduce tewh nrgay on teh Keistone signetr, it suxor in teh pvp --Cursed Angel 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want no diversity in Elementalist bars, then, by all means, nerf Glyph of Lesser Energy...as for the blocking part, people should just bring 'cannot be blocked' skills. They may do less damage, but at least they hit. And don't complain about how they're useless if your target doesn't have blocking, because 95 out of a 100 teams use blocking. And like the person above said, your DPS is too high anyway, so you can afford to use a skill that does less damage than a blockable one. Nicky Silverstar 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? (Directed @ Not him whoever made the list! >.<) Jigoku 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

haha stop violating Guild Wars Wiki:No Sarcasm.--Cursed Angel 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pssst.....(That's a rejected policy). :X Jigoku 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Play a necro do you? All I say is delete stuff like this because it's just clutter for this talk page. --Ckal Ktak 22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of your changes are really bad, overused =/= imba — Skakid9090 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol ... I can't tell if this guy is joking or not. Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt ansd assume (hope?) he just has a very dry sense of humor...208.118.30.103 12:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Skakid, no, I am not being entirely sarcastic, and, let me point to my first disclaimer - diversity. All these canges are suggested to improve that. If you are, and if izzy is fine with the diversity in the game right now, then by all means, ignore me. But shunning and sarcastic coments made by other users is, simply put, dogmatic.

Nerfing the only viable skills will not turn weak skills into valid alternatives and the underpowered skills section may explode one day because gw is full of underpowered skills. 87.189.254.164 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If these changes happen, a lot of players heads will explode. I think a less frightening option is just to buff the few hundred skills that suck. 69.137.78.47 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Just because some things are used often doesnt make them imba. savage and d shot - wihtout these being good few would bring a ranger. RoF- its a staple on a monk skill bar. It's is only good if it is used correctly (not spammed). Izzy wants to move away from spikes, prot spirit/bond are amazing because they stop spiking in their path. guilt/shame - they were nerfed because of Mantra of Recovery. If anything they should be buffed from their 30sec recharge (since Mantra of Recovery was nerfed). If you want people to use other skills, Izzy should buff bad skills, not nerf perfectly good ones.

Nuke every one of these super skills, and we'll see some diversity. We may even see monkless backlines BUT-NO-LOL-GASP-NOOB-THERMONUCLEAR BOMB That can't happen in GW... That is one of the problems with the "Elite" pvp class, they have a hard time adjusting and a hard time with unorthodox ideas. On a final note, I think it will be easier for izzy to nuke the super skills then buff weaker ones, as that will just bring mooooree and mooooooreeeee power creeep. Btw, leme point you to Aiinne, top posts, where she says: Nerfing one skill is easier than buffing hundreds. Me, I'd rather have all skills brought down or upgraded to a same level where every skill is usable (Which, happens to be, what izzy seems to try to achieve {or says that he is trying to achieve} and is what I had in mind when I wrote this list, which is incomplete at the time. Many other things need nukes, To start with:

Dervish:

Scyhtes.. scythes.. schythes... two handed obsidian flames as someone called, need to brought down a bit. The tree needs a nuke. Wearying is a little too good, but i'll leave it untouched. VIctorious sweep could be nuked a little bit, bit scary dps and healing, esp with the tree. The ultra fast activation skills turn dervishes into hellhounds, they at least need 10 sec reloads.

Assasin:

Dual attacks, overall, could use a litte downtune. The assasin skill availability is balanced atm and diverse enough, but, with the proposed changes, they will be dominating more than renoway. So, along with the proposed changes, the duals can use a little nuke.

Updating list...

Again, see the disclaimers on top before commenting.

Lol @ the idea that what is easier is better. Armond 21:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AS far as I gather, it is to Izzy. (The OP was made to izzy, btw)

Izzy has an excuse, he's working on GW2 for the fifteen people that are gonna buy it. You don't. If you're going to make a list of suggestions that is going to be archived and ignored, at least make them good suggestions. --71.229.204.25 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

like skills to buff instead of nerf o.O«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º» 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I gather we should be nerfing every possible thing that is good in Guild Wars classes. Let's make warriors, who have the STRENGTH (think about that) attribute, unable to do damage. Let's make a heavy ass scythe to minimal damage. Lets nerf this, lets nerf that. No offense buddy, but these ideas stink like rotten, oozing, maggoty potatoes. (Slight sarcasm and exaggeration in this post btw, but nonetheless hits the basic point.) -- Counciler 06:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Two points: 1) these changes are aimed at diversity, see discalimer one. 2) You cannot possibly tell me that izzy is not interested in diversity. 3) You also cannot possibly thing that warrior Auto hits are driving GW since day one. And finally, these canges are aimed at Izzy, and, it will be easier for him to implement as he is working on GW2. You have a point, of course, that buffing every skill instead of nerfing every viable skill is a better idea.

IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN!

Besides, some of these skills on this list are nuking diversity, see my first post.

I don't see how you'll increase diversity in the game by ruining skills. Especially, by ruining skills that are popular; If anything all that will do is force people to run skills they don't like until a new meta is found. If your really want to increase diversity it would be better to at least compensate for the skills you nerf. My .02$ Jigoku 16:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider this list to be the first part of a scientific procedure.

All of these suggestions are terrible. I am bored, and will provide a list of necessary buffs/reverts/nerfs when I get time this week. Readem 20:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

About 50% of the way done. Still awaiting any insight from Ensign or the Quitters. Readem 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost there, still WTB Quitter and Ensign Advice. Readem 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, Quitters responded. I'll post on guru, and ignore the bad people. --Readem 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that suspects this guy plays an Assassin, and badly? Every skill he's listed seems to point to that. --71.208.133.30 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god! You're right! AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hell yeah, dude, kudos to you! -- Counciler 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1) The list is incomplete. 2) I would bother completing it, but alas, I fail to meet reason from some of the people here. 3) No, I do not play an assasin. 4) I can't wait, redeam. Unless, of course, if you plan to make it the trollfest of the year, I'd be happy to listen to reason.

I have not yet managed to locate a post from readem providing anything similar to reason or logic. 69.137.78.47 01:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. Btw, after some delibration, I realized that the post above that suggested that I play an assain.. I see no logic behind it. I proposed to nuke duals, did I not? I think the ox update was most called for, as it was a highly powerful skill with a good effect, the lowerd damge was, IMHO, good under the proposed changes. but of course, some people may not grasp that I suggest these canges as a whole, and not "You can do these, any of these, and it is better." --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.103.58.99 .

Allow me to be the first to say, YOUR RETARDED. — Skuld 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your mom's retarded! :P Lord Belar 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

GWW:NPA ← Gordon Ecker 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

facepalm.jpg --71.229.204.25 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Class stacking is IMBA, many skills are "balanced around"/"nerfed because of" 6 characters of the same class to avoid abuse, leaving that skill underpowered for a single character of a mixed team. 87.189.217.45 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I even tried this. Izzy doesn't appear to read it, Izzy does not seem to care for it, people like readem just make fun of it to satisfy their egos. My bad.

W8, Did I read it right? Warriors have ultra high dps? You are not thinking of Assasins? I can tell you now, no matter what Melee class you are pissed off at: there is no way in hell some one can get high dps from Auto attacks alone. Biz 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ensign begs to differ. Armond 20:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ensign is not god. Do try to come up with your own ideas for once. However, in this case, he is right. Lord Belar 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't he? When did that happen? ;) Regardless, he knows far more about the game than I do, and I'm somewhat horrible at putting ideas into understandable words, so I end up linking to people who make sense a bunch. (On another note, sins are not DPS, they're spike...) Armond 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of different classes is to have Different Classes to play the game with, , I dont see the point in nerfing auto attacks on melee classes the next thing you will ask is shorter range and on the ranged weapons.

And nerf Fireball? Why? Its has a good casting time easy to counter if your good, and a 7 seconds recharge it's not spamable, and it's a classic it's Fireball the name says all.

Rreally what Ii really hate about this, is that most of these "posts" are ideas for pvp, people Anet didn't invest their time and resources to make Three whole Chapters and later an expansion, with story and a nice twist in the end, art and ingame worlds just in the end some one start to ask for nerfs on some skills and classes?

Especially since you didn't even made a full and properly structured list. You should have put some serious base and arguments and not personal ideias and taste before posting this. I will put my money on Readem's list, I might not agree with some things here but at least it will be done properly,

Besides Isaiah isn't force to read most of the things heres, he he reds them or not it's for him alone to judged Signed Cake and Waffles.

You seem to have a trouble with followup nerfs. Fireball and his bretheren are perfectly balanced skills atm, true, but AFTER WE NERF SPIRIT BOND AND PROT SPIRIT (Two of the biggest offenders in diversity battle) We will need to blow them as well, or the spike build backlash will be enourmous.

@ The user who said that wars did not have high dps, I do not worship Ensign, his writings are not holy scripture, and his words are not divine commands, but his amth is correct, sadly enough. I say sadly, because, his findings are, as I find it, utterly sad.

On a final note, the infnite energy mobs have should also get a little reduced. All the nerfs areaimed at PvP, and if pve'ers, a good portion of the GW society, don't get a bone, we all know what can happen.

And I updated my list, thanks for reminding me. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.107.253.42 .

Lol nerf spirit bond and prot spirit might as well take the whole monk class out. Antiarchangel 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

K you just listed the most balanced and crucial skills in the game. You're talking about redesigning the combat balance from the ground up, and most of this balance is pretty stable already so there's no point. Why nerf melee damage AND melee damage mitigators when you can leave both as they are?--Lodurr 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Also on a side note pve = easy. You know what skills a monster is going to use. Your fighting the same AI that controls henchies, and you get super overpowered pve skills. Gimme a break only reason pve is hard for some people is because they don't take the time to think up of a team build. Antiarchangel 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention Immortality and Invincibility. Antiarchangel 01:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what do I have to do make you or Izzy READ at all? Lodurr, these canges are NOT aimed at balance, and no, these are certainly not the most balanced skills there are. These skills are way too good, so good that they are standards on which new skills are judgesd, so good that they are stapled to nearly every wınnıng team there ıs. as for antıarchangel, right, you sound as if you never did any pve at all. One of the mistakes Izzy makes with balance is that it is made around PvP, and pve is always shoved aside with a sweeper becouse it is so easy. Well, no, not to the casual player, the BULK of the players in GW, and the BULK which hates this elitist attitude. And not everyone has a paragon pve char. GG. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.107.253.42 .

Well sorry if I don't want pointless buffs for pve because of some monk running breeze or a wammo who thinks mending is good. This game was from the start designed to more based on skill that grinding. So basically if a pve player keeps dying and losing, guess what there gonna do. Get better. And there not gonna get better if you give them super overpowered skills for pve. So basically just because it's pve doesn't mean it needs to be easy. Antiarchangel 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW the reason spirit bond and prot spirit is on everyone's bar is because there is nothing to replace it with. Unless we get another good spike catching skill, they will remain on the bar. Antiarchangel 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to the OP for being this bad at the game, not realizing it, and having the gall to post here and tell more experienced players they are bad. The relative balanced state of the game we have now should not be sacrificed for some misguided attempt to bring diversity into the game. The game is fun because you know to a reasonable extent what the other team is bringing to the table and can play accordingly. Assume (and with your changes it's a huge assumption) you manage to bring diversity into the game. Do you think people will have fun when they go into a match, not know what the other team is running, run into some build that is such a hard counter skill mechanic-wise that they might as well go AFK for the whole match because it would make no difference? Your changes, basically take what is effective for most of the professions, shove them into a hole, stick a bomb in said hole. And for what? All for the hope of bringing "diversity" into the game that will lead to situations where no matter what the relative skill level difference between two players are, their bars determine the outcome of the match. No thanks. Consider for the moment, just the possibility that you're wrong. Consider, that the players arguing against your idea are right and didn't just fail to see this brilliant revolutionary idea you are proposing.

One last thing I wanted to ask you. In all seriousness, do you play this game? --Jaen 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaen, yes, ı do happen to play the game, and yes, I did consider the possibility that I am wrong. HOwever, you should start questioning if I am right, and that perhaps there is the tiniest possibility that izzy actually wants diversity, which is one of the things he was raving about in his talk page. If diversity is not important, then, by all means, keep everything as it is. Play against the same team repeatedly, play against the same skill endlessly, fight the same recurring strategy.

Now, how fun is that?

You know, the more I think of your post, the more I start thinking that you really have no idea what the hell I am talking about. Nicky summed it up nicely, it is NOT fun playing against the same strategy over and over again. Open Obs. EVERY team runs the same thing. Only the minor diffarences and player skill (which has been, yes, a part of the pvp grind!) decide between victory or loss. YOu say that, and let me quote you: "And for what? All for the hope of bringing "diversity" into the game that will lead to situations where no matter what the relative skill level difference between two players are, their bars determine the outcome of the match. No thanks." Please rethink this. Why do you think bad players and good players share builds? (PvX wiki, but that is another disscussion) the same super skills are used becosue they are the only think that must be used, you MUST run these skills, and that is precisely the factor why people tend to fight the same builds over and over again. Real life example? Open Obs, and please restate what you just said.

@Antiarchangel, the ultra spike skills do need a nerf if we nuke prot spirit and spirit bond, and guess what? I did propose that, lowering the insane damage power creep that came with NF. SF needs a nerf, Lorb Wİll need a nerf if we get spirit and bond, and the list goes on.

On a final note, I used to think that both build making and build playig were EQUALLY important in GW. As far as I am concerned, that was the way GW started off a couple of years ago, and back in proph, we did see many diverse builds players ran. Of course, with the introduction of NF powercreep, obs mode (which, basicly, allows medium players to copy paste builds without doing any thinking whatsoever) etc. we lost all that diversity. I dunno - maybe it's just me. The very art of making builds is gone down the drain becouse you staple a couple of must skills on your bar, and whatever that is left open is the diversity of this game. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.107.253.42 .

Playing against the same team over and over again is boring. Not knowing what the other team has in advance and having to adjust your playing style and strategy to win, not your build, is what I think is fun. That's just personal though. Nicky Silverstar 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY PLEASE.

Do you think people will have fun when they go into a match, not know what the other team is running, run into some build that is such a hard counter skill mechanic-wise that they might as well go AFK for the whole match because it would make no difference?

It's in bold because you missed it the first time.

"EVERY team runs the same thing. Only the minor diffarences and player skill (which has been, yes, a part of the pvp grind!) decide between victory or loss."

Yes, it's bad for player skill to be the largest contributor to a competitive match. OH WAIT.

You seem to watch a lot of observer mode. Then I'm sure you saw the monthly ATS game between SPNV and DF. You know, the match where DF brought Shields Up and essentially nullified SPNV's midline? GOGO Build Wars Diversity!

Diversity exists in the game, not so much in the form of builds,(viable variety in builds does exist) but more so in the tactics and strategies employed by guilds in matches. This is largely dictated by the players running the bars (and the maps they play on).

If you watch as much OBS mode as you claim then I'm sure you notice DF employs tactics that are focused around their frontline simply because they have the best frontline players in the game at the moment. The way they play matches is significantly different than the way other teams, (for example RAWR) do. This is despite the fact that, according to you, everyone runs the exact same builds.

I could go on arguing with you, but really it boils down to this.

1) Hypothesis: You have no idea what you're talking about. 2) Proof: You believe that outcome of matches being dictated by player skill is bad. /// --Jaen 04:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jean, gratz oon misinterpating everything I said. YES, player skill is and should be an important factor, but, and let me put it in caps, IT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY THING THAT DECIDES THE OUTCOME LIKE IT DOES NOW AS IT LEADS TO THE ELITIST META WE HAVE ATM. The build aspect of GW is the biggest selling point of the entire game, as is strategy and such. But when everyone focuses on single, uber skills, we get the elitist meta (See aurons page in which he quotes black mischief). On a final point, yup we certainly have a lot of diversity, just a couple of skills of it nothing big. (sorry for the use of sarcasm). Oh, and btw,, to the bolded point, my answer is yes. I prefer a match with a little factor of suprise and a little less grind festing. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:88.240.61.199 .

You are so right. Player skill means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You are probably the best anon in the game. Level 9000 most definitely. (sorry for the use of sarcasm) --Readem 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

sigh... I did not say that... or wait, I'm noteven going to argue, readem is being a dick again..

Let me explain to you what he was saying. PLAYER SKILL AND TEAMWORK SHOULD BE THE ONLY THINGS IN THE ENTIRE GODDAMN GAME THAT DECIDE THE OUTCOME OF ANY FIGHT, EVER. The selling point of GW, and this was right on the Prophecies box, is that player skill is more important than anything else. A good team should be able to beat a bad team even if they're outbuilt. Build wars are not strategy, they are a tiny bit foresight and a whole metric fuckton of luck. And the only reason there is a grindfest in PvP is because ANet hired an inexperienced balance team. --71.229.204.25 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the game was only based on player skill and teamwork, you wouldn't ever have any new players come into the game, there would be a deadlock when it comes to teams, you can say bad teams should learn and become better, but so would the good teams, good teams don't stop becoming good (unless their stupid), thus it becomes an endless cycle, causing stagnation (and deflecting any newcomers) which is bad for any game. Strategy allows for new players to have a chance at beating better teams (but too much strategy pretty much makes experience useless, which is also bad, ex: spiritway), making them feel better, and continue playing. Granted their will always be some exceptions to the rule (some people just learn faster than others, allowing them to catch up to good players, but those are generally far and few between), but not enough to matter. For a game to be healthy and good, strategy, tactics, and player skill must be involved as close to equally as possible otherwise, the game will have serious shortcomings. Simply put, Build Wars and Elitest Wars=BAD, but combine them and you have a good game. Also, just for reference, when I talk about strategy, Im talking about preperations before hand, like changing your build to be more suitable for the map, or something like that, tactics is in game teamwork (battlefield awareness, stuff like that), and player skill is self-explanitory.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to restate a point I made: Build wars are not strategy. Winning because you out-built the other guy is nothing but luck. Also, tactics and strategy are both components of player skill. If you don't change your build to suit a map, it's because you're not paying attention. --71.229.204.25 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much in any competitive game you want to eliminate as much as possible the aspects of random-ness and other elements outside of a player's control. One very classic example is the continued popularity of Starcraft(10 year old game?) over Warcraft 3 in competitive gaming arenas. WC3 never caught on with the professional gaming crowd because there were too many random elements, i.e. item drops from creeping would have serious impact on the outcome of the game. The player him/herself has no control over what item drops so there is a sense that you are helpless to defend against a tactic employed by the other player because he lucked out on a random drop.

The same can be said in Guild Wars, while there should be some build diversity (and there is right now), if you promote build wars too much it will lead to situations where you enter a match and find out that your build is hard countered by the other build. Once in a match you have no ability to change your build and so you have lost of ability to influence the outcome of the game, this is not fun.

These situations exist in game already despite balancing efforts to contain them. In the September (or was it August) monthly, MoJ played DF. MoJ brought very little defense and a lot of hex removal, expecting DF to run hexes I suppose. I consider these two teams to be at the top tier of players and anyone who saw that match will remember how fast MoJ got wiped.

Despite skill level, a choice they made before the match, one in which they had no control over when in the match, caused such a disparity such that no amount of tactics or skill could've made up for it. In fact, take a much longer ranked guild, say in the 800s or so, who know how to play the game reasonably. Place them in MoJ's position in that monthly, running that build against DF on that map and I gurantee you the difference in performance of MoJ vs lower ranked guild will be minimal and possibly none.

QSB(if you don't mind me calling you that) raises some issues with barrier to entry to competitive pvp in the game. I will agree that this is an issue. But it's not one that's easily fixed and certainly not one that will be fixed by the OP's suggestions(whom btw has demonstrated clearly that he/she does not know how to read). Moreover, consider the fact that yes, while top teams will continue to get better, they do so at a rate of diminishing returns. A new team will make improvements in leaps and bounds until they level off. Simply put, if a new team loses a match, it may be some simple mistake like, oh their monks didn't coordinate their aegis. They can fix this easily and improve rapidly. If vZ(random example) loses a match, it's unlikely they will be able to pinpoint that lost on any such obvious and easy to correct errors and any improvements they make will largely be situational as opposed to the generality of the Aegis example.

Also, QSB, place yourself for a moment in the position of the top team. Barring weird exceptions, a top team is at the top because they possess the skill to be there. Imagine your frustration when you lose to some low ranked guild running some hard counter to your build. When all the playing experience you have gained, all skillful tactics you execute are moot simply because the other team's build was a hard counter to yours.

-Jaen 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but I don't really agree with your example. DF did not bring a hard counter to MoJ's build - rather, MoJ made a gamble, expecting DF to bring a specific build, and knowing that they would be wiped easily if their prediction were wrong (as was the case). While Build Wars is bad for the game, I think there is an element of skill in choosing which skills you will take and in trying to predict (based on previous matches, knowledge of the enemy, and etc) what build the oposition is likely going to try. Erasculio 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said DF brought a hard counter to MoJ's build. The example was intended to illustrate a situation in which the build completely and utterly dominated the outcome of the match to the point where skill levels of respective players were irrelevant. Sorry for any confusion. -Jaen 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I lol'd when I read this trash. Uberoffle @ costless melee damage. Costless melee damage is as necessary as healing. If you want attacking to cost something, bring Quicksand. Shard 09:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaen, the kinda situation I'm talking about (equilibrium between strategy, tactics, and player skill), there would very rarely be a moment where a good team is beat by a bad team just by build (acutally I don't think it would ever happen, as tactics would come into play), but, yes I would be frustrated, but also remember its one game. Not to mention even in this situation, the top teams would generally run balance against low-level teams, since their in-game experience, and balanced's general counter ability would allow them to beat most low-level teams, even if they were a specialized build. Strategy needs to play a part in a game though, it puts risk into it, it makes you take chances, sure you may lose a few to bad strategy, which sucks because you can't change mid -battle, but winning despite being down strategy wise is even better. I think it was Von Clausewitz that compared strategy to the realm of art, and tactics to the realm of science, there are people who enjoy either or both sides and both are needed to make a game good, but also balanced. Judging from the Izzy-Ensign interview, the closest moment to this kind of situation, was GWFC, but currently the game is truly stagnant, and something needs to be done, but, back on topic, the OP gave nothing that would really improve this, as all the introduction of NF did, was remove a lot of the Mo/Me energy management, and I think thats what caused the kinda of inability to deal with mass physical pressure, though the Para and Derv didn't help at all. --Quicksilver Switch-Blade 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lightbringer Signet[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Underpowered_Skills/PvE_and_Monster

Soul Reaping[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Underpowered_Skills/Necromancer

December mAT Date[edit]

Hey izzy, on the official mAT HP is writen that the December mAT is at 15th, but Tolkano says 22th. What is right? :O

P.S. dont forget the capes :P

Magebane[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Overpowered_Skills/Ranger

Mirrored Stance[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Overpowered_Skills/Assassin

Skills w/ no activation time[edit]

Are they supposed to be able to activate while using another skill? Or is this a bug that they can't be used when your character is already doing something?--MP47 (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, Shield Bash can be activated while using say Healing Signet but Burning Shield and Feral Aggression (which are also skills w/ no activation time) can not. Which was intented? --Shadowcrest 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, skills such as Signet of Mystic Speed will stop you dead in your tracks upon activation, as though it really had an activation time. If you press forward just as you activate it, you can nullify the pause, but still, it seems like a strange way for it to work. --

Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be seamless, but GW is bad in ways more then one sadly. --Readem 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

C+Space+Signet of Mystic Speed gives you no pause in movement at all :) BlazeRick 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the SoMS was intentional, to keep from making it too good for running. Lord Belar 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So, you think the 0.1 seconds it stops you for prevents it from being "too good for running?" Having 16.9 seconds of running time instead of 17 makes it a bad skill? Shard 09:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just an oversight, I'm under the impression that a skill with a cast time set to zero has to also then be flagged as a skill which can be activated at any time. Whoever wrote the skills appears to have forogtten about the latter for these mentioned skills. --Ckal Ktak 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that, by default, a skill with no activation time activates instantly, but cannot be activated in the middle of another action. The exceptions are attack skills, which activate at the same speed as regular attacks, stances, which can be activated at any time, and most "basic" skills (skills without any subtype), which can likewise be activated at any time (with a few exceptions, such as Burning Shield and Feral Aggression). -- Gordon Ecker 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SoMS does that because its a signet (same with Dolyak). This question refers specifically to skills with no activation time, since Marco and I can't resolve an argument about whether to put a bug tag on Feral Aggression or not.

Clumsiness[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Overpowered_Skills/Mesmer

Scavenger's Focus/strike[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Underpowered_Skills/Ranger

Splinter Shot[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Underpowered_Skills/Ranger

PvE versions?[edit]

Just throwing an idea out there, and I apologize if I'm repeating a previous statement, there's an insane number of suggestions and I may have missed a few.

I'm sure we've all seen a case where PvE builds suffer and become less fun because a skill was rebalanced for PvP. Here's my question: In this event, would it be terribly hard to split the skill into a normal skill and a PvE-only version? That seems to be the best and simplest way to appease both crowds. Granted, I know little about coding or whether or not this is even possible, but it's an idea. KrelusDerian 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be prohibitively hard at this point in the design. Asked and answered many times before. -

HeWhoIsPale 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I figured it would have been a cliche idea at this point. Ah well. I guess any readily apparent idea I have will have been thought of several dozen times already xD KrelusDerian 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And personally, as a PvE player, I think I would get bored of the game without skill balances. It gives me something to work with, be it reworking an old build that got nerfed, or making a new build around a buff. With two versions of the skills, you would end up with little to no change in skills until GW2 came out... --

Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that....many skills can't receive powerful buffs because it might effect pvp in a negative way. If skills were pve/pvp seperate, then all the pve skills could safely be buffed giving you tons of possible new builds without affecting pvp. Go look at how many random skills are just plain useless. P A R A S I T I C 07:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

After a couple of skill balances, it would be like balancing (and playing) two different games. It's not only that you would have double the effort to look at over- or underpowered skills, there's also the point that you don't want to play both PvE and PvP any longer, but concentrate on one and quit the other, because the situation would be so confusing: "Let's take Spiteful Spirit! It makes x damage." - "Nah, that's PvE, PvP is y." - "No, actually it's z since the last update..." - TeleTeddy 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer them being combined. Personally, I think most PvE-only skills are grossly overpowered and (more importantly) give other professions abilities they never should have had in the first place. They are ruining the game for me, as the ultimate PvE warrior build consists of just one skill...Nicky Silverstar 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, tell me about it. Whenever I'm having difficulty and I request a tip the first bit of advice is usually either Ursan Blessing or Pain Inverter. My actual idea was that the PvE-version is unchanged from the original, not overbuffed, but that doesn't matter since it wouldn't really work anyway. KrelusDerian 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Savannah Heat's description[edit]

The description of Savannah Heat is inaccurate. Like all damage over time spells, it deals damage at the end of each interval, so the first time it deals damage, it has already been in effect for one second. -- Gordon Ecker 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A thread on assassins Izzy should read[edit]

Some good (and bad, but I'm sure Izzy can filter em out) ideas on what people want assassins to do.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10224928

222.127.223.69 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)shinde

If I were Izzy, I'd stop reading halfway through the first page: "Assassins are a gank character, a type of character that has been bad for PvP in every RPG it has existed in. Gank characters are bad because their defining features are some combination of the ability to create completely one-sided fights at will, the ability to avoid fights not in their favor completely, and the ability to deny their opponents the ability to prepare for them." This already sums it up.

Other than that, all posts either demand assassins being removed from the game (haha) or totally reworked at huge effort (haha). So rather spend an hour and buff some never used skills a bit instead of wasting it on that thread. --Xeeron 18:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's Thom demanding assassins be removed. I wouldn't discount his opinion, even if it's never going to happen. --71.229.204.25 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not discounting his opinion. Actually, I am personally one of those who would love a complete rework of assassins. However both ideas have a change of being implemented that is equal to nil, so why make izzy waste his time reading that? We should try to get stuff that is possible (balancing of broken/worthless skills) instead of wasting everyone's effort argueing for the impossible. --Xeeron 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's do that. Increase the damage of all dagger sets in the game by 3, make dual attacks have a standard .75sec aftercast, make leads and offhands less conditional, and let shadow steps be body-blocked. :O

All pretty straightforward changes, and they've done more drastic ones before. --71.229.204.25 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And then they can play around with damage and cooldown and all that jive. I feel like I should mention that in case someone assumes that I mean that once they've done that, the code for Assassin skills is codified by the Pope and locked away in a large black box or something and nobody will ever be allowed to touch it again. --71.229.204.25 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Izzy has said himself that the job of an assassin is "get in, kill, get out". Of course, if you can warp into the enemies back line, kill something, then escape every 20 seconds, something is desperately broken. Right now, however, assassins just plain can't kill like that. The target has to already be damaged, or the assassin has to have help. Originally they could, especially Shadow Prison, but due to their overpoweredness, Izzy thought they he should just nerf them to the point where they can't do their original job. I think they should be given very high power that is very difficult to stop, but have a recharge of approximately 180 seconds on their spike (that's 3 minutes for those that don't want to do the math). That way assassins would be able to do their job fully, but not be overpowered since they have a much more ensured, but much slower killing rate than other melee. The big downside to this is, everyone could take a team full of nothing but assassins, and just total the enemy team right away. But I think that is a lot easier to work around. Right now, no matter how much tweaking you do to skills, assassins are either going to suck, or be imbalanced. 69.137.78.47 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is nobody would ever run them. One kill every three minutes is totally worthless. The problem with assassins right now is that either they're strong enough to do what they're designed to do and are completely imba, or they aren't and they're worthless. Izzy can't put in enough time to change them to a more viable support class because he's working on GW2 so we're just going to get these little tweaks every now and again instead of a real fix, and that's the idea I tried to balance my suggestions around. --71.229.204.25 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That thread was made of fail, cancer and unserious people who suggested drunken ideas cuz they just got owned by an assassin in pvp. dont bother izzy with ur fail cuz he wont read it and doesnt care, it was 20 days since he wrote anything on this wiki, cuz of everyone whining here --Cursed Angel

22:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Boo-fuckety-hoo. It's his job to deal with us. And you're a troll. --71.229.204.25 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

People would run them if they only got kills once every 3 minutes. One kill every three minutes may not seem like much at first glance, unless you think about the fact that a warrior has a much harder time soloing things. The difference is warriors would have a much greater ability to work together with their team. I think at least 1/4 of GvG teams would use at least one assassin if they had a near guaranteed kill every 3 minutes. Compare that to the amount of teams that bring necromancers. Regardless, 3 minutes might not be the right number, but my point is instead of nerfing assassins damage and killing power, I think the recharge of assassin skills should be increased very high. I think that's the only way to have assassins do their job without being overpowered. 69.137.78.47 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

One kill every three minutes isn't worth a slot that could be filled by another monk or warrior or midliner. One warrior can churn out 3000 points of effective damage per minute just with Frenzy and an axe, and it'll take a lot more than 15DP every ninety seconds to replace that. --71.229.204.25 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

3000 points of damage if he isn't being blinded, blocked, snared, or hexed and his target is standing still. If you think a warrior is ever going to get 3000 damage every minute in a real match, you've obviously never played PvP. 69.137.78.47 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

However, that warrior is a threat. You know that, unless you waste your own resources to stop him (with hexes, defensive enchantments, stances, kitting and etc), he will do those 3000 points of damage and kill half your team; and that's just with one skill, one weapon, and click + space. What is the best an assassin may do, in other hand? Even if he's not blocked/hexed/whatever, could an assassin be that much of a threat to a team with a single skill? I doubt it. Erasculio 17:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You would need to not only raise recharges, but buff Assassin skills by a huge amount. People won't run a class that gets a kill every three minutes if there's a chance to counter that kill every three minutes. You'd need stuff like

"Mark of Death - Hex - Target foe cannot gain health or remove hexes."

"Black Lotus Strike - Off-Hand Attack - This skill misses unless the foe is hexed. If it hits, deal +30 damage, gain 15 energy, and inflict Dazed and Cracked Armor."

"Twisting Fangs - Dual Attack - Apply Deep Wound, Bleeding, and Crippled to target foe. This skill does +60 damage if it hits."

...or just got Deadly Arts and give them a skill that instantly kills a foe, but with a 180second recharge, and a 100% failure chance if you're not a Primary Assassin. Then just nerf every other skill, and you've got a balanced class!

I'd personally rather have Assassins just be a fragile Frontliner, despite any balance problems that turns up. Assacasters and all those other builds can be dealt with separately, but the general workings of a normal Assassin is still pretty balanced as-is. --

Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

@69.137.78.47: I said effective damage. You might only be dealing 800dpm of real damage, but the other 2200 is going straight into their energy and attention. --71.229.204.25 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see assassins become an active class, instead of the "pick a target, press 5 buttons" class. The combos should be harder to pull off, and no skill should allow them to finish it with a guarantee (unblockable leads, expose, etc). Utility should fit on the same bar, instead of 5 combo skills, speed boost, and a super shield. I like how they were concepted - to be warriors who use and build energy instead of adrenaline, but it has only become a gimmick class. I love making utility sin builds in RA, but the sad fact is that if you don't run the FOTM attack chain, you don't win. Shard 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparing damage numbers is an indication, nothing more. It's more important how easy the damage can be healed or prevented, that means how much player skill and/or energy that takes. I'd always go with 800 damage that cannot be prevented instead of 8000 damage that are easily nullified. So please stop throwing numbers without regarding the grand scheme. - TeleTeddy 14:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparing damage numbers is the entire story when it's Warrior vs Conceptual Instagib Assassin with 3min Cooldown. Warrior will always be a threat, CIAw3mC is just, oh, gee, there's another fifteen DP, and now it's eight on seven for the next three minutes, hoo-hah! --71.229.204.25 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lion's Comfort[edit]

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Underpowered_Skills/Warrior

User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Izzy Talk Archive 8

Response to Izzy Status[edit]

Izzy Hero Battle Thoughts[edit]

HA feedback[edit]

AB Changes[edit]

Misc[edit]

Designer's Notes[edit]

energy drain/denial & pve[edit]

Spiritleech Aura[edit]

Dev Only Skills[edit]

Aggressive Refrain[edit]

Steak[edit]

Archive Please![edit]

Puttin' on the Rits[edit]

Chain of Command[edit]

Beta Testing?[edit]

New condition: Deaf.[edit]

Assassin utility[edit]

Save Yourselves[edit]

New Trims[edit]

Interesting skill changes[edit]

probably suggested before[edit]

HA suggestions[edit]

Useless skills[edit]

Spirits & Spiritway[edit]

The Tip of the Iceberg[edit]

Update - Thursday, November 08, 2007[edit]

Congratulations Izzy ^_^[edit]

Healer's Boon & Word of Healing on the Same Skill Bar[edit]

Assassacasters[edit]

Deadly arts Attribute[edit]

Profession Limits in Teams[edit]

BLS change[edit]

Game Update 11.13[edit]

Dear Izzy,[edit]

Do you even care about PvE?[edit]

Observations on the Team Arenas[edit]

Pious renewal[edit]

Health Runes/Insignias and of Fortitude Weapon/Off-hand Upgrades[edit]

The list of the IMBA[edit]

Lightbringer Signet[edit]

Soul Reaping[edit]

December mAT Date[edit]

Magebane[edit]

Mirrored Stance[edit]

Skills w/ no activation time[edit]

Clumsiness[edit]

Scavenger's Focus/strike[edit]

Splinter Shot[edit]

PvE versions?[edit]

Savannah Heat's description[edit]

A thread on assassins Izzy should read[edit]

Lion's Comfort[edit]

Navigation menu

Search