User talk:Bathory

Welcome
Yo. --  anguard  00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cute. xD But you won't scare me away that easily. ;) Bathory 00:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. All in good fun.-- [[Image:User_Vanguard_VanguardLogo.png|19px]] anguard  00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * <3 Of course. Thank you for the welcome. Bathory 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Djh 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)hi
 * Hello. =P Is there any reason in particular you've stumbled across my talk page? Bathory 05:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Skill suggestions
While there is absolutely nothing wrong with adding suggestions regarding skills, if the skill is in the game, and you wish to discuss a change in functionality, a more appropriate place for that is ArenaNet:Skill feedback. That's an area that both QA and the Devs do read, and take into consideration for the monthly skill updates. -- Wyn 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have posted them here. Everything I've read about the game suggestion pages except what you have told me has implied that those pages will be changed as well. I'm going to have to ask you leave me alone on anything concerning that - as whenever you try to explain something you just confuse me more. Bathory 14:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Knock yourself out, I was just trying to help you get your ideas in the place they are most likely to be seen or considered. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which I've already used before you said anything. Thanks. Bathory 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree (Active Binding Rituals)

 * MEMO ^_^


 * First, apologies for not responding sooner (I wont bore you with petty excuses) - Lancy seems to be haitus at the moment, so please allow me to summarize on her behalf based on all our past emails/ingame discussions.
 * 1) Yes, many of these are indeed overpowered and likely an ongoing work on progress (i.e. if Anet-balancers says its ok; impliments nerf/buff, or rules what legally can/cannot be done ingame. -- then well run with it within those parameters).
 * 2) GW meta/professions continues to evolve, while many Rit problems continue to be nerfed/lanquish away in creative potential (i.e. in brief, I dare you to write a 10-page essay on the pro's/con's of Rits)
 * 3) We agreed not to let the current Passive-meta dictate how an Active-model could become. If Nature Rituals are Passive, then Binding Rituals are Active and have nothing to do with each other besides being spirits (i.e. if its holding us back from an awesome 'Ritsy' concept, then screw it).


 *  You've made a lot of new Binding Rituals, as well as super-powering old ones. Ritual cast times come from other skills that have proven to be relatively balanced. Three seconds comes from minions spells, while five seconds comes from Nature Rituals. These times are not put there to make these skills weak, that's just something that comes inherently to creating an ally, a mechanic that is very powerful. Most of your proposed changes cast in less than three seconds. 


 * Assassins, Dervish, Paragons and Ritualists could each use 5 more elites (& miscellaneous skills); best try maked do with current skills. All suggestions are interconnected and should never be taken individually. As for Rituals, can you suggest a better alternative?


 *  Certain skills don't even seem to fit well with Ritualists as a class, in particular the change you proposed to Preservation, which reduced the duration of hexes. Ritualists do not interact with hexes on any level and changing them to such would make them too much like monks, and would lessen the need they have as sole healers of a group to go Rt/Mo or Rt/Me to deal with hexes. Soothing is another one that stuck out to me as extremely overpowered, because you have three different effects from the same skill, including a hex trigger that is only heard of on one single skill in the entire Ritualist line. 


 * Personally I'd divorce rits from hexes/enchantments altogether and replace them with Weapon Spells, Armor Spells, and Item Spells versions (like a caster version of the paragon's hard to remove shouts/chant). Monks will always be the premier backline support of choice: no amount of buffs/nerfs will change that; Rits primaries are uncompetitive to their counterparts Monks. Hex removal are only for Monk/Mesmer and a sacred taboo for Rits; its a limiting of secondary profession be competitive against hexes. Resilient Weapon and Resilient Was Xiko are indeed 2 skills that mitigate hexes. Based on that concept, why not benefit from without overpowering the hex and rendering them useless (in the same light how many skills/insignias give hefty boon for being hexed)? Hexes corrupts the soul, and ritualists are masters of creation and souls; thats Ritsy.


 *  The Spawning Power change Boon of Creation you've proposed to make it irremovable, more powerful and include Accelerated Growth's function in to it - which was not instated in to the game because it would make Death Magic a rather useless attribute when used on primary Necromancers. 


 * Boon of Creation treated as Elementalist's Attunement enchants version and suffers from exact same flaws; over the 3+ years playing Rits I have only used BoC in Minion Bomber/Spirit Protection builds and never used it in pvp. How would Death Magic be useless when its vital to strength/size of your army?


 *  The worst part is the "Soulmeld" or "Soulbind" skill type you suggested. Taken in to account with the current spirits in game, this would be nerfed horribly because of it's inability to be removed. Taken with the spirits you've suggested, not only would it be nerfed for having no way to force removal, it would also be rather useless as without heavily investing in Spawning Power, it wouldn't last very long anyway. This is assuming that I read it correctly, as you've presented it in a very confusing manor. The "Soulmeld" idea is a bad concept. 


 * Experimental Project: an attempt to innovate on ways around mobility issues and with Spirit's Strength's contradiction, thats all it is. Are you familiar with Ghostwalk novel, Shaman King series, or DnD's: Magic of Incarnum? Those are among many inspirations.


 *  I've read through all of the changes described here and have to say that I, personally, don't agree with any of them. Your changes are way too powerful, not that "active" and often don't apply to the Ritualists functions as a class. It's obvious that you, Lancy and Falconeye, love Ritualists but your changes wouldn't help them, as they're all crazy powerful and would be instantly nerfed to shit, making Ritualists much worse off. 


 * Excellent! Your the first in a while to strongly disagree. I would very much value your imput on Active Binding Rituals.
 * ^_^ --Falconeye 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most Rituals are fine. Making everything "active" in this game is a bad idea, because having so many "active" parts makes it way too confusing. Nature and Binding Rituals can not be divorced, they will always be similar. Arguing that the Resilient weapon and item spells allow the addition of shortening hexes to that of a Ritualist's jobs is really just bullshit. Affecting duration and giving some health regeneration are completely different. Don't get me wrong, though. I love the idea of making Preservation spawn two different spirits, it would allow it to be so much more useful as an elite. The problem you have is just the function you've given the new spirit. Making things "active" just seemed to be lowering cast and recharge times. To me, an active skill is one that you need to use at an opportune time. With your changes, a Ritualist would just be shitting out spirits faster and there is no skill or timing involved. If Boon of Creation is to be buffed, it still needs to be removable. Additional health or energy is a fine buff. But since taking a bar with enough spirits to justify it's use in PvP is a bad idea - it won't be used there. There is no reason to change it because of this. I'm aware that your ideas seem to be coming out of somewhere else than Guild Wars. It's just important that you make them appropriate for use in any meta-game, and not just one that would be 'really really cool'. Still, you're a lot more mature about taking criticism or just all out hate (in some of the cases) that most people on wiki. At least you can maintain a good attitude.Bathory 13:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of suggestion from ArenaNet:Skill feedback/Warrior/"You Will Die!"
You seem to have accidentally removed Ritual Doll's suggestion in this edit, please be more careful in the future. If you archived it somewhere, you should mention the fact that you archived it, and the page it was archived to, in the edit summary. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also removed it from the Withdraw Hexes one because that's an older account. I made a new one because all I'd really done was be a douche, so I figured it'd be better to start over to try to be nicer. Is there something I missed that I should have done to close the older account down? Bathory 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice
I like your skill changes. They are smooth, fitting in with the skills that already are in the game. You should be careful with introducing skills that could be used as spike skills, though. Xhata 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm personally a fan of spike teams - so I probably overlook things someone who hates spike teams would notice. That's why I made sure the discussion pages were easy to navigate though. So people could tell me. Thank you for the compliment. =) Bathory 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

campaign for Ritualists
Please visit this site! If you dont want to be part of that campaign, tell me! If you support the campaign, than add the template on your page and do some merchandizing!^^ Any suggestions and critics are wellcome. -- Yullive 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can categorize your suggestionpage by adding following.

Edit: I see, you and Falconeye already had a argue about your opposite ideas. That doesn't matter. We all want to reinvolve the Ritualist and the few differences dividing us are clear, if one reads our pages. Reading through your suggestion-pages, I got the idea of creating a category with a userbox for user-pages with profession-improve-suggestions. The category would list up other categories (like the one I invited you in); for every profession one category-page. What do you think about it?

I changed the category description a bit, to make it a bit more clear. I know the differences between our campaigns and also to Lancy+Falconeye, but it is all right. I please you, to use the userbox and to add  on your suggestion-page (this code isn't visible, where ever you drop it on your page; it just links your page with the category)! Yullive Please visit this site! -- Yullive 13:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ArenaNet did a new system for suggestions on GWW. You can read about it here. You can now add on your suggestion page, to link it for ANet. -- Yullive 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact
I kind've followed over here from Pika Fan's page (even though I think he hates me too) It's not personal, don't worry. ;) Pika Fan 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never
Hey, sorry, I meant to answer your question a while ago but got caught up in everything an it fell trhough the cracks. In any case, there really isn't anywhere you can post suggestions right now, whether on my page or any other. The licensing issue just wont allow for it. However, we are building a new system right now that will have different licensing so you can post suggestions. I'm not sure how long it will take before we are ready to go live with it, but I'm hoping within the next couple weeks, so you'll just have to be patient until then. Thanks for your interest and feel free to join our discussion on the project page. (Satanael 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Your feedback pages
I would highly suggest you make separate pages for each skill suggestion, rather than grouping them all up by profession. Developers don't want to look through huge lists of skills when they're only looking for suggestions about a specific one. The feedback space was made to have a high level of organization, and you should post suggestions keeping that in mind. Don't be afraid to create tons of pages. That's what it's for. ~Shard  08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I was afraid to because of the part I read about "spamming the feedback section". I'll work on breaking them up, thanks. [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  08:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as each is a substantive suggestion it's fine. The "No spamming suggestions" was aimed more at the one liners.... "Fix Shadow Form" "Nerf this" "Buff that"... -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  08:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I asked Shard on his talk page, but I believe he's off-line. If you're not, how do I mark the current pages for deletion? And I suppose that I should be posting pages per skill and not per attribute, right? [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  09:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback pages, revisited
Stop acting like a 6 year old. Responding with only "if you say so, Nuclear" is not only childish, but it is disrespectful, rude, and above all, cowardly. You haven't shown the slightest bit of respect to anyone who has said anything bad about your suggestions (which are, quite honestly, far from perfect) and you have shown that you lack the ability to accept your mistakes.

Might I remind you that, even though you created them, those pages do not belong to you anymore. They belong to the community, and thus is not a place to prove yourself right. There will be discussion, there will be critique, and there will be changes to your suggestions. It's okay to be passionare, but not okay to be rigid. When you dismiss my comments with a condescending remark (no doubt copy-pasted) you kill any meaningful discussion and prove yourself to be insecure.

tl;dr: Grow up. NuVII  13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you say so Nuklear. [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you think he's full of it/wrong/whatever, then either ignore him, politely ask him not to post on your suggestions (which would be ignorant and counterproductive, imo, but it's your page) or give him a legitimate response.  Responding to trolls with countertrolling is one thing but he's making legitimate comments.  –Jette [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 21:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I only kept it up 'cause I saw it annoyed him. Did you need something, Jette? <3 [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  00:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about you. It never was, but that doesn't seem to get through your thick skull. NuVII  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] 11:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you post things on feedback pages just to annoy people, you are not helping anyone. In fact, you are just trolling. Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]] Kumi  12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like me! You don't wanna be like me, do you?  Seriously, though, knock it off.  If there's a problem you have with somebody, take it up with an admin or bureaucrat or dictator or whatever it is we keep around here.  Trolling them makes it worse.  –Jette [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 13:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we all agree to ignore bad players who have no understanding of balance? Or at the very least, troll them until they understand? Pika Fan 13:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we can't do that. It just brings 'us' down to 'their' level, and doesn't help anybody. Now, I would hope that the ignorant and the illogical would leave the balance pages alone, but that exceptation has been foiled plenty of times already. NuVII  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] 15:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you say so Nuklear. And I'm sorry I'm bad because I don't play the retarded version of GvG they made, Pika. :( Maybe you should enlighten me. ;D <3[[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone else respond to this immature comment? I tried 6 variations of "STFU" and they were all NPA. NuVII  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] 17:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor, poor Nuklear. =\ [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  17:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have 4 choices: 1)Play their own game and troll them hard 2)Ignore them 3)Continue to put up airs and be a hypocritical saint 4)/wrists, or variant thereof. Pika Fan 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you might find that smart trolling is actually beneficial. User:Misery used trolling in an effective manner and managed to subdue troublemakers on PvX and GWW alike. Pika Fan 18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I wouldn't say responding to Nuklear on all of my talk pages in the same way would be trolling. It's practically the same as ignoring him. I've never said I'm a saint, nor that I completely understand balance. I know the parts of the game I play. I stopped GvGing, I don't really like 8v8 HA, so I don't play them often. I like you, Pika, because you give scenarios and explain things, although in a condescending manner. You're able to explain why you think something is bad. Nuklear has only said things along the lines of 'we don't need this' or 'you're stupid and bad'. Why would I react positively to that? He's being a whiny bitch because I don't listen to him, he can just go bother someone else. Me trolling though? If that's what you want to call it, sure. I wouldn't agree with you on that though. =\ [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]]  Bathory   talk  21:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again I am baffled by your illogical response. If someone explains to you that earshot-range, instantly activated KD's can be chained, is that the same as "you're stupid and bad"? By your logic, it is, as you have responded to it with trolling. Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]] Kumi  21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * xD That would fall under the 'we don't need this' comment category, but thanks for trying. [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take my leave of this discussion, now, because I also tried about ten different ways of phrasing my comment but they all fall under the NPA category. –Jette [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. Darn, I am starting to think like Jette... Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]] Kumi  22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey just wondering has Nuclear said anything supporting a suggestion? Having trouble finding it.71.88.206.109 02:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I feel the need to point out that it doesn't really matter. If somebody presents me with a piece of paper that has 5 equations on it and every one of them is wrong, it doesn't obligate me to say one of them is correct purely for the sake of being nice.  –Jette [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 03:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your research needs to be better. NuVII  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] 09:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad Bathory has done no contributions in a week. Please do not wake him up :P  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * well nuclear the first two are suggestions for changing the ideas which is not really saying you support the idea and the last one just says it would be interesting which could go for either sarcasm or mild interest.71.88.206.109 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I found one stolen speed under Mesmer suggestions.Wretched90 19:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Nuklear just likes disagreeing with me. I thought about it, and I don't really give a fuck. He can't make me change the suggestions, nor does it mean anyone will look at the suggestions. We play different parts of the game and I understand that. I don't recall attacking him as a player, but he seems to feel fine saying I'm awful. Okay, fine. He "wins" the internet. You may all leave now. Bathory  talk  03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody "likes disagreeing with you". You just do not listen to anyone who uses common sense so it is only logical that people keep disagreeing with you and ignore you altogether. If you want to get your opinions over, listen to others and respond with logic instead of things like "if you say so".  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop instigating problems that don't exist. :) [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL flamefest. That is a good way to be taken serious right?  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  16:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You tell me. [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Skill updates
Yeah, there might be one or two that have that tag unnecessarily. Feel free to take them off. I went through all of the feedback pages and tagged the ones that dealt with skills that were updated. Quite a few of the pages in there are from people that will, quite frankly, never come back to deal with the suggestions themselves. -- FreedomBound  01:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's alright. I can understand why they were put there. There are only one or two skills that I didn't feel were properly addressed because they kept functionality or traits of the skills that aren't particularly useful. Thanks for your help. [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  01:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ritualist Skill History
Formally requesting your assistance with this wiki-project. --Falconeye 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)