Talk:Signet of Strength

Either shorter recharge or higher damage would make some one consider using it, but as it is right now very weak. Biz 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree in that this would make a good newb skill, and as such I think it unfortunate that a character can't get it in Shing Jea. Also remember that, for a character with full attribute points put into strength and no obstruction to attacks, this will provide between 65-80 extra damage, considering that the highest bonus a warrior should have is a major rune of strength with a strength headgear. However, I would like to see a shorter recharge as well. Chaiyo Kaldor 16:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * what you mean a character can't get in shing? 78.20.153.111 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me quote myself a few lines above, "can't get it in Shing Jea." I said this to refer to the fact that the earliest this skill can be acquired in the Factions campaign is in Kaineng Center, this info taken straight from the acquisition. -- Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 20:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can unlock using PvP Baltha factions and purchase it.Farlong 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Single Target Damage Boost?
In the skill page it says "This skill loses charges depending on the number of foes struck, not the number of swings. For example, if Signet of Strength had 5 charges (Strength attribute of 4) and a Warrior using it used Cyclone Axe against five foes, all five charges of Signet of Strength would be expended in a single swing." Does this mean that if I was fighting a single target (e.i. a boss) and didn't attack any other enemy that all of my attacks against that single target would get the damage boost?
 * not all at once if thats what your getting at. its number of hits not number of swings is what he meants so if you hit have ranke 4 strength (+5 dmg for 5 hits) and you hit 5 targets in a single swing you spend all 5 charges. you can also hit 1 target 5 times and spend all it charges...70.6.11.30 09:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WTB
- "Signet. Your next attacks deal +5 damage." -- Halogod35   12:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That actually sounds balanced. Maybe a few less affected attacks, though. Mediggo 12:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still needs a casting time. Necromas 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Up the damage, drop the number of attacks. Make it a spike skill.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  15:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are not enough spike-oriented skills and builds in the game currently. Pika Fan 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ^ - Auron 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * lawlin'. xD -- Alce [[Image:User_Alce_infobox.png|18px]]   What's today's Build?  15:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ^ [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] Drogo Boffin 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Frontline-based spike skills are definitely bad for guildwars. What the game REALLY needs is more stuff like this, this, this, this, this, and this, since midline spike assist skills are entirely underpowered in the current iteration of guildwars.  Silly me.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeap, so we should really add to the power creep, instead of bringing midline spike assists to the standards of melee spike assists. Great logic!Pika Fan 16:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I could've made the sarcasm any more obvious.
 * What I meant to say was that melee spike damage isn't an issue in this meta - that's why no one uses Eviscerate. The huge majority of spike damage comes from midline, and THAT's what needs to be toned down.  In fact, it's not just midline spike damage that's out of line - caster pressure has also been on steroids as of late.
 * Giving warriors a signet that boosts their spike damage isn't going to be the cause of any sort of imbalance. True enough, it won't fix spikes, but that's an issue largely unrelated to warriors.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  16:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading is quite hard: "bringing midline spike assists to the standards of melee spike assists". Pika Fan 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, reading is easy - the hard part is agreeing when you're wrong. If you'd said, "Midline spike assists shouldn't be anywhere near the standards of melee spike skills" (Ranged Eviscerate is a Bad Thing), then it'd've been no problem.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  17:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You just proved what I said earlier. Reading is terribly difficult. You bring ranged damage down to melee damage, you don't do the other way round. Buffing, counter-buffing and buffing alternatives have never done the meta good. Congratulations on being anet, I warmly send my regards. Pika Fan 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're still missing it. Ranged damage shouldn't be "brought down to melee damage", it should be "brought down to almost nothing".
 * Buffing Signet of Strength to be a reasonable melee spike assist skill isn't anything like the ridiculous buffs that you cited, and not only in scale. It wouldn't make axe warrior an Easy Role, it wouldn't redefine the role of mesmers, and it wouldn't change the face of 8v8 spike builds.
 * For starters, look at a typical warrior bar: Bull's, Dismember, bBlow, dChop, Shock, pRage, Rush, sig. Which skill is an easy sacrifice for a few extra points of damage on a spike?  It's not actually increasing the power level of a class if it's just creating another option - it's when you create options that outshine the currently available ones that you're contributing to power creep.  Otherwise, bringing a bad skill up to the level of a usable one is, y'know, balancing skills.
 * What comes into question is the point around which skills are balanced. With warrior bars, the ideal point of balance is already pretty much universally agreed upon: Shock Eviscerate is commonly referred to as the single most balanced bar of all time.  Hence, making a skill a competitive alternative to any skill on that bar is bringing it to an ideal power level.
 * Conversely, current caster bars are retarded. Remember when water eles spent 4 seconds and 25 energy to assist on spikes?  People considered Shatterstone eles more or less balanced.  Creating skills that were competitive to skills on that bar would've been fine.  Instead, anet introduced shit that totally trumped it.  Remember when air eles spent 15 energy and two seconds to put damage on spikes?  Or when blinding one person was a 15-energy venture?  Instead of making things competitive, they made the balanced bar obsolete by introducing faster, cheaper spike skills that do the same amount of damage and duck SB and skills that removed physicals from the game indefinitely.  This is a Bad Thing, and I wouldn't suggest doing something similar.
 * I don't recall saying, explicitly or implicitly, "let's make current warrior bars look pathetic next to new, supr domage Signet of Strength wars, like anet did with casters"; I apologize for your misunderstanding. Reading is terribly difficult, isn't it?  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Warriors were always fine with spiking. Looking at the bigger picture, buffing their spike power still adds to power creep. Sure, you may argue that the buff is not "significant", but it still adds to the class power.
 * Some skills were always meant to be, you know, weaker, and should remain as such. Adding more skills and alternatives to the game just makes it harder to balance, something which anet has undoubtedly failed hard at almost every turn.
 * There's a big difference between underpowered, balanced and overpowered. Ranged damage is overpowered, so bring them to the level of "balanced". Not add power to the skills in the "balanced" category, no matter how little, to attempt to match the power of ranged damage.
 * Furthermore, I can't stress how it's really a waste of time and resources -- 2 things which anet are terrible at managing -- attempting to buff a skill when you expect no one uses it anyway(lolcodex, but at a higher level game mechanics-wise). It's either going to be OPed, or no one will use it, since everything else is so power-creeped.
 * Everything anet does at this point should be nothing at all, or doing something that actually matters. Not make things worse, not doing things that wastes time and resources. Pika Fan 07:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow
+5 damage. I face palm whenever I see a pug ping this. Just take another attack skill, damn it. -- smøni 02:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's terrible and needs a buff. Astralphoenix777 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's WAY better to just take Conjure Fire/Frost/Lightning. Even with 0 points in elementalist attributes, those are as good as Signet of Strength, if not better.

Serious change
What about: signet 30 seconds recharge, for 5...15...17 seconds you have +2 strength attribute--88.24.12.200 11:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * that's slight honestly worse but if going do have an attribute buff signet then the spread should be 20 recharge, 1...19...22 seconds. that would both keep it for warriors, synergize with the attribute line and how most warriors who DO use str use 13 (not how i had 20 recharge but 19 on attibute 12), and still not be embarrassing to look at. tho this suggested change won't help any. 96.13.66.30 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your 10e or 10adren attack skills cause knockdown (or deepwound) ;-) Justice 10:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would go with: 0 activation time, 25 seconds recharge, your next 1...13...16 attacks does +5 damage and restores 1 energy. A little bit of energy management for warriors wouldn't hurt to bring as a utility in some builds (this change wouldn't OP either). --66.91.82.73 06:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Typo
When you have 0 strength the skill reads: "Signet. Your next 1 attack deal +5 damage." This should read "Signet. Your next 1 attack deals +5 damage." --24.2.64.111 01:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)