Talk:Liquid Flame

Concise Desc.
The concise description seems a bit odd. It sounds like it wont do any damage if target is not casting or attacking.--Defx 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be easily interrupted.William Wallace 05:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really not seeing why. --SoraMitsukai 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Defx, the concise description is misleading. 70.126.107.48 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Without going on another tirade about how concise descriptions are one of the worst things to ever happen to GW, I agree that the concise description really needs to be changed. Badly. --SoraMitsukai 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * it isnt misleading, it says that it deals the damage, then if foe is attacking or casting, nearby foes take damage too
 * I suppose it's misleading if you completely ignore the first sentence. [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]] Bathory   talk  22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It actually reads like the target would take damage twice, seeing as it's near itself. Look at Shockwave or Healing Circle, for example.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Anything that doesn't say "target foe and nearby foes" won't include the target itself. This one doesn't say "target foe" in its conditional damage, so it wouldn't deal damage twice to the target. ~ Aldarik 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

LOOL
this is a nightfall skill? holy shit i always thought proph >.> - Wuhy   17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, nightfall skill icons look so much better than proph. Go figure. -- Halogod35  [[Image:User Halogod35 Sig.jpg|15px]] 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This came out with Searing Flames, and together they completely destroyed any semblance of balance left in the game at that point. 5 eles could easily wipe entire teams without even trying, since both this and SF hit aoe (rather large aoe, too). Those two plus dervishes plus paragons = game balance collapsing entirely. - Auron 15:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Atleast it is not balanced like WoW. Redoing a character in GW isn't as time consuming.  17:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to compare apples to oranges. Game balance and rerolling characters have nothing to do with each other. - Auron 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two seperate points. 1.  GW is more balanced.  2.  In GW, if Anet makes a profession unfeasible, you can switch much easier.  StatMan 14:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Not anymore, by a long shot, and 2. Blizzard isn't stupid enough (or bad enough at balance) to make a profession completely unfeasible. Every class in WoW has a PvP role and a PvE role - many classes have multiple, and let you choose what you want. Shaman, for example, has a melee DPS spec, a ranged DPS spec, and healing. Druids have even more - melee DPS or tanking (same talent tree, different allotment of points), ranged casting DPS, and healing. Some classes like hunter or mage are pure damage specs for PvE, but huge utility specs for PvP (mages have all kinds of snares and roots, hunters have edenial, several snares, scare beast, etc). What can rits do in GW? 100% bitch role. They have no feasible damage spec, even in PvE, because ANet hasn't been able to figure out how to make it deal damage but not be completely imbalanced - so all they do is run flags. What about warriors? They have an entire attribute devoted to tanking, yet the monsters in Guild Wars PvE have no threat table, so as soon as a monster does something like, say, attack anything but the warrior, the warrior just sits there being useless. In Guild Wars PvP, there is a definite "best class" to run - that's why you see dual monk backlines and nothing else. Why don't you see dual rit backlines? Or monk and rit backlines? Oh, right, because balance is bad. Monks are inherently better than rits because of their utility and quick healing power, so monks will always be run over rits. That is poor game balance. In WoW PvE and PvP, druids, shamans, pallies and priests are all equally viable healers - some excel at specific things over others, but none of them are completely and totally unusable like Rits are in Guild Wars. Please, do your homework before pretending that Guild Wars is anything like balanced. - Auron 08:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * correcting dumb people all day must be fun, Auron? --Cursed Angel [[Image:User Cursed Angel Signature2.jpg|19px|Q.Q]] 12:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cursed, NPA. You are also appearing like a 'yesman', and adding nothing.  Auron, warriors in WoW are not balanced.  Look at the tanking forum.  Play a warrior tank than a DK tank.  Most of those 'Feasible' builds you are mentioning in WoW were not until the very latest part of TBC (specifically, all the tanking ones), and currently, the best tanks are deathknights with druids being a close second, with paladins and warriors being feasible but not prudent(as in yeah, you CAN tank, but it isn't a good idea).  I have lots of personal experience with warriors, and the main problem is blizzard says they are a 'Hybrid' class, so will refuse to allow them to deal anything close to the damage a rogue would do, even if the warrior is in a PvE DPS spec.  StatMan 19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the difference between WoW and GW - GW started out balanced and has gotten steadily worse. WoW has, especially earlier on, been terribly balanced, yet they've gotten better. DKs started out stupid, yet every patch nerfs them more and more - to a point where, one of these days, they might even be balanced! (IBF nerf in 3.2 will go a long way to fixing their tanking ability - maintainable cooldowns is dumb).
 * But to my point, you can take a warrior tank to anything a DK tank can do and still win - from heroics to 25m raids. He will, as you said, not be as great as a DK tank, but he can still do it. You still also see wars in PvP in all arenas. Sins in GW are non-existent unless they have a particular game-breaking super powered attack chain. Rits are only run on bitch roles. There is no drive from ANet to make these classes viable without making them broken.
 * Paragons were okay on nightfall release - after some of their more stupid skills were toned down, they were just sort of there. You had to run a bunch of them to get any real results. How did ANet address that issue? Maintainable, party-wide invincibility. Mesmers were never taken into real PvE, outside of a few crazies like Avarre that were just out to prove they could do it. How did ANet address that issue? Cry of Pain.
 * WoW has no "I win" button. There is no save yourselves, TNTF, shadow form, ursan blessing, or cry of pain. Those are signs of terrible balance and a sign that the developers have really given up. Guild Wars was balanced, and the PvP was more refined than WoW's is even now. But ANet has allowed it to degrade into an honestly disgusting pile of shit that I don't care to touch anymore.
 * I am not a proponent of WoW PvP, especially the terribly flawed "world pvp" (no level restrictions? what the hell?), but the PvE and overall balance is much more well done. WoW has no PvP/PvE skill split and both sides are relatively balanced. The PvE is even hard. GW's PvE hasn't been hard since before nightfall. WoW has kept up with power creep by power creeping the monsters. ANet tried to do that once, and failed miserably. I really want to say good things about Guild Wars, but the only things worth mentioning have been dashed against the rocks by the company that created it. - Auron 22:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GW was better balanced in the past, but is getting worse.  WoW is getting better bit by bit, but will they be well enough balanced before next Xpac?  GW PvE is a joke now.  It used to be fun.  When is that feedback area going to be opened?  StatMan 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously??? If you are all so upset about GW, could you leave so the rest of us can enjoy the game? Please? You are the idiots who ruin the game, not its creators.
 * Okay, seriously??? If you are so upset about this section, could you leave so the rest of us can enjoy it? Please? You are the idiots who ruin these discussions, not their creators. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Useless comment. Im gonna get alot of shit for this and interrupting the whole thing. This sure is a very interesting. Anybody good at wiki pages, that can maxe a GW vs WoW page soley for discussion. When checking this out for my SF (SURPRISE!) elementalist (no?), i thought (to bad...) id see 1 discussion (maybe something of similaritys) about NERF/Not-NERF... Once again this wiki surprises me! Mlw640
 * First: what?
 * Also: fix your sig. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 23:19, 3 Aug 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Auron, but honestly? "In Guild Wars PvP, there is a definite "best class" to run - that's why you see dual monk backlines and nothing else. Why don't you see dual rit backlines? Or monk and rit backlines? Oh, right, because balance is bad." - Best class is setup-specific in both GW and WoW. Even some WoW setups will take certain healing classes over others. I don't know how familiar you are with WoW PvP, but there's a reason you dont see holy priests in arena's. doesnt mean the class isn't balanced, it's just that they're not good for it. Problem, if you want to call it that, is that when faced with the massive pressure in GW PvP you'd be an idiot not to run monks. The need to not run sub-par setups forces you to, even though rits are fairly strong as healers and do so in certain PvP niches. End of the day, they were always intended to be a support class. Whereas monks were always the primary healing class. Has nothing to do with either class being balanced. Thats just role allocation. The smite line in PvP is horrible, whereas there are a large number of viable and effective setups to run damage rits. Does this mean smiting prayers is badly balanced? No, seeing as monks were always heal/prot first. Just because Rits run bitch roles in high end PvP doesnt mean the class is bad or broken, it just means thats what they do best, whereas monks are better at healing. It's called optimization. And the 1:1 comparison to WoW is just laughable. Don't get me wrong, I like it, but all there is is cookie-cutter/gear dominated Arena that you can farm and an expanded form of AB. Nothing even close to the intricacy of GvG or HA. Not to mention the fact that they not only have more classes in general, but the talent system makes specialization far more in depth than it does in Guildwars. It's like comparing a very high tech and intricate swingset (WoW PvP) with a slightly dodgy racecar (GW PvP). One might be better constructed, but that doesn't mean it's better or even equal if the functions are so completely different.  Kay Ðee  09:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Blinding Surge. That hit the playing field pretty hard when Nightfall came out too.  And by "pretty hard" I mean "if we'd gathered a single 50-gigaton warhead for every top 100 team at the time and dropped them randomly all over the game the damage would have been comparable."  –Jette 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When WoW is brought up it never fails to invoke catastrophic amounts of anal trauma. There should be a title that progresses solely on how many times you say "WoW sucks" or "GW is better than WoW" and you get bonus points for coming up with something original and with extra asspain. Pjwned 04:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nearby ... to what?
This has always bugged me about skill descriptions in GW, the ambiguity of "adjacent", "nearby" and "in the area" when used in sentences that have more than one reference point. Instead of being told directly which meaning applies, you have to guess or test or use community knowledge. Liquid Flame provides an example of this problem, because the "nearby" has two possible reference points: "nearby to the target" and "nearby to the caster". In principle a Ritualist skill could also have a third reference point, "nearby to the spirit that enables the AoE damage". Unless the caster, target and spirit are in the same spot, the three possible "nearbies" are very different areas because their circles have different centers.

Fortunately, AoE skills in GW tend to work mostly under the interpretation "nearby to the target", and we can use community knowledge of this without needing to test everything ourselves. Even so though, it would be nice if the extended descriptions were unambiguous and actually said "nearby to the target" when that is intended, instead of just "nearby". A "nearby" on its own is sufficient only for skills without a target, like Shockwave, because then the caster is the only possible center point of the "nearby" circle. Morgaine 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An example of unambiguous use of "nearby" is Chain Lightning -- "Target foe and up to two other foes near your target are struck ...". I wish that whoever wrote that description would write them all. :-) Morgaine 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)