ArenaNet talk:Skill feedback/PvE/"Save Yourselves!"

Okay, you hate Imbagons. Run Motivation then or just don't run a PvE paragon. QQ less. 76.89.81.150 00:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not saying this Skill is not overpowered and I also dont know about how far you can upkeep it all the time or so but still: This one is sooo bad and makes the game booring (which might be the case dunno) but Ursan is good eh? First at all remove Ursan before talking about this imo -- Silent Storm   01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare this to the elite skill Incoming hehe, 100 armor is basically 82% damage reduction. Kinda weird. - Elder Angelus 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to argue to leave as is. This allows certain classes to actually have a use in pve.  What does a para do that isn't outclassed by another class, except maintain this?  Paras need help in PvE, but this skill is good for them.  Also, it helps to make certain classes more viable (sins for example) by removing the issue that makes people take wars over them.  --Kalas Silvern 07:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it make assassins more viable? If an assassin brings this skill, they can't charge it as quickly as a warrior, ranger or paragon and won't benefit from the armour buff, and if another party member brings this skill, any assassins in the party needs to choose to either stop attacking or attack and lose the armour buff unless they use some gimmicky single-target caster spike build which only works in low-end PvP. -- Gordon Ecker 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As in, when someone in the party uses it, the sin gets a nice armor boost that alleviates their one big issue- survivability. This doesn't end on attack either, so I'm not sure where the whole "stop attacking or lose buff" is coming from.  I'm talking about the skill in its current state- I'm completely opposed to the proposed change.  Perhaps there was a misunderstanding? --Kalas Silvern 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I must've confused it with Defensive Anthem and / or the similarly named, recently nerfed "Watch Yourself!", it's hard to keep track of over a thousand skills. -- Gordon Ecker 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Np, I've got a crazy memory that stores tons of useless information for some reason. Glad to clear that up.  --Kalas Silvern 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is also good if you're a barrager. Spammable AoE attacks charge this skill up quickly. I even had an idea for a team build with 4 R/W Save Yourselves barrage/interrupters, 2 monks, 1 tank(to get monsters to cluster in a small AoE) and 1 support character. Basically the rangers just spam barrage(and interrupt when appropriate) and use Save Yourselves as often as possible. If monsters mob up on the tank the rangers get 3-4 adrenaline every 2 seconds and it's effectively permanent +80 armor on the whole team. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:96.233.8.53 (talk).

energy cost
Increasing the energy cost would only make it more useful for paragons (with 30 energy and +energy for each affected ally) than for warriors (20 energy and no possible energy gain). If you want to balance this skill, think of something that would hurt paras but nor warriors. Pulpulpullie 12:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it requires energy rather than adrenaline, it will be abused by casters unless it gets a viable recast time added. &mdash;Zerpha[[Image:UserZerpha The Improver sig.png|talk]] The Improver 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

from main page
I think your issue is irrelevant. The pve/pvp skill system has already provided buffs for pve paragons. Besides, there is no need to nerf pve imbagons when there are so few. When I say few I mean there are probably like 100 regularly played pve paragons in GW, 50 of which are Imbagons. Who cares? I say count your blessings if you get one in a team and don't scream about nerfing them when there are so few and Ursan is around. Psychiatric Consultant 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Para's are still overpowered in PvE. Limitless energy; unstrippable, non stance IAS; motiv skills that are press 4,5,6 every 20secs, if anything, make them more of a challenge rather than a 123 class. This is coming from someone who is primarily a para aswell. 84.9.169.43 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Armond. There are few paragons in pve already. Of course this skill is a tad imbalanced on an imbagon but since there are so few of them it DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. This is NOT a pressing balance issue, it is not as if imbagons having a negative impact on the game. Yeah, it is not exactly fair to the monsters to have a maintained +100 armor on the party but when 1 out of 1000 regular pve players play an imbagon on a consistent basis it is not a PRESSING issue. Psychiatric Consultant 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One out of one thousand regular PvP players abuse dervishes. The rest are too stupid to notice. Does that make dervishes balanced? Nope. And how do you figure that imbagons aren't having a negative impact on the game? They're, well, imba, as you said yourself... -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 11:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This should have been a paragon skill not a warrior one. Wariors barely use it because they either dont have the adrenaline or skill slot to spare and it also has a shout range and warriors are mostly rushed far away for the casters to be in range for the shout. Also, you just talk about the uses for paragons, you dont mention warriors at all which is another proof that this is in fact a paragon skill. This skill should be imho added to paragon and the throw could be change to an attack skill so that everyone can use it. --SkyHiRider 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Warriors use this all the time, because before this was introduced, plenty of people didn't bother rolling a paragon, and now that they have plenty of reason to, they don't feel like it, and so they use this on their warrior. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And when it comes down to it, your own argument justifies why this skill should stay the way it is. Warriors use this all the time, and now, people actually have a reason to use Paragons. 72.75.11.160 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because neither of those argue for why the skill is balanced. In fact, nothing you say can possibly prove that the skill is balanced, because it so clearly isn't. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Most) PvE-only skills were meant to be unbalanced. Guild Wars has always, more or less, been focused on its PvP sections (with regards to difficulty and challenge posed). PvE is more or less meant for casual players and farmers anyway, while PvP players are more dedicated and focused, which explains why most PvE attainable titles are far more easier to achieve than PvP titles. Hence unbalanced PvE skills are given to such players. In short, SY should be nerfed because it (helped the imbagons/physical attackers) to kill whatever fun and challenge the game used to offer, not because it was overpowered.Pika Fan 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's where Gw pve fails massive balls. -- NUKLEAR  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] IIV  16:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or make it useable only by primary warriors? BTW, anyone who uses a paragon to run this skill obviously hasn't tried running it on a Barrager. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:96.233.11.131 (talk).


 * Because barragers can charge it in 2.25 seconds while using TNTF, right? Paragons can charge this in two hits. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 22:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

58.106.143.130's issue
I fail to see how Warriors cannot maintain "Save Yourselves!" with For Great Justice! and Dragon Slash. However, I do think "Save Yourselves!" needs to be changed, not buffed but nerfed so that it works like some of the Sunspear skills - scaled via primary attribute, and then have the scaling via title be with how much armor is buffed. Rank 0 is 40 armor, increasing 5 every title rank perhaps? That way it will be like a buffed version of Watch Yourself! that is not as usable for non-warrior professions and therefore prevents the abuse from secondary warriors that it gets, enabling a party-wide god mode. Also, shouldn't this be brought up to Izzy? Edit: fixed typos -- KonigDesTodes 09:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea no. i see no reason why this should be change. also if it was changed to favor the war more then paras would just die and would never be seen again in pve.75.165.98.83 11:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There will always be gimmick builds made within days of the last gimmick being buffed. Take the first Shadow Form nerf for instance, it was given 50% less damage dealing, people went to degen builds. Anyways, I have a few good Paragon builds that do not use "Save Yourselves!" and some that don't even use PvE-only skills. So there are builds for Paragons in PvE that is usable. -- Konig Des Todes 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * so basicly your saying that they should change how one skill works because you dont like it. well i do like the skill, and its the only way i have found my paragon to be fun to play in pve, and if they are going to kill my fun in pve then they should kill all the fun, just like when they kill a farming spot if there going to do it they need to kill all the farming spots. also as it is right now the skill has a two huge set backs 1 it dosnt help the person shouting it and 2 its a shout that requires a lot of adren to keep up all the time. so if any anti melee stuff pops up bam bye bye save yourself para. also it would like i said before make paras less desirable in pve. and on that point its a pve skill the hole point is that its oped and i think its oped enough that is not brakeing the game because you have to have a party to use the skill. there are some pve skills that never see the light of day because they are not oped enough. like k/l ranger skill i for one have never used that skill because i see no use for it when there are other skills i would much rather bring. + the warriors sunspear skill is a much better skill then the paras. so it kind of evens it self out. there are a lot more factors to a skill then just you not likening how it works in the game right now. and saying that it should give more benefit for warriors is kind of crazy, heres a class that has 80 base armor can tank anything rarely dose anything in as far as party wide support is concerned they are designed mainly to be tanks. should cry of frustration give more benefit to mesmers? also another point of the game that seems to be missing in your argument is that one of the most basic designs of the game is to have and use secondary professions. and i think save yourselfs is an excellent way of using a warrior secondary and i hope more skills have that sort of versatility. ok now i am just ranting mmm 3:45 am why am i awake right now i have no idea.75.165.98.83 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If any change was to be made, it needs to keep SY viable for paragons while making it more viable for warriors. Tying it to strength and knocking the adrenaline cost down is just stupid. If you want it to be cheaper so warriors can use it without sacrificing attack skills, just drop the adren cost, but don't tie it to strength. That would be a pointless change that doesn't add anything to the game; a solution in need of a problem. Part of the reason paragons are so much better than warriors is positioning - paragons tend to be far enough forward to spear opponents, yet not so far forward that shout range skills will miss party members. Warriors spamming SY will often not hit monks, they'll just hit whichever party members are closest to them. That and the requirement of using Dragon Slash makes it a bad choice for warriors. But keep in mind, if you're proposing a change, make sure it solves the problem without creating more. Tying it to strength solves absolutely nothing. - Auron 13:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @IP: Just because a skill is a PvE-only skill, doesn't mean it should be overpowered. Also, skill buffs and nerfs are not all that similar to farming spots. In my opinion (yes, oh my, an opinion, something that is unique to me and I know you'll flame me for), all farming spots should be nerfed, but that is impossible. And, in my opinion (yay more flames for you), there should be no overpowered skills, but again that is impossible to perfectly balance over 1000 skills - and make them balanced for both PvE and PvP. Save Yourselves! is an issue. And yes, the secondary profession thing is something about GW. Something I personally dislike because it opens up far too many farming spots. But I know I will have to deal with it. But by your argument, you want to make Critical Agility, "There's Nothing To Fear!", and pretty much Primary Attributes completely viable for secondary professions. That's at least what it sounds like.
 * And I was just suggesting to tie it to Strength because it was just an idea I came with. I never once said "you MUST link SY! to Strength" or anything like that. And the "abuse from secondary warriors" that I meant was Racway - where every player brings Save Yourselves! whether you are a caster, warrior, paragon, or whatever. Which then allows a 100% maintaining of +100 armor on all players excluding the one who last used it. There are better ways to buff SY! for warriors, while hurting it a bit for secondaries that abuse it (again, Racway more than Imbagon - which doesn't need SY!, as I said). My inexperience with playing Warriors prevents myself from being able to know a good way to buff it (aside from buffing Warrior's adrenaline gain). -- Konig Des Todes 15:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given how big this page already is, wouldn't it be a better idea to discuss this on the "Save Yourselves!" skill feedback page? Erasculio 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Erasculio is correct with the exception of if konig des todes wants a reply from linsey then it should stay here. my point is konig des todes is that your hole reasoning be hind making the change dosnt make scene. ursan need to be changed because it didn't have any draw backs and could be used anywhere. yes its true you can bring a imbagon anywhere but its not always practical, for example in missions that you need to split like eternal grove a imbagon is useless because they dont get enough eng or cover enough people, and to change that you would have to bring two which would harm the amount of damage out put.
 * No i dont want to make it so that skills that use primary attributes are completely viable. i do want more skills that are like save your selfs in where they are viable for secondary profesion use. because how it is right now i can roll a bar and not even use my secondary profesion, and i dont like that about the game. i think that a secondary should always be a more powerful option then just not useing one. also my point was to show you that not all the L/K and SS skills are help full or are designed only to be used by there primary profession like at one point there was cry way was the meta for urgas. one last point and that is if you dis like secondary's then you need to gtfo guild wars because that is one of the things that makes guild wars special and interesting and adds a lot of depth, to the game and has been one of the building blocks for the game.75.165.98.83 21:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The original proposal wasn't even a nerf at all. It was to find a way to make the skill more useable by a warrior. ATM this skill is only run by Paragons, any warriors that want to use their own PvE skill will always be far less efficient with it than a paragon. Reducing the adrenal cost with points in strength (preferable) or increasing the duration with points in strength would be very helpful. This allows the skill to maintain it's current viability on a paragon (which is already 100% maintainability) but giving it a more user friendly use on the warrior as well. This wouldn't unbalance things because we already have perma maintain ourselves, it would just allow warriors to use their own PvE skill without speccing an entire build around it and losing all other efficiency, not to mention being far less effective than the paragon the whole time. 122.105.157.213 15:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make a warrior less efficient. Asuran Scan, Dragon Slash, FGJ, any IAS that works and you've got pretty good damage output, the ability to spam SY much better than a paragon, and you can even toss in Enduring Harmony for an extra 10 seconds of FGJ. Put Enraging Charge on your bar and it's ready to go at the beginning of battle. 99.246.25.11 22:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Main Issue
It's not about whether its effective for paras or wars, or whether its imba. Its the fact that it makes Hard Mode in the Domain of Anguish look like pre-searing. When Abyssals hit for 3 damage, something is wrong. Nerfing the imbagon isnt gonna help, cause d-slash and barrage rangers can still carry and maintain this. Again, the issue isnt about paras falling out of use, it's making PvE a bit more challenging. "TNtF!" is already a great damage-reducing skill, but carrying SY as well fucks enemy monsters over. Nerfing this skill would help a great deal, and would make PvE much more fun than it is now, what with easy crap like imbagons, sabway, and discordway. 98.235.101.46 03:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Paragons are terrible?
I want to thumb your eyes out for being dumb as fuck.--72.189.85.14 08:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * also, bringing 3 paragons to PvE isn't ZZZ, it's win on a legendary scale.--72.189.85.14 08:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm late, but finding that many human paragon players is a bore when you could have one of them roll UA or earthshaker or something. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 04:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced comments
A 45 second recharge "will not have an impact on warriors in any way possible" -- I disagree. That would make it absolutely terrible for any profession. I think, if it really needs a nerf for paragons, it should be a buff for Warriors; for example, "Shout. For 3...5...6 seconds, all other party members gain 10 armor for each rank in Strength"(similar to Seed of Life). However, nerfing this skill is utterly meaningless as long as Ursan Blessing still exists in its current state.--Kite 00:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Or they could make it scale with both Strength and Tactics, making it more powerful on primary warriors but still usable on secondary warriors. -- Gordon Ecker 02:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would definitely be better, but then you have to balance the two, so it isn't abusable on secondary warriors. At least then, nerfs and buffs would simply be changing numbers -- which should be easy.--Kite 13:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a powerful version of "Watch yourself!". So, like with that one, all it needs it's a recharge time. Even 1 second would do fine. 91.117.187.8 10:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? i see no reason that has been provided as why this changed needs to take place. neffing this skill would kill paras for pve. and people would treat them like how sins are treated now. if they are going to neff this skill because "its suppose to be for warriors to use" which i find to be bs because with that same logic norn skills and asuren skills should only work on jora and veek i for one don't think this is making that big of a difference to have to neff it.75.165.98.83 21:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To have it scale with strength is just plain wrong. Look at the other Kurzick/Luxon pve skills. Do they scale with their primary attribute? No. Look at the other Kurzick/Luxon pve only skills. They can be used by ANY PROFESSION like a spirit's strength user using avatar of holy might, or shadow sanctuary being used by a melandru dervish. Point is warriors can still use the skill and it is not gamebreaking pve. Besides how many people request you to bring this skill? I would also like to add that this skills is used by rangers, assassins, and dervishs as well as warriors. Your argument seems to me that you just don't like paragons using it. Warriors can still use it you have to use the right skills to be close to maintaining it.98.162.248.44 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)