Talk:Liquid Flame
From Guild Wars Wiki
[edit] 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
- It actually reads like the target would take damage twice, seeing as it's near itself. Look at Shockwave or Healing Circle, for example.
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)
[edit] 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
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
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. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.188.225.111 (talk).
- 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)
- 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)
- correcting dumb people all day must be fun, Auron? --Cursed Angel
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Atleast it is not balanced like WoW. Redoing a character in GW isn't as time consuming. 17:03, 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)
