User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Izzy Talk Archive 15

From Guild Wars Wiki

[edit] Page Update 4/12/08

Ok, after Izzy setup all the nice organizing features and such his page was great... for a couple of days. Than all the noobs swarm in saying "omg nerf ursan qq, buff frenzy, nerf menfing" and all that stuff. As a hope to restore this page to informational standards again, I deleted all of the pointless headlines.

From here on out, if you have a problem with a skill, however you want to change it please use:

• Skill Feedback

Do NOT post your comments/concerns about the skill/skills on this page.

Next, any problems you have about general PvP aspects such as round times, rules, and similar articles. Please address them to Andrew Patrick and not Izzy. Izzy balances skills... he doesn't balance maps or other concerns (shadow stepping in PvP and such).

Lastly, I'd like to ask for everyone to not be a jerk. Izzy's job is to balance skills... he balances them on how he feels the skill has effected the game. Do not criticize him on this page calling him an 'idiot' or anything of that manner. He is not required to read this page... he does this in his spare time because he's a nice guy and likes to get input from the players. Coming to your page and seeing "Izzy Sucks, I hate izzy, izzy WTF" is not fun, or mature from the writer.

I suggest a semi-protection for this page as well as continuing Izzy's standards of organization so that he can actually read your skill balance opinion instead of a wall of text.

From now on I think the front page should be used to show general ideas that fit for all professions or effect more than one. As an example, I kept the Hex article. If you think that all of the hex removal skills should be buffed from 12s/r to 3 or something, address it here with reasons why hexes are a large problem and such.

Well, thats pretty much all. Keep it clean and this page will look nice again. --'ÑöẊĭƑý 04:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As this is Izzy's talk page, it is best left up to him. Instead of reverting the removed comments back on to this page though, I've archived them to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Izzy Talk Archive 14. Leave things to Izzy in the future, or let him tell us what to do. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a general concern with the fact that most of this seems to be purely cosmetic. There have been a LOT of comments on the Skill Feedback page, but nothing has been done with it. They must all have been bad suggestions, or the standard clause 'we will be evaluating the changes and your feedback' doesn't seem to apply. I know Izzy doesn't HAVE to do any of this, but then I'd rather see that he doesn't, or even tell noobs (like me) to shut up with their useless comments, then to provide a purely cosmetical page. 145.94.74.23 10:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because something isn't acted upon doesn't mean it's not seen. One cannot address every issue immediately, nor does one necessarily have to agree that any given issue is a valid one. Comment on the ones you think are valid, lend your support to them, and explain why the ones you think are invalid are such. Leave the final decisions up to the people who are paid to make them - and get the heat for doing so. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the decisions. If Izzy doesn't change something, then he will have a good reason for it and I am sure he has a better understanding of the game than me. However, when something is being questioned by at least 20 people, then it would have been decent to at least explain why a certain change has been made/hasn't been reversed. I am not asking for a comment on every minor thing, only when something is wildly debated. Take the most recent Ward Against Melee nerf for example: it was one of the few skills that didn't have a reason stated for the change. People debated the change, and still neither a reason nor a revert has been been given. That's called ignoring people and it is the only thing I have against Izzy. A simple: "I have read all of your comments on the ENTIRE skill balance, and I don't see the need for any changes" would have been sufficiënt. 145.94.74.23 09:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because of lack of information from mr. Cartwright's side, this page has now officially lost its usefulness. I'll try to fix it by not posting here anymore so there will be one less person spamming info. However, I seriously think that Izzy should give his feedback on the top X most debated issues of both the game and each update. Otherwise people get really annoyed, and this is the result. The elite will probably just call them noobs. 145.94.74.23 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hexes

Quote on you at Deny Hexes "When hexes where the meta, this skill is by far a required skill it blows all other hexes out of the water, and seeming how hexes are very weak right now any buffs to hex removal I think would really hurt the balance form that. ~Izzy"

May I point you to this, this, this and this. Antiarchangel 04:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not a popular view, but I think hexes need a stack limit rather than buffing hex removal. Buffing hex removal means you'll need hex stacks just for them to be effective. --Redfeather 07:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think having hex stacks nerfed will just mean that necromancers will be even less popular. Water magic isn't affected by hex stack nerfs, nor are short duration hexes of the mesmer domination line. --Life Infusion «T» 15:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Third link was deleted because it was moved here (yay admin powers). Redfeather, that sounds like a good idea; Parasitic Bond is arguably the most annoying hex in the game because it does absolutely nothing but prevent hex removal. Life Infusion, water magic hexes and Mesmer hexes (short migraine stacks) aren't the problem; the stupid long duration of things like Faintheartedness, Price of Failure, etc, are. Nerfing Ancestor's Rage and Splinter Weapon would just make Ritualists more unpopular, but that doesn't mean they're not broken now. -- Armond Warblade 23:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Faintheartedness is stupidly designed because its 50% attack debuff is no attribute. Remember when it used to be 5-37 seconds before then got nerfed? The solution is NOT to nerf the duration. The solution is that the attack debuff should range from 15...39...47% depending on the attribute. Duration should be changed to 18...23...24 seconds. To fix Parasitic Bond, they could add "if it ends early, caster loses 5...3...3 energy."

[edit] Power Leech's second effect, intended?

It's already long time ago, but... when you reworded the mesmer interrupts so that they are also able to interrupt chants, was it intended that Power Leech doesn't drain energy from chants? This skill only includes the "anti-paragon feature" in the first part of it's effect. Atm, the skills wording is:
"Elite Hex Spell. Interrupt a spell or a chant. Interruption effect: steal 1...6...7 Energy whenever target foe casts a spell (10 seconds)."
Wouldn't it be more consequential if the skills wording would be:
"Elite Hex Spell. Interrupt a spell or a chant. Interruption effect: steal 1...6...7 Energy whenever target foe casts a spell or a chant (10 seconds)."
?—ZerphaThe Improver 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

oh sry, i noticed this was the wrong page to post this, added the suggestion on the right place now. —ZerphaThe Improver 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a bug, I'll pass it on to QA, although this does speak volumes for how often this skill it used. Izzy @-'---- 22:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just trying to make this place even more helpful for updates!

I have an idea, perhaps you could allow some kind of voting system in the skill balance section, that would move the "least popular" ideas to the bottom of the list of things, and bring the "better ideas" closer to attention. the way you have things set up as of now it could be very hard for you to really pin point good ideas from most of the rubbish out here, and more importantly what problems are "major issues" to most of the Guild wars players here. require a log in to vote, and makes the idea section very much like the old build section here at wiki (where players vote and stars rep. what "grade" a idea has.) I believe these changes would further improve the quality of your updates by brain storming more efficiently

With much hope for this game --- Betrayed Tiaga

That raises one problem: If people vote on the updates, they will always suck. 90% (probably more) of the people who post here are clueless about game balance, and some of them don't even PvP. You'd get people who think meteor shower is broken, people who think scythes need more damage, and people who want assassins to have one hit kills (I'm not kidding, check the assassin suggestion pages). I'd rather have izzy do it than the community, because every once in a while he at least gets something right. At least no more expansions are coming out, so he can focus on the BS that Nightfall introduced instead of having 200 new broken/useless skills thrown at him every 6 months.

Balance in GW hit rock bottom after NF, and now the only place for it to go is up. ~Shard (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shard, I think you are right, but...I'm talking about "highlighting" the top issues, at least that way izzy can see what is really bugging us all. Oh and one more thing shard, my idea would help remove the horrible suggestions by pushing the bad ideas you are talking about lower on the list of things. Oh course the system I am talking about requires that only "smart people" vote, and let's admit it, that there are way too many not so smart people out there. I don't blame them though...(Guild Wars skill balance is really complex compared to many other games). So to make my system work better I think only "elected" smart people do the voting. Izzy could Elect certain members he feels are generating good ideas and are respectful to vote. This way the voting system becomes less unbalanced and provides an even cleaner look to skill balance, thanks Shard for bringing up that issue. Cheers --- Betrayed Tiaga

Would like that, but hard to implement I think. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean offense to Izzy by saying this, but you're assuming Izzy knows which people on this wiki are smart. The obvious imbalances are easy to pick out, like A-Rage, Splinter Weapon, and Shadow Stepping, but what about the things that create 5-page long articles like Weapon of Remedy? By reading that page, you can tell that some people think it's wtfhaxxorbroken, and others think it's underpowered. I'll admit having this voting thing and appointing certain people to "advise" izzy is a good idea, but how sure can you be that the right people will be chosen? ~Shard

(talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With any user based system there will be bias, heck, a power voter could just vote on a skill he personally feels is OP, or UP. With any scientific study there needs to be what I'd like to call a moral balance, and in order to have this, many elected voters would be selected in hopes that with more "favored" voters the power voters having an off day will be cast into the back-light. If we really want this system to work we would need a strong base of many hand-picked, intelligent people. So to answer your question Shard I'd say just expand the group of hand picked. If that doesn't work keep in mind my change wouldn't murder the way it is now, but just "Prince Rurik is using knock!" it down a step or two on the list of things. (lesser power for voters maybe?) --- Betrayed Tiaga

Whatever will make it easier for Izzy to understand what the masses (so not neccesarily me) want has my full support. 145.94.74.23 06:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Izzy already has the ability to listen to certain people. He might as well hand pick them without telling anyone. 72.235.48.41 09:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion...

Would you have any particular feelings towards the proposal here of moving "ArenaNet communications"-type pages (such as possibly your Skill Feedback section) into a separate namespace instead of having them be part of user spaces? Any comments you have would be appreciated. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Collecting some of the articles in a centralized location is a good Idea. Just make sure links are provided if discussions topics are being held under another namespace, but I think people will eventually hold all discussions under such a location. ~>Sins WDB 12:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even with the new documenting system, this place is still a hellhole. More organization -> always better. -- nuke7 Image:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty interesting and would be something to talk with Regina about. Izzy @-'---- 00:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When GW is not fun anymore

Izzy.... You know you forgot somthing in this last update right? The one skill that has made playing in 4 vs 4 broken and not fun anymore? How would you like to play if pacifism or amity had a 10 second recharge, insta cast and didnt end if you took dmg. This is how much fun it is playing against this broken skill. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:98.215.71.95 (talk).

Diversion has a 12 second recharge and 6 second duration and screws you over completely if you do cast. --The Gates Assassin 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he was talking about Signet of Midnight. --71.229.204.25 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WoD rather imo. --74.57.210.118 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is not the place, don't, please, just.. DON'T compare diversion with WoD. NUKLEAR IIV 10:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penetrating Attack/Sundering and Power Shot...

1. Sundering Attack/Penetrating Attack: decreased damage to 3..10; decreased armor penetration to 10%; increased recharge to 4 seconds.
2. Power Shot: decreased damage to 5..20.

I want to say this from the PvE point of veiw, PvE seems to be left out more than ever since it is a constant battle between PvE and PvP and in the end the skills will go to PvP and we all know that. I know you've tried to settle it with things like PvE-only-skills but it isn't entirely making the whole community happy, except for their ursan teams all the time, lol. Anyway I just want to say this...Power Shot, 10 energy right? 20 dmg at 12 marksmanship with 6 second recharge. Ok, recharge is perfecly fine, but don't let that be an indication to nerf that too ;) But what im getting at is the cost of energy for the damage is extremely high, +20 dmg with high attributes is just not good enough. Power shot is one of the starter skills in prophecies and used to be a favourable skill, but now when someone looks at that in their skill bar its basically meh. A secondary Ranger would find it useless. Lets compare it, you know, just for fun. Can't compare it so well but lets try anyway. Unsuspecting Strike. 10 energy. 2 recharge. +29 dmg and 63 if health was above 90%. 12 crit strikes btw.

Ok I really have to wrap this up on both skills now, but let me just say, don't you reckon its a bit harsh on the PvE players and further consideration should be taken on Power Attack and Sundering Attack? Expecially sundering attack. thanks.

you have to be a noob to have been using power shot before the changes, currently powershot actually is useable with a machine gun build but since they kinda of gave hunters shot 1 sec cast as well, it kinda of fell out of favor... power shot will always be weak, and how about you try the other attacks out, they hit rather high and can be spammed as fast as war with 33ias and while having 20% AP WITH some + damage (not to mention its ranged and you can probably get even more + dmg from preps and enchants) 76.26.189.65 11:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] do you not know?

that Buffing stuff is another way of nerffing. i would realy like to see you take this aproch with some of the older skills so they get more use and so people can still run old builds, but have the chance of running into the newly buffed skills.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.172.43.176 (talk).

Buffing is not nerfing. Too much buffing causes a D2 slope, where things progressively get stronger and stronger, and eventually everything in the game has one-hit kills. That's bad. In most cases, nerfing things is the better way to deal with them. 72.235.48.41 09:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

im saying there needs to be more of a balance of both nerfs and buffs. not to just make everything one hit kill.-_-75.172.43.176 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. For example, when blocking was a problem, skills like Guiding Hands that bypass blocking could have been buffed without creating one-hit kills. 145.94.74.23 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Buffing counters for counters is more than likely a bad way at going about game balance as the person above alluded to. It leads down the slope of build wars which should be avoided when trying to create a "balanced" game. I'm sure the topic of buffing vs nerfing has been discussed to death on gaming forums and articles across the internet in general. Check out GW fansite forums if you really want to discuss this further as Izzy's page should probably be focused on more specific issues. PlacidBlueAlien 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

i am just stateing that every time i see a skill update i see 95% are nerffs and the rest are very little buffs or are round about nerffs. and wanted to make izzy aware of that. your comment is kind of random and dosnt really get the jest of what i am saying at all.75.172.43.176 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There is nothing wrong with a build which is more powerful against another build, as long as it is done in a rock-paper-scissors way. Every build should have a weakness, instead of all builds being the same, with the same strengths and the same weaknesses, like chess. 145.94.74.23 10:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

you disagreeing with me? confused... any how i agree im just stating he needs to buff some of the old skills the ultimate would be if he balanced out the amount of skills each profession has but that would never happen.75.172.43.176 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with you, and I agree with you again. 145.94.74.23 06:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So you decide to nerf

the few skills that can help to counter SWAY, and you leave the reigning king of rediculously overpowered builds completely untouched? Thanks a bunch, Izzy. The Hall of Heroes couldn't possibly be any harder to reach.

I know I'm not the first person to complain about that build, but do I need to be to have my voice heard? I can imagine the e-mails, comments and forum posts pouring in.

SWAY is ruining so many aspects of HA. Hero Rank means less than ever due to over-farming of Fame by SWAY groups that go for hours and hours. Players who want to play an honest, clean, gimmick-free build can't even make it to halls. And SWAY builds who actually want to win halls can't do it.

SWAY only benefits fame farmers. Not even the people who want to use it as a real build, and especially not the people who are original thinkers and want to try new skill combinations that work in theory but not in practice due to over-saturation of SWAY runs. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.67.107.134 (talk).

what was the few skills that countered sway that he nerfed? 76.26.189.65 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

perhaps bsurge, ward vs. melee, aegis etc. Balashi 13:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm not a huge HA'er so take what I say with a grain of salt but from when I do play, sig of humility along with a few hexes on the n/rts normally cause the teams to drop fast. PlacidBlueAlien 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped caring for rank the moment IWAY was invented, tbh. NUKLEAR IIV 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No one used balanced to farm their rank. Even iQ ran IWAY. --TimeToGetIntense 01:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Case-and-point? NUKLEAR IIV 02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OMG

Izzy youre a terrible person!! You like NERFED GW!!! There should be at least some buffs but theyre all nerfs AAHHHHH????~!!?!??!?67.81.169.196 03:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a temporary change, it'll be reverted in a couple weeks. -- Gordon Ecker 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And how about: instead of acting like a whining 2-year-old, try to put a handful of arguments as to why this is such a "horible update". The only thing I find horrible about it is the fact that it is temporary due to it's affect on PvE-gameplay, when it in my oppinion ought to make PvE more entertaining. (see "PvE Player's point of view")--ILLUSiVE 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign... >_<)

hopefully, even more will be nerfed in a few weeks, until we are using fluffy bunny attacks none stop 76.26.189.65 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad it is only a temporary change. I find it puzzling though, that you nerfed Shockwave, while you stated yourself that Shockwave isn't the problem, but shadow stepping is. Secondly, I beseech you to stop nerfing the wards. I can see how you want to fix issues (like unremovable defense for VoD NPC's, that can be overpowered) and I totally agree to make wards affect all party members. However, wards in general, aren't that overpowered, especially compared to what several other professions can do. Please read the update page with the recent ward against melee nerf, and see how many people agree with me. 145.94.74.23 06:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nerfing Ward Against Melee again will make it less of a passive defese, which seems to be the main point of this update. This update won't make it useless, quite the opposite. With the other nerfs to passive defense, this is as of this time one of the strongest ones and passive defense on a whole is still usefull, just not as increadibly overpowered vs. active defense that actually requires some skill of the players. And contradictory to your oppinion I find this update to be a great step in the right direction when it comes to balancing gameplay overall. I vote permanent.--ILLUSiVE 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Common be honest guys you dont need arguments here :/.He killed the rt profession,he +- killed the para profession (yes izzy if a proffession only has 20 usefull skills and you kill the most important ones you kill the profession).He +- burned the remains of the assassins and he tried to buff some skills that will never see use even if there free unremoveble direct cast no aftercast delay and no recharge.Before i read the update i thought you had the intention on starting to play the game instead of watching.No i just know you never will.Good job izzy after killing pve with ursan you also killed 2 professions (sin was +- dead anyway with only like 3 usefull builds).Lilondra 15:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly enough, Paragons and assassins are still broken. Let's get a nerf hammer to dervishes too plx? And I am wholly against the WaM nerf. Not while defensive anthem exists. NUKLEAR IIV 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

i don't know about dead and broken profession, me i main a sin and can still kill within a 10 sec period, then move on to my next victim if the first was killed right, and it wouldn't be hard to come up with a decent paragon build either, just got to be creative :D.My concern is why does pvp dictate what a skill should be, more concerning gvg. most of the time any buff/nerf had something to do with gvg. there are more expects to the game then that right? Metal Sazz 9:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So can a warrior and he doesnt have to kite 25 seconds between each chain.Besides assassins are not used,neither will they ever be if we keep getting updates like that.People only abuse it.Lilondra 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

'sins are broken because their dagger attacks suck, but the shadowsteps are *still* broken. Pls fix. NUKLEAR IIV 18:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There dagger attacks should rock but shadowsteps are only "used" for nondagger chains (secundary).Thats a problem if only daggersins would be able to use it it would just require skill.Lilondra 06:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

@Nuklear - The only reasons assassins are still broken is because they are omnipotent. If they didn't have shadow stepping, they'd just be warriors with less damage and less armor. It's funny as I look back in time: When Factions came out, there was only that one AoD-golden phoenix build that dominated, and rits were shit. Then Nightfall was released with all its untested, unbalanced skills. Rits became the best profession, paragons were monks with 200 (literally) armor, and sins gained the ability to kill anything they wanted to. Anet really should test GW2 before releasing it. ~Shard (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It seriously felt like a slap in the face when I read that the updates were temporary. 71.59.231.50 01:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont know why so many people complain all the time. I am a pve'r most of the time and pvp'r some of the time, but no matter what i'm doing, I always find a build that works for me, or for my team and we play and have fun. People that say things like 'ursan broke pve' or 'IWAY ruined HA' should simply not use it (ursan is by no means necessary for any part of the game), and play with a good group of people that know their skills, their roles, and how to follow directions and find a counter that works. Anytime a skill update has come along and "ruined" a skill or build I like, I either A) figure out how to make it work for me again, or B) find a different skill/build and learn to work with it. You people are so unhappy about every skill change that has ever happened that I'm pretty sure, that unless YOU personally edited the skills you will NEVER be happy about what is changed. Sure Anet introduced some new skills and those thinking people found ways to make some of those new skills very powerful, surely you can not expect a game with 1000+ skills to be balanced in a short period of time. No matter what changes are done to skills, there will always be people that will find the easiest least complex way of winning, so unless they remove all 1000+ skills and have us only using basic attacks with generic characters, there will never be true balance. Pve'rs and pvp'rs need to adjust with each change, yes give CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM about skills, that will eventually lead to some skills actually gaining usability (Otyugh's Cry was all but useless for almost 2 years), but by all means please do not simply criticize without any useful feedback. 68.104.205.160 20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why disagree with me shard? I think we can all agree that Shadowsteps are broken but their chains are not?

[edit] Seperate Skill sets for GW2

Dear Izzy, could you confirm that GW2 will have seperate skill sets/game mechanics for each game mode. So that balance updates can be targeted to exactly where they are needed, have no effect on other game modes and can be done to the fullest extent without fear of breaking other parts of the game or generating massive QQ. If not, please pass the idea along to those who make the game kthnxbai --Just One More Thing 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, that just seems like a boring and overcomplicated way to do things. I'd rather not have to keep track of several different versions of skills and mechanics all the time, and I don't think balancing them would get that much easier either. In fact, I'd be happy if anet made pve fights more pvp-like so we don't need pve skills at all ;) 62.101.45.8 07:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Turn PvE confrontations into what might seem like PvP-ones and it might actually become interesting--ILLUSiVE 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If I want to play PvP I will go and play PvP. PvE needs ways to differentiate itself. With different rules for skill efficiency, healing amounts etc to compensate for learning curve and difficulty in certain areas. This doesn't mean that either will go unnerfed but severe problems of one shouldn't effect the other where same tactics never has chance of working. Biz 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ILLUSIVE has a point: PvE needs to be more pvpish. How? Well, first off we can make some better balanced opposition by fixing the infinite energy issues, level differences, AI, and variable bars. Ten, we nuke the broken shit that exists to counter other broken shit, and finally nuke stuff like ursan and consumables. NUKLEAR IIV 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, PvE should be designed to cater to what most PvE players want. PvP should be designed to cater to what most competitive gamers want. Get off your high horse and stop telling PvErs what they want. Separating the skillsets would be the best way to make as many people happy as possible. --TimeToGetIntense 01:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It just turns out I'm a pver myself, time. "No, PvE should be designed to cater to what most PvE players want". What do they want, exactly? hordes of ultra powerful beasts with AI's that are only slightly better than concrete? And broken skills that are designed to counter these said hordes of death. I think, If you went around and asked all the pvers, (Hell, if such a thing was possible!) they'd say that they'd prefer to use their minds more than their builds. I'd also like to remind you that a huge part of playerbase is casual, whom care very little for the slaying of dumb AI: In my experience, (and this may sound like I speak from a "high horse", but really, I'm just saying what's on my mind) people prefer actual thniking more fun than just hitting 1 2 3 in order. NUKLEAR IIV 10:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think separating the skills between PvE and PvP is the way to go. My perception is that the majority of the PvE players want a simple "tank and spank" style of play. I could be wrong, but either way I think it's a really good idea to separate the skills. Currently there is too much friction between the two communities largely due to the skill balancing. --TimeToGetIntense 11:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How would separate skillsets make the game better in any way? I both pve and pvp and I think tank and spank is pretty much the most boring thing ever :( if anet completely removes that stuff from GW2 I'll cheer! Impaled 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, time, A fraction of pve players love the tank 'n spank, but that fraction only cares for titles, expensive armor, mounds of ectos and teh panda. But most of the playerbase is casual, and I know that no casual player likes tank 'n spank. I also believe that casual players like the intergrated skill system. People can practise the game mechanics in ove than move of to PvP. I think separating skill sets would be... well... let's use the word strange. NUKLEAR IIV 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I think you will agree with me that pve skills were baed for the game. NUKLEAR IIV 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dev Update For future tournaments, we aim to focus on changes that will not impact PvE play at all. like the wards and the spirits got only nerfed in gvg and are still the same in pve, thats how it should be done? --Cursed Angel 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is something we've been talking a lot about and while I can't comment on GW2, I will say it seems like a pretty logical solution, but there are trade offs, it makes knowing the different skills a bit more hard core and stuff like that, well have to see what the future holds but in the end the following statement will be solved. PvE enjoys it when less stuff changes, PvP enjoys it when more stuff changes, and thus they become conflicting goals. Now while that is true it's an overstatement so take it at that, clearly PvE needs changes at times, and PvP once it gets in a good balance state needs less, but the fact they conflict with each other so directly makes them hard to balance on an equal plane. Izzy @-'---- 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear Izzy. I think it would make the job of balancing easier and reduce the complaining from those who were indirectly effected by an update. Having different game mechanics per game mode would also reduce some of the balance headaches we can clearly see from GW1. --Just One More Thing 17:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Izzy. PvP doesn't need tons of change as much as it needs interesting mechanics and strategies. No one complains about Bull's Strike, Diversion, Distracting Shot, or Disrupting Chop, even though these skills are incredibly powerful. The fact is they are very interesting, fun and reward player skill/experience/intelligence. These skills don't need to be changed. If we have enough interesting options, we won't need nearly as much change. The game will be interesting because every match will be different. --TimeToGetIntense 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how all perfectly balanced skills come from proph. I wonder why. -- NUKLEAR IIV 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I mainly PvE, and personally I like it when the skills change as it brings back the fun of experimenting to find new effective skillsets. If the skills remain static you get locked into the same old builds with little incentive to be more inventive once you've found something that works well - and that gets boring after a while. I think the irritation of PvE-ers is down to the irregular changes caused only by the PvP community. If skill updates occurred frequently and regularly (weekly, or every other week say) just for the benefit of shaking the skills up a bit then it would be accepted (in GW2 anyway). Skill balances directed at PvPers would be 'hidden' in the slow drift of changes that would happen anyway, and unbalanced gimic builds could be quietly quashed without much protest as there would be no expectation of the skills staying static. Skill changes would need to be minor individually (so skills weren't rendered useless overnight) but over many weeks it would become significant and everyone would need to be more adaptable. Of course that might well make balancing for PvP harder, but having the skills constantly in a state of subtle flux could make for a more interesting PvP experience anyway, encouraging more players to be more creative with their skillbars. Jbuk 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how all perfectly balanced skills come from proph. I wonder why. That's easy nuke, less skills and less mechanics = easier balancing. The fewer things you have to worry about the easier something is to do. Btw, no such thing as perfect balance, perfection is interpreted differently by everyone.~>Sins WDB 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Funny how all my posts with "GET THE FUCKING HINT" theme works out quite well. -- NUKLEAR IIV 18:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If it were true, then I'd agree. But the Factions skills in general (excluding the new professions) aren't unbalanced, so it is very possible to add new skills and not disrupt the game. Prophecies in general, however, sucks beans (it's more of a beta than a game) and I can list quite a few Prophecies skills that are far from balanced (Mist Form/Mending/Pacifism/Ward Against Elements/need I go on?). 145.94.74.23 07:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So wrong. back when it was proph only, without the insane power creep that came with NF, we had very few skills that sucked balls. VERY few. Mist form was actually an okay elite, so was WaE. But when we added more broken class promoters, we lost that balance. -- NUKLEAR IIV 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The people I spoke back when Factions had just been released disagree with you though. Balance was not ok back then, there were a lot of very underpowered skills (Beast Mastery, Earth Magic AoE, etc.) I'd list all the useless skills, but I'm too lazy. Balance was ok, if you played a certain attribute. If you didn't, then you simply couldn't compete. At least that's different now. 145.94.74.23 05:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's a comparison. Compare Proph good/terribad ratio with NF good/terribad ratio. -- NUKLEAR IIV 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irremovable defense

Last time I checked spirits could be killed... 84.84.179.39 07:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I was going to post that aswell, apparently I'm not the only one who noticed that. 130.112.1.3 10:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's hope this thing called "thinking" might catch on.--ILLUSiVE 14:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PvE Player's point of view

Since it was mentioned that the changes are reverted back due to PvE players, I take the liberty to comment them from a PvE perspective.

The only skill that really impacts any PvE play is the "Glyph of Concentration". Since some tanks rely heavily on the glyph it's one nerf that is really hitting them. There should be enough alternatives, but not all players are used to them; or willing to accept them.

Limiting splinter weapon is also not that nice, but the real limitation is not the recast, but the maximum number of affected adjacent foes. Splinter weapon could very much retain its 8s recast, it also could retain its one-Barrage shot limitation, but expand the affected adjacent targets from 3 to all. I would neither know nor care about the VoD effects, but I suppose as far as VoD-AoD damage goes, it is as good as any. To limit negative VoD effects, the cooldown could be raised even further, as PvE teams using Splinter Weapon will have at least 20s between mobs (go to next tanking point, recharge Spellbreakers). PvE teams will also melt down any mob within the existing 8s (or 4s) recharge. After the initial Splinterbarrage, there is the tendency to spam physical damage triggers on one target in order to wipe the mob with Mark of Pain (and its incredible Shadow Damage). If tanking is not involved in PvE and players take an "open chaotic battle" approach, then splinter weapon is not that important to begin with, as it seldomly will hit more than 2 opponents.

If anybody really needs help in PvE, then it is the paragon. Not by getting any buffs or nerfs, but by helping new players transport adrenalin from one fight to the next. Often the adrenalin skills will only be ready after one fight is (nearly) over and the adrenalin will be lost before the next fight starts. PvP has constant conflict so players do not loose their adrenalin. Very good PvE players accommodate their paragons in builds that never stop, but push on endlessly towards the enemy like a rolling steam train. They do not have a problem with loosing adrenalin because there is no "in between battles" phase. The many players not running a "rolling steamtrain" build (the players who need to take breaks between fights) will find the Paragon to be somewhat futile. It is a beginner to medium experienced player problem.

I also believe that most skill changes are received too hysterical by PvE players. Real tactics that worked before, still work and will always work. The removal of self-sustaining uber-farm combos is always a good thing. Isaiah should not change is approach to balancing --4thvariety 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Paragons with Signet of Aggression don't lose adren - 124.169.10.100 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate PvE in GW. Every aspect of is it total crap to every other PvE-based MMO-style game out there. Just had to get it off my chest. And just let me congratulate you, 4thVariety, to be one of the very first PvE-oriented players to make an actual point in your argument and look at things in a way that I can actually accept without looking at it like something uttered by a complete moron. Kudos to you. And now from a fully-hateful-PvE-POV, shouldn't these skillchanges make PvE more interesting? I mean, pardon me, but I can't see what the hell would be entertaining about cutting through huge mobs that can't lay a hand on you due to your absolute Party-wide defense. This reduction makes the PvP-gameplay a lot more interesting, while at the same time it will force the dear ol' PvEers to actually THINK a little bit. So I don't really see any downside to this way of updating the skill-assortment whatsoever... If players can't manage not being fanaticly overpowered in comparison to the things in the environment around them, maybe it's not due to the skills on their bar, but the skill of the players themselves...--ILLUSiVE 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you claim PvE players are unable to think, yet all i've seen from PvP is a set list of "acceptable builds" that everyone uses. certain PvE areas were already ridiculously difficult because of the higher level, greater numbers, and enhanced abilities of the mobs there. you don't have to worry about that in PvP where everyone is 20th level using the same skillset. Many times in PvE when attempting to vanquish this area or that, the only thing that keeps you alive long enough to do some damage are these party wide defensive skills, and nerfing them so that the handful of PvPers who keep whining about imbalance in their small section of the game makes an already difficult situation next to impossible for that group of us who refuse to grind out a level 10 norn ursan. so PvPers don't like the blocking abilities, maybe you should start "thinking" a bit more and include skills that ignore blocking for physical attackers like we have to in PvE.

Applying such an update just to make the last MAT maybe a little less boring then the last ones, saying that updates will be reverted after it, in order not to confuse the PvE Community, makes me do 2 things: Tell my Guildmates that we stop playing till this MAT is over ... and watch out for other games. With completely trying to stop any way of passive defense, and at the same time not doing anything about Sway builds, which constantly ruin Heroes Ascent for some time now, these game modes seem to come to an end.

Best and dumbest update in a long time. The fact that you nerfed several things that needed a fix was really good and I was happy last night until I read the Developer Notes. To remove this update would be a severe cripple from 2 weeks of more balanced play. 78.69.174.74 11:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Did the OP just ask for pve paragons to be buffed? Wow. Paragons are more overpowered than ursan in pve. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Focus on PvE?

How are we supposed to interpret this (source: Developer Updates):

This could have easily been included in the fake April 1st update as a joke but unfortunately it's not. Is Anet seriously telling us that future skill balance updates will focus on not upsetting the PvE community instead of actually creating a balanced game? --Draikin 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's how I interpreted it as well. I'm hoping it's just me looking at it at the wrong angle, because if that's the way they are thinking they're really heading in the wrong direction... I say: set the skills to balance PvP, regardless of it's effects of PvE. Otherwise PvP will never reach it's full potential. And PvP is what Guild Wars is all about anyway. (hence the name...) If they're so afraid to mess up PvE, then make the skills different for PvE for all I care, but being afraid of balancing PvP simply because it affectcs the PvE-gameplay just seems like a stup--..... I'm just saying there are better ways to approach the matter. This "temporary change in fear of PvE blaha blaha"-approach is a foolish idea altogether.--ILLUSiVE 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they are aware that PvE is what actually makes them almost all their money, and not PvP, and as such, are actually a little bit concerned about making too many skills useless or too many classes unplayable in PvE? After all, you cannot destroy the game's income source if you want the game to continue to exist, can you?

PvE Players (primary or PvE only) are the people who keep shelling out cash all the time for more character slots, all the campaigns, all the bonus mission and weapon packs, and that sort of thing. I know a good many folks who are primary PvE players that have dozens of character slots on their account, but most of the primary PvP players seldom need or use more than just a couple slots.

I do both, but of my seven accounts my primary account has fifteen characters on it alone. It's fun to play all the different classes through the stories in PvE, and then make another of the same class of perhaps a different look or gender, and do it again... but I don't play all the classes in PvP that I do in PvE... and if I didn't enjoy the PvE side so much I would have never spent all that money on the extra accounts and character slots. I think this is the case for a lot of other players too... so showing no regard for the playability of skills and/or professions in PvE is basically saying that the game doesn't need the PvE side, but without it the game would never have made as much money as it has, and it would lose a lot of future income as well. ~ J.Kougar 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Playability of skills and professions in PvE is simply not an issue, you can run ridiculously bad builds and still complete the game regardless of the profession you're using. The fact is that the majority of PvE players don't care about game balance and apparently keeping those players happy will be the focus for future skill balance updates. Following that logic they might as well remove PvP from the game. --Draikin 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What if this is a test re: the impact of separating PvE from PvP with GW2 in mind? Is that such a bad thing? Wouldn't that open the door for new ideas and challenges for PvE only? I guess I just don't understand why there "has to be" a connection between PvP and PvE for GW to be fun. Why would it be an issue if PvP and PvE had completely different skill sets even, thereby making it a completely new and different aspect of the game? Lady Chevon 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But they're not talking about separating PvE from PvP. Instead they're simply going to prioritize the "fun" in PvE over the balance in PvP. It's not even about balancing PvE either, rather it's matter of maintaining the status quo in PvE so that players no longer see any impact at all from skill balances. That's really what it says. I can only assume this means that if a skill is problematic in PvP but fixing it would nerf an overpowered PvE farming build, the skill would simply be left alone. --Draikin 18:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance the skills for PvE and change PvP. Make it so that from now on, only Warriors are allowed in PvP, they are only allowed to use a predefined equipment setup, and they are not allowed to use any skills. Perfect PvP balance the way people like it. As simple as it can get, everyone has a fair chance, and everything is as weak as it could possibly get. Both PvP players and PvE players win. --Deathwing 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A person could also say, "Ignore PvE complaints about skill changes by buffing Ursan to one hit kills." Seriously, you may be frustrated at the state of the game or against some of the nerfs/buffs and the recent PvE slant but posting unrealistic suggestions don't really help. PlacidBlueAlien 18:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't view this new separation as a freeze forever in PvE skills. Quite the contrary I think it could open up options to make changes to both individually and keep them both fresh and interesting. Maybe I'm naive? :D Lady Chevon 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Draikin - Yes, you can use really bad builds and any class to get through PvE if you don't mind being a pathetic waste of space and leech off the rest of your team (assuming you can find one willing to take you with your really bad build/profession), but most people don't have much fun just sitting there having no real way to contribute to the action (and for those who do, that's why they need the Report system for leeching in PvE areas too) and being a total waste of a team slot. Sure, if you want to play really bad builds and can't find a team, you can always use Henchmen, but unless you are skilled enough to know how to use/command them, then you still have a pretty good chance of getting wiped out anyway.

You claim that most PvE players don't care about balance, but I don't know any who are like that (except the farmers). Sure, the PvE Only skills should be a little more powerful that normal skills to compensate for the fact that you are so frequently outnumbered in PvE by groups of creatures that are much much higher level than you with far more attributes, energy, and life than you can ever have... but the majority of the skills should be balanced, but balance doesn't mean removing the damage capability from every class besides the warrior and keeping the monk as the only class that can heal, and giving them overpowered skills. People who play a lot of PvE want to be able to chose from a lot of dofferent skills and make a fun and viable build, not be forced to only pick from 8-16 skills that haven't been destroyed yet... PvP Primary players might want to be forced into specific builds for specific classes and play those classes only a specific way... but that's not what most PvE primary players seem to find to be fun. Personally, I don't like to be forced into a specific roll with limited builds available in either PvP or PvE.

@ Deathwing - Sadly that does seem to be what a whole lot of the PvP only players want these days. If that's what they want then they could also just move the mechanics from the Dragon Ball Arena to the rest of PvP. It would kill my interest in it, but for all those who want only one or two classes to be viable and only one or two skill sets usable by those classes, it would make them happy.

@ PlacidBlueAlien - Buffing Ursan like that would be silly, and further ruin PvE. I don't think Ursan is too horribly over-powered as is, but then again I don't use it because it's not any fun to play. Like the majority of people who play some PvE, I want to be able to dig through a long list of viable skills and put together a fun and interesting build that works, but isn't over-powered. Aside from the people with nothing better to do with their time than Farm, and the people running Farming Bots, I don't know of any one who wants something as pathetic as a one-hit-kill skill for PvE. That goes against the entire idea of having fun when playing. ~ J.Kougar 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Balancing skills doesn't mean making only a subset of the skills viable for use in PvP. While this may be the case now it's definitely not what PvP players want, I'm not sure where you and Deathwing got that idea. --Draikin 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1). Most PvP people complain about all the new professions, about how they supposedly ruined the game.

2). Most PvP people completely support nerfing skills ( granted some do need it).

3). Most PvP people, the outspoken ones anyway, are usually against buffing skills.

From this, you can pretty much work out that they do not like more options and play styles, since they dislike new professions. You can also work out that they want a lot of skills weakened, therefore in a round about way increasing the effectiveness of auto attack damage. From number 3, you can work out that again, they do not want varied ways to play, and want skills to be relatively weak. All of this in the struggle for "balance". A lot of people want to forgo fun for this so called "balance". I took the forgoing fun for balance a step further, getting rid of all fun for complete and perfect balance. No diversity, which seems to be the goal of most. No strong skills since they would be non-existent. The best part about it is, they wouldn't even need to go to wiki to look up the current FotM. --Deathwing 22:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

GOD I LOVE STRAWMEN. --71.229.204.25 22:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Most PvP players..." please speak for yourself, you did not investigate this properly and you base these arguments merely on your own opinions. 84.104.80.120 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the angle I read from was.. well.. I'll assume good faith, and say that "Well, now they realize that pve doesn't need a joke anymore"... let's pray.. NUKLEAR IIV 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Deathwing, if all the overpowered skills get nerfed to the level of the other skills, there would be MORE variety. Not less. Strong skills are bad for the game. Even if the numbers on every skill were perfectly balanced, you'd still have a game where variety exists, just because the conditions those skills become optimal in would be different. Right now, the power levels of the 5% best skills in the game are twice as high as they should be, which results in only 5% of the skills in the game being played. They need to be fixed. ~Shard (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

@Deathwing

Like Shard already said, that reasoning is flawed. If GW were perfectly balanced then there would in fact be a lot of diversity. It's perfectly possible to have strong skills that are still balanced (Bull's Strike for example). Nobody is against buffing skills either. However, a lot of buffs simply consist of tweaking the numbers on a skill that is otherwise not worth using. For example the current Dark Pact buff: in its current form it's just not going to be used unless it deals so much damage that it can no longer be ignored. Otherwise, it's similar to skills like Flare that don't have any interesting mechanics that make it worth using in a balanced build. In the past these kinds of changes have introduced more imbalanced builds which then have to be nerfed again. Unfortunately Anet was always reluctant to nerf those skills and the reason for that now becomes apparent. For example after months of complaints, Splinter Weapon finally got nerfed but only after they promised the PvE community that they would revert the changes. All this because they added 3 seconds more recharge to the skill, which hardly makes any difference in PvE. --Draikin 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the angle I read from was.. well.. I'll assume good faith, and say that "Well, now they realize that pve doesn't need a joke anymore"... let's pray.. NUKLEAR IIV 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

@J.Kougar: If PvE players like to have variety, why is it that the majority of them don't want Ursan Blessing to be nerfed? That single skill is so overpowered its killing all variety. There are many perfectly viable builds for every class, but Ursan is so broken everybody uses it instead. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no use for Ursans, but a lot of folks do because they have a class that's just not viable in some areas... you claim there are viable builds for every class, but tell me what options a Mesmer has in the majority of the Domain of Anguish? Do they have a lot of builds to pick from when playing there? How many skills in all do they have to choose from when playing there that aren't PvE only skills? There is also the fact that a lot of folks just aren't very good at playing the game, so if they can't get on good teams otherwise Ursans might land them a party spot and let them finish the game.

I think the biggest thing though, is that Ursans is a farming tool, and it's primarily the farmers who want to keep it powerful. ~ J.Kougar 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

J, that's not the problem. I'd point you to cry of pain, but that is not the answer you are looking for. Well, here it is: PvE balance sucks. It's not just Ursan being broken, its many other shit being broken, and not only on the players side. You NEED skills like Ursan, SY, TNTF, And Cry Of Pain just to deal with broken monsters. When PvE becomes more of a "think before you play" game and less of a "pick the broken build to win" game, it'll make a whole lot more sense. Right now, though... It's a joke. NUKLEAR IIV 00:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As NuclearVII said, PvE is horribly unbalanced. For example some professions, such as elementalists and monks, are far more useful in high-end areas than other professions, such as assassins. Ursan Blessing has had a significant negative impact on build diversity, but it has also narrowed the power gap between professions, and I think that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I want a better solution, but I think that the current working solution, although unpleasant, is better than nothing. -- Gordon Ecker 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Except you're not playing your profession at all, you're playing a broken bear 'profession'. 213.105.215.60 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love having them changing the skills often, and thus giving pve-players a need to be more creative. And ofcourse you would have to check that the mob of horror wouldn't go impossible (a few changes in their skillset would fix that). Why not having a major change for all classes every 3 months and minor ones in between just for smoothing out mistakes done that might ruin the gamefun? And why not surprise us players once in a while by changing some of the bosses/mobs/npc's/henchmen's skillsets/skills (even elites) so they work in a different way and thus adding the extra part of uncertanity that you only have the first time you play the story? As you see I like being challanged, and surprised - that is what I find fun (I would probably faint the first time such a thing were done, but you usually wake up afterwards). But unfortunatly I think others might get frustrated for such things as they like having a static game where they wont have to think too much. And it would probably scare away a lot of the more seldomplaying people who don't have the time to come up with new builds of their own. Just a few thoughts from a player running around in PvE and getting bored 193.11.242.69 07:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

worst balance shit ever, all they did was obs a few games watched wat worked "too" well and totally destroyed them in an obviously hasty slap ass fashion ( thats y its going to be reverted). while i understand they dont have time with GW2 on the way, doin smack ass balancing is just bad taste. i dont even pvp and i kno this was half assed. WTB update that had time put into it. ph$$A1L 13ss plzxc ty. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.137.125.116 (talk).

They don't have 100% of their staff working on GW2. That excuse is just a way to cover up their own ineptitude. It doesn't take much effort to balance a game, especially when every team in GvG runs the exact same skills. It's sad that Anet gave up on PvE balance, because PvE used to be fun. Now it's all grind and no challenge. ~Shard (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another Shadow Step fix suggestion...

Dear Izzy,

I just had an idea that might help, or maybe not, but I thought I would at least share it with you.

"When you use (shadow step skill), you have a X% chance the skill will fail and you will shadow step to a random nearby location instead."

X can be any number.

It's just a thought, might work, probably not, but I thought I'd share it anyway. 145.94.74.23 13:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

turn it to a hex and put it in domination magic, mesmers lack a prophesies elite don't they? --Cursed Angel 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but its Mantra of Celerity which was removed for understandable reasons. --Angelic Loki 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't fix it. It has to have a penalty every time you use it. Weakness for 5 seconds would be a better change. ~Shard (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

actually, I was thinking of health sacrifice, like 30%, every time you shadow step. I think I'll post this! NUKLEAR IIV 00:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Shadowstep does not need a built-in drawback. It's a way to overcome an already built-in drawback melee has to deal with: kiting shuts their damage down completely, while casters don't have to worry about distance. MrGrendel 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with previous poster. Along the same lines, recall that it does have a slight downside already in that it forces Assassin primary or secondary, greatly reducing the utility of some bars. I would rather have Shock or Grasping on a warrior any day then a shadow step. While the surprise spike from a shadow step sometimes kills, its not 100% by any means, as while monks do watch positioning, they are also adept at red bar monking 99% of the time, and a shadow step spike is no more powerful then say Ranger Spike, IV Spike, SF Spike, Invoke Spike, Death Spike, Blood Spike, and the list goes on. Leave shadow steps alone. --Angelic Loki 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm... there are.. two things wrong here: First, @mrgrendal, Shadow steps are broken precisely because of that. Melee NEEDS to have that drawrback, because melee gets powerful shit like DW on demand, KDs, stonefist, free autoattack dps, and on top 'o that, supreme armor. They need to have their drawbacks or guess what? they become broken. remember Eurospike? remember triptree with trees that triped u up with trip shadow steps? Shadowsteps need to have their drawback, or melee just laffs at positioning, which, btw, is a very crucial part of the game. You also said that casters don't get tat disadvantage. Casters also don't have this.

@AngelicLoki, assasin secondary does give utility. That's neither here nor there. A warrior who gives up shock for dark prison still has bulls, he can own crap still. but that's not the issue. The problem here is that shadowsteps ruin decent positioning, which takes skill to do, in a completely brainless manner. They need to have some disadvantage, something, anything, to balance them. remember that Shadowsteps, especially aura of displacement (easily one of the top elites), completely own any sort of split. NUKLEAR IIV 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that they didn't have utility still, I said that they gave up the potential for MORE utility. I dont think a warrior interrupt is hard to find. Yes, they are blockable and not ranged, but thats not particularly utility. Izzy has stated, and nobody contests, that not being able to attack is not fun. Being constantly snared on a melee inflicts that condition. And yes, melee may inflict more damage then casters, but they are more easily protted, since their target is more evident. Shadow step allows melee to spike more discreetly, giving them one time every 20-30 seconds where their damage is not obvious. In a sense, once in every 20 seconds, they can be a caster. If they choose to loose 2 skill, 1/4 of their bar, to shadow steps, they can do it more often. AoD is good, yes, but your giving your ELITE to shadow stepping, it should be good. If your elite is meant to control positioning, it should control positioning. Its also an enchantment, so it can be used against you. AoD in, they rend, and you snap back out without having a chance to get your combo off. Shadow walk can be countered with stance removal. Yes, shadow walk will allow a warrior to overcome positioning, but only once or twice every 30 seconds, and if your talking GvG, they can feel free to tele into your backline, but chances are their midline and backline cant reach them, giving them the positional disadvantage. --Angelic Loki 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"If your elite is meant to control positioning, it should control positioning" No. If you can control an enemy's positioning, we get things like sineptitude. You keep thinking of the stand. Why? AoD allows you to slaughter an entire guild hall with impunity. To everything. You devote an elite to survival, bam, you got 5 slots to work a killer build. (that's mostly IAS and a 4 hit combo) "AoD in, they rend, and you snap back out" umm, who brings rend to a split? Just who carries enchantment removal with a cripshot, a runner, or, hell, a bsurger? You keep thinking shadowsteps on the stand. Again, why? Shadow steps allows you to control not only the positioning at the stand, also positioning at the split. A split-oriented assasin can and usually will rip apart an entire base. Once you collapse on him, bam, AoD and you just trapped the entire team in their hall. Positioning is very, very, very important. It saves more health than, say, a prot monk. No. Seriously. If your skill is going to CONTROL, wait, DOMINATE that aspect of the game, it had better have some drawbacks, mate! "if your talking GvG, they can feel free to tele into your backline, but chances are their midline and backline cant reach them, giving them the positional disadvantage." As far as I know, most melee chars can spike alone and can get kills. Just so I'd throw it out there. "Shadow step allows melee to spike more discreetly, giving them one time every 20-30 seconds where their damage is not obvious." Oh, and the suprise factor can be much more than you'd guess. I've seen tree dervishes teleport from the opposition midline to their frontline, and follow'ng up with wearying + Mystic. It fucking hurts, dude! So, that's not positional abuse? tell me, how does your monk expect to preprot a spike if he cannot predict where the spike is coming from? You can't infuse every 'Supriiisee'. The prssure is colossal. NUKLEAR IIV 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sineptitude is always touted as this massive problem, yes few high ranked guilds have problems with it in today's meta. As with who brings rend on a split, if your having this much problem with the skill, perhaps you should? Its not like there aren't other enchantments it would be beneficial to have off a runner. You were never told you had to run FoTM. The lack of enchant removal on high ranked splits tends to tell me that they have found another way to cope. Obsing if a good way to get strat for dealing with something like this. As for trapping a team in the base, play against AoD once, and you should know how to control that. First off, he cant go balls deep in the base, as you can only tele a full compass away. second, you KNOW where he will port to, its near the door or he is still trapped. You carry snares right? You tout positioning, yet you know where his positioning will be when it ends. Try leaving a snare there, and you will quickly find a dead assassin where a live one used to be. The best part is how invulnerable the sin (and apparently you) thinks that port ability makes him. As for these surprise spikes, I used to prot mystic sandstorm, where every spike was a AoE port with multiple people. Melee spikes are slower. here is a hint: There is a giant poof around the target being spiked. Yes, some of them will go through, because your monks aren't god, but your bsurge can easily watch for that, and if they are running AoD, some of their chain is likely blockable. If you are in a split situation, how did you manage to get caught with 3 frontline close enough to port in? YES, its pressure! Every melee is pressure. Shadow step doesn't change their damage, just where its applied. Your monks should be able to keep up with their positioning, since the animations are exceedingly obvious. I've played against the build before, and with the proper application of snares and removal, since <sarcasm> I've heard some teams carry mesmers </sarcam>, you can quickly DP out those nice squishy sins, or even that nice squishy dervish who has no control over when his shadow step ends. --Angelic Loki 13:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

lets go, then: Sineptitude is always touted as this massive problem, yes few high ranked guilds have problems with it in today's meta I assume that "yes" was a typo, and you meant yet? That's cause sineptitude combo was nerfed. The reason you don't see assassins reigning supreme is because that combo is nerfed to hell. As with who brings rend on a split, if your having this much problem with the skill, perhaps you should? I expected more than you to bring up the "If u have trouble with it, lern2counter" argument. I guess I was wrong. as you can only tele a full compass away The assassn in question sounds horrible. The way I see it, cancel - recast would teleport you far away from a collapse, mate. you KNOW where he will port to ghosting, much :)? I used to prot mystic sandstorm Mystic sandstorm can't feint spikes. triptree (used to, now, it's kinda abandoned as far as I know) can. YES, its pressure! I think you missed the part where I said this is to much pressure without any drawbacks. (maybe I wasn't clear, my bad) A good part of protting is preprotting that you do when you see a war charging towards your midline. SS's kinda kil that, amirite? Shadow step doesn't change their damage, just where its applied Oh, so a twisting/wearying/evis hits as much as it does on a protted target as much as an unprotted one? My bad, I guess.

Finally, "I can stop it so should you" is not the argument here, mate. NUKLEAR IIV 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like a response to this line: " If your skill is going to CONTROL, wait, DOMINATE that aspect of the game, it had better have some drawbacks, mate!" NUKLEAR IIV 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, your claim that shadowstep "needs" a drawback is unsubstantiated. I have yet to see one good reason that a rule shouldn't have exceptions. Casters can already cast at any target at will in their aggro range any time they want. A drawback? Melee can only attempt to do it once every 20-30 second recharge, per skill devoted to shadowstepping. (And these are skills not devoted to spiking, or survival, or overcoming any of X different ways there are to counter melee.) That's the drawback the devs chose to implement. Most of all though, SS was designed with sins in mind: the profession least likely to be able to smash their way through a front line with brute force - and therefore designed around a set of skills that would mean they wouldn't have to, and the specialized skill type shadowstep. At most I would consider something like "shadowstepping disables non-assassin skills for X seconds." But in the end, maybe you should consider that shadowstepping - and the entire assassin profession - is *intended* to shake up the whole positioning aspect. MrGrendel 01:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Casters can already cast at any target at will in their aggro range any time they want." Pls learn what an autoattack is and why is it imba for melee to use their free dps without any respect to positioning. "Most of all though, SS was designed with sins in mind: the profession least likely to be able to smash their way through a front line with brute force - and therefore designed around a set of skills that would mean they wouldn't have to, and the specialized skill type shadowstep. At most I would consider something like "shadowstepping disables non-assassin skills for X seconds." But in the end, maybe you should consider that shadowstepping - and the entire assassin profession - is *intended* to shake up the whole positioning aspect" Oh, so we should have gank oriented play that rapes everything at VOD? Oh - okay then. -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I offered some valid arguments, so I can at least say I tried. What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we have here which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it: Yes, we should have gank oriented play that rapes everything with god mode auto attacks, but especially it should rape people incapable of stringing two logical non-fallacious thoughts together, such as you. Okay then. L2play right back at you, qqnublet. MrGrendel 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So... you stoop to personal attacks when normal, wait, valid arguments don't work? Please ignore me, I longer expect a reasonable disscussion. -- NUKLEAR IIV 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NPA for the win please Grendel. Remember to keep it civil. and yeah, you got my typo right ;). I dont have time right now to type a counter, but ill get one up later --Angelic Loki 04:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reseting indent, reading that far to the right is annoying. Anyway. To be fair to grendel nuklear, your previous response to his reasons wasn't exactly informative, and was more sarcastic then anything. It wasn't the presentation of valid argument at all, so he does have a bit of a point there. His point that shadow step was meant to shake up positioning is very valid. Casters have a big advantage over melee in that they can attack from any position, an advantage that is balanced by the pressure auto-attack damage creates. If you look at it that way, auto-attack isn't imba at all. Shadow step doesn't allow you free auto attacks, so your argument that SS provides more pressure because of auto attack isn't valid. Unless snared, your SS gives you may of 2-3 seconds of attacks on one target. Your response on gank based tactics at VoD is kind of silly as well, since the NPCs all converge, and they dont move anyway, so why does SS give you an advantage on VoD? The answer is that it gives you the NPC advantage if used correctly. The same can be said of many skills. I think though, that Grendel said it well when he said that SS was meant to shake up positioning a little. Adren spike has always put out a lot of pressure, and it can still be run with a SS, but the SS allows you to run it as MORE of a spike. As for Your argument against my AoD position argument, You cant port away twice, only once. If you can port twice, either A.) They are porting back INTO the battle, or B.) You have an ally standing way far out of battle and isn't standing there to counter the sin, in which case you deserve to lose your positioning advantage, because your positioning sucks. If he ports to the person that you put back there to counter him, then.. well, he is countered efficiently since he will obviously be in casting range. I'm not suggesting that you play build wars to counter this, but I AM suggesting that you bring 1 skill, and enchant strip, which is viable against many types of builds. when you know that a AoD sin is going to gank, know that your enchant strip counters him, and send that player back. Strat > Build. Its been proven many times. --Angelic Loki 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As many people have already stated, shadow stepping is more broken on a ganker, because it makes that person completely untouchable. Wait until people learn how to do it on a flag runner too, then you'll really be crying. "I can run a flag in 5 seconds, and during the 30 seconds it takes the other team to cap a flag, I kill 2 of their base NPCs."

Ganking aside, melee MUST have that drawback. When melee classes can attack at range with no penalty, they become broken. ~Shard (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't shadow step using bundle items, and its already known that you can use shadow of haste to get back to the base quickly. If you are talking about hopping to the stand though, its not possible, as you would drop the flag at the location you were standing in when you first stepped. I told you guys how to counter a stepping ganker about 3-4 arguments back. Rend him, and have a snare stand where he stepped from. They usually have very weak self heals, since they dont have a lot of room on their bars. And like I said, melee cant attack at range. They can spike at range. Thats a big difference. If all they are doing is spiking, thats not a lot of pressure on monks. Its the auto attacks that deal the most pressure, even if the spiking is whats getting kills, and they cant auto attack at range, since when they step, they only have 2-3 seconds before the person they stepped to has the positioning advantage again. --Angelic Loki 19:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I was kinda busy, and was planing a response to grendel. My bad. But this shouldn't be: His point that shadow step was meant to shake up positioning is very valid. We should not shake up positioning, cause positioning is one of the things GW has right. We shake that, and we shake the entire basis on GW was built, and have a cool looking but not strategically important game. I told you guys how to counter a stepping ganker about 3-4 arguments back No, you gave a theory, which, y'know, doesn't work well irl. We explained why AoD can rip anything and everything in an enemy base. But, cause I'm such a nice guy and all, I'll point out why your solutions don't work: REND: Yeah, you send warriors back to protect yourself from splits, right? Or maybe your flagger has enchant removal. Snares? This sin can shadow step, usually twice (AoD cancel AoD cast), and his self heal is this.And like I said, melee cant attack at range. They can spike at range. Thats a big difference You are correct, of course, that this is big difference, though only if you think pressure. It is kinda potent to have on demand evis on an unpreportted target, and that, my friend, does some serious pressure. -- NUKLEAR IIV 12:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

AoD has a 20 second recharge, so yes, they can port twice, but they can only control one out of two of the ports, the other one puts them back where they was before, which isn't always where they want to be. However, it seems we will have to agree to disagree at this point, and move on to what the issue is actually about > Your solution. I would accept a 50% chance to fail with less then 4 of an attribute, but I wont accept a permanent chance of failure. To do that would be to essentially nerf a skill out of the game, which is stupid. Everything has its place. Part of your problem I think is that you aren't required to actually spec away from damage to use the skills, as the shadow step effect is independent of the scaling effect of the skill. Forcing a spec away from damage would make the skills still powerful, but less so. I think that you may have suggested scaling a failure chance with attribute, although your suggestion wasn't terribly clear, but I'm not sure that they can program a scaling failure chance, and I happen to doubt that Izzy would consider that a viable solution. If they were do to anything to fix the problem, there happens to be an easy fix that was in effect before it was removed. Shadow steps used to have a 3/4 second cool down. That means you port, your war stands there for a second, THEN attacks. Easy to preprot. the 3/4 second cool down is built into the game already, and most people are used to the idea. THIS would be the most viable nerf if you truly think they are broken. --Angelic Loki 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

@Loki. If you think you can't SS with bundles, you're gonna sh*t your pants when I do it to your guild in a gvg. Shadow of haste is a joke now anyway, I used it when you could autocover it but now it's lolbad. Also, how will you rend him if you can't get in aggro range of him? How can you snare him if you're never in aggro range of him? So it's ok for melee to bypass their biggest downside, but only to kill someone? Sorry, that argument fails.

This just has to be said. Shadow stepping should not be in the game, a 50% chance to fail is not "good enough." Being removed from the game is good enough. Making it so bad that it's unusable is good enough. Giving warriors ele range is a no-no. Giving gankers invincibility is a no-no. ~Shard (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just went into Isle and tested every shadow step in the game. None of them can step with bundle items, and all of them drop the item BEFORE they tele. I would be interested in how you tele with bundle items. If you cant provide an example, I will assume you are lying, which is the more likely situation. As for how to be in range, you have your snare wait where the assassin will teleport back to when he is rended. If he isn't using AoD, then he is stuck where he ported to unless he is using Shadow Walk, which will end after 20 seconds anyway. It's ok to allow melee to counter their downside once every 30 seconds, as is evident as well by Rigor Mortis and Expose Defenses that Anet agrees. Just the fact that they can bypass positioning doesn't mean that they get a kill. Seriously. Both of you, I want you to go watch high level HA and GvG. When skills are