From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Response to Izzy Status 2 Izzy Hero Battle Thoughts 3 HA feedback 4 AB Changes 5 Misc 5.1 Designer's Notes 5.2 energy drain/denial & pve 5.3 Spiritleech Aura 5.4 Dev Only Skills 5.5 Aggressive Refrain 5.6 Steak 5.7 Archive Please! 5.8 Puttin' on the Rits 5.9 Chain of Command 5.10 Beta Testing? 5.11 New condition: Deaf. 5.12 Assassin utility 5.13 Save Yourselves 5.14 New Trims 5.15 Interesting skill changes 5.16 probably suggested before 5.17 HA suggestions 5.18 Useless skills 5.19 Spirits & Spiritway 5.20 The Tip of the Iceberg 5.21 Update - Thursday, November 08, 2007 5.22 Congratulations Izzy ^_^ 5.23 Healer's Boon & Word of Healing on the Same Skill Bar 5.24 Assassacasters 5.25 Deadly arts Attribute 5.26 Profession Limits in Teams 5.27 BLS change 5.28 Game Update 11.13 5.29 Dear Izzy, 5.30 Do you even care about PvE? 5.31 Observations on the Team Arenas 5.32 Pious renewal 5.33 Health Runes/Insignias and of Fortitude Weapon/Off-hand Upgrades 5.34 The list of the IMBA 5.35 Lightbringer Signet 5.36 Soul Reaping 5.37 December mAT Date 5.38 Magebane 5.39 Mirrored Stance 5.40 Skills w/ no activation time 5.41 Clumsiness 5.42 Scavenger's Focus/strike 5.43 Splinter Shot 5.44 PvE versions? 5.45 Savannah Heat's description 5.46 A thread on assassins Izzy should read 5.47 Lion's Comfort

[edit] Response to Izzy Status

What with Ranger Spike on HA and Shattering Assault build (maybe less important but still pretty powerful)? :> --Kain 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically, that means the remaining good Channeling skills for the Rit get nerfed into the ground? Along with the spirits getting another nerf. Good things in the future for Ritualists it seems. And the Three Monk Backline is because you nerf all other kinds of defense, bar the monk. --Deathwing 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They will be nerfed but very slightly, I'm probably just gonna make Ancestors rage a skill instead of a enchantment, and Splinter might get a number of enemies cap. ~Izzy @-'---- 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That will work then. --Deathwing 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deathwing splinter shouldn't be "insta win" on VoD just because NPCs balled up. Imho Ancestors' Rage should be viable only on Rit if it would stay in its current, overpowered form. --Kain 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that they are very strong, but I just see them being total trash after the nerf. Pre-buff Splinter and a 10/1/15 Ancestors'. --Deathwing 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Make Splinter Weapon PvE-only. Simple. 90.197.205.118 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing skills from PvP instead of balancing them? Brilliant! But sarcasm aside, I would rather have a mediocre skill that I can use then a great one that I can't. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to see splinter weapon nerfed. I've no idea of its effect on PvP, but it is one of the few remaining skills that rangers use to get into pugged elite missions! I thought Anet was meant to be trying to encourage pugging. Its no more overpowered that a combo of Meteor Shower and Savannah Heat or SF. And its use in farming, well, yeah. But it is one of the few effective ranger (and rit) farms (it isn't even that, with loot scaling as it is and the areas where it is useful being grossly over-farmed). If you wish to nerf ranger (and rit) farms, then please, make it fair and do the same to eles, monks, and any other intensive farm build. Coming from a ranger, yes, I know this is biased, and yes, I know that there are a lot of good ranger skills to use. But in the cookie-cutter builds we are often left out. A community flaw, I know, not a dev balancing flaw. But nonetheless, I don't see why our neglect should be furthered. 88.66.176.190 00.03, 2 November 2007 (GMT)

Spiritway- reduce RaO duration (by about 2 sec), lower armor of all spirits. Dual clums build- the biggest problem are the sins, so change black lotus (maybe 4-5ish less energy back) and make impale a one second cast. Duration of clumsiness should be shorter and damage slightly higher so it's not a cast and last forever unless pulled spell. Ancestors rage- lower damage. lower recharge. Should be a good pressure skill, not necessary spike. Splinter weapon- make it so only 2-3 additional targets can be hit. Three monk backlines- Don't understand this, but ok. Recall- Shorter range (2/3 radar?), maybe much longer recharge (60-90 sec), or doesn't step when stripped. Blood spike- reduce andorogon's energy gain from 12 to 10. Make ss/og deal 60 damage at 14+ blood and reduce life steal to equal final damage output. Holymasamune 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused...how do you spike with ancestor's rage?

Bspike is gay, but very beatable. If you have decent monks who have eyeballs, they can stop bloodspike like it's a joke.

Again, recall is gay, but I don't think it's overpowered. Meta an enchant removal on the team you send back.

Three monk backlines are, yes, gay, but what are you going to possibly do to them? Please don't nerf heals and prots, forcing everyone to take extra defense. That is not the solution.

If VoD only affected direct damage instead of total damage taken, that would solve your splinter problem (and traps).

Clumsiness is good, and when you have two of them every 4 seconds it's gay, but that skill requires energy to spam.

Why isn't Deadly Paradox on your list?

Why isn't Scythe Damage on your list?

Why aren't any rit heals on your list?

Why isn't warmonger's weapon on your list?

Why isn't choking gas on your list?

Games of skill should be based on skill. Sorry that sounds obvious, but it seems like you don't already know that. Gimmicks should not rule this game.

Maybe if you looked at actual balance problems instead of minor balance inconveniences, this game would be good. Shard 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Cast it on your wars. Ancestors is 100~ spammable damage for 5 energy. Even if it wasn't targeted, it'd be better than anything the ele had. This needs putting back to its 10 energy cost, its only an error that it ended up at 5 (10e -> 5e+ exhaustion -> 5e). — Skuld 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancestors is also good with Ride the Lightning if two elementalists use it at the same time.

Why would rit heals be on the list? Anyway, I think Clumsiness just needs a shorter duration like ppl have been suggesting on the guru, and maybe shorten Ineptitude's hex duration too, but not as much as Clumsiness (2-4 and 3-5 sound good, maybe too long though). Ancestor's Rage and Splinter could use a slight nerf,ancestor's needs to be 10 energy and maybe lower the damage slightly (the max I would say to drop it is 20, maybe not even that much considering it should have a 10 energy cost) and splinter just needs reduced damage, maybe by 3/4 or 1/2 (hopefully not enough to kill channeling completely, since it lacks utility, and is mainly about pure damage, the main problem here imo). One way to fix 3 monk backlines, make the Rit actually useful in 8v8 for actual healing and support (change spirits, its kinda sad that the Ritualist's main focus, binding rituals, are probably the most useless part of the class, weapon spells and item spells are generally better), I dont see any other class really filling the role other than the paragon, and I get the feeling no one wants para's boosted atm. Now if the problem with the 3 monk backline was just because of the super defense, and not so much the fact that a team uses 3 monks, I have no problem with that, so I can't really comment since it seems reasonable to have about as much defense as you have offense, granted, LoD needs to be nerfed, and self healing/preservation skills need to be improved (LoD pretty much outshines self-healing, why take self healing when LoD covers that up for everyone on your team, all in one skill) imho. With spiritway, just nerf RaO already, I dont think you're going to make thumpers less of a problem any other way, just take away a little bit of its duration like holymasamune said. Definitely don't see why the armor of spirits needs to be brought down though, thought they were already easy kills :/.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 01:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

-Spiritway should be approached from an e-management perspective. Half energy gain from spirits. Nerf Energizing Wind to 15 energy instead of 10. Recall needs something like "If this enchantment ends and you are under the effects of a hex or below 50% health, then you don't teleport". If a guy overextends and gets snared, I don't want to just send him back home. I want him dead for being a tactical buffoon. To solve the Three Monk Backline, add more utility to certain caster attribute lines. Blood would be prime here. Take Blood Bond, return the regen to 1..3 and then slap on +1..5 damage reduction. Take Demonic Flesh, let it be cast on allies, and then reduce the recharge to 5 seconds. Conversely, to fight blood spike, I know that fixing the damage type so that it triggers enchantments would be kind of work intensive. I believe a decent solution would be to simply reduce all damage from life-steal if it his an enchanted foe by a third. If you want to get back to a pressure style of play, you might have to take a good look at LoD. Worst case scenario, you can seriously buff some PvE skills to make up for it.--65.95.71.26 03:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious, is there a reason that, despite now being seen with two copies in the dual-clumsiness builds, despite being the other major dominant build in HB, and despite being the only thing in the "overpowered skills" section that had so many complaints that it got forked off to its own page, Shadow Prison is not on the table? Riotgear 03:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you suggest to nerf it? 15 energy cost? Dark Prison wins. Longer recharge? Dark Prison wins. Half range? Dark Prison wins. I mean really, there isn't very many ways to nerf it and still retain its elite status compared to its non-elite counterpart. --Deathwing 04:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dark Prison needs to be hit too pre-emptively. Note that Dark Prison used to have a 45-second recharge, and got buffed to 30 later on, but nobody cared because it's not like any other part of the SP bar has a better elite alternative and SP was still better. The biggest problems with SP spike is that the Impale buff sent the damage way over the edge and allowed the KD to be kept in (compare Horns/BoS+Impale to Horns/Twisting), Black Lotus Strike has thrown energy concerns out the window (compare 10e Golden Phoenix Strike to BLS refunding its own cost and then some), and SP itself is a terrible, degenerate skill. One suggestion I heard for it was to end stance and disable non-attack skills for 7 seconds on both Shadow Prison and Dark Prison, which would effectively kick IAS and Impale off the bar. If I had a crack at it, I'd bump the recharge to 30, bump Dark Prison's back to 45, implement the skill disable, and see if that got rid of it. Riotgear 12:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

it means to remove ritualist in pvp?

ritualist is nerfed again and again, splinter weapon and Ancestor Rage are the last useful skills for ritualist, the the two skills are nerfed, why we need a ritualist in pvp?

pls tell me what is the function of ritualist?

a healer? weaker than monk

channeling spike? nerf and nerf again

spiritway? nerf and nerf again

the last position is to be a support class that use splinter weapon and Ancestor Rage, now you want to nerf them?

Or they could like you know....be "a healer" AND "channeling spike" rolled into one, with elite e-management to boot. --Deathwing 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How come you are working on the next skill update already Izzy? :O --Redfeather 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments on some points:

• Spiritway - I think the main issue with spirits is, that many ritualist spells work better with many of them. For example, Mend Body and Soul gets better if there are lot of spirits. Also, all skills that heal spirits affect all spirits (Spirit boon strike, signet of creation) while spells that hurt spirits (spirit transfer, gaze from the beyond) only affect one random spirits. This should really be the other way round to encourage the use of single spirits. For example, mend body and soul should hurt all spirits in earshot when used, while spirit light should be changed to also heal one random nearby spirit when used (maybe instead of the no sacc clause). This would make spirit light very useful to keep up a single spirit with health loss like agony, while it is less useful with many spirits because then one would only heal a random spirit.
• Dual Clums Build - Duration on Clumsiness and Ineptitude should be reduced a bit, so sitting it out becomes a realistic option --Lunk 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Izzy, would you also please consider buffing (or at least looking at) some of the clearly underpowerd 'older' skills like Magnetic Surge and Revive Animal while you're at it? That would really mean a lot for me, and I think for a lot of people. Nicky Silverstar 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

bloodspike vs infuser monk has always been a battle of energy. as long as the infuser can get enough energy to outlast the spikers, the infuser wins. however, bloodspike is always dangerous because all they need to do is get that one succesful spike in. then their energy levels will be decidedly higher than the monk's and they generally win after that. with all that said, bloodspike probably should've recieved a powerful nerf a long time ago. for high level gvg, they are an annoyance. for the rest of the people elsewhere, they are needlessly powerful.--Moriz 21:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiritway is more Soul Reaping abuse. That's it. The best solution to spiritway and bloodspike would be to address Soul Reaping, something that's really been needed for a while. Under normal circumstances, it's hard to get Soul Reaping to trigger consistently, and if it is triggering consistently, it means one of the two teams is getting rolled. When methods are used to exploit Soul Reaping (i.e. spikes, bone minions, and spirit spam), it winds up invariably provided an absurd amount of energy.

I'm not sure exactly what to suggest for it though. SR doesn't really have a good selection of skills other than Reaper's Mark and SOLS to be turned into a skill-oriented line like Strength, and the current functionality works fine (maybe even too well) in PvE. Then again, with GoLE available, I'm not sure it matters for most purposes. Riotgear 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Maximum of 2 of the same primary profession in the same party.
• Any skill that effect the whole party should be limited to "within earshot" or less, just like aegis. (LoD/heal party/etc).
• With the new area limit to party wide buffs, restore 12vs12 to AB.
• Add the costume ball as a new permanent game type, remove HB maps from TA/RA.
• Remove SR Energy gain from spirit deaths.

--Just One More Thing 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No to the first point, it's needless limiting of creativity that still doesn't get rid of gimmick builds. Just because there are 3 of a profession on the same team doesn't mean they're all doing the same thing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimmicks do tend to run 3 or more of the same profession. And because they do (or can), they are balanced around that fact, and ultimately made less effective because of it (for example the Paragon). The idea is not to balance around total party size, or multiple numbers of the same profession in a party, but just two of each maximum. Right now, balance is aimed at 8vs8 GvG but what works in that party size doesnt necessarily work in for example, 4vs4 RA/TA --Just One More Thing 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Counterexample: hexway. Aside from possibly using a monk runner (and thus having 3 monks), hexway didn't need more than 2 of each class. Limiting classes does more harm than it helps, and restricts a lot of perfectly valid builds such as 3-warrior builds, monk runners, et cetera. Furthermore, it doesn't stop people from abusing the exact same skills, but on a secondary. Again, limiting the number of a particular class in a team doesn't really do much to stop people from running gimmick builds, and does offer fewer options for those not running gimmick builds. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Making ritualist skills powerful without being overpowered in a team of them is a reasonably easy fix. Takee all skills which say something like: "For each spirit within earshot" like mend body and soul etc, and give them a maximum number of spirits they could count, like 3 or as little as 2 sometimes. You could even buff them slightly after that, meaning you could have 1 or 2 ritualists in a team making a big impact on things, without a team of ritualists making a total impact on things. --Ckal Ktak 09:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not an easy fix like you make it out to be, the reason ritualists are good in multiples, is because they use their spirit numbers to reduce their vulnerability. Until you can put one spirit on your bar, and actually rely on it to not die until you can put up another, then they will stay good with multiples, things like MBaS are just a slight boost to it.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 14:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, yesterday I played TA and for the first time ever, I actually enjoyed myself. Those new HB maps had a lot to do with it. I think another way to nerf certain gimmick builds is to make sure there are other goals than simply annihilating enemy teams. Nicky Silverstar 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritualist's are good skirmish characters ancestors and splinter don't need to be completely ridiculous for them to see use, pretty much everyone would run them if SP sins along with other dedicated splits didn't require a monk to deal with a lot of the time.

So now when the update is done i see nothing about blood spike except that wierd skill no one use, also spiritway didnt change any, the other points tho. --Cursed Angel 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hammer bash - Lose all adrenaline. If Hammer Bash hits, your target is knocked down. (50% failure chance with Strength 4 or less.)
• Soul reaping - For each point of Soul Reaping, you gain 1 Energy whenever a non-Spirit creature dies within earshot.
• All party wide buffs reduced to within earshot
• Change cracked armor from a condition to non removable status effect, half all current durations where applied by skills, remove 60AR min req
• Ursan blessing - Only Useable while in Norn territory

--Just One More Thing 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hammer Bash is end of thumpway, I like. I also don't see what else it would really effect - in fact, you could lower the requirement to 1 (because we all know how important it is for those low-level warriors to get their hammer bash out!) and I would still like it. Soul Reaping I don't know - let's see if it's fine as it is before changing it. Party-wide buffs to earshot? No, thanks, that'd be horrible for flaggers and orders alike. (And, what with idiots complaining that "anerf" is specifically targeting tombs, that's not a great thing for PR right now. I hate playing to the idiots, but...) Cracked armor: No, just change Aggressive Refrain to that. Ursan Blessing: It's PvE. Leave it or give it a bit of a nerf, but it was designed to be a bonus for those who get GW:EN, just like the sunspear/allegiance skills. Armond 18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Change to SR, not only removing the timer is halfing its area of influence to within earshot. I think party wide buffs are generally too powerful in range (just as Aegis was), tightening that would mean more thought goes into positioning of the caster and removes the easy role of the spamming passive defense utility buffbot who is normally away from the primary combat zone. Cracked armor doesnt really make sense as a condition, it also doesnt work well with AI. Being non removable and shorter duration would make it more useful as a killing blow. "Ursanway" is much abused and used in areas where it really is too powerful. limiting its use to where it originally was intended would move things away from its 1 skill win button function. --Just One More Thing 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nerfing party-wide buffs would force people to clump up and be vulnerable to AoE, because those buffs are necessary to counter the uberpowered offense we've had since nightfall. Cracked Armor works just fine with the AI, but spammed conditions don't (you're both thinking of Aggressive Refrain, which is the most common but certainly not the only source of cracked armor). I think "Ursanway" should stay simply because people will complain more and more that anet is nerfing PvE (re: recent [untrue] explosion surrounding pet corpse nerf). Besides, if people want to have fun with uberpowered skills in PvE, let them; it's not hurting anything. Armond 06:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt say thats true, within earthshot is still a large area, team mates can still be futher than nearby/adjacent to avoid any kind of mass AoE. An alternative could be to have all party wide buffs to be within earshot, any players outward earshot, but within passive range would only get 50% of that buff. So its less effective at the outer range. UB is very overpowered, and while that doesnt effect PvP, thats no reason to have clearly unbalanced skills in the game. Its a classic case of powercreep, areas prior to GW:EN have become too easy using it. --Just One More Thing 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Move Mystic Regen to Mysticism
• Ursan blessing - While active, primary attribute set to 0

--Just One More Thing 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make sunspear,kurzick,luxon,lightbringer,asura,dwarve,ebon vanguard skills, and other norn skills stick to their own area if your going to move JUST ursan blessing? PvE isn't hurting anyone, besides the npcs but they have no feelings or anything. And mystic regen is a nice skill and its not overpowered, a simple enchant strip will kill it or a team of people piling on the guy will kill him.

• Buff Horns of the Ox and Trampling Ox to 5...22...25.

Prokiller88 00:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Izzy Hero Battle Thoughts

We've been talking about some tweaks to Hero Battles and I wanted to throw some of my random thoughts out there and see what people think. (These are not solid ideas, just brainstorming to see opinions)

• Two Cap: Takes two people to cap a point
• Shadow Stepping: Everytime you shadow step in Hero Battles, you get exhausted. (More radical but bad ideas would be like you cannot shadow step in Hero Battles)

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns? ~Izzy @-'---- 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Izzy .. thanks for the ideas.

• The Shadowstep idea sounds kind of contrived and lame. Honestly ... banning shadowstepping in Hero battles sounds like a much better idea. It is truly overpowered in that format (with those maps/objectives) .. and there are many viable assassin builds that don't require shadowstepping so it's not like you're killing the class.
• The 'two people to cap a point' is a great idea. Even with no other changes, Hero battles would be much more interesting if they came down to a series of 2x 2v2 encounters ... as opposed to the current 4x 1v1 encounters, which is quite dull.

IMO Shadow Steping should be reworked in whole GW not only in HB. Shawdow Steping was always bad for positioning, movement and tactics in GW. Idea of two people to cap point seems to be interesting. --Kain 01:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What about adding an "aftercast", like 1-2 seconds, for attacks after shadow-stepping? This would give more time for the "vitcim" to react, and the sin would have to pay more attention before jumping people. Oln 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Or just change the way that hero battles work, and not have every single map based around running around the map capping shrines? --Deathwing 01:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This point has been made before, but it bears repeating: Changing 'some' of the maps to non-running maps wil have ZERO effect on the current meta ... since the current 4x runner builds collapse to 4v4 quite well, whereas a 4v4 build cannot split. So as long as there is at least ONE running map ... you will see the current 4x runner builds. BTW, I think the cap point maps ARE good for the game ... nothing would be more boring than a series of 4v4 bloodbath maps (ala RA). The cap points just need to be implemented differently to make group skirmishes the deciding factor with running/capping a minor factor. I think the 'two people to cap a srine' idea might be a good step in this direction.

The Shadow Stepping change seems a bit drastic (might as well disable it altogether), perhaps a better option is to significantly reduce the range of all shadow stepping skills (make SP work only from half casting range for example, and skills like Recall/AoD/Shadow Meld at aggro circle range). The Crossing will always remain imbalanced even with those changes and should simply be removed from the map rotation in my opinion. The two cap thing is something I mentioned before but it's difficult to predict the impact it would have on build diversity. While it would allow for more options for the splitter builds, I think people would just continue to use 3 defensive characters which carry a few skills to buff an assassin in a 4v4 fight. Another option might be to reduce the solo capping speed so that they cap significantly slower than duo builds instead of not allowing solo capping altogether. The most important aspect about HvH that needs to be changed in my opinion is that people shouldn't be forced to split their team anymore nor should they be forced to hold shrines, in other words actual team builds with limited split capability should became a viable option. The morale meter has been the source of this problem and I would suggest removing that mechanic altogether and then work from there. In other words shrines should be capped because of the inherent bonus they give and nothing else (the mercenaries should also not count as an extra team member anymore). A possible change for example is to let the Central shrine give a morale boost while a "Victory or Death"-style mechanic could be introduced to decide the outcome of a battle in case of a stalemate. So in summary I would consider:

• Reducing solo capping speed instead of disabling it.
• Significantly reducing the active range of shadow stepping skills (aggro circle for Recall/AoD/..., half casting range for Return/Shadow Prison/...)
• Removing the morale meter, thereby completely removing the ability for defensive builds to win solely by capping shrines. --Draikin 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Add the "two cap" without killing recall and HB will be more imbalanced than ever. And as for the shadow stepping disabling, what about "You lose all enchantments upon enetering the radius of the center shrine" on "To the Pain!"? No more center-capping with Recall on, and at the same time no dual Recall from the center or to the center.

Exhaustion on shadow stepping will mainly hurt builds using skills that shadow step twice like Aura of Displacement, but players who use Recall (which is the main issue here) surely can handle the exhaustion since they don't use it that often. It could maybe work, if the exhaustion is scaled with the distance of shadow stepping, so players who shadow step over a large distance with recall are exhausted more then players using short-distance stuff like Return. But i really would prefer a limit or shadow-step-range to earshot over the exhaustion mechanics.--Lunk 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Having the two-people cap is something I've been behind for a very long time. There would have to be some other tweaks to make it really mesh. Recall would have to be dealt with first of all, but I hope that's a given. The NPC shouldn't count as one of the two, but should count as a tie breaker if you have two and the other guy has two as well. I wouldn't recommend specific "Lose all Enchantments" or "Lose all Stance" tweaks for when entering certain shrine areas, because specific builds can be made to work around those restrictions. Instead of Exhaustion, have all Shadow Steps remove stances (for IAS) and disable non-attack skills (for impale). It's really less an issue of frequency as it is about ability and utility and the advantage of instantly closing a space. In Hero Battles, you can take your time to go for a Shadow Step kill, and wait a full minute between attempts. It's moreso the potency of jumping around, jumping ledges, and taking the AI by surprise. Banning Shadow Steps in Hero Battles would not be a terrible idea. What's the status on an AI buff? Heroes still refuse to cast ZB on themselves, and they'll never cast resilient weapon on anyone but themselves.--Skye Marin 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If Anet is willing to put the effort into fixing the problems with the AI it would be definitely improve HB as much as any update to the game mechanics would. I've done a lot of testing with the AI and I've added most of the problems I discovered to User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars AI issues. At the very least there are three main problems with the AI controls that should be solved:

• The mercenary NPC should return to the location where you tell him to stay and no longer chase targets and stop in the middle of nowhere.
• It should, in some way, be possible to select allies in the party window that are out of range (grayed out) so we can still order other allies to use a skill on them. For example if you implement the 2 people cap restriction, we wouldn't be able to order ally #3 to use a skill on ally #4 when they're both out of range. Furthermore, they shouldn't lose their target lock when you walk out of range of that target.
• The skill activation delay needs to be reduced. When your hero takes 4 seconds before they use a skill you clicked manually then stopping assassin spikes becomes a serious problem. I'm not sure what's causing it but you can read more about it here: [1]. --Draikin 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I say leave shadowstepping alone as it is. Learn how to detect enemies approaching and identifying whether if it's capable of shadowstepping. Then prepare for it. Simple. Barinthus 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue involves fleeing enemies just as much as approaching enemies. Teams of 4 monks can use Recall to blink around the map, never caring about being overextended because, even if they are snared, they can get back to safety with no strategic loss, and forcing the opponent to waste his time hoofing around. A player with a shadow step on The Crossing map has a significant movement advantage because he doesn't have to spend the extra 15 seconds tracing the ramps and bridges. This means shadow stepping becomes the norm. It stagnates build choices, and significantly lessens the number of next-best alternative viable tactics. It's not nearly as simple to play against or with as you might think.--Skye Marin 03:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. What if shadow stepping were altered to be restricted to direct line movement? I.e. you can step towards a foe with no obstacles in the way of a straight line path to them, and you can recall to an ally with no obstables in the way of a straight line path, but if the path would require making a turn at some point, the shadow step only goes to the point where that turn would be made? That'd massively reduce the ability of people to teleport back to the frontline from inside an enemy base (due to the turns and pathways inside most GvG bases and HB maps), without entirely killing shadow step as a mobility option. Shadow step already does this if the destination is beyond radar range - it teleports you along a straightline path to the first place you'd have to turn. Why not make it work this way regardless of where the destination is? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you're on to something here.--Skye Marin 20:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, yeah this will really work. It's obviously a good solution for Crossing and Bombardment. Desert Sands still has one long shadow step, however, the bridges are pretty edgy, and because the fix would make Recall susceptible to enchantment removal, it would be risky to take. Three out of Four maps means Recall would not appear in Ladder Play. The problem would still remain in Beachhead in Tournament Play, but some fixes for that map are due now. They should extend / push together the rocks by the Mystic shrine to connect, and then add three big rocks in the water. Finally, open up or push forward the Mystic shrine area so it's not prone to nuking AI bugs. I think that would fix it nicely without drastic measures.--Skye Marin 02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like people are using a legitimate tactic to me. What I'm hearing is that this tactic is too good, not that shadow stepping is inherently broken. Maybe the problem is with the maps, not the game mechanic. Or perhaps the problem is with the fact that Hero Battle maps are so intensely focused on capturing shrines. From watching ladder play, very few people ever make TEAM builds using heroes. Whether it's shadow stepping or just stance play, people will put all of their energy into shrine work rather than actual combat. To me, that says that hero battles themselves are the problem. Instead of garnering points from shrines, why don't you make the shrines have benefits that greatly lend aid towards 4/4 combat while granting 0 points (but still +morale), instead of essentially forcing people to run 1/1/1/1 or 2/1/1? I gave up hero battles because of the micro management involved, and because I want to actually focus on fighting rather than putting all my effort into planting flags and micromanaging 4 peoples' shadow step skills. I think removing the point gain from shrines, but ensuring shrines are beneficial to have captured would help correct a lot of this. --Reklaw 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in fact not a legitimate tactic (or shouldn't be), since it allows highly defensive builds to capture the Central shrine and still keep the opponent from capping the Mercenary shrine. The whole point behind the Mercenary shrine was to stop holding builds from camping the Central shrine but because of shadow stepping that whole concept was ruined. The update that made every shrine contribute to the morale meter instead of just the Central shrine was a step in the wrong direction, since it reduced build diversity even more and made assassins and holding builds even stronger. I agree when you say that the shrines shouldn't give points to begin with since that's indeed the sole reason those defensive builds exist. It's just a question of how much changes Anet is willing to make, since removing the morale meter would probably require the most work. Letting the Central shrine give a morale boost in that case seems like a good start, since that's a shrine you would want to control (at least if Battle Cry is nerfed). The obvious problem with that is spiritway holding builds, in other words what happens when someone camps the Central shrine for 10 minutes? Do you let the mercenary continue to count as an extra party member to deal with that (still forcing you to attack a spirit nest), or do you include a "Victory or Death" mechanic to force the decision (for example you get X additional NPC's for each shrine under your control)? In any case shadow stepping will still have to be dealt with regardless of what changes to the mechanics they make, since as long as it allows you to shadow step from shrine to shrine it's going to remain imbalanced. Another possible solution (except for reducing the range or Aiiane's idea) is to introduce an environment effect like this: "any party member who's enchanted with a shadow stepping skill does not contribute to capping shrines". That would deal with Recall/AoD/Shadow Meld but not SP/Return. To stop those as well you could introduce another effect: "any party member that uses a shadow stepping skill no longer contributes to capping shrines for X seconds", although that's not much different from banning shadow stepping completely. --Draikin 13:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point why i don't play HB. As it was introduced i was very much looking forward to it, hoping for it to turn out to be a random free random arena. Something you can just do a quick match of without having to find and assemble a team first and something where you don't have the excuse to blame your team mates if you fail. The 3 Heroes in there are merely required because 1vs1 won't work on a game with limited skill selection and huge skill pool. Took me one match to see that in its current state i never wanna play it again. Remove the point gain on shrine captures or any similar change that makes keeping your heroes together and actually doing some fighting a viable option against splitting up and running around like mad and you have me in again. If i wanna play a game of "who runs fastest" i can easily wait on next boardwalk to play rollerbeetle again. 134.130.183.235 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow stepping even with an after cast you'd still be fine Hero AI wont react until ure dry HOTOing them (probably too late) 24.141.45.72 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HA feedback

I started another page here /HA feedback please put any feedback about the new HA changes here, thank you. ~Izzy @-'---- 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AB Changes

(not sure whether this should get it's own heading or not, if not, please put it under misc. It seemed appropriate with HA and HB both having similar headings.)

After the changes made to TA, and seeing the topic here about improving HB, I was wondering whether there was a chance of seeing improvements to AB. Specifically changing Kaanai Canyon and the Ancestral Lands, both maps which heavily favour one side. IMO they don't need replacing (I'd like to see them replaced with neutral maps, but this suggestion seems impossible to implement at this stage so I'll easily settle for some other changes) just weakening the large advantage of the defending party, creating more dynamic matches with more available decisions as far as offensive play is concerned. For example a few things I'd like to see which I think would really help lessen the advantage of the defending party:

• Allow the teleporters to teleport opposing faction members. At the moment they do not, forcing the members to retreat through the gates. This change would allow for easier raid tactics vs. the homebase.
• Let the Explosion Kits respawn every 1-2 minutes, again allowing the disadvantaged team easier access to the homebase, allowing more raid like tactics. Have repair kits respawn at a slower rate.
• Change the NPC spawns at shrines to spawn the same number of NPCs regardless of being the defending or attacking party, to decrease bias currently inherent in these maps (applies to Grentz Frontier and Etnaran Keys).
• Discourage people from solo capping, either through the 'Two Cap' rule you propose at Hero Battles, or by just noticeably slowing the rate of capping with 1 person even further.
• If possible increase the amount or effect of Defiled Water. At the moment, you can near completely ignore it's presence on the map.
• Possibly allow people to shadow step past gates and unlock them from the inside (if this change was added, there is no need for respawning explosives). Again it'd allow for more raid like tactics, however it could overpower the shadow step in AB and lead to a further rise of Assassin popularity (which is already quite high).

Good luck with the balancing. (and I need to learn to log in before commenting)Akirai Annuvil 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd also be nice if the Luxon/kurzick counterparts were actually identical. E.g. the necro and mesmer shrines are on opposite sides for Grenz frontier than they are for etnaran keys, doesn't sound like much, but try taking the mesmer shrine when the nearest elite NPC is an elementalist instead of a warrior and you'll see that this actually makes a difference. The defiled water is another such asymmetry, I feel it ought to be removed altogether. The change I'd like to see most is the skillsets of the NPCs. Currently, being a dervish is just asking for trouble since the necros, mesmers and eles will own you for various reasons. Something like these would be nicer:

Shatter Hex

Shatter Enchantment

Energy Burn

Power Leech

Backfire

Blank

Blank

Blank

Shadow of Fear

Soul Bind

Enfeebling Touch

Parasitic Bond

Vampiric Gaze

Blank

Blank

Blank

Healing Whisper

Purge Conditions

Remove Hex

Life Sheath

Healing Touch

Blank

Blank

Blank

The others I'm fairly happy with. --Ckal Ktak 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The elementalist shrine is a bit overpowered.. but people can live with it I guess 24.141.45.72 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing about shrines is that people designed to clear them should be clearing them. Sometimes it seems like the majority of ABers are just gankers, there to make themselves feel good about snaring and killing players out in the middle of nowhere. When those players try to take a shrine, they realize they can't. Dervishes, for example, don't really have any business trying to take a shrine on their own. They're support. --Reklaw 14:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually like solo capping. The point of AB is not to fight the mob, but to cap shrines. Everyone says not to mob and to cap. Because people do fight the mob, i feel like i am the only person capping. If you hurt solo capping, then those few that do cap may stop. The whole point of ab is its unorganized. It's like RA, it's something to do if you want to relax and not spend time setting anything up. In ab you dont have to set up teams, it's all PUG and after you start the match, usually everyone goes their separate ways (unless they go into a mob.--Zackattack 02:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you should be able to solo cap a shrine with any profession. A Warrior or a Dervish doesn't really have any business doing that. I can see an Assassin with the right build trying, but ultimately, if you want to be an efficient shrine capper, you're going to be a SF Ele with MoR and Firestorm, or possibly a Meteor Shower build. Beyond that, you're rewarding people for being stupid. AB is about capping shrines, and it traditionally is disorderly, which is why teams that actually do stick together, group up with stragglers and coordinate themselves find themselves successful. Even if you were to nerf the NPCs to accommodate people that are trying to cap with a bad shrine cap build, you end up making capping very, very easy for people that should be doing it to begin with. --Reklaw 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What I find amusing is that it's called Alliance Battles yet you can't take an entire team from your Alliance in. An Alliance v Alliance game like this would be awesome with proper organised teams instead of PUGs. It would change the way it's played and the complete concept of Alliance Battles completely, and probably for the better. Unreal Havoc 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like some of those ideas. I like solo-capping myself, because it helps the game more than it hurts. Sure it breaks the "team" aspect but AB isn't super serious PvP anyway. Vanguard16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be super serious, just needs to have more reliable people to actually play with or against. No one is stopping PUGs from going, just let us take Alliance teams in, PUGs might take the game a bit more seriously then and actually attempt to be a bit more organised and attempt to cap properly. I also find that the report system isn't really stopping anyone from leaving either. Had quite a few leavers tonight on Grenz (no surprise). :( Unreal Havoc 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I too would like the possibility for people to form alliance teams beforehand of 12 people; it would force people to be a bit more serious in case one of these shows up and have some planning beforehand. I'd also like the NPCs at shrines to be spaced out a bit more, to make them less easily affected by AoE (say from standing adjacent of each other to nearby). Alternatively, make them 'patrol' the area, which would take more development time then just spacing them out a bit more and is imo the lesser of the two ideas.Akirai Annuvil 15:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc

[edit] Designer's Notes

It would be great if some of the more fundamental changes included some form of reasoning from the designers. For instance, pets no longer leave exploitable corpses. I would really like to believe there is a good reason for this, but there is only a simple statement about it on November 13th's update. I just recently noticed this when I shifted my Necromancer to a Ranger secondary and couldn't raise any minions from my dead pet. I am left perplexed as to why. When I first rolled my Necro, my chosen secondary was Ranger for that reason alone. I always felt it was a great, fun little strategy, though the downside was obviously having all skills disabled for so many seconds. Synergy between classes is a great thing, yet I have seen a number of changes that squash such creativity with no explanation as to why. -- Hercanic 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] energy drain/denial & pve

I don't know where to put this. Pve fights don't last long enough for energy drain skills to be viable. I was hoping for a pve skill which makes monster lose energy twice as fast or something but we didn't got any skill like that. This is pity because the most energy drain skills remain useless this way.

Not sure where I read it, but I believe monsters are even worse e-denial targets because they have +1 energy regeneration, or something to that effect? I'm very certain I saw it stated by Izzy. MA Anathe 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In hard mode, IIRC. --Valshia 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, wanding foes to death has been more effective than e-drain/denial in pve. It might work, but it's a lot of effort when there's easier means to the same with BHA or killing that caster. Yukiko 01:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SV/AV + Famine....thats the beginning and end of E-Denial in PvE =P --ChronicinabilitY 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I farmed spirit garden repose with spirit chackles + mind wrack, and also with spirit chackles and famine with my ranger Coran Ironclaw 02:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're farming edenial is crap in PvE, stick to some form of tank 'n spank. --Tankity Tank 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A good buddy of mine been a mesmer for a well over two years now, always said that monsters have energy regen superior to human players making energy denial like -1 or -2 skills just a waste of time. Biz 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not even the serious issue with PvE energy denial. In PvE your not facing the same foe for an extended period of time. Foes are defeated and replaced with new ones with totally new energy pools, wile you must recharge what your already using in order to start another battle.

This is just a failure of function, PvE is vastly different than PvP, PvE characters are vastly less effective, which is why they must have higher levels, natural health regen, and natural energy regen boosts, as well as swarming in order to compete with effectively controled, well designed and well synergized players.

It is sad that energy denail doesn't cut it against PvE foes based on its unique situation, and perhaps a double standard should be set in place to alter the way energy denial works on PvE targets. Cutting the cost and recharge in half would probably do the trick well enough, but no matter how much of the foes energy you destroy, ultimately you will beat that foe and than face another foe with an entirely new energy supply.

In the end though, you could consider these PvP only skills, wile they do not hold the limitation of use in PvP like PvE only skills, it is not as significant as the failure of "universal" skills which do not function well in PvP based on PvE value.--BahamutKaiser 03:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Energy denail was nerfed pretty hard a long time ago because when it's strong it's just not fun, Monsters get a +1 energy pip regen which makes it even harder to deal with their energy so unless your really overloading an insane amount of energy it's going to be really hard. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you(someone at anet) remove the +1 energy pip from all monsters then ? ^^ 18 October 2007

It's a balance thing, Monsters often burn through skills faster then players do and it really is not fun to flight monsters that don't cast skills, so it helps keep the combats more interesting. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from Mo/Me farming, it's not as though e-denial had ever been truly effective or entertaining in PvE. It's a lot of work on something that traditionally will die in a few seconds anyway. --Reklaw 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So? — Skuld 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So, it makes lots of mesmer skills useless? (spirit shackles) Jigoku 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Spirit shackles isn't actually a very good example, as it's one of the dynamic edenial skills that is actually semi-effective. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside of Farming of course. Jigoku 10:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out already by others above, edenial just will never be a really good dedicated build in pve (above mentioned farming excluded). For most monsters, the time you need to leech them dry you could better spend with just killing them. If you want a mesmer role in high lvl pve i would have asked for powerfull knock down immune healers in the top pve areas. That way monk shutdown or similar builds would actually be highly sought after in pve. But ANET already found a different (and imho much more boring) way to fix the mesmer pve problem. With those new pve skills and buffs to existing mesmer skills and with the rediculously high armor/lvl of monsters in those areas they now easily outnuke any elementalist. 134.130.183.235 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The +1 energy pip regen should be removed from monsters. 2. Give them energy management skills instead. Reason: It's not fun to fight high lvl mobs that spam their skills like crazy and never run out of energy. 87.189.247.181

if you remove it monsters will run out of energy, they always spawn out their skills as fast as they can so they should be out of energy too fast, that idea is just stupid. Also, their ai dont know how to use energy management skills.--Cursed Angel 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagee, the ai knows pretty well how to use the most energy management skills. If mobs wouldn't spam out their skills as fast as they can 1. Mesmers would easily have a better role in pve. 2. People wouldn't use tanks as much to suck up the crazy damage which is coming from endless skill spamming. 3. Energy drain/denial skills would became more useful in pve. 87.189.199.129 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't where the problem is. It doesn't matter how quickly a monster spams their skills or not, they are still going to get killed in the same amount of time. The only difference is that your party is taking less damage because monsters aren't spamming their skills. The suggestion isn't going to make e-denial more desirable. e-denial - the mechanic as a whole - does not work in a PvE system where the only... ONLY focus is wiping out hordes of monsters. (Terra Xin 14:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

And surving long enough to wipe out hordes of monsters, which generally favors front-loaded defense like BHA, Protection Prayers over back-loaded defenses such as Diversion and Energy denial. -- Gordon Ecker 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritleech Aura

This has been going on for awhile now so I thought to tell you that the duration and the life steal are switched in game. Antiarchangel 16:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh thanks I'll get the text updated. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dev Only Skills

Where can I find a list of developer only skills here on GWW? I'm curious to find out what they use, for no particular reason... -- Counciler 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There really is only one Dev skill, it's called Bamph it does 999 damage, and if you use it on yourself it buffs you, makes you run faster gives up a ton of health and regen and makes it so things can't slow you down. We have other dev commands but we don't make too many dev skills. ~Izzy @-'---- 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we hack the game so we can use Bamph? C'mon... you know you wanna tell me....... :P -- Counciler 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it'll be a Server Side skill rather than Client side, and they won't test on servers we can access...i'd venture there is no way to do that! --ChronicinabilitY 21:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good start would be convincing server that you are GM =) just instant ban plus pending jail time in US =D Biz 05:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaat? Jail time? For pretending to be a GM? Woah.... talk about medieval methods of punishment. It's just a freaking game, people... -- Counciler 08:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give bamph to anyone for the simple cost of my retirement :P ~Izzy @-'---- 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you just picking on them Izzy or that a *true* dev skill? Vanguard 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way, quick, everyone jump on Izzy for being corrupt. :P (Kidding.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not corrupt I've gotten it cleared with my boss, as long as I split it with him. And yes thats a true skill, I also did the art for the Icon, but someone would have to look in the dat to find it ;) ~Izzy @-'---- 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? Vanguard 12:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Or watch the GW:EN preview video. :) Lord Belar 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the same icon as Knock, amirite? 213.84.164.125 09:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (corpselooter cba signing in)

[edit] Aggressive Refrain

Hopefully I can simply get an opinion out here without getting it turned into a bash-a-thon or anything.

My opinion on Aggressive Refrain? I think the armor debuff is an acceptable downside to a skill that can be kept up indefinitely without paying energy more then once for it, and grants faster adrenaline and damage. If I'm going to do more damage then normal, then I'm fine with taking more damage then normal. But do a lot of people a favor, and simply make the skill read "you have -20 armor while this is active". Re-applying Cracked Armor over and over serves little purpose, and just ends up becoming annoying; your monk can remove it, but half a second later it's back up; you get blinded, or start bleeding, and now you need to dodge Cracked Armor applications to remove even simple conditions, which in my opinion is a bit too big of a downside. People will deal with the armor debuff just fine; maybe not run as far into aggro, play a little more defensively, or simply drop the skill from their bars if they're not really running an offensive role. But having to work around the skill for such simple tasks as condition removal, just seems like an annoyance and a downside rolled into one. Give me a straight-up downside, and drop the annoying-as-hell part. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think -20 while attacking would be a good change. Another thing is that it can just be drawn (by a squishy) every time it's reapplied, so the downside can still be prevented. — Hyperion // talk 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. It does not change the intent of the debuff, but it does it in a more effective way. This is all assuming that the original intent was to apply -20AL and not to apply a condition. -- Counciler 01:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the reapplying-Cracked Armor makes this skill a bit too unwieldy for all the wrong situations - I'd rather see -20 AL while active, or -20 AL while attacking, and I think both would accomplish the same goal. There are better ways to make Cracked Armor more a part of the game than this. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's two kinds of annoying problems coming from current version: 1. when playing PvE, henchman Monks will waste their energy automatically removing the cracked armor condition. 2. with infinite supply of cracked armor with good duration, Paragon can use condition transfer skill like Plague Sending before spike in PvP to get multiple targets softened. Was this intended? --Toge 03:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply agreed, free supply of cracked armor to send, and constant application of a condition which henchmen cannot prioritize make this a disfunctional skill, it needs to have appropriate application, and it really should only reduce armor wile attacking, not unconditionally, since involuntary reapplication is a certainty with other chanters.--BahamutKaiser 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see the problems with this skill and while it has some potential for cool effects and might boost the use of "if the target has Cracked Armor"-skills, the downsides mentioned above seem to outweigh the few positive things it will accomplish. But that's just me.Nicky Silverstar 09:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I'm seeing on other discussion pages is this; a single Paragon, with Aggressive Refrain, is having trouble working around his own skill's downsides. Someone blinds him, and now it takes a lot more effort to get back up and running. Two Paragons support each other a bit better, helping to cancel out the armor debuff, and keep energy active. Conditions are still a problem, but that's fairly acceptable with two Paragons running. Then there's full Paragon "Paraway" teams. Theses teams are using at least one copy of Purifying Finale, which removes conditions as fast as they get applied, and completely cancels out the skill's new downside. Overall, what we've got is a nerf that's got the right basic idea to slow down this skill, but it's going about it in such a way that people are encouraged to use the main problem, Paraway teams. The other option is to start nerfing Purifying Finale, but that's just a matter of treating the problem rather then the cause; what are you going to do anyway, lower the duration and make Paraway teams simply bring more copies?

I think, for Paraway, what you've got to realize is that, as long as it's viable, any skill that can be chained will be chained. You need to make these skills balanced even if they are chained; maybe lower the effects and make them last longer. That way, a single Paragon can get a long duration, while a team of paragons won't really get any benefit from chaining the skill. You thus encourage less Paragons on a team, or at the very least, make full-Paragon teams more of a pointless thing and less of a broken dynamic. Also consider, longer durations means less triggers for Echoes. Take any random skill a Paragon can keep up indefinitely on his own, then double the duration and recharge. Now it's less useful for triggering Echoes, and it basically gains half the energy over time, while still being a useful skill. Just an option. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fun actually playing against it! =D It's made Body Blow actually amazing vs teams with paragons. (Deepwound, more damage than Evis, less adrenaline anyone?) and it also helps from the other side as well, when running it, since RC has come back into favor, having CA on the paragon just makes it more effective. Because of this i actually think its wuite nice. Can Blind and other conditions get covered by your own shouts reappliying CA...yes...but then thats your fault if you do that. --ChronicinabilitY 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The loss of armor isn't much of a penalty for a Paragon. The 'cracked armor' condition is just annoying (especially for PvE). How about removing the armor penalty, and maybe putting GFTE and WY back to the way they were, and having AR as: "For 5..21 seconds, you attack 25% faster but have 10% chance to miss with attacks. This Echo is reapplied every time a Chant or Shout ends on you." (Or '33% faster' and/or '20% chance to miss with attacks' depending on balance)? - Innocence. 192.6.178.101 12:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

With the current Block-Way meta that is still being run quite effectively despite this update...that would KILL AR totally! --ChronicinabilitY 13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The 10/20% miss thing is good in theory, but you'd miss a few more times than you'd like, defeating the purpose of the entire thing completely. Vanguard 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"For 5...21 seconds, you attack 25% faster. When this echo ends, if you have at least 25 energy and are under the effects of a shout or chant, Aggressive Refrain is reapplied."

"For 3...15 seconds, you attack 25% faster. If your maximum energy exceeds 5...20, this echo is removed. Otherwise, aggressive Refrain is reapplied whenever a chant or shout ends on you."

Some random thoughts on the skill description. I can't stand using a Paragon, though, so I'm probably the last person to be offering a suggestion. --Reklaw 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is laughable. All of the supposedly "enlightened" (translation: busy bodies, those who have nothing better or more important to do, meddlers) among you pushed to have these skills nerfed, AR in particular. "It's so horrible," you said. "I'm not smart enough or willing to make the sacrifices necessary to deal with this, so could you nerf it, please?" Now, it's been nerfed, and someone has found yet another way to exploit the nerf. "FOUL! FOUL," you cry. "Change it this way and that," you snivvel. All I can think whilst chuckling is that you are the ones who asked for this, so reap what you have sewn. The moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it, and when you get it, it may not be what you were expecting. Kinda makes you wish you'd just dealt with it, doesn't it? Kinda makes you wish you just played PvE, doesn't it? Oh wait, that's right...the PvE crowd was affected by this as well! Not only were we affected by the initial nerf, now we get an extra little bonus with the annoying condition. Once again, the PvE crowd gets to pay for the PvP crowd's ineptitude and (apparent) lack of intelligence. 71.178.201.136 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Er... right. So what you're saying is, if there's a broken tile on your bathroom floor, and you call someone to fix the broken tile, and they fix it by laying down carpet, you shouldn't ask them to change it to tile because, while the carpet does fix the broken tile, it's rather unwieldy in a bathroom? That's effectively what the case is here: yes, the problem is fixed, but it's fixed in a manner that's so much more unwieldy than it needs to be. The PvP crowd didn't ASK for the cracked armor change, in fact, they asked for exactly what they're asking for now, something like a constant -20 armor built into the skill. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that I've never thought anything was broken. Second...no, what I'm saying is that all of the busy-bodies should stop meddling because they've already done enough damage. I'll refer you back to the "moral of the story" in my last. Izzy (quite obviously) has a mind of his own and is going to do what he thinks is best and they can snivvel all they want about it, but in the end, it's Izzy's (and his team's) decision on what to do with which skill, and if they weren't prepared for what he might do, then they shouldn't have brought it up. I'm not familiar with you or the role that you play, so I don't know what your stake in this discussion is (PvP, PvE, SysOp, ANet Employee, etc.). I'm just a guy who logs on to play for about an hour a day. During that hour, I want to enjoy the game as much as possible and it sickens me when I log on to find out that my playing experience has been negatively affected by an aspect of the game that I don't deal with. That's bad enough, but then I find out that there are people on here who consider themselves "experts" on the game who have been adding their two cents and actually TRYING to make this happen! What arrogance! Who do you think you are? If it's not your job, then keep your opinions to yourself. It's one thing to post on a forum and say that you don't like this or that. That's something normal. This isn't. 65.248.178.173 15:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow...Nice rant. You could just lay off the guy, but that few paragraphs of anger was fun too. From what I can tell, it's hardly a complicated change and it makes sense to add it in, to me. I mean, Barbed Arrows has -armour when activating it, so its obviously an effect that can be added to skills. The guy made a perfectly fair suggestion and you ranted at him. Think about that.

[edit] Steak

Izzy, as a deviance from the typical whining and bickering that takes place on this hallowed ground; I bring you a new a fresh idea....

Eat more steak. Yes, tis true. Steak is eatable. And it is the steak that shall be eaten. The thing that shall be eaten should be steak. And the steak should be no less than eaten. So please, go get a steak. And eat it.

That is all. -- Counciler 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea may be fresh, but what if the steak isn't? Nicky Silverstar 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm..... well that depends. Is it turning greenish brown? Or was it out on the counter for a few hours after thawing? I would still eat the latter. -- Counciler 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would eat the former. --Deathwing 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh you sick, sick bastard. No really, you are now sick for eating green steak. :P (That was not a personal attack, FYI) -- Counciler 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Steak is indeed good. Armond 07:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this post amusing, anyone that talks to me often or has meet me in real life would know we eat a lot of steak at my house. Most Guild Wars players I talk to that come to Seattle stop by Casa De Izzy and eat steaks with Izzy, Lulu, Morello, and Freyas. Also if they are not chicken Lulu and I take them out paintballing so I indeed eat my fair share of steak. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Izzy, careful TheSteakIsALie. --66.130.10.27 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just look out for Christmas steak Isaiah. It's red on the top and green on the bottom. :/ --Redfeather 09:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I am SO quoting that.... -- Counciler 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This might ven go to his favorite feedback page. Which reminds me, I am curious to see what feedback is your favorite Izzy, though you problably have other things on your mind right now. Nicky Silverstar 07:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, from the Wiki alone? or overall feedback? ~Izzy @-'---- 21:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a section called Favorite Feedback on your page, yet it is completely empty. I assume it was designed for the wiki, but I am just a curious person, so overall sounds good to me too. ;-)Nicky Silverstar 08:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive Please!

WARNING: This page is 230 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.

I think it's a little bit past overdue. -- Scourge 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I try and archive as much as I can but I can never keep up lol ~Izzy @-'---- 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've subpaged a few of the larger discussions, cutting it from ~250kb to ~130kb. It's still pretty big, but it's also a rather active page. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some Archiving today so hopefully it's better. ~Izzy @-'---- 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This page continues to be impossibly big. I have moved some of the skill discussions to the respective overpowered/underpowered pages (as Isaiah himself requested some time ago), but it's still big. Erasculio 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puttin' on the Rits

I asked this elsewhere, and it seems to have been overlooked: Izzy, what can we expect as far as changes to binding rituals in the future? Based on what you've said in the past, it appears that there will only be plain old number-nerfs in the future, which isn't helping Ritualists get beyond the point of being a gimmick class (although it might take more than fixing spirits to resolve this particular issue). In a number of places there have been suggestions to change the mechanic on a basic level in order to avoid inelegant solutions to spirit spam (see also: 12 Oct. update). I've seen suggestions range from making spirits only affect one ally/foe, to having a health degeneration upkeep, to only allowing one binding ritual out at once; they may or may not be what is needed, but I don't even know if anything is being considered. I'm just curious if it is reasonable to expect Binding Rituals to ever see a transformation to a less broken system. (Mr.X) 05:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Either out of laziness or not coming to his wiki much, I'm surprised Izzy hasn't replied to this because I'd love to see a reply to this. Vanguard 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not too sure, we probably will stay away from large changes that redesign a whole class, but then again it's never out of realm of possiblity, if I had to guess I would say we probalby wouldn't do anything too radical at this point, but who knows it wouldn't be the first time. I tried some with the exhaustion but that didn't go over too well, in the end it's an issue we need a solve and well probably try a handfull of exhaustion level stuff with it, before we would do something radical like redesign. I don't really see it as a Gimmick class currently thou, it has alot of issues and non are really being used in an odd horrible way. I just think the classes interactions with the game are not as fun as other classes, and cause some unfun behavior, I think they are less offensive then paragons to the meta. Either way thats my thoughts on it. ~Izzy @-'---- 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I loved the exhaustion changes....except for Wielder's Strike. --Deathwing 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So there are currently no plans to redo anything on the ritualist? Vanguard 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No there are currently no plans at redesigning the mechanics that Ritualist use, we are still trying to clean them up with skill changes. ~Izzy @-'---- 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than completely revamping spirits, maybe utilizing HP saccing and a different form of exhaustion could be helpful with spirits. Basically, my idea is, each binding ritual has no recharge time (like bonds), but once a spirit is up, the skill is disabled, and its energy cost is exhausted from your pool, and doesn't follow the standard recovery of exhaustion. Once your spirit is dead, your energy is back to normal and the skill becomes renewed. The HP saccing would be used instead the spirit killing itself, it hurts you (activation would have to be restricted similar to soul reaping so you don't die instantly in PvE), allowing the spirit to make full use of its health. Now, I think all the nerfs to spirits will probably have to be undone either way (burning and the health decrease) and change spawning power, to give you a certain amount of health regen (I'm thinking more like SLW regen) while you have spirit up (to help with the saccing, though it won't help that much), and maybe reduce the amount of energy exhausted, making it useful for the changed spirits. Not sure if this will really fix any problems with Binding Rituals, but its an idea, so......--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems even more complicated than just reworking the concepts. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how the coding is, if eternal aura can be done (when the spirit dies, it would instantly recharge the skill, which would be set to be disable for like 99999etc seconds), I don't think it would be too hard setting up the disablement, or exhaustion (again, spirit death would trigger the removal). I would think Spawning Power could work since Shaman's Insignia works. The HP saccing doesn't seem like it would be too hard since skill like Order of Undeath already cause you to sac life for what something you control does. I was just suggesting something that seemed pretty feasible to me at least, but Ive never seen how GW was coded, so I could be far off *shrug*.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you want the exhaustion to not go away like regular exhaustion would basically mean that you have to track it separately, i.e. not as "real" exhaustion, which defeats the point of making it "simpler to implement" as exhaustion in the first place. Not to mention, it's simply not intuitive in relation to how the rest of Guild Wars' skills work as far as recharge et cetera go. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustion, no I can't say I like the idea of that. It kinda steps into ele domain. But I do see your point. Sacrifice could work for some spells, as rits are related to necros, but I couldn't see myself sacrificing for binding rituals. Too severe. But I do have a quirky idea, which somewhat works like exhaustion. Which is to disable a portion of your energy for the duration of the spirits life. The amount disabled should be equal to the casting cost. However, unlike exhaustion, you don't recover from this until the spirit dies, in which you will be fully reimbursed. Disabled energy could otherwise look like exhaustion and grey out bits of the energy bar. However, the rits need something to compensate them for this change, such as faster casting/recharge, and/or allow for each rit to maintain any given number of the same spirit within the same area. (the same concept may even also apply to natural spirits too) However, doing this will of course disable larger portions of their energy, but it would be worth it. Personally this would make it much more enjoyable for me, and allow for many interesting combinations, but at the same time it shouldn't overpower or fundamentally change the rit. Just my opinion thou. --Yoh 08:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chain of Command

I'm not really sure where else to ask this, nor am I sure if you can legally answer this question. We know that all of the balance changes do go through you, but how exactly is the decision making structured? In short, if you know that a change needs to be made, how fast can this happen, what hoops do you need to jump through, and whom gets to make the final decision?

I believe the user page describes that he is the final authority and decider on skill balance issues.--BahamutKaiser 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And that does not answer the question that I asked. Izzy works for Anet which means he has people to whom he has to answer. He is not a coder and does not put the changes in himself. If one has ever worked in any corporate environment then one would know that there is paperwork and red tape that always have to be traversed. Does Izzy have to make drafts of all proposed changes and have them reviewed, perhaps having to resubmit them multiple times, or does it go straight from him idea to the coder's desk? I immagine that my question cannot be fully answered as I would expect Anet to not allow disclosure of its inner structure. Ultimately the answers to my questions can only be made by an Anet employee, while I certain a complete answer isn't possible any information as to how game changes are originally formlated, what standards or tests they have to pass, and how they eventually end up implimented in the game would be greatly appreciated.

Actually I think he is a programmer, and does make the changes himself. I remember one time an activation time was added to a skill, then later he removed that activation time and put it on another, and mentioned that he 'edited the wrong line'. I know this could mean a few different things, but I think it is most likely that he is a programmer and does make the changes to the code. 69.137.78.47 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ANet seems like a fairly small company, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to have someone in charge of skills to not be able to modify/update them. The opening post on this thread reeks of "I want to speak with your manager" like Izzy's some clerk at a cheap convenience store. - HeWhoIsPale 12:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He has a team he consults with, I am sure. Also, a man named steven is responsible for Izzy's actions and all employees of ArenaNet, or so I have been told. 209.189.130.127 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Irony here is y real name is Stephen Isaiah Cartwright ~Izzy @-'---- 21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who he answers too because he's been given authority to make the decisions and changes. You can complain to his superiors if you are allowed or offered to even reach them, but Izzy clearly states that skill balance ultimately falls on him and he makes the FINAL DECISION. Do you need a dictionary?--BahamutKaiser 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain the process because I'm sure people are interested.

1. We have an established time frame we do updates, figuring this out is it's own process hehe.
2. I start off by sending some emails saying hey it's time for us to get another update rolling, I've put some data on our internal wiki lets meet and go over the issues.
3. James, Izzy, Morello, and Chaplan are the normal people who meet, we get together go over the issues, bring up new issues and generally have a meeting going over what the problems are and what direction we plan on going with fixing them. I normally draft up a list of changes, some are insanely radical some are simple, I normally stear away from buffs at this points unless they are to fix an issue.
4. After the meeting I normally draft a list of todo's mainly it's like "generate a list of defensive skills" or "List all runners currently being run" from that meeting and these lists I start to draft a more concrete update list, I try and balance the update with buffs and nerfs and fill in with different changes.
5. While making my list I normally talk to people on MSN, in game, read Wiki feedback, IRC, where ever I find interesting conversations about skills with people I enjoy talking too. Often they change my opinion, or further convince me a change needs to happen.
6. Once I've created a first draft I call another meeting, where we go over each change and ask how it effects the list of issues we created.
7. We all go through every change and make the call on each line, many get cut, some get added or changed, in the end we have a finalized list of changes. (note while James and I make the final call on changes, and James being my boss can over call me, but it's more of an iterative process, and rarely do we throw out changes without all agreeing. )
8. Once we have a finalized list of changes, I send it over to start getting translated
9. I then break the list down into 3 lists,
   1. Code Changes(changes that I cannot do, I need a full blown coder to do, this is normally stuff where a skill changes functionality not numbers),
   2. Text Changes(A list of all changes that need thier text updated and sent off to be localized)
   3. Const Changes(minor skill changes that I can do without code, this is allmost all number changes, or flags/attributes, the vast majority of changes)
10. Once all changes are checked in, I send them over to QA, who goes through each change and bugs anything that has been done wrong or not done.
11. Once QA has signed off, Loc has returned with translated strings, and any last min tweaks are done, we write an artical explaining changes (morello does this a lot and we review it)
12. We hand off the list to Community, and prep an update note page
13. Once the update has gone through we post the changes everywhere we normally post stuff.
14. We all play the game, review the feedback, watch the forums, read the wiki, talk to people via messenger, in game, or anywhere we can find good conversation.
15. Throughout the week we talk about the changes, and see if they completed our goals or what effect they had.
16. We meet for a small meeting when needed talk about small changes tweaks or issues and make the call about what to do.

Thats pretty much the process, so as you can see while I start the meetings, do a lot of feedback make a lot of changes, and make a lot of the calls, there really isn't any one person saying yes/no it's a very iterative process and we learn a lot every time we do it. Hope this is helpful understanding how we do stuff. ~Izzy @-'---- 21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I wouldn't be a good firefly fan if I didn't answer: "It's the Chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin' command here." ~Izzy @-'---- 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit]