ArenaNet talk:Skill feedback/Assassin/Golden Skull Strike

Note: As of September 2, 2009 this page is no longer active. If you have suggestions for Guild Wars skills please go to Feedback:Main to learn how to submit suggestions that ArenaNet can use.

General discussion

Why not a simple freaking revert? The change was nothing, really nothing but a nerf. If anyone need a lead-attack-less chain, that one'd use Golden Phoenix Strike or Palm Strike but not something that tries to seem to may be perhaps some little thing more than just nothing. And if you are for a split change, look at Technobabble for reference. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 01:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Several reasons. First, a plain revert would only allow it to be kept up ~80% of the time with 16 Dagger Mastery and Silencing daggers. Second, the lead attack requirement would make it slower and less reliable. Third, Technobabble is AoE, non-elite and unsustainable. Fourth, I'm not familiar with PvP, I suspect that the effect of quadrupling the maximum Dazed duration in PvP would generally be negligible due to condition removal, but I'm not certain, and I mostly agree with the main point of Auron's Inexperience essay. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lengthening condition durations never helped in PvE, Ever. Short fights and fasts deaths put a pressure on the recharge of this. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 06:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A reversion wouldn't lower the recharge time. Reverting the skill would have three effects: re-adding the requirement of a lead attack, allowing the skill to be used as an off-hand attack with no bonus damage or other effects while not enchanted, and increasing the duration, which you just claimed wouldn't help in PvE. As for lowering the recharge time, all the unconditional Energy-based daze skills have recharge times of 15 or 20 seconds. I feel that a proposal modelled on Broad Head Arrow, an elite energy-based attack which unconditionally dazes with no other effect, is more likely to be seriously considered than a proposal modelled on one of the alternatives, all of which are all non-elite, have additional effects, can't miss or be blocked or are adrenaline-based. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not say the revert should be useful for PvE ;-) Right now it's worthless in both formats. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 11:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were specifically commenting on my proposal and asking why I didn't propose a revert, rather than rhetorically asking why the skill hasn't been reverted yet. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ulterion's Issue

The first suggestion would be better in PvP, but the second suggestion would be better in PvE. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)