ArenaNet talk:Skill feedback/Dervish/Rending Touch

Note: As of September 2, 2009 this page is no longer active.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.

Discuss:

totally agree. ^^ Ulkiges Ding 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was removed from the issue page, but I found it and re-added it. I like the 3rd option the best, as it allows W/D balance to continue to use this skill, which has always been a favorite of mine. While the enchantment req is easy to meet, it forces a team to endure the downside to get the upside, and doesn't really support the use of the skill with Natures Renewal. --Angelic Loki 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'mma gonna go for idea no.1. Energy cost won't do jack for rangers with expertise, and wars using this ain't exactly my favourite. -- NUKLEAR IIV 11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though the skill is named Rending Touch, Its a spell, so I believe Expertise isn't applied. There are cases (Mending Touch), where this is not true however. Do you happen to know either way? --Angelic Loki 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is classified as a touch skill benefits from expertise. I'm 99.9% Sure that expertise takes effect. -- NUKLEAR IIV 09:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a touch skill however, its a spell --Angelic Loki 09:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll test right now. -- NUKLEAR IIV 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As suspected, expertise does effect rending touch. So, suggestion 2 is bull poo. -- NUKLEAR IIV 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bah, they should change that to start with --Angelic Loki 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

not really the problem. This needs a drawback. Like... 20% sac if no enchant removed off you. -- NUKLEAR IIV 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not one to balance on themes, but thats not even Remotely fitting on a dervish. The suggested nerf is much better, because not only do you have to have an enchantment in the build, which forces you to not use NR/Tranq, but it makes the skill much less fire and forget, and much more "Is stripping the skill worth losing this enchant." True, they could bring an enchant to strip, but thats 1 less utility skill. I think the proposed nerf is much better then a completely arbitrary sac, in a Attribute line that does not support, and doesn't even remotely play like, a sac line. --Angelic Loki 11:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could argue that since the spell cannot feed off enchants of you, it feeds on to your health to complete itself. So it's like "pay up either an enchant, or, if cannot pay, I shall eat you" type of thingy. Meh. Balancing on theme is a pretty /fail idea, and I think a conditional sac would do this good: It has a great effect, but if you misuse it, it costs your monks energy, just like frenzy. -- NUKLEAR IIV 11:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some kind of penalty if you don't lose an enchantment has got to be the best idea, whether it's bleeding, health loss or just damage, whatever. A % sac would probably hurt R/Ds most since they normally have very high health but whatever.86.27.91.88 13:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the current stats with this as a drawback: If you do not lose an enchantment, Rending Touch is disabled for 16 seconds or takes twice as long to recharge. That way the skill still has the intended effect, but is less spammable without supplying enchantments to burn. --Rururrur 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Leaves the power, and the ability to use it on the warrior, and you can still use it if you dont have an enchantment, but promotes use of the skill with enchantments. /agree with above post. --Angelic Loki 11:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it makes it less passive at least because you have to decide whether your current top enchantment is worth more than a faster recharge, and if you don't use enchantments at all (R/Ds come to mind...) then you can't spam it anywhere near as fast. Not sure it would be enough to prevent its abuse on its own, though. I still quite like the Bleeding idea...86.27.68.185 12:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bleeding will do.. 6-18 damage before its removed. To do 18 damage, it has to stay on for 3 seconds, and it could be used to power RC. In Sway, they have Mend Body and a lot of spirits, so its GG any conditions really. --Angelic Loki 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sac is way better. -- NUKLEAR IIV 13:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I still like the added recharge, just because it makes it a mediocre skill at best on a bar with no enchantments, forcing the use of an off target enchant for rangers, since an enchant would be a non-touch spell that would cost full energy. While adding a sac would accomplish the nerf, I dont think that its wise. First off, it will nerf the skill right out of the meta, since the person should be able to use it without an enchant if they need it without having to kill themselves or add pressure to their team. It should have some other penalty. Second off, adding a sac is an effective nerf to any powerful skill in the game, but what if, say, Eviscerate caused sac? That would be a true WTF moment, just like adding sac to this skill would be. It just doesn't make sense, even if it would accomplish the objective effectively.--Angelic Loki 02:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

fuck sense. Sac is an awesome way to balance around, as the game revolves around laving life. Adding well calibrated amounts of sac can balance anything. -- NUKLEAR IIV 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

F00s,just make it If an enchantment is removed from you,target foe loses one enchantment

Doesnt hurt dervs one bit seeing that they are pretty much always packing enchs,and those R/Ds will get owned. sick of seeing them daily anyway <,<' Oni 16:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Real dervishes don't pack enchants, at least not the ones they may wish to remove. -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your point is? Real dervishes doesnt sacrafice health either. and there will be synergiez combo with stuff like doing damage when enchs end ect. atleast thats better than keeping this as it is.

Or atleast put it in mystictism line and make fail if less than 4 ors ome crap <,<'83.249.119.162 05:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but they would sac health if it was done so. They still won't pack enchants if you do otherwise, which kills the skill, which is, I guess, not something you want to do. -- NUKLEAR IIV 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well,i havent seen many good dervs that actually even carry this skill. its only R/D gimmicks and warriors from what ive seen. maybe you can link me a good derv build for it? And if ya cant find one,only bad dervs would use it. meaning that bad dervs pack enchs :'D.

Yes. im highly aware that my point suxOni 23:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While Bleeding certainly doesn't provide a real drawback, what about Weakness or Deep Wound? Deep Wound might be a little too much, though. Weakness is sort of nice, because it really doesn't effect casters much, and I like using this when I play a caster to get Aura of Displacement sins off of me. =P The double recharge one is okay, but it kills its use as a sin counter, in a lot of ways. --Kite 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You use this to counter AoD? wow. That's dumb. It's dumb to carry a touch ranged enchant removal on a caster. It's dumb to carry one skill to counter one build. Weakness is RC food. DW is also RC food. Hell, DW is FF - Plague signet food. THIS NEEDS SACRIFICE! -- NUKLEAR IIV 11:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I used this skill to remove bonder's enchantments from Kurzick Elementalists, when I play Luxon in Fort Aspenwood. It just seconds as a good skill to get the occasional AoD sin off my back. Out of four suggestions I've made in the last week or so, you've only got two of them. Here's the last two, if you really feel like continuing: Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall Arenas, TRP weapon skins for PvE chars(at bottom). And for future reference, too. --Kite 20:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuklear, you seem set on the prospect of sacrifice if the skill doesn't consume an enchantment. But lets remove the element of life from the game for a moment, and convert everything into energy numbers. You would agree that 17% sacrifice is over 100 hp? You would also agree, I assume, that 17% would come close to being healed by an Orison, and Likewise a Spirit Light. If we are balancing this to prefer skilled play, it should be harder for a non-skilled build to use it to its full potential then a skilled build. However, its common knowledge that N/Rt's have less energy issues then a Mo/Me, due to the lack of need for positioning skill thats required for optimal channeling. That being said, 5 energy (The cost of Orison) will hurt the monk more then the 5 energy for the cost of Spirit Light. On top of that, the PASSIVE healing from SWay is often wasted, when either a pot drops/life dies/recup is up when someone is at full health. That wasted healing would be put to use mopping up this sac. In other words, while you nerf the skill for balanced (since energy is much tighter on a Mo/Me), you dont buff, but you also dont nerf the skill for SWAY. They wont spam it on recharge, true, but they will still use it, and they will still use it with no enchantment and with essentially no penalty. In other words, I dont support your sacrifice change, because it wont work to nerf the skill for what it needs to be nerfed for. Furthermore, remember that we are trying to hold a conversation on why a skill needs to be buffed/changed. If someone else uses a skill in a different playstyle for a different reason, that should be supported. Similarly as well, one might make the case (as I just did), that Sacrifice is just fodder for a build that heavily overheals, such as SWAY. Making them spend 5 energy simply to remove bleeding is actually a more efficient nerf in that case. Since you spit on a nerf thats more efficient then your own.. well. I'll quit there. You've been pushing all along to add sacrifice, and people keep refuting it or changing it. unless you have a better reason then "sac is a great way to balance everything", then ts seriously time to move on, and consider other things. --Angelic Loki 09:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable. Fine, I drop the sacrifice. Still, you need to forget about the bleeding then. Sway can easily banish that with MBaS, and, as you said, SWAY has very little energy troubles. Extra disable time also hurts balanced, so no good there. Frontlines generally don't carry enchants, so it's going to be 5 energy from monks. What do we have left? -- NUKLEAR IIV 09:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that any form of condition other then DW wouldn't really do anything at all. Failure chance based on an attribute, but that still doesn't really hurt SWay.. or we could combine 2 of the preceeding. Force 5 attrib in wind prayers makes the spell synergize well with Grenths Aura and Attacker's Insight if you add the recharge with no enchant. --Angelic Loki 09:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

DW also won't work, for the same reason Bleeding won't. Hell, DW will hurt balanced more than it will hurt SWAY. A requirement is also a very null nerf - you just pop one from scythes and into wind prayers. -- NUKLEAR IIV 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Would energy loss work? For example, if you lost 5 energy (ignoring Expertise) if you didn't have an enchantment to lose, it would have the cost of casting an enchantment and then using Rending Touch...though it would still be easier than getting both, wouldn't it? 10 energy loss instead? (Also, health loss would be better than sacrifice, in my opinion. Sacrifice is a necromancer/ritualist thing, while health loss would be okay lore-wise in any class.) --Kite 16:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, won't that punish other legitimate uses? and We've already established that rangers have a lot of free energy. And lore is a horrible idea to balance around. Before Factions, only monks had maintainable enchants, and know assassins have them. I'm just doing this to get you to agree that Rending is broken on all levels and needs sac for balance, work with me here. -- NUKLEAR IIV 20:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I'll take that as a "no, energy loss would not work." Anyway, what's the difference between sacrifice and health loss but a few necromancer skills, and lore? I'm just saying, 20% sacrifice would be better labeled as 20% health loss, because it's not a necromancer skill. The idea in itself isn't flawed or anything.

Actually, lore-wise, as Dervishes are essentially followers of all of the "gods", it would be perfectly possible to have this skill be a Grenth-based skill, justifying the term "sacrifice." --Kite 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would make very good sense from a name perspective, since Rend Enchantments, the skill this skill most likely gets its name from, has health loss too and is a necromancer skill. Sacrifice/health loss would work well from a lore perspective and from a balancing perspective(I'll have to trust you on that part.). --Kite 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I win again? -- NUKLEAR IIV 18:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not unless Izzy reads and implements this change. I don't care much for petty arguments, I care whether or not the game is balanced, and this seems to be an effective way to do so, both balance-wise and lore-wise. --Kite 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the conclusion here is it doesn't really matter what is done (well obviously it does to some extent but the exact details don't) as long as something is done. This skill really needs a nerf because if you have no enchantments on you, you can remove them for free on everone else, very often (low recharge) and if you're an R/D, it costs next to nothing to boot!

Come on ANet, please nerf this, at least a bit!

Actually, the conclusion is that it will still be broken even if something is done, unless if the said nerf is severe enough.. Oh, and I'm awesome. -- NUKLEAR IIV 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a penalty if you don't lose an enchantment, such as Rending Touch is disabled/takes longer to recharge, disables attack skills, or disables all your skills.

Agreed. I also think something that might synergise with other dervish skills would be ideal so as to encourage legitimate use - perhaps inflicting a condition for synergy with Avatar of Melandru for example (Melandru builds rarely use many enchants because they cost too much energy so they would suffer the condition but it wouldn't matter since they have AoM up - it would also get these back into the game a bit) or something. I think if you *had* to lose an enchantment for it to work, or there was a big penalty for not doing, it would force smart use of it (is their enchantment more important than mine?) or synergy with derv enchants which have effects which trigger when they end.

Great idea. Lets bring mel into the game, such an underused skill! -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm there? No, seriously, you don't see that many AoMs around any more, at least not in HA, RA, TA et.c. even though the current meta is massively condition-orientated. Anyway, rather than wanting to encourage AoM specifically, I was saying that encouraging use of this skill on any dervish build rather than a ranger or warrior would be a good thing.

Anyway, I'm all for sacrifice, though it's contraversial to say the least. Possibly some flat energy loss instead might be an idea. Either way, it should be "useable but not abusable".

And to whoever that other person was who said just make it only remove and enchantment if you're enchanted, well, yeah, that would fix the problem, but it's not very imaginative and this skill would lose a good bit of functionality to boot. :-).

The only reason we don't see much mels is becuz PA is so much win- and, btw, trip tree is as strong as ever.

You can see my user page for my preferred suggestion -- nüklaer | VII | Selfless self promotion 20:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Some nice suggestions there. OK, some of them seem a little over the top of weird (or both), but I definately agree with Rending Touch and Escape (I should do, ofc, I proposed similar changes to yours on both pages) and maybe some of the others, too. Anyway, to get back on topic, how about combining some of these suggestions to get something like "If you do not lose an enchantment in this way, you lose 50 health and Rending Touch takes is disabled for 20 seconds". If fact you could then put it down to, say, 4 , buffing it for nice, normal dervs (though that may be a step to far). The recharge bit makes good sense because it would work just like Signet of Pious Light, allowing the user to use it repeatedly, but burning off enchantments as they do, until they use it without an enchantment, at which point they have to wait (which ofc gives them time to get their enchants back up...) without actually banning use without an enchantment.

Don't need anything complicated, just scale it from 0...2...2 with mysticism.

Right, so that it's completely banned from anyone other than primary dervishes (and really OP on them).

What dervish build runs 12 mysticism?

Clean Up

Discussion page and the skill page needs clean up, for example that thing about:

"Shard's Issue -- 9 June 2008" is signed by Armond?

"Shard's Issue -- 9 June 2008" suggestion is ridiculous.

Also this discussion page needs formatting. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Wealedout (talk).

Hah, so there's no reason I would have commented under the issue instead of the wall of talk page?

The talk page is better than a number of other talk pages on the wiki. There's no pressing need to make it conform.

If you don't like Shard's suggestion (or can't recognize sarcasm), don't read it. Don't take your personal vendetta out on him.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Shard's suggestions are not suggestions at all, thanks.Only suggestions and issues are for skill feedback pages.--Wealedout 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sway fell out of favor. Problem solved for now. 66.75.136.251 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry MR. IP but sway has not fell out of favor.It is still strong.Also something like:

"Good for rangers, bad for dervishes "

are called issues and suggestions, Shard's post is not a suggestion, it is a lame joke with a comment that is not supposed to be there.--Wealedout 23:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll start clean up by moving Armond's comment here in the discussion page.Issues and suggestions need to have the name of the poster.--Wealedout 17:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there. Now, I don't know if the "time stamp" things should stay and if there is anything else that needs clean up & formatting please post here.--Wealedout 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Shard's Issue -- 9 June 2008

Supported 100%. -- Armond Warblade 05:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)