ArenaNet talk:Skill feedback/Paragon/Energizing Chorus

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Info-Logo.png Note: As of September 2, 2009 this page is no longer active.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.

The problem with this skill is the fact that it gives energy management to a class that doesn't need it. As long as Leadership gives 5+ energy per chant, a simple Chorus of Restoration will suffice to cover all your energy needs. You might help a warrior once in a while with "For Great Justice!" but otherwise, it would indeed function solely in multi-para teams. Maybe a change in effect to: "For 10 seconds, the next time a party member within earshot uses a non-Paragon skill, that ally gains 2 energy." or something might make it more useful in balanced teams...maybe. Nicky Silverstar 09:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

what's messed up is the "chorus" skills in general since they basically force multi-paragon teams. The only solution is to nerf them so that they are stronger in single paragon teams but less strong in multi-paragon teams. --Life Infusion «T» 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You could fix it, but as it stands, I don't need this skill as a single Paragon. Multiple Paragons have even better energy management, so they won't need it. "Go for the Eyes!" at no investment in Command is plenty of energy management by itself. My point being: it gives energy management but you don't need that much energy management. Any other adrenaline chant/shout will give you more than enough, this is overkill. That is my point of view. Nicky Silverstar 07:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
IMO this is the only chorus that's actually decent with a single paragon. -- Gordon Ecker 07:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people? Why nerf a skill that is so specialised nobody uses it? If anything, this skill needs a redesign in a way that would make it work in more enviroments than just multiparagon teams. Why give it recharge and higher adrenaline cost? the effect isn't good enough for that. --89.142.137.2 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)