Feedback talk:User/Life Infusion/Tainted Flesh
By the "That ally loses Bleeding and Poison." do you mean that whenever that ally is struck, he is cured of those conditions? --if so, the better phrase would be- "Whenever target ally is struck, that ally is cured of the Bleeding and Poison condition."
Also I don't think you are thinking hard enough to make use of other skills. I like to do Barbed Signet (pve OR pvp) -> Vile Miasma -> Toxic Chill for mass degen. Or Barbed Signet->Virulence->Vile Miasma --Eclipse143 02:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Idea was to have it removing Bleeding/Poison on cast. --Life Infusion «T» 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with Tainted Flesh has always been that you need to be hit for the disease to trigger wich is basicly the enemy inflicting disease on themselfs instead of target ally able to remotely inflict disease. Even if you would add a limited condition removal i doubt it still would see play because the reason that it is underplayed is still there. If you want to keep with your suggestions style my advice is to make the target ally immune to bleeding and poison instead of removing it, effectivly making your allies immune to fleshy conditions if something that i at least would consider taking. Adding those conditions might also be an option to punish attackers. Damysticreaper 01:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Making immunity to bleeding and poison would hurt sword warriors and rangers too heavily most likely. Having it passively stop Gash would be detrimental I believe. --Life Infusion «T» 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Warriors can easily swap to axe or hammer who are both superior to sword and rangers can easily go without poison and bleeding to deal damage. Rangers still have plenty of options for damage aside of degeneration. Naturally it will harm sword and ranger degen but thats all.
- Altough if that effect is added, rebalancing it for PvP trough duration vs recharge might be wise. Damysticreaper 19:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tainted Flesh is not underpowered, the other options (such as WS and Lingering Curse) are obscenely powerful. Koda
Kumi 20:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- No they are not (besides a few exceptions). In a offensive class such as the necromancer elite skills that require an ally to take damage in melee without even a single bit of mitigation only to cause 1 condition only effective on fleshy foes and is after casting virtually useless (even less than Poison Arrow) is a fail elite. This skills needs a buff because you can't nerf every other elite to balance out this skill. Damysticreaper 20:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you actually play HA? Morphy 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes, but if i understand your post correctly HA is all that it's useful for?
- Since i'm mostly a CM, RA and PvE type i can say this, i have never seen Tainted Flesh in those formats in any type of build. If it's only used at GvG and HA i would say it needs a modestly buffed Pvp version and a big buffed PvE version then. Damysticreaper 21:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tainted Flesh is only useful in a pressure-based build. In Noob Arenas and PvE, pressure builds have no use because the objective is to kill mobs (and sometimes other players) as fast as possible. You could have them also inflict Cracked Armor and immunity to it, and still nobody would use TF in those areas. Koda Kumi 16:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tainted Flesh is only useful in a pressure-based build. In Noob Arenas and PvE, pressure builds have no use because the objective is to kill mobs (and sometimes other players) as fast as possible. You could have them also inflict Cracked Armor and immunity to it, and still nobody would use TF in those areas. Koda
- Do you actually play HA? Morphy 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- No they are not (besides a few exceptions). In a offensive class such as the necromancer elite skills that require an ally to take damage in melee without even a single bit of mitigation only to cause 1 condition only effective on fleshy foes and is after casting virtually useless (even less than Poison Arrow) is a fail elite. This skills needs a buff because you can't nerf every other elite to balance out this skill. Damysticreaper 20:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Making immunity to bleeding and poison would hurt sword warriors and rangers too heavily most likely. Having it passively stop Gash would be detrimental I believe. --Life Infusion «T» 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with Tainted Flesh has always been that you need to be hit for the disease to trigger wich is basicly the enemy inflicting disease on themselfs instead of target ally able to remotely inflict disease. Even if you would add a limited condition removal i doubt it still would see play because the reason that it is underplayed is still there. If you want to keep with your suggestions style my advice is to make the target ally immune to bleeding and poison instead of removing it, effectivly making your allies immune to fleshy conditions if something that i at least would consider taking. Adding those conditions might also be an option to punish attackers. Damysticreaper 01:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Tbh, i use this skill in pve fairly often. On a necro hero with splinter wep, death nova, and a couple other skills makes him focus on spamming this, SW and DN on the minion army ammassed by a second necro. Before you say anything, yeah i know its not the most effective set up but its funny and original (as far as i know). Anyway, I think this skill would be much more viable in general play if instead of inflicting disease on being struck, it was inflicted on striking the enemy, much like withering aura, and keeping the rest of the skill the same.--Jimmer123 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- With the grenth dervs all packing disease I want to see this change... --Life Infusion «T» 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
