Talk:Searing Flames

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

So, like...[edit]

If it sets someone on fire, does it deal damage AFTER? D: Xiao 23:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

well after that enemy is burning, then you use this skill again. yeah i would assume so. if anyone campares this skill to glimmer of light, this skill looks like glimmer of light but super fiery :D--Blahishness 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

...[edit]

Added an energy management note. Edwina Elbert Sandstorm.jpg 16:23, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I think Fire Attunement and glowing gaze are enough, there is no need to call a skill highly inneficient --Defx 02:09, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Missed the energy part, anyway, i improved it a bit. --Defx 08:10, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

--The Mattster 17:14, 12 June 2007 (GMT)

Does the skill inflict damage if the enemy is not on fire? --The Mattster 17:14, 12 June 2007 (GMT)
No, if the enemy not on fire the enemy will start burning. Otherwise it does damage (without refreshing the burning) poke | talk 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And to expand that explanation, if your target is Burning, but the foes near him are not, it'll still deal damage to them all, and won't apply Burning to any. Same in reverse, if everyone except your target is Burning, it'll apply Burning instead of dealing damage. --User Jioruji Derako logo.png Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That is contradicting to the skill's description. Description says "target for and all Nearby foes". This implies that, those who were burning take dmg, those who weren't burning then begin burning. Next cycle, the ones who were previously on fire may not be on fire any longer, so they won't take damage. This can be mitigated by Mark of Rodgort. --ChristopherRodrigues 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No Jioruji, each foe is determined seperately. For instance when using MoR->GG->SF in the middle of a pack, the main target will be set on fire by GG while the rest isnt burning yet. SF then will do dmg to the main target and set the rest on fire (this may have been changed since you posted of course)--Tenshi 14:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


lol.

You can't cap this skill from Forgewrite, try it if you don't believe me.

Yup, it's that whole boss vs. boss-like thing. Keeps happening... --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Best overall Offensive Spell[edit]

Best overall offensive spell in Guild Wars. The ability to be spammed for high amounts of damage, short casting time, very low recast time (but just enough time to catch a diversion on you), the long burning duration gives you plenty of time to cast other spells in between and combined with Mark of Rodgort for constant aoe damage, low energy cost (yes there are hundreds of ways to manage the cost of this spell with an elementalist), the burning itself is extremely powerful and is equivalent to applying a mass conjure nightmare on all targets, very little spells/skills can counteract the damage and burning from this skill, and the majority of classes have very little resistance to fire damage which forces them to select mesmer secondary and hindering the amount of builds they have available.Highway Man 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the best overall offensive spell in game which is why it needs a two second casting time for it to equally balance it out.William Wallace 09:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


discription[edit]

Concise description

Elite Spell. Hits foes near your target. Deals 10...82...100 fire damage to foes already Burning. Inflicts Burning condition (1...6...7 seconds). to foes not Burning.

shouldnt it say 'hits target foe and foes near target'? sounds like it only hits foes near your target now 78.20.153.111 22:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit late, but I'm pretty sure your target is near your target lol --65.31.223.122 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

  • This skill has no effect against targets that are immune to burning. Nothing to say...--71.227.142.108 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Destroyers, Burning Spirits, Flowstone Elementals and Magma Blisters are immune to burning. 209.240.183.45 04:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
And some Titans iirc (Hell's Precipice ones). 86.31.46.235 14:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Prophecies titans burn just fine. --Orry 16:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Taste like chicken afterwards. Sneaker 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be Nerfed!!![edit]

All players do is play the same fire elementalist over and over again which discourages use of other builds and defeats the purpose of using different builds and forces them to counter this one and only skill.William Wallace 06:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm playing a SF ele in PvP quite often but neither I make the experience the SF build is an imbalanced build nor do I see only SF ele's in the Arenas. To the contrary, there are a vast variety of eles in RA (Sf is played rather seldom because of the high skill in in-game energy management needed, especially when used with mystic regeneration). SF fell out of favor in TA entirely, which is an indicator for its grade of usefulness.
If a SF ele attacks a team of bad players, they are dead in seconds. I've seen this many time on both sides and I can understand who angry you are if this happens to you on the wrong side. But if a SF ele attacks a team with at least 2 slightly experienced players he not more or less dangerous than any other good ele build. And if he's using SF against a bunch of experienced players he is rather useless, burning more his own energy instead of his foes' life and getting soon the notion, that some other ele build would have been the better choice (like double attunement air, shockwave or shatterstone; all some great spike builds). --Xer 11:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is, it's gonna get rebuffed in the PvE update. Say hello to 6 SF 2 LoD teams again <3 — Skakid 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if this is true (source?) I doubt people will suddenly play only SF ele and LoD monks in PvE. If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't need any rebuff of SF (that 1 sec burning or a few poits more damage won't make that big difference), it's strong enough right now. And for PvP teams the situation will not change. --Xer 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't need to be nerfed, but all the other fire elites need an aggressive buff.
This needs a nerf BIG Fing time! Want some tips on how to exploit SearingFlames like how to do 200-400 damage in one second to your party? Head to Sacnoth Valley and learn from the experts.--ShadowFog 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It did not received a nerf but Steam did, soooooooooo SF and water builds received a nerf indirectly with the latest update.--Wealedout 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
SF Waters? You're crazy. I can't say I know anyone who took SF with Steam when you can use immoglyph with Steam and get the same result while using less energy and not burning you're elite. --TalkRiddle 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
lol. Same shit dude.--ShadowFog 21:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with this, for the sake of balanced PvP this must be nerfed.--KlinH4xx0r

Restting indents, and I'd like to add a PvE perspective as well. This is the second most broken skill in the game, after "Save Yourselves!", and at least "SY!" doesn't require you to go up against hard mode bosses using it. It's instant party-wipe coming from a boss, and the one thing stopping me from vanquishing Turai's Procession, Forum Highlands and Sacnoth Valley with H/H. There's just no effective counter unless you're partying with human players. Astralphoenix777 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear Ward Against Harm is pretty cool. That pretty much blocks anything SF has to offer. Well, it's what I used anyway to vanquish those areas. Vekk used it well enough. King Neoterikos 05:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Protip: When people are talking about something being overpowered, they mean pvp unless otherwise stated.
Also, Xer, using Random Arenas as a basis for balance is a bad idea, since the game is called Guild Wars, not Random Shitters Pissing Contests. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 05:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Protip: learn to read. "I'd like to add a PvE perspective"...
Just to clarify: it was otherwise stated. King Neoterikos 05:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless of course you were talking to Astralphoenix, then I may have to take that back. King Neoterikos 05:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was talking to both of you. Until astro put in his two cents, nobody has mentioned its use in pve (or cared) to much extent. Pve is not Pvp. I know this is hard for people to understand, but many skills that are great in pvp suck in pve and vice versa. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 05:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I know that. I still don't know why you are telling me this. He commented complained about it in PvE, I was responding to that, for PvE. Considering the original topic is about two months old, I don't see how you could link my response to the OP. King Neoterikos 05:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Idea[edit]

Target foe and all nearby foes are struck with Searing Flames. If target foe was on fire, that foe takes (whatever) fire damage and all foes in the area begin burning for 1..6..7 seconds. If target foe was not on fire, that foe begins burning for 1..6..7 seconds. --76.25.197.215 05:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
So...yours would kill the spike target just as quickly. Not a solution. Mine prevents spiking and encourages pressure. ~Shard (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Mine prevents AoE spike/pressure, which is the reason SF is broken. Yours does not. Six squishies half-spiking a target every three seconds isn't going to obliterate HA. --76.25.197.215 09:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not really a fix, shard. First off, it completely says "fuck you" to pve side of the issue, but due to the split, and the fact that you don't seem to really care about the balance there, I won't go into it.
Shard, how does your suggestion fix spiking. You only lose more energy if you strike 3 targets. I understand about attunements, and GoLE, but your suggestion will just take it out of HA and shove it into GVG. -- NUKLEAR User NuclearVII signature 3.jpgIIV 11:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

May need small amounts of work in PvP, it' fine as is in PvE (not everything wants to burn :])

Searing Flames is a horribly designed skill and should not be changed. I believe it's not a strong skill at this current time and doesn't need to be nerfed, and definetly should not be buffed. The only well designed Fire elite was Mind Blast because it allowed for a versitile character. Fire Magic has no utility aside from Meteor and Mind Blast. Therefore, a viable elite for Fire Eles should encourge as much utility as possible. GW does not support pure damage characters, it breaks when they are viable. --TimeToGetIntense 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
How about, "Foes not on fire begin burning for x...y seconds. Foes already on fire take a...b damage and burning ends"? A single Elementalist using Searing Flames would still be more or less as useful as today, but multiple elementalists using it against the same enemy would only get on each other's way. Plus, doing full damage would require the caster to know when the burning would almost end and cast Searing Flames only then, in order to get the maximum damage from burning and get the fire damage as well. Erasculio 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
How about, fuck Searing Flames? --TimeToGetIntense 13:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
How incredibly helpful you are TimeToGetIntense, how about you go have a wee lie down until you can contribute in a grown up and progressive manner. -- Salome User salome sig.png 13:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be rediculous. This skill does not deserve any changes or discussion. --TimeToGetIntense 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
People obviously think it does, so discuss why it shouldn't be modified in your opinion, with reasoning not just 'cause you think so, and stop being a troll -- Salome User salome sig.png 14:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I already explained it, but you only seem to have noticed the "Fuck Searing Flames" post. I guess that method is more effective. --TimeToGetIntense 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No you didnt, you said "Searing Flames is a horribly designed skill and should not be changed. I believe it's not a strong skill at this current time and doesn't need to be nerfed, and definetly should not be buffed.", that's not an explanation, that a wee piece of rambley rhetoric. You didn't actually state your case, you just said you thought it was weak and terrible. You didn't discuss why, you didn't say what you thought was wrong. All you did was have a wee moan without any backing argument to prop it up with. I didn't just notice the "Fuck Searing Flames", as I was referring to both posts being unconducive to adult progressive discourse. -- Salome User salome sig.png 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
lol @ adult progressive discourse. Stop trying to use big words to scare people, it's a wiki about a MMO, this is how you argue on MMOs and the internets. 209.30.159.5 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
not to mention Time has proven he's gud at pvp, and you've only proven you have alot of pve titles and hang around GWW alot. 209.30.159.5 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I should not have to explain why SF is bad. Rather, Shard, Nuke and Erasculio should be explaining why they are posting suggestions that slightly alter the skill into something still bad. Normally they care about real issues such as skills which have potential, or skills that are currently problems. This is not a tutorial forum, I don't have to explain what is already established. Instead, I'd rather explain the few things I think may actually be insightful. While I may still say somethings some or maybe even most people already know, I try to avoid it. --TimeToGetIntense 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
@ IP, I'm not attacking his ability, I'm criticizing his PvX-esque approach in trying to convey his opinion and I'm saying that there's no place for rude trolling remarks on this wiki. Being good at PvP is not a free pass to troll-dom. P.S. those aren't big words, "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" is a big word. @ TimeToGetIntense, they have explained what they see to be bad with the skill, as the discussion above shows. Thus well respected and mostly civil users think their is an issue with it and have put forward why they think their is an issue with it. All you have done thus far is say their isn't an issue and put forward no reasoning as to why. This isn't about not stating the obvious, as clearly their are other users who don't seem to see it the same as you do and thus your reasoning is not obvious to them. Thus if you wish to converse with them, maybe you should try to actually debate with reasoning instead of just making semi-self righteousness statements and occasionally trolling. -- Salome User salome sig.png 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I explained just as much as they did. If you read the end of my first post, I explained that when pure damage characters are viable, the game breaks. This is my main basis for saying that this skill is not deserving of any changes. I could explain in more depth, I could cite past metagame trends, I could write 5 pages, but everyone with a clue was around for Dervish Trains, they were around when SF was actually overpowered, they were around for Discord, etc... --TimeToGetIntense 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said before I'm not criticizing your technical skill, as i've read enough of your posts to know that you know what your talking about, just criticizing the way you expressed yourself in this instance, as from other posts that I've read of yours I can see that you can be a very positive force in a debate when you choose to. In relation to the issue at hand, I agree the game does not seem designed to support pure damage characters. I think however the main issue with SF is the spike capability of it in SF ele groups, even though I do tend to think that this isn't a major issue anymore due to the current meta. Although I do like Erasculio's suggestion. -- Salome User salome sig.png 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
plz buf this skil its teribel in ra, dont listen to them izzy their just bad --Frozen Archer 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to come across as defensive of my skill at the game, sorry about that. I really just wanted to express that everyone should realize that this is a hopeless skill. I don't see what benefit anyone will get from changes to it. --TimeToGetIntense 17:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Searing Flames is the only Elementalist skill that does what the Elementalist was originally supposed to do: bucketloads of damage for bucketloads of energy. Sure, it's mostly used in buttonmashing builds, but just because some of you dislike them doesn't mean they have to be changed. Only when they're truly overpowered should they be changed. Right now, the metagame is packed with condition removal skills (RC owns this skill), interrupts/knockdown/enchantment removal can easily take care of this skill or the build by just taking out a vital skill and the user has very little defense and utility, making it easy to take him/het out. Those are all balancing factors. And a SF teamspike may be powerful, but so is every teamspike, so that doesn't count. 145.94.74.23 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but the "bucketloads of damage" profession are originally supposed to be Warriors. And just to not be offtopic, I don't see any problem with SF. Spikes with it are easy to prot, and Elementalists are squishy. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Play HA sometime. One spike is no problem, but there's no room to scatter so they're almost always hitting two or three people per cast (times six elementalists), which is really, really fucking hard to do anything against if you're not epic strong monk. --76.25.197.215 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't even stop it if you're a strong monk. I don't think I've ever flawlessed a SF spike.
Monks cannot stop more than a few spikes, even if they only hit a single target, because of how quickly it recharges, and because most SF teams run glyph of immolation with it, removing the burning doesn't stop it. If you don't think it's broken, roll a monk and pug HA until you fight a SF team. Better yet, roll an SF spike and see how quickly pressing 1 button makes you win.
Yes, SF spam is very beatable. I don't care. Signet of Ghostly Might was beatable, and it forced a ladder reset. This is about how the skill makes pvp too easy, and it does. Recharges exist in this game for a reason - this skill is a perfect example of what happens when a balance mechanism is ignored.
TBH I hadn't even considered what this would do to gvg splits. I'm working on a new version. Thanks for keeping me on my toes Time. ~Shard (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you think pve prevents skills from being changed in pvp, you should stop posting here immediately and read last month's update notes. ~Shard (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

15 Energy1 Activation time10 Recharge time - "Target foe and all nearby foes are struck with Searing Flames. Foes already on fire take 10...82...100 fire damage. Foes not on fire begin burning for 1...6...7 seconds. If this affects three or more foes, it recharges instantly." ~Shard (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if someone already mentioned but doesnt that change causes the other team to lose if they play smart? If they play smart they will spread out and SF will only hit one person, allowing them to spam SF without really spending energy. Tho if everyone in the non SF team were to stand next to each other, then the energy of the SFers would drain rather rapidly, but then youre doing exactly what they want which is bunching up for AoE, which would probably cause your team to lose anyways, and finally most of the time this hits 2-3 people which means that it will be as effective as it is now... so instead of actually fixing ANY problems, this change would only induce many more 76.26.189.65 23:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's not kid ourselves, no one will run this skill with any of these proposed changes. It's so badly designed that it only sees play when it's extremely foolproof. The main issue is that it forces you to run a pure damage skillbar. You simply can't spare any energy for utility skills. For that reason alone I think the skill is balanced. You should have the proper disruption to deal with SF eles in a balanced build anyway, and they have no disruption, so they can't do shit about it. You don't even need to use any disruption on their Monks because you can totally shut down their offense so easily, then you just pressure them and they die. --TimeToGetIntense 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather nobody run it than it win halls on a regular basis by just being spammed on random targets. You don't need warriors to apply deep wound when you're blowing up the face of entire other teams. When you can switch targets constantly and annihilate teams by just ignoring the protted targets, you win. Searing Flames isn't balanced and never has been (don't believe me? How did thousend tigers beat top 20 guilds with it on a regular basis, with absolutely trash players?). It fell out of the meta, but it was never nerfed sufficiently. -Auron 00:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And here oni was,thinking that shard was strong and gud. never flawelssed a SF spike? helluw? :o. First of all,you got the shield sets for a reason. if you see a SF spike you swap shields to burning shield,and the pressure and spikes become laughable. not to mention that RC sez nom nom nom to SFOni User talk:Oni 01:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I played HA for about a month, a few hours a day with my guild. I found only one SF spike over that time. They wanted to attack one target, and they balled up. Half of their team was dead 2 seconds after that. Flawless. Like I say, the best thing you can do to break a spike is to kill one person. And if that person is a squishy then my sword creams with joy. SF is prone (unlike R spike) to Spirit Bond and Protective Spirit. Spamming is great Mesmer fodder. That gimmick is very fragile and I don't see it as a treat... Oh, and if you hate it so badly, instead of nerfing SF try to find a good usage for Xinrae's Weapon. And a final "oh": Yes,l HA maps are a bit too small for 8vs8, but I only find a problem in positioning if it's a King of the hill and everyone wants to be in one place. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o 01:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to assume you're trolling, Oni, because your post basically shows you've never faced a competent Searing Flames team. Fire shields reduce the damage from 100 to 95, and honestly don't matter when it's hitting AoE. Most maps require you to ball up for this objective or that one, and even the ones that don't require balling end up putting you in tiny spaces (relic runs in HoH, for example; you get a very narrow hallway to stand in while your runners pass through).
RC heals for what... 50 HP? Are you kidding? How does that "nom nom nom" when your teammates are dropping every 5 seconds? It doesn't help. Spirit bond is the only thing a monk can possibly do to help beat the spike, but that only leaves the SF caller to switch targets (and, hell, he can target the same guy and just kill all the people who are standing around him). The monk will always run out of energy before the team of elementalists with Glyph Lesser, Attune and glowing gaze.
The only chance you have is chain rezzing your frontline enough to kill the bad monks that usually accompany SF teams. If they have good monks, however rare, you lose and there's nothing you can do about it. Although I guess that's balanced?
WOW. Did you seriously suggest using Xinrae's weapon, Poki? Just... wow. You see nothing wrong with that suggestion? Namely bringing a ritualist in a balanced build, speccing an assload into communing (a pretty bad attribute) for a 25 energy spell that takes up your elite slot and is absolutely useless against everything except searing flames and rit spike?
Oh, nevermind. I just got trolled really well. That couldn't have been a serious suggestion. -Auron 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's just make everyone on the team get Frigid Armor : D What would be better, to have Searing Flames nerfed, or to have Heroes Ascent changed in order to have bigger maps and less objectives that require people to ball up? I have no idea on the current impact SF has on GvG, but if its main problem on HA is the matter of proximity, I wonder if opening up the maps wouldn't solve this problem (and help with some other problems as well). Erasculio 02:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
So Shard what are your Ranger, Mesmer, Ele and Warriors doing, just watching them spam spells? You should have most of the following skills on your team: Diversion, Power Leak, Power Drain, Power Spike, Distracting Strike, DShot, Savage Shot, Gale, Cry of Frustration, DChop and Shock. How do you NOT flawless a pure caster damage team? --TimeToGetIntense 04:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I bring all of those skills and they all recharge in 2 seconds. ~Shard (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
@Erasculio; yes, fixing HA maps is what should really happen. There are a long list of broken mechanics that don't hurt the game directly, they're just only ever used in HA because HA has stupid enough design to force people into small areas (where traps and AoE nukes reign king; absolutely skill-less, absolutely team-rolling).
What happens to the mesmer with diversion mere seconds after he's identified? He dies. Nothing the monk can do about it. If the monk spends the energy to prot the mesmer, that monk dies, then the mesmer dies. Or the mesmer dies anyway because any decent spikish build has rend.
Nobody runs real, bow-wielding rangers in HA. They suck for the map types. Nor would 1 ranger make a difference here anyway. Good try on the theorycrafting, though.
Dstrike is nice... for one spell. Then 2 seconds later, the spell goes off again. You just wasted 5 energy. Gale? Sure... again, it still hits only one guy. Cry? Sure, that works for a single volley of Searing Flames, and then sits recharging forever, while searing recharges in 2 seconds. Do you see how that theorycrafting is failing now? If SF recharge matched Cry of Frustration's, the build wouldn't be nearly as imba. However, it casts too quickly to catch with most interrupts (even crying would require unnatural skill to get them all) and recharges too quick to manually stop every time. Even good players like Shard get losses because the build is simply too powerful. -Auron 07:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
People don't run SF in GvG? Yes they do. It's only less prevalent in gvg because it has very little utility and isn't great at splitting. Go play an SF spike and see how easy it is. SF by itself on 6 eles does 200 damage per second per each target hit, consistently. That's not including the searing heats, liquid flames, and glowing gazes they spam in between, that's JUST searing flames. No other skill in the game even comes close to that DPS with 6 people. Even if you strip attunes and interrupt 2 spikers every time they try to use SF, it's still 133 DPS from SF alone, which is also much higher than any other skill in the game, and they can keep spikes going for over a minute.
Go play an SF spike, then come back and tell me how mind-numbingly easy it was. ~Shard (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't theorycrafting. That's how I've always dealt with SF. We used whatever disruption we had on the Eles and pressured them. Of course, my experience with this is more from GvG, but we'd just steamroll them 8v8. While you can't interrupt everything, you can disrupt enough of it for your Monks to have a cakewalk. Your Warriors can each train an Ele to mitigate their damage with KDs. You also have party healing to mop up most of the damage. --TimeToGetIntense 12:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
GvG doesn't force you to be touching your entire team's ass at any given point in time. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
except it does because almost every map in GvG has select few chokepoints where good teams try to push enemies to punish bad positioning and provide warriors the ability to switch targets faster => more pressure. Obs more GvG then comment. 72.177.204.158 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"OMFG ele can do damage nerf it quickly!!!"... come on you lot... any profession can spike better than SF... this is pure pressure and too weak DPS to be considered overpowered.... try spamming this at 16 fire magic onto master of damage, you'll see it's not one of the best ele elites.

Nightfall only[edit]

I just went to a lot of trouble to kill Borrguus Blisterbark to get this spell, only to be told that I wasn't allowed to capture it because I don't have Nightfall. Which is true, I only have Prophesies (edit: and Eye of the North, too), but I wish I'd known about this sooner. - 207.190.50.4 04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats the case for everything captured in GW:EN. You can only capture skills from the chapters you own. Otherwise it would be a pretty major oversight on anet's side. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 04:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I wish it'd been more clear on the wiki page that "Campaign: Nightfall" meant "you can't have it if you don't have Nightfall." - 207.190.50.4 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Just like with Factions elites in NF you can't use them unless you own the campaign. Biz 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hero usage[edit]

Has anyone had trouble using this skill on heroes? I've equipped it on them, but often they will stand there doing nothing instead of casting it and occasionally when I try to force them to cast it they don't even respond. >< Xlegna 05:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they just use it for the burning. -- Halogod35 User Halogod35 Sig.jpg 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For those spammy skills, heros almost never use them on recharge. The only exception I know of is Flare/Ice Spear/Stone Daggers, but what's the point of that? SF is one of those skills that should be used on recharge as much as possible. I would use SH+searing heat on hero nukers instead. --8765 16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My heroes use SF fine. The DPS outshines any build I've run with heats. King Neoterikos 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The only reason why heroes wouldn't use this is if they didn't have the energy to spam it. Give them a basic E management and they go crazy with it. Engerizer 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Search for energy management./topic--Wealedout 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Is pointless the icon bears some resemblances but if I tried I could find countless pictures that may have also been used. The Emmisary 18:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Pointless. Unless Emily can confirm, I'm for removing it. SharkinuUser Sharkinu sig.png 18:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Trivia is pretty stupid imo. +1 for removing it.--User Oneshot O.JPGneshot. moo. 18:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
If we have that trivia, can we state that it also may be inspired by anything that goes boom? Shadow Runner 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sarcasm aside. i firstly re-added it because it does look like it, ok ok, ive learnt it looks like other things now. so do what you want with it. just folowing instinct.--Neil2250 User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 18:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it, yes, but I highly doubt it was inspiration. They just happen to be similar. As long as you learned Neil, no harm done ;) Shadow Runner 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ive learnt Pi has a 3 in it ;D --Neil2250 User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 18:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think agreement is reached therefore can someone remove it? I don't want Neil hounding my talk page since i revert a page twice in one day >> The Emmisary 19:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Damage vs Bosses[edit]

I'm probably not the only person that has noticed this but without some other benefit this skill cannot deal its conditional damage directly to bosses on its own as the burning doesn't last long enough. I've been playing for 5 years and only just noticed this so maybe its worth adding to the notes section? Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Ultrametroid 16:06, 06 February 2012 (UTC)