User talk:145.94.74.23/Archive

Archive

---

Archive of this Archive

On talk/discussion pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). — ク Eloc 貢 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Izzy's talk

Aren't we allowed to have a friendly discussion with Izzy on his talk page, in the same way as just about any other talk page here? 145.94.74.23 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as that friendly discussion doesn't comprise of skill feedback, balance issues, or suggestions, yes. (Discussion between other users is generally discouraged too, as it makes the page crowded (and Izzy has said he finds it hard to respond on a crowded page regularly).) -- Brains12 \ talk 21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't encourage Shard in his nonsense..........-- Wyn 12:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to make a statement so sarcastic that he'd understand the sarcasm in my earlier post. I am not trying to encourage him in any way whatsoever. 145.94.74.23 12:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

i herd sarcasm works on the interweb, is this statement true? --Cancer Angel 12:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It usually works on intelligent people. 145.94.74.23 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh baby...

Don't tackle Wounding Strike as being bad, you seem to have missed several important points, such as the fact that a WS derv or two can spread deep wound over an entire enemy team. Yes it can be RC'd off, but then the RC has to spend almost all of their time and energy RCing shit instead of protting shit and stuff gets blown up anyway. You mentioned something about applying it to the same person repetitively being bad, generally as a frontliner if you are playing against good people you only get a few hits in on each target before prot comes in so you should be constantly switching targets anyway. Pick on something else Shard has said, there are plenty of examples of badness. Misery 09:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This was meant as a "not everybody agrees with you" example. 145.94.74.23 13:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Which proves nothing, really. We all ready knew people didn't agree with him. Hell, that's sort of the reason for the ArbComm in the first place. --Riddle 13:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, relax. I have changed my comment. 145.94.74.23 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That "balance"

Was fucking awful. Dark Morphon(contribs) 09:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you brought that to my attention. However, I disagree with you. 145.94.74.23 09:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Because? This "balance" did almost anything wrong that you could do wrong. Mark of Insecurity is broken (makes protting totally impossible), Life Sheath is now betterstill worse than RC, Angelic Bond is unbalanceable, Enraged Smash is broken beyond believestill not as good as dev hammer, Aura of the Lich is being abused to make tons of minions (which, combined with dark bond, is equal to invincibility), Palm Strike is fucking imba (4 recharge high armor ignoring damage plus cripple)... I could go on like this but all these skills are as broken as the ones mentioned and you dare say that this balance was not awful? Please, come with really good reasons or fail less. Dark Morphon(contribs) 13:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because you take the time to insult me on my talkpage? I'd be more than happy to add my arguments to my opinion, but not if you ask it like that. 145.94.74.23 17:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Becuz that's the way I solve stuff. Dark Morphon(contribs) 18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. No reason to waste my time on you then. Good for me. 145.94.74.23 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why you went crying on the admin noticeboard? Olol. Dark Morphon(contribs) 17:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmm...did I offend you? Annoy you maybe? The rules apply to all users, including you. I don't like your manners at all, which is why I believed you could use a lesson. I see it was wasted on you though. 145.94.74.23 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you just fail. 82.34.128.19 18:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, both of you stop this squabble please. It's rather pointless, and would probably lead to one or both of you getting blocked. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)"

Ok, I'll stop, hoping he might have learned some common courtesy from it. 145.94.74.23 08:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the only thing you are doing is "taking revenge", "teaching me a lesson", saying I'm not right on the balance stuff yet don't specify why. I'm not going to "learn a lesson" as you put it unless you at least give SOME arguments for why this "balance" wasn't epic failure. So please, stop the bullshit and come with some real good arguing. If you want, we can discuss it over at my balance page. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

*Ignores DM completely* 145.94.74.23 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ignores fact that you're horribad* 82.34.128.19 18:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Other than what I scratched, the first part of what morphon says is CORRECT. WANT TO BUY PROPER BALANCE 82.34.128.19 18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

When I first saw the update, I was just as shocked as you guys are. However, after trying a few skills and comparing them to other elites, I found that most changes make at least some sense. One of them is that because they only buffed elite skills, they didn't introduce imbalances. They just added more choices. Before the update, Restore Condition was the Protection Prayers elite of choice. The other skills were either less practical or less powerful. Now however, you can choose between 3 similar elites: Life Sheath, Peace and Harmony and Restore Condition. One removes conditions and heals, one removes conditions and protects, and one removes conditions and hexes. They all have their uses, and since most balanced builds bring at least a few conditions, and a few hexes, they're all equally useful.

Another example, you can get 20 Fire Magic now, but it also takes you at least 6 skills slots to combine it with Searing Flames. If you need 6 skill slots to use 1 skill, it better be powerful and I am not convinced that it wouldn't be outclassed by 6 other skills. Other than that, Double Dragon, has to compete with both Savannah Heat and Searing Flames. The same goes for the elite energy management skills. They are powerful, but they have to be, because energy management in itself is not worth the elite slot for the elementalist. If they give more energy than skills of other professions, well that's for a good reason: elementalist spells tend to cost more energy, have to be cast more often to be effective and elementalists don't have any form of passive energy management, adrenaline or signets. Especially that last sentence is something that a lot of people on this wiki don't mention at all.

Primal Rage is a super frenzy. That makes it good, but that also makes it bad: you can now choose between the elite and a normal attack skill, or an elite attack skill and the normal frenzy. Both have their uses, both are viable. As long as you get double damage, the elite is not free. If most players don't target you while you use it, good for you. But that's irrelevant for balancing. What is relevant however, is the fact that "It's just a flesh wound!" can now give melee a speed boost if you remove a condition from them. It may be just a combo, but it demonstrates a situation in which frenzy+other elite would be the obvious superior. Not to mention the buffed Blinding Surge, which in turn gets balanced by the fact that more elites can now get rid of conditions. With the added Mark of Insecurity to weaken protective enchantments, a new way to defend casters against melee was needed, so it's buff can be justified. Not because of one of the 2 reasons, but both of them combined.

These are a few examples of things I see in this update. There are many more. They may not 100% correct, and you may disagree with them, but the fact remains that I see this update in a broader sense than most people. New elites have to compete with the old favorites.

As a last comment, I would like to hereby kindly request that from now on, you ask, not demand, but ask if I would be so kind to add arguments to my opinions. It will save you and me a lot of trouble. Or you, anyway, because next time I'll just ignore & archive your comment if you're not polite. 145.94.74.23 22:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing I failed to mention is this: I don't mean to say that I have a better view of the game than other people. Just different. 145.94.74.23 09:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Primal Rage is overpowered because it gives warriors RaO, while they already were so good at pressuring. It also makes Bull's Strike so much easier to use. Furthermore, the only difference between Eviscerate and Dismember is some added damage. The reason people took it was that there was simply no other better elite. Now, warriors have Primal Rage, so why not take it and abuse it to the fullest? The speed boost makes it impossible to kite from. Therefore Primal Rage is overpowered because it not only gives warriors an additional choice (which wouldn't be overpowered) but a skill that is just 3 times as good to take. I would aggree with you if Eviscerate instead of Dismember and Frenzy instead of Primal Rage would be equal, but it isn't. Something else you are saying is that the double damage is a problem. However, nobody ever targets warriors unless they are overextending or the opposing party is wiping. You say that is only convenient, but it in fact that's why Primal Rage and Frenzy are so good. It's very relevant to balancing what people do with skills. If you give casters a skill that deals 300 damage, they are going to abuse it in team formats, which makes it overpowered (this is an extreme example but I think you get the idea). P&H is overpowered, especially comparing it to Expel Hexes. However, it is not as overpowered as Hexway. Therefore Hexway was not "adressed", especially because if you take this skill you are weaker against Hexway (Build Wars anyone?). P&H is horrible for Condition Removal, therefore hexway is still overpowered not to mention that hexway got numerous buffs in the few couple of months. You are saying Blinding Surge is not overpowered because new condition removal has been added to the game, yet at the same time you say that people won't take all of them because it's overkill anyway. Don't you think that's a bit contradicting yourself? Mark of Insecurity is obviously overpowered, I mean cmon 90% reduced duration? That's ridiculous. It's just another addition to Hexway, which was already so immensely overpowered. Then the energy management elites. Your argument against them being overpowered is that Elementalists don't have passive energy management and have more costy skills. This is bullshit since Elementalist taking energy management skills have other goals to achieve anyway. Usually they use cross-attribute skills like Ritualist heals or Healing Breeze (which is, on the right bar, pretty good). Combined with Ether Prism, they have steady E-management plus immunity to spikes. This makes for a pretty nifty runner. It can party-heal, prot, survive, run, has additional armor and energy to do all that stuff. Overpowered? Absolutely. Double Dragon+Glyph of Elemental Power+Rodgort's Invocation is pretty awesome. Last thing: if a skill is more powerful than another, you take the most powerful skill. So if a "skill balance" made a shitload of skills that are more powerful than the ones already present you use these. No choice as you put it, just elite skills that are more powerful aka power creep. Dark Morphon(contribs) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with DM, since PnH and sheath are absolute jokes (pnh doesn't heal the 100s of dmgs that hexes deal, so it in no way addresses the problem of hexes), but some points are a little off. Any ele with double dragon and rodgorts is a bad ele. You either take double dragon and skills that benefit from it (flame burst, inferno) or you take rodgorts and skills that fit that play style (searing heat, mind blast). Double dragon and rodgorts is a terrible combination, even if it does hit for 300 damage.

Also, ether prism is terrible, on a runner or otherwise. The greatest threat to runners is degen, from either glyph immo + snares or mels shot/crip shot ranger with apply. Prism does nothing against degen and it sacrifices your elite slot for self-protection, which is a very raw deal. At stand, ether prism is worse than glyph lesser. You can scream imbalance at the skill on paper, but it's pretty bad in practice. You're right about primal rage though, it's pretty ridiculous. - Auron 13:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

i missed the part where he is contradicting himself & superfrenzy = still double damage meanign blinding surge and ineptitude actually hurtz. what he is tryin to say is that some things are less bad than they look. not all of them are allways more powerful most of them arent even more powerful some of the time. 87.210.150.58 23:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, if you miss that contradiction READ WHAT I SAID FFS! Also, BS damage is like 100 or something with Frenzy, so who cares? Even if you take a lot of damage, you always have your cancel stance. Other than that, come with arguments, examples and other stuff to prove your point or just shut your mouth. I mean it. Dark Morphon(contribs) 10:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Shard eventually answered your question

On my talk page. Misery 08:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A page

"We really need a page for that, because there's obviously a demand for it.

ArenaNet:Skill feedback, ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions. Unless you meant for "power creep", in which case you can create it (or use the wikipedia article). -- Brains12 \ talk 17:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant a page where people can discuss game balance. Every dicussion thends to end up in a debate about skill balance. 145.94.74.23 07:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned the page because people started to swear again. Archive if you really want to, but don't restore please. It's not worth it. 145.94.74.23 23:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Archived.- TheRave (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 145.94.74.23 10:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dark Morphon's User Page

If you want him to change something on there which is not in breach of policy, ask him nicely. Misery 13:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I did and he hasn't. So if I am not allowed, and he doesn't do it, where do I turn to? 145.94.74.23 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's not slander, it's not a personal attack. It's what he thinks of what you think. Suck it up. Misery 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is slander, because I never said that. Also, he claims that I don't understand balance and I find that a personal attack, just as it is a personal attack to say that Izzy doesn't understand balance. 145.94.74.23 13:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a quote. None of those are quotes, nor are they represented as such. I say you don't understand Swahili, is that a personal attack? Misery 13:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If he does not remove it when you ask, take it to the noticeboard. You are currently in violation of GWW:1RR and GWW:USER. -- Wyn/talk 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will take it there. Really, there should just be a policy not to put people on megative lists unless the give you permission. It's not technically a personal attack, but it is totally meant as one. 145.94.74.23 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you grow a thicker skin if you are going to continue to debate with users like Dark Morphon. They are loudest about voicing their opinions of others (especially those that do not agree with them). -- Wyn/talk 14:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The temptation to be naughty is immense, but I will be sweetness, sugar and spice today and not create a user page :> Misery 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

When people can give me a really good reason why I'm wrong, I change my opinion. This has happened a several times. Just wanting to point that out. Dark Morphon(contribs) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand this place. Personal attacks aren't allowed, but whenever some discredits and porvokes someone by using complete lies, it is allowed? And I didn't even try to remove my name from the stupid list, I just changed the reason to something that was actually true. Isn't that the entire purpose of this site? To get the facts straight on GW and its players? And to DM: I know you only change your opinion if people give you a really good reason. I just wish you'd also go for good and decent arguments, not just when you're backed into a corner so much that you have absolutely no way to not change your opinion without making yourself look bad. 145.94.74.23 14:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't understand, he wasn't quoting you, he never attributed it to you. It was a message FROM him TO you. Misery 14:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then explain to me exactly why I was on that list in the first place, and why he couldn't have just told me so on my talk page. He knows that I will read his comments if they're not full of insults. 145.94.74.23 14:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because he wants to publicly out you so no one takes you seriously. I'm speculating, you'll have to ask him why he keeps such a list. Misery 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He wants to discredit me publicly...and yet you wonder why I was angry about it? 145.94.74.23 14:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a common tactic during internet discussions. If you don't have the necessary moxy to defend your position I suggest you don't attack other people's positions. Misery 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You say on my page you don't mind being on my list and yet you mind being on my list? Dark Morphon(contribs) 14:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and if you want to see where you said that the meta can adapt anyway, there goes: [1]. Oh, and since I start giving links to my comments to back them up, can you do so when basically saying you backed me in a corner? I'd love to see where you got that idea. Dark Morphon(contribs) 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest all 3 of you take a deep breath. -- Wyn/talk 14:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I have nothing more to say to this user anymore anyway. Dark Morphon(contribs) 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, fail? Why the fuck do you care if he puts something (truthful) about you? Whatz next? crying out flamer and troll and get him banned ban because someone calls you bad at what you do badly? Owait, izzy. Wyn, get the fuck off the GWW: Carebear policy.Oni 15:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don;t mind being on your list, as long as it is for the right reason. You misunderstood me there DM. What I wrote in your link has nothing to do with your statement (and I quote): "if something can become meta it isn't automatically balanced. In fact, the fact that there IS a meta means GW is not balanced. ". What I meant to say in the link is that skills that contradict a metagame might actually reduce the existance of said metagame. Some things are always present in every team, simply because their alternatives are weaker. Some of the new skills counter the way most players used to play and forces them to at least think about alternatives. To remove a metagame from a game, you need to give people more choices, not less and let's face it, there are quite a few ways to defend yourselves, but Protection Prayers always comes out on top. By adding 1 counter, you will at least make people think twice. See how what I wrote is quite the opposite of advocating a metagame? Can you see that I actually understand that metagames are bad for games? 145.94.74.23 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and to Oni: Bite me! 145.94.74.23 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oni, you are welcome to open a Reconfirmation if you feel I've overstepped my bounds by asking nicely for Morphon to remove something that was creating a disruption on the wiki. Swearing at me etc, isn't going to get rid of me, so just give it a rest. -- Wyn/talk 16:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, Wynthyst didn't invoke any sysopness at all. She was just trying to reduce the amount of drama on the wiki and resolve things in a civil manner. This is not the approach I took. Misery 16:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm nut complaining bout yer sysopness, im complaining about carebarism. Lrnthediffrence. You dont have to jump in every fucking debate in the wiki. It makes it harder for me to troll. Seriously, do you ever think about my feelings? gtfoimfhoOni 16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get your point. However, a lot of new skills that have been added are changing the metagame into something even worse. Examples of these are Primal Rage, Aura of the Lich and some others. I can see what you are pointing at but in your comment you also said that people that said that this change is bad just can't adapt. That's simply not the truth. It's very easy to adapt, just take the new broken skills the meta has now. The point is, although Mark of Insecurity can be viewed at as a long-needed counter to Protection Prayers, it is now being abused in builds such as Hexway. I aggree with you though that I misunderstood your post somewhat. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I am sorry if I offended anyone with my statement, but I do feel that at times people overreact a bit. Most of the game is still fun to play, and when GW2 comes out, it will no doubt be a lot better balancewise. I just want everyone to have a good time, even with bad balancing. 145.94.74.23 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

@Oni, not particularly. (Sorry 145. for cluttering up your talk page.) -- Wyn/talk 18:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I suppose I deserve it, I haven't been too friendly lately. 145.94.74.23 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Policies

You may go here to propose a new policy, usually after writing one (for example, this would be the proper page for a new policy called "Policy creation") and adding the proper policy template (found here). If you would like to change an existing policy, then it would be better to add a subpage to an existing policy, like this. Erasculio 14:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 145.94.74.23 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you get that "You have new messages" box?

I'm not necessarily spectacular at balance so much as I'm decent at listening to people. Unless I believe that they're wrong, in which case I explain why I believe them to be wrong and offer what I find as solid proof for my reasoning (read: DM's Laws of Balance; people saying I'm wrong with no support for their arguments). And, most importantly, I don't argue points that I believe wrong; if something causes me to believe that I'm wrong, then I accede. I can accept good logic (being nice helps). That's why I always ask for feedback.
As far as me as a balancer goes, I've got this belief that somewhat hinders me. I think that every skill should be viable (not less-powerful than other skills), interesting, and fun to use. If I did the skill system, everything would be on par with Shadow Fang (wonderful skill), Diversion, and Restore Condition: all skills would be strong, gameplay would be fast and intense on the surface (attack skills, damage spells, short hexes and enchantments, heals), on top of a slower, more subtle web (longer-lasting hexes and enchantments). Intricate. Every time I make a suggestion, I make it with that ultimate goal in mind, so they often don't work well in this state of the game. Raine - talk 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though I still think you're better than most. However, I am not sure I understand why you're posting this. What's the occasion? 145.94.74.23 08:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's... your... BIRTHDAY! HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Misery 09:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? It's not just some obscure national holiday we never heard of in the Netherlands (we're quite ignorant over here when it comes to partying)? 145.94.74.23 11:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, am I "better than most"? Misery 11:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to manners and conversation style, I'd say yes. As for balance, I must admit that haven't been paying much attention to what people think of balance lately. Raine stuck in my mind as being a positive exception to the rule of people being very poor Guild Wars balancers (they can balance a game, but their balance wouldn't be Guild Wars). I'd say you're neutral in my book, which is a lot better than most. At the very least, you seem open minded enough and that's a great asset. 145.94.74.23 11:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I read this about a month after you posted it:

"BTW, I like discussing things with you Raine. You actually take the time to explain your points instead of just rediculing me for having a different opinion. You'd make a good balancer, better than most on the wiki. 145.94.74.23 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)" Raine - talk 09:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I still feel that way. 145.94.74.23 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer

I added a response to your comment on my law page. Sorry for not answering for a while. Dark Morphon(contribs) 15:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

HA and PvP in general

Do you want advice on building reputation and getting into groups? Misery 08:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be very much appreciated. 145.94.74.23 09:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whomp

Sorry for the delay, was writing it in my spare time at work, hopefully it helps. If it doesn't feel free to question any part, I tried to be thorough, but I think I got bored at some point:

Ok, I’m not going to assume anything here, so this will be quite inclusive, feel free to skip any parts that don’t apply to you. First thing I am going to mention is branding. I don’t know if you do this or not yet but it is incredibly important but a lot of people discount it. You can do whatever you like with your PvE chars, but your PvP slots should have a common naming theme. Do not underestimate the value of this. Unless you only want to play one kind of primary ever you will benefit from this. If people see “Misery” on warrior in a reasonable team doing well, then on elementalist in a reasonable team doing well then later on necromancer in a reasonable team doing well, it can stick. If you are bad, it’s bad to be recognised, but I’m going to do you a courtesy and assume you aren’t terrible or are at least improving. Once your flist is built, this is how you get into groups, people see you around and are like “Hey, I remember you, want to roll a necromancer?” and then you do and you are in a group. You want to become famous, not infamous so I really don’t recommend baiting or smack talking in game. These days most of my play comes from “Hey, you want to come guest for blah blah blah?”, I probably actually get more invites than I want, good situation to be in imo.

That aside, now let’s actually talk about playing and getting into groups. There are a few ways of going about it depending on what level you are at. A lot of this advice is kind of general to all forms, some will be specific to HA. There are two major ways to go about things, either forming your own groups, this will mean calling, or joining someone else’s groups. Yes you need Ventrilo, having a mic and not being afraid to use it will help a lot.

1. Forming your own groups: This isn’t my path, but it’s actually faster and better. There are reasons I didn’t take it which I won’t get into here. If you are going to take this route, start off by forming randomways. Do not try and form a “balanced” randomway, this will fail, no one will fulfil their role and a balanced team will fall apart. My advice is to take a damage character (you are aiming to call anyway), two healer heroes (N/Rts or Me/Rt teasers work well), then hit tab+invite until you have 8 and just go. You can actually pick up good players who are just bored using this method. Think about what you are doing, flag and micro your heroes and let everyone else just do their shit and beat bad teams. Continue this until you have about 50-80 fame. You should make it to some relic runs and cap points doing this and then at least understand some basics. Then it is time to try and form up some real groups. You should have been paying attention during your randomway, see if you can get a couple of names of people who aren’t horrific, bring friends with you occasionally to try and reduce the amount of pugging you have to do. For a build, rip it straight off obs or PvXwiki, you are not good enough at this stage to design your own builds. Later you can play around, for now, just rip it off wiki. Make friends with some players better than you, network through fansites like GWW, PvX, GWGuru. The players there are terrible, but I am assuming that if you are at this stage, so are you, just try to find people within a standard deviation of you and it will be all good. You will probably find that better players than you who wouldn’t invite you to their groups will accept invites to your groups. Apologise for being terrible, be humble and not an ass. Eventually you will have 5 (yay heroway!) or 7 others you trust who play at about the same time as you, other people will know you and invite you to their groups and guess what, you are done. At this point you can form a guild if you want, but it’s not exactly required for HA, it can help when building a reputation though. I recommend avoiding flaming in all chat, bambi flashing, etc. Let people think you are better than your rank would suggest. Avoid pugs. Seriously, they are 98% terrible. Flist good players and use them. One terrible pug can ruin a group and lead to everyone raging. If you need more people, go back to randomway or do a PURE pug group. You really don’t want to piss your friends off by making them play with terrible players or they won’t take it seriously when you call them in the future.
2. Bitchroling: If you are not forming your own groups, you are pretty much bitchroling in HA. You get no say over your bar at all ever, unless you are good friends with the caller and they trust you. What you need to do is get into the good books of a couple of callers. This is pretty much what I have done, more so for GvG than HA, but I do have a couple of people who will call me for HA. I still recommend going through the randomway phase for this. If you trip an HA timer early, good chance you will never be called by that player ever again. If you are running the snare bar and they find you standing by the enemy ghostly as the other team grabs your relic, you are going to look pretty goddamn dumb. This mostly starts with social networking. Rule number one of this phase is do not be socially retarded, just make friends with some people, talk about shit, maybe talk about forming up for some HA at some point. They will be short one day and they will call you, trust me, it doesn’t matter how terrible you are, they will call you within like a week or two if they know you are interested. They will rather take someone on their flist who they have never played with over a pug and everyone always seems to go afk when you try form up. Try not to say anything retarded, in your specific case 145, I wouldn’t enter into discussions on your opinions on balance with people before playing with them. You will be given a bar, run that. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like that bar, run it, you get more choice when people start to trust you. If you don’t know what the point of a skill or a bar is, ask, if you don’t think you can do that, say something. That way you will miss one run instead of 50. It’s not terrible to have never run “Make Haste!” and SoC so not know when to use them, you just don’t know when to use them. If the caller likes you and trusts you, he will explain it and forgive you if you fuck it up. If you keep your mouth shut and fuck it up, he will hate you and never call you again after you cause the whole team to lose on KotH. Other people you are playing with may be callers too and if you don’t suck, you might get called to their groups too occasionally. Be vocal (about the right shit) on vent, ask in private when you don’t know something. Make friends with players better than you.

Generally: It’s good to accept calls when you can, if you are reliable and show up when called, you are more likely to be invited again. You don’t have to become someone’s bitch, but if you are always PvEing and don’t want to stop whenever you get called, people will likely just stop asking you. Some people may find this unfair, but people don’t want to wait around for you until you are ready to play. It’s like if you are vanqing with someone, but keep going off and playing HA while they are waiting for you, eventually they are just going to go and vanquish all the areas themselves or with someone else, then it will be too late. Network. Seriously, don’t pug, build a flist. Don’t be bad and show a willingness to improve, that will get you invites. Don’t waste people’s time, take it seriously. If you aren’t going to be serious, barring something unserious like randomway or BYOB, don’t come, you will just piss people off. Pick a couple of roles and learn them well, don’t try to be a backline warrior snarer expert or you will suck at all three. You can play other roles, but make it clear it’s not your main role, if they still take you, they can’t be pissed. Be humble but confident. That's a hard balance point to hit, but it works. BE VOCAL ON VENT. Don't clutter it with shit, but start watching the field and calling important shit. If you see that their monk is back up and stopping your spikes, call it. If you see a rezz going off, call it. If you are watching the timer and see an opportunity for a timekill if your caller just waits a goddamn second, call it. If you are about to do something you think is questionable, start doing it, but say you are doing it. If you don't start doing it, it will be too late, but if you just do it no one has an opportunity to tell you to stop and if you fuck it all up, it's all your fault, if you say you are doing it and it all fucks up they will be less suprised.

Past all that, be good at game.

Ok, this is long, rambling and I got bored at some point. Any questions and I would be happy to answer them. If you are curious I can detail my path. Enjoy the long boring read. Misery 14:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll read it all in detail when I have the time, but in any case thank you very much for your advice. I really appreciate it. 145.94.74.23 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can

You tell me your IGN, please? Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can, but I don't really feel like doing so. It's one of the reasons I decided to go by IP rather than by username. 145.94.74.23 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To be more specific, it has nothing to do with you personally. You may have noticed that my view on the game is a little different than that of most other users, and to avoid being harassed ingame, I prefer to keep my IGN a secret. No offense. 145.94.74.23 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. I can understand your point since I have had the same situation a couple of times. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to contact me in-game (which I would appreciate), my in-game name is equal to my username. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, but I thought I made it clear that I don't want my ingame name linked to this IP. If you have anything you want to say to me, do so here please. 145.94.74.23 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood you, I thought you meant you only didn't want to tell your IGN here. Wellz anyway, I have commented again on my nerf list after some time, had some other things to do. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

blah

since reggie doesn't know how to make tombs any better, i guess she archived it. since it's such an interesting topic, i'll try to rekindle discussion. -Auron 07:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Take one, they're free.

I don't even know if you're allowed to have a user page, but (if you are), could you stick one of these on it?

This user is actively contributing to Raine's Mass Balance Project.

Much obliged. <3 Raine - talk 02:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not, because user page policy is retarded. If it's the same person on one IP all the time (as is often the case), why not let them do what they want? If it's not, who's really going to care? 69.109.175.246 04:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm honored. I've never gotten a userbox before. I'll keep it on my talk page then, if that's ok with you. 145.94.74.23 10:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Can you please not state that it's obvious that balance is better than it seems because it's not obvious. Unless you have some proof that Anet has a deeper plan you can't state things like that. At the moment, balance "looks" bad. Palm Strike still not being fixed etc etc. So if you really want to convince us that balance is in fact good, you need to back that up first. Thanks in advance! Xhata 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious for anyone who actually thinks about things instead of going with the flow. 145.94.74.23 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And how does your "everything Anet does is good" attitude have anything to do with thinking about things? It seems you are going with another flow than other users on this wiki, but a flow nonetheless. Xhata 15:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Anet isn't flawless, far from it. But a PvP metagame where sveral 'gimmicks' can face eachother and both sides have a reasonable chance of winning, is a balanced PvP game. It's not my fault that those teams aren't composed of whatever the pro PvP crowd deems appropriate. Nobody said that PvP should consist of teams with 2 melee, 4 midliners and 2 monks. That's something the players came up with. 145.94.74.23 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem arises when an unskilled team of nobodies running a gimmick beats a more skilled team running balanced. That has always been where the problem lies, not in the gimmick vs gimmick or balanced vs balanced matches.

But that's aside from just bad balance in general. Palm Strike is overpowered to the point of retardedness. 5 energy, 4 recharge, the ability to skip straight to dual attacks and permanent cripple? That's not balanced at all - especially if you actually think about it instead of going with the flow. -Auron 16:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that argument before. It never occurs to the supposedly more skilled team that they just weren't the better team that fight. If they were, they would have won. And nobody ever said that balanced was the way GW is supposed to be played. So players should either adapt to the new meta, train until they can beat those builds with balanced or change their builds. As for Palm Strike, I agree. Like I said, I never said Anet was perfect. However, in general, if there is more than 1 way to win Halls, then the game is balanced. Currently, to my knowlegde, there are at least 5 viable teams. Maybe more, if the nobodies were given the credit they deserve. 5 teams that can beat eachother. If balanced was the only way people could win, then the game would be unbalanced. But a game where everything is equally powerful, well, that just won't happen. So I'll settlefor the '5 gimmick meta' over the 'only balanced-way' meta. It's a personal choice, and a personal opinion. Everyone is hereby allowed to disagree. 145.94.74.23 19:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

man, you're fucking hysterical. i thought you were being serious there until you said "It never occurs to the supposedly more skilled team that they just weren't the better team that fight" but then it hit me that nobody could forget that the whole point of a gimmick is to replace player skill with skills on the bar, generally because the player skill isn't high enough to win otherwise. 5/10 though, would have been higher if I didn't catch it so early. -Auron 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry to ruin your fun then, but I am serious. In one of your articles, you yourself wrote that Guild Wars rewards nothing but victory...so then why shouldn't the team with the best build win? If you want to make it harder for yourself, then I wish you good luck, but to simply state that no skill is required, well that just isn't true. It IS true that a weaker build requires more skill to win than a strong build, but that should be a no brainer. If the better players also bring a stronger build, then they WILL win. If they won't do so, then they're no longer the better players. Guild Wars is a game where certain things will have an advantage over other things, so there will always be teams that steamroll you and teams that you can beat with 2 fingers up your nose. But the whole gimmick discussion has nothing to do with game balance and everything with veteran players being unable to adapt to a (completely) different playing style. And if it's fun you're worried about, well, then just don't play the game if you don't like it. Battle and war aren't stagnant, otherwise we'd all still be running around with clubs. They still work, but they're simply not the most effective anymore. 145.94.74.23 06:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be serious, but you're completely wrong. You have so little knowledge of this subject that it hurts to discuss it with you. You assume so many things that are simply not true, yet you don't know better because you've never done serious PvP yourself. If you're so keen on reading what I write, this article will be most enlightening.

The definition of a gimmick build (in Guild Wars) is one that bad players run to abuse mechanics to win because they can't win any other way. Good players don't run gimmicks, because guess what? They're good players. With only a handful of exceptions, the mAT winner each month wins with "balanced" - there have been times in the past, particularly with ineptitude mesmers and recall sins, where a few japanese guilds managed to break the game so much that they could no longer be outskilled, but for the most part, the very best players in the game manage to beat everyone else, including those running gimmicks.

That, in and of itself, completely defeats your argument. The best players in the game don't run gimmicks (by choice, which I touch on later), and in fact beat gimmicks while running balanced. Gimmicks simply abuse poorly designed mechanics to allow shitters to beat other equally (un)skilled players without trying. That is not my opinion - it is the opinion of the entire PvP community. In case you've forgotten, I was in one of the most notorious gimmick guilds in existance - Thousend Tigers got top 20 on the ladder twice running gimmicks. Were we skilled? No! We didn't stand a chance running balanced (believe me, we tried - it was embarassing). But I'm speaking from both sides - I've been at the top of the game running gimmicks and I've been near the top of the game running balanced. I know both sides very well, having played gimmicks and against gimmicks - I know exactly what they are and why people run them.

Yes, I wrote that guild wars only rewards victory. That does not excuse the existance of poorly designed and poorly balanced builds, and I'm really confused as to how you think it does. Gimmicks crop up because guild wars rewards victory - they stay viable for months on end because ArenaNet takes fucking forever to balance any of them. ANet will never be able to prevent gimmicks from happening, and I'm not pretending they should try, but once they see them, they should be trying their best to stamp them out.

Gimmicks ruin the fun of low- to mid-range PvP on a regular basis. Shitters who are shitters through-and-through don't care what the community thinks of them, so they'll run anything that lets them win (this is the reason RA and TA are such huge fucking jokes). In high end PvP, the whole concept of "honor gaming" comes into play. I don't know if you're familiar with the concept, because you don't play on that tier regularly, but basically good players don't run gimmicks because everyone realizes and accepts that they're poorly balanced. Running a gimmick is like sitting down to play chess with someone, but instead of moving your chess pieces, you punch them in the nose and kick them in the balls. Gimmicks aren't honorable, and while you may not realize it, that actually matters to the best players in the game. Because of the whole honor thing, gimmicks generally aren't a problem in high-end PvP... but when a guild knows they're going to lose (say you're coming up against rawr, for example; you have no chance of beating them balance v balance) they can try to pull out a gimmick and hope to god that the enemy isn't going to spec for it. Is that okay, from a game balance perspective? No. Does that make whatever gimmick some guild chooses as a ditch attempt to win a superior build than balanced? Absolutely not. Does the fact that Guild X beat Guild Y with a gimmick mean Guild X has superior players? You guessed it - still no!

When two guilds go at each other running an equally balanced build ("game balanace" balanced, not "honor build" balanced), the more skilled team is the winner. That's fine. In fact, that's how Guild Wars is supposed to be - you have 2000 whatever skills to choose from, let the more skilled team win. Unfortunately, when some skills (alone or in specific combination) outpower others by a significant amount, a problem arises - the whole scenario of player skill winning out applies less and less. By the time a particular build can win simply by the nature of the build, the player skill requirement has been reduced to nothing. In a competitive game, that is a bad thing - it is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what is needed. When the match is decided the second the gates open up, the game is no longer a successful competitive MMO. If you can just throw in the towel from 1 second into the match because the other team is running hex overload and you only have Holy Veil and Spotless Mind, the game is no longer balanced, no matter how you look at it. At this point, the game is an aboslute and utter failure, from a balance perspective and a fun perspective.

Let me reiterate - gimmicks allow players to replace skill with skills, and because this is a competitive game (as opposed to, say, Bioshock), that is unacceptable. If you're playing against computer opponents, who cares if you can just roll your face over the keyboard and win? If you're having fun, awesome - that's the point of a game. However, that is not acceptable in a competititve multiplayer game built on the premise Guild Wars was built on. If you can roll your face over your keyboard and beat equally skilled players who are actually trying, your build is doing all your work for you. Again, that does not make you a better player than them nor does it even make your build "superior" - it just makes your build "broken" or "imbalanced." Like I said, I'm here to play chess - if I wanted to punch you in the face, I would take you to a boxing ring, not a chessboard. Chess vs chess or boxing vs boxing, I would beat you every time - but when I'm trying to play chess and you're knocking me in the face, I don't stand a chance. Regardless, you punching me in the face does not make you good at chess, nor does it make punching a "superior" way to play.

Do you get where I'm coming from yet? -Auron 15:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do I even respond to something in an archive...? 145.94.74.23 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Celestial Weapons

This item drops from Factions chests and rarely from monsters. It does not drop anywhere outside of Kaineng Center. You mean Kaineng City? Kaineng Center is only the Main Town. --Arduinna 08:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I confuse them a lot. My apologies for that. 145.94.74.23 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Useless comments

Pay the fuck attention, bro. No one ever complained about GW or ANet back in the Proph days, when the game was good. Some people complained in Factions when it became apparent to those who paid attention that ANet couldn't introduce new mechanics without breaking the game (Auron can provide a good story for that time frame). Lots of people complained when Nightfall was introduced and PvP balance went all to hell. Lots more people complained - though some shut up - when EotN came out and PvE balance went all to hell. People have been complaining for at least two years about Support, although it's really coming to light now because of the introduction of the wiki and the fact that people on the wiki are getting shit thrown at them. It's not that "everything was bad for four years but people have only complained for two months" or "nothing was bad for four years and now people have suddenly decided to hate ANet" or anything like that. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived on 30-6-2009

Note: 145.53.242.142 has a similar IP, but it is not the same so don't confuse us. No, I won't create an account. 145.94.74.23 08:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, do your homework, please. ~Shard 20:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not proof Shard, that's just stuff written by someone. Actual proof would be screenshots of the e-mails themselves. I thought I made that clear enough. 145.94.74.23 21:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you'd just be crying "photoshopped!" Who even cares? Misery 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to humor him [2]. Take a look there. It's rather amusing and is where Shard got his line on Mice, Monitors, and Keyboards. If that's not enough for you I guess I could record me accessing my gmail and post a video on YouTube. Added Note that Gaile responded to Adrin's issue with the name conflict verifying its accuracy.~>Sins WDB 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A screenshot would mean a lot more than a few lines of text. As for that link, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. At the very least, if I want to question people's motives, then I have every right to do so. So I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here...you should all know by now that feeding me the same 'arguments' (read: trying to make me look like an idiot for not understanding things) over and over again isn't going to change my mind. 145.94.74.23 06:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This link was posted by Shard as a response for my request for proof. While I could argue about some of the evidence (I still don't consider wiki copy-pastes of e-mail conversations to be proof), I will credit him for trying. It seems like there's indeed more going on than meets the eye. But let me ask you (others, not Shard): is it so hard to supply similar proof if you're really honest in your attempts to uncover the truth? 145.94.74.23 06:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but I doubt either him or ArenaNet are being "really honest". Misery 09:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. 145.94.74.23 12:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Since you've been trolling me for a long time now, I would hope you have some clue who I am. Do you really think I could make that stuff up? Think about it. I'm not going to screenshot my emails (yes I still have them all) because, as Misery said, Photoshop is pretty gud (and I'm so pro with it) ~Shard 07:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with photoshopping. If you want me to be honest, I find it rediculous that you accuse Gaile of banning you just because someone who has no connection with her other than being in the same guild said so. Even if Gaile caused your ban for personal reasons, do you really think she'd tell someone like that, who tells you the first chance he gets? That combined with the wiki links (repeating stories doesn't make them anymore true) and the fact that I know what kind of guy you are, makes your story very unreliable. 145.94.74.23 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not why. If you knew then you would understand.~>Sins WDB 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to, but so far, I haven't been able to. 145.94.74.23 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The specific bit of evidence you are looking for no one will be willing to share with you or anyone, at least I am not willing to do so (The same is likely true for the others, but I can't definitively speak for them). However, that said plenty of references and links are provided showing favoritism, bias, mistakes, and mishandlings by ANet and Gaile herself. Even without the hard evidence making the case that Gaile, Regina, or others wanted Shard banned is not a stretch at all. It's difficult to prove without such evidence, but the overwhelming amount of instances displaying bias, favoritism, etc can't be disregarded. I hope you understand that people need closure for a wide variety of things. For some people it's not about being compensated, but comes down to knowing why or hearing an admittance of wrong doing.~>Sins WDB 22:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I have to disagree with you. Most of the references don't suggest favoritism, bias, mistakes, and mishandlings unless you want to see it that way. I've read them all and they're al unsubstantiated. Players saying they did or didn't do things, but no mention of wheter they have been punished (or not) or if they actually did anything wrong. Players contesting bans in e-mails against customer support who may or may not have been banned for other reasons too and may or may not be telling the whole story. Some people have gotten bans for minor things...but those people have a history of very poor behaviour, so of course it will look biased...unless you take into account the previous offenses as well. Most if not all of those stories can be dispelled easily, and there being a lot of them doesn't make it true all of a sudden. 145.94.74.23 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the references don't suggest favoritism, bias, mistakes, and mishandlings. That concession by you is enough. Even you have seen evidence that can't be disputed displaying favoritism, bias and mistakes. Even though many claims have no evidence supporting them, a lot of them do or simply are obviously true. Just because you have a valid point with there being claims that could be false or simply one sided has nothing to do with the fact that there are multiple instances where complaints are accurate and clearly display favs, bais, or an oops on ANet's side. That seems like it should be rather obvious, but you've been disputing everything thus far.

You are free to be critical of Shard's evidence. He can provide the emails if he wants. You've read the copy-paste already.

Conveniently enough though ANet does not tell you when transgressions expire. This tells us they have no standard for this, even though it says in the EULA these things do expire. So, basically they tell people this but withhold information so they can manipulate things as they wish. They do this in more than 1 section of the EULA such as with macros and with type of hardware can be used. This is important, becuase ANet must never be caught lying or being unfair as they have too much pride to admit their own wrong doing. The point of me saying this is not to justify breaking the EULA, but rather to point how easy it is for ANet to abuse their power and get away with it. Without people being critical of them instances of power abuse, no matter how rare, could very well go unnoticed.~>Sins WDB 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)...they have too much pride to admit their own wrong doing... That goes both ways (and likely includes myself as well). As for disputing everything, well, there is a LOT to dispute. I personally feel that many people jump to conclusions and that a lot of stories are blown way out of proportion. I have no problem with people being critical about Anet's behaviour, as long as it is done properly. Punishment depending on past behaviour isn't bias or favoritism, but is easy to leave out of a story, especially since Anet won't give us that information either. I apologize if I have been overzealous about all of this, but if people want to discredit people or companies, they shouldn't be offended when someone looks critically at their story. 145.94.74.23 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It does go both ways, but the burden is heavier for a company or cooperation. I'm wrong at times myself, I find things move along better and I learn more when I can admit my view is incorrect or incomplete. Being stubborn or being in denial really hinders people. I'm stubborn about my views, its not a good thing to be wishy-washy (lol undecided voters), but at the same time I take a step back and analyze other people's points and see how they compare to mine. It would be nice if more people would do the same.~>Sins WDB 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an admirable way of reasoning and I am trying to be the same, but I have to admit that I have some difficulty in that area. 145.94.74.23 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize guys, Anet really IS that bad...

Just read what they did after someone who got kicked from the guild reported me falsely...

Me (at 06/2/2009 05:33 PM)

Attachment: gw041.jpg Dear Anet,

I hereby like to ask why I got a 72hr ban yesterday. As far as I know, I didn't do anything wrong other than kicking someone from my guild for spamming in the chat.

Sincerely, mynameremoved

Them (GM Cykor at 06/3/2009 06:56 PM)

Hello,

Your account has been temporarily suspended for stalking another user, which is a violation of our Rules of Conduct and User Agreement as stated in section 6 (ix). Link: http://www.guildwars.com/support/legal/users-agreement.php

Once the suspension has elapsed you will be free to log in and play again.

Regards, GM Cykor The Guild Wars Support Team

Me (at 06/3/2009 07:15 PM)

Dear Anet,

all I did was send him a few whispers (three at most!) telling him that he would be reported for spamming but if he apologized, he'd be reïnvited into the guild. He then replied to me with several verbal assaults, I can send you the screenshots if you want.

Them (GM Cykor at 06/5/2009 07:34 PM)

Hello,

Protests regarding the ban of your Guild Wars game account will not be addressed or entertained. We will not accept appeals in cases such as this because of the depth of the analysis prior to the ban. Please keep in mind that Guild Wars is a global game with hundreds of thousands of players. This means that standards of behavior must be upheld. The suspension has almost elapsed by now so you will be free to log in and play again. Any future infractions will likely result in a permanent account ban.

Regards, GM Cykor The Guild Wars Support Team

Me (at 06/8/2009 15:04 PM)

Dear Anet,

So did you guys know that I totally made this up? Looks rather convincing doesn't it? Of course, you'll never admit that you fell for it...especially Pika Fan, who seems to think that his IQ is that much higher than mine. But when people who have had issues with Anet in the past (=motive) post these things on a wiki (=copy/paste with the possibility of alterations) without a link to the original (=no verification whatsoever), it is not so bad to request additional proof in order to get the facts straight. After all, it's easy to provide proof if you actually have any.

<ticket is closed>

You forgot to sign. Misery 13:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe...you're absolutely right. 145.94.74.23 13:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh man that would have been a 10/10. -Auron 13:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So basically, 3 different people decided that they were very bored and decided to lie about anet, in all the very same way - faking a copypasta of anet's support email. They must be pretty stupid, if not naive, or both. In all honestly, I damn nearly fell for it until I realised that the person who wrote all of it was just a typical cynical joker. BTW, did you see those screenshots? I guess not, else you wouldn't request any further "verification". If you want to look like a "gentleman", at least do bother to tl;dr less. Pika Fan 15:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(only because you always give me crap about not posting "proof") They should provide reasons yes, but proof? What would a user do with proof? Again, whatever proof they have, they've already looked at it and won't change their mind if they read the same proof a second time. I'm not saying people are always guilty or something, I'm just pointing out that it would be kinda pointless. 145.94.74.23 14:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC) -also i think posting a screenshot of yahoo email UI is a copyright violation, although i could be mistaken --adrin 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

@Pika: If Anet really was as bad as they claim, then why did it take nearly 4 years before these kinds of things started occurring? And why did 3 things happen all at the same time (yes, that kind of reasoning can be reversed too)? And yes, if there are screenshots, I'll look at them and if they have anything to do with the issue, I'll consider them proof (an ingame screenshot of the violation that started the conversation isn't proof of the responses of support).

@Adrin: You're taking that line a bit out of it's context. I didn't mean that I wouldn't like Anet to supply proof. I was just saying there that it wouldn't do anyone any good if they did. As for the UI, maybe you could try to blurr it a bit, or maybe cut the rest of it away around the edges? 145.94.74.23 17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention, bro. No one ever complained about GW or ANet back in the Proph days, when the game was good. Some people complained in Factions when it became apparent to those who paid attention that ANet couldn't introduce new mechanics without breaking the game (Auron can provide a good story for that time frame). Lots of people complained when Nightfall was introduced and PvP balance went down. Lots more people complained - though some shut up - when EotN came out and PvE balance went down. People have been complaining for at least two years about Support, although it's really coming to light now because of the introduction of the wiki and the fact that people on the wiki are getting complaints. It's not that "everything was bad for four years but people have only complained for two months" or "nothing was bad for four years and now people have suddenly decided to hate ANet" or anything like that. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Anet hates, but specifically about the 'Anet is biased towards certain players and support abuses it's power' issues. 145.94.74.23 19:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also of note is the recent increase in volume of "Help Me I'm Banned" posts on Gaile's page. Logically, we can assume that the increase is due to (obviously) more people feeling a need to resolve bans in that way. Now, this could be for several reasons, but I think the two most viable candidates are (1) that more people are viewing Gaile's page as a reasonable place to look for support, likely due to the volume of other posts looking for the same thing, or (2) that more people are being banned.

Similarly, we can explain the increased frequency of support "bias" accounts as (1) due to more people viewing the wiki as a reasonable place to seek... whatever they're seeking, likely due to the volume of other posts looking for the same thing, or (2) that support has done more things like this recently. The fact that there are several such occurrences in a small span of time isn't really very surprising at all.

Many things have changed since the release of Guild Wars; a four-year time frame is misleading. I think two of the most significant changes in ArenaNet were the implementation of the "Live Team" and the introduction of this wiki, both of which were fairly recent. Again, I wouldn't find a change in "policy" - "I'm tired of these ranting trolls, we really need to crack down on stuff like this." - surprising, given the other major changes.

And lastly, I can't think of a reason why they would lie about it. I mean, honestly, what do they stand to gain? If the support responses were false, wouldn't that immediately disqualify them from any hope of regaining anything? Where's the motive? Raine - talk 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points and I think you're right on all of them (some things I hadn't considered that much, but they make sense), except for the last one: motives. It's no secret that Anet isn't popular. People have been complaining (and worse) about balance for a long time and certain individuals are very passionate about 'Anet destroying their game'. So if something like a unjust or lack-of-information ban happened to those people, they wouldn't keep quiet about it (and they haven't). However, you can't blame me for being skeptical when someone who has been discrediting the Anet staff members for years suddenly states that support banned them for no valid reason. Discrediting the opponent is part of their discussion style (just look at Pika's post above this one) so they might unintentionally, stretch the truth or exaggerate things in order make Anet look worse. Finally, I feel that, like any good debater, people on the wiki always need to win the last battle, have the last word, and always be right (a good quality during discussions I might add). And to be banned by Anet, well, that would make Anet win. And they might not be able to take that.

So the bottom line is this: if they were someone like Wynn, who's very polite and pro Anet most of the time, I would probably believe them without evidence. But they've made no secret of their position towards Anet and it's staff, and that is why I doubt their stories. 145.94.74.23 05:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well.. that was an unexpected compliment :D As for why these things are happening "suddenly", it could have to do with the fact that the users in question have finally reached the "end of the line" with support. It's been noted that these accounts have several marks against them for in game violations, and support finally said "enough is enough". It's not that support suddenly changed their position, just that these players have run out of the allowed amount of rope support gives them to hang themselves with. I have no personal knowledge of how either Shard or Lena act in game, I can only extrapolate from how they act here, which is pretty badly overall. If they treat people in the game anywhere near as badly as they treat people here on the wiki, and act with the same disregard and disrespect for rules as they do here, it should be no great surprise to either of them that they have lost their accounts, yet it seems to be, which really leaves me shaking my head in disbelief.

As to why more of these issues are coming up on Gaile's page? Well, for one thing, she has only been the support liaison for a little over a year. Prior to that, these issues were not in her purview. That and her reputation for being reasonable and compassionate (what the trolls call a carebear), people believe she is somehow going to change the decisions, which in most instances of bans, is just not the case. Unfortunately, there are those people that just are not willing to take NO for an answer, nor are they willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, and have to then divert the blame for their woes onto someone else, and in this case that would be Gaile, claiming some personal bias and agenda, which in my opinion is just unfounded. -- Wyn 06:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a point, but "carebear" doesn't just mean "reasonable and compassionate" (at least the way I understand it) - it means "reasonable, compassionate, and social, to the point where it interferes with the overall good. There's nothing wrong with being reasonable and compassionate so long as the job still gets done - its when you let yourself get bogged down by people crying "qq, he swore to me once, ban please" or etc where the problems begin. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're pro/anti for someone because of their name alone, your credibility sinks. I'm not Anti-Anet - I'm anti-nonsense, anti-hypocrisy, and anti-lie-through-teeth. If they stop the hypocrisy, the lying, and the nonsense, I'll throw them a party. ~Shard 07:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See, I think Shard just highlighted why him and I butt heads so often. I have no problem with hypocrisy or lies. Nonsense sometimes irritates me. Misery 07:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

<3 ~Shard 07:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're not anti-Anet, but you sure do attack their actions a lot. So you come across as a person who's anti-anet. And that isn't helping your credibility, as you just stated. I'm glad we understand eachother. 145.94.74.23 11:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Correcting

I don't think it wise to put someone elses name on something you wrote even if it was to correct their abrupt grammer (I believe strikethrus are allowed)... it's fundimentally wrong... have a nice day MrPaladin talk 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason is that I had a sudden change of heart. I am sick and tired of being treated as a second rate idiot just because I disagree with some people. So I removed the useless curse words. If that's against the rules, then I'll just archive it next time. Either way will suit me just fine. 145.94.74.23 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing abusive comments is actually allowed on user talk pages. ~Shard 07:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing I'm cool with, but editing and signing as the other person ain't cool in school... archiving is probably the better way to deal with it... I aggree with both of ya'll MrPaladin talk 12:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well, from now on any comment on this page that lacks common manners will be archived. 145.94.74.23 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'evidence'

I thought I'd collect the links here for everyone else who's also interested in the evidence they always refer to, but never actually supply. I excluded the e-mails because, assuming they're legit, the complete story behind them cannot be known without more information from Anet themselves. If there is more, then please post a link here and I'll review it. 145.94.74.23 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Wasabi Case
  • Wasabi admitting and denying
    • White Wasabi admits he paid a firend to help him earn Champion points, but denies buying fame.
  • Wasabi requesting to become Guild Leader of a Gold Trim guild
    • Not sure how illegal it is to request becoming leader of a guild in exchange for cash. Unethical? Yes. Against the rules? Not likely, especially if the players who earned it are allowed to remain in the guild.
  • Wasabi replying to a fame farmer
    • In my opinion, people can say a lot but unless their story is confirmed by the ingame logs, they can tell whatever they like. But to ban them on that alone, especially if it's outside the game.
• Shard's movie
  • Quote:Linking to offensive material is against EULA, and I linked to game footage. Think about that. I never got banned for the things I said in that video, I got banned only for the video itself.
  • It is ingame footage, but it also has offensive material in it. It may have been a combination of things, or it may have been that Shard somehow focused attention upon himself.
• Shard's collected evidence
  • There must be more than just the chat screenshot, because I seriously doubt Shard would accuse Gaile of banning him for personal reasons based on the story of a single individual, who's not an Anet employee.

Lena's b&, for reference. Raine - talk 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the related comment. 145.94.74.23 18:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored it. This isn't your talk page. ~Shard 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a typo? This is his talk page... Or do you mean he doesn't "own" it? Misery 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IP talk pages don't have individual owners. ~Shard 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Technicalities FTW? Raine - talk 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the comment again. This isn't a discussion, it's a review of the collection of evidence. Removal of the comment actually works in your favor, so I don't know why you put it back. 145.94.74.23 06:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So it's only against policy if it doesn't benefit me? Whatever...it's not like anyone's gonna care. ~Shard 06:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I have broadened my point of view a bit. I am not against Anet monitoring certain users or becoming less forgiving after repeating offenses. It is the thing that you would call biased: where 2 players doing the same thing, one of them having a spotless record and one of them breaking the EULA all the time, and only the second player gets banned. That's very bad of Anet...until you take into account their previous misdeeds. 145.94.74.23 07:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think breaking EULA once every 5 months is "all the time," and some of mine from a long time ago were still just as stupid as the recent ones (getting blocked for characters like "This Game Blows"). ~Shard 07:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a hypothetical example, not talking about any particular player there. As for your infractions, there are a lot of things that you feel are ok that others don't like. You may not have been banned for those things, but that doesn't mean Anet didn't notice. Being blocked for a name is just part of the procedures so that probably hasn't had anything to do with the severity of the case. 145.94.74.23 07:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of foolish to give someone an excuse to ban you when they don't like you. Misery 08:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

^ That. You broke rules and you got banned. That's how life works. Quit bitching already. If you were trying to put together a solid case of ANet-bias it definitely shouldn't include "yeah I broke a dozen rules, some multiple times each, what of it?"

I work with scouts all the time - 11-17 year olds. The first time they do something wrong, it's a polite reminder to behave. The second time is usually a little more stern; not so light that they think they can get away with it, but not biting their heads off either. Third time they break rules or misbehave? They go home. We call their parents, their parents come and pick them up and that's that. Any further rule-breaking is not tolerated, and the kid will be removed from the troop if he keeps it up. These 11 year olds learn not to be douchebags by the second warning. Only the thickest of them make it to the parental conference. Why the hell are you having such a problem with this concept of "break rules, get punished?" -Auron 08:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Except their reason for the ban was "You had a history of violating EULA, so we're going to ban you now because there's a high chance that you'll break EULA." That's like firing someone because you expect them to siphon corporate funds sometime in the future because they'd previously been caught (and punished for) taking home an electric pencil sharpener and one of those sexy-ass Swingline staplers. If the ban had been "We reconsidered your previous violations and, in retrospect, found them permaban-worthy" it'd be less ridiculous. But punishing someone for something they haven't done yet? That's hardly "giving someone a reason to ban you".

Also, "Marks are expunged from an account after a certain period of time." What happened to that? Unless the certain period of time is four years or longer, either (1) there aren't a dozen pertinent violations to cite or (2) that statement was untrue. Not that that's particularly relevant, but I thought that should be included in this post.

Anyway. What's all this about Scouts in Hawaii? Raine - talk 16:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, expected future violations are a perfectly acceptable ban reason, considering that it's super fucking obvious that he's going to keep breaking rules. You can't even begin to pretend otherwise. He doesn't think breaking rules is a big deal, of course he is going to keep breaking them. There's only so many times they can slap him on the wrist before they figure he's too stupid to get the picture and they punch him in the face. This isn't ANet being biased and singling out an innocent user for no reason at all, it's ANet having legitimate reason to watch this user because of terrible behavior and multiple rule violations, and while being watched, this user keeps up said terrible behavior and rule violations. I'm not sure where the hell he's having problems understanding this, but it's pretty obvious to me. Like I said, if he was innocent, he'd sort of maybe have a case (except he'd still have to argue against the EULA, which he agreed to before playing, which basically makes any legal argument against ANet null and void). But he's not innocent. He breaks rules and thinks he's above them, which is bullshit and shows excessive levels of ego centrism. There's a point where ANet has a right to knock him down a few pegs, and I'm pretty sure after a billion temp bans, ANet has reached that point.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_in_Hawaii#Aloha_Council -Auron 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"This guy's been in and out of jail for the past thirty years, what should we do about him?"

"Well, is he doing anything illegal now?"

"Well... not really. But, I mean, he's probably going to do something illegal in the future; history says so!"

"Has he already been punished for his previous offenses?"

"Yes, but I think we should punish him again. I mean, this guy is a criminal. We're just saving ourselves work in the future."

"So what do you suggest?"

"Perma-ban."

"I'll get the syringe."

Logical? Sure. Legal? If the governing body says so. Cool? lolno. Definitely not cool.

Back onto a completely unrelated topic. Scouts. I dunno, it seems... fitting. Have you ever considered any kind of involvement with the military? I don't mean to cause any kind of offense, but you seem like you have the aptitude. No-nonsense, etc. I'm not suggesting, just asking if you'd ever thought about it. Raine - talk 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Auron, if I were to have been continuously breaking rules, I would agree with you. However, this is not the case. I was banned on a seemingly random day for what turned out to be no reason at all, other than they thought I was going to cause trouble later. If I had actually committed a violation this time, rather than talking to my friends as you're doing right now, I would agree with you. Fact is, whether I deserve a permaban or not, I didn't receive it for committing a violation, I received it for having an account with marks (marks which are supposed to go away over time, but don't in my case). It would have been perfectly legitimate for Arenanet to watch my actions and wait for an actual violation, but that's not what they did. They said "Hey this guy got banned a month ago, let's ban him again for being banned."

Keep in mind, Auron, you don't know everything that happened. ~Shard 02:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Shard, you don't know everything that happened. I suspect that if you were reported by someone that they wouldn't supply logs of a conversation with that person. In short, only ArenaNet has any idea why things happened as they did. Misery 06:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I don't think Purge would report Shard for "NIGGERS". Raine - talk 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I think that strengthens my point rather than weakens it. Didn't they supply logs of him talking with his friends? Misery 14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I misread.

In that case, that's total bullshit. "You were banned for THIS conversation, look at your foul language!" when it wasn't, in fact, THAT conversation? Yeah, okay. Raine - talk 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

k i'm gonna draw you a graph to show you where you stand in relation to reality here

reality <-------------------------------------------------------> you

If shard was innocent, you would have an argument. he is not innocent, not even remotely. the fact that he says niggers in-game while he's being watched does, in fact, strengthen misery's point. If you're down to pulling straws like "oh well it wasn't THAT conversation," you've already lost the argument, you're just waffling bullshit. please stop. it's getting old. if you and he can't see why he was banned at this point, no amount of explaining it to you is going to help. -Auron 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have zero issue with the fact that Shard was banned (you break the rules, you get punished, etc.). However, when the company lies outright about the circumstances regarding that ban... That's less than ideal, imho. Whether it's saying "You're banned for this conversation" when it was for another conversation, "You're banned for repeatedly violating the EULA in the past" when he was reported for something (as Misery suggests), or whatever other bs, it's bad business. That is what I have an issue with. It's like giving a littering fine to a driver caught speeding. :/ Raine - talk 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was given a fine for forgetting my monthly pass (7 euro fine) when I actually forgot to buy a ticket for my bike (40 euro fine), the guy was cutting me some slack. I did not complain. I know this situation is not analogous. Misery 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether I deserve to be banned or not is unimportant. I'm not contesting that. I tend to believe 0% of anything that comes out of Gaile's mouth, but 10 "marks" sounds close to how many I would have if you include character and guild renames. The relevant issue is that Anet bans me for things other people don't get banned for in identical situations. Treating two people differently in identical situations is bias.

Also, misery, I do know everything that happened. You don't. ~Shard 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I don't. Misery 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different....

Why don't you just register 145.95.75.23 as your username? -- Wyn 08:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:71.229 is an example of a similar case. I never really understood your opposition for having an account, it is actually more anonymous. You do realise you do not have to put an email or real name into the creation of an account? Misery 09:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, my question is only out of curiosity. -- Wyn 09:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At one point in time, I did have an account but I when I left the wiki, I didn't plan on posting anymore. I kinda got sucked back in again and got attached to the IP, with my contribution history and all. And I never knew you could actually use your IP as an account. I might try that someday. I suppose some things would be easier if I did have an account. 145.94.74.23 16:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I couldn't create my IP as an account so I used User:OneFourFive instead. How's that? OneFourFive 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You could have done it like User:"76.79.47.141" --JonTheMon 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. You can't use the exact IP because well.. your IP uses that, hence 71.229 using 71.229. Just note in your new userspace that the two accounts are connected. YOU CAN HAVE A USERSPACE NOW! GASP! Misery 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to make use of {{Static IP}} to do that :) poke | talk 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'll switch to my account once I have the time to create a proper user page. After my exams are over probably. Until then, I'll stick to my IP a little while longer. 145.94.74.23 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, I forgot my password. I really gotta start writing those things down. 145.94.74.23 06:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you linked an e-mail adress to your account? If so, you can send a new password through that. Dark Morphon 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have. I requested a new one, but for some odd reason, wiki doesn't accept the newly sent password. I'll try again tonight, maybe it will work this time. 145.94.74.23 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw you IP and almost tought it was my brother posting some things again :p, seems like we do have sort of the same ip ;). It wouldn't be really wise tough to register 145.95 as your username because that would make some things very confusing as we're both fairly active on the wiki I think...EDIT: also, it seems(correct me if I'm wrong) that we were also more active on the wiki before you came so.. btw no hard feelings or anything, just expressing my concerns ;)145.53.242.142 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ranged DPS

→ moved from User talk:Regina Buenaobra

I'm not saying that balance is perfect, but not everything that many people mention is a balance problem. Caster damage, for example isn't a problem due to a lack of counters: it's due to a lack of room on skill bars to bring counters against elemental damage that is taken up by counters against the far more common physical damage. 145.94.74.23 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Caster damage output being high is a problem because its ranged and target swapping avoids conventional counters, it's the same exact issue that we had with turret ranger teams a while back (except attack counters worked a little bit with them). There's no such thing as a viable counter to high dps ranged damage in guild wars.~>Sins WDB 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Sins WDB: That is a common misconception. There are plenty of ways to deal with them, if the team had enough skills slots. Some things that come to mind are Diversion (or mesmers in general), partywide armor boosts and interrupting. Like physical damage dealers, caster damage dealers have their downsides and if a team was capable of bringing let's say a build with 6 anti-casters against an SF team, they would win. However, they would lose against the other 99% of the teams, so it's not viable. But it's not like caster damage dealers can't be stopped. It's just that bringing counters to them would leave you defenseless against the (much more common) physical damage teams. 145.94.74.23 06:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If disable skills like diversion/d-shot are the only counters that's not plenty of ways to deal with them. The builds are still OP and should be nerfed. The reason you see MB teams and Bloodspike teams is the concept of high caster dps is OP. It's no misconception, its why people abuse it, its why mesmers can't use mirror of ice. If you want to discuss this further move our portion of text to my talk page.~>Sins WDB 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that caster damage counter's aren't niche is a big advantage, not a disadvantage. But there are other ways to deal with caster damage. My point is however, that you CAN deal with them just as easily as you can deal with physical damage teams, IF you could have brought the right skills. If you could bring as much anti-caster stuff as current teams bring blindness, snares, block and other anti-melee, caster damage would not be a problem. 145.94.74.23 06:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is ridiculous. There is not nearly enough viable caster hate in this game to account for all the damage, shutdown and healing that all comes from casting. "If you could have brought the right skills" translates to "it isn't actually viable at all, and is only good enough to build wars a team down if you know for sure they're going to bring assloads of casters, but you'll lose guaranteed if they aren't because caster hate is so one-dimensional it's crap against everything else." Build Wars =/= viable skills. -Auron 22:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, your argument is ridiculous. There is enough viable caster hate in the game to shut down every caster and a few melee using conjures on the side. People just don't bring it, because they will run into physical damage dealers 8 out of 10 fights. So if you choose defensive skills, you will naturally focus on physical defense because it is much more common. But that doesn't mean that caster damage is overpowered because it can't be stopped, it just means that your team can't stop it. That point is moot anyway, because unless both sides play exactly the same build, one of them will have an advantage over the other. And yet there are skills that will counter caster damage without totally sacrificing your defense vs. physicals. If you say that caster hate doesn't work vs. physicals, then I agree with you. But if you say that caster damage is totally overpowered because it has no viable counters, well, that's the same as saying that dazed doesn't work on warriors and thus it's useless. And finally, where blindness can only stop the offensive power of the opponent, caster hate can also be used on their defensive casters. So which one is one-dimensional? Something that stops only the offense, or something that can shut down both offense and defense? 145.94.74.23 06:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=viable&search=search - Synonyms: practical, feasible, usable, adaptable.

"People just don't bring it, because they will run into physical damage dealers 8 out of 10 fights."

Thanks for proving my point there bro. -Auron 06:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What point? That the skills not being viable has nothing to do with the skills themselves but everything with the current metagame? Actually, that was my point. 145.94.74.23 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By "current" you meant "entire metagame for the past 4 years." Pure anti-caster skills will never be viable/great if that's all they do, because, as you said, teams are much more likely to run physicals. My point is, if a skill is not useful most of the time, it is not viable - regardless of the reason for its uselessness. If it is an anti caster skill against 5 phys or just a useless skill overall, the effect is the same - the skill is not viable.

Remember, I deal with reality, not theorycrafting. In reality, people run physicals much more than casters. In reality, that makes caster hate that is solely caster hate not viable. Call it what you want - a rose, by any other name, is still a rose. The skills are still not viable, no matter how much theorycrafting you do on paper to try to claim them viable. -Auron 08:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that skills like Backfire, or effects like dazed, are useless 100% of the time because they're purely anti-caster? Also, don't you think it's very easy to cry 'nerf caster damage' just because some players decide not to go all-physical, and the meta can't handle people thinking differently? 145.94.74.23 09:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

IP your argument turns guild wars into build wars. That's not what the game should turn into.~>Sins WDB 16:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Backfire is a bad example, but yes, a mesmer that packs solely caster hate will only be useful against enemy healers. Compare that to a mesmer that packs caster hate along with utility and he's suddenly a lot more useful. Now compare a mesmer packing Backfire to one packing Wastrel's Worry. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

@SWDB: but if physical damage dealers are always better than caster damage dealers, isn't that essentially build wars as well? And bringing plenty of counters against physicals is build wars as well. @Armond: I agree that a build that contains skills against both physicals and casters will fare better, since he's always useful, but that doesn't make him 100% useless right? I mean, there are plenty of casters in PvP right? 145.94.74.23 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As you say, you run into physicals 8/10 times. For the sake of argument (and to make math easier), let's assume that's exactly correct. Let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that skills that are good against both casters and physicals are 25% less effective than things that specialize. This means that if you take a skill that specializes against casters, it has a "value" of 100% * .2 (percentage of time you can use it) * 1 (relative effectiveness) = 20%. If you opt instead to take a skill that's useful against both casters and physicals, it has a "value" of 100% * 1 (percentage of time you can use it) * .75 (relative effectiveness) = 75%. See the problem here?

You could even say that with the current meta, you run into physicals only 6/10 times and skills useful against both are only 50% as effective. (The first I don't know about, but the second is untrue.) It would still be better to take skills useful against both casters and melee.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Armond's points melee dps is supposed to be better than caster because maintaining adjacency is harder to do than maintaining spell range. Spamming unblockable ranged spells doesn't take skill, not that attacking takes skill in itself, but positioning does and target changing is actually somewhat difficult for melee. In addition wanding/auto-attacking is something every profession can do to support a spike or pressure. Basically I'm saying blocking, IMS kiting, SS, and other things don't just hinder melee classes since all professions use attacking (or at least can). Not every profession is going to have spells, but every profession will be able to attack.~>Sins WDB 17:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict, so I'll spare you the lengthy reply I had planned and sum up my conclusion instead: not being able to counter caster damage is a player issue, not a balance issue. There are plenty of ways to counter casters and they aren't inherently more niche than blindness or block (you can also Diversion attack skills). The thing is, if you're 80% sure you'll face physical damage, then you'll prepare for that, because you don't have enough room on your skill bar to counter both. That's totally understandable, but that doesn't mean that caster damage in itself is overpowered. It's just the player's choice not to prepare against it, so if you face an SF team, you'll likely lose. This can be seen as build wars, and you're 100% correct, but build wars is inevitable. Unless 2 teams use exactly the same build, one of them will have an advantage over the other because they chose a more useful skill. One way to stop that is nerfing caster damage to the point where you need to bring a Warrior or not be able to kill your opponent. Personally, I prefer keeping it that way because games in which there is 1 thing that beats everything else with ease, aren't that fun to play. I'd rather see 10 more or less equally powerful but different gimmicks, than a balancedwayistheonlyway game. Other than that, I totally agree with you, and I still feel that melee damage is more powerful than caster damage, even if it's only because they don't need attunements, deal lots of free damage and because they can pack utility and damage in the same skill. 145.94.74.23 17:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion on things and I can respect that. I disagree with certain things, but to each their own. The above is why I hope we get something like a sealed deck style of play soon. To minimize the build wars aspect. However, I do hope they at least allow for minor changes. I like conjure crip slash and instead of sun and moon I prefer shock (as you can see on my user page). In any case the devs have mentioned looking into implementing sealed deck, hopefully it happens.~>Sins WDB 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sealed deck play would be awesome. Probably the best fix for the "too many skills"-problem that Guild Wars currently has. 145.94.74.23 18:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it, wasn't really sure how to do so myself. I suppose it has gotten a bit out of hand. My apologies. 145.94.74.23 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to tank here, but you can't afford to Diversion a damage spell if you want your spike to go through. I'll read and reply to the rest later. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it was primarily used as an example of an anti-caster skill that could also stop physicals. 145.94.74.23 18:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You diversioned one of their five attack skills. Good job! Their damage output is now only 90% normal! -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What no one ever says to you is that it's FUCKING HARD to pre-prot caster and ranged DPS, because you can't tell who it is going to hit until it hits. Ok, yes, you can see which direction they are facing during cast time, but that is a shitload harder than seeing who the guy with the big hammer is running towards, which is why prot monks follow the warriors against a balanced team. There are MMORPGs where ranged DPS dominate the playstyle and they are really, really unfun. It is likewise really unfun to play against RSpike or a caster spike in comparison to playing against a team that uses melee. Taking out the element of positioning from the game makes it boring, unfun and stupidly easy to blow things up. It's way harder to be a melee caller than a ranged caller. This is all opinion based on playing this game and other games. If you disagree, go play Warhammer Online, that has loads of fun Bright Wizards rolling their faces on the keyboard. Misery 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's because you're not supposed to fight caster in the same way as you fight physicals. With ranged dps, blinding one or two is probably your best defense against their spike. Against casters, diversion or interrupts would be the defense of choice. But again, in my opinion, the problem lies with the meta, not the skill balance. Caster damage has enough counters, ranging from shield sets to partywide armor buffs (Aegis may be dead, but "Stand Your Ground!" isn't) to dazed to removing attunements to interrupts to diversion to simply having weak defenses so you can pound on them until they stop casting. That is my point and that is my only point: caster damage is NOT too strong at this point in the game, it is the lack of room on your skill bar that prevents you from bringing counters against builds that you're not gonna face nearly every match. 145.94.74.23 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Except everything you said works against balanced spikes as well, it's just half your defence becomes useless against an all caster team. That's called build wars. You also completely ignored the fact that there are a lot of armor ignoring spikes in existence and the existence of Song of Concentration. E-Blast spike is a ridiculous build where almost every member of the team is a healer that cannot be spiked and every spike can be uninterruptable. This leads to another point, a warrior cannot take half their bar as defensive skills and still be effective, a caster can. You also have no idea what you are talking about when you say things such as "imply having weak defenses", caster spike teams typically have more defence than a balanced team and Mind Blast eles are nigh invulnerable thanks to the constant healing from AoR and either self heals or block stances which can easily fit on the bar. Misery 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider what would happen if everyone had 10 skill slots. Great, you've got room to bring more defenses! Great, you can now counter both melee and ranged damage! Oh, wait, other teams are now bringing even more ranged damage. Well, shit. The extra couple slots you spend on defense doesn't hold up to the increased variety of offense you're facing - there's no possible way it can, unless you use all 16 extra skill slots on defense (which completely kills your offense, relative to what the other team now has in both offense and defense). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How to make caster spikes less stupid. Raine - talk 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer that over simply nerfing the damage Raine. As for the rest of you, you're kinda missing my point, arguing instead over small flaws in my reasoning. Yes, casters have some additional room for defense. But Warriors don't need it because they already have armor. Yes, Song of Concentration can make them interruptible: that's like saying that condition removal counters blind. My statement however, was that caster damage can easily be stopped using skills that are way less niche than stuff like Vocal Minority, and as such the argument of caster damage not having enough counters is moot. I already stated at least twice that I know that you cannot prepare for every build and that it's therefore logical to go for the physical defense, but it's also the same reason build wars is inevitable. Finally, since you seem so fond of current meta examples, consider this: if casters are that powerful, why doesn't everyone play them? We all know that 'more fun' would only cause 2 out of 10 teams to play them (see earlier post), and Armond and I already agreed that 6 out of 10 was too low a number. 145.94.74.23 05:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Maximum effectiveness.

Many skills have a large difference between minimum and maximum effectiveness, like RoF, Spirit Bond, Freezing Gust, and Distracting Shot; these skills are better in the hands of more skilled players, and worse in the hands of bad players. While every skill has a difference between minimum and maximum effectiveness, some of them have much smaller gamuts than others.

Gimmick builds capitalize on skills with high minimum effectiveness, and stack them to the point that any half-decent team will have tremendous effectiveness, almost regardless of how they play. However, many of the skills with high minimum effectiveness have relatively low maximum effectiveness (there are some exceptions, like Shame and Diversion - their minimum and maximum effectiveness are both huge).

Because gimmick builds like caster spikes typically have relatively low maximum effectiveness, more skilled teams with builds that have higher maximum effectiveness (even if the minimums are lower) can beat them relatively easily (like my team against Ride the Lightning; we win every time). In order to stand a chance against the good players (like, y'know, the people holding Halls on a regular basis), teams have to run builds with high maximum effectiveness.

I feel as if I've done a poor job explaining it, but I hope that makes sense on some level. Raine - talk 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, some people still have a sense of honour. Raine - talk 06:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You've explained it very well, and you also made it clear why caster damage doesn't have to be nerfed. It is strong, but a well played warrior is stronger. And that's exactly how the game should be right? Skill vs skills, high risk skills yield better rewards? Of course, you can always alter caster damage, but the way you just described it, it sounds like it's exactly where it's supposed to be. 145.94.74.23 06:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It does make sense and it is one of the reasons I start these discussions with experienced PvPers: to learn more about PvP and to become a better player. Thank you for that last explanation, it was very insightful. 145.94.74.23 06:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

People do play DPS casters and ranged damage all the time, especially in the current meta. Triple mindblast ele TA, hexway, mind blast split, bspike, eblast spike, rspike. Omegaspike is/was a mostly ranged/completely ranged spike depending on what version. One reason these builds aren't 100% of the meta is because they are boring as shit to play. Also, good players playing a "balanced" build can still often do better than running a gimmick because just like it is difficult to play a gimmick badly, it's also difficult to play it well. Once you have good positioning and calling it's very difficult to push buttons 1-5 more effectively than someone else. This is also why top 50 guilds can still beat gimmicks running balanced, yay. Also, trying to say +20-40 armor is equivalent to a bar like [build prof=E/Rt Energy=12+1+1 resto=12][Energy Blast][Ether Prism][Mend Body and Soul][Spirit Light][Weapon of Warding][Protective Was Kaolai][Recovery][Flesh of My Flesh][/build] is just fallacy. That is similar to suggesting taking somethng like Dolyak Signet on a couple of people would solve your teams lack of defence. It's not going to add as much defence as taking 3 /Rt healers and two /Mo healers in the team build. Granted, this is less effective now. Also, the point of Song of Concentration is that it is in every HA build ANYWAY. Condition removal does not effectively counter blind because blind only has to be applied for the exact moment eviscerate or what have you was going to hit. One thing you have missed, physical dominance such as dual ranger, paraspike, IWAY are all bullshit too. What we are aiming for is a balanced team and because melee can't take utility effectively, that has to go on the casters. If casters do better damage than melee, there is no reason to take melee because it's harder to be effective. Misery 06:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa wait, haven't I had this discussion with you way before? The same arguments are being used as the ones we used then if I recall correctly. I think this was our conclusion: Casters have healing/defensive utility, warriors have damage/offensive utility, giving one of them the role of the other imbalances the game. Like, Paragons with their Chants or casters with damage. It's the same, really. You can't give everything to a character. That should be balance 101. Dark Morphon 12:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You should rephrase that to say you can't give everything to a character at once. As long as they can change their spec to do something else, it's fine. But yeah, they shouldn't be able to heal and dps and knockdown and all that shit in one build, cos that'd be dumb (aka smiting). -Auron 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that. Dark Morphon 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

@145: It's no problem at all for top 50 players, who can surpass the maximum effectiveness of such a build easily. However, most players can't, and that's what creates problems. Yes, a very good warrior will be better than a very good Mind Blast ele, but a decent warrior against a terrible MB ele? Where there should be no contest at all, anyone who goes to PvX and rolls a MB ele will be tremendously effective, often more effective than an experienced warrior. That's why it's imbalanced.

As players grow, they should gradually move from low-risk/reward skills to higher-risk/reward skills (Glimmer of Light would be a great starter monk elite; WoH is harder to use but more rewarding). But when the low-risk skills are as rewarding as higher-risk skills, you see things like top 50 players in TA with MB/Distortionway. Raine - talk 16:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to end this discussion, as there are simply some things we'll never agree about. For example, Auron's last comment is one I agree with, and Misery's comparison of a skillbar with armor is one I don't agree with. Regardless, nothing is left to be said except "You're wrong! No I'm not, you're wrong!" combined with reapeating the same arguments. To quote The Sins We Die By: "That's your opinion on things and I can respect that. I disagree with certain things, but to each their own." 145.94.74.23 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this discussion isn't going anywhere. If you disagree with one of the base assumptions of balance (which is: the more strategical play the better) then you simply can't discuss it. The entirety of balance comes crashing down. It's like taking away an axioma in Euclidian geometry, the whole thing falls appart. Dark Morphon 08:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet like all scientific theories, it is a model, applied to reality in order explain certain phenomena. Like all other theories however, it isn't perfect and it can't describe every situation flawlessly. Therefore, other models exist which use different basic assumptions, but aren't neccesarily more or less true. In this case, I see where your theories and assumptions are coming from, however, I apply them to a different model and thus come to different conclusions. 145.94.74.23 09:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Much like the debate between evolution, creationism and flying spaghettimonsterism. Misery 09:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Very well, what are your assumptions, your conclusions? Dark Morphon 09:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was kinda thinking about Classical and Keynesian economics, but yes, something like that. As for those assumptions, one of them is that strategical play is preferable (you can see earlier in my discussion with Raine that I am in favor of that too), but another one is that more options doesn't neccesarily lead to a more boring game. As far as damage dealing goes, caster damage should be different in nature yet equal in overall power (including things like counters, profession advantages and disadvantages) compared to physical damage dealers. Making physical damage the primary damage threat leads to less options, which in turn leads to more build wars because it will be easier to predict what your opponent will bring. This will allow players to bring the most powerful niche skills they can find because they won't have to be flexible on the battlefield. Eventually, this will lead to similar games where skill will hardly matter, because every match has exactly the same challenges. This all under the assumption that beating a team you didn't specifically prepare for is much more fun than beating a team because everyone did their job ok. Such games can also be played by bots. Of course, like any model, these are all simplified and somewhat exagerated, mostly in order to make finding solutions a bit simpler. I am fully aware of the fact that Guild Wars isn't that black-and-white, and that some things work differently ingame. Yet up until now, I have found this model to be more accurate in describing balance in Guild Wars than the one where every profession should stick to his primary niche role. 145.94.74.23 09:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of my other assumptions include the fact that players will play what is the most popular, and then the most powerful, not the other way around. I also assume that when something is too strong, eventually, the meta finds something that works even better, and switch to that. That doesn't mean that it IS better in general, but rather that it is better in that metagame (the metagame essentially being a subdomain of the entire game, with it's own set of rules). As far as I know, flavor of the month builds have always existed, and continually changed in favor of other builds/counters, which in turn created new ways to play, etc. Recently however, I have observed the meta becoming a little more stagnant, demanding nerfs instead of adapting (for whatever valid reasons there may be). Somehow, balanced as it has been called by players, seems to be how many players would want PvP to be. Yet it is far from balanced if you force players to bring a certain team setup in order to be the best. Teams with less melee and more casters, or vice versa, should be just as viable. 145.94.74.23 09:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, it's very hard to prevent healing on warriors and damage on casters from being dumb and overpowered. Of all the teams I've seen, I've never seen a pure caster or pure warrior build that isn't overpowered. It's simply because of the mechanics. A warrior is usually chasing some foe, making it a bad idea to use spells and the like because it greatly slows you down. A caster usually has low armor, so touch skills aren't desirable. So the only viable way for a warrior is instant skills such as Shouts and the only viable way for casters are ranged spells. That's where the problem lies. It's very hard to make skills like these which aren't extremely dumb. This all under the assumption you like strategical play, of course. Balanced is simply when there is a frontline, midline and backline. Since casters suck at frontlining and warriors can't back/midline because of energy issues, they are forced into being what they are. So, if you want casters to be both viable and balanced in the frontline and Warriors in the backlines, you'd have to give casters high armor and Warriors good energy. And that just makes every profession a copy of the other, which is boring too right? Dark Morphon 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. When I said that caster damage should be equal to warrior damage, I didn't mean that casters should play like warriors, or warriors like casters. What I meant to say that if you take a caster damage dealer (who focusses solely on damage dealing), you should do just as well as a melee character (who focusses solely on dealing damage). But that doesn't mean that they should fight in the same way, or even with exactly the same pros and cons. Teams that contain multiples of a single profession tend to narrow their options in favor of being better at what they do (but worse in other areas). That makes them overpowered if they can make use of their strengths, yet underpowered if they can't. To apply that to your example, your team of 8 warriors will probably do well against teams with multiple casters and average to no defense against physical damage (the last one being somewhat rare in the current meta) because the second team has prepared itself for an opponent that also contains casters (with the skils that work specifically against casters being useless, the warrior team now has an advantage). But when they face a team with enough anti-frontline skills, they will lose, because the warriors cannot do anything other than attacking physically. Balanced is good at what it does because it chooses not to focus on any particualar strategy. Instead of choosing either front, mid or back, they choose to bring a bit of everything. If Team A decides to go 80% damage 20% healing, it's only natural that they will overpower the healers of Team B, which contains 50% damage and 50% healing. A skilled team B however, could adapt their strategy more easily than a Team C which contains 20% damage and 80% healing. None of those teams are overpowered, but uneven matchups are possible. 145.94.74.23 11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, when the Warrior team loses against a team with enough physical damage, it isn't a big deal to them, because the warrior team knows it's weaknesses and is generally not used to win multiple times in a row. Balance however, is designed to be able to do at least something against just about everything, but it isn't designed to win just 1 or 2 matches: it was created with a long term goal in mind. That makes it extra frustrating if they encounter one of those teams and lose, but that doesn't make those teams overpowered in my eyes. Just different and frustrating. 145.94.74.23 11:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let's look at this from a different perspective: We both agree that a balanced team runs a frontline, midline and backline, right? So, give me one build that requires thinking to use which doesn't follow the balanced team pattern. Dark Morphon 11:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The playstyle balance shouldn't be confused with the dictionary's defenition of the word and at any rate, I don't agree that a balanced game is limited to that setup. As for my answer to your question, I'd say that most of the current PvP builds require some degree of thinking. The fact that the balanced teambuild requires more thinking is due to it's flexible nature, but it would be unfair to say that the other builds don't require thinking, experience or you being behind the keyboard. Spike builds for example, may have a lesser amount of tactics availible, but don't require less teamwork. Spiking just anyone isn't nearly as productive as setting up an unexpected, well timed spike at the right target at exactly the right moment. 145.94.74.23 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A spike is usually included in a balanced build, actually. But let's look at spike teams. Ranger spike and IV spike come to mind. Both are about ranged damage so this should put your model to the ultimate test. Now, unlike you say, it doesn't matter who they pick because it's impossible to tell until the spike is there. Unlike spikes in balanced builds, there is no Warrior running towards you and there isn't a neon sign above your head that says "SPIKE HERE". So they can pick whoever they want whenever they want because the opposing team can't maintain 8 copies of Protective Spirit at the same time. Conclusion? Spike teams don't time their spikes. Also, it takes really little effort to say "3 2 1 spike" and use your skills on "spike". Anyone can do that. Dark Morphon 12:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it still does, because Protective Spirit isn't the only way you could stop those spikes. Shield sets, pre-emptive blinding or pre-nerf Aegis come to mind, but due to their high base armor, your physicals are unlikely to be the target of armor-respecting spikes, so that limits the number of potential targets as well. Even a simple Reversal of Fortune can stop a spike from being instagib and give your healers the time the need to catch it. Secondly, while the spiketeam (I was talking about the buildtype, not the tactic and I assumed you understood) can pick any target they like, they still have to pick the right target. They will have to be aware which targets are pre-protted and which aren't, they have to remove defenses and they have to decide what to take down first. Now, I'm not saying that it is difficult or easy, but to state that players who just mash buttons on the recharge will be an effective spike team capable of beating anything, well that's just not 100% true. 145.94.74.23 13:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is, you can't see those spikes coming. Furthermore, most spike teams run Shatter Storm or a similar skill, so if they want they can just totally remove every defense on a target. And even if it recharges, it takes really little effort to find a target without a yellow arrow besides his name. You say a simple RoF can stop spikes and Warriors aren't targetted because of their armor. This is not true. A ranger-spike deals way too much damage for that. These are all facts which you should know. Have you ever played against these teams? Dark Morphon 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If they remove defenses, then you know the most likely target for the next spike. And just looking for no yellow arrows isn't everything either: you will only know wheter or not the target is enchanted, not what it's enchanted with. Warriors not being immune to all spikes isn't really a problem either, as not every spike needs being stoppable by armor to be balanced. You can stop caster spikes by swapping to the right shield set because you can predict their damage type, and you can stop physical spikes by using blindness, block or blurred vision. But let's change sides for a change. Can you name RPG where you will never ever have an advantage over the other player no matter what build/skills you have? 145.94.74.23 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) And another thing is that you keep hammering on the fact that you can't stop unconventional teams using conventional methods. Well, that was kinda the essence of this discussion to begin with, and why I claimed that caster damage is a metaproblem and not a balance problem. Having a counter doesn't balance something, but not bringing one of the many not-niche counters that exist for something (even for good reasons, and I agreed the reasons were entirely justified) also doesn't mean that something is not balanced if you can't beat it. And with that, I have engaged in a repeating of arguments discussion, which I wanted to avoid. I'm gonna archive this now, so if you wish to learn more, I suggest you read the entire thing, not just enter halfway like you did this time. 145.94.74.23 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving mid-discussion is really rude you know. Dark Morphon 07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mid discussion? I was already done with the original discussion (twice no less) until you continued it by switching to an entirely different topic. 145.94.74.23 10:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

lol

at the idea that spike builds can be balanced if they ignore armor and can't be caught. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

at the idea that you read single sentences instead of everything I write, taking everything out of context and trying to make it look as if I say things I never did. 145.94.74.23 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Protip: When I don't use capitals ever, or when I don't use lowercase ever, I'm not serious. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Let's exchange pro-tips, as pro's amongst outselves: apply the same logic to my posts, except the I's - they're annoyingly consistent and will be written in the largest way possible. Come to think of it, English is a rather self-centered language... 145.94.74.23 05:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright

Show me a build that completely counters Ranger spike. It doesn't matter how much defense it has, how much it sucks against other teams. Dark Morphon 09:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked so nicely, I'll tell you. Blinding Surge/Blinding Flash elementalists, with enough block to cover each party member most of the time, and a little Blurred Vision on the side. That should counter their damage output by enough to allow your healers to keep the party alive. But it won't work against everything else you'll say. Well, that was my point to begin with I'll say. The problem isn't that there aren't enough (non-niche) counter m'lad, it's the fact that you can only bring 8 skills per character that's the problem. You'll be able to plan ahead to some degree, but you can't stop huge amounts of physical damage unless you want to be weak against everything else. And by the way, this is the third time you made me repeat my original point, which had little to do with Ranger Spike in the first place. 145.94.74.23 10:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That will just lead to stalemates. Rspike has a shitload of defense as well. Dark Morphon 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm done talking with you, since you seem focused solely on a discussion about Ranger spike and nothing else. Ranger spike can be stopped like any other build if you specifically design a counter for it, and you know it. Archived wheter you think it's rude or not. 145.94.74.23 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just telling me such a counter exists won't make it automatically real. I think this is a very relevant point. Dark Morphon 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of humouring you any further over things that have no relevance to the original subject. My model is still valid, because even if this build was uncounterable (it is not), it would suffice to say that the build doesn't meet the criteria to exist within the balanced game, thus automatically doesn't fit into the balance of the metagame subdomain, and thus should be altered (nerfed if you will) in order to fit in the balanced game. But that doesn't mean it needs to be altered to fit into the metagame subdomain. Ergo it can be balanced without changing it's position in the current meta. 145.94.74.23 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)