User talk:Ash Dragonshadow/Archive 1

WAY WAY WAY Overdone

→ moved from Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20110210

The following text has become a) off-topic b) highly repetitive c) concerns dervishes in their current state which is not applicable, or d) concerns professions which are not addressed in this skill preview, and should be brought to a user-created Feedback. G R E E N E R 06:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Large scale balance updates are never a good thing to do over time..."

...except that, if you read point #2, in my experience dervs didn't need a large scale update. A few tweaks here and there, and *boom!* everything's cool (see: update to Blood necs, Hammer warriors in PvE, etc.). Instead, we're getting a largely unnecessary reboot of the entire class.Ash Dragonshadow 04:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Necromancers were fine except for the blood line. Same for warriors and their hammer skills. Dervishes, however, are terrible. They are terrible at healing, they are terrible at enchantment snuggling (their main play style!), they are terrible at spreading conditions, they are terrible at energy management, they are terrible at bar compression - 90% of their skills are terrible, and the only good thing they have, the scythe, is better used by melee professions. If you were to "tweak" the dervishes, what would you do? Make them the best at using the scythe? That's nice, but what about the entire failure of their play style, attribute and most of their skills?

"Dervishes, however, are terrible..."*sigh* Another person who doesn't read before they argue. I have said (repeatedly) that, in my experience, dervishes are perfectly fine as they are now. In fact, as far as melee is concerned, they actually outclass warriors at the moment (I can tank w/ my derv much better than most warriors I've seen). Any issues w/ the class would have been better addressed w/ smaller updates over the course of a few months.

As to the "90% of their skills suck" comment... compared to what? If any profession has a right to that claim (I may as well copy/paste this to a txt file and just copy/paste it back until people stop ignoring it) it's paragons. I can throw together quite a few working builds in Wind or Earth Prayers that will kick serious ass in PvE or PvP... can you say the same thing about paras? Didn't think so.Ash Dragonshadow 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dervishes are regulated to hexway and smiteway in PvP because they're not particularly useful; Paragons, on the other hand, can be reliably subbed into any iteration of balanced and be successful. Therefore, I'm calling "BS" on "I can throw together quite a few working builds in Wind or Earth Prayers that will kick serious ass in PvE or PvP... can you say the same thing about paras? Didn't think so."

In PvE, dervs are outclassed, too. They don't do as much damage as, well, anything. Their "tanking" isn't even really an option when permaform exists. And, since all they can do is, well, tank and damage worse than other things, there's no reason to take one.

That being said, paragons are already slated for a major update of their own. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish. — Raine Valen 21:04, 14 Feb 2011 (UTC)

^ --ilr 22:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This statement...

"Paragons, on the other hand, can be reliably subbed into any iteration of balanced and be successful."

...shows that you are completely out of touch with the GW player base. No one would support it. In fact, the #1 thing I hear is that paras should be removed from GW because (aside from imbagons) they are "useless." When you actually start playing the game again, you can have an argument... until then, accept the fact that ANet are making a ridiculously big (and useless) update to the wrong class, and have a nice day.Ash Dragonshadow 01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There are imbagons in PvP? — Raine Valen 1:23, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, partial changes should never be released. In this case, anet isn't reworking a few dervish skills; they're reworking dervishes.

It is nice that you feel that dervishes don't need large-scale changes; I disagree and, apparently, so does Anet. — Raine Valen 21:11, 14 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Ash, you might want to refrain from telling a LOT of people who play GW that "NO ONE" would support what they are saying. You do not speak for the whole community, as is evident by the amount of opposition your position is getting. If you have a personal opinion about this update preview, that's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing that it is widely held by the majority of the player base. I have been watching the forums and this page since this was posted, and I can tell you that the overwhelming response from the GW player base is positive and that you will find yourself in the very small minority. I haven't seen so much praise for something that ArenaNet has done in literally years. -- Wyn talk 02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord LEARN TO READ!!!

Did I say, "The community won't support the changes to dervs?" EVER? No, I did not.

I said, "The dervish updates are unnecessary." I said, "The update itself is way too much all at once." I said, "Paragons needed an update long before dervs did" (and I said it back when mesmers got their update!!!).

This is not opinion. This is based experimentation (with various derv builds, using every derv elite I have, which is all of them), observation, and actually *gasp* talking to players in the game rather than on forums. It's based on getting reported for leeching in FA because I dared to play a paragon there (not an isolated incident, and it still happens about once a week). It's based on my training as a PC tech and a programmer (both of which tell me that making enormous sweeping changes to a system is bad practice).

Furthermore, none of the opposition to my position is coming from ANet's staff, which is who this is supposed to be directed at. It's coming from random individuals who I do not know, nor do I care who they are. Everything they have said in opposition, I have addressed.

If you have nothing else constructive to add to the debate, have a nice day.Ash Dragonshadow 04:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"No opposition from anet"

Uh. They're updating the profession. Just so we're clear.

"Broad, sweeping changes are bad"

Yeah, okay. Anet, again, feels differently. That aside, there's been reasoning thrown at you and you've not addressed it; Lillium makes good points.

"Derv update is unnecessary; paras need it more"

Paragons can get into hardcore parties; dervishes cannot. This applies to pve and pvp. This has already been stated and you have not addressed it.

"I talk to PLAYERS, man!"

The people on forums are also players, and are representative of it. More importantly, the players on forums are the ones that anet listens to. Your argument is invalid.

At least have the courtesy to read the opposition; otherwise, you're just ranting. — Raine Valen 4:57, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

I did address every single point everyone's made. If you can't read simple English, I pity you.Ash Dragonshadow 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ash, casting scorn on those who disagree with you isn't winning you any support. It is your position that Dervishes aren't the worst profession in the game. It is everyone else's position that they are. If you want to keep Dervishes the way they are, look into starting a private server. elix Omni 05:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ash, just because you type "I did address every single point everyone's made," does not mean you have addressed every single point that everyone has made. Example: said statement was your response to several points made by Raine directly above it, of which it addressed none. How can said statement possibly be true? Please, take your own "advice" before you give it to others. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 05:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this shit on MY talk page instead of where it belongs? Move it NOW.Ash Dragonshadow 06:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"The following text has become a) off-topic b) highly repetitive c) concerns dervishes in their current state which is not applicable, or d) concerns professions which are not addressed in this skill preview, and should be brought to a user-created Feedback. G R E E N E R 06:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)"<--that- Zesbeer 06:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)