User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Izzy Talk Archive 13

Maps

Just wanted to ask, who is in charge of balancing maps because alot of people are complaining about Fetid River. So basically I'm wondering whether we should QQ to User:Andrew Patrick or you lol. Antiarchangel 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

me is fine, it's pretty much my domain. Izzy @-'---- 01:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Fetid River? ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's so small that "adjacent" AoE is difficult to avoid? Well, maybe that's an exaggeration, but the problem with all HA maps is that they're way too small and AoE rules, especially with the tiny cap points, and Fetid is the smallest of the lot. -- Armond Warblade 08:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing that sets HA apart from GvG is that HA is almost always 8v8 whereas gvg almost never is. There is nothing wrong with Fetid River, in fact, it's probably the MOST balanced of all the maps in HA because of its simplicity. It really isn't that small, and the only thing that makes it slightly imba is dropping ranger spirits up on those bridges. That's more of a ranger spirit range issue than a map flaw. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a well designed map. It's too small for the priests to really matter. You can't send a squad to gank the priest to force a split because there's no room to actually split. =\ Priest maps in arenas are my favorites but this map is pretty boring imo. I wouldn't say it's broken though. --TimeToGetIntense 13:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, when people that just bought the game and have literally no skill can throw on a few fire ele skills and run around dropping AoE on everyone and win, I'd say there's a problem... -- Armond Warblade 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Putrid Flesh

it can be used on allies aswell, i can use it with Zealots Fire :D, but anyway where are we supposed to report things like that? --Cursed Angel 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mysticism

Why is there a healing benefit with it anymore? I understand the old nerf on the absurd energy gain from it, but would putting in some decent healing (i suggest between 2 and 3/rank) be unbalanced? ~ ZamaneeJinn 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a healing benefit with it, but only a small one: "Whenever an Enchantment ends, you gain 1 Health for each rank of Mysticism and 1 Energy for every 3 ranks of Mysticism." Mysticism ~A. Von Rin~

Pretty sure that he means why bother? Its such a small amount that it makes almost no difference in anything ever. --Deathwing 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It adds up if you have Monk support I guess. It would have to give bonus health for ending Dervish Enchantments if it were buffed. I really don't like the idea of giving Dervishes any more of a heal whenever a RoF, PS, SoA, Guardian, Aegis, etc... happens to end on them. --TimeToGetIntense 13:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for making it only work for Dervish enchantments...and make all the "lose enchantments" skills only work for Dervish skills. Would possibly help the whole concept of what a Dervish was supposed to be. --Deathwing 23:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Izzy dont listen to these crackpots suggestions above, Dervish's are fine as it is with Mysticism. Don't make Dervishs even more unplayable with your 2 Mystic Regen nerfs.--122.108.8.47 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because mystic regen really mattered in GvG, etc, amirite? -- Armond Warblade 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

People here aren't talking about killing a skill but to maybe adjust the primary attribute... (and it was about to buff the healing amount, not to nerf it) ^^ A. von Rin 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Healing and Protection

This is something that has bugged me for a while. Why does Protection have not only powerful damage mitigation, but also powerful healing? On the other hand, healing only has limited healing skills. It doesn't heal all types of damage that can be caused. At this point you might say "what are you on, time?! there's just one type of damage, that's damage!" What about conditions and hexes? Those are negative things that you can either prevent from happening or remove(heal). They are a type of damage that Healing Prayers can't heal. That's what I'm getting at here. Protection has loads of skills that repair what you've let by your defenses and healing ONLY has skills that do that ONLY for hitpoint damage. Although you've added skills like Cure Hex, for the most part, Healing has limited skills while Protection has versitile skills that do way more than protect. Why didn't Protection Prayers get things that would prevent the next condition or the next hex or stuff like that rather than healing the hexes and conditions after the fact?

Will this still be the case in GW2? To me it makes little sense and I think it's made it very difficult for you guys to make Healing Prayers worth running. This has only been achieved by giving Healing Prayers uber power elites while Protection Prayers actually has good skills. If Protection Prayers wasn't so damn good at making the bars go up, it would be a different story. I think anything with "Restore", "Mend" etc... in it's name should be in Healing Prayers. --TimeToGetIntense 13:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat what you said about healing "It doesn't heal all types of damage that can be caused.". I indeed would like to say, "what are you on?" No matter what kind of damage hit you, healing prayers WILL make the bars go up, nothing conditional about that. How did you come up with the statement that some types of damage are not healed by healing prayers? In fact, it is 100% the other way round: Healing Prayers will unconditionally heal everything, whereas Protection prayers will only protect if you correctly anticipated the type of damage (you put on PS against many small packets of damage, bad luck. You put on shielding hands against a big spike, bad luck again. You used RoF against degen, out of luck once more). To be balanced, protection has to be stronger in ideal conditions, because those ideal conditions will not always be meet.

I guess you wanted to complain about the lack of anti-condition/hex skills in healing prayers, but that is a whole different story. --Xeeron 15:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Only thing wrong in prot is ZB. Now that's just a heal. Antiarchangel 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is silly especially with the added skills from GW:EN and current skill balances for healing prayers. Red bar goes up power has always been necessary but achieving it has been changing with the meta (divine boon etc.) The current one focuses back on healing prayers in a larger way than before (WoH/patient spirit/cure hex and LoD/goh before this etc.) i herd hybrids r gud and healing prayers does have a few good skills now but it mostly has to deal with red bars. PlacidBlueAlien 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What about smiting? :( --Deathwing 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Antiarchangel, I never got why ZB was put in there, it just says "screw healing". --Epinephrine 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Healing Hands and Healing Seed are both in healing prayers, yet Spirit Bond is in protection prayers, even though they do pretty much the same thing, one of them just requires the hit to be over 60 to take its effect. VegaObscura 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There's barely anything "mitigating" about condition/hex removal. If you think removing negative effects is a mitigating action, you could also consider healing raw damage a mitigating action. That is, it mitigates death. The way I see it, Protection should prevent things from happening while Healing should fix things that happened already. Most spells in Protection make the bars go up as well as mitigate damage or remove a condition. It's true we've got some more Healing skills in the meta now, but it took forever and Protection is still the stronger attribute. --TimeToGetIntense 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

healing heal any type of damage, even if the damage came from a hex or condition. plz delete ur monk and never pvp again --Cursed Angel 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The "damage" caused by a hex or condition is more than just hitpoint damage. It's damage to your attack speed, move speed, cast speed, etc... It's something you have to get rid of that got past your defenses. When you need to remove a hex or condition, it's a reactive action, not a preemptive action. --TimeToGetIntense 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that Protection Prayers is better than Healing Prayers at "healing" conditions such as Bleeding, Blindness, Deep Wound and Weakness. -- Gordon Ecker 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and all of the skills that do that also have hitpoint healing tacked on as well. Makes sense amirite? --TimeToGetIntense 10:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Move a condition removal skill to healing imo Anti 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good if like, Mend Ailment was moved into Healing Prayers and made a little stronger somehow, like make the heal count the Condition removed as well. --TimeToGetIntense 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much, all the skills with "healed" in Protection prayers could be changed to Reversal of Fortune's wording "gain" instead of "healed". (Mark of Protection,Extinguish,Mend ailment,Mending Touch,Mend condition,Restore Condition,Dismiss Condition,Shield Guardian,Spirit Bond,Zealous Benediction) --Life Infusion «T» 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is notable that health gain is not reduced by Deep wound while "healing" is. --Life Infusion «T» 23:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly it wouldn't bother me any less if it was "health gain". The problem I have is how Protection Prayers has too many health gain and removal skills. The way many of the skills function is not in a mitigating manner. --TimeToGetIntense 11:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with time that prot is often better at healing then healing is, but i dont think too many changes need to be made. just a few trades... send - healing hands (elite), healing seed, and dwaynas sorrow into protection... and send - divert hexes(elite), mend condition, mending touch into healing prayers - imho these 3 would be the best trades but feel free to suggest other 76.26.189.65 01:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Healing Seed/Healing Hands are reactive and work most of the time since everything is damage unless it is life steal, health loss, sac, or degen. Spirit Bond is an anomaly in that it heals but it is proactive due to it being only useful in certain situations. I sort of agree with TimetoGetIntense about the condition removals, but you could probably give the rationale that it is proactive in that you are preventing damage/inefficiency/debuff from the condition(s).--Life Infusion «T» 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that was the logic behind putting removals into Protection. By the same logic, healing HP mitigates death. Anyway, I'm more hoping to see if this will change in GW2. --TimeToGetIntense 07:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Prot is still conditional healing any way you cut it (Dismiss Condition, Spirit Bond included). Zealous Benediction is an oddity but it would be pretty bad if it was in Healing Prayers. Healing prayers is a greater, guaranteed, heal in return for no sort of advantage due to it being so straightforward and reactive. The reason why Prot is good is because healing someone doesn't save them enough in most cases and mechanically if used well Prot is skillful play. Guild Wars works towards rewarding skillful play instead of button-mashing for the most part (arguably except assassin combos...). When autoattacks do upwards of 50 damage with high weapon mastery, then you need to stop people from dying instead of healing since the flow of damage will be faster than your flow of heals but virtue of cast time. If you heal even for 255 (Healer's Boon + Heal Other), a few scythe criticals will negate your heal. Restoration Magic is a perfect example of why prot is stronger since both heal and prot factor into that attribute. In the Restoration line, people use Vengeful Weapon and Weapon of Warding more so than mediocre heals simply because even the most powerful heals (Mend Body and Soul ~109, Wielder's Boon ~128, and Spirit Light ~172) aren't enough to save people from heavy pressure from melee. You could take a gamble with Spirit Transfer for ~235 conditional healing but why bother jeopardizing someone? It simply isn't enough to heal ~110 HP when a critical from a scythe does that much. You're always going to be at an energy deficit since it costs nothing to attack but it costs energy and time to heal. Another thing is Deep Wound dulls Healing Prayers (and healing in general). With Deep Wound in the game, Healing Prayers basically relegates itself to power heals, since spamming heals with 25% less efficiency doesn't get you far (100%/80%) and puts you at 0 energy.--Life Infusion «T» 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If Healing had the removal skills, it would be pretty awesome though. At the same time, Protection would still own due to damage mitigation being awesome. Also, Protection could always hybrid better... Divine Boon, Gift of Health. Healing Prayers never got a hybrid skill like Gift of Health. What I mean is a Protection skill that is powerful and cheap but disables your other Protection skills. Also, Protection skills tend to work very well at 9 Protection or so. That's another issue, but I'm not sure if anything can be done about it. --TimeToGetIntense 05:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is something that has always bugged me too. Although recently with the large buffs to healing, it is becoming more common. I always thought that ZB is totally in the wrong place. I never understood why all the protection skills heal too. I always thought they should 'protect' against things, such as mend/dismiss condition removing and protecting against the next condition, not healing depending on if a condition is met. Protection has always been stronger than healing because it can prevent damage as well as heal it, but the main thing is the cast time of protection prayers. There are very few skills in protection that take a full second to cast, while in healing 1 second seems standard, one second or three-forths of a second. When you're in the middle of a battle and somebody is getting beat down, you just dont have a second to wait, you need your healing now. --Lou-Saydus 16:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly it was just the nature of how things came to be, what we found out was healing is such a active roll that if it's not super fast, it's not practical, and thus healing which was designed to be slower and more powerful heals, while prot was meant to be faster with smaller heals ended up being a bad para dime. We've been slowly moving away from it and giving Healing faster stuff but because of that shift and us not reworking all of the prot skill there is just going to be some imbalances between the two, our goal is more of mixed builds with one prot and one healer at the moment. Which seems to be happening. Izzy @-'---- 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think right now its fine, because we are seing hybrid bars which in my opinion is a sign of balance... Its not like prot-prayers dont take skill... And I think you're forgetting how good infuse is. Just leave it. User 24.141.45.72 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Shadow damage (since it isn't a skill)

There's nothing to specifically combat it so it could be changed to just "damage". The terminology is more or less flavor text, just like Hamstring's cripple target foe "slowing his movement". It feels like a remnant of prophecies akin to the light damage that was on wands and staves. It should probably be just "damage" to reduce the length of skill descriptions (like in Jaundiced gaze/Oppressive gaze/Blood of the aggressor/Vile Touch/Signet of Agony/Wither and all mesmer skills). Spiteful Spirit, Dark Pact, Defile Enchantments/Desecrate Enchantments, Deathly Chill, Feast of Corruption, Lifebane Strike/Shadow Strike, Touch of Agony/Wallow's Bite, Mark of Pain all suffer from this. --Life Infusion «T» 19:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's so bad about skill flavor? If anything I'd like to see flavor text on skills in GW2 like MTG cards had. --TimeToGetIntense 23:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, just like how Belly Smash says "the resulting dust cloud blinds opponents." I still laugh at that. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

well it is added fluff. If it was like the hamstring flavor, it would be different. The shadow damage thing misleads people into thinking it is special like holy damage. --Life Infusion «T» 02:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it could be changed to damage because there is no difference between shadow damage and armor ignoring damage, which is sad. I think it is better when damage types feel different because just another name or animation doesn't add anything to the game, not sure if anet will ever understand this. It is pitty that only holy damage feels unique. Zealous 12:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Isnt it "special" in that it ignores armor? So its simply an easier way to say armor ignoring damager every time? Saying its just damage could lead people to think armor affects it, when it doesnt.--riceball 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All untyped damage (and holy damage from skills) ignores armor. All calling it "shadow damage" as opposed to plain old "damage" like in mesmer skills is just added fluff as I said earlier. The game needs more consistency, since skills after prophecies more or less took away the "shadow damage" type. The way it is now you have physical, elemental, wand damage (chaos/dark/holy ...all non armor ignoring though physical/elemental armor bonuses don't affect it), armor ignoring damage (untyped/bonus damage), armor ignoring holy damage from skills, and armor ignoring shadow damage. --Life Infusion «T» 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

stfu, honestly, there's more important things that need fixing than wording. i have no idea why they keep wasting time getting wording right for skills on effects bar or that recent "i used whatever" shit.

if there is something you think is important to fix go post it, nothing is stopping you from doing so. It takes less time to reword than to think of repercussions of skill balances. --Life Infusion «T» 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GW:EotN Items

Not sure whether this is the right place to ask, but are gwen items ever going to be available as pvp rewards?--62.240.178.246 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

nope they will make all PvP into a big mass and only giving the richest players chanced to win --Fox007 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking about GW:EN weapons and armor or are you asking about consumables? If you're asking about consumables, Fox explained why it'll never happen. -- Gordon Ecker 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

weapons and armor ofc --62.240.178.246 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just get them in PvE, put them on a PvP character and say you're special. — ク Eloc 貢 23:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i dont have a pve char and i'm never gonna make one. --62.240.178.246 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

then it sux2bu --Cursed Angel 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you're cutting yourself off from a HUGE aspect of the game.- Vanguard 15:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh i love the kindyness between players <3 --Fox007 16:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

huge indeed, terribad nevertheless --89.103.131.48 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

John our Item guy is working on them, there was some bugs that stopped it from going on the AT reward guy. Izzy @-'---- 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

quick

ok Quick* its 2:20EST, watch the best before[apr] vs. revive teamates [rezz] Nd then telle me hex pressure isnt imba.... User 24.141.45.72 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The most noticeable thing I saw in that game was how broken these dervish telespikers are. --Lytel 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

that and hex pressure is imba User 24.141.45.72 20:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to see what Hex pressure does with the Derv spikes running around. Izzy @-'---- 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

does the new update adress d-spike? User 24.141.45.72 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hammers and Bows vs. other (two handed) Weapons

It seems to me that these two weapon classes are too weak compared to other 2-handed weapons. Daggers have the highest IAS because of their Dual-Strikes (and their skills do very high damage which buffs the low damage of daggers) and Scythes have AoE damage (and a high weapon damage which also favors crits). Both can equal the lack of a shield to Axes and Swords.

My suggestion is to give under powered hammer attack skills cracked armor as an bonus condition what would be more "realistic" against hard targets because of the blunt damage and would not be problematic thinking that these skills were under powered before (which skills, has to be discussed). Besides this Hammers should have an increasement of KD time by 1 second because they are the primay knock down weapons, which isnt't obvious because all Warrior-Builds can have a KD increasement with Stonefist Insignia. This shouldn't be OP, if you remember that Stonefist Insignia has a cap at 3 seconds of KD time (no bad synergy), but Hammer-Warriors were the only ones without need of bringing this insignia and would overall benefit most of KDs (that's what already should be).

All Bows should gain an 10% armor penetration (increasement to 20% armor penetration @ Hornbows, because they already have 10%) to increase their overall damage and make them more viable at spikes. This weapon class seems to be designed (besides pressuring with condition spamming) especially for dealing spike damage - Rangers don't have a very good DPS like Warriors or good AoE damage like Elementalists.

Both changes would maybe equal this two weapon classes to the other ones.

I'm ready for the upcoming flame ("No one cares", "fail" and "epic fail" are my favourite ones)! So don't be shy and please discuss this suggestion (statement or flame from Izzy to this subject would be appreciated). ;o) A. von Rin 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Epic fail. Really though, don't buff rspike anymore thanks. — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 01:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the bow's range is really their strong point; being able to hit people that can't reach you yet gives you that much more time to kill them.

Hammers... well, they already have a lot of knockdowns in their favor, and a few ways to cause/capitalize on Weakness... some CrAr skills might be nice as well, though. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Daggers actually have the lowest DPS of any weapon (hornbow might be lower), and Hammers have the highest. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 02:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Melee doesn't deserve cracked armor. --Life Infusion «T» 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

@ life: So, sundering weapon sucks? melee does not deserve cracked armour is only because of BB, which needs a slight hit to the damage. @ shard, scythes to more DPS than hammers due to crit hits, esp at moving ones, or so I recall. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpgnuke7File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

no one cares, this idea was epic fail --Cursed Angel 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

melee doesn't deserve access to cracked armor since it basically makes midline cracked armor application pointless. Guild Wars is a team game and if every profession could do everything then it would defeat the point of secondary professions. As for Hammers being underpowered they are underpowered against axes not scythes. Scythes do more damage DPSwise, but you rely on a cruddy IAS (Heart of Fury/Whirling Charge/Pious Fury) that is hard to upkeep and on a squishy character (unless run run Balthazar). Before Pious Assault you basically had to run Melandru if you wanted a sure-fire deepwound and Scythes don't interrupt or knockdown. Hammer warriors have more disruption/anti-kite from knockdown and crushing blow means it isn't that hard to apply deep wound even without Body Blow and cracked armor. Hammer also has higher bonus damage than Scythes courtesy of Mighty Blow, and strength skills like Body Blow. Strength means you can use Protector's Strike to increase attack rate, and the oh-so-important-in-PvP Bull's Strike makes it useful when things run before your adrenaline is built up. Block ruins scythe damage, but Irresistible Blow makes it semi-okay to deal with if you cannot switch targets. Sure, you could run Irresistible Sweep for anti-block with the non-intuitive enchantment cycling... You can lineback with hammers' Counterblow, you cannot do anything worthwhile with scythes for the most part other than pump out pure damage that SPirit Bond dulls to nothing. You don't run hammer for DPS you know. --Life Infusion «T» 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please... don't speak unless you play PvP. "Bows are underpowered" ... are you KIDDING? Ranger spike is still one of the most common spike builds around!--'ÑöẊĭƑý 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK: Buffing bows would be bad because of Ranger Spikes = answer: the idea of armor penetration was maybe epic fail, but people pls start playing PvP (=GvG) and leave this unbalanced HA crap you are talking about... In GvG Ranger Spikes aren't common because they are nothing against SinSplits, Block Meta, Hex-Builds + BSurge Eles. Pls compare these stats Weapon Damage Overview and tell me again that bows aren't overshadowed by spears?! OK, than change my suggestion to: Nerf spears or increase (not armor penetration but) bows' basic damage (a bit). Life's points on hammers were quit good. I got this point, because synergies are better, but my suggestion for the weapon itself wasn't attacked (need more flame to be happy ^^) till now (only cracked armor suggestion for under powered skills, not for all skills). In Cursed we trust: my extra comment was especially for you and Readem. ;o) A. von Rin 02:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Melee isn't meant to have cracked armor if you look at all the skill synergies. Caster midline has all the cracked armor (N/E/ME/Rt) and physicals have the synergy (P/W/D/R). Monks, well, are monks. It's disturbing Assassins are left out of the whole thing which is why I suggested Blades of steel/fox fangs be changed to give it some synergy. I can't find the page right now but a while back when Cracked armor was first introduced Izzy said that physicals would not be given ways to cause cracked armor. I don't think he would suddenly change his mind considering that dualspeccing/picking certain secondaries just to get the cracked armor condition is basically the only thing holding back things like body shot from being insanity. --Life Infusion «T» 05:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole "synergy between casters and melee" that cracked armor is supposed to give us is extremely impractical. It's a result of the ANET devs not playing the game at a high level. They no longer have a grasp on how the game really works. Izzy does, but I believe less so that he did when he was in an active GvG guild. You're never going to see people try to actively use Cracked Armor to get the conditionals out of skills like Body Blow in high level play unless physicals get Cracked Armor. Also, Cracked Armor sucks so bad it's funny. It's funny to think that ANET thought it would be a useful condition. It doesn't let you deal epic damage so it's not actually a threat. The game is balanced so shit can survive at 60 AL. --TimeToGetIntense 06:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So did anyone observe Not Another Reform [NRF] run rspike in GvG last night? Heh. Rspike/bspike/xspike isn't run in GvG because of gameplay mechanics from what I understand (I'm not in the top 500 myself though.) Spikes require nearly the entire team to execute properly and a balanced team can roll the guild lord just as well or even better than the spike team since they can split a bit to keep the guild lord up before they die or whatever. There's no kill count etc. to worry about as the main goal is to kill the guild lord. One of those cases where it's easier said than done and you have to really be quick and on the ball compared to your opponents.Zealots of Shiverpeak (aka Anet's guild) are r600-r700 lower midrange (which I say is pretty respectable) and Anet does get feedback from top rated people as well. Izzy just doesn't necessarily listen all the time. This isn't always a good thing but at the very least, it isn't always a bad thing either. At times, he's a bit too slow for the community's taste and lets things stew around a bit to see how things end up but the fact that there is feedback going back and forth is a good sign I think and all this negativity isn't necessary as long as the dialogue continues. In any case, it was the ViO/VoD skill changes that made sinsplits popular and gave them the meta advantage. Switching subjects yet again, synergy between midline and front line has always existed so cracked armor didn't really give us anything new. The problem with the cracked armor requirement skills are a bit unwieldy to use and unreliable since there is no easy visual indication as to whether it was just dismissed/rc'ed off etc. in the middle of a spike or whatever. Just some FYI about some points being made though I hold no claims to it being totally in line with the mainstream PvP community. PlacidBlueAlien 08:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious roflcopter here. Hammers are not underpowered. They have backbreaker, end of discussion.

They have crushing blow, flail, devastating hammer, they are basically supreme on the stand because the incredible synergy with an axe warrior. (I prefer 1 axe 1 hammer to 2 axes) Furthermore, scythes have the highest damage, apart from a moebius/DB sin. Sorry to all those QQ, that is fact. They have eremites fast activation, they have pious super-spike, they have an awesome crit range... Hammers are not underpowered. Spears, however, are a different story. They basically out damage bows at an incredible passive chucking motion, and they do deserve a nerf. I'd suggest a nerf to the range or cutting the damage. As In, spears can have a quarter of their range that they do know and paragons suddenly become less OP. Oh, and rspike is pathetic.File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 15:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

o sry for 3...2...1.. rspiking you. you suck at infusing User 24.141.45.72 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In comparing bows to spears, I can see your point, but I think thats a matter of the base damage of a spear being too much, rather than a bow being too little. But in regards to hammers, I mean, wow. Hammers arent played much cause the typical role of a war is "tank." But if you get away from that mind set and just create an offensive hammer build, you can pull off some amazing things. A good hammer build centered around Backbreaker or Devastating Hammer can keep a target on their ass for 6+ seconds, and using the hammers massive low and high end damage, kill them before they can even get up. I play a monk in most pvp, and covering a hammer war is great. Ive seen ones take out squishies, and the squishy never even gets a spell off before biting it.--Ryudo 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be great to see some of the under-powered hammer attacks inflicting Cracked Armor. Of course, definitely not any of the bigger attacks or the elites, but perhaps something like Enraged Smash could inflict it if you have a certain number of adrenal skills charged or something. As for bows, I don't think the damage should be increased at all. But I do think that something should definitely be done about the balance between spears and bows. I mean, spears have slightly shorter range. In exchange, a spear wielder gets: More damage, higher DPS, better condition application, AND a shield (+16 armor, etc.) It's hard to come up with something to buff bows that doesn't make Rspike completely IMBA but at the same time put them on par with spears. --Srakin 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

With the change of "Shields Up!" you now could even give Bows armor penetration and RSpike would still be crap (poor class)... -.- A. von Rin 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no it wouldn't. SU is bad because of its huge downtime. If you're talking about rangers trying to do DPS, then in all seriousness I will point you to PvE where that kind of thing (for the most part) works. Rangers were not, were never designed to do damage; they were designed for pressure via utility and splitability. When you've got a ranger ganker on your NPCs, you need to go back and deal with him, because he will kill your NPCs and he'll do it quickly enough that you need to react immediately. And then he runs away and gets back into the main group and starts throwing around dshots and savage shots and cripshots, and your team just got toolkit'd. Oh, and at any point in time at least six guys on your team are poisoned due to him (before your monks intervene, at least), unless you split bigger than that. Do we really need them trying (and failing) to do raw damage on top of that? Warriors are your damage, plain and simple, until you get into ANet-supported gimmicks. -- Armond Warblade 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, take a look at IPG vs NRF - rspike wipes every 2 minutes gogo? -- Armond Warblade 07:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If most people should agree that "Shields Up!" now isn't a total BuildWars skill against Para-Pressure and Rspike (decreasing base damage by about 60%) and agree that spears aren't superior (even without the advantage of a shield) to bows, then you might be right and I should play PvE again, were balancing isn't really important and you don't need various skills because you have Ursan... And you are right about Rangers being good at splitting as long as no E/Rt or something like that is in the base, because then you normally won't deal enough damage to kill something. Sins kill foes much faster, but Rangers can work better alone without being killed because of their distance to their target. On the other side they only have a bad selfheal skill and only deal damage slowly. Increasing the damage a bit (20-30 damage on bows for example) wouldn't destroy any balance we have now imho. But now I think it would be the best choice to change Spears damage maybe into 15-22 (like Swords or something like that) to balance these two weapon classes and Hammers are on their way back into the game so a buff isn't needed (but nevertheless would be nice ^^)... Overall: My suggestions failed, because the only really unbalanced weapon class seems to be Spears, which I understand now. A. von Rin 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

spears need to be like 10-20 considering how much support the paragon gives if run properly. It's like the ritspike phenomenon, you can't give a profession good support and good DPS at the same time. --Life Infusion «T» 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

With some exceptions (like Spear of Lightning), Spear Attacks are weaker or less practical than Bow Attacks and if the Paragon didn't have such a great energy management due to Leadership & adrenaline, Expertise would have balanced the two weapons. I mean, where a Ranger can interrupt, a Paragon needs a condition first. Where a Ranegr can spam Burning Arrow, a Paragon needs to build adrenaline first. That should have worked well in theory and I must admit that an Elementalist with Broad Head Arrow (don't ask) works a lot better than Stunning Strike against the Fragment of Antiquities. So there are some downsides to the spear... Nicky Silverstar 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, spears are not powerful for their utility, nicky. They are powerful because they have an awesome passive damage which happens to fuel their energy. Oh, and let's not forget that paragons have the best IAS in the game. That, along with range, sword-level dps, and a broken primary makes Spears so damn good. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was exactly my point. I agree that they are (too) powerful compared to bows, but they lack the utility that the bow has. Melee weapons too, have reliable interrupts, AoE possibilties and multiple attacks in a single attack skill. Those are all things that the spear lacks. I just wanted to add that to the discussion. Nicky Silverstar 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interrupts are a main feature of the ranger class. Bringing them into discussion is like bringing up paragons shout/chant support. And melee interrupts aren't great either. Dmg mods on spear and bowattacks are comparable. Lack of utility i fail to see, they have same utility than bow attacks. If you consider that spears get deep wound i would say they get even more utility. What is left after all is a one handed weapon (shields+mods) with a much higher dps than a 2 handed weapon (and that is already using short bows for comparison, others are even worse). Only thing that goes for bows are preparations, but they come at the cost of a 2 sec cast (interrupts, drop in dps) and a skill slot. A little buff here would be reasonable. If you fear rspike just make it a slight reduction in swing time, won't change spike dmg but increase dps.

With hammers i see the only issue the lack of high dmg hammer attacks. It already does more raw dps than its 1h brothers. But then they bring plenty of knock down and that is already baaaad. Making them have inherent stonefist would be a very dangerous move. There is a reason stonefist are restricted to warriors. You really want thumpers to run around with 1 sec longer knock downs? Beetlejuice 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right about thumpers, but I don't like Non-Hammer Warriors to have 3 second knockdowns tbh. So why don't change Stonefist Insignias to only work with Hammers? Wouldn't be abusive by thumpers and would improve Hammers on KD duration compared to Swords and Axes without increasing KD duration overall! A. von Rin 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Beetlejuice, I think you need a reality check. Spears having the same utility as bows? And perhaps even more? Since when did spears have Cripshot, since when did they have Dshot, since when did they have savage shot, since when did they have Deliberating Shot, and since when did spears have BHA or even BA? Look, here it is plain and clear: Bows are weak because bow skills are fucking awesome. Ranger damage is weak because ranger utility is the best there is. Ranger dps is weak because rangers have awesome long-range attacks with their superb self defense. Spears are not OP compared to bows, they are OP because they get to apply the dps of a fucking sword warrior at bow range, which is hilarious balance-wise. Oh, and there is nothing wrong with hammers. Hammers are awesome. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

About the interrupts, read above. That is a main feature of rangers, as shouts and chants are a main feature of paragons. Paragons don't get word of healing or protective spirit either, doesn't mean there is something wrong with them, does only mean they are a different class than the monk. About the rest you mentioned: Crippling Anthem, Maiming Spear, Anthem of Flame, Blazing Spear, Stunning Strike. But of course you are right, they don't have a bow attack called Broad Head Arrow... but then why should they? They run around with a spear most of the time anyway. That is because they are paragons, not rangers. I know that is hard to understand for some people that classes are actually different.

But back to spear/bow utility, as shown above they can spread daze and crippling, they can spread bleeding, the only thing they lack is debilitating shot (truly an overpowered skill), but in return they can end stances (Wild Throw) and also spread weakness and deep wound. Wanna see a ranger who does that with his o so overpowered attack skills. And don't even start with strong defense... Beetlejuice 09:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The point being that Paragons cannot do all of those things unconditionally, or just as well. Burning Arrow deals way more damage than Blazing Spear, and is more spammable. All Paragon Crippling takes at least 2 skills and is less spammable. Stunning Strike is also conditional, where Broad Head Arrow is not, and from experience I can tell than Broad Head Arrow is a lot better when it comes to interrupting.

Yes, they can do a lot of things other professions can too, but the fact remains that they cannot do those things as well. If you ever played a Paragon interrupter then you should understand. Nicky Silverstar 10:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then don't play a paragon interrupter. You don't play a monk frontliner either, do you? Rangers can't do party support as well as Paragons can, that's because that's not their job, as interrupting is not the job of a paragon. Is all this classes are different stuff really so hard to understand? Beetlejuice 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Burning Arrow is also elite, blazing spear not. The only other skill crippling anthem needs is an attack skill and you should have at least one equipped anyway. And while it might be slightly less spamable, it effects your whole team, not just your attack. And stunning strikes condition is easy met, while in pvp it is hard with bha flight curve to hit anything, unless of course you only use it in melee range, at which point you just could use Spear Swipe as a paragon, not conditional and not even elite.

Yes they do things differently (Hint again, since it seems to be really complicate: they are different classes) but you can't say they lack the utility of a ranger if they can do everything a ranger can and more. And even have 2 choices for most things, elite and non elite. When did you last see a ranger running around with crippling shot, burning arrow and broadhead arrow? A paragon with crippling, burning and dazed on the other hand is possible with several different combinations. Beetlejuice 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Well, then don't play a paragon interrupter. You don't play a monk frontliner either, do you? Rangers can't do party support as well as Paragons can, that's because that's not their job, as interrupting is not the job of a paragon. Is all this classes are different stuff really so hard to understand? Beetlejuice 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)"

No, it isn't, but, like you just admitted, Rangers are better at interrupting than Paragons, which means that Rangers have better interrupt utility, which was the point I was trying to make. Nicky Silverstar 08:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i never even denied it. Like i never denied that monks heal better than rangers. Weapon dps is the matter of this section, not the distribution of main features among the classes. So if you think that warriors should get better nukes or paragons better interrupts that is something that does not really belong here. If on the other hand you think that the ranger main feature interrupts is a balancing issue for bow dps then you also have to look at the paragon main feature, which is a wide array of partywide support (heals, prots, emanagement, offensive buffs...). That's how balancing works, you have to look at the goodies on both sides, not just on one and then complain.

Spears have a dps of 13,666, short bows one of 10,75 and recurve bows one of 8,958. That means spears do 27% more raw dmg than shortbows and 52% more raw damage than recurve bows. That is a pretty steep difference, especially considering that spears are a 1h weapon, so you have room for additional 16 al and 2 mods. Saying that this is ok because rangers have interrupts is like saying that monks should get better armor than eles because they have weaker nukes or vice versa eles should get better armor than monks because they have weaker heals. Beetlejuice 13:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Beetle, I'll keep this short, but I'll elaborate later. You compare Cripanthem to cripshot. You compare BA to bspear. You compare ranger interrupts to para chants. You claim all paragons have chants (read: Chants and party support are natural to paragons, just like interrupts to rangers). You claim that paragons can do everything a ranger can and more. Now, I could explain why each and every of those points are false, buuut..

...I will. Crip Anthem is nowhere near Crip Shot. Cripshot is on-demand, unstoppable cripple. Crip anthem is nowhere near there. Crip anthem is worthless in a split. A paragon can't spam cripple on two warriors with CA. A paragon can't control his cripple. A Ranger can use it both offensively and defensively. Ranger: 1, paragon: 0. Blazing spear is nowhere near BA. BA is powerful because it allows a split-oriented ranger powerful DPS along with super utility. A Paragon who packs Bsear,, however, will probably get a lot less milliage out of it, due to adrenaline loss from GFTE and such. BA is powerful on a split. A paragon is not. Ranger: 2, Paragon: 0. Let's take a look at interrupts. Stunning strike, while a powerful skill (esp in multi-para teams) is nowhere near Dshot or savage shot. It is not even a comparison. If you still compare them, you really have to rethink that, or ask readem. You claim all paragons have party support on their bars. Lolwut? There are many, many paragons with offensive, dps oriented bars (which, after Incoming nerf, is the best bar config, except in multi-paragon teams). The only time a paragon is party support is in multi paragon teams, which is another topic and quite imba tbh. Oh, and you said rangers can't do party support well. Cripshot can, and does better support than any paragon. It slows defensively and offensively, it fits well on a bar with powerful interrupts, and it is fucking unblockable. A ranger has control. It can (and a good ranger will) control the enemy. A paragon can't. Now, I'm not saying they are not broken or anything, they are, but not when it comes to utility. Finally, I'd like you to think on this statement and rethink if it makes sense: Saying that this is ok because rangers have interrupts is like saying that monks should get better armor than eles because they have weaker nukes or vice versa eles should get better armor than monks because they have weaker heals. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement makes perfect sense and that you do not understand it doesn't change that because it is exactly what you do. You pick out the ranger focus, completely ignore the paragon focus and complain that rangers do the ranger job better than a paragon. It's like a ranger who would complain that he can't heal/buff/energize etc his party like a paragon can.

But you are right, paragons are worse in split situations. That might, just a thought here, have something to do that their main focus is earshot wide partysupport. So what do you expect of a class in a split situation which by design is most effective when you keep your party together?? A little tip, just don't use paragons in split groups.

About the cripshot/cripanthem comparison, some things you can do only with crip shot, some things only with crip anthem. Yes cripshot is more precise but therefore cripanthem allows you to spread much more crippling and spread it at once, making it much harder to remove. The comparison of blazing spear and burning arrow just by numbers like you did completely ignores that one is elite and the other not. Of course if you compare a split class with 3 elites equipped with a team class that only has 1 for a split situation then the split class will win anyday. Not really a surprise here. But that has nothing to do with balance and even less with weapon damages.

About comparing stunning strike with ranger interrupts, i never did that, i compared it to broad head arrow. Comparing ranger interrupts with paragon interrupts is, like mentioned above, like comparing monk and elementalist nukes. It just doesn't make sense.

So you can whine all day that a paragon can't do a rangers job but guess what, a ranger can't do a paragons job either. Classes are different, live with it. Beetlejuice 13:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh-hoo.. Okay, let's go: 'So you can whine all day that a paragon can't do a rangers job but guess what, a ranger can't do a paragons job either. Classes are different, live with it.' Okay, Aren't you the one arguing that a paragon has more utility than a ranger? Where am I ignoring paragon focus exactly? Haven't I already said that they have very decent support value at the stand? I'm just saying that they don't have the utility A ranger has. They don't. There is no comparison. I have proved this multiple times. Stunning strike is no comparison to BHA. BHA is on demand daze. You fail to see how powerful this is. Stunning Strike is a decent pressure skill, but BHA is much, much more lethal when it comes out to drastically up the pressure at the spike. There is no comparison.

Dude, you have to stop comparing Cripanthem to crip shot. Crip shot is so much more superior, in every aspect. Cripshot allows you to do on demand, unstoppable cripple. It also is much, much more frequent than a crip anthem (Bar zerg way). It is just better to have a cripshot than a crip anthem. Again, the power lies in the ability to control, which you fail to grasp. That is true utility. That is true power.

As for BA and Bspear - Look at the numbers. BA is about twice as powerful when it comes to dps. But that's not it. BA is dps for splits, while BSpear is a mediocre dps skill. The utility, the power of BA is tha it is deadly on a split - and don't ignore the utility of forcing a team to collapse on a split.

That statement does make no sense. Weapon damage is balanced on the skills available to them. Hammers are slow because they have KD's. Bows are weak because bow skills are awesome. Daggers hit weak, but their chains make up for it. Bow damage is slow because they have preps. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Weapon damage is balanced on the skills available to them. Exactly the point I was trying to make...spear damage is better than a bow, but spear utility is worse than a bow...and as an example, I used interrupts. I never said anything about Paragons wanting to do a Ranger's job or vice versa. Nicky Silverstar 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it for me in this thread. I said it all and you keep ignoring it. It's getting pointless. You keep arguing with split situations where obviously the split class is better than the team class, you keep comparing non elite attacks with elite ones. I tried to explain it to you but you obviously can't or don't want to understand the difference between split and team classes and between elite skills and non elite ones for that matter too. You try to argue balance of 2 very different classes by taking that very situation where the one class excels and the other sucks by design and use that to argue that a 50% dmg bonus on a 1h weapon over a 2h weapon is ok, completely ignoring that there are other situations where it is exactly the other way round. You can't argue with that, you can just shake your head and stop wasting your time. So have fun :o). Beetlejuice 09:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking the same thing. It is just a matter of opinion really. You say that attack skills don't matter, I say they do. I have stated before that spear damage is very powerful and that I agree that it might be too powerful. But I also say that attack skills should be taken into serious consideration when trying to balance the two. In most cases, bow attacks are more effective than spear attacks. And that creates game balance, not neccesarily weapon balance. Nicky Silverstar 09:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's hard, Beetle. "use that to argue that a 50% dmg bonus on a 1h weapon over a 2h weapon is ok" Find where I said this, and I take everything back. I get your point, but, lemme emphasize it, you completely ignore a rangers prowess at a split. You try to put words into my mouth. You put everything I said out of context. Yes, I compared Bspear to BA. But you opened that door for me: About the rest you mentioned: Crippling Anthem, Maiming Spear, Anthem of Flame, Blazing Spear, Stunning Strike.' Yeah, that looks 'bout right. But of course there is no comparison. BA is much superior even when you consider that fact it occupies an elite skill. It's getting pointless. You keep arguing with split situations where obviously the split class is better than the team class Of course I argue split situations. Spliting is powerful utility. I argue, also, stand situations and party support. Show me where I ignore that aspect of paragons. Stop putting words into my mouth to win arguments. Hmmm... Tell you what, let's open another page where you ignore another powerful utility skill for rangers. Apply Poison. Rangers. Have. Better. Utility. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Read

← moved to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Update20080306

Mystic Regen

← moved to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Update20080306

Wail of Doom

← moved to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Update20080306

Recent updates

I just wanted to say I've liked the recent updates that have been coming in. It seems you've started to move in a different direction than before, addressing core game play issues rather than putting up a quick fix. While I don't agree with all the updates, I believe things are becoming much more interesting the play. Although you may want to reconsider the changes to some(omg wtf?!?!one!!) skills. :P Keep up the good work. --Lou-Saydus 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

/agree. Not everything in this update is perfect (a perfect update seems to me impossible), but the direction of working on the balance issues this time is really good for the game imho! A. von Rin 22:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I don't like some changes, but I also don't know everything about the game (never heard of a Motigon until today ^^). Thank you for putting this much effort in it. Even if it is your job, it's still appreciated. Nicky Silverstar 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Jigoku 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

i love what you did to Flame Djinn's^^ --Fox007 13:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lolz. Well I think this skill update was in the right direction, WoD needs to be downsized a bit (see my suggestion), but overall good change. Dark Morphon(contribs) 10:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Making it go 1..3..3 but going lower then that evryone is going to yell something like it is to sort for being usefull O.o --Fox007 10:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

...I didn't rly understand what you were saying... lern2grammar...Dark Morphon(contribs) 12:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That lowering the duration to 1..3..3 might work but going lower then that everyone will say that the duration is to low for taking it on your bar --Fox007 12:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No uselessness for 3 seconds is still enough to get a spike through, needs a recharge nerf. Antiarchangel 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Recharge is the worst thing to balance with in this case because you easily could kill the skill! Health sacrifice, hex duration or cast time are far better choices... A. von Rin 16:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

don't u dare touch my WoD build --Cursed Angel 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mystic Regeneration

← moved to User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Dervish/Mystic Regeneration

Offhand/Shield health bonus glitch

When you swap sets, say +45 in stance to a +60 while hexed, apparently you lose the +45 before you gain the +60, so you die if you're below 45 health attempting to make this swap. I have not tested with unconditional +30 to a conditional one, but I assume it works the same way. This also happens when you re-apply a stance in the +45 in stance set. Please fix. --TimeToGetIntense 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

welcome to gamemechanics User 24.141.45.72 04:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh so if I am at 10 health with a hex on me and I have a +60 health while hexed sheild, I can't use my leet weapon swapping micro skills to gain even a tiny advantage and possibly survive? Welcome to BAD game mechanics. --TimeToGetIntense 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cry less, they're meant so, made so and shouldn't be changed just due to someones opinion of "bad mechanics". (Also, might be that it cannot be changed in GW1.) 137.163.16.66 07:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Think about it. In order to 'switch' offhands, you'd have to drop the first, then pick up the second. When you drop the one, you lose its benefits. Realistic right. Now, what happens without the benifits? death. Also realistic. Might be annoying, but it's what I'd expect. --Kyle van der Meer 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A change in max health which drops your current health below zero doesn't kill you under any other circumstances. Why should it here? --24.179.151.252 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken, needs fixing, dunno if izzy is the right person though. --Lou-Saydus 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with you guys? Realism before gameplay? Go back to PvE. If I can micro my weapon swaps and swap for more health when the situation allows it, I should be rewarded for my SKILL. --TimeToGetIntense 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SKILL LOL! -- scourge 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

its guud that u can swap weapons, thats really skillful --Cursed Angel 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm FTW? Swapping weapons if necessary needs more skill than not swapping them at all and shouldn't be punished. :/ If this game had realistic mechanics, lightning damage wouldn't have armor penetration on metal armors and hammers would ignore most of your armor... ^^ A. von Rin 02:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And swords would cut stuff, instead of beat on them. VegaObscura 12:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And my limp wrist monk wouldn't be swinging a big ass sword around for a caster weapon, with one hand. Antiarchangel 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No Need. If you fail in setting up ur swaps BEFORE you're within the 30 health range it's ur problem rly. Izzy should have more important things to do first.. Also it might be meant so that you basically "take off shield before setting another in its place" so not-a-bug. 91.154.6.13 10:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no good reason why you shouldn't be able to swap at lower health. Surely it shouldn't kill you. Whenever something like Endure Pain expires you still get 1 health and you go into health debt, same thing can happen if you become Deep Wounded. Also, sometimes anticipating that you'll be at such low health is impossible even if you're very aware of the battlefiend. Also, as a Warrior you might try to get a desparate kill and then try to survive. If you swap while you are trying to deal damage you'll cause a delay which could stop you from making that kill. Similarly, with spellcasters, you can't swap during a cast, so there's always going to be the chance that you couldn't swap before the damage happened. Honestly, I think this is an important issue. If there's an opportunity to reward skilled play, we should take it. --TimeToGetIntense 11:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hero Battles Suggestion

HB (atm) seems to me unbalanced and boring. I would change the system removing all pips from shrines. Then half Siege Cannon Shrine's damage. Let shrines give only their bonus effects and the center shrine a 2% moral boost every minute (maximum of 10%). Then reduce the kills to 15 for winning and you would have a faster game with less capping. In case of a draw after 5-10 minutes, the center shrine will be set uncaptured and both sides need to recapture it to win. The first side to succeed, will win the game (to ensure people will have to gain kills for winning). A. von Rin 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds very similar to the changes I mentioned in this thread on GW Guru, so obviously I agree with them. I think removing the morale meter is really the only way to solve the problems with the format. --Draikin 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny! :D I normally don't visit Guru because I'm here and on german pages... Good to see that this idea wasn't fail. ;o) A. von Rin 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The major difference in the changes I would make is that I would start "VoD" (recapture center) not only when there's a draw, but also when nobody reached 15 kills (or whatever the new required score would be) yet. This means you wouldn't be able to just get 2 kills and run around for ten minutes. In other words getting 15 kills is the equivalent of killing the Guild Lord in GvG, and VoD basically forces you to achieve that objective. The details are in my post on Guru but I would simply give the teams a damage boost at VoD depending on the number of kills they got to reflect what they accomplished during those ten minutes (so if the score is 11-2, the team with 11 kills get an 11% damage boost and the team with 2 only 2%). This means you have to continue to play actively during the battle. Camping in the base won't work either since you give up the shrines and morale boost. --Draikin 15:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that someone just can run with NPCs without a hench getting killed? 0.O If such play style is possible, why not just bring 1 snare in your team? I don't think the game mechanic should replace tactics, but your idea for "Heroes-VoD" is ok, too. But I would really prefer to always make people recapture Center Shrine if after 5 minutes no one has reached 15(?) kills! Because the damage bonus will make a "come back" nearly impossible. :/ A. von Rin 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well they don't even have to run since they can just camp in their base after making 2 kills (Base Protection). I think that kind of tactic would certainly be used: people already retreat into their base now if they notice the opponent can't catch up anymore, so with the morale meter gone this would really become a problem. I'm not sure what you mean with the "recapture center shrine" part, do you mean the battle should end after 5 minutes? I'd still prefer to keep it at 10 or at least 8 minutes. In any case yes I think "VoD" should start after the time is up and nobody reached the required score yet (let's assume this would be 15 instead of 20). Just to clarify, I would only give the damage bonus after the time is up and VoD starts, not during the game. Also, my version of VoD would mean forcing a fight at the neutralized center shrine (all other shrines disabled), but simply capturing it shouldn't mean you win (otherwise you could be behind by 13 points, make one kill and immediately win the game): instead capturing it should activate the morale meter (only then) which starts to give points. This means the opponent can retreat momentarily but he'll still be forced to fight at the center or the other team will eventually get 15 points and win the game.

And about the damage bonus making a comeback impossible, well that depends on the difference in scores between the two teams. If the score was 10-11, there's only going to be a 1% difference in damage between the two teams making it very much possible to make a comeback. If the score was 10-2 then the team with 10 kills basically deserves to win. Even then it would still only be an 8% difference in damage, and the damage bonus could continue to change if you make kills during VoD. I do see your point though: the opponent with a lower score would basically have to overcome not only the difference in the score but also the difference in damage so it's the old Victory is Ours problem all over again. The reason I would implement this is to discourage people from bringing a build that's designed to play defensively for ten minutes and then kill the other team at VoD. In the worst case they could camp in their base for ten minutes and prevent the other team from getting a damage bonus but then the 10% morale boost from the center shrine should be enough for the other team to win at Vod then. --Draikin 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Concise skill descriptions

brilliant. Keep up the good work. --Life Infusion «T» 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice addition Anti 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, especially since people can choose. Must have been a lot of work to re-write all those decriptions...Nicky Silverstar 08:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed --Life Infusion «T» 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh cld have done a better job. Most of them are still inconsistent with skill descriptions just like they were before.--Underwood 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Translating 1000+ skills is a lot of work. But I'm sure that if you reported them, they would fix it. Saying that they're doing a lousy job is easy, helping them to fix it takes a little more effort. Nicky Silverstar 11:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Except they get paid to do it, they could at least do a good job. Plus, most inconsistencies have been there for a few years.

Then you obviously have no idea how much work it really is to change a 1000 skills so that they are worded all the same way. If they did it with a 100 man team, then I'd agree. But in practice, I doubt it is much more than 4 people, and I can tell you from experience that doing such a thing is a lot of work. Errors are bound to happen if you need to retype 300+ skill descriptions from scratch and it is inhuman to have them all correct the first time. So why not just report their mistakes so they can fix it, instead of being ungrateful for something they really didn't have to do...ever. Nicky Silverstar 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

While browsing through your skill feedback page, i noticed this quote on the Amity page "When this skill is viable, it's just not fun, making it so people can't attack is just a very unfun mechanic.". This mindset is also evident on other skill pages, just very blatent here. Basically it sounds like your acknowledging that the skill is not viable and simply are refusing to balance it on the grounds that it shouldnt be. Why is that? It's an elite, so i just dont see why your purposly ensuring that it doesnt become viable. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.78.253.180 (talk).

Question: what does the game lose from having 1 less viable elite? Answer: Not much, there are many, many other elites to choose from.

Question: what does the game lose from having an extremely annoying but viable elite? Answer: a lot of players who were previously happy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Then why does the elite in question still exist? Izzy does not want it to be viable, is what exactly is the point of keeping it? Wouldn't deleting this skill be better for those new to the game? File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 10:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Because who knows, someone might have a build (for PvE, possibly) that utilizes it, and there's no reason to mess that up as long as it's not disturbing PvP balance. Every player can see what a skill does before they choose to cap it, if someone wants to cap it who are you to stop them? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone would use Amity considering Binding chains does the same thing more or less without having to waste a slot. Adjacent range is small to begin with and "attacking" can be mitigated better by blind. Sure, hex removal is harder but in that long recharge period it is more likely Amity comes off the targets. In general, many skills are made elites simply because of synergy with other elites (such as Hundred Blades and Illusionary Weapon) but outside of elite skill combinations there is really nothing spectacular about those skills. These skills are the ones that need a rework (Hundred Blades is pretty sad) and some combinations are no longer as strong due to metashifts and the addition of many new skills.--Life Infusion «T» 15:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Aiiane, you miss the point, he could balance it to be more effective, but not so op that people leave. He's basically saying that he made elites that he never wants to exist in the game, so then wtf are they there for. this is one of the many reason this games skill balancing fails.

Aiiane, it actually is harmful to have many worthless crap. Not only do they clog up the skill lists, but they also trick the random joe and jane newbs into making worthless builds. Lemme put it a different way: In WoW, all players are limited to a very select amount of skills, but all of them are viable because people can make use of them all. Now, when GW first came out, mostly all the skills were viable (I said mostly). Now pull down a skill list and tell me with an honest face that all those 1250+ish skills are viable, instead of a 100ish few I can count off my head. After that, tell me with an honest face how that is different from WoW, where pve sucks in general. Oh, and I'll also remind you that build customization and bar variety were among the selling points of GW, but that is another topic entirely. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a question. What suggests Izzy comes up with the skills in the first place? AFAIK he's skill balancer, not skill introducer. Second, it could very well be usable in PvE somewhere. Thirdly, what does build customization have to do with sucky elites? Just realize not all skills are meant to be good. — Galil 20:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are skills meant to be bad? Is there any purpose to having 1000+ skills and 900 of them being trash? Why even put them into the game? Why not just give every profession a static skill bar when you make them? Amity might be bad if it is buffed into a viable state, so why not change the functionality of it? Hell, I would be happy if the crappy skills were at least buffed to the "average" range, not even "good". --Deathwing 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you realise how much effort goes into trying to make 1000+skills worthwhile, without allowing some sort of gimmick use in pvp that will destroy the game? Lord of all tyria 22:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So you just leave the game stagnant and destroy it that way? --Deathwing 22:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for buffing skills. The problem is, it would be practically impossible to have 1000+ viable skills, whose power increased exponentially with player skill (stuff like gale/diversion). Most of the skills like that are in the earlier game, before a-net started to put out content for contents sake in order to sell more. Lord of all tyria 22:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While i know all skills arent meant to be good, id argue that all elite skills should at least be viable, and probably should be good. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.78.31.157 (talk).

Yeah, Lord, I understand that difficulty. That difficulty is why these crappy filler skills should never have been made, and all the obsolete junk should have been deleted long ago. I'll repeat Myself: When we have a only 100ish usable skills, the game becomes eerily similar to WoW. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 10:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that due to the game design choice of having players and mobs (mostly) sharing the skill set, it's quite possible many of the skills were designed mainly to make mobs more interesting. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

except that most mobs use similar skills to what players bring, how many mobs use amity as their elite, or any list of other elites. BTW aiiane, when was the last time you took izzys dick out of your mouth. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.78.31.157 (talk).

"improving smiting prayers is not something on our list of issues to address right now.. Izzy @-'---- 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)" <- three years and still not on the list of issues, thats where I stopped reading this shitty page and bought WoW --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.189.216.17 (talk).

NPA, keep it civil, 79. @ Aiiane, what is the point? no player with any sort of mind will ever use amity, so why does it exist? to trick noobs to make bad builds and clog up good pvp areas and cause epic failuers? Is that a good thing? File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When I see skills that see no use and no effort to change them, I see gameplay stagnating. Functionality changes are golden. They can create new possibilities while avoiding the areas that broke the game in the past. I think Amity needs a functionality change. I know it's more work, but think of how much interest in the game it generates. --Redfeather 06:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Assassin Proposal

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I looked for a bit and couldn't find where one might comment on a class as a whole. I have got to say, I am very unhappy with the current place assassins are, with very little options to make them viable. I'd like to propose that the class skills are reverted to some semblance of their former glory, and look for a more blanket solution. Several of the ones that come to my mind:

• Adding a clause to all assassin skills (or possible to the assassin class that affects the usage of all melee skills) that states something to the effect of "This skill may not lower target's health below 20%". Assassins regain their spiking capacity, but can't solo spike, and still leaves a chunk of health for the target to recover with.
• Adding an inherent slow-down of the attack speed of assassins. Nothing fantastic, but maybe 15% or so.
• Removal of the "must-hit" clause of assassin chains, instead replacing it with an inherent miss chance of possibly 25%. This way, parts of the spike can fall-through without the entire spike being ruined.

Thank you for taking the time to read through this, I hope to see the assassin class revitalized. That being said, you're doing a great job on skill balancing, don't let anyone tell you otherwise, loving new Psychic Distraction functionality. --24.74.254.215 02:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions right there border on mental retardation. I would like to see some changes with sins too, but that was some of the dumbest shit ive ever read.

The chance of any of your suggestions happening is about 0%, would be like be turning warriors into healers and monks your frontline. Antiarchangel 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Assassins never should have existed. A class designed to do nothing but spike opponents down in 4 seconds by just pressing 1-5? Honestly. You can't fix Assassins. They were broken as soon as they were conceived. Bad move, ANet. Bad, bad move. --Reklaw 03:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's more like giving a class the ability to spike, without being overpowered. But, if you have better suggestions, please, contribute them. --24.74.254.215 03:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should assassins' attack skills have an inherent miss chance? Why should assassins have a hard time finishing off injured opponents? -- Gordon Ecker 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Like all proposals before, this is stupid. Everyone is wrong about how to fix Assassins. Just leave them alone now that they aren't a huge problem. What it comes down to is, the class was added AFTER the game was: balanced, so it has no place in the game. --TimeToGetIntense 08:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

QFT @ time. assassins are a class that was introduced to make PvE RP's happy, and thus ruined game balance. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 10:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about changing off-hands and duals to: "This skill must follow a XXX or it will only deal base damage and has no other effect." instead of the way it is now ("This skill must follow a XXX or it misses."). It is not a major buff by any means, but it makes the problem of interrupting a chain a little bit less a problem. Or a variant to this idea... Nicky Silverstar 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that? That IS a rather major buff nicky. Consider this: The SP sin used to use two offhands to bypass to duals, without using any leads. It used a cover hex to make sure those duals landed. Now If we had a low-reload off hand (Repeating strike comes to mind) We could, In theory, have a combo like repeating - Twisting - repeating - horns of the ox - repeating - Blades of steel OR something. You have a 4 skill combo, but it has no requirements whatsoever. No, sin chains need to stay fragile to stop their superb killing power. If anything, sin defense needs to be reduced so sins become more of a positioning character. Lowering their maximum armor is the way to go, tbh, to stop them from becoming slaughter machines at splits. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 12:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that by "has no other effect" Nicky also meant that it wouldn't count as a successful offhand for chaining to duals. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, there would be no reason to use the skill at all instead of c space. VegaObscura 13:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider this: If you use an attack chain skill, and its pre-requisite is satisfied, then it's post-requisite is always also satisfied. For example, let's say you do a L-O-D, and your offhand is blocked or misses because of a hex, then you can still do the D. This would be a buff to assassins because the chains aren't especially fragile anymore.--Skye Marin 14:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

With the need to chain attack skills Sins always were ment to have 1-2-3... button smashing as game mechanic. Everything else wouldn't be logical on build developing... I don't think the attack skills are that weak they are supposed to be. Problematic are just other skills that really need to be buffed. The whole Shadowarts line seems to me pretty under powered. But like I posted here Shouts, Chants, and Echoes, giving this skill types my suggested change (see quotation below) would not only help to balance the whole Paragon class, but also buff Sins overall without increasing their dangerous spike potential. I'm qouting myself:

"I had a very radical idea, don't know if you like it: Give all shouts, chants and echoes (except "Fear Me!") back their good stats before all the nerfs and make them end on a critical hit. They should be removed by 'crits' in the same order as hexes and enchantments are removed by skills. The only problem with the Paragons' mechanics is, that the effects they apply are unstoppable. With this change it wouldn't be (and it would also be a big buff for Sins, btw.)." A. von Rin 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Assassins are powerful. They are powerful because of two very important factors: First of all, their chains. They can unleash a 4 hit chain that has the power to kill. No other character, save maybe decapitapheonixer, can take out a Joe player with 4 skills. You don't really need an IAS, the chains hits hard enough. Second, they got both defensive and offensive teleports, and get this, on the same bar. oh, the on demand snares and hexes are really icings on the cake. If anything needs to be fixed, assassins need to be given a downside, a risk of the class per se, and, as I recall, nearly every class in GW has one: Warriors are vulnerable to melee hate, Eles are vulnerable against rangers and mesmers, monks are very much vulnerable to hex denial and time-out skills (blackout, gale, diversion, backbreaker), Mesmers lack decent self defense and are thus the most fragile profession, necromancers are fairly weak against caster offense and decent monking, Ritualists are weak in situations where they need mobility, and dervishes have no utility whatsoever. Now, the only two classes I left out (the assasin and the paragon), their downsides are not really downsides: Paragons require a decent team to be truly effective, and that is a given in any decent disscussion here. Assasins are supposed to be fragile, but they are never used exclusively on situations where they have to, say, "tank" damage, like on a stand, instead, they are used for ganking, and they do that bloody well. Assassins need to be weakened here, they need to be made more fragile, more crushable on a collapse. Right now, it's 'Shit they r colllapsing' 'no prb,' 'I'm canceling AoD!' poof, back to the anchor point, back to the main squad whom have gotten precious ground with a semi-successful split. My suggestion would be to make them much, much more fragile. lower their standard armor to 30. That'll show those wanna-be ninjas. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Assassins are just as vulnerable to melee hate as Warriors. You also made it sound like every Assassin has AoD on his bar... I play an Assassin as my main PvE character, and I'm very happy with it. As for PvP, you can't really kill anyone alone, just like that... not if they (or their team mates) do anything about it (Prot Spirit, something to Block, a heal midway in the chain). Well, maybe if you fill your bar with over 6 attack skills. Honestly... maybe Assassins need some tweaking, but remember, that the basic concept of the Assassin is a Warrior that's more offensive and mobile, while suffering from lower defence and having to wait for their attack skills to recharge. (PS: Yes, I'm looking forward to playing an Assassin in GW2) — Poki#3 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Assassin is not more offensive than the Warrior, just more mobile. The Warrior has enough armor to be aggressive and enough base damage to force the enemy to react. The Warrior also has 3 second knockdowns, giving it the utility to greatly disrupt enemy defense or offense. The Assassin only has the ability to attempt to solo targets in short periods of time. It not a very versitile or interesting class in PvP. --TimeToGetIntense 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"It not a very versitile or interesting class in PvP." Tell that to AB-ers.- Vanguard 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally find most Leads and Off-hands to be equal in power to the Warrior and Dervish attacks. Only the dual attacks are more powerful, mostly because of the base damage, but the fact that warriors/dervishes don't have to chain more than makes up for that. Maybe I'm playing them the wrong way...Nicky Silverstar 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My suggestions was mostly to lessen the effect of activating an attack wrongly by accident, or because of lag. Losing the energy is bad enough, and the base damage is low enough to not create imbalances...Nicky Silverstar 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mobility is an awesome thing. It gives assassins unparalleled split ability. Warriors hit hard, and hit free, but the power of assassin comes from mobility, which is best displayed by some of the most OP gay shit since they came out: Shadow Walk, Aura of Displacement and even Recall (post nerf, too!) Oh, and your assassin should have one of these skills on his/her bar. File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 20:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought an assassin should be a profession that relies on trickery to find openings. I do not like the current 'dial a phone' method to playing this profession. The profession has potential, but it needs to steer into the thinking player's realm. Every opening for an assassin should rely on a trick to lure your opponent into an opening. Think of the mesmer traps such as Diversion+Wastrel's Worry. The melee trickster. --Redfeather 06:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dial a phone tactics? What? Shadow prison builds are nerfed, AoD is slow and weak, Sins currently have no place in the meta besides maybe the Fox's Promise Scythes. The Siphon nerf really really killed them because instead of balancing the skill, they made it crap and nearly unuseable. The weakness is in assassins are predicability during chains, interrupts, antimelee, fucking anything that can make them miss, block or interrupt them really. None of the other classes, including spell casters, are effected like that. If I miss my lead attack, my DPS goes from 70 to 20. If a warrior misses an attack, they attack once and they have enough adrenaline to attack with another attack skill. The answer isn't to make it so they can't possibly kill people with a spike chain, it's to make the spike chains balanced, not by rediculous ways of nerfing them like saying sins can't use IAS or sins can't do damage over 20% their health or they have a 25% chance to miss. Balance the skills.

Siphon Speed needs a fix (Something like either scaling the speed boosting or make it conditional, like if they are moving you move 33% faster with a 10 second recharge and 15 second duration at 12 deadly), Shroud of scilence needs a fix (with a 2 second duration, it needs that downside removed or lessened because it hurts you more than the enemy now), a ton of skills needs buffs so there can be a lot more great builds besides THREE (fox scythe, GG sin, Shatter Assault). --The Gates Assassin 09:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gates, I said dial a phone tactic because it feels like dialing a phone number for anything to work. A skill depends on another skill to land first, which depends on another skill to land first, and so on. A profession in a 8 skill bar system shouldn't work like that. Too dependent on chains that take up a good chunk on a limited bar. --Redfeather 03:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AoD is still awesome. İt is invincibility during a collapse. just devote 6 skill for npc killing, and you're good. No, assassins need another weakness, (like low armor, to reward player skill) and many buffs to crap they have to make them 'more viable' ( but time is right, they are pretty viable tbh.] File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you can thank izzy for pushing a/w or a/d or a/r or a/p but not a/x to use daggers. Prokiller88 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] Lord Belar 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think an armour nerf may be good for assassins, to keep the A/physical classes viable maby all daggers(apart from ones without required weapon levels) should have a -10 armour pelanty so they really are a more skillful hit and run class(shadow step in let off a deadly combo escape) this could also be made by buffing the damage of some chains but give them more difficult conditions e.g. horns of the ox buffed to do alot more damage but the extra damage is only added if the foe is interupted by the knockdown.(Marsc 16:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

I do not get whats wrong with you guys but imo the assassin should be BUFFED. Sp should be restored to original recharge (20 secs) with a 50 % snare and a 6 sec duration at 12 deadly arts.Assassins should be able to 4 chain kill again but there just should be more defence against it.Npcs should have some kinda of defensive skill against sp and a monk should just have a skill that is cheap and ruins a sins combo if timed correctly.Sins would be good and easy to counter so they would choose there targets wisely.Now they are imba cause there are like 2 decent builds for them to run :/.Just buff the assassin but buff the active defensive skills 2.For example a skill that has an effect like this. 5e/1/4th cast/5r For 3 secunds attack skills have a 75 % chance to miss against target ally.Lilondra 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)