User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Izzy Talk Archive 6

Misc

Charr Showing off

Hey lol what is going on here, ive noticed this all day... http://i19.tinypic.com/54jt2qq.jpg - http://i13.tinypic.com/6gdxbo9.jpg - charr ranking??? Just thought id post them there, kinda weird.. - Chrisworld 05:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Gloat monster skill. I love it. |GD Defender / contribs 05:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cap Sigs count as PvE only skills

Cap sigs count as pve only skills, put one on your bar with 3 pve skills and you lose a pve-only skill. I lol'd, is this intended? --Tankity Tank 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever used a Signet of Capture during a PvP match? It's the original PvE skill :-p. While it is technically a PvE skill, I could see how it could be irritating to have a SoC force you to remove another skill from your bar, especially since it has no balancing effect and is temporary. Perhaps an exclusion from the "3 limit" for SoC? -- Txzeenath 04:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

PvE traps and Expertise

The two PvE traps, Black Powder Mine and Weakness Trap are not affected by Expertise (because they are not ranger skills). Was this intended or an oversight? --Thervold 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dervish Energy

Dervishes have only 25 energy. Thats only five more than a warrior, yet Dervishes have NO adrenaline skills. They have skills costing up to 15 energy (I think 25, but I cant remember exactly). With that kind of setup, to run an effective dervish, I cannot seem to do so without using Radiant runes. That means I canot even reap the rewards of using native profession runes! Am I missing some key skills that negate these energy problems, or am I correct in thinking that the Dervish has woefully low energy?

I think it might be more helpful to bump the energy bar up to 30-35. Please help me figure this out. I would much rather find a way to not have energy problems WITHOUT using radiant armor. (Yes, I can use Avatar of Lyssa, but that steals an elite spot just to make up for the bad energy. Much more useful elites can be used instead.) Counciler 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Max energy doesn't matter, except for warriors and exhaustion-heavy eles. Also, Melandrus just because they need to be able to recast Melandru when DPed. Also people with AI, because they need fairly high energy on their high set(or their 40/40 set) to fully take advantage of it. --Edru viransu 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Mysticism is crazy (dervs are always juggling enchantments) and look at the new scythe attacks in GWEN.24.47.18.113 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comparison of Dervish energy vs Warrior energy seems to neglect the fact that Dervishes have double the energy regen. Just use a +5 energy scythe and a decent amount of Mysticism and you should be fine. 69.137.78.47 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dervishes as well as Assassins have +4 energy regen and have primary attributes for inherent energy management, high energy cost on some skills is ment to be a balancing/ limiting factor besides, switch to +15 offhand and +5 weapon when you need to cast something expensive. Biz 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

GWEN armor from Tolkano

Will GWEN armor be available from Tolkano eventually? Misfate 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Got the same question...any date when you add them?

Balances before skins please. — Skuld 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ofc balances over skins. Just asking if they will add the skins or not. Misfate 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ward Against Melee's aftercast

Is Ward Against Melee supposed to have a super long aftercast, like most other PBAoE skills? All the other Wards don't. I'm wondering if this is intentional. --Macros 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ward Against Foes has it as well. It's really annoying but doesn't really change the balance of the skill at all. -Ensign 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Winter

Currently sucks balls, and does nothing. Not even what it used to do. Plx fix its badness. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 07:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Sucking has a negative connotation, for those who fail at identifying figurative and literal speech! Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 07:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what Readem is trying to say is that winter converts all elemental damage to cold after all other active states are checked, ie: it doesn't make things that take double damage from cold take double damage. --Tankity Tank 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Its been a while but, I'm pretty sure titans did take double dmg from fire spells when winter was there. Still knowing that all ele dmg will be cold, you can gear up with vs cold armor and shields, trow in Greater Conflagration and huge vs cold or vs ele defenses you would be very happy winter was there. Biz 09:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't. Its been broken for a while. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 09:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Put it in the correct page (misc fixes) — Skuld 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

it's also mentioned on the underpowered skills page, as in it's current state it's incredibly underpowered :) Dargon 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

famine av/sv

not sure if this is intentional or a bug but as/av wont trigger famine if 4 or more people are attacking you. If its intentional just say and ill be happy if its not then plz fix it. Mashav 06:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like perhaps Famine can't quite handle hitting more then four people at a time? Someone hits you, AV/SV triggers, say, five guys hit 0, and Famine now has to deal with all five triggers at once. I'm curious if this is the actual problem, or something else... -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

could be that the enemies are losing energy too fast that they go to zero before they've gotten a chance to get up to 1 so they don't hit zero again to trigger famine.

yeah i think thats it because i did some testing and i can take more then 4 monks(smite crawlers) and it will trigger but the original testing was on bladed aatxes. I think that if it is the case it still stands if it is a bug or not. If this is the case then technically they are going back down to 0 and it should trigger therefore it is a bug, or intentional which goes against the wording of famine as it did go above 0 then back down... it just didn't go to 1.Mashav 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no fractions in energy, if you have 0 you can't go back to 0. You must have at least 1 energy to be able to go back to 0. not a bug.Coran Ironclaw 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah i guess but theres something wrong because they are losing energy, but if enough people trigger av/sv it no longer triggers famine... at least it doesn't trigger nearly as much as it should. maybe energy loss is to much and they go into negative energy like item switching.[Edit] All of my testing takes place in HM so the increased attack speed triggering av/sv could also have an effect Mashav 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ok before any more posts happen im going to clarify what happens. i am in the UW in HM and 4 or more aatxes or grasping darknesses attack me. famine and sv or av are up and they lose all energy and take dmg from famine. they take it once or twice more then they take no dmg from famine for 15-20 seconds then they will take dmg again for awhile then they take no dmg fro a period of time again. it makes it so that it takes about 2-4 times longer then it should when tanking 4+ warriors. while killing smite crawlers i can take 4+ but when i take alot more such as 10+ it will stop for awhile in the same manner.Mashav 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

av/sv is aoe, therefore if you have 2 monsters against you they lose double energy than if you have only 1, if you have 5 monsters each one lose energy for every hit you get, then they will only be damaged when their energy increases to 1. So, it seems normal that if you have more enemies hitting you they will activate famine less, however i am not really sure about the rare behavior you describe.Coran Ironclaw 00:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah thats the problem... they should take dmg every time they get 1 energy back... but they dont take any dmg for awhile... alot longer then it does with 1,2 or 3 people. i know it has something to do with regen because i can take more smite crawlers then attaxe and darknesses [Edit] just tried again duration is not 15-20 more like 5-10Mashav 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

cap block rate

Should have been done ages ago. 50%<=block rate cap<=75% --Epinephrine 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

After the +24 stacking armor cap, I thought it seemed like the obvious course of action. It has the benefit of addressing ward + aegis chains without necessitating a direct nerf to either, although the WaM could still warrant looking at. MA Anathe 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

50% max block would destroy trappers and make the most block skills underpowered + 100 other reasons why this is a bad idea 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be like the armor cap, multiple skills won't be able to go over a 50% block chance, while a single skill, like Whirling Defense would stay the exact same. So a character with Guardian in a Ward Against Melee will be no better off than with just Guardian. Please learn to comprehend. - HeWhoIsPale 15:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It can't hurt, but I doubt it will make any difference. Constant 50% block is still more than enough to ruin a physical based offense. --Mysterial 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Which, ofcourse, is the whole idea of blocking. -- (gem / talk) 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Which also, in GW, means ruining almost all effective non-12121212121212(fire eles or in the case of DD sins, 1111111111) non-spike offenses. --Edru viransu 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are pretty many counters to blocking afaik. But yeah, I think that some sort of a limit would be nice. -- (gem / talk) 21:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Givenn how blocking is calculated, that is, each blocking effect is taken into account one at a time, rather than all added together (because that would be silly) means that it probably isn't possible to even code in a blocking cap. The diminishing returns effect of blocking is cap enough, and using extra blocking skills on someone with 75% or more block chance already is generally a waste, as most attackers will just not bother attacking them or use some way to sunder their blocking ability. --Ckal Ktak 09:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't cap it, skills in GW don't know about each other and because everything is being cal separately there is no way to cap it. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

non skill-related discussion

Still waiting for someone w/ any viability to post... Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 00:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We were doing ok until you posted. --Epinephrine 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

...no you weren't... Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Readem, Epine, could we try and keep this away from posters and deal with the actual comments instead? We don't need to know who you're waiting on to post, Readem. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He's using sarcasm to say this section is pointless. Nothing wrong with that, imo — Skakid9090 01:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GWW:NPA begs to differ. So please, keep the sarcasm oriented towards points and not those making them. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:08, 26 September 2007(UTC)

NPA does not correspond here..."his sig is gray and bold, ban him. - Aiiane"...never going to let you live that one down lulz. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Epinephrine and Readem both broke NPA. You have both been warned by Aiiane. Readem, accept that and move on, please. —Tanaric 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I made a personal attack, I was referencing the fact that until then we were on topic. There's a tendency for things to devolve after that, as you can see.(Edit: I suppose that is a personal attack actually, as I was implying that Readem disrupts discussions - so I apologise) Back to the topic, a block rate cap wouldn't solve everything with block-way, but 50% attack blocking is better than 75% from layered defenses. --Epinephrine 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see where you violated NPA. This applies to myself as well. I have summed it up to a bad judgment call. Finally, there is nothing wrong w/ passive defense. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) How was anything they said a personal attack? They were just saying the arguments put forward so far were moot. Claiming someone has broken GWW:NPA these days just seems to be something admin throw around in place of a personal attack. "I don't like what he said, lets GWW:NPA him". There is nothing wrong with blocking - it exhists for a purpose and there are plenty of ways to get around it, unlike armour which only had select few skills to ignore it on top of +dmg. 58.110.142.117 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NPA is not limited to direct threats or direct insults. Indirect snide remarks aimed at other users also fall under NPA. -- ab.er.rant 05:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How is a snide remark, a personal attack? Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying "anal intercourse is not sex because it lacks reproductive value". You overdid it, just accept it. ~ dragon legacy 05:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

...not only did you just bring up anal on the interwebs, your comparison of snide remarks is simply horrible. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 06:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol drama.--72.84.76.135 07:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I love it when you're at your wits' end. ~ dragon legacy 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

...so you are saying that making anal sex references, is witty? I sincerely love you, and your nonsensical arguements/supporting details. You are absolutely unable to come to any sort of conclusion, and for that, merely speaking to you is a waste of my time/effort. No offense to you ofc. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 08:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it to talk pages, this is no longer anywhere near on-topic. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

lol, I forgot that this was a discussion page ;o! Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)