User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Overpowered Skills/General/Archive 3

Leeching

It's way overpowered. My suggestion is real-life gangbang of the leecher, but I suppose that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Perhaps in GW2? :) Servant of Kali 01:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We plan on doing something about it, but the details have yet to be released. ~Izzy @-'---- 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Any of the suggested solutions include the publishing of leechers IP and contacting his ISP for IRL address? ;) Servant of Kali 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Heroway in GvG

→ moved from User talk:Isaiah Cartwright

I don't really care what rubbish is going on in HA (it's always something), but since [Dt] got into the top 100 running that thumper + necro 4 hero build it's now everywhere on the ladder too. In the past two nights we've played 5 ladder matches, of which 3 were against that same build. New guilds specifically set up to run this build are multiplying exponentially at the moment, and it's no fun at all to play against. The build is arguably even stronger in GvG than in HA because NPC corpses are plentiful, which balances its significant splitting/flagrunning issues. How about a 2 hero limit in GvG? It's not so much that the build relies on the heroes being imba, it's more that the current system sets the barriers to entry into GvG too low, which results in hundreds of 4 man pug teams running nothing but this crap, totally messing up the meta for everyone else. Errr 09:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ya i saw i faced it in GvG too, and i gotta say it was quite impossible to take head on with a somewhat balanced build for us (not like we play anywhere near a top 20 guild or anything, but still the kind of backline we have in a GvG is not anywhere near as strong as what you bring in HA either). We managed to beat them through split in a 'kill the GL' race, but in a map like Burning Isle this must be aweful to face if you don't have a build heavily geared on defense. And seriously one of the thing that annoys me the most about this build is how freaking confusing it is. It takes forever to tab through things, and clicking on people isn't so easy either because there's spirits and pets and minions all over the place. Heroes actually have an advantage over humans in there because they don't suffer from the targetting problem and likely move around better without getting bodyblocked by some NPC stuff every few seconds Patccmoi 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

today in GvG we only had time for 2 ladder matches cos we took a while to find players to fill the team. First match we fought, Heroway. Second match, Heroway. We lost the first and won the second. In one match i was trying to call a target but as i was attacking him on my warrior i noticed my warrior was striking thin air, and the necro seemed to be on the other side of the screen. How is anyone meant to check positioning if the combination of spirits and pets is causing so much desyncing ingame? I know it would be just the same if human players were playing the build, they'd have as many spirits and as many pets. But if it was a build that full 8 human player teams ran there wouldnt be so much of an issue as there is with the build as it is with 4 heroes. Mainly because your average team will fail at running the build to its full effectiveness. 8 humans running the build is the necessary balancing mechanism alone. Allowing 4 heroes is totally unnecessary, what possible justification do 4 heroes have in PvP? I said this from the day heroes first became a problem in HA, when the limit was reduced from 6-7 heroes/hench to 4 heroes/hench, i said a limit of 2 was the ideal solution. And i say it again. If this build could only have 2 heroes in it 2 human players might be forced to play 2 of the necros in the build and i think that alone will help to reduce its effectiveness. As it stands the tainted and curse heroes are far too good at running their bars, and the necro/rit healers never miss a spike and remove deep wound the instant its applied. Its frustrating that these things all seem to start in HA. And they are left in the game for so long that their popularity grows and grows, and then the popularity grows to such an extent that the builds migrates to GvG. Just think back to the jagged bones build. These things need to be dealt with faster.87.194.81.41 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Lorekeeper

We played against this yesterday and I have never had such a loathing for heroes in GvG before. Perhaps (like said above) it's not the fault of the heroes, as players running the same build might do the same, but I just don't find any pleasure in playing GvG against computers scripts. Is there no possible way to just remove Heroes from GvG altogether? After all, it's supposed to be the pinnacle of GW. Heroes are for HvH. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 14:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Like i saids above i feel that removing hero's completely would be bad for the game. the AT's particularly at points require a player to be replaced with a hero. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but i do feel that a team that is half hero's is too many. 2 should probably be the max, would be sensible. And earlier today we decided to run the Heroway (with a slight modification) in GvG to see if all the fuss was right, we couldnt see it working outside HA, but we simply rolled through the opposition, and they werent a bad team, a fairly good balanced with players i recognise, all on Ladder. In short...it's very broken! --ChronicinabilitY 16:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chronic, PuG is rank ~1000. At that level you're almost guaranteed to roll your opponents if you have 4 reasonable players and bars that the heroes can actually use. The real problem isn't heroway IMO, it's broken mechanics (hexes) that the heroes can micro more efficiently than humans. --Pork soldier 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No we didnt fight top level (the Guild we faced are around 750 at present I believe) but the ease of which we beat a team of that caliber still shows the power of hero's. The hero problem isnt really hexes at all. The build itself isnt reliant on the hexes to be effective. What the hero's use most effectively is the Tainted Flesh, which is kept up constantly as the hero KNOWS who has it on and who doesn't, and the Rit healers, with reactions quicker than any player. The hex necro could quite easily be replaced, and often is, and the build works just fine. I'm in no doubt that in very top level play the hero's are easily dealt with. But for simply climbing the ladder, it seems just way too easy, and imo it's broken, as that is not what GvG is about. --ChronicinabilitY 00:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

750 isn't any caliber of note (that's like saying you beat an r3 group in HA, people do it all day long) when you're taking out top 100 guilds with heroway then it's a problem. Heroway makes it possible to gvg without 8, thus making gvg more accessible to players and accessibility, IMO, is a good thing. A good team should have no trouble beating a heroway team unless the heroway is abusing a broken mechanic. The problem with the current heroway is that the AI is very efficient at hex spreading (and remember that hexes are broken), so now what you have is an efficient team abusing a broken mechanic with relative ease. The solution is to fix the mechanic, not heroway. --Pork soldier 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing to note, say you remove the option to run heroway in gvg - what's to stop people from making a run up the ladder with the current fotm build? Ritspike to rank 40, or an older example - rspike to the top 50? IDK, I don't think the problem is heroway - I think the problem is that parts of the game aren't balanced and having an AI with fast reflexes really shows that. Don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you that it shouldn't be that easy to climb the ladder, BUT... it always has been. --Pork soldier 01:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please fix that heroway build soon. About 40-50% of the teams we run into in GvG right now are running the same build with very minor tweak. Don't get me wrong, we win against it most of the time, but it is getting old very fast and fighting against that build is just annoying. Shendaar 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pork, as several of the posts above point out, the big issue with this particular fotm is that it only requires 4 people to play it, so even if everyone running it switched to rit spike tomorrow there would only be half as many teams of crap on the ladder, which in itself would be a very good thing. Errr 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, both the examples you use run broken crap - the problem is in the crap, not in the "it only takes 4 to gvg." Hell, people run henchway in GvG and no one complains, the don't complain because they aren't losing to it and they aren't losing to it because it's not abusing broken crap. Heroway is sort of like IWAY after the original nerf, there's a lot of it and it's easy to beat. I'm going to say it again, good teams should be cleaning this crap up in record time. If they're not then the heroway/henchway team is running something broken that needs attention and that something isn't 4 heroes. All gimmicky builds are annoying to play against, this one included. --Pork soldier 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that heroes are broken, on the contrary, heroes work great, they in fact IMO, work too great. Hero corpse control, hero interrupts, etc will beat any player in the game hands down. Why not give heroes a small chance of screwing up, mis-timing something, etc. I think a sometimes fallible hero would solve the problem. Dargon 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem with rit spike is that some of the skills are way too strong. That's an easy thing to fix by balancing the skills, but it's NOT the problem with this heroway build. Tainted Flesh isn't broken, the corpse exploit spells aren't broken, and the rit heals aren't broken - the problem is that heroes can use them more effectively than any human. That's why you only really see this build run with heroes and not with 8 people. One solution would be to make heroes fallible as Dargon suggested, but then heroes are already useless in most cases so personally I don't think that's the way to go. The easy fix is to limit the number of heroes in gvg. Errr 10:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While I won't disagree that hero micro of these bars is a big part of it, don't overlook how the heroes in the build are gigantic Soul Reaping abuse engines. A.Net removed the 'half energy from spirits' clause on Soul Reaping when the cap went in, so it isn't like those heroes are having to be carefully crafted to be as efficient as possible - they're machines designed to spam cast spells on 12 pips of energy, with an AI that is capable of using every cast with a reasonable effectiveness. -Ensign 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Was anything done about this in the balance other than the hex changes? If so, I missed it. This is still common and it's still a problem. Is there a reason for keeping 4 heroes in GvG but not in HA? Errr 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. GvG takes skill. HA doesn't. If you lose to heroway in GvG, it just means your team needs to get better. 68.35.91.2 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. I've just watched both the rank 87 guild (PAL) and the rank 15 guild (DoH) - both running balanced builds - lose to a bunch of scrubs running heroway, and the games weren't even on Burning or Jade. It's broken. Errr 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would consider that poor strategy, not "Omg, overpowered AI". Good guilds lose, because they either poorly coordinate with one another, or do not take a match as seriously as they should. The guilds who lost, lost to guilds not completely out of their league. I remember obsing a guild that managed to get to R147 merely because they are micro masters. I watched iQ get owned by a group of touch rangers; am I going "Omg, nerf touch-rangers now. Overpowered!" No. They played it out poorly, sure. But every guild makes mistakes. It is guaranteed. Also "errr", I would reconsider being so accusatory in the future, as there is little point and in the end you make yourself sound like a stuck-up Elitist. Oh, and I congratulate you and your ability to watch obs mode! /clap Readem (talk*gwwcontribs) 07:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So I guess pre-nerf ritspike wasn't broken because you could beat that by playing perfectly too? OK, the current heroway build isn't unbeatable, but it does allow a guild to play at a level perhaps 500-800 ranks above where they would be running almost anything else - and with only 4 people. For example, the heroway guild I mentioned was r900 before they started running it. OK, they have a top 150 rank now, but that's only because they're running a broken build. In terms of ability, yes they are completely out of their league.

I suspect the guild you're talking about is [CE], who did indeed get a good rank through excellent micro skills and a relatively balanced hero build. But you don't see anyone copying [CE]'s build because it required skill to play, whereas the ladder is full of teams running the current necro hero build because it requires zero micromanagement, because heroes already play death necros better than any human and have instantaneous healing reactions. You seem to be arguing that because one build using 4 heroes isn't broken, no heroway builds are broken. Which makes no sense.

Have you actually played against the current heroway build on an anti-split map against a r500 or better guild? Errr 09:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say a word till now, but I HAD IT. REMOVE THE F**** HEROWAYS FROM THE GAME. Let PvErs use 8 heroes, but no more than 2 in GvG! I am tired of losing to a sucky team after beating good ones, and I'm sorry I'm not in top50 guild but that doesnt make this right. It's not fun to win against heroway, it's not fun to lose against it. HA was solved, why GvG wasn't? My guild uses heroes sometimes too when players lack, but it's few of em, and it's never the FotM heroway exploiting hero AI. Servant of Kali 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of the guilds playing heroway in gvg uses only 2 heroes, which doesn't make a big difference, except the hero AI's ability to remove blind the moment it is put on. On some maps heroway is close to impossible to beat unless you have a really good counterbuild.--Oln 13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

2 heroes makes huge difference. Play more GvG, get some experience before joining discussions such as these. Servant of Kali 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the few arguments I've heard that makes any sort of sense to be putting under a topic calling heroway overpowered. Just because you "beat a lot of people then lost" to heroway doesn't make it overpowered. Heroes, imo, are simply good for filling spots when you don't have a full team of 8, and if your team is decent they should be able to play the same position a hero plays... 76.102.172.202 06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'd like to see a human player play Tainted Necro with Death Nova as good as hero does. I'd like to see human TAB through 15 enemies as fast as hero does. I'd like to see human with instant reaction heal time. I'd like to see human go on targets instantly as soon as someone in the group presses CTRL+Space. And just because top1 guild can beat heroway doesn't mean it's not overpowereed. Servant of Kali 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok...First of all, if you're complaining that heroes targeting is too good then your guild must really need some major help, because heroes target no better than people do (arguably worse than a decent player) especially if using something like ts or vent. Additionally, the use of heroes can limit the strategy you can use (splitting ftw?) and often times people are pissed off about heroes playing a build that is so easy that anyone could play it. Heroes as hexers...Seriously how easy a job is that? Have any of you ever played one before deciding heroes do it insanely well? The only valid point I'll give you is death nova because yes they are good at targeting minions with it. Other than that I'd say you could run the same build with 8 players and be exactly the same. Personally, I think that if someone is so bad that a hero would be better than using them, you should be able to defeat them; and it's not like only 1 guild can beat heroway...If you're on ladder, you should try working on your strategy or something rather than complaining about heroes in gvg. It should be a nice free win when you fight all those hero teams. Then again most of the teams that have no imagination are stupid IMO, I miss the days when teams actually ran different things (not just gvg); but the heroway isn't really the problem it seems to me everyone just hates the build people use that heroes are able to run. 64.164.223.159 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What i meant with my post is that changing the limit to maximum 2 heroes won't help alot. You still have the death necro and the hex necro. Running the build with 4 heroes does have some disadvantages. --Oln 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Exactly my point and why I say zero heroes is a must. My guild played once with ONLY that death necro and it was a joke. That build alone was very strong and annoyed the enemy team which kept biatching (and who wouldn't). Servant of Kali 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Damage Capping Skills

Possibly I am in the minority here ( maybe even a minority of 1 ), but I find damage capping skills to be a really bad gameplay element - there existence shapes the games in most unwelcome ways ( see pretty much all of HM ) because they present a paradox of sorts ; there is a way to cap damage so it is ok to make skills that inflicts 100s > there are skills that inflict 100s so everyone needs to use damage cappers. By damage capping skills I refer to : Protective Spirit, Protective Bond, Shelter and some fairly outlandish Paragon effects. I honestly believe that if Protective Spirit & Bond had not been in Prophecies from the start, it would have been impossible to introduce them later ; I can imagine the feedback to "Good news everyone - we are adding damage capping skills next campaign ! Oh, and consequently bosses will now be hitting for up to 600". Just look through any overpowered topic page relating to a damage skill, and the damage cappers are there - personally I propose that this is because they are simultaneously the cure AND the cause. Of course I recognize that damage cappers cannot be removed from the game now without amazingly broad changes, I just want to get the issue out there while GW2 is in development and there is still the prospect of avoiding future damage capping tyranny.  : ) Thanks for reading. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Walks With Angels .

These skills are well-balanced. The only one that's actually used is Prot Spirit. The dangerous things out there in the meta right now are a mix of big-packet damage (various big ele nukes, hammer warriors, dervs) and small-packet damage (conjure warriors, paragons, archers, people hitting people with armor, etc.) Prot Spirit is reasonably effective against the former and not at all effective against the latter. Even so PS isn't totally devastating--the biggest hits around right now are around 140 (orbs, super-Rodgort's) before armor, probably 120-ish after armor against people with shields, and reduced to 55 or so from PS. If you're referring to PvE where stuff hits for 200+, well, why are we balancing for pve again? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.211.155.160 .

IMO damage capping skills are a neccessary evil. I hope they won't be necessary in GW2, I hope that future updates will reduce the need for them in Guild Wars, but right now they are still necessary. -- Gordon Ecker 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them "evil" , these skills would be perfectly viable even if monsters weren't hitting for over 200 regularly (although I agree they shouldn't be necessary). I think it's the monster damage that needs to be toned down. I would much rather have mobs with better builds and AI than huge damage buffs (some damage buffs are ok but stuff like in HM/DoA are over the top IMO). These things don't really make the game harder, they just greatly restrict the amount of ways you can survive. skaspaakssa 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If monster damage was more reasonable, I'd prefer percentile damage reducers (like Life Barrier, "Incoming!" and "There's Nothing to Fear!") and subtractive damage reducers (like Shielding Hands and Shield of Absorption) over skills which have no effect on any damage below some arbitrary number and completely nullify any damage above that same arbitrary number. -- Gordon Ecker 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

HM DoA damage sorta reminds me of old console fighting game ports (ie: Street Fighter 2, MK)... The harder difficulties werent necessarily better opponents overall, the main difference was a greatly increased damage scale from them (Remember losing 100% life if M.Bison (aka Vega overseas) Hit with his Flaming Headbut (Psycho Crusher) on max Difficulty just once?) and a notably reduced scale when dealing damage to them. Kinda sad that the idea of "Harder" hasnt really evolved since SF2 on the SNES--Midnight08 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the real issue here is with pve game design. Monster AI is stupid so the way to make the game challenging is to give monsters tons of hp and ginormous damage output. The design makes damage cap skills neccessary, otherwise you can't survive. That doesn't make damage cap skills bad, it just means that you have to change the game design if you want them to not be used as much or not have the same strength of effect. So the real fix is to improve the monster AI so that it's smarter with it's skills instead of just being insanely strong (a trickier opponent instead of a ridiculously strong opponent). --Tankity Tank 00:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Damage capping skills aren't by any means the be-all and end-all solution to high-level PvE.If a big bad monster is going to do 100+ damage to you you can shut it down with conditions, illusion, domination, or Curses, use some blocking skills, Have higher armour, tank it, whatever. The idea of skills like protective spirit is ACTIVE protection. You see someone's going to get smacked and you react to it. Maestro Ed 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure they are, witness the "lifebond everyone and seed of life the bonder" that is hard mode. 90% of people who play hard mode with any regularity use this tactic. --Tankity Tank 07:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Life Bond isn't a damage capper. -- Gordon Ecker 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you're right - but it has the same type of effect on gameplay. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tankity tank .

I disagree. Damage cappers have a strong effect on large damage packets and no effect on small damage packets. Subtractive damage reducers are (with the exception of big, one-shot damage reducers like Reversal of Fortune) more effective against smaller damage packets. Percentile damage reducers are equally effective against all sizes of damage packets. Life Bond is a damage redirector and subtractive damage reducer, making it more effective against large numbers of small damage packets than small numbers of large damage packets. -- Gordon Ecker 05:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In-detail the Cause of Heroway in GvG and its solution

Disclaimer: Controversive opinion ahead. Read at your own responsibility.

Before I get to the point, I'd like to point out that I understand many will instantly disagree with me. But hear me out first, and ponder about the issue before making rash conclusions. After that you can politely disagree.

The cause of heroway in GvG: excluding guilds who take Heroes on purpose because they are better in several situations, I believe we can agree on the fact that Heroes are a good solution when a guild is missing players for GvG. I believe we can also exclude top guilds here, because they don't use heroes from what i've seen (freely correct me if im wrong) unless maybe in smurf guilds (but I don't think these should be taken into consideration here). This leaves mid to low end guilds. These guilds are not pure PvP guilds with 8-10 players, they are usually PvPvE guilds, where some members do both PvP and PvE and some only PvE. I've been in several guilds, and while I can't speak for all the guilds, I can say that for *all* the guilds I've been in the problem was never lack of people *online* but rather the lack of people who are interested in GvGing.

Research: I've done a poll on GWO quite some time ago, and the result was pretty interesting. In short, the poll results showed that a significant (not 50% of course) portion of PvE or mostly PvE community would be interested more in PvPing if there were any meaningful rewards (balth faction doesnt count and neither do titles/emoticons; real world money for top x guilds also means nothing to casual player). This is not something to neglect, mind you. The conclusion was that a lot of people do mind-numbing repetitive actions in PvE including farming, only, and only because they get some rewards and a feeling of accomplishment which often lacks in PvP for casual player.

Overview of PvP formats for casual players: GvG, AB and FA are the best PvP formats in the game for casual player. I'll explain. RA is too frustrating, and it puts a casual PvPer in a team who will mostly likely insult the player if he does a slight mistake or uses bad build; and, you can also turn out to be this frustrated player. I've seen too many people who permanently quit PvP because of bad RA impressions (which was their first encounter with PvP). TA is too difficult for casual player, because unlike in GvG for instance there is no ladder, you are paired with random team and .. well quite honestly I've seen a lot of people lose badly here and then never play TA again. HA is... I don't like this format, I can't say anything good about it so perhaps others can. But I don't see it as 'fun', plus, it was always full of gimmicks which isn't an environment that I'd advise anyone to get into unless he wants to get bored to hell. It also suffers from the same problem as TA - most of the time you'll get swept away by good teams and will lose the morale to keep playing. Surely, this morale wont affect hardcore PvPers but that's not the target audience here. Hero Battles is a niche arena that's more PvE than PvP, and I won't discuss it here, as well as I won't guild scrimmage. Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood are random arena and as such not to be discussed either (yes I know you can sync but still). This leaves AB, which is an OK PvP arena albeit for me it gets boring fast because there are no rewards (amber and jadeite are too low in price to be considered a reward) and because of repetitive pattern (run in circles, kill npcs, run in circles, win). Considering that none of the named Arenas except HA and GvG can even have Heroes, it's pretty much obvious that we are left only with GvG to discuss. GvG has a ladder system. That means that most of the time guilds will face those equal to them. What does that mean? It means you win some, you lose some. For casual player that means you don't win 2 games and lose 6, like he/she would in TA or HA. GvG is also casual friendly for more reasons - guild identity, you PvP with your closest friends (well, sort of), they can help you with the build, they are unlikely to flame you and insult you etc. GvG also has the most fun maps (Fort Aspenwood is the only one that can match em), most of them are pretty (unlike HA maps, but I guess that's personal preference), and they do include some NPCs (which I feel is good for casual player).

Premise1: Heroway is a solution to lack of players in PvP (GVG).
Premise2: GW has a nice pool of players.
Premise3: People prefer PvPing with and against other people (I don't count those few who like to use any means including overpowered Hero templates to beat other people; they can play HB)
Conclusion: When possible, the solution to lack of players in GvG should be solved by influx of players not by influx of Heroes.

Premise1: As 'research' shown, a significant amount of players would like to GvG if there were meaningful rewards for it (at the moment there are none).
Premise2: GvG needs more players (Heroes are indication for this).
Conclusion: Players should be stimulated into playing GvG just as they are stimulated into various PvE modes. For instance, farming. Ask yourself, how many of you would do PvE farming if there were no rewards (no gold no items), and if the only reward was 'the thrill of beating the monsters'. Exactly my point.

As you can see, the solution is digging into ones own existing pool of players, instead of using Heroes. The existing pool of guilds and alliances as well as friend lists are enough to make a LOT of guilds get 8 players needed for GvG. That pool of players is dormant, it sleeps. And it needs to awaken. I'm not talking about people who don't like PvP or forcing people to PvP, I'm merely talking about stimulating people who would PvP if there was any point in it. I myself PvP for the fun of it, but even I would GvG with guildmates more often if there was a reward to it. Not all people play for fun, actually, looking at all the grind and farming, I'd say a huge number plays for rewards.

Rewards. I'd like to make an overview of current GvG rewards.
Balthazar faction to unlock skill - useless because if players don't have it you prevent them from playing sort of, and if they played enough PvE they have skills anyway. In either case, I never heard anyone is playing GvG to get balth faction, except first few hours of new expansion.
Champion title - Uh... yeah right. The target group is 1% of GvGers if not less. It's fine, but pointless to others, and if everyone could get it, it would still be pointless.
Real world money and items - same target group as above reward.
Wintergreen items and alike - same target group as above reward.
Weapon and skins unlocks through ATs - same target group as above rewards.

Does anyone see a problem here? All the stimulans for GvG target less than 1% of PvP base, people who need the least PvP stimulation because PvP is why they play the game in the first place. How can anyone be suprised that PvP is not more popular than it is?

And yes, as you expected, I suggest, as many did before, that Weapon and Armor skins (ALL, including FoW) are given as rewards to all GvGers. The points would be given for wins, and for xy points one can unlock something. The requirement should be lower than 5years of daily GvG to unlock a normal skin, if you get what I mean. Please, spare me the counterarguments, I've heard them all. They all come down to "I love to farm and I'm selfish and egoistic, others should be forced to farm too if they want goodlooking stuff." This is the only argument against, and quite honestly, are we going to put selfishness and egoism on the altar and worship and support it? I don't think so. I understand that greed can be good motivation but I don't see why egoism and selfishness should be made into a game mechanism when there's no need to. PvP unlocks can't be flashed and mooned in PvE.

There is also another thing that I suggest, and that's for each win one gets 1 "fun item", and flawless win gives 2. By "fun item" I mean stuff like Red Bean Cake, Fruitcake, Squash Serum, Yuletide Tonic etc. Now, I understand that general consensus would probably be to keep some of these items 'event specific' and not given outside of special events. That's all OK. There can always be normal items like Fruitcake and even special items designed for this (but equally fun as transforming into snowman or santas elf). These kind of small things make the games fun. Servant of Kali 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the post - well thought out and exactly like you said, i'd likely quit farming for a bit for a gvg run here and there if there was a point to it. --Midnight08 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. I personally love GvG because it's such a good format with so much tactics involved but many PvEers I know have stressed similar if not near identical concerns. In fact, I can remember the goal of GWs being to merge PvE and PvP early on in the release. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚₮/ḉ〛 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with "Premise 3" thus I find the conclusion to be flawed logic. I think there is an unspoken crowd of people who either can't get into top pvp because they dont use forums and run heroes, and I myself, along with a lot of other people don't mind fighting heroes - it can be a good challenge unless if its the "Heroway" N/Rt shit. Kenshin 14:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the poll on GWGuru, that "unspoken crowd" you're speaking of is so small that it's totally irrelevant in any discussion. Besides, there's a place for it - Hero Battles and entire PvE. So, if you don't mind fighting AI what exactly stops you from playing Hero Battles and PvE? Have you ever thought of the fact that those people in GvG your heroway is fighting against would play Hero Battles if they wanted to play against heroes? As far as I can see the logic is this: "P1 = Kenshin likes fighting with and against Heroes. P2 = People who GvG don't like playing with and against Heroes, otherwise they'd be playing HB. C1 = The solution for both parties is for Kenshin to play Hero Battles and for GvGers to play GvG". Which part of the discussion on GWGuru did you not understand? - fighting against Heroway isn't a good challenge for anyone, it's dull and boring, and in case of overpowered Hero templates it's outright unfair. Do you think I feel glorious when I beat a team who uses Tahlkora and Dunkoro in GvG? No, I feel like I freakin wasted my time, and according to GWGuru thread so does almost everyone else. And lastly, you speak of "people who want to get into top pvp but not use forum vent etc". I'm sorry, but that's not debatable. If you want to get into top PvP you're obviously need to increase the level of team coordination. If you're not ready to do that you don't deserve to be in top PvP. Besides, this whole section isn't even made for people who want to be in top PvP, it's made for people who use heroes because they have to. Not for one-man-armies who like being in top PvP along with their pals, namely, Koss Acolyte Jinn, Master of Whispers and others. If you like top PvP without players and with heroes, there's already such a thing and it's called Hero Battles. Servant of Kali 14:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Readem Promote My Ban Here 06:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good. If you agreed with my opinion I'd be seriously concerned. As for others: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Readem#Add_another_block_to_your_user_page Servant of Kali 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have your definitions of "casual", mixed up with its antonym. GvG reqs vent, team coordination, and dedication at eventually becoming better. All three things, one would not relate to the "casual player". RA, is by far the easiest most stress free form of PvP next to AB/CM. People do not care to PvP, because they do GW as a mere past time and or, have few friends/little time. Not at all relating to the rewards/benefits.

Upon the subject of heroes, they should be limited, not disallowed. Most guild have an avergae og 10-13 core member. For some even less, an example would be PnH. Heroes provied a way, to sub in a character, in case of absence. This, is good. What I disagree with, is the centering of entire Team builds around heroes. Both the simple and obvious solution, is to make 2 heroes the limit. Now SoK, feel free to linger in your immaturiy. Tbh, it is not anyones problem but your own. Now the posting of that link, was silly as I advertise it in my signiture regardless. Readem Promote My Ban Here 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Limiting heroes does nothing. You can have 1 hero and make it Tained Death Nova Bone Minions and make your enemies life irritating. You say you're against centering team build around heroes, but you can center team build around 2 heroes as well, and people do it often. I see no point in even single hero in GvG, as well as I see no point in limiting heroes in PvE. PnH has 10-13 core members because that's their choice, most top PvP guilds have something like that so they don't quarrel who participates in GvGs. Just because they don't want people online doesn't mean they can't 1) play in smurf guilds which they do 2) use alliance mates 3) use friends list 4) use pugs from IRC chan etc and 5) Play something else until 8 gather. And no, this isn't only my problem, and really it's not even my problem anymore since I don't play Guild Wars anymore nor have intention to do so. I still type here however because it doesn't take me much time and I guess I like to make a point which I feel I did so far. All's been said and nothing's been done. Adios. Servant of Kali 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Readem on this one - when I used to GvG we'd spend an hour or two waiting for the last 1 or 2 guys to show up A LOT OF THE TIME. If we had heroes to sub in we'd have played 5x as many matches as we did. Try pugging with the #GWP rage crew for a while and you'll understand why a lot of people don't pug random IRC people for GvG, usually it's a trainwreck waiting to happen. I'm also curious, what 'research' has shown that players want to GvG but just aren't willing to do it for no reward? My own experience is that a lot of people claim they'd like to GvG, but when given the chance they turn it down either for fear of screwing up or just plain not wanting to play the format. --Tankity Tank 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything you said has been counter-argumented 100x already. Is there anything new you want to add or do you just want to repeat this until everyone gets too tired to keep explaining and then you can declare "I win!"? Servant of Kali 07:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I win scrub :P! Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kali, if all you've got to say to someone else's ideas is "it's already been said 100x" without linking to the argument that says it then what you're really trying to do is shut down debate. Shutting down debate doesn't make you right, and it's not something that has any place on a wiki. --Tankity Tank 10:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the argument? It's like saying I should point at the sand in the middle of a desert. If I need to point out a sand in the desert to someone, I'd rather not, because if he can't see it by himself then there's nothing I can do. Just as some people are colorblind the others are argumentblind. The illusion that everything can be explained to everyone is just that - an illusion. Also, you have some weird idea that me being right depends on how many people I convince. No, that's so wrong. I'm right when I'm right, even if a billion people thinks otherwise, and I'm wrong when I'm wrong, regardless of how many people think that I'm right. Servant of Kali 08:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I lol'd. You're totally right, why bother convincing the people who make the game that what you want is a good thing? Dictating game design and then threatening to uninstall is so much more effective. --Tankity Tank 08:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't threaten to uninstall, I uninstall. As simple as that. I don't type "do this or else". I have typed so much stuff, argumented in detail, that it's 3x more than what a game designed would need. However, a game designer has his own ideas and what he feels like doing and what not. In case you didn't notice, who has the best argument doesn't win here. Who has more supporters - does. For that reason, PvP in GW is not 1/20th of what could have been if game designers were more farsighted and listened less to 12yr old PvE-only players. I have absolutely no reason to believe that my arguments will convince a game designer to do just about anything. Money on the other hand is convincing. Just say "PvErs like GvG full of NPCs and as less human players as possible" and there you go. Unbeatable argument. Servant of Kali 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one question, why does everyone think that having 1 necro with death nova and minions whose a hero is gg pwned? Its not like you can't interupt the 1 second cast death nova whenever you need to...Especially with meta how it is anymore. If you have a ranger or a mesmer its easy enough to kill that like nothing else. Diversion on heroes also kills them since they won't cancel the casting. Also, there's one top guild that runs heroes, [ryuk], though they don't use the classic hero build, instead running a 4-4 split. But back to the main point, Heroes don't really cause much of an issue in gvg, they're just a nice free win. 64.164.223.159

Caps for Blocks and Misses / Overpowered Physicals / Passive Defense

This thing comes in a nice package:

• Aggressive Refrain gives you -20 armor while attacking.
• Blocks are capped at 50% (means like Melee/Aegis/Shields Up/DA doesn't stack).
• Misses are capped at 66% (means one 50%/25% does stack). -Void 10:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

o lawd no, physicals are already strong enough. --Tankity Tank 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs more nerfs to melandru, imo, but if Izzy ever fixes the tree, nerf passive defense. The para nerf would be great regardless of any other changes. Tbh, I'd like to see BSurge nerfed to death, too, but that's just due to my love of ether prodigy. --Edru viransu 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Aggressive Refrain gives you -20 armor while attacking.

/signed

• Blocks are capped at 50% (means like Melee/Aegis/Shields Up/DA doesn't stack).

/signed in blood

• Misses are capped at 66% (means one 50%/25% does stack).

/signed in the blood, using calligraphy. love, Aran 21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Those changes are not at all well thought out. It seems to me, that it is more void QQing about not making a spike everytime lulz. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, aran repeated word for word what void said, + love. Sad tbh. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC

Could you please explain me why they aren't thought out well at all? -Void 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making the meta game too offensively oriented. Passive Defense has been nerfed significantly. Bsurge/Hexes/ and Aegis have all taken huge hits. DA was rarely run pre-Aegis. Now, it is almost a staple for all teams. The "missing" note has very little relevance to anything, as no one runs PoF/RH anymore, and Blurred has already taken a nerf. Blind is capped at 90% regardless. Now onto the AR nerf. It is imo, an essential skill for the Paragon class as a whole. Paragons are mainly a support class, with small spiking capabilities (SoL/Vicious/Harrier's/Wild). If you nerf AR, you are hugely nerfing the Paragon Class as a whole. Their active E-management, and Add Build up, will be severely less effective and most importantly, the nerf you suggested would be impossible to cancel. Speaking AR is renewed every time a shout ends, the most common elite being DA, packing WY and Shields up, AR is then a liability of sorts. Unlike a stance, AR cannot be canceled by (ex:Rush). Finally, Paragon Bars are already very stringent, because they lack any amount greater then 10 good skills (For their primary class). The standard Paragon Bar, for any build looks very similar to this:

• Two Spear Attacks
• Elite Utility
• Aggressive Refrain/GftE/SU/WY
• Signet of Return
  • Also, please note how the standard Paragon bar, is extraordinarily dependent of AR.
• AR=Add Build up for VA.
• Anthem for maintaining AR.
• Energy Management, to use Utils

And for those reasons, your suggested nerfs are not thought out very well. Feel free to Argue/Question/Make a new proposition. I am sure to respond. People say such "Trolling" feeds me =). Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 23:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Aggressive Refrain nerf: You arguments would be true, if AR came with -20AL, but the suggestion is, that it comes with -20AL while attacking. You can stop attacks voluntarily at any time. This way AR would get a minor drawback, allowing enemy teams to pressure a paragon in order to temporarily stop him from attacking (it would, however, not be very wise to keep up the pressure, as a non-attacking paragon has 80+ AL). In addition, IAS elite would become more useful, up to now no one uses this good IAS, simply because AR is non-elite, and nearly does the same. - TeleTeddy 08:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I removed GWW advertisement of this site. I use their builds all teh time, because they are teh best in the entire world! Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You posted tons of stuff and didn't even understand the nerf suggestion for Aggressive Refrain. It got already explained by TeleTeddy, but for some more details from Ensign just check the skill in Overpowered Skills / Paragon.

The miss cap indeed isn't very relevant right now, but given in case Izzy should decide to make Spirit/Price/Reckless viable again.

Now for the blocks: A good balanced build should have a mixture of active (miss stuff like Blind and Blurred, snares like CripShot and FGust, shutdown hexes like Spirit Shackles and Faintheartedness, rit weapon spells; monk prots like SoD, Guardian, SoA, Shielding Hands, etc.) and passive defense (Melee Ward, Aegis, Defensive Anthem, Shields Up, Watch Yourself). Currently there exist very strong builds that have all the passive and several of the active layers i named, plus a very strong spike.

My cap has the following goals:

• Discourage people from bringing Melee, Aegis, DA and Shields Up in the same build.
• If you have more than one partywide block, you would actually have to coordinate your stuff for maximum efficiency, instead of spamming it on recharge. Also, these moments where the full team sits in a ward with Aegis and/or DA up regening energy (because of next to zero physical pressure) would be less dramatic.
• Interrupts that have to hit (like SShot, DShot and DChop) have a higher chance to break through these layers. -Void 10:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not the person to care for other's opinions, void. I disagree with the current nerf proposal for AR; it has countless flaws and should be expanded upon significantly. Now onto the subject of blocking and passive defense. To put it quite simply, I believe you are not looking at both sides of the situation. Your suggestions are slanted towards Offense>Defense, when clearly this is not the case. Not only are the caps highly biased (speaking you play frontline strat caller for vD), but they are pointless. Slowly but surely, the metagame is becoming more offensively oriented, so just wait it out. You are basing your own opinions, off that of others (who are not aways correct). I understand as a frontliner void, that you are frustrated when such defenses are stacked upon one another, but it does not excuse such rash/rushed decision-making. People will run Aegis/DA regardless, and they should be able to. Ints such as the ones you mentioned, are all very powerful/useful, and there should be means of negating their effects, or at least to a great extent. Finally, about the e regen when ducking into wards ect; imo it makes games more interesting, and promotes casters in general. Auto-attacking already is a huge advantage, and when coupled with the fact casters req e and cannot regain when under "pressure", makes it semi-overpowered. (Note: I have yet to see one guild [that wasn't terribad] use Faint post-nerf of RH/PoF/RH. Necros in general...need some serious attention imo.) Oh, one last thing: Don't speak to me in such an undermining tone, as it merely pisses me off, and I will probably act similarly, if it so persists. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 09:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some of the countless flaws of the suggested AR nerf. Also, i don't think i'm only looking at one side, simply because i asked several of my guild mates what they think about a block cap. Don't you see that this cap would only have minor impact on most balanced builds? It would mainly reward coordination (which is a good thing) and hurt teams a bit, that bring every fucking passive defense in the game.

Apart from that, we ran a curses necro with Faintheartedness three days ago. -Void 10:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ar Nerf Complications:

• Lasts literally forever/cannot be canceled
• Significantly makes the Paragon ability of quick Add/energy gain and 80 Ar midline moot
• Paragon bars are largely based off AR
• One of the few worthy Paragon skills, that have not been nerfed exponentially (ex:"Incoming!" - Blame teh Holders)
• Their are better ways to deal with it, imo.

Passive Defense:

• GvG rewards coordination already; no reason for further encouragement
• I do not care about the Blocking cap void. This has to do with the inevitable meta shift, that you are helping progress. I tbh, am against 3-frontline teams, that are slowly gaining more of an edge as time goes by. Aegis/DA/Wards/SoD/Bsurge and a few others, are the only barriers separating the balanced meta-game, from an offensively focused meta. I do not know about you, but I would rather not revert to the Korean 4-5 man Training session that dominates everyone.
• You are in the top 20. You should be able to run next to anything, and still win. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 23:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No point in continuing this discussion. -Void 10:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

lulz k. w/e. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I think this is a bad idea, I'm just not sure that it matters. My feeling, and I very well could be wrong, is that the problem with multiple defensive layers isn't that they stack; it's that any one of them will bring your offense to a halt. Sure swinging into Aegis + Ward sucks, but would you really be killing if it was just Aegis, or just Ward? I think the only really noticeable benefit of capping the stacking would be more interrupts from physicals going through. -Ensign 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I can see your point, but from my experience you just feel the difference between 50 and 75% block. Instead of with every second attack, you gain adrenaline with every fourth (other defense aside). I also think the main benefit would be higher interrupt chances for physicals, but nevertheless I'm pretty convinced you would notice a pressure increase and a softening of those zero-hit phases (when more than one block layer is up).

On a sidenote: Maybe calling it 'Block/Miss Cap' is a bit too obscure; the general idea is to make blocks/misses not stackable anymore. Instead of doing a check against each layer, you only check against the highest miss and block chance. E.g. if a character with Reckless Haste and Blurred Vision attacks another character who stands in a melee ward with Aegis, DA, Guardian and Weapon of Warding on him, the miss as well as the block chance would be 50% - there just wouldn't be a point anymore to bring tons of those blockers. A few skills might need rebalance under this aspect, but I think the game would be a lot more fun with less blocks / passive defense. -Void 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that you can feel the difference between 50% block and 75% block as a physical. I do think that in practice they are identical from a pressure perspective: no one dies. The big difference in the cap would be the change in physical interrupts, which I'm not sure is a good thing. The game has a huge emphasis on interrupts right now, and there's virtually nothing you can do to defend against them - passive block effects and miss chance hexes being the only real defenses against Ranger interrupts. I like the idea of physical interrupts being better against passive defenses, but I fear it will just push the game into the 'stand next to you and DShot LoD', one trick win meta. Basically I think that a move away from passive defense would be good, but there would need to be a *lot* of changes made at the same time to keep it from simply being a change that makes melee rape everything. -67.161.44.231 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

i think the only thing that needs changing is the fast cast ward against melee. Its the only brick in the defensive wall that is impossible to interrupt or prevent (unless you get lucky with diversion). Defensive anthem is interruptible by a mesmer, and somewhat easy to interrupt by a ranger assuming theres no shields up protecting the paragon. Shields up is also uncounterable, which i mean as, you cant stop its use. But shields up only affects projectiles so its not a complete blanket negation of all your damage. Aegis is now much easier to deal with due to the fact its caster needs to stay within earshot range of its allies. Constant aegis chains are now pretty rare because of the most recent changes. And the odd aegis that does get cast, well if you need, you can remove it with enchant removal. With VoD now at 18min its so much more important to get the right balance right in terms of defense/offense because there is less time for teams to play GvG properly (by properly i mean, by using tactics rather than 8vs8 fights, base ganks/splits, flag runner ganks, solo ganks etc etc). I dont think passive defense is bad, as long as you have the option of countering it or removing it, whether it be with interrupts or with a well timed diversion. Wards are a special case because once cast they cannot be removed, so they naturally are immune to 1/3 of the natural counters that it might face if you assume that interrupts, removals, diversion are the 3 natural counters. Ive yet to see any mesmer with power leak etc able to interrupt a ward cast by a mesmer with 12+ in fast casting (there's such a thing as latency). And ive yet to see anyone able to predict the casting of a ward when its recharge is lower than its duration (I dont mind read). Deal with fast cast wards first and lets see what happens. Im not yet sure if theres anything else that could replace them. Glyph conc/mantra conc warders? hmmm.--Lorekeeper 13:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ritualists in General

Come on, why do rits still exist? The fact that they haven't been banned from "competitive play" really shows something about the level of "competition" in Guild Wars. They

• have more spike damage than eles. Channeling Magic
• have better power heals than monks. Mend Body and Soul, Protective Was Kaolai
• have more melee enhancements than...everything Warmonger's Weapon, Nightmare Weapon, Splinter Weapon, Brutal Weapon
• have nearly uninterruptable heals. Weapon of Remedy, Vengeful Weapon
• have uncounterable defense skills. Weapon of Warding, Vital Weapon

And they can do all of this with one skill bar. In 8v8 they are manageable, unless they have Infinite Energy, but in smaller teams like TA and RA, having a rit pretty much makes you automatically win. The passive armor-ignoring DPS from spirits is retarded, and the effects are even more so. 20 knockdowns for 5 energy? OK. The mere fact that rits can spike, heal, have passive dps, and stop all forms of damage with 7 skills is just dumb. Shard 04:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Protective Was Kaolai heals for only 10 more Health than Heal Party. It costs 5 less Energy, but it also takes 20 seconds to recharge. What skill gives you 20 knockdowns for 5 Energy? And is there really a viable Ritualist build that splits their attributes between Channeling, Communing and Restoration? -- Gordon Ecker 05:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This wiki starting to get plagued by newbies. First of all, why do Paragons exist? They are much worse of than Ritualist and more badly designed. As second, there's so much nonsense here that if I wanted to counterargument it, I'd have to spend whole day doing nothing but that. Rt's don't have more spike dmg than eles, really, their dmg is conditional and impractical in most cases. The proof is that no one uses Ritualists over Elementalists in 99% cases. Then wow you mention nearly uninterruptible heals, when most of the Rt heals take so much time to cast that daze or migraine kills rt healer any way, as well as semispike. This whole thread is utter BS, as Rits are in need of tweaking and buffing. Having a Rt in TA instant win? Sure sure... whatever you say. The only valid thing you said is that spirits DPS is dumb in 4v4, which it is. Servant of Kali 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Being of one mind with Servant of Kali, I'd like to add the following: There's only one reason why the Ritualist is strong in 4vs4: Because most people are unskilled, stay within spirit reach, and get themselves killed easily. 20 knockdowns for 5 energy, now that's a laugh. A team that gets knockdowned 20 times by Wanderlust deserves to be wiped. However, there IS a problem with the Ritualist, and that are people who place 4+ spirits and wait, expecting their enemy to engage them amidst their spirits. - TeleTeddy 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems relevant to point out that in the gametypes he seems to be mostly complaining about rits in(RA/TA), there is no way to make them come out of their spirit nest. You can run around the map, but you can accomplish nothing by doing so except on the priest maps. --Edru viransu 12:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest playing rits before talking about them. The first time you meet a half decent interrupter, you'll notice that spirits do nothing if you cant get them up and that Rt heals take a loong time to cast. --Xeeron 09:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would require people being good, Xeeron. That simply does not happen in RA. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 09:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have played rit. Everywhere. GvG, TA, HA. Here's what it feels like:

Monking minus skill

I can't understand how you can possibly think rits are fine. You need to take a logic class, then elementary school math. Then you need to play as rit and against rit. Then you need to read the skill descriptions. If you still don't think rit heals are broken, please go kill yourself for the good of mankind. You will contribute nothing to society except maybe mowing someone else's lawn. Shard 04:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't listen to nubs, who tell others to go kill themselves. When you learn2be good, come back. Oh, and QQ, I find it amusing. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shard. I play a Rit and, for fear of being nerfed, I did not want to say anything; but, truth be told, they are overpowered. I would rather have a balanced game than one class get all the good stuff. The ones saying they are not overpowered are biased and want to see the Rit excel instead of having a balanced class. No doubt someone will argue that Rits are not overpowered but they too have their mind made up that OJ is innocent...

• They can hit harder than an Ele without the drawbacks. Take Ancestors' Rage vs Chain Lightning. Both are non elite; AR targets any ally while CL targets a foe; AR deals more damage at 15 magic, has a .25 cast time, lower recharge, no exhaustion, and the enchantment still works if it is removed since it is not time-based (it says, "when this enchantment ends" and not "after X seconds") even then its only 1 second so who the hell cares. Compare Grasping Was Kuurong with Mind Shock...exhaustion kills a lot of Ele spells and GwK KD's nearby foes and can pull off 2 in a row. Who wants to use the sucky Ele class when you can use the Rit for damage with spells like this? And they can heal on top of it!
• Rits can heal equal if not better than Monks (sure, sure, Rits dont have protection spells but they make up for it). Mend Body and Soul and Spirit Light are overpowered. MBaS works with any spirits if within earshot and can do so every 3 seconds and healing 115 @15 rest. Um, yeah, that's a bit much. SL heals for 180 @15 rest and the sacrifice of health is very minimal that it doesn't even faze someone from using it without spirits. Not only can they heal themselves but they can heal others too. Paragons Leader's Comfort has a max heal of 140. Man, I swear, I have seen A/RT's act better than monks and that aint right. You take away their spirits and they fall but while you are focusing on spirits, someone else is giving you a beatdown.
• Weapons Spells are bull---t. Weapon spells are enchantments that can't be stripped. Warmonger's Weapon is waaaay overpowered. That's a long time to interrupt a caster and can't prevent it. Before you respond with a, "just run"...think about it.
• Rits do not need sup runes to do superior healing or whatever. Izzy stated that skills should not do superior oompf without having a superior rune (you can find his statement here Talk:Energy Blast in the bottom of the original skill feedback section). They can pack as much health as they want in their armor and do a fine job. Eles suck while coming with a sup rune cause their damage is mitigated by armor and Mesmers have to put points in fast casting to do what Rits and melee Sin/Dervs do for free.
• Spirits have longbow range too. Not at first but when they do attack you, take watch of your compass and the aggro circle (especially if the spirit is in an elevated position).
• When a Rit dies or has left the game, his spirits are still around. Whether I like it or not, I suggest killing the spirits the owner has raised if he dies but especially if he leaves the game. Why? Those spirits have free attacks, are long lasting and free KD's if you have Wanderlust. To get out of the madness of Wanderlust, you can not, I repeat can not use they keyboard to move but you will have to click the ground instead. Spirits should die once the summoner of that spirit(s) is no longer in play. Same can be said for Rangers. You don't see the sucky Ele having his exhaustion removed when rezzed, now do you? A bit azz backwards if you ask me. If you call a spirit to aide you then you end up dying, the spirit should say, "fk it, im out!"

When I use my Rit, I'm like, "How they gonna make the Rit this strong this but not fix the Ele..." --Phoenix Locklear 20:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Enchantments, hexes and conditions persist after the character who caused them dies or rage quits. Ancestors' Rage is far too cheap for its' effect, I think that it should be restored to its' pre-nerf cost of 10 Energy. But Chain Lightning is trash compared to any other ranged nuke available to Elementalists. As for Grasping Was Kuurong vs. Mind Shock, a better comparison would be Grasping Was Kuurong vs. Meteor. Grasping Was Kuurong costs 15 Energy, takes up an elite slot, takes 1 second to cast, is a PBAoE skill, can be used every 21 seconds, and an extra urn can be pre-cast up to 63 seconds in advance and deals up to 79 armour ignoring damage. Meteor costs 5 Energy, doesn't take up an elite slot, takes 3 seconds to cast but is ranged, can be used every 33 seconds, and deals 119 fire damage and causes exhaustion, which is not an issue unless you're using other exhaustion skills. And you can kite with the keyboard, you just need to avoid moving in a straight line. I'll admit that Ritualists have some good non-elite healing skills, but their elite healing skills can't compete with Light of Deliverance and Zealous Benediction. -- Gordon Ecker 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If Ritualists are as powerful as described then how come they are not seen in GvG (except as flag runners) and HA often? Ritualist should have the potential to give strong spikes (if not better) as an Air Elementalist because they need to set up a spirit and hold an urn before they can get the bonus conditional damage, otherwise their skills are much less effective. Bringing a spirit and an urn just to satisfy skill conditions already take up 2 skill slots. To be effective, the Rit has to dedicate a whole skill bar for this particular purpose. Let's not forget that Air Ele skills have armor penetration, can blind quickly, can cause cracked armor and knock people down frequently. Regarding strong heals, their heals are slow and are much less effective at stop spikes. They also need spirits to be effective and in 8 vs 8 you will expect spirits to go down in less than 8 seconds if the team relies on Resto Rits. Casting spirits leaves the Rit a whole 3-5 for interrupts. They also have to be near spirits to be effective and this makes them very immobile. These are the high prices for those so called ‘strong heals’. Restoration Magic should not even be compared to Healing Prayers in PvP because most experienced players know the latter is broken and the reason it is used is for LoD. If you are using a pure healing prayers build for PvP then you deserve to lose. Regarding weapon spells, you can have only one on at a time. This disallows stacking like what monks can do with enchantments. The reason teams lose in RA/TA to Rits is because they do not kill those spirits that die in few hits. I assure you lvl 5-7 spirits die very easily with or without spawning power. Spirit spammers are not seen in bigger arenas because they are easily interrupted and spirits have a coordination problem. As for near uninterruptible heals, monks have near uninterruptible prots which can stop spikes instantaneously. Changing the Ritualist based on their use in RA/TA does not hold merit. In fact, most of the Ritualist skills require rework because they are too weak and impractical. Ever wonder why you see Ritualist with the same 10-15 skills? --Shadetz X 00:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "not seen in HA" do you mean "not seen in The Zaishen?" Rits are in 90% of HA groups, and spiritway even runs 3-4 of them (a n/rt with 8 rit skills is still a rit. He just has infinite energy).

They are in GvG, they just aren't as common. You don't see them AS MUCH in gvg because gvg requires movement whereas HA requires camping.

Readem, do bad players die to spirit spamming rits in 4v4 because they run into them? Maybe. What if you don't? They move the spirits up, you move, they move the spirits up, you move, etc. I'd rather die quickly than have a match that lasts the full time limit and then lose anyway because I couldn't go within a mile of their team. Thinking makes you successful in life Readem, try it sometime.

The fact is that rits are overpowered in all arenas. Being biased because you play rit and have no skill doesn't make them balanced. Balance is balance, it doesn't care how bad you are.

If you'd like to know more about why rit skills are balanced, compare them to skills in other classes and notice how all the rit skills are better. Play against them. Play AS them. Don't be closeminded because it's the only thing you know how to play. This is supposed to be a skill balance "forum," not a place to show off your e-peen. I'm sick and tired of seeing this wiki go to hell because most of the people who post on it want to preserve the game's most broken features, instead of seeing it become a good game. Shard 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people are using N/Rt instead of a primary Ritualist suggest that Roul Reaping is broken and not Ritualist skills. IMO ally spirits should not give the necros energy. This is bound to be abused. N/Rt are alright healers but they are no prot monks. They still have problems dealing with some spikes. Spawning and Soul Reaping should be changed so that primary Ritualist do the healing rather than Necros. --216.113.208.132 01:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why allied spirits haven't triggered reaping since the update three and a half months ago. -- Gordon Ecker 02:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The current exploit for N/Rt is that if the spirit naturally dies (eg. Life stays for the full 20 seconds) you do not gain energy from soul reaping. However, if the spirit gets killed before it naturally dies (either your opponent kills it or you destroy your spirit) then you get the Soul Reaping bonus. You can try it yourself on Isle of the Nameless by bringing Life, Preservation, Gaze of Fury, Feat of Souls, Soul Twisting (what do you know it has a use!!!!) and etc. The only reason a primary profession is using a skill bar full of secondary skills is the primary attribute. Necro Healers exploit Soul Reaping just like how Touch Rangers exploit Expertise. I do not count N/Rt as Ritualists because they are Necromancers exploiting a bug. Necro Healers satisfies and frustrates me all at the same time. I am content that something other than a Monk is used as the team's primary support. I am frustrated it is not the Ritualist primary used for Restoration Magic because Spawning Power is rubbish and does little to none for a Restoration build. There is a whole section on the Ritualist Underpowered section about the lousiness of Spawning Power and most of the skills. --Shadetz X 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If this bug existed, it's been fixed. I just took my necro and Razah onto the Isle of Nameless and had Razah use Gaze of Fury and various Binding Rituals. Razah's spirits didn't trigger reaping regardless of how they died, Soul Reaping only triggers off of your own spirits, not the spirits of other party members, exactly like the description says. -- Gordon Ecker 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rits can multi spec well, I'll give you that, however, all of you people saying rits are overpowered are missing a few key details:

• Monks have divine favour, this makes most monk heals better than rit ones, and they don't have to worry about being in range of a spirit all of the time. Add to that that they can't prot in a pinch, anyone telling me that shelter is more useful than prot spirit ought to try casting it to save a spiked ally.
• Ritualist damage spelss are just that, damage spells, the reason you see Aeromancers more than you see chanellers in lots of PvP is because of the utility that an areomancer has (Mostly blindness infliction), as well as a primary attribute which compliments them. Bringing me to my next point.
• Spawning power is of questionable usage, a lot of rit spells don't benefit from it at all, improved hp on various spirits is of little value a lot of the time, especially considering how quickly they can be attacked and destroyed. The attribute line of skills itself is the only reason to have spawning power.

I'm not disagreeing with the above points made about the strengths of the ritualist, as all classes need strangths to be useful at all, I'm just trying to remove the horrible bias this discussion has. If Izzy is really going to nerfbat the ritualist, it will be because of the intrinsically passive playstyle they use. --Ckal Ktak 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)