User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/SFDiscussion/Archive

→ moved from User talk:Isaiah Cartwright

Look at all the searing flames eles, and then take note of how fast they roll other teams. It's nightfall release all over again. I know the intent was to promote use on single fire eles, but honestly, no single fire ele would use Searing Flames over Mind Blast. All you promote is teams full of "nukers" that are entirely too powerful. Please revert that change before everyone starts running it again. Oh, wait... too late. :/ -Auron 12:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Silly Auron, Searing Flames is AWESOME. Look at how many people are running it instead of Spiritway now! owait... yeyeye. Faer 12:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think that this build somehow got better by the increase in burning duration. The amount of extra damage inflicted by a team of spammers was not increased enough to make any difference. It just made some people remember it existed.--Mysterial 18:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The buff to searing flames does not change how powerful multiple searing flames characters where before the change, so if people are running a bunch of searing flames guys and doing really well they would have been doing the exact same before the update as they are now. ~Izzy @-'---- 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is the update draws attentions to things....If you say Buff it to 6 seconds burning, then people will notice and use it, but if you buff it to 10 seconds, and then nerf it down to 6, then people wont use it because in their mind it is a 'nerfed skill'. Does it make sense? No! But its what "happens. --ChronicinabilitY 20:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In truth, the only real change that would make SF more useful for HA than it already was, is the fact that spirits can burn now, and thus SF is a natural counter to spirit farms... as the update was intended to do. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Savannah Heat was and is a good counter for spirits as well, but people don't use that quite as often, I don't think. Searing Flames is just popular because everyone wants to try the new "improved" version; it's not much else about it that's spectacular, IMO. Newly released or buffed skills tend to get more attention then others, in general. I think Izzy should keep an eye on this one, to make sure it doesn't get out of hand, but really, if people wanted to run full SF teams, then the Burning duration could be 4 seconds for all the difference it would make, considering how many SFs would be firing off. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, it could be 1s. Lord Belar 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1s would be nice.

@Jioruji: what isn't spectacular about a build that wipes entire teams in ~30 seconds, with no way to prot it? Remember how Ttgr got top 20 on the ladder running Searing Flames? People now say "oh just spirit bond and its gg" because they're total retards, not knowing that spirit bond does nothing against a spike that has a 2 second recharge and will change targets as soon as SB goes up. Ttgr proved that. If SB was such a counter, Ttgr would never have won a match; every team we ever fought had Spirit Bond, and yet, it failed to actually keep anything alive. I'm sure one of these teams might have known how to use SB.

@Izzy: Right, there is nothing more amazing about it now, but it is still overpowered. Ttgr ran 5 SF eles; to make up for the loss in damage, these people run 6. The only way to fix the AoE problem (traps, savannah heat, searing flames) logically is to make the map design less flawed. If I could actually spread out and still hope to win, sure, I'd love to; but I can't do that on more than half of the maps. Alliance battle maps? Lol, altars nuked in 3 seconds. Relic runs? They bodyblock your runner under the bridge, your monks run forward to prot/heal and they get incinerated in 3 seconds. KotH? You manage to get the ghostly on altar and they target your backline that simply cannot go anywhere. If they kite far enough away to avoid getting assraped by imba shit like 6 Searing Flames every 2 seconds, the Ghostly dies. If they stay in range to keep it alive, they get nuked. It's a no-win situation that cannot be avoided based on the current map mechanics.

Maybe I'm just sorely ignorant, but I was under the impression that Guild Wars PvP was supposed to be about skill over build; searing flames, having rolled that team in that pic (a r10/11 plus a phoenix or two group), is obviously build over skill. Unless that was your intent, you've got to fix it. -Auron 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason none of the problems you point out ever get fixed, Auron, is that you actually base your arguments on the actual game. Also, Spearmen-style Arcane Mimicry Ele Attune Echo SF-way, imo. --Edru viransu 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to promote it for single pyromancers but not multiple pyromancers would be to lower the cost and damage but keep the burning duration. -- Gordon Ecker 02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Auron and I talked on MSN about this, but reading over the comments here (that title screamed Auron, btw), he makes a better point than he did on MSN. Not sure I appreciate being called a total retard, but meh, SB sure worked when all the other guys had to SF was a ranger.

Tbh I think the best solution for now is to reduce the burning duration to one second and make it only cause burning if the guy's under 90% hp. Then up the cost to 25e and make it remove all enchantments when you use it (thinking of Auspicious). Extreme, yes, but tbh, it's like shitway - the game's better off with an extreme nerf to completely kill it out for now, than with it as broken as it is.

If you want a more reasonable idea for a nerf, make it trigger on something other than burning. The sheer pressure of burning is enough that nearly any damage is enough, imo; making it synergize with its own burning is kind of ow. If you must, keep the apply burning clause, but I think it should be removed as long as the skill focuses on burning targets. That promotes skill synergy and fancy stuff like that. Armond 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that its spammable is the main problem with this skill, I mean it was designed to be spammed, which is a bad design, and is just asking to be abused. Maybe change its recharge to 7 seconds to match up with the max duration of burning and reduce it to just a pressure skill and even then, it still might need to be nerfed. Heck, you could just make this cause mass burning, no "if burning clause", but boost the burning duration, increase the recharge slightly, and lower the energy, and there, it wouldn't be useful at all for multiple people to carry it, but still retain its ability to reduce spirit nests to nothing (still really confused why that was changed) and still become a pressure skill, I guess.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 03:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, every suggestion here is to change SF, no wonder nothing reasonable has been proposed. How about effective spell counters, particular to fire maybe? Oh I don't know, a fast recharing extinguish, rework martyr so it can be spammed.... Ward Against Harm? Oh, Oh, I got a really good one, make all the other elementist AoE spells just as effective, and force players to choose better positioning and rely on effective counters.... if they don't exist, make some.

It would be really nice if the meta was redesigned with skills to counteract effective AoE instead of equally suppressing AoE damage and AoE defense, and picking on the few skills that actually allow an Elementist to do what he's suppose to.--BahamutKaiser 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I don't even know where to begin. I guess I could sacrifice my monk elite for martyr... or possibly bring ward against harm to counter SF specifically... but oh wait, that would leave me weak against everything else, which is always the flaw in your logic when you suggest trying to counter it. What's the best casterspike counter in the game? Cry of Frustration. Guess what? That wouldn't work very well either.

Builds that require a specific counter are overpowered, plain and simple. Sure, if I was going to GvG against a team that I absolutely knew was going to run Searing Flames, I would bring ward vs harm, a mirror of disenchant, two spirit bonds (at least), and infuse on an off-monk character. I'm not an idiot; if I wanted to "counter" Searing Flames, I very well could. However, that logic is stupid in HA, because I have to fight everything else as well. Please stop making the mistake of thinking that bringing elites to counter a specific build solves anything - if I could bring twenty elites on my team, I'd be listening to your advice. But because, y'know, I'm limited to 8, try suggesting stuff that would actually fit realistically into a build. -Auron 04:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But what stops you from bringing a water ele with Ward against Harm? The extra armor will even help a little if you are not fighting SF. And don't tell me water eles are not useful against anything else, even without their elite. --Deathwing 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go with the "sacrifice an elite to counter gimmick X" argument. Stop using that logic, seriously; Ward vs Harm is absolute shit outside of fighting searing flames. The paltry armor it gives vs everything except for SF doesn't make up for the elite slot I sacrificed to bring it in. Elite snares are, overall, more useful than a ward, especially since the ele is the only character who can bring reasonable snares. If Searing Flames was balanced, there would be non-elite (yet effective) counters to it that could easily fit into a standard balanced. I'm not seeing any. Mirror if disenchant is nice; it kills their energy, but not before you get nuked into last week.

This ties into my previous points... Guild Wars shouldn't be about build vs build, it should be about skill vs skill. In this fantasy world of actual balance, builds with overpowered offense have underpowered defense; however, in reality, their lack of defense doesn't matter when your entire team implodes in a matter of seconds. Again, I point you to Ttgr; we had absolutely terrible monks, yet we hardly lost... thanks to skill imbalance.

Gordon; I like that idea a lot. The burning length is somewhat utility (a number of NF skills benefit from burning), but the damage is too high; taking the damage down to a Glowing Gaze level would be much more appropriate than a NUKE YOUR FACE OFF LOLOLOL level. -Auron 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we're alredy talking about changing skills, a buff to WaH to bring it to the usable level would work just fine. Lord Belar 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Ward against harm when can you use Defiant Was Xinrae to stop it completely? Lightblade 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly easy to spread out when you have to be standing right on the altar or when you have to be right on the cap point or when the map is too small and full of chokepoints, yes? --Edru viransu 12:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If only there was some way to make Searing Flames deal damage when it hit a foe YOU already hit, instead of one guy setting someone alight, and the other five guys skipping the conditional part. Is there a way to set it to remember who hit what? Maybe some sort of effect on yourself, after you land the first hit, thus enabling the next hit(s) to deal damage? The main problem I think with Searing Flames isn't quite the skill on it's own, it's just how much better it gets in multiples. Sure, everything gets better in multiples, like two Lighting Orbs striking for double the damage, but Searing Flames gets more then twice as good when there's two of it, and that scaling is one of the "problems", in my opinion. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 04:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At two in the morning, my brain is pointing me towards Assassin's Promise, and how it works for everyone who hexes the dude instead of just whoever applied it most recently, and refusing to provide me with any more useful information. Armond 09:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have the perfect idea. 10e, 1s recharge, burning duration 1...8...10 seconds, damage 20...124...150, lock it out of PvP. Armond 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Having it hex the target would be nice. Something like:

"Elite Spell. Target foe and all nearby foes are struck with Searing Flames. Foes already hexed with Searing Flames when this Skill is cast are struck for 10...82...100 fire damage. Foes not already hexed with Searing Flames are hexed with Searing Flames and begin Burning for 1...6...7 seconds."

...the wording's a little unwieldy in that form, but the basic idea is there. It would need to be re-worded to be a little clearer though, and to make sure people know the damage only triggers when you hit a guy hexed with your Searing Flames... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointless. Just decrease the range of SF, accomplishes the same thing. 209.189.130.127 21:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Decreasing the range doesn't stop the skill from being fairly broken in multiples, it just means a tightly-packed team has a small chance of not paying for their own mistake. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 21:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason SF-spike is so effective, is because they can "accidently" spike multiple targets at once. Smaller range also hits less choke points. 209.189.130.127 22:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward Against Harm is a great unremovable armor boost, vs all, and particularly vs fire which is most prevelant in AoE damage, and should be more. Martyr is also useful for removing any number of conditions from an entire team, and I did not say it was currently good enough either. Skills like these haven't been redeveloped to fit the meta, alot of prophecies skills fit roles which should counter overly reliant builds but don't because they haven't be redeveloped to fit new additions to the meta. They key lies in changing all of these old counters to fit into a new balance, and ironically, instead of suppressing one skill to fit into the meta, you balance 2 or 3 skills. Obviously the counters arn't good enough yet, or they would already be in use, but since we are talking about change, and talking about balance, lets try to create a healthy balance where more skills are involved and offer effective use, and more abilities are cooperating to create a working system of checks and balances.

Martyr is good for a wealth of things, massive trigger on mend ailment if multiple conditions are being spread, good condition return with a plauge skill, even a paragon, who is notorious for being effective without an elite can afford to bring these along, if in fact they can't improve caugerty signet with something like instant recharge if it removes burning from an ally...

Fact is, uncreative simple resolutions don't improve the game, it is just an insecure attempt to protect the meta already in play instead of focusing on the ultimate priority, game satisfaction. Game satisfaction doesn't come from "balance", as it is obvious, since no matter how many builds are nerfed, players will be upset about an effective build, and players will be upset when they lose it, and players will be upset when their personal favorite or what they perceive to be the most "talent" rewarding abilities arn't halmarked as the best abilities in the game.

There are 2 keys to countering skills, one is the ability to outmatch an over reliant effect with an easier and more economic skill, and two is to outperform a remote effect with a more versatile counter. Martyr and Ward Agaisnt Harm are more versatile than SF, if they arn't effective enough, than how about making them, since these elites deserve to be valuable as well.--BahamutKaiser 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward Against Harm won't be worth an elite slot unless it's overpowered. A little armor's just not worth an elite slot. In earth, it might potentially eventually be worth using in some builds, since Earth eles have some flexibility in elite choices, but water eles have so many far better choices. For Martyr to be effective against SF-way, it would need incredibly low cost and recharge, and would pretty much kill all other condition-focused builds(no condi pressure builds, since you can just remove all of your party's conditions very regularly). --Edru viransu 23:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i love how SF got buffed shortly after this was posted... yeah ok burning duration buff isnt much, but why the hell would you buff nukers that are already TOO GOOD...

@those that say WaH.... yeah ok lets have backline sit closer together so they all take aoe damage instead of just 1 guy

@those that say SB... yeah ok, 6x 100 (initial SF wave), 6x 50(follow up glowing gaze), 6x 100 (followup liquid flame or sf)... SB cant outheal that, ok? putting 2 spirit bonds on same target within 3 seconds costs a lot of energy, and monks standing in middle of 6 eles trying to use channeling, are asking to get blown up... and any decent team bring gaze/rend so pre prot is useless

@those that say martyr... thats the most retarded idea ever, whats the recharge on martyr? and whats the recharge on sf? you do the math :S ... or maybe play the game before you post. -- Phoenixx --130.102.42.97 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WaH and Martyr aren't counters, but um, SB is effective if on target. At 10 prot it's 80 healing per hit above 60, thus initial wave heals for 480 (6 * 80), followup doesn't heal because GG doesn't trigger SB, then SF or LF followup heals for another 320 again (another 4*80, for the last 4 attacks). Net damage = 600+300+600-840 = 720 damage. That's not including armor, and not taking into account the fact that monks can cast other spells after SB. The problem isn't that SB can't allow a monk to outheal an SF spike (because it can, if your monk doesn't just sit there afterwards), the problem is getting SB onto the target soon enough in the first place to make it worth it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying WaH and Mayrtyr are counters, they were saying they need a buff and have the potential to be an effective counter. Lord Belar 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

SB is not a counter. Saying that it is, is like saying you can out infuse Deadly arts spike. Maybe you can do it three times (if you are as good as tommy), but monks simply do not have the energy nor time to keep pre-protting. We have to heal the team, and god forbid someone else is in SF-range. This may just be my opinion though ~R

Precisely. If SB worked at all, Ttgr would not have gotten top 20. The SF team has several options vs SB; the most common one is to change targets. The SB monk will guaranteed run out of energy before the eles will. If the SF team absolutely has to get a kill, they pack this neat stuff called enchant strippers; the bar I run to call for this is a E/N with shell shock, rend enchants and gaze of contempt. SB gets stripped, monk has wasted 10 energy, and the target dies anyway. -Auron 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets see what's the big fuss. Some people are complaining about fire elementalists nuking their asses off. Now what do we do? Either 1: we call the fire brigade. 2: we go to izzy's talk page and scream NERFNERFNERF. Or is there something i've forgotten? wasn't there some ritualist skill against teams that have 6 copies of the same spell they all spam? I think it was something like Xinrea's Weapon. But there was something else about fire elementalists, didn't they have like no armor at all? I seem to remember that a hammer war with full adrenaline just needed like 4 or 5 attacks to kill it.Rhydeble 17:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

People who think Xinrae's Weapon is a viable counter to anything or who think it would make the things it countered not imba if it actually did counter them effectively should not be allowed to discuss game balance. --Edru viransu 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just... wow. In fact... wow. I can't comment further without violating NPA. -Auron 17:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't have anything appropriate to say to begin with, it would help if the topic at least started in a mature fashion. Simple fact is changing SF isn't the only option, and when unpowered elite counter possibles have the ability to offer elite countering if altered to fit a meta 3 expansions evolved past their previous balance, it matches a powerful skill which belongs in the game and should have more parallels with skills that are naturally ment to overcome those difficulties. You can fix one deficiency by aiming at the problem or you can be lazy and find ways to eliminate useful abilities based on remote situations just because it is easier. There really isn't any justification for lazyness when the solution is actually easier and more wholesome for the game, putting it back on track to completion instead of sweeping anothe skill under the rug with the majority of others which have not been properly addressed and pretending like the problem is solved.--BahamutKaiser 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you've come to agree that HA maps and gametypes should be fixed so that AoE isn't so powerful there.. --Edru viransu 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You only have 8 elite slots, and trying to counter every single gimmick with an elite will leave you without any to fight with. Yes, Searing Flames is imba because of 3 generations of power creep - but it's still imba. Sure, you could take another two years and buff every possible non-elite counter to a spammable, high-damage AoE elite spell and let the game be utter shit in the meantime, or you could just re-nerf Searing Flames and get it over with (and have the game not be utter shit while you're buffing the junk stuff). Remember, nerfing skills is on a time crunch; if you let them run unchecked, you fuck up the game forever. If you nerf them early, you don't. However, buffing skills isn't on that same time crunch - but should definitely be seen much more often than it currently is. Power creep means stuff has became too powerful over time; why would you want to make everything even more powerful? -Auron 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets say they do change martyr and extinguish, so the have like a 2sec recharge and like 5 energy, you remove one set of burning, and then one of the SF puts it right back, 5 or 6 sf, vs one or two extinguish/martyr means youve limited yourself to just fight conditions, and you only remove one sf from the equation, youve still got 4-5 to deal with, I doubt thats enough to remove the pressure spam that it brings.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 21:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Martyr and Extinquish will never be counters to SF. Ever. What will counter SF, along with other spikes? Party-wide passive defense. However, party-wide passive defense gets bitched about too, since stacked passive defense is strong against EVERYTHING. So this leaves active prot, which fails against spikes. So the only ways to keep spikes in check is to either A) Buff passive defense, which fails. OR B) Nerf the spike skills so that they can't do much damage. The second idea sounds ok, except then caster damage dealers get the short end of the stick. Their damage is gimped, so physicals are the main damage dealers. Which technically, this is not how the game should be, is it? This leaves two things, damage dealing physicals, and ways to prevent damage from physicals. Eventually, this is going to get boring. My theory is that this game is too complex to be balanced. --Deathwing 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mind Blast ele's are powerful caster damage dealers that aren't balance issues. Also, spikes can be effective while being balanced. Most casterspikes have at least moderate recharge, so you can effectively prot and disrupt their spikes long enough to stop them. However, SF is AoE, making it extremely effective in HA, where you often can't spread out, and it is spammable(and it will run the enemy monks out of energy trying to prot it, and the typical casterspike counters(interrupts, cry of frustration) are not effective. The spammability means that even removing a few attunes or incapacitating a few eles doesn't decrease their power very much. For example, Be Team spike(2 r/e with glass arrows and conjure, bsurge ele, mesmer, warrior with DW(sometimes w/a with shadowsteps)) can be disrupted effectively. You can interrupt FW and Glass Arrows, you can strip conjures, you can blind the rangers or the warrior. The rangers generally have Lightning Reflexes for their block stance, so you can wild blow it or wait it out and pressure them while it's recharging. Whereas 6 SF eles are much harder to disrupt. --Edru viransu 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Deathwing; your summary is right on the mark. The only thing I can think of to counter SF is party-wide defense; finding a good one is the challenge. Ward vs Harm does very well against SF, but is elite and doesn't help against much else. Watch Yourself is decent but semi-hard to fit in a build (and hard to maintain thanks to the recharge). I'd say incoming, but y'know... lol. -Auron 05:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Imagining that the use of martyr alone or extinguish alone will be actual application is silly, a player utilizing effective condition and burning counters will reduce damage alot, and I imagine there are a few other skills that can come into play together to match the competition, hopefully we arn't comparing martyr by itself or with several users as an actual build used to counter conditions and SF.

SF is condition dependant, and a condition removing skill would greatly reduce the damage, it stops burning and stops the next hit from dealing damage instead of burning again. Extinguish stops burning and offers healing if burning, counteracting the damage, and though you can never use it as fast as a several foes, it would greatly reduce damage. Along with other generic defensive skills like WY and LoD, damage can be greatly mitigated. The issue is, this is not just a SF counter, this counters a miriad of techniques, condition application and spread of any type would be ineffective vs a good Martyr user, and best of all, it doesn't have to be the monk taking care of it, one of your effective attackers who has room to leave out their elite can easily bring it providing highly effective condition control.

Ward Against Harm on the other hand is an elite fire damage Ward, and though it dominates fire damage, it should stack better for higher effeceincy, so the way it reduces fire damage should be altered to stack for higher value, but that doesn't change the fact that it still nearly eliminates fire damage and offers unremovable armor as well.

But there's one thing that has to be made clear, every offense needs a defensive counter, every defensive setup does not need to address any offense. The idea that since any defensive build will have holes which leave it vulnerable to another build does not illegitimize it, in fact it validates it. Every offense or defense needs a counter tactic which can beat it, strategy and planning are both parts of "skill", and it is neccessary for defenses to have shortcomings in order to have a fair game. The idea that because a Condition Intensive Counter defense does not work against every offense is broken is just weakness, your not allowed to have everything. Chances are, you may run into a hex intensive foe and get beaten for relying on condition relief too much, and chances are, an SF intensive build will get beaten by a Condition Counter defense if people rely on that too much. Chance encounter and reading your opponent is a natural part of strategy, and it belongs that way, the only issue is that reasonably effective means exist to combat every strategy, and condition countering, as well as powerful Fire AoE defense will offer effective means to offer a counter, not invincibility, that simply doesn't belong in a strategy game. And this also halmarks another significant combat value, the best defense is a good offense, defenses are ment to be flawed, and offense allows you to overcome your flaws with domination, adhere to the obvious combat principles--BahamutKaiser 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, instead of buffing party-wide condition counters to a level that would make conditions worthless, you could just fix the HA mechanics so you don't have to have your party standing there to get pwnt by SF. If SF turns out to still be an issue, it's still overpowered as a single-target spike skill, so nerf it. There you are, two birds(the imbalance of any AoE in HA and the imbalance of SF) with one stone. --Edru viransu 16:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Conditions are ment to be worthless against a condition counter intensive foe, counters are ment to outmatch a technique in spades. The obvious remedy is to try alternatives and punish the foe for over relying on condition countering, taking advantage of their specialization.--BahamutKaiser 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: how can Martyr or Extinguish be changed to counter SF without also being so overpowered as to make DW the only remotely useful condition? Martyr and extinguish are party-wide condition removals. Making them spammable enough to deal with SF would make them far too powerful against any build with any conditions(i.e. any good non-casterspike build and many casterspikes, as well). --Edru viransu 16:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Izzy.. this update DID make Searing Flames more powerful. The damage triggers only if the target is already burning. Making the burning take longer to wear off means it will take longer for it to have to be reapplied with no direct damage.--Thelordofblah 16:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple really, Martyr is a personal risk condition removal which offers effective group condition removal, it doesn't however eliminate those conditions, effective use can place those conditions on a less priority target which the foe may not be intending to kill, so it may make it harder for the foe to kill the target they want to with conditions, or they may simply have to go after the foe who is drawing all the conditions, but the fact remains, that this does not eliminate the condition, drawing several different kinds of conditions onto yourself is hazardous. Both Extinguish and Martyr are both effective against groupwide application of the same condition, but both are significantly liable to condition stacking and interruption.

Extinguish is 15 energy, even at a 3-5 second recharge time, few professions and even energy management systems can keep it up for extended periods of time. The value here is that if a foe is using burning conditions, particularly party wide burning, Extinguish eliminates burning, preventing further damage, and counters it with a heal. Even if the foe in turn applies another burning and a successful SF, the healing counter of 1 Extinguish basically countered the potency of 2 uses of SF, by stoping burning once, and by countering the amount of damage delt with health restored. Foes particularly concerned about SF can bring 2 copies of extinguish and spam it against SF to offer high healing and damage canceling by stoping the next SF from dealing damage instead of burning again, and against that tactic, the healing compensates making it an acceptable option, but agianst condition stacking and cheap reapplication of weaker conditions, Extinguish is an extreme energy waste and almost worthless, there is no way your going to fight incinderary arrows or poison arrows, or jagged strike with extinguish, it is really obvious.

Martyr happens to be an elite as well, so the domination of conditions is natural, just as Restore Conditions dominates condition stacking with massive healing and complete removal on a single foe, and Divert Hexes knocks out multiple hexes and conditions and heals if the foe is hexed, Martyr dominates condition spreading skills, isolating all conditions spread on all allies onto one unit, which in turn can be easily eliminated and controled. That's how an elite counter works, it dominates a specific offense.

As for more general application, both can be used effectively to overcome other widespread condition application, like Aura of Thorns, or normal SF users, or either Rodgorts. A great application would be along with Disease, a powerful condition which is hard to manage, but if the foes melee tank is using martyr to keep disease on himself instead of the reast of his team, and spread it to foes, powerful condition control, it can even work as a synergized build against SF.

When you factor in a players responsibility to position himself properly, the very common armor boost spread around like WY and SYG which will reduce SF numbers between 20 and 60 damage when extinguish outclasses heal party for healing potency against burning, and the obvious responsibility to bring a powerful location control ward like Ward Against Harm or Ward Against Elements (even if they need improvements to do the job they are designed to) in order to hold restrained situations, it really is a matter of examining why this skill doesn't have proper counters for a completely natural advantage instead of trying to kill a move that is being improperly addressed.

You know, if you want to get real advanced, you can bring a Mesmer/Monk combination, or vise versa, and bring Arcane Echo in order to copy skills needed most in different situations. An extinguish or Martyr mesmer can double up condition removal skills in order to counter heavy condition circumstances, wile doubling up on other skills if other situations arise. Those are the kind of solutions you get when you think about a situation instead of leaping to conclusions.--BahamutKaiser 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your entire post screamed to me "WTB ENERGY". Armond 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, condition counters can't be strong enough to counter SF effectively without making conditions worthless. You've not made any suggestions about any way to buff condition counters to deal with SF without destroying conditions in general. In addition, even if that did work, you still haven't dealt with the bigger problem: AoE in HA is imbalanced. The HA mechanics and maps make all effective AoE overpowered in HA. Your "solution" doesn't deal with that at all. --Edru viransu 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And once again you have missed their point, even with extinguish and martyr, thats two skills devoted to condition removal, and if you were going to use two monks, that means you can combat only that, you have no other elite to rely on, youve overspecialized against a build that shouldnt exist in its current form. Even then, its only a matter of time before SF breaks down your team because they have good emanagement and a few monks that can handle whatever pressure you are dealing, because I guarantee they are out damaging you. To put it simply, AoE breaks things in close quarters, unfortunately people think that AoE skills in a game are a great idea, but they tend to break the game and make it bad if left unchecked. This whole counter crap is pretty much meaningless since you overspecialize (A problem which I wish could be addressed soon), and once you get to the one team that didnt have SF, youre screwed. There are three parts to the problem, SF (Im still scratching my head why THIS elite was changed to counter spirit nests, and not any other fire skill, considering its history of abuse, if it was good before, why was it changed, because ppl decided to overlook it?), HA, you cant change builds inbetween matches, which what I think is one of the glaring problems with why gimmicks pop-up here and dominate imo, and then there is the close range maps which wouldn't be so bad if AoE was harder to spam and lay down in general. A lot of what you say might look good on paper, but Im pretty sure fails in application.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 21:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Party-wide defense is how to beat SF - theoretically. Party-wide reactive condition removal is far too slow (both recharge and cast time) to have any effect on Searing Flames. -Auron 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does someone need the stick? We are talking about the counters that should be in place, not the ones that work ATM..... oh, no point explaining to him.--BahamutKaiser 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Like how there's no point in my many explanations of the problems with making Martyr, WaH, and Extinguish into SF counters? --Edru viransu 00:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WTB: "Enchantment Spell, For 1..3..4 seconds target ally cannot be set on fire." 1/4 Cast, 5E, 5R ...Yes it's never going to happem, but thats ALL it needs. Its one simple skill, and becase its one simple skill it is good on both sides. It kills SF so therefore an SF team would bring a counter, But in itself its a counter to SF, so played well and avoiding whatever counter the SF team bring (Diversion etc.) then it can save a team. The team playing best would then win. If SF could catch it on diversion, or if Other team could keep the monk clean and shut down all their damage...this would determine the output. This is purely an example and it probably has loads of floors in it but its late and i really CBA. Its just small skills are always the best! --ChronicinabilitY 01:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because specific counters are really wonderful at balancing things. Like how Complicate makes sure Humility never gets too powerful, and how Vocal Minority deals with paragons oh so well. /sarcasm --Edru viransu 01:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I wasn't talking to you Edru, though your "problems" are really just creative limitations, not obsercals. The idea of having a burning only counter is pretty weak, it would be too powerful for a group to have limited condition resistance too.

Probably the easiest way to add a burning immunity would be with Ward Against Harm, if it added normal armor, fire armor, and immunity to burning it would totally dominate the fire line. On the other hand, it would probably be too effective. A good idea though would be a... oh wait, we already have Recovery. That would half the burning effectively doubling the number of SF needed to keep the burning trigger on. Since Ward Against Harm is a bit outmoded, a simple reduces burning by 50% would also be a big plus. By halfing burning, squashing fire damage, and adding universal armor it would be a powerful safeguard, but the armor alone already makes the damage almost nothing, so it really isn't neccessary. Perhaps Ward Against Elements could offer reduced burning by 50% though, as the skill is geared toward elemental defense and burning is primarily an elemental condition. Ward Against Elements really needs more potency to be considered though, since the armor is nearly worthless. The armor needs to go to something like 40, or simply change it to 40% damage reduction.

Here's the secret, it isn't a specific counter. The truth is that all the other AoE spells and damage available to fire and other elemental lines are entirely too weak, which is why widespread threat from a variety of fire skills isn't recognized as a common reason to bring something naturally effective against fire damage, as well as universally effective armor enchancement. Now you can deny it all you want, "waha, can't utilize specific counters, they arn't good enough so there's no way to fix it". Please, grow up, mockery crumbles under the boot of logic. Whether you recognize it or not, condition counters are not specific to a single skill, or even group of skills, it is specific to an entire catagory of damage, conditions, widely applied through hundreds of skills on every profession, even monk can apply a condition. Yeah, that's real specific, kind of like armor specifically reduces damage, but not conditions, hexes or armor ignoring effects... oh yeah, but it is pretty common... like a condition. Likewise, abilities like WAH and WAE are both counters to a widespread type of damage, with fire damage and some universal damage reduction on one, and universal elemental damage on the other.

Thing is, changes like these undertone a great deal of additional benifits too, the idea that WAH isn't reasonable since SF is the only threat is really a problem. In actuallity Fire AoE should be a threat, Firestorm, Searing Heat, Breath of Fire. These skills seriously under perform because they are too limited by recharge. With highlights on the AoE range and frequency of more spells, things like WAH would become a significant option, and skills like WAE would also be improved along with AoE in order to offer a stronger balance of AoE defense to offense. The real issue here is the what has always plauged elementist, they don't do enough damage. The moment they get a damaging skill everything hits the fan, because all the other skills have been suppressed, and the counters have been forgotten because nobody ever needed them to counter something that doesn't merit a significant threat. You could drop SF and than set elementist aside with Ritualist like it was in the past, running utility benifits, or you can address the issue with a solution instead of a temporary gimmic.

And I'm going to go ahead and finish with this, since this discussion isn't going to become productive. Making comparisons to other broken skills which should also be improved doesn't change the fact that they are designed to overcome an opponent and should be done properly if they don't work now. In the case of Vocal Minority, it is a sound concept. Shouts are a very common occurance, and Vocal Minority is a very powerful shutdown against Paragons. The issue is that it doesn't match up against the additional abilities available to shout build, and doesn't even beat that, not that it isn't likely enough to be useful.

To be completely quaint, I don't care a lick what anyone thinks about it, because almost nobody here is thinking, they are only complaining and rallying against a mechanic they don't understand. Almost nobody here has the perspective or creativity to develop changes that would benifit the game. Things like nerf Melundru and Searing Flame arn't geared toward improving the game, they are geared toward protecting your personal interest for the meta. You haven't bothered to come up with ideas that are universally benificial for those who are enjoying these features and those who contend against it, you haven't come up with any ideas that will balance the use of simular and counter skills related to it, you haven't even come up with functional and acceptable nerfs which will allow the skill to remain competative and original, your just bitching. So whine all you want, cause only there's really only 2 outcomes from it, A) Izzy does what you want and basically discards another skill, because that is all your pathetic nerf proposals accomplish, which inevitably continues with other skills over and over until there's nothing left, B) Izzy just ignores you cause your too stupid to recognize, and simply works on GW2 because it's easier and he is tired of drilling this game into the ground with more and more complaint driven "solutions". History has proven the point irrefutably, it doesn't matter how dense you are, or how bias you are, or how much you assume, the system of nerfing just to fit everything into the current meta and pandering a bunch of whiny players will continue to break down the game, a few revelations in gameplay have made it into the game dispite such opposition, but most of it is dumped at the gate, and completely lost because people can't recognize the ultimate priority. Everyone can have an opinion about how the game is going, but in order to come up with solutions, you have to have the bigger picture in mind, otherwise your just a receiver rushing for the end zone with no chance of success since your missing the pass.--BahamutKaiser 01:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

At least we agree that WAH only really being useful to counter SF is a problem. Your condition topic though, here in lies the problem, SF is one of the best condition spreaders, why, because it can be spammed, and causes a good length in burning, and is AoE and allows SF to do a lot of damage in mass. The reason ppl dont want Martyr and extinguish (well, maybe this could be buffed, but I dont know) to be buffed just to counter SF, is because it makes conditions from other skills even more worthless, since you can remove a mass amount of conditions really fast, that and the idea supresses a little of the damage from SF, but not enough. There is already enough condition removal, there is no need to buff it any more, especially mass condition removal, and especially if it is to only counter one build. Now instead of trying to make the condition counters powerful, improvement in the wards would be a good way to go, since recovery is now, well, it can be beaten by one of the very things it was meant to suppress, yay. This wont happen anytime soon though since ANet has been nerfing passive party wide defense, trying to get things more "active". The only option left would be to nerf SF, unless they decide to reverse their decision about party wide passive defense or something. The only problem with AoE, is the fact you can run out of it, making useless outside of HA, where you really cant, AoE is only going to be good in cramped areas, and from what I can tell, it is pretty good in HA atm (Savannah Heat has been popular ele's for quite a while now, its earth, maybe water, and maybe air that could use buffs). AoE doesn't need a really huge buff, there might be a few things that need buffing, but AoE doesn't to be revamped or brought up in power, you wont change its usage except for in PvE and HA, and in those it will be broken (that is unless wards are improved, even then, Im not sure). Direct Damage, yes (if skills could be made to do damage in packets like the conjure series, it would nice to reduce the power of caster spike builds becoming too powerful), AoE damage, no. If you doubt I have no idea about the bigger picture, plz, continue doubting, but spare yourself from saying everyone doesn't think and you're always right. There have also been quite a few fixes to skills, they've just either been ignored or thrown out. Nerfing and buffing should be used, agreed, but the reason ppl arent happy about this, is because SF didnt need to be buffed, it was fine as is, and Melandru, well, its immune to all conditions, and the thing that was useful for countering it, hexes, have been undergoing a few nerfs to be made more "active". I think you forget how many underpowered skills are in the underpowered section. Also, when ppl like ensign get ignored (who truly does have a deep understanding of the game and the concept of balance) for whatever reason, it really puts doubt into ppl about ANets ability to balance things.--Quicksilver Switch-Blade 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"In actuallity Fire AoE should be a threat" <-- no, it should not. At least, not yet - not until we have a viable general counter for it. Elementalists have never been a damage-dealing threat in the past; now they are. ANet never bothered to put in general wide-spread caster hate because casters could never annihilate your entire team in ten seconds - they were always blindbots and draw whores and whatnot. Now that they pose a significant damage threat, we need stuff to be able to counter them. Warriors, as Ensign has stated, are still king of damage; but warrior hate is a lot easier to fit into any team build because it comes in all forms (conditions, necro hexes, mesmer hexes, ele wards, ele snares, warrior linebacking, etc). Caster hate pretty much comes from mesmers and mesmers alone; and even then, all caster hate is single-target camping, which is ineffective against a team of nukers.

ANet hasn't properly balanced the game in over a year. They've only done reactionary nerfs and very specific buffs geared to counter other overpowered stuff; all that is very unhealthy for the game. They need to take a step back and look at the mess they've made and attempt to fix it. Like in the example I gave above, they gave warriors a monopoly on damage - which is all well and good when you consider how much stuff exists to counter it. Now they had the bright idea to give Eles a great damage-dealing capacity without introducing wide-spread caster hate; stunts like that hurt the game. Stunts like that can't be solved by the brainless buff/nerf game that ANet likes to play months after the initial fuck-up. Stunts like that have to be taken into account and balanced (before release) by the introduction of counters to them. That is where ANet has failed the most; you don't make something powerful (out of the blue) without making equally powerful counters for it :/ -Auron 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Make Xinrae's Weapon 5e, 1/4 cast, 8 rec, lower duration to 12. Then it counters DD/SF/ect, and is also useful in other cicumstances. Would change HB/HA and possibly GvG metagame. Readem 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Xinrae's Weapon has potential to be a good counter against monospikes, but currently it's not viable. A rework to "Elite Weapon Spell. For 5...10...11 seconds, target ally has Xinrae's Weapon. The next time a foe casts a Spell on that ally, that Spell is disabled for an additional 3...7...8 seconds for that foe and all party members of that foe. Stats: 10/0.25/10." might solve some issues. But then again, a counter that shall be used mustn't be an elite skill. - TeleTeddy 08:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No...here's what you do: throw down an Energizing Wind (Eles: "Hurray!"), then when they cast Searing Flames, you go Xinrae's Weapon! (Eles: "Awww!"). Lightblade 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain in words how bad an idea that is, but I couldn't come up with anything that didn't flagrantly violate NPA, so instead I'll just not. --Edru viransu 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something here, or could this whole thing be solved by only making SF work against one person at a time? Either one person burning, or damage to one person, or both? That'll reduce it to only just above the level of the rest of the gimmick spikes, and now that we've got some breathing room we can proceed at our own pace to find a real, sustainable solution. --207.34.158.232 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still a bitch of a spike, but it's a good start. Perhaps make it if it targets a human creature of your level, it doesn't have AoE and only does half damage? Won't work for GW2, but it's a good patch for now. That way, it's still viable for (most of) PvE. Armond 03:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm an idea: Make sf a hex, and say 'Elite Hex Spell, strike target foe for **...*** fire damage. If target is already hexed with searing flames, target foe and all foes near that foe suffer from burning for 2..8 seconds instead.' 86.145.255.12 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)