User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/TabChangesList/Archive

→ moved from User talk:Isaiah Cartwright

I know you've split your skill balances into sections, but as this is all one big suggestion, I thought it would be best to keep it together.

General changes:

• Block chance is capped at 50%, but single skills or effects can go over this cap.
• Each hall now has two Bodyguards rather than one.
• Fix the catapult maps.
• Miss chance is capped at 50%, but single skills or effects can go over this cap.
• NPCs no longer come in waves, but they have updated AI so as not to be destroyed by AoE.
• Victory or Death begins at 25 minutes. Guild Lord advances at 30.

Warrior:

• "Shields up!" - 45 recharge.
• "Watch Yourself!" - 6 adrenaline cost.
• Agonizing Chop - 8 adrenaline cost.
• Tiger Stance - Change duration to 0...10 seconds.

Monk:

• Aegis - 15 energy cost.
• Balthazar's Pendulum - Rework to "For 5...17 seconds, the next 1...3 times target ally would be knocked down, one nearby foe is knocked down instead."
• Blessed Light - Rework to "Heal target ally for 10...94 health and remove one Condition and one Hex. If a Hex was removed, you lose 5 energy."
• Divine Boon - Increase heal to 25...61.
• Light of Deliverance - 8 recharge.
• Mend Ailment - 3 recharge.
• Shield of Regeneration - +24 armor, 7 recharge.

Elementalist

• Conjure Lightning, Flame and Frost - Reduce bonus damage to 5...15.
• Gale - 1/4 cast time, 12 recharge.
• Glyph of Lesser Energy - Spells cost 7...15 less energy to cast.
• Ward Against Foes - 30 recharge.
• Ward Against Melee - 15 energy cost, 30 recharge.

Mesmer:

• Blackout - 3...6 seconds.
• Distortion - 2...5 Duration.
• Energy Drain - Target foe loses 4...9 energy.
• Energy Tap - 2 cast time.
• Inspired Hex - 4...11 energy gain.
• Mantra of Recovery - Reduce effect to 33% less recharge time.
• Mantra of Recall - Change to "Elite Stance. For 20 seconds, you gain no benefit. You gain 13...25 energy when Mantra of Recall ends."
• Psychic Distraction - Causes disable for 5 seconds.
• Revealed Hex - 4...11 energy gain.

Necromancer:

• Jagged Bones - 8 recharge.
• Soul Reaping is changed to "Whenever a non-summoned creature dies, you gain one energy for each rank in Soul Reaping."
• Angorodon's Gaze - Only gain 10 energy if under a condition.

Ranger:

• Heal as One - 10 recharge.
• Lightning Reflexes - 0...11 Duration.
• Rampage as One - Change to: "Elite Stance. For 3...13 seconds, both you and your animal companion attack 25% faster and run 25% faster." 15 recharge.

Assassin:

• Augury of Death - 10 energy cost, 30 recharge.
• Dancing Daggers - No longer counts as a lead attack.
• Dark Escape - 5...15 second duration.
• Deadly Paradox - 10 energy cost, 30 recharge.
• Impale - 5...65 bonus damage.
• Smoke Powder Defense - Make it the next 1...3 times you are struck.
• Way of the Fox - 10 energy cost, 30 recharge.

Ritualist:

• Warmonger's Weapon - 2...10 second duration, 25 recharge.

Paragon:

• "Go For the Eyes!" - 5 adrenaline.
• Defensive Anthem - 30 recharge.
• Aggressive Refrain - You have -24 armor while this skill is up.
• Leadership changed to "For each rank in Leadership, your Shouts and Chants cost 3% less energy to cast."
• Paragons now have 3 pips of energy regeneration.

Dervish:

• Avatar of Melandru - Change to "For 10...68 seconds, whenever you use a Skill, you lose 1...2 Conditions."

If Izzy or any of the more experienced users on the wiki could offer any feedback, I'd appreciate it. Tab 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude you can not simply ignore everyone and put all your narrow minded nerf suggestions here, post in the right sections, your ideas are not more important than others, no exceptions. 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion for Balthazar's Pendulum. That's a very interesting idea. I'd rather not comment on the rest. ~ dragon legacy 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are complete game fixers.... 84.9.10.165 18:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost choked to death, not even going to comment on each skill because it would take too long, almost none of these are improvements to the game.--BahamutKaiser 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. This kills every major shitty gimmick that is ruining this game. 84.9.10.165 19:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the list is going to be by no means perfect, hence me wanting to get advice from the more experienced contributers (Ensign etc). However, I feel that this contains several good changes to get rid of the most gimmicky and imbalanced builds and promote diversity. Tab 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the nerf to Avatar of Melandru - I think the nerf would remove the current role Dervishes have in the metagame, leaving them without nothing else to do. I think this is the kind of nerf that, while necessary, has to be together with a list of buffs huge enough to give dervishes some new role. Tab, I would suggest posting that list in one of the fanforums...I have the feeling that, after Isaiah last updated his status (as seen above), we have less players (including less of experienced players) watching this page. Erasculio 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a buff to other Dervish skills to make them viable without AoM would be good, and AoM might still be usable for like, deep frontlining and pressure pushes? 84.9.10.165 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is that while AoM is overpowered at the moment, with the buff (The condition removal acts before an attack lands), it would still make then very strong vs conditions, but would require more energy. Tab 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused now, Mr Anonymous. If the ideas and comments of all users are equal, why won't you post at the end of this discussion, like anyone else does? Did you really think your stupid date faking would fool anybody? - TeleTeddy 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, these suggestions are using 1...12 attributes, as I based my numbers off GWiki. Tab 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to suggest nerfing wards, then don't forget to mention the uselessness of the other wards! And to that I add: wards are just fine, not overpowered. They are easy to deal with and require a high investment to be truly useful. And they also have a long aftercast, high recharge... 145.94.74.23 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

MoR Warder - Requires around 4 earth to have more than 100% upkeep time. Tab 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is not enough for you to cap block to 50% and miss to 50%? but also you nerf all the block skills like aegis, ward vs melee, Defensive Anthem and shields up. so no defense right? do you want the meta to only have warriors or what? maybe you miss iway? Coran Ironclaw 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I'd just rather not have borefests that get two kills over twenty minutes due to insane amounts of blocking skills. Tab 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Coran; are you being serious? People would still run ward vs melee and all that shit, it would just be a little more costly to do so (instead of the no-energy-problem, spam-skills-on-recharge meta we have now that makes for *really* boring and skill-less matches). I was thinking bumping melee up to 2s cast, but I think the recharge hit would be better.

And that change to leadership is really what it should have been in the beginning. Five stars there. -Auron 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 5 stars for completely destroying the balance difference between 5, 10 and adrenal shouts and chants. you do realise that it was all made for the current leadership system right? --Ckal Ktak 21:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It means I get a game where I hit something more than twice per minute. And balance between costs of chants? Wtf? Paragons on current leadership have infinite energy. They dont care what the cost is. Atm it actually means they use their brain at least a tiny bit.84.9.10.165 21:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Paragons don't have infinite energy. They have returning energy only wile using shouts and chants, only if they are successful, and only if they invest in leadership, and only if they maintain proximity to several members. The last of which is a serious liability if the opposing skills are developed, and the first of which can and should be countered better, but counters are apparently being completely overlooked for suppression and removal of poorly recognize and intergrated skill types.--BahamutKaiser 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Implementing this would not only KILL most builds out there, but not promote diversity in the slightest. Tell me how removing entire classes from PvP (which is what you are suggesting with Dervishes) would promote diversity. My feeling is you just want to run hexes and are asking for a nerf to eveything else. Please think about the effects of what you are suggesting before you actually do. Some of your suggestions arent terrible tbh and a couple i even like, but overall its a mess and would not be good for the game in the slightest if they were put into effect, in fact it would make the game the most unbalanced since iWay! --ChronicinabilitY 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not actually criticize a specific suggestion(s) instead of just making a broad generalization that makes you look as if you hadn't even read most of his suggestions(like the severe hex nerfs). --Edru viransu 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the list of changes to necromancers he suggests and then say that again! And i did read the entire list, and no i'm not going to justify why most of them are terrible individually because i dont have to. Maybe you can't see why they are bad changes but that doesn't matter, Izzy makes the decisions and i know he will see all of the glaringly obvious faults in whats been suggested here so there is really no reason to explain myself. If you cant see how bad they are then please, stop commenting! --ChronicinabilitY 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't suggest nerfing any of the individual hexes. Individual hexes aren't problems. The stacking of miss hexes(which he did nerf) is the issue. Saying, these changes are bad and if you support them, you are horribly bad at the game, is a lot less convincing than providing any support whatsoever for your viewpoint. --Edru viransu 01:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I like quite a few of these proposed changes. Necromancers need a few nerfs though, and if nerf/buff at this ratio, all we'll end up with is a pile of shitty skills. Lord Belar 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I only disagree with about...28 of your suggestions, and I am more then willing to explain why =). Also, some are just idiotic such as a 45 sec rec Shields. We can hope onto MSN, or debate here. I have a bad habit of making people look stupid however. Readem 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with alot of these suggestions is that they are almost all geared toward fitting skills into the current meta. The problem is the current meta isn't what it should be, alot of skills are not being utilized, and not just skills, but entire skill types and functions. Alot of skills need better functions, better use, better counters, by trying to develop balances mainly on how they can fit into the current meta and how the game works currently only steepens the distance between where the game is and where it should be heading.

I hear alot of nagging about Paragons and their energy management, yet it is only energy management with a single technique. Shouts and Chants have significant limitations, proximity being the biggest one, and their Primary also requires proximity, making group coordination a neccessity, and making them liable to AoE. The natural and designed counters for this feature are the object of weakness, the AoE Radius, Cost, Frequency, and DoT Duration all fail to naturally counteract this obvious disadvantage, it only makes sense that foes stacked together are countered by AoE damage, but AoE damage is being paid for as if it is granted the damage it gets for hitting multiple foes, but multiple hits are situational, not granted, and if these skills matched up in potency, they would offer natural counters to Paragon and Ritualist builds. On the same topic, there arn't strong enough counters to break down a Shout Synergized team, so instead these skills are being nerfed and attacked. In many situations these skills lack the potency and synergy to grant a reliable effect, so nerfing them and taking them out of play isn't the answer. There needs to be more effective counters specifically for Shout Intensive builds which ensure failure or at least difficulty for a Shout Synergized team.

If all you can do is try and balance what we are already using to fit what we are already doing, your not solving the ultimate issue. Balance is not the ultimate goal, in case anyone has forgot, none of us play a game because we had a desire for balance. Balance is just a safeguard to ensure fun and enjoyability. Fun and Satisfaction is always the ultimate goal, and when your balancing scheme involves making more and more skills and builds and even entire professions less fun to play in order to serve balance, your killing the future to satisfy the present. There is alot of balancing that needs to be done, and to really get on track, some major redevelopment for loads of skills and even entire skill types and skill advantage revolution, but the goal here is making the game more fun to play, each skill needs to be designed with action, frequency, and satisfaction in mind, with balance as a requirement to fulfill because it is needed, not because it is a goal.

If you want a perfectly balanced game, let everyone play the same character with the same build and same equipment, there you go, everyone is equal. Sounds extreme, but that's exactly the mindset which pursues nerfs on everything that causes friction in the game, and that is why revolving weaknesses are pushing more and more skills to become less effective in order to stay in line with the very few skills and builds and even skill types in the meta. The object for changing skills belongs on and always should have been how fun the skills and characters can be to play, wile making preperations, counters, and opposing features to ensure that one effect in particular does not dominate. When that becomes the priority, you can design alterations which enhance and introduce more and new ways to play, and develop fun abilities and builds which are satisfying to use, and equally met with opposing abilities which are equally effective, competative, and also fun to play.--BahamutKaiser 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bahamut... your last paragraph is pretty much entirely wrong. Yes, nerfs are geared to make a balanced game... That doesn't mean, however, that a jump to the other extreme of logic is in order. After these nerfs, people will still have tons of skills to play, they just won't have as many broken ones (hopefully). Remember, izzy buffs a good number of skills each balance, bringing previously bad skills into play and thus removing the chance that people would be stuck with only enough decent skills to run one or two builds.

I disagree with a few of these, but by far, most are trying to bring more gameplay styles back into the game. Buffing jagged (but removing the SR bonus for minions/spirits) would enable an entire slew of builds revolving around minions/minion bombing without breaking the meta by allowing unlimited-energy-fueled healers.

General changes look good overall, however, pushing VoD back isn't needed. NPC AI to kite out of AoE would be nice, though.

Warrior: Agonizing is irritating but not game breaking. It sacrifices raw power for conditional utility, I'd think 7 adren would be good (6 is just a tad too spammable, 8 would be too much work for not enough oomph). Tiger Stance nerf is unneeded; it's not the IAS, it's the rest of the bar. Burst sins were good back before everyone used Tiger Stance, they'll be good after.

Monk: LoD doesn't need a nerf. It's the only healing elite ever used, sure, but it isn't overpowered; buffing other healing elites would really be the way to go (glimmer with 0r and +2e if target is under 50%hp, woh as target self, maybe slightly shorter recharge, etc). Nice work on Pendulum, that would (maybe) let it see play without it being overpowered (hell, aura of stability is still better, and it's nonelite). Note: if gole gets nerfed, aegis doesn't need 15e.

Ele: with the possible exception of the conjure damage reduction, all five star changes. Gale would be more of a keystone skill in builds (as Ensign has talked about a ton), gole would be harder to use (but still possibly worth it) on non-ele primaries... and the all-too-common wards would take more skill to use.

Mesmer: meh. MoR recharge taking a hit is fine with me, 33% is still plenty fast enough for diversion spam. I don't see the point in the PD nerf/buff, I'd rather it be 15e.

Necromancer: Yes plz. Jagged Bones being the cornerstone of minion builds would be awesome, even if I had to get real monk bars for it :P

Ranger: Lightning Reflexes nerf? Same issue as with Tiger. Nerf the rest of the bar if it needs it, leave the IAS alone. Also, on RaO, I'd add something in like "each adrenaline skill used while under the effects of RaO takes 4 seconds to recharge."

Assassin and Ritualist; ya rly. Good changes. Warmongers is ridiculous, assacasters i've discussed above.

Paragons: Mostly, hell yes. Including the DA nerf. I really don't know about the 3 pip part though... it'd make them more versatile in casting roles (like water snares), because it would reduce the need to wand for energy... but meh. We'll see if the AR balance (it needs to be 24 btw, not just 10, for the same reason motivation sucks; people running 5-8 paragon teams will have an assload of defensive shouts, and that's mostly where the imbalance shines) balances their at-stand play enough to warrant them being better at relic running.

Dervish: Yeah, I like that idea. They're currently nearly impossible to spike down via immunity to deep wound... and this would actually affect their damage output when they try to spam the hell out of Wearying. -Auron 11:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think these changes would do more harm than good, on the whole. -Ensign 23:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As much as I like my Rit/N bomber, that SR nerf would put the last nail in the coffin for Necros and make EVERYONE a Rit. Heck, you might as well make a R/N with Expertise than a Necro-main MM. It's too much. Though I do support the Jagged Bones buff. It's already conditional twice over, needs to be on a minion and Elite, so why not make it worth it? Making Ang's Gaze a gimped Necrosis, and telling Rits that they can only interrupt casters 13 seconds out of every 25, including the Spawning Power buff, is just narrow-minded. I'm glad you're not Izzy, you can't think beyond your own cookie-cutter PVP build. --BarGamer 01:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What about preventing Soul Reaping from triggering off of other players' minions? -- Gordon Ecker 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It really is that extreme. These alterations to a few skills have rarely led to new functions being used by existing professions, it just adds several ways to do the same thing on multiple professions. The kind of nerfs we are facing are ones which removed entire skill functions from the game, wile we are getting broad skill improvements over general effects to compensate. If you haven't noticed, most of these improvements simply compensate by making professions like Assassin better at things other professions do, making them akward alternatives for something we already have, instead of effective unique options for something new.

This is what caused failure with Ritualist Defense, Paragon shouts, and Assassins mysterious surprise ability which has only been returned to the game through elites after updates, along with massive increases in offense and defense accross their skills instead of giving them the bread and butter shadowstep frequency they were designed to operate on to begin with. This is also why AoE effectiveness from Elementist and later Dervish got hammered. Failing to balance the game based on where it should be heading instead of the current meta. Not so oddly enough, most of the reductions in power are related, because one options was removed, all related options had to be reduced or removed as well. We are already on the far end of the spectrum involving nerfs, nerfs lead the molding of GW, and still dominate the molding of the game to date. Mass improvements were required to bring back all the power stripped away accross the board because of the unending trend of nerfs allowed in GW, this isn't an answer to the balance of GW, it is just a testiment to the failure of continous nerfing done to the game.

Balance, that elusive thing which ensures dominante builds don't spoil the fun, fun which has been knocked out of priority because of fear, fear of unbalance which will ruin the game. Fear is that thing that makes a victim run up the stairs and trap themselves when running from a murder, fear is that thing that ensured your failure with a hot date by not even taking a chance to hit on them, fear is controlling the shape of GW, by trying desperately to protect the meta, the real priority is being overlooked. Fun, designing and empowering unique and diverse gameplay, and ultimately strategy options, and then facing the second priority, which is creating enough opposition and counters to ensure it is balanced.

As long as the "balance effort" is designed around how we are going to control anything that scrubs against the meta, it is a negative influence to the game. Most of these influences are simply not adequitly emersed into the game, causing them to be too powerful or ineffective with the current system. The serious issue is bringing back all of these very attractive and enjoyable effects to the game, and redeveloping heavily in order to undo the years..... of monotonizing balances which removed and prevented interesting abilities like Widespread AoE and DoT damage, AoE attacking, hit and run tactics, widespread defensive support, and localized support and empowerment.

Hasn't it crossed anyones mind why the recent professions suffer the most disfunction and instability? It's simple, the effects they were ment to operate were dropped at the gate and they were improvised to fit into the meta. The widespread defense of Ritualist was too strong, instead of developing and advertising effective counters, and subsiding the benifits, the skills were obscured and over priced outside of useful operation, removing them from play. Ever wonder why Assassins were alternatives to bringing a pet for corpses when they were released? Because shadowsteps were not developed with natural counter effects from existing and new skills, making them to effective in competition, this lead to the genuine removal of the effect to which it was not a viable option, leaving Assassins defenseless against most forms of attack. Noooo, lets not give them effective hit and run capabilities, instead lets give them enough block to deflect a hurricane and bump up the attack damage (which was somewhat neccessary). How about those Paragons? Let's just remove and reduce shouts to an absolute minimum so secluded combinations do not dominate, instead of offering any counters strong enough to dominate and defeat this highly circumstancial advantage. Well we certainly can't count on AoE damage to punish localized support synergy, since we tolk away Dervish AoE attacks in order to match the limitation of AoE and DoT damage provided by Elementist, both failing to provide natural difficulty for poorly positioned, or guess what, locally support synergized units...... what a coincidence, the opposition was designed into the other profession that came in the same chapter, but was removed right out the gate because it wasn't accepted, how obvious does it need to get.

There are really, much less skills that need nerfing than supposed. Just as often as not, skills need opposition improvements instead of nerfs, from the begining there should have been equal amounts of improvement and reprovision of skills along with nerfs to balance the game. Coming back to fix a legacy of nerf skills, and entirely suppressed mechanics in the game with monochrome improvements to common effects does not undo the damage. The game needs a whole lot more than balance, it needs revelation. It's grand that Anet has tried to use improvements to balance features, as a last resort when they reached the end of the nerf rope, but simply boosting up and taking down the common effects among different professions does not bring back grand original game mechanics which were obscured and removed in order to serve the games current and highly deficient meta.

I can elaborate further, but no matter how much I explain it, some people will like empowering the game, and others just want to protect their precious meta and deny opportunity for others who want additional options, besides, monologging gets old. I'll just end with this, if your discussion and topics are all about how your going to fit a bunch more skills into the meta, and revive a few skills by arbitrarily boosting or reducing their effect, than you really don't have anything benificial to suggest for the game. It doesn't take geniouses to raise or lower the effectiveness of a skill in order to make it more competative, what we need is creative ways to draw new, or really just previously suppressed options, back into gameplay, with function adaptations, counter options and counter adaptation into existing skills, and appropriation for those professions roles and restraints. By looking at the OP, I can see the only concern for Ritualist is reducing an effect someone personally dislikes, and besides the fact that these adjustments are horribly inaccurate, it is obvious that no consideration was shown for remedying the ineffective and disfunctional defensive spirits which are almost totally useless. "Where's Your Head At?"--BahamutKaiser 04:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Applauds, /signed.* I agree that people don't play for fun anymore, they play for Title-grind/PVP. --BarGamer 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Change title to "A list of nerfs that I think need to be made". ;) There are some interesting ideas, but you focused on nerfs - I'm missing interesting buffs (there are a few exceptions, but anyway...). - TeleTeddy 08:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And Impale is overpowered because...? --J0ttem™ 09:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That would imply that there weren't any buffs in it. --Edru viransu 21:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just think the ratio between nerfs and buffs should be better (looking from the buff's point of view). - TeleTeddy 22:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if this was only a list of the nerfs needed to balance some issues, and a need for buffs was recognized yet excluded, these alterations are not designed to move the game toward diverse options, additional strategies, or increased frequency (which is the measure of action).

The majority of these alterations are clearly geared towards killing defensive play so the game favors a fragfest instead of solid team survival. Not to mention, that GW involves a Death Penalty in order to make death devistating, "lets make deaths common place and easy". The game is not designed to operate like that, almost all of the defensive nerfs are defective toward GW gameplay, and few suggested alterations are even improvements. Blocking doesn't need a nerf, Unblockable effects abound, making this type of defense a failure and liability, beyond the different situations where the effect can be stripped. Miss Stacking doesn't need a nerfs or a cap either, the generic miss condition places 90%, wile most other effects are expensive, as well as remote and stacking them is a very costly endevor which yeilds little benifits beyond additional punishment effect added to missing. Defense is harder to manage than offense, it takes far more reactive capabilities, and much better judgement in order to succeed.

This bland assumption that because the massivle stacking advantage of armor buffs was capped, that basically all other defensive measures should have caps as well as reductions is not only seriously overkill, but it isn't relavent. The push to work offensive superiority into the meta based on unreasonable preferance, wile overlooking higher priority disfunctions and features which really need the attention.

I woln't say that caps on blocking and missing are unacceptable, the truth is, a melee may as well be shutdown at 50% failure since he cannot rely on any of his offensive techniques. But we are not talking about armor, armor which can basically only be stripped, because very few effects offer armor reduction, and the maximum you can produce is typically a circumstacial 40 armor reduction, which is conditional to how much armor the foe has making armor reduction under 40 difficult. As well as armor penetration, which only stacks certain ways with different skills on top of armor reduction. Trying to apply the same feature to counters which are rarely unremoveable, and also able to be bypassed, does not compare. And the one, two attack on these effects by trying to cap out the effect and also nerf all related abilities across the board is insanity. A few cameo appearances of widely disliked abilities of which most are simply disliked and not unbalanced, doesn't justify this attemp to turn GW in the opposite direction of progress.--BahamutKaiser 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ensign. Readem 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

<comment removed by author> --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.162.231.50 .

They allow every moron to make comments, so why shouldn't they allow everyone to make nerf suggestions? Seriously, this list is just a summary of discussions all around skill balance section. It's born out of impatience, you have to read it like "Look, these are the current issues, I already pooled and wrote them down for you, so please, do something!" It does not solely reflect the author's view.

NOTE: My comment does not refer to Readem, but to a removed comment. - TeleTeddy 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has a right to offer their opinions, and make suggestions, no matter how uneducated they are, freedom of speech ensures people arn't supressed. But that doesn't mean everyone knows what they are talking about, or have a benificial perogative or objective perspective. And others have a right to judge and deny the opinions of one anothers based on understanding, functional preservation, and benificial perogative. Some would consider this a duty. Freedom without responsibility is chaos and disfunction, the objective of freedom is to allow people to pursue their own interest as long as it does not harm others, and the right to defend their beliefs. That does not mean everyone has to respect the opinion of others, respect is owed to accomplishment, and assuming anyone should respect, accept, or consider on equal grounds the thoughts and remarks of others just because they have a right to talk is disfunction.

Just because someone brings up a bunch of abilities, reguardless of the adjustments suggested, does not mean those abilities are subjects of imbalance. Their analysis and perogiative behind protesting against certain skills may not be accurate, and may not be wholesome or functional to the widespread enjoyement of the game and the boundaries to be respected. These don't have to represent the author for others to damn it. This is a skill discussion topic and ideally the topic should not deviate from the subject onto the writers, so remarks about eachother are unneccessary. But not everyone has something benificial to offer, and long term disapproval about topics naturally progresses to disapproval of those who contribute them, and unless the community is composed of people who can recognize and abide by boundaries and priorities, people will dislike eachother.

Impatience breeds prejudice and and protects subjectivity, and by no means justifies someones opinion. Nobody ever offered anything useful by being too impatient to learn their topic and rationalize a solution, the only time impatience helps is when your done wasting your time on a lost cause, and you find something productive to do.

And I hate Liberalism.--BahamutKaiser 02:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

heh..all these changes are uncalled for. Lightblade 05:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read this entire section and I feel stupider for it. --Tankity Tank 08:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mantra of Recall - Change to "Elite Stance. For 20 seconds, you gain no benefit. You gain 13...25 energy when Mantra of Recall ends." This made me laugh, Mantra of Re-STANCECANCELDASH LOL. There was a reason this skill was made an enchantment and not a stance you know. --Ckal Ktak 11:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's so unreasonable. An Elite energy management skill which only offers an additional 10-12 energy return in a very untimely manner isn't really impressive, it really only functions well as an energy storage device if your going to steal or gain energy through other avenues, and there are plenty of self enchantment removal abilities as well. I'd like to know some effective applications of this, where a profession is willing to give up their elite for less than impressive energy management. Even if the skill was a stance, your using up your elite plus including another stance just for energy managment.--BahamutKaiser 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes because its totally fucking hard to remove enchantments from yourself: LOL CoP, RELEASE ENCHANTMENTS, EVERY DERVISH SKILL LOL.--Thelordofblah 03:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Light of Deliverance - 8 recharge Just glossing over the other changes and coming back to this one kills any chance of using this post as a solid suggestion of future balance. --Tensei 18:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the whole thing was designed primarily around droping defense and survival to a minimum so the game reverts to a fragfest.--BahamutKaiser 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)