User talk:Shard/Archive1

spam

spamity spam spam spam spam. :P Detraya Fullvear 19:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

wow shard, i think im on your user page more then you are lol.

GWW:NPA

Please follow it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking Readem, this policy still exists. - anja 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TROLL

HAI — Skakid9090 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel important

I think posting a comment on my own talk page will send me a "you've got mail" message. Let's find out! 72.235.48.41 11:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing Guild Pages

I have been fixing broken links (mainly to guild hall pages) in many Guild Pages. Just a heads up if anyone was gonna stalk me about it. Shard 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

redirects and the disambiguation template

Hullo. I like your redirects. However I've noticed that when you redirect to the mission pages it makes the disambiguation template at the top of the page show the new redirect. Grand Court of Sebelkeh, for example. Perhaps we need to do something to the disambiguation template for these cases or not redirect them at all, what do you think? --Aspectacle 05:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thansk for your support on my talk page Shard, I really appreciated it. I know I'm not always right, but I am glad somebody at least tolerates me. ^^ Nicky Silverstar 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversal of Damage

You're wrong. RoD does not strike twice. Only one character takes the hit. --Valshia 07:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the update talk page, I've done CoF as both 600 and smiter since the change. As a 600, I am simply not hit by RoD through retribution now, ever. The only time I get struck by RoD as a 600 is if I go in swinging, triggering RoD through my attacks. --Valshia 07:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Izzy's feedback pages

Hey, there's a format for these that looks prettier and gives you credit for the idea. You can find it here. I accidentally kidnapped your AR discussion, I think, because there was no indication who made it and it wasn't properly formatted... -- Armond Warblade 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[1]

Erh? Removed paragraph was true, and where has Izzy said anything other than "SR will remain broken"? -- Armond Warblade 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

Comments like this are not acceptable, and seeing that you have been warned before you got a 1 day time out. You can say what needs to be said without attacking people. - anja 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Izzy and siggy

First of all, if you can't be civil, don't bother commenting. Telling someone to quit their job is inappropriate. As you've already received a block for personal attacks, similar contributions would enact another, longer, one if you don't improve your comments.

Secondly, please take that "Nerf list" link out of your signature as only links to your user page, talk page and contributions can be in your signature - your sig is for identifying you, your userpage is for personal notes. Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments has more information. Thanks. -- Brains12 \ Talk 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Weapon of Remedy

Requires someone else to hit you in order to heal. That's... less than ideal. Compare to Restore Condition. Many of the other resto spells are conditional. -- Armond Warblade 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Also, please explain why life advantage is clumsy?" ~Shard. Several people did explain that before you made your last post on that page.

"That's what 99% of PvP in Guild Wars is based on. Every other strategy game on the planet has a nearly identical concept." Actually that's your whole problem with understanding GW balance. Unlike most other games it's not based on life advantage. It's based on resources. The most important things in GvG are resources such as NPCs, the flagstand and characters. Morale boosts indirectly give you a resource advantage by getting rid of death penalty, recharging res sigs and other skills. By denying resources you can gain momentum by killing NPCs, taking the flag stand, etc... How much total damage your team can do is only indirectly helpful at reducing your enemy's resources and thus non-directed damage is even more indirect at accomplishing your actual goals. Damage kills people, yes, but the most effective way to use damage is to direct it exactly where and when you need it. Utility skills give you windows of opportunity to make that damage go through and get kills. It's important for an offensive character to be able to focus damage where and when it is needed and/or cause these windows of opportunity.

Weapon of Remedy does neither. The damage it deals is almost impossible to direct at priority targets. The only time the damage comes in handy is in small fights, but then it's only a minor boost to pressure. It's something to consider when playing against it, but it's not the reason the skill is used. --TimeToGetIntense 08:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"I don't hate this skill because of its healing or because of its damage. I hate it because it gives low-skilled players a no-risk advantage over "better" players, and in a game of skill, that's unacceptable. ~Shard" That I will agree with. Like almost all Rit skills this skill is very easy to use and has strong results. I don't think that would be a problem if the stronger Rit skills were more skill intensive. I don't consider the Restoration line "strong" because it's almost pure healing so it doesn't have a huge impact on your enemy's gameplay. Compare that to RaO thumpers, which are much worse because they are no-skill offense. They can win with less skilled play than the enemy, but no-skill healing can't do that as long we're not talking about those pre-nerf N/Rt fuckers. Also, Most professions end up having some good skills that are easy to use, but as long as the builds that are viable are overall skill intensive it's fine, even if they have a few braindead skills.

BTW. I think your discussions will be more sucessful if you talk more about the issue of low skill players doing well with easy skills. You emphasize raw damage/healing power too much, I think. Again, I agree that low skill-high reward stuff is bad for the game. I think that even good players get rusty when all they play against is that shit. And I am sorry that I was condecending in my previous post. My perspective was that you literally only think about the raw power of skills. --TimeToGetIntense 12:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Check This Out

Hey there make sure u check this out and post here User:Shadowphoenix/User Birthdays --Shadowphoenix 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

paragons

well in the paragon skill Can't touch this, i was wondering, cos u suggested that u take energy cost down to 5 and recharge down to 10, would it be better to have same recharge (20) and same energy cost (10), but instead of the next 1...4...5... TOUCH SKILLS, maybe 1...2...3... SKILLS, since there are not that many touch skills around.

oh yeah, i agree with u in that paragon group skills r too powerful, so maybe nerf loads of the group shouts and stuff and give them a few skills to let them solo (i looked on loads of paragon builds and none of them have the stuff needed for paragons to solo so nerf group skills and buff (create more like), soloing skills

"Can't Touch This!" should only stop things that touch you...hence the name. My change stops the next 1...5 touch skills or attack skills. You're right in that there aren't many touch skills, but if it stopped attack skills as well, people might run it, and that's why I suggested it.

Also, I try not to look at the state of balance from a pve perspective, but from a pvp perspective. PvE is just too easy and mindless with Ursan running around everywhere. Paragons were intended to be party support characters, so I strongly believe they should not be capable of "soloing". 72.235.48.41 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot..

WoD in you balance issues thingy. Or you happen to think it is fine? File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg nuke7 File:Nuclear7 sig image2.jpg 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In the table, you forgot to add a "Super hex pressure/offensive debuff" part. -- NUKLEAR IIV 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I avoided categories that only 1 profession would get. Otherwise, stuff like "removes other players from the game" and "can ignore positioning" would be on there. ~Shard (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and eles have wards. I think that falls under "irremovable prot". -- NUKLEAR IIV 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

how about a column like "access to melee shutdown"? -- NUKLEAR IIV 14:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Between snares, blind, and anti-melee hexes, I think every profession would have "melee hate" to some degree. ~Shard (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Warriors have melee hate now? Oh, wait, are you including PvE-only skills? -- Armond Warblade 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I loled at the idea of ranger DPS. -- Armond Warblade 04:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends what build they're running, but I was thinking the apply poison + not being blind that 100% of bow rangers run. ~Shard (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For one, since when does anyone blind a ranger that's not retarded enough to leave his monk secondary behind? For another, since when does poison + autoattack dps mean anything?

And seriously, you can't tell if a profession is broken by counting how many things they can do. If warriors did five times as much damage but lost knockdowns and speed buffs, they'd be broken. See also WoW's priest - they get leet heals, strong dps, and good party support, but none of it all at once, and they're really quite balanced. -- Armond Warblade 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never played WoW, but I have heard that even GW laughs at how balanced it is. As for the amount of things a profession can do, you're right, having one very overpowered trait and nothing else will make it broken. However, I am coming from balance aspects of MtG, where the Color Pie determines what every color is "supposed to do." Having secondaries in GW is like having two colors in MtG. If you give one profession access to everything, then it does become broken. Every profession has to have advantages and disadvantages to be balanced with the others. Let's say monks all of a sudden got skills that could remove shouts, remove chants, snare people, poison/degen people, etc, and so now monks can do anything every other profession can do. All other 9 professions would become unnecessary and monks would be the only viable profession (prenerf ritspike *cough*.)

Of course, paragons aren't THAT one-sided. Izzy has managed to keep paragons from being the only playable class by giving them only 8 good skills, which, coincidentally, is also bad for the game.

Idk, if you get down to it, it's not really a matter of what a profession can do (even black in MtG can destroy enchantments), it's a matter of how easy it is to do it, and paragons do everything easily. I originally made the chart in hopes that rits would fill every trait, but was surprised to see the 116-armor, one-handed-bow wielding, party healing, anti-everything class got it all.

On a side note, if anyone's wondering, if a profession has a few terrible skills that cause something, I omitted that something (e.g. necros have 2 KDs but they're both really bad). ~Shard (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on priests and balance, Armond. :P (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be kind of interested in hearing what you have to say on the matter. Also, Shard, you're succumbing to your anti-rit fettish. Fight it, I say! -- Armond Warblade 15:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also used to laugh at WoW balance, but then I noticed that WoW's had patches to fix broken things within the last year and a half, and sway, hexway, sf-way, and (to a lesser extent) paraway are still running rampant. -- Armond Warblade 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not anti-rit. Like paragons, they only have a tiny handful of good skills, and those skills break pvp. They just don't have access to as much as I thought. I do think the concept of rits is kind of lame (drop spirits to get stronger skill effects). Dervishes are my favorite concept class, but scythe damage overshadows what they were supposed to be. ~Shard (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So you wanted me to come with examples?

All right here ya go:

EoE - EoE abuse by killing everything by just dieing.

Archer's Signet - So you want to make all Ranger bow attacks free?

Expert's Dexterity - So many ways to abuse this, 150% extra cost stopped it. 80% extra cost is nothing for a ranger.

Concussion Shot - R-spike.

Peace and Harmony - Infinite energy for monks?

Amity and Pacifism - These are lame passive boring skills and you propose to buff them?

Protective Bond - That combined with PnH would make monks invincible.

Divine Boon - Or this combined with PnH. who cares about losing 1 energy.

Martyr - Passive party heal/condition removal. Just use it once per 8 seconds to relieve incredible ammounts of pressure.

Defile Defenses - Is fine as is, why buff?

Elemental Flame - Passive pressure for eles.

Swirling Aura - So you propose giving elementalists 100% block chance to projectiles, making them immune for Rangers?

Dark Apostasy - Why make it even more powerfull than it already is?

Dulled Weapon - Even if you did that people wouldn't care, way too long recharge. Also won't work with game mechanics.

Wailing Weapon - Put this on all casters and no attack will ever come through.

Looks clear to me, if your changes would be implemented Guild Wars would be a passive, boring game. Dark Morphon(contribs) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks clear to me. If you honestly think 2 energy regen is infinite energy, or that swirling aura at 100% actually makes you untouchable, or that dark apostasy is good now, then you really shouldn't be telling other people how to balance a game. There's a little more to it than having a closed mind while looking at other people's attempts. You didn't even read every one of the suggestions you critiqued, why would I care about your opinions if all you do is see the skill icon on my page and say "This suggestion is bad because it's not izzy's."

When you have the time to actually read through and think about some of these changes, I'll listen to your opinions. ~Shard (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove my comments. Also, these are just some examples. Making even something that makes you immune to anything is making it OP, 2 energy regen means endless energy on a good monk (we are talking about people that know how to play the game I assume?) because good monks don't even need extra energy, put it on a midliner and monks don't even need to use a skill slot for it. Dark Morphon(contribs) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Dark Apostasy's energy loss is now already nearly cancelled by Critical Strikes which means it doesn't really matter. Dark Morphon(contribs) 10:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dark Apostasy is awesome tbh, shard. Think Avatar Of Grenth Prenerf. Think scythe sin. think a certain mathematical operation involving this "+" sign. -- NUKLEAR IIV 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so why buff it? Dark Morphon(contribs) 13:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because compared to (insert any enchantment removal skill here), it's bad? Would you spend energy and an elite slot on a skill requiring you to get through defenses in order to get through more defenses? Over-time enchantment removal isn't that great, you really have to hit big enchantments as soon as they go up.

2 energy regen is hardly "infinite," especially when it has to stay on for at least 7 seconds to pay for itself and its recharge prevents spam abuse. BiP exists and nobody uses it in pvp.

Swirling Aura is only projectiles. Sure, it makes water eles immune to most rangers. If your build relies on 100% ranged damage you were rpobably going to lose anyway.

I'll give you some of the other ones - namely Elemental Flame. I put some of these up there because I either don't care or can't think of a better fix. I'll admit my buffs are probably worse thought out than my nerfs. It's easier nerfing things that are already problems.

Also, it's okay for things to be OP as long as they're easy to deal with (swirling aura can be removed, and anti block can be used). Look at MtG - there are cards that literally say "You win the game," but they're either too hard to use or have too many counters that nobody runs them in competitive play.

Thanks for bringing a real argument this time. I appreciate well thought out criticism. It will go to the changes I will make to the list. ~Shard (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Dark Apostasy is worth it running an elite slot on a scythesin. During spikes, it can easily remove protection skills like Protective Spirit which really is worth the energy cost on spikes (which doesn't even matter a bit tbh). About the 100% block chance on Swirling Aura, imagine a PnH flagrunner taking that. Rangers usually deal with flagrunners, but 100% block chance means they have no chance at all. Also as I said, 2 regen isn't infinite but on a good monk it's godly. Dark Morphon(contribs) 07:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything has its drawbacks. If PnH was a hard 2 energy regen, you're right, it would be too good. However, it is an elite, so it can be shutdown easily. It is a 1 second cast, so it can be interrupted. It is an enchantment, so it can be stripped. An extra 1 regen won't bring it from unusable to broken levels.

Your dark apostasy points are good, I'm thinking of looking at it again. I still think swirling aura is fine. Half the rangers in GvG nowadays run cripshot, which would go through swirling aura anyway. I think you might be putting too much faith in the players to use it that way...people didn't even run shadow form flaggers when you could keep it up 100% of the time, and it's essentially the same thing. They go for utility, not invincibility. ~Shard (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Even with cripshot it doesn't really matter, you're still immune to interrupts. About your comment on shadow form, that's because it takes 3 skill slots and an elite instead of 1. About the PnH note, yes it is interruptable and strippable but once again, it can be used on different characters meaning it's simply overpowered on flaggers. Dark Morphon(contribs) 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback

Thanks for giving me feedback on my change list.

I do believe maximum character health has increased. We've got Vitae runes, and Survivor insignias. Also, the removal of armor swapping mid-match removed superior runes from play pretty much.

As far as my Fire Magic changes go, however, it has to do with the buffing of interrupts lately and Rangers becoming immune to blind. I'd rather see Rangers not immune to blind and Mesmer interrupts toned down and given some hard interrupts, but that's not how Izzy (or anyone else apparently) wants the game to be.

But yeah, thanks for the feedback. --TimeToGetIntense 17:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[2]

What AL? What crit damage? What damage from a chilling-eremite's-pious spike, compared to a shock axe spike? (Compare both damage dealt and time taken. Include Agonizing Chop for bonus points.) Also, realistically people run 14 scythe most of the time. -- Armond Warblade 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you please add the formula you used to reach those numbers. Thank you very much. 145.94.74.23 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I used the damage formula on this wiki, Damage calculation. I've added an introduction to that section describing the details Armond asked for. ~Shard (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you also use customization/15^50 mods when calculating? Because otherwise, your attribute 12 base damage is a little off. It should be exactly 9 according to the formula. I am probably missing something. ^^ 145.94.74.23 10:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I used +35% weapons. ~Shard (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

+18% I hope you mean... -- Armond Warblade 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, 20% from customization + 15% inscription = 35%. ~Shard (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not multiplicative? Wow, melee damage is overpowered as hell. -- Armond Warblade 05:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. ~Shard (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Now I understand how you reached those numbers. 145.94.74.23 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)