User talk:Shard/MiscArchives1

Skill of the Day

no title

BRILLIANT! I'm going to do my own series of these soon if you don't mind. --Jette 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

pretty creative — Skakid 05:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. You and Jette must continue these lists.--Will Greyhawk 14:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Make un for Signet of Midnight and SnH! Dark Morphon(contribs) 15:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do tonight and tomorrow night. ~Shard 04:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What's snh? I thought you meant Strength of Honor... ~Shard 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought it was Strength and Honor lolo. But yeah, I meant that one. Dark Morphon(contribs) 11:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, I was actually going to do Parasitic Bond soon, but virtually identically. Nice. --Jette 13:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

i dont mind the smiters boon nerf though i find it a good thing they removed it from play Lilondra 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Smiter's Boon -- change it to something else that doesn't personally attack someone. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're no fun brains. ~Shard 02:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I love these. NR one is especially true, that's most of the problem with balance atm :< -Auron 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

except nobody uses it lawl — Skakid 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think auron was talking about expansion imbalances in general. ~Shard 03:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

just to get this stright . Nr fuckes up ranger and wars and eles ? and dervishes play unhindered ? i dont get that...--Ice'wind 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah because dervishes rely on enchantments and not on one hit kills. Good reasoning. It's a humor column, not a statistics report. ~Shard 22:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NR does fuck up eles. Ever tried to put up a 4 second attune while a R/D retard with warmongers wails on you? It's pretty frustrating. -Auron 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RAGE

RotN is pretty win. It's power level is similar to that of earth shaker and dev hammer. -- NUKLEAR IIV 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never found a use for it. I tried it once and thought it was terrible. I'd rather run primal rage, at least you do big damage with that. ~Shard 01:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any elite with "rage" in it is bad.

I used it once or twice. It was cool having it with eviscerate when I first capped it, and being able to run in at 100% adrenaline is pretty sweet. It's not great, but it's not terribad. --Jette 01:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This bar is pretty fun (and effective) for byob

Sever Artery

Gash

Final Thrust

Bull's Strike

Rage of the Ntouka

Frenzy

Rush

Resurrection Signet

There's not much point to it, though. — Skakid 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Power 9

If RC is Timetwister and we assume Mind Blast is Black Lotus, what are the other seven? More importantly, what's Memory Jar? --Jette 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the GW power nine would be:

1. Restore Condition
2. Diversion
3. Wail of Doom
4. Blood is Power
5. Wounding Strike
6. Visions of Regret
7. Backbreaker
8. Charm Animal
9. Augury of Death

~Shard 05:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blood is power? o.O -Auron 09:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds close enough. BiP is like... instant infinite energy, it's just not used in PvP because you should be able to manage your own energy and it's an attribute with very little utility. The 33% health sacrifice doesn't help either. But what's memory jar? Maybe bamph. I still have four memory jars lying around my house somewhere, but all my friends made me stop playing with them because winning in one turn apparently isn't fun.  :/ I thought it was hilarious... --Jette 14:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No bulls, no eviscerate, no frenzy... pretty bad list.

DISREGARD THAT, I DON'T KNOW MTG. -- NUKLEAR IIV 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The power nine are the 9 most overpowered cards of the first few sets, often thought to be the 9 most overpowered cards ever printed. This doesn't mean they're the best or most popular. If you're not into MtG, I'll explain briefly what made them all powerful.

In MtG, you start with nothing but some cards in your hand. Every turn, you can play one land. EVERYTHING else in the game relies on these lands. Each turn, you can use each of your lands ONCE. The more powerful the card, the more lands it requires. Normally, the biggest thing you can do first turn is land -> Play something costing 1. Second turn, land -> Play something costing 2, etc.

Black Lotus could be played for free, and when you use it, gives you the equivalent of 3 lands of any color to use for that turn. Basically, you could play something that costed 4 on your first turn if you wanted to. This led to many first-turn-win combos.

The Moxen (there are 5 of them) costed nothing and are basically lands. In essence, they let you bypass the "one land per turn" rule.

Ancestral Recall costed 1 and drew you 3 cards. Recent cards with similar effects cost 6.

Timetwister costed 3 and basically reset the game. Recent cards with similar effects cost 10.

Time Walk gave you an extra turn for 2 mana. Recent cards with similar effects cost at least 5 mana now.

Those are the P9.

Other cards like Memory Jar, Dream Halls, Intruder Alarm, Skullclamp (I could go on) have been the Wail of Doom of their day, often being printed as an accident or with wordings that made them better than intended, but not nearly as powerful as the power nine. All of those are restricted now, except intruder alarm. ~Shard 03:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But Jette, the point of the power 9 is that they're overpowered. BiP isn't overpowered in the least. It's a decent utility skill, but it isn't gamebreaking, even in PvE. You sacrifice 33% of your life every cast. That's a shitload of HP for 10 seconds of energy regen. You also have to sacrifice your elite slot, which in most cases can be better spent. Lastly, you have to spec decently high into blood magic, a line with very little actual utility, and pretty much nothing in the way of useful spells. Those are all significant drawbacks that make BiP nowhere near overpowered.

At the same time, I wouldn't agree with a few others on that list either. I could name a few skills off the top of my head that are more broken than Backbreaker (which requires assassin primary and sacrificing all utility), Visions of Regret (which basically requires a full hex build to work, at which point pretty much any hexes will do fine), and Augury of Death (which, theoretically, gives casters a deep wound source, except it requires sacrificing your secondary, a few attribute points, and all safe positioning whatsoever). There are more absolutely imbalanced skills... IMO. -Auron 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Backbreaker is AMAZING!!

Yeah there are probably more broken skills than augury and visions, I just couldn't think of any.

BiP is godly. When people actually use it. Most people don't, because necros have Curses, all of which are overpowered. ~Shard 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BB is arguably the best warrior elite there is. A true fave of mine. That is all. -- NUKLEAR IIV 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see that argument. It doesn't compare at all to earth shaker, let alone eviscerate. I'd say charge is still quite a bit better than backbreaker, in terms of how many ways it can be used and how much utility it has.

Bip really isn't that amazing. It isn't feasible for most high-end PvP. In GvG, running bip means you have to sacrifice one of your 8 elite spots for energy management, which is done quite well already by non-elites. So instead of getting, say, a party-buffing paragon or a powerblock mesmer (for offense and defense, quite a nice utility char) you get a necro that has a bunch of blood magic for no reason other than unnecessary energy management. If the monks are running out of energy, the problem is the team as a whole sucking (monks not managing energy, offense not killing, midline not disabling enemy offense/midline), not the lack of bip.

The only time in all of Guild Wars that I saw a justified use of bip was in hard mode slavers exile - 6 fire eles (mostly heroes), 1 hboon monk, 1 bip paragon. The monsters just got obliterated in 6x savannah heats. However, because we focused on damage for the eles, we dropped glyph lesser - the bars were just packed with things like rodgorts, liquid flame, dual heat, etc. Instead of waiting upwards of a minute between each fight, we sped things up with bip. It was a convenience - we got through the area faster, but as you know, there's no additional reward for doing it faster.

TLDR - bip makes casters lazier and prone to being energy inefficient, but it really doesn't break the game. If you can't get through an area in PvE or your team is dying nonstop in PvP, bip isn't going to help you.

Also, can we move this convo somewhere else? I want to keep this talk page free for discussion of the funny page, but I also want to continue our argument :p -Auron 05:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you playing the same game as me? In the game I play, Backbreaker is what you get when you take Wail of Doom, give it +40 damage, and add some costs to it. I'm not talking about backbreaker sins. Those things are jokes. I'm talking about what happens when your warrior take a monk to the alley and beats the living shit out of him. ~Shard 02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean when he takes dev hammer and quarterknocks the monk, allowing more frequent spikes that are equally deadly, while the build as a whole is more deadly because it can lineback and spike faster? Sins brought backbreaker back from the dead. The meta has too much block to invest so much time into a single skill that'll just get blocked. 4 seconds isn't that much longer than 3, especially since you don't get any cool things like weakness, aoe KD, or unblockable KD. -Auron 10:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, weakness is cool?

Anyways, bring a shadowstep on the backbreaker warrior. That'll allow you bypass guardian, WoW and leave you with Aegis. Chances are, you can get a BB in 2 tries.

At any rate, when BB connects, something dies. That's the differenece between 3 and 4 seconds. The life of a teammate. -- NUKLEAR IIV 13:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

chuck norris jokes

really? Detraya Fullvear 12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I had to do one eventually. ~Shard 03:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Win.

You win approximately fourteen internets for this page. Give or take.- Vanguard 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This page definitely takes the award for most epic wiki page. Love the shopped channeling to make it monk colour. Ever take requests Shard?--Revelations 09:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All the time. What would you like to see? ~Shard 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many to list, but how about one of these? Or maybe even this.--Revelations 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I covered Faintheartedness and SY! at some point on my list sometimes. I think. Shard's welcome to do his own, of course, I'm not going to hog all the skills, but the lists are similar. I haven't updated it in months, I need to eventually... --Jette 18:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that one. That list is terrible. I didn't crack a grin at all.- Vanguard 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I liked his SY pretty well. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Out dated?

Some of your skills are outdated since they have been nerfed later. Are you going to leave them on as a testament to how broken they once were, or are you going to remove them?

Oh, and I think that if Smiter's Boon (pvP) was the same energy as the amount of skills still viable in the game, it would be almost free!Crimmastermind 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I will leave them. It's fun to look back in time at mistakes and laugh at them.

Lol, yeah. Unfortunately for good players, viable = overpowered because truly balanced skills can barely compete anymore. ~Shard 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making a wiki account, but I thought these would be funny descriptions

Feel free to put these on this page, just as long as you mention the IP that made them:

Shield Guardian: "Too Much" energy, "No" casting time, "Way Too Long" recharge. "For 8 seconds, target ally blocks 1 attack and gains 16...67...80 health. When it ends, you get kicked out of the team for being an idiot." (Attribute:You're an idiot if you bring this.)

Healing Hands: "Enough" energy "No" casting time, "This is retarded" recharge. "For 10 seconds, target ally is partially invincible. When it ends, you wait 15 seconds and wish you had brought the non-elite shield of absorption or shielding hands." (Attribute: More downtime than Anet's servers)

Mind Burn: 5 energy 1 casting time 5 recharge. "Strike target foe for 15...51...60 fire damage. If you have more energy than target foe, strike for an additional 15...51...60 damage and inflict a condition that is just RC food. You suffer more Exhaustion than this skill is worth and spend $40 on Nightfall like Anet wanted you to so you can spam Searing Flames." (Attribute: Attributes that only have 1 good elite)

Dodge: 5 energy "More than this skill is worth" recharge. "For 5...10...11 seconds, you become immune to ranged damage. Ends if you even try to attack, at which point you yell at izzy to buff this useless skill."

Zealous Benediction: "Too little" energy, "Uninterruptible" cast time, "Not enough" recharge. "Heal target ally as if you were specialized in healing prayers. If that ally's health was below 50%, this skill acts as a signet instead." (Attribute: Attributes that are just plain better than healing prayers)

Burning Arrow: "No" energy after expertise, "Not enough" recharge. "Target foe takes 80 damage every 6 seconds and is poisoned and set on fire permanently unless running blockway." (Attribute: Attributes with only 6-7 useful skills.)

Victorious Sweep: "Not Enough" energy, "Too little" recharge. "Broken scythe attack. If it hits, target foe takes 90 base damage plus an additional 31 damage and you gain more health than Orison of Healing provides without divine favor." (Attribute: Attributes that Izzy is too lazy to fix)

Troll Unguent: 5 energy "Way too long" cast time 10 recharge "Skill. If you successfully activate Troll Unguent, you receive the effects of Healing Breeze for 13 seconds except that it cannot be removed. If you were not using a blocking stance you are interrupted. If you are under attack while activating this skill you die...consume everyone's resurrection signet... get kicked out of Guild Wars." (Attribute: Attributes that people only use for Apply Poison and Natural Stride)

Oppressive Gaze: "Excessive" energy "More than it needs" cast time 7 recharge "Target foe and all adjacent foes take zero...negligible...laughable damage. If a long list of terms and conditions apply, gain zero...negligible...laughable damage to target foe and adjacent foes." (Attribute:You're an idiot if you bring this)

Faintheartedness: 10e 1s 8r "For too many...the duration of the battle...the age of the universe seconds, target foe attacks way too slowly and his Mending is negated." (Attribute:Skills that are way too passive)

Shroud of Silence: "More than enough" energy, 3/4s cast, "Way too long" recharge. "For 1...3...3 seconds target spellcaster is useless. For 15 seconds, half your skillbar is disabled and you are thrown out of the game for using this skill." (Attribute: Elite skills that are worse than non-elites)

Savage Shot: 10e 1/2s 5r "If Savage shot hits it interrupts target foe. If that foe was using a spell, you strike for an additional not much...some...average damage. Otherwise, you figure out that this is much better for spiking than interrupting." (Attribute:Skills that need a complete rework)

Power Shot: "Not Worth It" energy 1s "Way to much" recharge. "If Power Shot hits, you don't do that much damage and waste 10 base energy." (Attribute:Just one of 800 skills that are inviable)

Critical Defenses: "Not Enough" energy, "Uninterruptible" cast time, 30r "For 4...9...10 seconds, you are invincible against anything that isn't a spell. Whenever you hit with an attack, you are invincible for 4...9...10 seconds. If no one brings enchant removal, you are permanently invincible." (Attribute:Broken Primary Attributes)

Ether Lord: 5e "Too much" cast time 20r. "Lose all Energy. For 5...10...11 seconds, target loses 1 energy per second and you gain 1 energy per second. When it is removed after 2 seconds, you feel like an idiot for using this as energy management and energy denial." (Attribute: You're an idiot if you bring this)

Wastrel's Worry: 5e 1/4s 1r "If target foe has Empathy, Backfire, Diversion, or Visions of Regret, this inflicts 20...80...100 damage. Otherwise this skill is useless." (Attribute:Skills that are borked)

"For Great Justice!": 5e "Resurrection Signet" recharge "For 8 seconds, you gain double adrenaline. After 8 seconds, you have 7 instead of 8 skill slots." (Attribute: Skills that belong in Strength but Izzy is too lazy)

Escape 5e 12r "For 1...7...8 seconds, you have a 75% chance to block melee attacks and move 33% faster. If you are wielding a Scythe, you are invincible. Otherwise, this skill is balanced." (Attribute:Balanced and viable skills that will probably get nerfed due to overuse with broken gimmicks)

Ok...some issues

• Mind Burn: Would be funnier as just "Target foe is struck for Flare damage, plus an additional Flare damage. You suffer from exhaustion, then go buy Nightfall so you can take searing flames"

• Zealous Benediction: It's really not overpowered, it's much riskier than WoH due to the base cost. Also, 3/4 cast is not uninterruptible.

• Troll Unguent: You take troll unguent so you can split, not so you can cast it at the stand where it's easy to interrupt. Also, they have higher priority things to interrupt, like apply, diversion, or actual healing skills.

• Savage Shot: Savage shot is an amazing interrupt, 5 second recharge means it's tied with magebane shot and power return for the fastest recharging interrupt in the game. Oh, but it's non elite and can interrupt all skills, not just spells, and doesn't give them energy back. Not sure where you got the idea that it's better at spiking.

Dshot is better because of the lower cost and the skill disable. Savage Shot is mainly for range spike and for people who miss with interrupts a lot.

• Critical Defenses: 1 second cast time isn't that hard to interrupt. Also, you can just kite someone with the skill up to make it pretty worthless in many cases.

Kiting is easier said than done especially if the opposition has Caltrops, a scythe, or crippling dagger skills.

• Ether Lord: It prevents them from regenerating energy, which makes it extremely strong in arenas, where there likely won't be a secondary healer with hex removals, so they stay too low on energy to remove it.

It's still a bad skill.

• Escape: "For 1...7...8 seconds, you do the exact opposite of what this skill says to do, and rush into the enemy team because you can't die." Also, it's pretty obnoxious on real rangers too. Back when they played, vD sometimes ran an escape ranger to split, using the BA build, but taking escape for natural stride and screaming shot for burning arrow. A bit less damage, but it was more or less invincible, especially on a split.

It's only broken on scythes because you can't kite them and scythe criticals are OP.

Basically, these aren't really near as funny as the current ones on the page, and some are quite inaccurate as well. ¬ «Ðêjh» (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many things were recycled on that list like "Too much" "too little", what I like about Shard's list is there's not too much repetition. - Vanguard 02:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It always feels like a sell out if he uses an idea isn't originally his. That's basically the reason I haven't posted any suggestions. --Ezekial Riddle 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I came up with some more good ones:

Splinter Shot- "WTH Anet?!?!?!" energy, 5r "If Splinter Shot hits, it pokes target foe. You try to imitate the AoE damage of Barrage but fail miserably as it's conditional." (Attribute:You're an idiot for bringing this)

Enfeebling Touch- "Not worth it" energy, "This is stupid" recharge. "Your Meleemancer build zerg rushes the opposition's backline, doing damage comparable to Flare, inflicting weakness, and dying soon afterwards out of your monk's healing range." (Attribute:Casters aren't tanks)

Aura of Holy Might- "Negligible" energy, 3/4s, "Way too little" recharge. "For 20 seconds, you deal overpowered...critical hit...999 damage with your scythe, as if scythes weren't broken enough and give PvE a bad name. When it ends, you win the mission immediately" (Attribute:Just as broken as ursan used to be)

Shadow Sanctuary- 5e, 1/4s, "Smiter's Boon" recharge. "For 10 seconds, you gain mending...mending * 1.5...healing breeze regeneration that can easily be shattered and 40 armor. Your attacks epic fail for 10 seconds." (Attribute: PvE skills that are worse than normal skills)

Freezing Gust- "Way too little" energy, "Number of minutes spent balancing this skill" cast, "Anet's IQ" recharge. "Target foe moves 66% slower until you die."

Also, to the unsigned above, shield guardian is absolutely insane on a bar that can manage it - see Ether Renewal. Probably one of the most broken skills around on that bar. Oh, and freezing gust is very interruptable. Unless its FC'd--Revelations 07:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who uses Ether Renewal in PvP or considers using it in PvP is bad. And don't balance PvP around PvE. Would you like it if your PvE was balanced around PvP?

Nowhere did I imply that I was referring to the pvp version of Ether Renewal. In case you hadnt noticed, Shard's list caters to more than just PvP skills. More than just player usable skills for that matter.--Revelations 16:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vampiric Bite- "Number of failed skill balances" energy, 3/4s, "2 times the number of professions this skill is useful for" recharge. "Gain 20...65...77 health from target foe. If you are a necro, you waste energy unnecessarily and are thrown out of PvP for being bad and running meleemancer builds. If you are a ranger, you use less energy than anyone else would use and tanking isn't a problem as blocking makes you invincible anyway." (Attribute: Skills that need a bonus that is tied to a primary attribute.)

Sever Artery- "Value in dollars of the balancing of Build Wars" adrenaline "If this hits, target foe suffers a useless condition that is just RC food, calling to the other team that you are about to melee spike and destroying your skillbar compression. You are replaced by a paragon capable of spamming Barbed Spear for half the adrenaline at range and comparable duration and doesn't need it to cause Deep Wound or spike." (Attribute: Bad skills that Anerf will never buff)

This section is now officially unfunny. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No way! It's better than the current skill of the day.

I'd say it became decidedly unfunny at about VicSweep. --Riddle 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucratic process etc. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'll invent one.

Guided Nerf Bat- 1e 5s 255r "Guided Nerf Bat strikes all foes in the area.

• Foes using Critical Defenses and Golden Fox Strike lose all enchantments, and for 20 seconds they cannot critical or be the target of further enchantments.
• Foes running Vampiric Spirit spike cannot steal health for 5...17...21 seconds, and Angorodon's Gaze is disabled for dshot....diversion....the rest of the game seconds.
• Foes running SF/GG builds have their Searing Flames replaced by Double Dragon and Glowing Gaze replaced by Fire Storm.
• Foes running both Wail of Doom and Arcane Echo have all of their attributes set to 0 for 8 seconds every 10 seconds instead.
• Foes running sway have their scythe attacks replaced by random bow, axe, sword, and hammer attacks, move 90% slower, and cannot block for 20...30...33 seconds." (Attribute:Attributes that we wish Izzy would spec.)

Rotting Flesh- "All" your energy, "Anet's IQ" cast time, "Insignificant" recharge. "If the other team is bad, every player on the other team suffers 8 DPS, and their monk ragequits trying to remove the conditions. If the other team is good, you waste your energy pool quickly, this becomes RC food, and you get dshotted due to the cast time."

You really aren't helping your case. --Riddle 03:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Make your own or shut up and don't complain.

The fact that we enjoy Shard's enough to not kill the funny by making our own doesn't make your huge amount of unfunny more funny. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

EoE

Those were fucking fun matches. Thanks for frenzying though, cheated me out of an easy 200 faction. :/ -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 12:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL sorry. I thought spirit bond was gonna save me. ~Shard 01:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was taking 25 a pop unfrenzied... -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Amulet of Protection

You know you want to. --Revelations 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...good idea. Thanks ;) ~Shard 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Heheh, nice :) --Revelations 18:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work you have here, Shard. For great justice! (pvp) could be made into something finny i bet.--Raph Talk 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

HAHA, I just had a great idea for it. ~Shard 04:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

About Twisting Jaws

You forgot to make the activation time "About how much Anet knows about balancing". --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.27.5 (talk).

also forgot the part where people say "omg teh PvEs r 2 hard QQ."--Simpson man 02:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This one made me LOL so hard...-- anguard 02:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This skill is why I hate Tarnished Coast... Krelus Derian 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple, run a Melandru avatar dervish and tank them. You have +100 max health and immunity to conditions, so you can't be spiked and you can laugh at the conditions.

Well, the fact that an entire region makes you have to run one build to survive insta-wipes is pretty retarded. Its just like saying that only Monks can AB. Thats why its really retarded.Crimmastermind 20:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

not specing against a certain PvE area is also retarded.--Simpson man 00:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I never have any problems with this skill, and I don't even make a specific build against it. I find those large groups op raptors a lot more annoying while vanquishing. This skill...nah, no problem. 145.94.74.23 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly, you haven't been hit by it. It only takes 2-3 of these to kill any single member of your party instantly, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. The only realistic way to stop them from activating it is to snare all of them and kite like crazy until they're all dead or similarly incapacitated. This skill wouldn't be as bad -- still wretched, still an abomination, but not asbad -- if only one of them could use it at once. If they use it on different teammates, which is rare, it's survivable. But they generally target one player and literally eat him alive. This crap makes Wail of Instant Victory look downright balanced. --Jette 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It only instakills when you have < 460 health. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 12:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bring a Minion Master, let the Rappies eat the minions. Then Blind them all or something. The skill is only overpowered if you fail to bring a counter for it. --Arduinna 14:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Because having a counter makes everything balanced, amirite? Last I checked, SoGM was overpowered even if you brought rust (oldschool rust even) and hexway is overpowered even if you bring divert. 64.59.99.130 21:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"Well clearly, you haven't been hit by it" I have. I have vanquished the area's where the dinosaurs live and I never had problems with any of them except the interrupts of the Raptors (so I brought Eruption, problem solved) and the Ceratadon boss (enchantment removal removed that problem). 145.94.74.23 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It figures that once I make a pve skill of the day, all the pve players fill up the page. ~Shard 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

People like to share their opinions that is to say graft them onto others. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you Shard. For once, I take you seriously, and you still complain? 145.94.74.23 07:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard(Complaining): Complaining -> ∞ . Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 11:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

@64.59.99.130. You don't need balance in PvE. Take the Domain of Anguish. Would you say that's balanced? I for one think it's challenging fighting those raptors. They can do uberspike damage, your job is to survive that initial spike, and kill them one by one. It makes you think about your build before entering an area with dinosaurs. I haven't changed my skillbar, or those of my heroes since I started vanquishing Prophecies, Factions AND Nightfall. Only in EotN did I need to spec for a certain area. Only then I started to enjoy the vanquishes, because it wasn't simple 'send in your heroes and wait till the red dots are gone'.

And I apologize to Shard for filling his talkpage with PvE-discussions :) --Arduinna 11:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't need balance in PvE. lolwut? So if a monster were given 60,000 health and the skill "Devour

0 ¼ 2 Skill. Target foe dies and leaves a non-resurrect-able, non-exploitable corpse. This skill can't be diverted," It'd be okay since it's PvE? --Riddle 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It might be a nice challenge. 145.94.74.23 13:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OP skills =/= challenge if you combat them with OP skills.IF they drop all pve only skills and buff some skills in pve they could drop all monster skills givethem a decent AI that kites and make you HAVE TO ADJUST to win Lilondra *gale* 09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

lol guys I wasn't complaining, it was a joke. I enjoy the attention this page gets and I'm glad everyone likes it :) ~Shard 12:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't use PvE-only skills Lilondra. You don't need them to vanquish everything (I'm the still-living-when-pressing-save-page-button proof of that). You just need them to quickly vanquish anything without any challenges. But I enjoy challenges, so I bring heroes and henchmen everywhere, with homemade builds. I create my own challenges, instead of waiting for Anet to make them for me. Because that could take a while. 145.94.74.23 12:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about one for the old Melandru's Shot

Before they turned it into a ranged Crippling Slash it was a lot better. +35 damage and conditional energy gain.

Old Melandru's Shot- 10e 7r "If it hits, you do Hunter's Shot...Power Shot...Marauder's Shot damage. If target foe is enchanted, Drain Enchantment minus most of the recharge minus enchant removal minus high attribute investment requirement for energy gain."

Defy Pain

We need some Defy Pain Skill of the Day action. Something along the lines of "For a duration of 30 seconds...PERMANTLEY take the form of the offspring of Melandru and Balthazar, with Health > a Spike and Armor > any class." Energy-Denial Fails, Cast Time-Uninteruptable, and Recharge-Whatever a diversion happens to be, Adrenaline-1 attack every 7.5 seconds.~>Sins WDB 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard FYI I based this somewhat off of your skills of the day. Credit to where it is due.~>Sins WDB 07:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Resurrect

I've always hated this skill. Even in the days when I was complete n00b to the game, I KNEW there was something terribad about this skill but it was reuseable as opposed to the Signet and there wasn't enough bosses to recharge it. So I've been thinking long and hard about making my own version and made this description-only version:
Resurrect - 10 5 8 - "Target party member becomes an hero."
Teehee. Now let's hope I don't get banned for linking to Encylopedia Dramatica.-- anguard 18:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Armond didn't get banned for this, so I doubt you'll get banned for that link :P ¬ «Ðêjh» (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool.-- anguard 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Added one for Foul Feast

It's an imbalanced skill that needs a nerf. Outshines Draw Conditions in every imaginable way. Since it's a necro skill, the conditions are probably getting thrown back using Plague Sending. The 10% health sac and the 1 energy cost are meaningless since you gain back the health and energy if you grab at least 2 conditions.

This update

Keep 'em coming Shard >8D!

DwG - For 60..60..60 seconds, AoE Air Magic. When you drop the ashes, Searing Flames.

etc. -- euphoracle | talk 20:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This update was skill of the day GOLD!!! I was running out of broken skills to use. ~Shard 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark of Insecurity

Still doesnt stop Teh OPness. Though it is kinda hard on the prot monks.... Wandering Traveler 21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark of RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE. --Jette 01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please. I laughed so haaaaard on the second one. --Boro 19:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC) more pls

Ray of Judgment

Description: Elementalist Nukers are now replaced by Mesmers and Monks. At equal ranks you deal more damage than Savannah Heat unless target AL < 60. Concise Description echo RoJ owns HM ~>Sins WDB 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Range. 145.94.74.23 12:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Life Sheath

Life Sheath > RC? lol — Skakid 04:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

4>1? lol ~Shard 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

About your entry for the skill "Tease"

Should be changed to "Enemy monks have -1 Energy degeneration, and your hero has +1 energy regeneration for every additional monk."

Glyph of Lesser Energy

Is only better than Glyph of Energy because you don't need Glyph of Energy. In terms of power, Glyph of Energy is better because it has a shorter recharge. 145.94.74.23 07:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking GoLE and GoE together means you don't need to use an Attunement (usually), but that's a rare build. Glyph of Energy is better if you are going to be throwing 25e spells every ~10 seconds...but its biggest problem is that it's elite, so you're forfeiting a lot of potential good skills for a meh effect. Vili 07:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're an ele spamming dual earthquake (or some other builds), GoE is better. In terms of usefulness, lesser is better, especially for other classes where it basically gives you 15 energy. ~Shard 07:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You never take gole and goe together. goe still needs a buff though, if you're throwing your elite away it better be damned worth it - make it work for the next 5 spells or something. -Auron 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Have to restrict it to elementalist spells, then, or else Heal Party abuse...! Vili 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being able to pull 15e spells out of your ass every few seconds. Raine - talk 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your way requires balling up next to the other team's damage dealers. ~Shard 08:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cost: bad positioning. Benefit: lol energy.

Hmm. I can't honestly look at that and say it's a terrible deal. Raine - talk 09:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Divine Spirit is clearly the ideal solution. It even lets you remove two hexes! Vili 09:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Healers should run this, IMO. Raine - talk 09:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah, that's just bad. Use Critical Eye, Way of the Master, and 13 Critical Strikes with healing skills.

Hmmm... ~Shard 09:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that wasn't a "Hmmm... I'm actually considering that she might be serious" sort of "Hmmm...". Raine - talk 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see... You never know, sometimes the wierdest ideas eventually turned into meta builds, like my warrior's endurance scythe warrior. ~Shard 03:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All I meant to say that, Glyph of Energy doesn't really need a buf because it has such a short recharge. You can use it three times where you could only use Glyph of Lesser Energy once (so it is 2 spells vs 3). It's biggest problem isn't that it's not powerful enough, but rather that there are too few skills that make the most of it. 145.94.74.23 14:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you use it 3 times, it costs 3 times as much. 2 spells for 5e every 30 seconds or 3 spells for 15? Hmmm... Raine - talk 12:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, almost. It does save a lot more energy if used in combination with the right spells (of which there are too few, I agree). 3 times no exhaustion and 75 energy saved or 3 times exhaustion and only 30 energy saved? 145.94.74.23 13:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason GoE doesnt get buffed is the exhaustion part.Overbuffing it would lead to galespam.Now I dont think I actually have to explain why free Kd's every 5 seconds would be bad Lilondra *Poke* 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You do to izzy, assassins still have 5 chainable KDs. Whenever someone asks me "what do assassins do in GW" I say "They're the knockdown class." ~Shard 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

zomg leet tactic for REALS balanced stance zomg serious now my fav sin build atm is wastrel + falling + twisting ^^ only 2 attack skills but wooot xD And just leave izzy (britney) alone really.I mean IF he really was a retarded zoomonkey its not exactly his fault I mean blame his parents for creating him and Anet for hiring him.Then again he isnt and he barely listens to the community + he barely balances this game.Now the thing is that Anet doesnt really give a direction to a game.A already hard to balance game without direction is rather impossible to balance Lilondra *Poke* 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Help Me!"

This skill was once seriously proposed as a viable counter to Palm Strike, as it would allow your team's Monk to prot you before Trampling hit or some shit like that.

Other than that, if you weren't already aware, I <3 Rurik and so I am happy that you have chosen to blame his death on a crappy Paragon skill which he couldn't even spec into anyway (since he's, you know, W/Mo) :) Vili 05:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Real counter is: Can't touch this :)))

I hope that was a joke. :( Vili 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapon of Shadow

Weapon of shadow isn't even overpowered at all, its actually pretty bad if you know how to switch targets.--Lancy1214 23:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

When heroes chain two of them plus two blind was mingsong plus two weapons of warding, it becomes impossible to hit anything. ~Shard 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, but doesnt this contradict with Double Dragon? oh wait, you replaced your frontline with more fire eles...I forgot frontliners are obsolete now." Granted, different situations call for different professions, but.... -- Wandering Traveler 02:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Healing Signet

Sorry Boro 12:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

mind blast

You forgot AoR.Pika Fan 09:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 2 sec recharge also Lilondra *panda* 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Already tried fixing it but Shard reverted it.

AoR isn't good in real pvp. ~Shard 01:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'm TA. --216.241.108.106 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not something you should be proud of. ~Shard 02:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AoR is used when and where mind blast is used.Pika Fan 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

VoR

It chains mindlessly with Empathy and obliterates with Wastrel's Worry putting your opponent in a fetal position for 10 seconds.--ShadowFog 02:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Flaws

Woot gogo Shard! Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually believe they KNOW what people want but are to DUMB or LAZY to give it to them. "we want to make casters viable".Instead of adding utility they *ADD DAMAGE* and *UP THE ENERGY COST* to *REDUCE UTILITY* so running casters is less viable then it used to be Oo Lilondra *gale* 16:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The game is not total fail but is a defective product, good but not perfect. I gotta agree on the Eye of The North thing, I played and completed Norns,Vanguards and Dwarvens part but it was just too idiotic, someone in their department has a Serious Sam fetish or is a masochism at heart. For NightFall difficulty I couldn't tell since my first character was Paragon and went imbagon for the mission, I have 2 missions left to complete the game and Im in the first rank of lightbringer. Sracth that, It was just recently(when I had still 2 missions left to complete the game) I discovered that LightBringer gave ya a skill, I thought only EOTN did that. As far as the skill balancing department goes, it's evidently they don't play, don't test skills, don't resolve issues instead they are dropped down from PvP thus lowering it's innovations in different kinds of builds and don't take precaution before realising an update look at the skills bug page, just recently bugs that had almost 2 year with the same problem got fixed just recently. Either Kim Chase took a glance at the post I made regarding their negligence or finally someone alerted Kim Chase about the negligence. It's way too late for Kim Chase's action of reporting bugs but at least we can take at heart the job of reading the community's bug is being read by someone in Anet and being done something about it even if it's way late. Can't say the same for other areas like suggestion pages which by now they look like headstones from graveyards.--ShadowFog 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a hint

You might have more people listen to you if you included less fallacies in your arguments. I kind of got bored reading the whole thing, but Izzy isn't the only skill balancer, he is the head of the balance team. You actually do need one person to be the "head" or nothing will ever get done. Misery 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep reading his articles the whole time if it bores you every single time ? Lilondra *gale* 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm bored. Work is boring. Misery 17:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Misery, go play Build Wars if you're bored, since you love how it's managed so much.

So if you're already bored you get even more bored of reading shard's articles wich is why you read them right ? Lilondra *gale* 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes fallacies amuse me, like saying that Signet of Pious Light is one of the most serious balance issues currently affecting the game. Misery 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ok ok you got him there :p but TBH if you want to pick on scrub go to ra ive been "pwnd" by a derv using WS he said WS was the rage and i was dumb for not running a dervish because its so cool and stuff Lilondra *gale* 18:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WS is bad, it doesn't even have any +damage. Misery 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DW = +~100 damage. Also, three recharge. Also, bleeding covers deep wound. Dark Morphon(contribs) 20:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Misery 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Counter with Restore Condition and has +healing!--ShadowFog 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to use less fallacies in my article because anytime you try to have a negative amount of mistakes in something, the universe collapses. Maybe you can use less fallacies instead, and instead of making baseless claims, point out to everyone where and how I made each fallacy. I need to put my "How to lose an argument" section back on my page, people like Misery obviously need it. ~Shard 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark morphon misery was obviously sarcastic there he might be an ass but something tells me hes not a scrub Lilondra *gale* 06:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Being sarcastic on the interwebz is baed. Also, read what I said about people telling me they are sarcastic. It sorta explains their attitude. Dark Morphon(contribs) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

just for you, I searched in the history and voila:

Here are some common ways to lose an argument and look stupid while doing so:

  1. You say "Learn to counter X" or "X has tons of counters" but fail to specify any.
  2. You say "X is balanced because I use it"
  3. You say "X is balanced because it's cool"
  4. You say "X is balanced because it's underused" or "X is broken because it's overused."
  5. You say "X has been nerfed/buffed, so it's balanced/weak/overpowered now."
  6. You say something but don't back it up at all.
  7. You resort to personal attacks instead of sticking to the issue. 

More will be added as stupid people find even sadder ways of failing at logic.

You're winner Borotvaltgandalf 10:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a comment in mind, but I'll refrain from posting it. Instead I'll ask a related question: "Who doesn't follow those guidelines?" 145.94.74.23 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe I did point out the fallacy. You said Izzy fails because he tries to balance the game all by himself. He doesn't try to balance the game himself, he is the head of the balance TEAM^ref, he also has balance forums where he consults the community and there is the illusion that he listens to suggestions here. His team has balance meetings. Their failure is a failure based upon the design of the game because it is actually impossible to correctly balance the number of skills that exist in Guild Wars, not that Izzy won't listen to anyone and tries to do everything by himself. This is why your and everyone elses balance suggestions are totally flawed. They always fix one problem while screwing up three other things. I like how you dismissed my statements outright in a non-sensical manner with another fallacy by claiming that I didn't point out any fallacies. Misery 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

it is actually impossible to correctly balance the number of skills that exist in Guild Wars

Good sir, may I point you to a game called Magic: The Gathering. Fun Fact, MtG has ten times more cards than GW has skills, has way more complex game mechanics, and they have major game balance mistakes once a year if they're slacking. While a vast majority of their cards are underpowered (but actually for a reason), almost none of them ruin the game, especially not in relatively newer sets. Even when a card actually makes its way to severely overpowered gimmick decks, wizards restricts them almost immediately. When's the last time Guild Wars banned a broken skill? Never? ~Shard 23:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, Smiter's Boon was effectively removed from the game. I believe you were also against that move if I recall correctly. Also, Channel/Fireball was hardly balanced and allowed poor players to defeat much better players based purely on luck. 99% of the cards in MtG are the equivalent of Flare (1r, 3c, 3/3 creature, no abilities or something), Flare is easy to balance because it has a very predictable effect. You could have 251624672543 copies of Flare all with different energy cost and damage and then yes, Guild Wars would be a very boring balanced game. MtG has had plenty of gimmicks over the years including infinite mana generation combos (Paralysis and some green dude I forget the name of that allowed you to untap a land combined with Wild Growth x 4) and methods that allowed you to have infinite life or be unkillable. It's been a while since I've looked at MtG rules, but I also believe they ban expansions prior to a certain set in tournament play (i.e. equiavalent to banning prophecies and then just balancing Nightfall). I don't think comparisons are really appropriate here or accurate, especially when you seem to be contradicting yourself by calling Izzy a terrible balancer for removing a skill from the game, then advocating that he removes broken skills from the game. Perhaps you would clear to clarify or correct me? I may be thinking of someone else being opposed to Smiter's Boon being nerfed as it was, but I can't really be bothered to check my facts today, if I'm wrong consider that statement stricken, but all others are valid as far as I can see. Misery 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a fallacy if I ever saw one. You say MtG had many gimmicks over the years, but MtG is built on gimmicks. From around Mirrodin, gimimcks have been the only way to play the game in standard play. Everything else is severely underpowered.

Just like the 99% of all cards are entirely worthless. They are not worthless because they suck, they are worthless because the other 900 cards are vastly overpowered. Why? To make people buy new cards. Power creep favors them. Power creep favors ANet in no single way, but still the balance 'team' (is it really more than 1 man?) refuses to tone down the NF power creep. Also, there is no way to make complex changes to a card like you can do to virtual objects like skills. That is why removing a skill from the game is complete bullshit. If Wizards could change Time Walk to make the user lose half os his life, they would have done so. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. -=-Koda Kumi 12:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I lost your point and the relevance. You seem to be trying to debunk my and Shard's points simultaneously so I am a little confused as to what you are trying to say, care to clarify? I am not denying power creep or inbalance. Power Creep DOES serve anet by the way, it means that to stay competitive you had to purchase Nightfall (and then EotN, try monking without Patient Spirit these days). I can't comment on MtG balance since an expansion or two after Ice Age as that is when I stopped playing, but I've heard from others that have played more recently that it is just as full of gimmicks as ever. Admittedly it is possible to TRY and balance GW as opposed to MtG (yes, they put out erratas occasionally, but that only really affects tournament play), but I don't really think humans are capable of processing that much information except as a kind of inorganic computer/hive mind, which is what the metagame is. If gimmicks are possible and findable they will always be found. It would take years to properly balance GW with the number of skills that exist, including bringing underpowered skills into the realm of viable. I just hope they learn their lesson for future endeavours and keep the entire skill set size limited while making sure that the skills are interesting and versatile with a bigger reward for skillful play than unskilled play. Interesting things to note there was a hard core Wounding Strike Dervish meta a few months ago, ignoring the retardedness that is WE Axes at the moment, those dervishes with stacked damage boosting enchantments were fading from the meta anyway. If Izzy had done anything other than nerf them out of play immediately would it have had any effect on the state of the game? I take a very different philosophy on balance to Shard, he seems to think that if anything is better than anything else in direct comparison it needs to be fixed immediately, as long as the metagame is fluid I personally don't care. Misery 14:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Who wanted to stay competitive has bought NF and EotN when they were released, so keeping the NF power creep the way it is now for the sake of selling them is quite meaningless.

Also, I am not taking anoyone's side here. I have my own views. I want HA to be enjoyable again instead of being plagued with all sorts of rangers abusing game mechanics, and the same for TA. With all the overpowered WoD/WS/VoR crap going on, it is just another lame buildwars arena. -=-Koda Kumi 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, 90% (not even that high, maybe 75%) of MtG cards are underpowered so limited play is balanced. Limited isn't fun when you only have all powerful cards to use. Guild Wars doesn't have that excuse because they were too lazy to implement limited play. 100% of the pvp skills in GW were intended for "constructed", and 95% of them are useless in that format. ~Shard 08:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RAGE

Rage less. No makes you play this game, so stop if you think it is horrible. 67.82.179.27 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't raging. If you think this is raging, wait until you get to middle school. ~Shard 06:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Guild Wars is my competitive game of choice until Starcraft2 comes out or until the current block rotates out of MtG. Yeah, Wizards pulled an Anet by making a nonfun block with a significant power creep. I blame gleemax. ~Shard 06:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with you there, Shard. Build Wars is so bad that I would honestly rather do my work or study.

It isnt BAD it is mediocre it used to be good the management is BAD Lilondra *gale* 21:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... guild wars inspired me to start learning programming ( to fix thoose annoying things like Wounding strike...) Borotvaltgandalf 18:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow

With the exception of "Guild Wars failed because it was never properly balanced," (as pre-factions balance was pretty good) I agree with everything on that page. ANet has never bothered to get in touch with userbase, their community rep people have been huge jokes from the beginning (including a PvP rep that doesn't PvP himself, doesn't hang out with PvPers or even know where to contact them). That combined with poor game design decisions in later chapters really put the nail in the coffin. Well said, Shard. -Auron 04:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

All hail Shard for his great insights! <worships Shard> Crimmastermind 06:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I flubbed on that one. I'll make it more accurate :P ~Shard 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't around before Factions, so I can't really judge the balance before that...but I think Nightfall introduced the most imbalances. I enjoyed your /rant :) We can only hope that GW2 improves on these fundamental flaws. 198.54.202.150 10:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I disagree with many points, actually. I think Arena Net lost control of the game when they decided to actually listen to the players, but listening to all the wrong opinions and not considering the impact of their decisions on the long run. I did a small rant about it here, but we can trace many of the really bad ideas (assassins, paragons, title grind, adding more and more skills, etc) to features the players kept requesting over and over. Likewise, we can trace many of the GW2 features that are likely going to be bad for the game back to common player requests (higher level cap, more playable races, crafting system, etc). I believe Arena Net has truly the best intentions for the game, and I doubt there has been any malice in anything they have done, but trying to please "everyone" (by injecting empty fanservice in the game) has accomplished nothing beyond breaking the game. Erasculio 13:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That comment makes a lot more sense than the article. 145.94.74.23 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the flaws essay, I strongly agree with your comments on attributes, particularly with regard to assassins. I also agree with your main point about time contraints, and I think they noticed the problem about halfway through developing Utopia. I agree with your main point on game balance, but is Izzy really the entire balance team now, when did that happen? IIRC there used to be one or two other people involved in balance (I think Andrew Patrick was one of them back when he was PvP Community Coordinator), but Izzy was the one who made the final decisions. I strongly agree with your positions on grind and titles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone remind me WHY any profession would need "survival + offense + offense + offense"? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.174.22.233 (talk).

Cuz dere iz never enuff dakka? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, there used to be other people working with izzy (Andrew, afaik, did all the non-skill pvp balance, like arena objectives and such), but within the past year and a half I've seen no indication that any of them are still there, including izzy. ~Shard 07:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the first answer here there should be more people working with Isaiah. Worst comes to worst, I think Linsey at least is also working on it (I think she did some of the work on the update that buffed elite skills). Erasculio 17:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That could mean he does all the balance changes himself then says "hey boss can i change these?" That doesn't necessarily mean there are more people working ON skill balance. I work with the mailman every week, but I'm not a mailman. ~Shard 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a completely inane analogy. What on earth do you mean when you say you "work with the mailman"? That he puts letters in your mailbox? That is not working with a mailman at all. Do you in fact work in a mail centre sorting mail? I'd still consider that working towards the delivery of the mail even if you weren't a mailman. There are at least two places where Izzy claims to at least consult other members of staff at Anet, you've been linked to both of them. I don't really know what you expect them to do, have a group of 5 people who each take a skill each and balance it? That sounds pretty retarded to me. Misery 09:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect?

With GW2 in the works Arenanet has been siphoning off, undoubtedly, tremendous amounts of resources into it's production, this includes Skill Balance. Odds are that at least 2/3 of the skill balance team Izzy heads has to work on what is coming up, while he, and others, works on what is there. This includes things like Nightfall and EOTN. When GW2 gets released there will be problems however, for a short amount of time ALL RESOURCES WILL BE FOCUSED ON THAT GAME. Thus skill balance *should* be "better". So I just sit here and hope that my assumption is correct and future days will be brighter. Weaponmaster 07:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And then they release an expansion and balance goes down the drain. They did nothing right with factions, and nightfall killed a basically dead game because of lack of balance. EotN was put in to keep the shitters playing until gw2 (i.e., giving terrible players access to areas like DoA, since their lack of skill had prevented them from beating it before).

Gw2 might be decently balanced on release (although I fear they're going to a WoW-style open-area system with shitty ass world PvP, so balance won't really matter anymore anyway), but they'll repeat the same mistakes they made with factions and nightfall. Uncounterable skills and mechanics, merging too much utility into a single skill (MBS merged condi removal with a big heal, for example) and the pool of skills becoming too big to be manageable will catch up with ANet just like they did in GW1. Fact is, they don't listen well enough to learn from their mistakes, which is why they've been repeated over and over (and why they're going to keep repeating). -Auron 08:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off some things that I have heard actually prove that they listen, such as the decision to reduce the skill pool, which also sounds like attempting to keep it small. Also, their "World PvP" is supposed to be a large "World vs World" "arena", which is, in my understanding nothing like WoW's World PvP. Weaponmaster 07:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yall do know that Guild Wars isn't the only game in existence, right? 100's of new games come out every single year, I'm sure you can find at least one that you like...--Ryudo 07:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should spend $50 per game on 100 games per year to find one I like. That's makes sense.

I've already spent $250 or so on Guild Wars, from character slots to each campaign to eotn to BMP. It's stupid to go find another game because that $250 was put on a game that was good but then became bad, when the decision to make it good still rests with the developers. -Auron 09:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fable II for the win! --Riddle 10:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on Riddle surely you jest! Forget Fable II buy Fallout 3!...Weren't you guys talking about MMORPGs not console gaming? I really don't know any other game that offers this kind of gameplay at this price without paying month after month.--ShadowFog 13:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fable II does...--Riddle 21:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's online, but not massively so. Co-op/competitive between two people I think. --Antioch 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You got me thinking on money! Left 4 Dead, Half-Life 2 multiplayer, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress 2, etc. Oh....almost all of those are aroudn the Source engine provided by Valve! Well then... Warcraft III, Starcraft, Age of Empires III, Command & Conquer series(they still play Tiberian Sun online!), etc. All can be played online for free!--ShadowFog 03:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

GW is not an MMO. All GW is is Diablo 2 with virtual chatrooms called towns. You still make a game that can support up to 8 people, except everyone has to join as you make the game room. ~Shard 04:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Better to spend a bit of money to find a game you like than sit on a wiki and bitch and moan about how terrible it is to play a game you dont like. You know what the definition of insanity is? Its doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. If youve been playing for months without having fun, wtf do you think playing tomorrow is going to be fun? And Auron, theres these things...review sites, screenshots, forums, friends, etc, that you can use to see if you will like a game or not. If you have a 360, go pick up Fable 2, Fallout 3. If you have a ps3, try out LBP. If you have a Wii...well then get another console. And theres shittons of rpgs out there for the PC.

Not according to the DSM4. That's just a dumbass saying, like "i give 110%." ~Shard 06:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your other point about not buying the game assumes I bought it when it was bad. Many players are angry because they bought a great game that they are no longer allowed to play. ~Shard 02:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Heres my logic. If doing A= bad emotion, and Doing X could = good emotion, then one should stop doing A and try doing X. The only people that play a game they dont enjoy playing are retards and the insane.--Ryudo 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A typical Shard-rant as always. He doesn't like something, so everyone who does is an idiot. He detests the game, but he still plays. He hates the wiki, but he still makes his speeches on it. The content was the same. The reason however, eludes me. Tell me Shard, are you trying to convince us you're right, tying to ruïn the fun of others who still enjoy the game, or simply trying to make as many people as possible hate Anet? 145.94.74.23 09:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IP, read his rants and you can conclude what his trying to do. Even other users and sysops have their own rant on the game and they still play. No need to explain himself what hes trying to do.--ShadowFog 11:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ip if you still dont have a clue why he's making these rants if you still dont have a clue about ANYTHING then dont post.Hes not saying the game is bad he says anet fails for ruining one of the best games in history hes not saying youre a retard for liking the game AT ALL.How does he ruin youre fun ? were you forced to read it ? were you forced to agree with it ? Were you forced to stop playing it ? no so pls log in and tell me what are you trying to accomplish with that post ? Lilondra *gale* 11:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just like Shard is allowed to bash the game, so am I allowed to bash his rants. But I wouldn't expect one of his mindless followers to actually understand the things I am trying to say. 145.94.74.23 13:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that you are not allowed to bash is rants? It's ok to do so, but don't be surprised when people bash your bashing as you basically do the same thing. Dark Morphon(contribs) 15:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Bash his rants all you want but : 1.Back it up 2.Log in 3.What exactly are you trying to say ? Lilondra *gale* 18:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I've done so, on many occasions, and the replies I got weren't any more constructive than when I don't back it up. So give me a good reason why I should do so.
2. Unsigned comments are just as valid as signed comments, it's a wiki rule.
3. I am asking him what he is trying to accomplish, besides trying to get other people to hate/quit the game too. I am asking him why he is trying to convince others that the game isn't worth it and they should stop playing. What does HE get out of all of that? Because I don't understand what HIS angle is. It can't be to force Izzy to make different decisions in balancing the game, because he knows (or should know by now) from experience, that it doesn't help. It can't be to force Anet to change their design strategy, because they have given up on GW1, and Shard has given up on GW2. It *could* be to make Izzy lose his job, but I think Shard is better than that so that can't be it either. So the only thing I can read out of this list of opinions backed up by arguments composed of more opinions, that he either wants everyone to quit GW, or that he's a very frustrated person that really should see professional help because he's obviously not at peace with himself (and I don't mean that as an insult, I am actually concerned about Shard's well-being). 145.94.74.23 07:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Well back it up now
2. Yh but it's just nicer to give the guy youre talking to an identity 145.94.74.23 is not an identity
3. Hes giving his 2 cents on what he thinks he already said GW isnt a BAD game he says the MANAGEMENT is bad.Hes not trying to convince people to stop at all.Thats like saying a random stranger can convince you to stop smokingLilondra *gale* 15:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about peoples identities...it makes it easier to remember how wrong a certain person is, but a badly argued point is a badly argued point regardless of who made it. ~Shard 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but that still keeps me guessing why you post these things. 145.94.74.23 10:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Again with the same question? How about a copy/paste of what I said when I first answered? Get it though your skull. Go ask some else why they rant.--ShadowFog 12:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"If other users want to comment, please do so on my talk page and please(again) leave this for Izzy to answer. Thanks for your attention and thanks for reading.--ShadowFog 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) "

"Again with the same question? How about a copy/paste of what I said when I first answered?--ShadowFog 12:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)"

Total lack of consistency amuses me. Misery 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

lol, Good try, good try none the less.--ShadowFog 13:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't really see what you are angling at there Shadowfog. Care to explain? Misery 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And disrupt yet again the topic? Maybe I'll answer in your talk page.--ShadowFog 13:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, do so. Misery 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I read it, and the answer isn't in there SFrog. Or at least, not so blatantly obvious that even idiots understand it, apparently (beat you to it this time). 145.94.74.23 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Shard and I play other games...mainly NWN and Diablo 2. We log onto th GW to talk with friends and make them get on vent so we can play our other favorite games. I think Adrin's the only one who actually plays GW.

Regardless of that, Shard and I both LOVED this game, and we're disapointed by the downward direction it took. Shard says what he says because he is bothered by a great game being destroyed. But worry not Wiki friends, once SC2 comes out, Shard will vanish gracefully into the distance of outer space, only an etched stone with his Wiki rants remaining to tell his tale.

However, just because Anet has shifted focus to another game, thats no reason to destroy the original game and not care about it until after the release of the new game. Starcraft didn't do that with their impending sequel, The Sims didn't do that...and they were smart not to, as doing so would tell the customer they don't care, which will lead them to other sellers and thus, they may alienate their audience. --*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the same bloody discussion is being held over and over? Dark Morphon(contribs) 14:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can, actually. Shard's "You-agree-with-me-or-you-aren't-worth-anything" attitude angers people again and again. What I'd like to know as well, is how Shard reached the Hall of Heroes if only logs in on GW to chat. Is it photoshopped? 87.210.150.58 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I've been playing longer than you? I was winning halls before you knew this game existed. ~Shard 01:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, of course. If someone asks you a question, you can't just make do with a simple and polite answer like: "It's an older screenshot." You just have to let them know that they're inferior to you. And still people wonder what everyone has against you. Well, you tell me, because I have no clue. 87.210.150.58 09:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a screenshot on this page of me in halls, I was assuming he was being a smartass. If he was asking about the pic on my main page, then no, it isn't photoshopped, that really happened. ~Shard 09:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all you need to know about Shard... .
Nuff Said.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes... the shit build is "'nuff said" -FireFox 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol Were you in Leeloof's group when we fought for 52mins and 52 seconds? I need to post that shot.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was monking against his two choking gas rangers, yes. Annoying match. ~Shard 08:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fear is the Little Death that Brings Total Annihilation

I'd ask how GW could be such a bad game if so many people seem to like it, but, at best, that would only provoke you to admit what good (or seemingly good) qualities you see in the game. At worst, you'd accuse others of being more or less too stupid to know a bad game when they see one. Rather, I'll say that, while I realize it is a pleasure to complain and intellectualization is a valid defense mechanism and that you have every right to say what you want on these pages and it's none of my business what you believe... well I'm not sure what to say first. There is the fact that I've played over a dozen MMOs (FF11, WoW, Lineage II, Phantasy Star, and several lesser known ones), and GW is the only one I remained interested in for more than six months. There are reasons that which I can identify such as group-based combat and the lack of a monthly fee and that the other games were all either just an endless grindathons or lacked a usable control scheme (mostly the lesser known ones), but isn't it enough that I, my friends, and a massive number of other people I don't know somehow enjoy the game? Is there any other reason for it's existence? Actually, there is. It's called profit, but that's not part of our discussion. Anyway, that's not to say I have a problem with you writing, well, this. I just think you're taking this a little too seriously. And, please don't bother replying. I'm sort of not interested in your response. If you're concerned with your public standing here, then you can just delete what I've written and forget about it.--Shai Halud 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

isn't it enough that I, my friends, and a massive number of other people I don't know somehow enjoy the game?

Enough for what? If you enjoy it, great. GW has many redeeming qualities. However, I am a competitive gamer. I don't find satisfaction in exploiting poorly programmed AI a million times over. I enjoy real challenges - challenges GW no longer has. Guild Wars was made as a PvP game, then the developers realized they couldn't balance a game of checkers, much less Guild Wars. PvE is even seeing its own death - for people who have owned the game since day 1, there is simply nothing more to do. Nothing is challenging, nothing is new.

I just think you're taking this a little too seriously.

If someone stole 120 dollars from you, you'd take it seriously too (well, considering you played WoW and FF11...maybe YOU wouldn't, but people who are good with money would). ~Shard 05:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

^ shard is correct as aways--92.11.163.226 15:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How many hours of playtime to do you have Shard? Divide that 120 dollars by that and see if you got value for money compared to where else you could have spent that. I've stopped playing GW now, but I know I bloody well got good value. It's not an excuse for them to make the game bad now, but you hardly had your money "stolen" from you. Misery 09:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying if you own something longer, it's worth the money? A shitty house is a shitty house, even if you stay there your whole life. ~Shard 00:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't compare apples to oranges.--75.94.77.148 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

According to you I can. GW is a defective product and the company that made it refuses to fix it. ~Shard 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The question (hours of playtime) was wrong. It better could be "Hours of enjoyment". Boro 08:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Legally, a company's obligations to fix things stop after a year or so. Seeing as you spent 120 dollars to have something to do in your free time, well, they did provide this wiki for you to rant on, didn't they? ;-) 145.94.74.23 08:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you bought a house that was good at the time you bought it, but it became shitty over time, your house became shitty over time, deal with it. Your builder will not refund you for depreciation on your assets, even if his attempted fixes over time did little to slow the decay. As for the hours of enjoyment argument, if he has played for a significant amount of time during which he did not enjoy it, then he being very foolish and deserves the self-torture and to be ripped off. The money per hour of enjoyment (or playtime if you aren't retarded) is a perfectly good measure for a leisure activity. I think people forget with computer games all the time that leisure activities should be compared to each other for value for cost, $50USD is incredibly good value for the typical amount of play time you get out of one computer game, I know people bitch these days about games with ~25 hours till completion, I don't know many pool halls that will let you play for ~2USD per hour, but you can find them, in that case, just about the worst possible scenario for a computer game, you broke even. I suspect Shard has ~2000 hours at a bare minimum, probably significantly more. Old platformers could be completed in the first sitting of 3-4 hours if you were reasonably skilled and people seldom bitched about the length of them. Misery 09:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing an online server-sided game and a house is a bad idea. After you bought the house you have got the rights to change it whenever you want. But you can't change GW, because you have no access to the server, can't change game mechanics, monster attributes, skills, etc. . So it's more like you are a swimming teacher, and you rented e.g. two lanes from the pool. For two weeks, everything went smoothly. Children came in time, they worked hard, and both you and the children enjoyed the stay. In the middle of the third week, came another group, from where every children pisses in the pool(maybe their teacher is a relative to the head of the pool), and both you and your pupils feel bad/disgusted. My idea wasn't perfect too I know.

anyway you were right about the enjoyment/playtime, but don't forget the amount of idiots/nerds/assholes(HA players saying only r6+) in gw and the amount of time you need to find a half-decent group. Boro 13:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure Shard's problems with GW are more to do with terrible balance and game mechanics than terrible players and community environment. Analogies are analogies, they are used to highlight a point and shouldn't be taken too literally. Misery 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Boro 13:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to work at anet. Not because I want to fix things, but because they will pay me to neglect my job. ~Shard 21:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Imo

As build wars as it is GW's pvp isnt half as bad as pvp in other games, you can get into it right away and it still requres skill over anything else which is cool. --Super Igor flame my shove sin bar! 13:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

GWBalance

DnD is balanced? Either you were playing before 3.0 or you're trolling. -- Armond Warblade 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was playing before 3.0, and 3.5 wasn't that bad. Only monks were imbahax. And I guess to some degree, arcane archers. ~Shard 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice article, very well written. I like how you found a way to balance even effects that cannot be removed, like shouts and weapon spells. Erasculio 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

3.5 wasn't that bad? Ever seen Tome of Battle?

3.5 was basically "find the best way to imbahax your character, and hope the DM can keep up". I'll drag DE over here so he can argue the point if you'd like, I can't be arsed pointing out more than ToB. -- Armond Warblade 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

4e is more imbalanced, I think,than 3.5...take a look at 'demigod.' Give that to, say, a 30th level rogue and they can deal MASSIVE amounts of damage and have amazing survivability with, what, 26 dex? Cloak of invis.? Hylas 01:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Hylas

Yeah there were a lot of build constrictions based on what class you wanted to play. Like if you picked ranger, there was only one way to go - arcane archer death arrow. If you picked monk, you killed everything you looked at. ~Shard 09:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the article, a lot of nice points and interesting views. You should do a section on skill combinations too because that is something that is very prevalent in GW, and is why we see many imbalances between skills. Those make judging a builds overall power (individual or team) much more difficult to find.~>Sins WDB 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It would work, but Izzy cant do math :P --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Hylas (talk).

Honestly, I love math, and with it this was a very interesting and engaging thing to read. However, I have the feeling that it can't all boil down to math when everything is accounted for.

Godel's Theorem: A system powerful enough to express every idea in a system will lead to paradoxes.

But still, a great article and I can tell you really worked on the math. I love it! Chfan 16:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing the current math doesn't consider is the difference in power between professions; how a warrior with a skill bar is going to have a different power level than an assassin with the same skill bar, even if they had the same attribute spread. But that's probably a matter of figuring out how to apply that math to each profession (considering armor, DPS and etc) and balance them with each other. Erasculio 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sins, that's a good idea. I think I'll add that section. ~Shard 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your conclusion is sound, but in my humble opinion, you try to make everything fit into your model too well. Some things just cannot be expressed mathematically, no matter how hard you try. I agree that no skill should be 100 times as powerful as another skill, but you suggest your system produces an accuracy that it cannot really supply. 145.94.74.23 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be waiting patiently to read it. As a suggestion I'd do an example on Protective Was Kaolai and Soothing Memories, a personal favorite of mine :P ~>Sins WDB 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not "my model." This is math and statistics. If you don't like it, go live in another universe. There are inaccuracies in everything. This way lets you guess the best you can. ~Shard 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have to agree with Shard here. It may be flawed but it's a good way to compare. Real Godel's Theorem above-the same goes for all systems, even mathematics.Chfan 11:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you make a list of all skills with the power level? That would be a really good overview to see which skills are overpowered. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It would take so long that they would all have changed by the time I finished. Skills get changed, the metagame shifts frequently. The only way you can do it real-time is if you had the usage data from the game. ~Shard 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You could do a list of staple skills of each professions as they don't change much if at all. For example, RoF, PWK, Bull's Strike, D-Shot, Diversion, Air/Fire/Water/Earth Attunement, Defile Defenses, Disrupting Dagger, "Go for the Eyes!", and Imbue Health. If you'd like I could help with a current list of such skills, I don't go back far enough to remember when they were all balanced.~>Sins WDB 16:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, like Shard said in the article, there are some variables that are not easy to quantify. The facts that Bull's Strike has to hit a moving enemy and is a melee attack, for example, is something that would require the creation of some sort of mathemathical scale in order to be analyzed. Given how that kind of math would enter in the comparisons between skills, it would be hard to compare numerically "heals for 50 health" and "is a melee attack". Erasculio 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's harder to come up with the skill combo section than I originally thought. Most skills are just linear when they stack. It's when you get into stuff like dark aura + barbed sig or VoR + wastrels where you have to come up with something complicated. Sorry sins, it was a good suggestion, but I won't be able to do it very clearly. ~Shard 06:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not "my model." This is math and statistics. The fact that you're calculating things doesn't mean that there cannot be any flaws in your reasoning. As soon as you apply certain weights to effects, you're making a model to mathematically predict the effects of certain changes you would make to the real thing. Since you obviously have no scientific background (because you had no idea what I'm talking about), I'd be careful if I were you. As soon as you make assumptions, there will be an error ratio. That's why they use a safety factor when designing airplanes: there are things you cannot express mathematically and you'll have to find a way to work around that. 87.210.150.58 09:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To add a more constructive comment, there are some things that are hard to measure in pure points. I think it would be wise to compare 2 skills with similar effects, but I disagree with comparing skills which have completely different effect (like you stated already). I have thought of a few examples and I would like you to know how your idea would answer these problems.

• Sever Artery
  • When using your idea, a Sever Artery that causes bleeding for 30 seconds is 1.5x as powerful as one that causes bleeding vor 20 seconds. However, is this really true? In practice, the target either dies within those 20 seconds, or the bleeding gets removed/reapplied.
• Skill Y that causes burning vs Skill X that causes bleeding & poison, all other stats are the same.
  • Both skills cause the same amount of degen. You could say that skill X is more powerful, because it causes 2 conditions so it is slightly harder to remove. However, Restore Condition, a common counter, would give the target suffering from X more health than the target suffering from Y. So what happens? Would they be equal? What about PvE enemies who can be immune to some of those conditions?
• Wounding Strike
  • Would this skill be just as powerful if it were in Swordsmanship? It would hit just 1 target and the base damage added to the attack wouldn't be anywhere near as high.
• What attribute level would you apply for those skills?
  • You could use a fixed attribute level for all skills, let's say 12. However, some skills have a steeper attribute distribution than others. If two skills have the same effect and stats, where skill Y has a distribution of 1...8...10 and skill Z a distribution of 5...7...8, which one is more powerful? Y, because of its power at higher levels, or Z, because it is more useful even at lower levels?

These are just a few things that come in mind. I like your idea, I truly do. It's one of the few times I actually agree with you. But in my opinion, there are just too many factors to take into account to create a mathematical model that works all the time, for every skill (and I am not even talking about actual combat and player stratgeies). It might be good reading for Izzy though. 145.94.74.23 07:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So you don't think 30 seconds of bleeding is better than 20? Sometimes it won't matter, but sometimes it will. There are Places where effect removals aren't prevalent and times where you lose those abilities, and that's where the probabilities come in. ~Shard 21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I do think it is better, I just don't think it is 1.5 times as good as 20 seconds. 145.94.74.23 05:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to bring up "Searing Flames vs Double Dragon. 71.174.18.132 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Double Dragon needs negative 5 seconds of recharge. It's ready 5 seconds before you use it. ~Shard 21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions yet Shard. 145.94.74.23 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, which one? ~Shard 07:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All of them. You answered a Sever Artery question, but not my Sever Artery question and you didn't respond to the other ones yet. I think they are important things to consider if you truly wish to make this work. 145.94.74.23 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are all complex examples. You can explain them to a decent extent with statistics, as I've already stated. However, many of the skills power levels (especially the ones which have an over-time result) cannot be expressed as a 100% certainty, but as an average effectiveness given the current metagame. I kept this simple so everyone could read and understand it. If I brought complex statistics or calculus here, I would lose many readers.

You're definitely right, this is not a fool-proof way to say "Eviscerate's power level is always 200" or whatever it may be. It's a guide to comparing skills to each other, and in that regard, it works. You might not be able to say "30 seconds bleeding is 1.5 times better than 20 seconds," but you can say with 100% certainty that it IS better. ~Shard 21:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate it's not 100% better in a few situations. Vs Melandru's Resilience vs melform and vs draw+plague signet/sending it's not better. In those cases it's worse or just doesn't matter. For the most part though 30 seconds of bleeding is better to put on the enemy than 20.~>Sins WDB 04:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant to say Shard. There are some things that can either be expressed through very complex calculations, or rounded off (for less work and a little less accuracy). Like I said, I have nothing against comparing skills, in fact, I am really fond of your idea. I just got a little worried when I saw people asking for exact power levels on every skill, that's all. Your basic conclusion (no skill should be 10x as powerful as another skill) is very sound. 145.94.74.23 07:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ~Shard 07:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I already figured all this out years ago, but thanks for trying. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:96.233.11.131 (talk).

I didn't write this for you. I wrote it for people who matter. Where's your article? ~Shard 22:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

another thing on attributes

Didn't see it in your very enlightening reasoning, so I thought I'd just ask you to see what you think about it. With attributes - I love the attribute/limited skill slot mechanism, by the way, I think it's much better than the mechanisms most traditional MMORPGs use, but then again, I'm a PvE player (and a Mesmer at heart, if that's combinable) - anyways, with attributes, there is another factor to calculate into this mix.

You already stated, though somewhere else, that the selection which skill belongs to which attribute is random, and that this is the greatest cause of the attribute system being a "crippled balance mechanism". But technically, in every such categorization, there is a component of arbitrariness (critical theory vs. positivism 101) - so the question isn't even really "which skills belongs where", but "by what criteria do we categorize?" - By effect? by target? by mechanism? Any way of defining categories may be valid, but they may conflict. Example: Mesmer Domination and Illusion.

• We may define Domination as the Mesmers primary damage dealing, and Illusion as primary defensive utility and degeneration - this would make Clumsiness, for example, a misplaced skill.
• If we define Domination as anti-caster and Illusion as anti-melee, Empathy or Arcane Conundrum would be misplaced. Just as examples.

So... basically, and that's what I was trying to get at: Attribute structure will always hold skills that are, by some ways of definition, misplaced. This is okay, I think, but it should also be factored in - as you can use these skills "out of line", or rather: in-line with very powerful skills that achieve very different effects. Do you think "attribute placement", as "which attribute the skill belongs to", would or could or should be another balancing factor? Or is this completely irrelevant? (To clarify: A skill that is "misplaced" on any notable accord should be less powerful than it's "correctly" placed counterparts, so a "misplacing factor" should be added to the powerlevel in some way to weigh it in.)

What do you think? - 84.178.90.3 16:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Domination is anti everything. That's the problem. 14 Dom 13 FC and you dont even have to think to be effective.~>Sins WDB 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe Mesmer and Domination/Illusion was a... I envision I might call it regrettable... example. But it was just that: an example. For Skills that are - for some reason - not where most of the "other skills like that" are, one way or the other, or that are in one place only with a majority of skills that behave radically different. I'd try to come up with more examples (or examples of other classes) but it's past three in the morning over here and I'm awfully tired. Thanks for the answer, by the way, although I somewhat still hope for an answer from Shard himself... on the more general question, not the specifics of the example. And yeah... if I answer a "next time", I'll likely have a different IP. Don't believe anyone claiming to be me. Even if it is me. - 84.178.90.3 02:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Deciding which skills go in which attributes is definitely a balancing factor. Look at Soul Bind vs Scourge Healing. They do the exact same thing, except one of them is elite. Technically, Soul Bind is the weaker of the two. However, it is much, MUCH easier to fit Soul Bind into a build of 64 skill slots than it is to fit Scourge Healing. Curses has many more viable skill options for team builds than smiting does, and curse necros are always targeting enemies, while smite monks tend to be more defensive, and may not have time to spam hexes. In that regard, putting skills in particular attributes can sometimes make a huge difference.

I don't like boring games, and despite balance, I like games to have flavor as well (this is why pets not leaving corpses boggles my mind). You can place skills in attributes by effect OR by flavor, as arenanet sometimes does. In the case of Clumsiness, the mesmer may be fooling with the target's mind to make him trip over his own attack. It fits in illusion, though it would fit balance-wise into domination.

The problem GW1 has is that some skills are basically copies of other skills, yet they are put in separate attributes. Assassins, for example, have two attributes that, besides the passive bonuses, do exactly the same thing - make you do more damage with dagger attacks. Why aren't all dagger attacks in Dagger Mastery? Likewise, the Dervish's earth and wind prayers have absolutely no distinction between them - just a bunch of random skills slopped together.

On your other point, skills that are misplaced, either intentionally or on purpose. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. It's all about how they play in that attribute. Zealous Benediction would probably have been a better example. Sometimes, skills like that were put there to just give you something extra that you shouldn't be able to do (duh). I think skills like that should be rare, and well thought out before they make it into the game. ZB is the only prot skill that is a spot heal, with an arguable exception being Dismiss Condition. It requires your elite, which means you can't be a traditional prot monk. Skills like that should enforce interesting builds, none of which become "wiki builds." When you start adding too many misplaced skills to attributes, it nullifies the whole point. Anet didn't realize this, and that's why heal rits, paragons, eles, and rangers are very overpowered - they can do everything with one attribute.

Your question was a little confusing, but I hope I've answered it. If not, can you ask again more clearly? ~Shard 08:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, first of all. Zealous Benediction would have been a better example, yes, but somehow, I didn't think of that at that point. You pretty much answered my question, though there is a bit of it left, but I can't think of a good way to re-word it to make it less confusing. I'm not a native english speaker, and sometimes, I fail to find the words I need. Like, uh, now.

On dervishes, however... yeah, they're pretty mixed. I can't quite shake that originally, there was a distinction thought of... along the lines of "Earth Prayers = defensive utility" and "Wind Prayers = offensive utility". Like Earth Prayers is a lot of self-healing, defensive condition spreading (blindness, crippling - around you or on foes that attack you) and damage prevention... Wind Prayers has the pure damage stuff, damage increases, some attacks, movement buffs, offensive condition spreading (e.g. crippling on targeted/attacked foe). It's jumbled up, at least a third of it, but... there are some... almost invisible... lines... that make me think: "Maybe that's what they originally intended... shame they didn't go this way to the end..."

I'll see if I can ask about that rest of the original question more clearly another time... 84.178.114.133 15:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The failures of mathematics are not due to failures in mathematics, but rather the manner in which they are applied

Your model does not adequately account for some very very important aspects of Guild Wars balance. You'll have to forgive me as I draw on some things you wrote a long time ago in scattered places so I can't reference them properly, feel free to correct or withdraw any past statements.

You constantly talk about how overpowered ritualist healers are. By and large Ritualist healers are considered mediocre at best. Yes, I am well aware of N/Rts and how often they get run in gimmick builds. N/Rts are slightly more survivable than monks when you are running them in a team that has little other defence largely due to the unstrippable nature of their buffs and the armor bonus from PwK, but overall they actually do a worse job of keeping a team up than a pair of monks with some off-monk support (Two N/Rts with an Expel Rit < Two monks with a water ele for example). Ritualists are run primarily (outside of gimmicks) because they have healing and prot accessible within the same attribute line which allows some other utility to be taken such as damage from channeling (which IS utility on a flagger) or Hidden Caltrops at reasonable spec. The other reason they are taken is that they can be effective at keeping a split alive or defending NPCs without using their elite (and because weapon spells are unstrippable and stack with traditional prot).

You have often compared Orison of Healing to Mend Body and Soul in the past, using this as an example of why ritualists are overpowered, this is relatively flawed for a couple of reasons. Firstly Orison of Healing is underpowered. It is so bad that no one with any sense runs it on any bar ever. Even when Prophecies was the only skill set people looked on this skill with disdain, it just isn't good enough to stop someone from dying. Despite MBaS being mathematically "better" by your model, it is never run outside of N/Rt gimmicks, why? Because the conditions under which it becomes good don't exist in most teams. Most of the time, even when using a ritualist, you have zero spirits. Why? Because if you cast a spirit, unless you have a million of them, the other team will just kill it. There are some exceptions, people have been known to run Recuperation on runners and the aforementioned gimmicks. Most of the time the conditional of MBaS will trigger once or no times, so it's not useful to take at all in a majority of team builds. Ok, so the Net Viability weighting on the condition removal aspect is actually close to zero? Hardly, it's an unknown depending on specific game conditions. Does that mean that this conditional should be removed? Not at all, what should be addressed is the viability of stacking large numbers of spirits to get an unbalanced effect out of the skill. The stacking of those effects is more of a problem and is totally unrelated to MBaS at all. Ok, so MBaS still heals for much, much more than Orison of Healing right? Wrong. MBaS heals for 109 at 14 Restoration. Orison of healing heals for ~99 health at 14 Healing Prayers, depending on the Divine Favour attribute, a massive 10 health difference. Why include Divine Favour? Because that is reality, every monk will be running Divine Favour (usually at least 8-10 on a heal monk) and no one else would ever use Orison of Healing, much like no one other than a healing ritualist would ever use MBaS (N/Rts are ritualists).

It may be a design flaw that the way primary attributes were implemented means that a class MUST use it to be effective with their skills, but now that the feature exists, short of redesigning the entire game, it must be taken into account when balancing. The real difference between MBaS and Orison then becomes a 1/4 second cast time difference, a 1 second recharge difference and a conditional condition removal. The conditional removal is what makes MBaS worthwhile in some situations, otherwise both skills would be underpowered. N/Rts are hardly overpowered, they are just easier to play than monks, but you get a worse effect out of them, I personally think that is fair. Soul Reaping isn't significantly more broken than Channeling in HA and that is the only place you significantly see ritualist healers other than flag running, where MBaS is so underpowered as to not be used ever.

Now, this brings up an interesting point, you say that all skills should have a power level of 50 and that Flare and Orison are staples, but no account was made for Divine Favour, so Orison of Healing actually has a power level of ~100. Does this totally bork the game balance? No. Healing should be more powerful than damage. Why? Because if it weren't you would need one defensive character for every offensive character. If you didn't have that then all the offensive characters could spam their skills on one target while all the defensive characters spammed their defence on that target and the defence would eventually be overpowered (in the simplest situation). Note, all those statements I just made were arbitrary, based upon what I consider to be fun, balanced play, as were any assignments of a value you used in your model.

Now lets talk about MBaS a little more as I find it an interesting balance problem. I do think it could use a change, not a buff or nerf really, but more of a rebalance. If you want to see it viable I think the conditional should be changed so that if you are holding an item spell or in range of a spirit it removes one condition. This would make it comparable to Dismiss Condition, a skill which I don't think I have ever heard anyone call overpowered. These two skills would actually be more or less identical then, except with two different conditionals, both of which are easily met. Both of these would be far more powerful than Orison of Healing, which is currently an underpowered skill, largely because of it's vanilla nature. Orison will always heal for it's full amount, whereas something like Dwayna's Kiss has a conditional amount of healing. If you meet the condition of Dwayna's, you have to heal for more than Orison of Healing, otherwise Dwayna's will never be worthwhile. A good player will be able to use the skills on their bar in such a manner that they always meet conditionals and always get the bonus healing, so Orison of Healing will never be worth it for them ever. Ok, granted in this case MBaS is equal to Orison even when the condition isn't met but I believe that MBaS and Dismiss condition are at the minimum level to be acceptable skills with where the games is currently balanced around. The game is not balanced around Flare and Orison of healing and it doesn't make sense to shift the whole metagame to be in line with those two mediocre skills (which will always be underpowered) when you could shift those two skills (and the other underpowered skills) without horribly upsetting balance.

Conditional skills is one of the fundamental principles of Guild Wars that make it a great game in theory. Few other MMORPGs have it, just like most don't have any real concept of prot or utility. They also make it more difficult to balance because a skills player will always trigger conditionals more often than an unskilled player and I don't believe you can simply balance these skills statistically. Diversion, for example, bareky ever disables a skill against skilled opponents, but even if it doesn't it forces them to take actions to prevent it from disabling a skill and if you do manage to disable an important skill you can win the game right there. You cannot assign a mathematical value to that.

Wail of Doom is another favourite skill of yours to pick on. You talk about how removing a character from the game for four seconds is not balanced, yet I've never heard you complain about knockdowns, which are capable of removing a character from the game for up to 9 seconds (10 with Backbreaker, but that is seldom run). The problem then is obviously not the removal of a character from the game, but rather how it is costed for WoD. It is short recharge, unconditional, fast casting, impossible to prevent and cheap, although it is removable. WoD is only a problem in small arenas, it has never made a significant impact in 8v8 play, although it sometimes does see use, but hardly game breaking use. In arenas it is harsh, but currently there are worse things to deal with, that is right, elites more imbalanced than WoD. All WoD really needs is a slight nerf, one of cost, recharge or conditionality. It wouldn't hurt to make it interruptable either, there is really no reason for it to be 1/4 second cast. The skill is not broken in concept because it is in line with what can be done using balanced skills and mechanics (knockdowns), the problem is how often it can be applied and the fact that nothing can be done to stop it, even preveiling is pretty useless because it recharges faster than a veil and only lasts 4 seconds.

Trying to apply a mathematical model to skill balance is fundamentally flawed. You can see games that take this approach and the skills become incredibly bland to fit within the model. Really interesting effects are difficult to balance because they won't fit a mathematical model. Good, balanced skills, like Diversion, Frenzy, Bull's Strike, Distracting Shot and good because of their complicated nature which defies a numerical value and make for an interesting game. If every skill in Guild Wars was based off of Flare/Orison with the numbers juggled it would be a terrible game, even if you just added conditionality on top you would lose many of the good features of Guild Wars such as true prot.

I have said before that I believe Guild Wars has become too complicated to balance well without leaving many, many skills underpowered and I still believe that, however recently Arenanet has been making highly questionable changes. Mark of Insecurity should never have been buffed to this level. Hundred Blades struck me as a stupid concept from the day I saw it, although I wondered if downtime would hold it back some, it doesn't really. Strike as One strikes me as completely useless. What you need for good balance is significant playtesting coupled with sound rational behind changes. Similar skills should be compared to each other, but you can't compare dissimilar skills. Like I said, defence should be stronger than offence. Arenanet claims to test changes before they go live, and I believe them, but they seem to either have terrible play testers or they don't spend enough time testing. How else could things that the community discovered so quickly go unnoticed by them. Irremovable Recurring Insecurity? If I were a playtester the first thing I would do is try and remove that hex and see what happens, play around with it, see how I could get it to reapply, what it might trigger when it did. That is what playtesting is and should be, intentionally trying to break things.

We have a big fucking advantage over Arenanet as there are thousands (or tens of thousands or millions if you are naive enough to believe sales figures equal players) of us testing things they do. We will find more abuses than them such as when we eventually found the Cultist's Fervor Doomspike, but some things really, really shouldn't be getting past them, like Cultist's Fervor working on non-necromancer spells.

Summary, I believe this approach is flawed and no comparison can be made between skills except directly between similar skills, taking into account important differences such as attribute line, etc. Balance decisions should be based on sound theory but ultimately made upon reality, if no one uses a skill then the theoretical idea that it is a problem doesn't matter, a skill has to be overpowered and abused before it is an actual problem.

I'm more than happy to clarify any of my comments, so feel free to ask questions. Misery 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

'By and large Ritualist healers are considered mediocre at best...Ritualists are run primarily because they have healing and prot accessible within the same attribute line which allows some other utility to be taken such as damage from channeling... The other reason they are taken is that they can be effective at keeping a split alive or defending NPCs without using their elite (and because weapon spells are unstrippable and stack with traditional prot).'

Ritualists are considered mediocre just like axe warriors are considered good. 90% of the community doesn't know what "good" is.

Your defenses for rits not being broken are

1. They have prot and healing in the same attribute...which, by the way, is false, and even if it was true, is NOT a reason they're weak.
2. They don't need an elite because their nonelites keep splits alive easily.
3. They have unstrippable skills.

So basically you're saying rits are weaker than monks because they can do more than monks, save the elites.

you say that all skills should have a power level of 50 and that Flare and Orison are staples, but no account was made for Divine Favour, so Orison of Healing actually has a power level of ~100.

Do your homework. I've told everybody ten times over why that's a stupid argument. Check my front page's history.

I believe that MBaS and Dismiss condition are at the minimum level to be acceptable skills with where the games is currently balanced around.

There's a difference between those. One heals for 40 points more no matter what you do. That's not balanced, considering the similar costs.

The game is not balanced around Flare and Orison of healing

Yes it is. See the article again, I clearly explain why.

it doesn't make sense to shift the whole metagame to be in line with those two mediocre skills (which will always be underpowered).

Underpoweredness is a concept based on the levels of everything else in the game. Those skills would be overpowered if everything else got nerfed, including player health. Staples are always generally weak, but the tradeoff is that they are always reliable.

You cannot assign a mathematical value to [Diversion].

You can after you use it. Again, not everything can be assumed accurately, you have to use averages to get a "guess" of how good skills are.

Wail of Doom is another favourite skill of yours to pick on. You talk about how removing a character from the game for four seconds is not balanced, yet I've never heard you complain about knockdowns, which are capable of removing a character from the game for up to 9 seconds (10 with Backbreaker, but that is seldom run).

I'm sorry. Which game are you playing? The longest KD in the game is 4 seconds, and it's an elite that takes 15 seconds to charge using other skills. If you want to be retarded and argue about how you can chain skills, I can echo my WoD and keep someone out of the game permanently.

I used to complain about knockdowns, a long, long time ago. However, (most) knockdowns are balanced in that they can be countered in a variety of ways. Stability, blind, blurred, blocking, kiting, interrupts. Things every team bring. Wail of doom has zero counters. No, spending a

5 1 12 veil to remove a 1 ¼ 10 spell is not countering it, it's wasting resources. The best you can do is use infuse to save someone.

The assassin KD chains are imbalanced, for the same reasons WoD is, you can't counter them. I do complain about those.

Trying to apply a mathematical model to skill balance is fundamentally flawed.

So by your standards every game in history is flawed. All games are based on math. Trying to apply a model for balance is practical, but it will never be perfect. As I've said, you can make good guesses.

If every skill in Guild Wars was based off of Flare/Orison with the numbers juggled it would be a terrible game

So that's why nobody plays Starcraft. Oops. Simple games with variety are often the most enjoyable. The fun should come from each team's strategy, not each team's skill bars. That's why you can face 100 different Terran players and have 100 very different matches in SC. If you fight 100 hexways in GW, you'll just have a lot of hexes and no way to counter them 100 times.

I believe Guild Wars has become too complicated to balance well without leaving many, many skills underpowered and I still believe that

I agree. Anet added too many niche skills which only enforce exactly one build type, and are useless elsewhere. 90% of the skills in the game are either niche skills, or are bad copies of better skills. I believe, at best, the percent of useful skills in pvp can come up to at least 50%.

That is what playtesting is and should be, intentionally trying to break things.

That's not Kim's job. Kim's job is to troll wiki looking for all the people who actually do her job, then stealing their work.

We have a big fucking advantage over Arenanet as there are thousands of us testing things... We will find more abuses than them...

When faced with playtesting issues, I always bring up Wizards of the Coast, most notably the MtG and DnD testers. I usually talk about MtG because I read their site more than the DnD one. Anyway, when MtG makes up 200-300 cards every 3 months (which is more than GW makes skills), they test everything with everything very, very thoroughly, and like you said, they try to find ways to break them. They rarely, rarely release cards that break the game. The most recent card to have a significant game breaking effect is probably Skullclamp, which was released 3 years ago. Over 3 years they've made one of their 2000 cards severaly overpowered. That's a pretty fucking good track record and a testament to all other competitive game companies.

I was never good with conclusions :P ~Shard 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very good at missing my point often, I don't really know if it's intentional or not.

Your defenses for rits not being broken are...

Those aren't defences for ritualists being not broken, those are the only reasons ritualists are used at all, the only reason they are viable. Perhaps we are using a different definition of "broken" here which leads to confusion. In fact, almost all those things are in my eyes "broken" mechanics, but have given ritualists a viable role, at least in GvG. Ritualists are largely flawed in concept. The range of prot they have available is vastly inferior to the options a monk has, their condition removal is gimmicky at best and they have no hex removal, yet they are supposed to be "healers", they seemed to be pushed as an alternative to monks at their release. The only thing that keeps them viable is brokenly strong skills (PwK, WoW), to be viable and non-broken the entire class needs a rehaul with a clear idea of what role the class could best fill. The least gimmicky application of ritualists I have seen to date is a support healer that buffs melee using Restoration/Channeling. Spawning Power is largely underpowered as a primary attribute and Communing is a joke. The underpoweredness of Spawning Power and the ridiculousness of Soul Reaping in certain areas of the game is the reason why the only "ritualist healers" are N/Rts. N/Mos are not common (although they do exist) because Divine Favour is good and many monk skills are not viable without that healing bonus. They do have prot and healing in the same attribute by the way, Weapon of Warding and Weapon of Shadow are prot, there is no equivalent in the Healing Prayers line.

Do your homework. I've told everybody ten times over why that's a stupid argument. Check my front page's history.

I hope you can see why that is a totally unreasonable request, there are 93 revisions, how am I supposed to know which revision you attempted to argue against a particular point in? I can't counter or consider an argument I can't see. Skills need to be analysed in a real environment, there is no point balancing skills "in vacuum" because it doesn't actually apply to the way things are in reality. There is no basis for totally ignoring the effect of primary attributes.

There's a difference between those. One heals for 40 points more no matter what you do

That is because you think you don't have to take Divine Favour into consideration at all and I believe you do, they actually heal for practically the same amount. I should have specificed that I felt the overall healing amount (with Divine Favour or without in the case of MBaS) was the bare minimum, not that the overall power of MBaS in it's current state is the minimum standard. Dismiss Condition should always heal for the maximum amount unless you are using it in a highly ridiculous/stupid manner or in a desperate situation. In a desperate situation it doesn't matter what the effect of the skill is, all that matters is whether someone died or not.

Yes it is. See the article again, I clearly explain why.

No, you say the game should be balanced around these skills, I say the game clearly is not balanced around these skills. Both skills are underpowered compared to the metagame to be considered. I think I explained relatively clearly why unconditional skills will always be underpowered by their nature.

Those skills would be overpowered if everything else got nerfed, including player health. Staples are always generally weak, but the tradeoff is that they are always reliable.

No, in a balanced situation, even following your mathematics, staple skills will always be underpowered because skillful play will get a higher net effect from a conditional skill and the team that takes conditional skills and uses them skillfully wins. In a balanced environment Bull's Strike will always be more powerful than Power Attack. The point you balance your game around is totally arbitrary and is based on how you want the game to "feel". If you want a fast paced game where reflexes are key and mistakes are punished instantly you ramp up damage and healing in comparison to maximum life, if you want a game where the outcome is decided by a series of mistakes slowly causing the downfall of a team to pressure you drop the effectiveness of both damage and healing in comparison to maximum health.

If you want to be retarded and argue about how you can chain skills, I can echo my WoD and keep someone out of the game permanently.

You must consider the interaction of skills with each other in game balance. Warrior's Endurance would not be a problem if it weren't for the existence of Power Strike and Protector's Strike. If Savage Shot were the only ranger interrupt in the game there would be no problems that arise from people spamming interrupts. Like you said, what makes knockdowns balanced is the fact that there are viable counters and from that it naturally follows that what makes Wail of Doom overpowered is the lack of viable counters. Arcane Echo Wail of Doom is seldom used because it becomes viable to counter, you introduce a two second cast spell and a large energy cost as well as an increased rate of sacrifice on a bar that cannot take significant self defence. If you manage to catch a prot monk with Bull's Strike only a water mesmer (in the current metagame) can prevent a 9 second disable (or linebacking warriors/interrupts from your ranger, but that is digression). That is what people run hammers for, long term disable and qknocking to push kills through. If it wasn't why hammers were run every hammer bar would only have one knockdown, Magehunter's Smash. Assassin knockdown chains are even easier to counter and outside of sinsplit which separates healers from their support via splitting and often takes things like Rigor Mortis to negate blocking, they are seldom actually a problem at all. I'm not including Backbreaker assassins within that statement, they have their own issues which Arenanet attempted to address but totally failed to do for reasons I cannot comprehend. I'm not arguing that knockdowns are imbalanced, I think they are balanced, my point is Wail of Doom can be balanced, it just has to be viably counterable similar to how a knockdown is viably counterable. I never said it was worthwhile to spend energy removing a WoD, in fact I said even preveiling is pretty useless because it recharges faster than a veil and only lasts 4 seconds, please try to pay attention if you are going to hold me to a high standard of prior research.

So by your standards every game in history is flawed. All games are based on math. Trying to apply a model for balance is practical, but it will never be perfect. As I've said, you can make good guesses.

You can use mathematics to generate pseudo-random numbers and pseudo-chaotic behaviour. You can predict the outcome of a pseudo-random number generator with very detailed knowledge of the system. You cannot predict the outcome of a pseudo-chaotic system without running the system and seeing what the outcome is, a computer game is complicated enough mathematically (including uncontrolled input from the players) that a model will always produce inaccurate results. A model is useless if it leads you to incorrect conclusions and useful if it leads you to correct conclusions. My opinion is that your model leads you to incorrect conclusions. Your mathematical model tells you that Weapon of Remedy is horrificly overpowered. I agree it is a very powerful skill, but I don't feel it is overpowered at all. It is far underappreciated and should see more use (or at least should have before this recent and ridiculous power creep) but it's real effects in the field in combination with the other skills that can realistically be taken with it are not nearly as overpowered or imbalanced as your mathematical model would suggest, largely due to a large number of factors that simply are not accounted for within the model.

So that's why nobody plays Starcraft.

Starcraft is not a game where every skill is Flare or Orison with the numbers juggled. Every side has a completely different mechanic for building their base. Many units have special abilities. A game where all the skills are Flare or Orison would be Warhammer Online. I play that game. They only have something like 8 skills and then they just juggled the numbers for all of them. It is a terrible game, that's partially why I play it, it's like playing Pacman or Tetris. Despite being based on such a simple idea it has had and still has horrific balance issues.

I agree.

Holy shit, we agreed on something.

That's not Kim's job. Kim's job is to troll wiki looking for all the people who actually do her job, then stealing their work.

See, this is something I really don't understand about you Shard. I clearly know this, it was implicit in what I said, the difference is I did not get personal or pick out a specific person and I don't really see what your purpose is here. This won't help to teach people "who are interested in game design, management, or balance", all it does is discredits Kim and Arenanet. Arenanet does a good enough job of doing that themselves these days, all you can hope to achieve with such statements is eventually incurring administrative wrath when they finally decide you have crossed over the boundaries set out by GWW:NPA. The important point here is the importance of rigorous testing by good and thorough testers, the kind of people who in a game will walk backwards and forwards through a door attempting to close it and open it from both sides for no apparent reason, just to see if it might break something. This is something not taken seriously enough by many game companies and is a big mistake. You need to release a completed product no matter what your deadlines and production schedules are or you destroy your own reputation and lose revenue in the long run.

When faced with playtesting issues, I always bring up Wizards of the Coast...

Magic was full of gimmicks when I played it and people I have talked to that have played more recently tell me little has changed. I admit they probably do a better job than Arenanet and a lot of that will almost certainly come from rigorous testing, not the application of mathematical models. Some Magic cards (admittedly some of the ones that have broken the game) have had very complicated effects and are certainly not minor variations on a 3/3 creature for one red mana and 3 colourless. Magic the Gathering has had it's own broken concepts, probably one of the most infamous in my mind would be poison counters. In theory completely broken, there was no card in the game that would remove poison counters, if you got hit with (I think it was this number, it's been a long time, roughly ten years) ten of them, you lost, instantly. The only reason this mechanic was ever "balanced" was because they decided to only include something like three cards that used the mechanic and they were all terribly underpowered enough to never see serious play. I have heard your argument that Magic is allowed to have underpowered cards, mainly for use in the sealed deck format. I don't really think that is why they have underpowered cards, it's a business model, if there are bad cards, you have to buy more cards to get the good cards. Still doesn't give arenanet a reason to have underpowered skills except for the problem they have made for themselves by having too many skills in the game. This problem partially arose from their business model as well, with the release of each new campaign they had to release enough skills to make it seem worth buying and make it a stand alone campaign capable of competing with Prophecies. Economics will probably always fuck up balance, upper management will screw the balance team in the ass occasionally.

My walls of text always end up too long so I will summarise again for the tl;dr crowd. I feel that using this mathematical approach will lead to incorrect conclusions which will lead to poor balance decisions. My feeling is that balance can only be achieved by rigorous testing where the testers have significant input into the balancing of the final product. Misery 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Post script: Guild wars is conceptually a very, very good game, what pisses me off about Guild Wars is how it is an absolutely amazing game that has been fucked up. There are many concepts in the game that are absolutely amazing and unmatched in any comparable game such as the idea of a frontline with support casters, the importance of shutdown and disruption and the existence of prot. This all gets screwed up by other concepts which are either overpowered or underpowered depending on the situation such as hexes, which are more versatile but higher cost and more difficult to remove conditions and either near useless in low numbers or stupid when stacked, weapon spells and shouts, which are irremovable and/or uncounterable and as such has to be kept weak to be "balanced" and caster pressure, which is either too expensive to be viable or overpowered. Misery 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It took me 2 clicks to find...Pages usually contain huge changes only once every 10 revisions or so. Maybe that clears that up. ~Shard 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious Problems

Comfort Animal

I'm curious as to why you wish for a blackout on Comfort Animal. I personally don't agree with that one, considering the fact that all of your skills are blacked out when you animal dies in the first place. Although it is a spammable pet heal, I doubt that the health gain from the ressurection would be enough. Perhaps I am missing something? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Wandering Traveler 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a suggestion that would prevent abuse of rangers who don't "care about their pets." Right now, the most popular type of build that uses pets is a Rampage as One thumper / spear ranger. If their pet is dead when they want to use RaO, they res it with comfort, use RaO, then let it die again. Animals that die too quickly after ressing actually do not black out its owner. Enforcing a BM skills blackout from comfort will force those builds to actively heal their animal - in essense, creating something that RaO rangers can lose. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But the other Blackout must go then. 145.94.74.23 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, how did I miss that? ~Shard (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So where does that leave Heal as One? At no blackout at all? 145.94.74.23 08:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's elite. The reason comfort will black out is so rangers cannot abuse skills like Rampage as One then let the pet die after it's served its use. Heal as One encourages real beast masters, which is good. ~Shard (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Balance Suggestions

Uh, you are completely missing the point with some skill balances so you might want to do some reevaluating yourself. For example, GoLE's energy discount/e-management isn't where the complaints are coming in. Yes, it's still one of the best forms of non-elite e-management but the real issue lies in cancel casting. The previous nerf to GoLE's e-management for non-ele primaries brought it to acceptable levels. The nerf people are crying out for has to do with killing "free" cancel casts. Something like "For 5...15 seconds, your next 2 energy spells cost 10...18 less Energy to cast" might be a quick solution but still doesn't fix the issues on ele primaries. Then again, it could be ok in the current meta. PlacidBlueAlien 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Necromancers shouldn't have Foul Feast, it kinda brings them back in the game which was the purpose. Dark Morphon(contribs) 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Necros left the game? When did this happen? Necros have been the staple "gimmick monk" of HA since day 1.

Necros really should not have condition removal, especially one that nets them energy. It's just one of those things. ~Shard (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Necromancer gimmicks in HA isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about them not being in GvG, which Foul Feast remedied. It therefore was a good buff. Dark Morphon(contribs) 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, morphon, here's what you need to learn about game balance. Bringing something into game-breaking levels is bad, not good. ~Shard (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's gamebreaking in the first place? Dark Morphon(contribs) 08:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Shard, most of comments on skills are a waste of time, you seem to assume HA is the only thing in gw, and when you dont you dont seem to understand why skills are like that in the first place. And btw sins are generally Op but they should have unblockable leads, cause 1. they have to jump through hoops to get them and 2. If a sins lead misses, it's basically a 7 man party for 8-12 secs.

Aggreed, but I still didn't get an answer. Or do you not answer when you know you are not right? Anyway, why do you think condition removal (which is utility) on a necromancer (that was in dire need of utility) is game-breaking? Dark Morphon(contribs) 13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You even say it yourself with the checklist thingie. Necromancers have only 3 of the things you were checking right? So why is it gamebreaking (not that it is to be taken srsly as you didn't even add shutdown to that list but let's put your arguments against you)? Dark Morphon(contribs) 11:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuz hez baed f00 Oni 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice Job raping all decent damage that's left over. Warriors and monks not OP... seriously, I almost laughed. Monks can, as I have said before, singlehandedly hold off any number of melee almost indefinitely due to guardian, can outheal any single character with Word of Healing, can stop 9/10 of damage with prot spirit... and the list goes on. Warriors are the only melee that sees major play in GvG for a reason- it's because they get the best of everything. Quick spikes that take up few slots, ****loads of utility, mobility (run stances), and they can steal the other melee class's greatest strengths. Strengthening defenses indirectly... as if GvG and the stall meta wasn't already screwing the rest of the game. Sorry, but you need to wake up and realize that stall based games do not do well. --Kalas Silvern 09:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I havent read this page in awhile, that's why I havent answered you. Morphon, Foul Feast... why do necros, who already have an unfair energy tool, get something that removes conditions AND gives them back more energy? Draw on necros was a bad idea in the first place. Necros are offensive midliners. This skill would have made more sense on mesmers. If I wanted to bring spirit rits back into the meta by making wanderlust deal 9999 damage per hit, would that be ok? Of course not.

Warriors are fine, monks are fine. One monk can withstand one melee. Wonder why? They're supposed to. If a single monk wasn't supposed to live against one warrior, the meta would be 4 solid backliners and 4 solid frontliners.

If you really think a monk can stand up to "any number of melee" then you've only faced terribad melee players. It takes two decent melees to kill a monk through its prots.

As arrogant as morphon is, at least he knows what he's talking about.

Also, shutdown is ambiguous. Hammer warriors could be considered shutdown. Water eles could be considered shutdown. As far as skills go, the only profession that can take skills off people's bars is Mesmer, and to some degree wars and rangers. ~Shard (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Shard, I'm just going to stop being so trollish and will contribute with sense from now on, sorry for the trolling ;). Anyway. I think Necromancers deserved a Condition Removal because, well, that's a thing I think they are supposed to do, abusing the abilities of other players and backfire them. About the other things, I aggree with kalas who says you're making defenses a bit too powerful, like the 100% Swirling Aura and PnH. I do aggree about the monk-should-be-able-to-do-his-job comment on your side.

Hope my opinion is clear now. Dark Morphon(contribs) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Post more comments like that. I listen to those. I, however, think necromancers are supposed to be purely offensive, based on the fact that 99% of their skills are offensive. If they were supposed to have condition removal, I think it would have been done in one of the first 4 games, instead of a post-GWEN functionality change. The energy gain just doesn't make sense either. People would still run it without the energy gain, because of the synergy with plague sending type skills, plus having an off-monk draw without forcing a monk secondary on someone. Swirling is probably over the top, but my method of balance is to make bad things slightly OP then whittling them down. An update doing all of these changes would certainly not make GW perfect, but it would fix a lot of things.

On PnH, look at Channeling monks in HA. It gives them more energy than 2 regen would, and channeling has been untouched from day 1. An arguably weaker elite wouldn't be as OP as you think. ~Shard (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on PnH is pretty strong, but I think in GvG, where people don't mob up so much, PnH would be a bit OP in your suggestion. I think Necromancers should be offensively defensive with a bit of evilness added to it, but I really think Foul Feast is an adition to the Necromancer scala, making them a lot more utilious (if that's a word) and fun to play. I do aggree they can remove the energy gain though, Necromancers are fine without it (I don't have any problem managing my energy with Necromancers as they simply don't use that much while having so much management). Dark Morphon(contribs) 08:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Shard, in any non-gvg, non-ha setting, a monk can hold of 2-3 intelligent melees. Easily. As said above, you pay attention to one area of the game and ignore the rest. Some areas don't allow for the variety the 8man areas do. I don't say monks should be soloable by mashing buttons. However, I feel that they should not have a way to survive against 2 melees and a spellcaster (AB, we had a derv, sin, and rit- two of which you claim are insanely OP). Derv was wounding strike, sin was Disrupting + Exhausting, and rit was doing some kind of channeling damage- and the monk sat there in its maintainable block that we couldn't remove once it was up. I use this as an example because it highlights the problem- as this game has been balanced around the game modes based on stalling and large teams that don't have to kill NPCs to cap shrines, it has screwed over the other areas by strengthening defenses while providing no way for these smaller groups to maintain the necessary damage and mobility to cap while being able to shut down a monk in order to kill it. So, essentially, what I was getting at is defense is a bit too strong, and you'd make it stronger? Generally, I'd rather increase versatility and utility while leaving defense as it is now. --Kalas Silvern 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In your post, you could have notified readers what skills you're specifically referring to. How do I want to buff defenses? I really have no idea what you're talking about. I consider GvG, HA, and TA when thinking these up, because those are the three arenas with highest level play. Generally, anything that fixes one of those arenas fixes the rest.

But yeah which change were you referring to? ~Shard (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaping

Further changes to Soul Reaping would hurt PvE you know. I got a weird idea that you could tie the energy gain to the level to the creature that dies. Something like this maybe: "Whenever a non-Spirit creature near you dies you gain 1 Energy for each level of the creature that died (maximum 1 Energy for each rank in Soul Reaping). You may only gain Energy in this way 3 times every 15 seconds."

This way Bone Minions couldn't be used to fuel energy at all, or at least not as effectively, but it wouldn't hurt SR overall. (You could also change it to 1 energy for every 2 levels, but that might cap energy gain a bit much...) — Poki#3 14:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And infinite energy in PvE isn't overpowered?. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 05:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

lold

not a single sin lead is unstoppable. fail?Oni 12:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dancing Daggers. ~Shard (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well those are more like bugs then design concepts you know... — Poki#3 02:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

dancing daggers is unstoppable. dshot. And if you wanna say BUTZ I CAN COMBINE IT WIF DEDLI PARADOX Thats not the lead. thats like saying searing flames shouldnt be unstoppable when used with glyph of concentration.Oni 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not every character brings dshot in every arena. Balance means everything has common, viable counters, not one obscure viable counter. ~Shard (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You really don't like rangers, do you? Sword.wind. 03:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC).

Not the way they are now. ~Shard 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Try dshotting something with perma-Critical Defenses

omg

dont show those suggestions to Izzy u dummaz he will doom us all! D: srsly they are just terrible, you killed beast mastery to even more disuse, you buffed sp, YOU ARE SAYING THAT SF SPIKE IS OVEPOWERED!! you say scyther are best weapon ingame and much more scary stuff please stop or god huffs a kitten!!! D: --Super IgorUser:Super Igor 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be dumb, Igor. -- Armond Warblade 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I might be more offended if I knew what a "dummaz" was. Is that some Dora the Explorer character? If you disagree with anything on the list, maybe you should voice your opinion in an intelligent manner instead of acting like a four-year-old. ~Shard (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, he's probably just upset he got re-perma'd. -- Armond Warblade 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Srsly those balances are pretty bad, specially the beast mastery and shadow prison. --Super IgorUser:Super Igor 20:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Srsly come back when you know how to form an argument. Saying you're the King of England doesn't make it true. ~Shard (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh

Everything other than the following skills should be ignored entirely (as Shard is simply too biased):

• Foul Feast - Just make it a draw. It doesn't need all the add-ons.
• Augury of Death - Just nerf it. It doesn't really add anything beneficial to the game.
• Wounding Strike - Shard had a decent suggestion, however if mine was implemented, it would be unnecessary.
• Scythes - Make auto-attacks hit multiple targets; attack skills hit a single one. This would eliminate the problem of scythes inflicting DW to multiple targets simultaneously.

Meh, not much more worth discussing here. --Readem 02:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

White scythe crits do big numbers iirc. -- Armond Warblade 02:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good positioning is the counter to big damage. --Readem 04:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Aggreed fully with Readem. Dark Morphon(contribs) 07:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, because I wasn't talking about HA. -- Armond Warblade 10:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea readem is cool. --Super IgorUser:Super Igor 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm biased? This is news to me. I will start removing baseless accusations if you keep making them. Wiki is for contributing information, not for making up fairy tales.

Also, positioning hasn't existed since factions was released. ~Shard (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea and since nf teams were making sure that three people were to be hit with scythe attacks and sf would hit as many team members as possible. :P --Super IgorUser:Super Igor 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do call the FF nerf a bit biased, but I think we talked about that enough. Dark Morphon(contribs) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You could start by telling people why you think I'm biased. ~Shard (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of them are cool, but any intelligent person knows that being cool on this wiki is more of an insult than a compliment, judging by the people who're cool and the people who call them cool. I'd rather be a nerd and a noob than cool on this wiki. 145.94.74.23 11:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I herd nerfing Rangers to death because you don't like them is called being biased. Also, WoR. Saying it's OP is like saying Vengeful Weapon is OP, which is like saying RoF is OP. Dark Morphon(contribs) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They are OP. I never said they weren't. I am not trying to nerf rangers to death. ~Shard 18:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well played. Raine - talk 02:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Escape

You forgot one. --99.153.226.11 23:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Escape isn't a problem. Rangers abusing expertise with overpowered melee weapons is the problem, expertise is only icing on the cake. It's on the page with regular nerfs. ~Shard (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, escape is actually balanced when used with a non broken melee weapon. The biggest problems with escape are scythes, scythes, scythes, and rending touch.

nerfing assassins

is like having a corpse executed --Metroid 00:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that assassins have been nerfed to death. Maybe you can explain why on average, people in RA, TA, HB, and AB bring more assassin skills than skills of any other profession. ~Shard (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, RA and AB are some SRS BSNS, Anet pretty much ignores HB (protip: because it isn't fun), and TA really isn't important enough to make major balance changes around. The AoD and AR nerfs are kind of needed, but have fallen out of use and aren't really serious problems. Nerfing Golden Fox Strike is 100% failure considering its main use is the Shattering Assault build; the ideal example of how a GW assassin should work (damage + disabling). The only SERIOUS problems are shadowsteps, which need to be completely overhauled, something to much to ask with the game's proximity to death and Izzy's incompetence. --Metroid 03:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the low-end arenas are serious business or not doesn't change the fact that they should be balanced. ~Shard (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Shattering assault is how assassins were meant to work? News to me - I always thought double, unblockable 200 damage enchant removals were broken. -- NUKLEAR IIV 13:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well Warriors have a 2 skill 200 damage spike with deepwound, can pressure by auto attacking, whilst having 100 armor v physical and multiple interrupts. Anything is overpowered if you want to make it sound that way. Considering the fact that Shattering Sin cant pressure or interrupt, and is still very fragile, unblockable 4 skill 200 damage spike with enchant removal is about right in terms of balance. Its much better in terms of balance than an instagib build, unless you want everybody running those again. --Metroid 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparing warriors to assassins is such a joke - Assassins take no skill at all to pressure. You just go 123 and your combo, especially SA, deals whopping amounts of pressure. Also, ditto to the 100 armor - ever heard of frenzy, mate? Good pressure is usually derives from skillful use of that, not the attack skills. The attacks you seem to refer to also have adrenaline requirements, which is horribly unfrequent compared to SA. SA would be okay if it, say, had a 20 second recharge. I'll agree that it is better than instagibs - but one OP build does not justify another. -- NUKLEAR IIV 10:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Assassins take no skill at all to pressure. yeah, daggers are BIG DOMAGES. And just spamming 123, even with crit eye, will burn through energy fairly quickly, something that a good player wouldn't do. ever heard of frenzy, mate? ever heard of being a good player and cancel stancing, mate? SA is probably a bit overpowered, but its nothing warranting a 20 sec recharge, maybe 10 sec and armor acknowledging at most. Assassins have very little in PvP. If you're continually nerfing them, you might as well remove them from the game, something that should be done after Paras and Dervs are kicked too. --Metroid 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would respond, but I tl;dr'ed at "assassins don't see play". Go get owned in TA, and get your ass handed to you in any sinsplit, and then come back. -- nüklaer | VII | Selfless self promotion 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

TA: some SRS BSNS. When was the last time you saw a winning team using assassins in GvG(that wasn't #40-ish v #3789) or HA, recently? Everything needs balance, some things just aren't priorities though. --Metroid 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

PROTIP: What is rampant in HA usually jumps to GvG, due to the similar format. Assassins are rarely used, because those that usually use them (bad people) are too bad to exploit them properly. They can still buttrape any base on any split. Been there, done that. -- nüklaer | VII | Selfless self promotion 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PROTIP: It's possible to balance more than one problem in a single update. -- Armond Warblade 01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Armond just roflstomped this section. ~Shard (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[1]. Guess their gimmick. --71.229.253.172 06:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sins aren't used in GvG? Bad people with gold disagree =( —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 00:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Palm strike: 12 seconds or 10 seconds recharge should be enough. Boro 13:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it would still allow sins to start their combo right after it finishes. ~Shard 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

You said (quote): It sickens me to think that a member of my own race can be so stupid. Does that make you feel cool? Do you feel better about yourself? I certainly hope so, because it shows exactly why you should never be allowed to make any decisions. Both ingame and in real life. 145.94.74.23 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to tell us why? I mean, being an ass and doing things right is better than being nice but doing everything wrong (of course, being nice but still doing things right would usually be best). The people with the most intelligence deserve to be the ones making decisions, imo. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It shows the "Everyone who disagrees with me is inferior" attitude that is all too common on this wiki. This attitude is commonly used by people who cannot come up with valid arguments. Rediculing others is also an easy way of getting people (who also fail to understand the arguments) on your side. Thus people who use this type of reasoning shouldn't ever be listened to, in my opinion. 87.210.150.58 13:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

N.B. The issue I'm referring to is that of Xinrea's Weapon. I ask you, why is that change one of the worst ever, when (and at the same time) Reversal of Fortune is not mentioned as a broken skill amongst the monk skills? They're basically the same, except that RoF has 1s recharge less, isn't elite, prevents all damage and can get a meaningful buff from the profession's primary attribute. Sure, it doesn't steal life and it is removable, but then again, you can only get buffed by 1 weapon spell at a time and enchantment removal can do worse things then remove a RoF that is easily reapplied. All I am saying is that if you compare it to the non-elite version of the spell, Xinrae's Weapon makes sense. 87.210.150.58 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Because rof heals based on damage taken. Xinrae's ALWAYS gives you the full amount, and it also does 80 damage.

I don't mind people who disagree with me, nuke and armond do it all the time. I just hate people who fail at their job, and in doing so, ruin a great game. The balances he does are horrifically bad, almost to the point where he was trying to make the game suck. ~Shard 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

i get to think he's ignoring the current issues and creates new issues by attacking balanced skills so arenanet thinks they need him, if the game was perfectly balanced he wouldn't be needed so this is his way to keep his job --Cursed Angel 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is perfectly balanced, ever. Unless you force people to run exactly the same thing. — Poki#3 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RoF doesn't prevent all damage btw, if you hit high enough, some will go through. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

But then again, in the current meta, how often do you get hit for less than 60 damage? This skill really isn't that much better than Reversal of Damage in practice. 145.94.74.23 07:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The highest damage you could do in prophecies under normal situations was around 120, which requires an air ele's armor penetration. Warriors could get the upwards of 100 if lucky. Now physicals can do way more than that much easily. Obvious power creep going on here. ~Shard 08:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OoA

"For 5 seconds, the next time each party member hits a foe with physical damage, that foe loses one Enchantment. If it was a monk enchantment, you lose 25...17...15% maximum Health." Great idea --Wild 06:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Im a fan of your contributions here shard, But i have to disagree with most of your nerfs.

Wounding strike- fair, dW covers bleeding, but i think 5s is enough. RaO- Good Pious light- Good

As for the others, I feel they would slow the metagame down, and with recent updates, It seems like Anet is trying to bring it up a notch, Which they seemed to have done quite well. Half the issues that were big before aren't half as important as they are now, and almost melancholy. but regardless, I see what your trying to do, and I understand, but I think people would prefer a stronger, wilder overall meta over a weaker, calmer one. If everyone had access to things of a slightly higher lever, the community would adjust and im sure it wouldn't be perfectly balanced, but that never really will come true.

They brought the power levels of every profession up drastically since release. That's not a good thing. The weaker you make the skills, the more effort is required to get kills, which means people will be forced to bring offense instead of blockway or paraway or a 4 monk backline like they all do now.

Pious Light isn't popular because in the right build, it takes some amount of consciousness to be proficient with. It's not necessarily overpowered, but it does need a recharge.

RaO is a problem. Need proof? Go to Heroes' Ascent, or GvG (I dont know if people run it in gvg anymore), or Team Arenas. They have as much DPS as a good warrior, plus a permanent speed boost, plus a second warrior.

Of course many people would prefer a strong metagame vs a weak one - they don't know how to win in a weak metagame. All they know is "c+space+spam broken skills, c+space+spam broken skills." ~Shard 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"The weaker you make the skills, the more effort is required to get kills, which means people will be forced to bring offense instead of blockway or paraway or a 4 monk backline like they all do now"

I think you seriously overestimate the metagame Shard. People would bring super defensive teams simply so they wouldn't lose. From there, they'd try to win (or at least try to hold out so long that the other team gives up). I think that a strong metagame might be more fair to good players. 145.94.74.23 09:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[rawr] says that defenseway can kill stuff; what's the motivation to run anything other than defenseway? Raine - talk 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Magebane Shot and Signet of Pious Light

Right, so first ones I'm going to comment on.

Magebane first. I don't see a reason to nerf this one. Keep in mind it's an elite, and elites are supposed to be better than their non-elite counterparts. At this rate, if you nerf it the way you want to nerf it, it will be inferior to Distracting Shot, even though it's unblockable. At this moment it has half the recharge time and half the disabling duration. That makes it in my eyes equal, because A) it doesn't reduce damage (which isn't that much of an upside, but not bad nonetheless) and B) it's unblockable and C) it's elite.

Next is Pious Light. Although it's heal is powerful and it can recharge instantly, it has a rather harsh downside. Losing an enchantment can be a rather hard conditional to overcome. Your argument seems to be that it is a free and instant recharging version of Gift of Health. However, for this skill to have that effect, you need to cast another enchantment on yourself first to get any benefit out of it. This causes this skill to drastically lose out on effectiveness. Keep in mind that Gift of Health has only an energy cost of 5, is unconditional except for the downside which is never going to affect you because you are not going to run Healing Prayers with it anyway.

Anyway, that was it for now I spose. Give constructive criticism when giving any, thank you very much. Dark Morphon(contribs) 08:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it Signet of Pious Light is powerful. However, it obviously isn't THAT powerful, otherwise it would be used more. I suppose that it is balanced simply by the attribute it is in. Any monk uses Divine Favor, so they don't need to spend attribute points if they decided to use Signet of Devotion. However, not every Dervish uses Earth Prayers, and if they do, they often have other things on their mind then healing others. So basically, I think that while technically this skill is overpowered, in practice it is well balanced because of the attribute it is in. That's just my opinion though, you'll probably disagree. But to me, it is an example of how a skill can be balanced by the game instead of the stats. 145.94.74.23 09:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Signet of pious light isn't overpowered, technically or otherwise. -Auron 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems people aggree with me. The fact that it is in a rather bad line for the purpose puts the last nail in the coffin. I'd like your opinion on the matter as well, Shard. Dark Morphon(contribs) 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the way shard is dishing possibles way of introducing balance in an otherwise unbalance gameplay we currently have, but, I don't like the way he loses perspective and objectivity and use insults to prove points that could otherwise be more effectively emphasized. Sure, some, no, MANY, problems are persistant and should have been fixed, and many actions by anet may not be the best they could have done, but it is still important to remain cool-what use will trading insults be if the result be bans; permanent or temporary. Constantly making everyone heated and angry isn't the best way to solve problems.Pika Fan 06:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your point and what has it to do with the discussions about the two skills above? Dark Morphon(contribs) 13:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason people who disagree with me hate me is because they're usually wrong. I know when I'm going to be right about something, and that's how I make my decisions. I know which battles I can win. A very select few people (mainly Auron and Morphon) actually point out my flaws, while everyone else uses this excuse "like always, shard says everyone else is wrong." Hint: Maybe everyone else really is wrong. Take notes from Auron, who is usually more right than me, and say something that actually has good points.

Also, on the point of "trading insults" at anet: The only time... the ONLY TIME they listen to players is when you scream, because they're blind, deaf, and stupid. They don't read forums, they don't patrol wiki, they don't play the game. I would be much, much more tranquil here if anet actually did something to indicate they have ANY presence here. In fact, I will give Kim Chase 100K when the gates in Golden Gates are fixed and another 100K to izzy when he implements ONE of my major suggestions. ALSO, I will buy GW2 the first day it comes out (I've decided not to get it) if anet hires THREE new game balancers for GW1, at least one of which has to be someone I know of, from either here or from another game company. I said game balancers not game make-some-skills-useless-and-some-skills-brokeners. ~Shard 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Winning an argument through debating tricks (wheter intentional or not) is not the same as being right. 145.94.74.23 08:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to point out the irrelevance of your comment to this discussion, 145. Xhata 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Paragon

Nice suggestion about the chants, but what about shouts? Wouldn't the exact same things apply to them as well? I mean, they're basically chants that can't be interrupted as well. 145.94.74.23 10:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouts are generally weaker. The thing about paragons and chants in paraspike or iway is that they basically have multiple heal parties that all stack with the other benefits they can give (like removing hexes and conditions). Most shouts don't really do much other than adding armor or having a weak one-shot effect. It also doesn't make sense to me why yelling at someone can heal them. ~Shard 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Then the problem lies in the effects of chants, not the game mechanic itself. 87.210.150.58 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure hexway is just overpowered because the hexes are, not because stacking them makes them overwhelming, which is why people run soul bind by itself all the time, right? ~Shard 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And sole vor mesmers. -Auron 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so you can stack chants. However, if they all had the same effects that shouts have now, they wouldn't be overpowered according to what you just wrote. Which means that the/your problem with chants is not HOW they act, but WHAT they do. Right? 87.210.150.58 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Both the skills and the mechanic are broken, but they're broken separately. Izzy can nerf all chants to a terrible level by just changing the numbers, sure, but if a skill ever comes back that's decently powerful, it will be broken because the mechanic is broken. -Auron 09:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's what they do, if you put it that way. However, izzy is more likely to change numbers on the chants then change the whole function of each of them. If I had it my way, I'd take chants out of the game. Warriors don't need heal parties on top of their ranged attacks. Paragons would be balanced if they didn't have attack skills at all, but that's another issue. It also doesn't make sense from a flavor PoV - regular humans gain the most benefit from listening to one song at a time. ~Shard 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, allow chants to stack, but don't allow a paragon to attack (or do anything else) while a chant is in effect. So four paragons stacking their chants would leave the party with four characters who cannot attack, more or use other skills. Erasculio 11:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While that would make sense, it would kill paragons completely. Nobody wants to use skills that shut you down for 10 seconds unless it has a very large effect. ~Shard 03:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think that shouts, which are basically chants with 0 activation time, are a balanced mechanic while chants are not a balanced mechanic. Note that I said mechanic, I am not talking about specific skills here. As for Erasculio's suggestion, why not just make them end if the chanting Paragon does something (other than moving)?145.94.74.23 09:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking mechanics alone, no, shouts are not balanced. I don't think anything in a game like this should have no cast time and no way to strip them. Luckily, most shouts in the game don't have a significant effect so it's not really an issue. Auron's right - it's the combination of the two flawed mechanics. Anet can either stop chant stacking (in which case future chants, if they made any, would be way more balanced off the bat) or they could nerf numbers on existing chants, which would leave them still abusable, but weak. ~Shard 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So why not just change the effects? Not just nerfing numbers, but actually changing effects? Your solution seems unneccesary complex. Changing the (problem) chants to do something entirely different is a much cleaner solution, with less confusion among players too. It's mostly the 100-armor healer that's a problem (and that's one thing I think they should have seen coming when they designed Motivation), so how about you give the Motivation Paragon something else to do? 145.94.74.23 09:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. However, assuming Anet will add more to the game after GW2 tanks, any additional chants they make will be too strong if they're still allowed to stack. The problem is the mechanic. The skills are imba anyway, but the mechanic is what makes paragay teams unkillable unless you're running hexway (which beats everything). ~Shard 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But I still don't understand, however, why the exact same thing doesn't apply to shouts. 145.94.74.23 10:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Most shouts are/were for warriors. Warriors don't (and probably never will) have shouts that heal, let alone heal everyone for a respectable amount. Stacking +armor shouts with +armor shouts doesn't really do much. - Auron 10:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd vote for changing their effects. It would be much easier to implement, and armor 100 characters should never have party healing anyway, that's a broken concept in itself. Regen, armor boosts (on other party members), removing conditions and hexes, those might be ok. Kinda the effects that shouts currently have. How would your suggestion affect the other shouts by the way? Defensive Anthem is a bit overpowered, but what about chants like Anthem of Weariness, Hexbreaker Aria and Lyric of Purification? By the way, nice sig Auron. 145.94.74.23 08:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Incoming is just as bad as the healing chants now, except that it allows your casters to kite as well, and helps your melee to reach their targets more easily. 145.94.74.23 08:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The most surprising part of the last update is that anet said "Incoming was either overpowered or weak because of its particular function" or something along those lines. It blew me away that they knew ONE thing about their own game, and about balance, no less. Then they ruined that achievement by making incoming a nonelite elite. ~Shard 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they ruïned it by again giving unremovable healing to a 100 armor class. Not to mention that it makes it easier to kite if you're caster, and easier to catch your target if you're melee. 145.94.74.23 07:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Balancing fail

Your magebane shot is worse than dshot except that it cannot be blocked.

So technically it's not worse. Logic Fail. ~Shard 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dshot would still be marginally better. Same cost, same recharge, DOUBLE skill disable, not elite, and disables anything.

Rend Enchantments

"For 0...2...3 seconds, whenever target foe uses a skill, that foe loses an enchantment and ~ is renewed for 0...2...3 seconds." I like it. I like the counter too. I'm using Holy Veil! 3 seconds is kinda short tho. Of course I'm taking into consideration that hexes would not be as broken as they are. --adrin 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi There

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents here, first off I love what you cam up with for Rend Enchantments. With FF and VoR, how do you feel they should be reworked, sometimes an idea just might make it through to the Anet balance table. Absolutely amazing what you did with Wounding Strike, though I would rather have a 15 sec recharge on it over 20. Also a bit worried about Xinrae's weapon 60 second disable on all copies of a spell, I can see you don't like SF spike, and I can hardly blame you, but...seriously 60 is a bit much IMO especially since it's a disable rather than recharge. Weapon of remedy looks nice but it seems rather weak when compared to the monk spell Vigorous Spirit which is non-elite by the way, make it trigger heals with spell casts as well as attacks, leave the condition removal as attack skills only though, probably would be a little too strong with your ele killing, healing itself and being immune to conditions by spamming flare for example. Finally I'm not a big fan on your stance on shadow steps, now I jumped into the GW universe starting with factions(fry's was sold out with prophecies) and so I had early exposure with shadow steps and took them as a fact of the game, I had not seen them a disruption the the subtle tactic of positioning, which I learned with Medieval Total War but had yet to begin applying it in earnest in MMO's. I'm simply saying that I think shadow steps should remain as-is though some may disagree with me. Weaponmaster 08:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I try to stay away from reworks unless the name implies a certain function (see the "You Will Die!" suggestions). The skill feedback pages are better for completely changing skills. These lists are mostly tweaks to existing skills.

Xinrae's Weapon - a 4 second duration with a 20 second recharge is a very small window for enemy spells to get through. Spawning power is a really cool attribute, but it's all support. Xinrae's doesn't only shut down SF spike, it shuts down ALL caster spikes, can be used on ghostly heroes to shut down interrupts, can be used on monks to shutdown dom mesmers, and many other things. The tricky part is that you have to catch those. A 40 second diversino might be more in line and more manageable for the other team. You're right, 60 sounds like too much.

The thing about WoR is not the healing, it's the life steal. A healing rit should not be able to kill people with a healing spell, which is what usually ends up happening on splits or small battles. If it just healed, it would be weak.

I've always wondered how newer players were affected by things they've never played without. It's hard to explain to someone like you why shadow stepping will never be balanced... Have you played CnC Red Alert 2? It's like starting every match with a chronosphere charged. Positioning means everything in pvp, and shadow stepping shrugs that part of the game away. Before shadow stepping, gank teams actually needed to be good to anticipate when they were going to get caught in a base or by the countergank, now they just double click and they're halfway across the map.

Thanks for the feedback. ~Shard 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to get rid of the life steal for Weapon of Remedy, however I just find it to be pretty much useless for both the caster, who should be healing instead of attacking, or other spell casters in the party, who only attack as a last resort because spells are on cooldown. The problem with making all the shadowsteps a speed boost+other effect, is two fold the first is that shadowsteps don't seem to trigger when in touch range(I could be wrong, however I have seen this with both return and death's charge). Also other than short bursting high damage chains Assassins were pretty much designed on full on offense, which in retrospect is probably one of the reason they are only seen in things like RA, TA, and HA(to a lesser extent) since utility is in high demand in GvG and some PvE scenarios. Plus Shadowsteps are a one shot movement, making them speed boosts even 25% makes an assassin unkitable, which is a whole new problem as that you are getting spiked by what equates to a volatile tumor. Weaponmaster 08:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PS, I never played any of the Red Alert series, only the tiberium ones(EA killed the story on Tib Wars) so I really have no idea what a Chronsphere is XP.

Shadow steps do trigger in touch range, though they have no effect (unless the skill also does something else).

You lost me on the weapon of remedy thing. It is a heal (a delayed one).

Speed boosts have always been fine (when they're balanced). Changing shadow steps to 25% speed boosts won't have any negative consequences. The shadow stepping attack chains aren't as bad as shockwave/RTL/goth spike or gvg gank sins you cannot counter no matter hwat you do.

Hehe, a chronosphere is a superweapon that lets you teleport units (yours or enemies') from one small location to another location anywhere on the map. ~Shard 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, your WoR has a small heal every attack and 1 condition removed with every attack skill, my issue with it is that the heal will very rarely work of spellcasters due to the nature of its trigger, and (should) never trigger for the condition removal. What I said was that the heal should behave like vigorous spirit, which triggers on attacks and spell casts while the condition removal only affects attack skills.

Either you or Lilondra, I can't remember which had a page where a sentence said "everything has a counter, where damage counters healing and vice versa, and snares counter kiting" or something similar to that. Well Positioning(and to a lesser extent; bodyblocking), Front, mid, and backline counters what is essentially monkwailing, what counters positioning? The only two things I can think of are speed boosts, which are unreliable for spiking teams as well as avoiding an annoying melee class who sticks to you like glue, or a shadowstep, which has the increased costs of, 1 recharge. 2 cast time/aftercasts 3 and in some cases diables(see shadow walk and wastrels collapse).

CnC3 WoK has superunits, one faction can give their superunit the ability to "blink" which can send it right past all of your defenses, nasty huh? Weaponmaster 09:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Most RTS's have units that can teleport or jump a short distance and go over terrain obstacles, not to mention flying units. You just have to play that when building defenses. I think the RTS thing is a bad example. — Poki#3 09:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, there is a cost, you sacrifice some offense for the ability to jump. I'm not saying the blink is overpowered, just mentioning my experience with jumpers. Weaponmaster 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RTS's are different, though. In an RTS, only specific units can teleport, and they are balanced around that ability. In extreme cases where any unit can teleport, it is usually an endgame component (chronosphere in RA2, arbiter in SC [which requires itself to move itself to the destination anyway], etc). Characters in Guild Wars are not balanced for that ability - that's why gothspike and shockwave spike are overpowered. Melee shadow stepping is a smaller problem, but it is one that exists. Speed boosts and snares counter positioning. Shadow Stepping rips it out of the game.

My apologies, I thought you were talking about WoR's actual function, not the one I have. The one I have has a weak heal, but the condition removal is the key thing that will make people run it. It could be better, I just wanted to come up with something. ~Shard 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a feeling that assassins were balanced around shadowsteps, the problem, as you mentioned with gothspike(which I have never heard of before) and shockwave spike, are based around exploiting the shadowstep ability. Assassins are a get in, deal some damage, get out. The problem is when you have other abilities which who's biggest downfall is the need for a mobile caster, eg shockwave; used on an elementalist either forces the ele into a PBAoE role(bad idea in coordinated pvp) or long range which puts a severe handicap on shockwave due to range difficulties. Assassins(should) deal nearly all their damage at melee range, and with their low armor and obvious intent make it easy to counter its role, making it completely useless. Shadowsteps allow assassins to fulfill their role. It gives the assassin a much shorter window for failure, 3-5 seconds to 1-2. Shadowsteps are invaluable for the intended class. Your problem seems to be mostly, builds for non-assassins using shadowsteps in "gimmiky" builds. Weaponmaster 07:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadowsteps have always been broken regardless of what class uses them. It's only been the last eight months or so where it was more broken for non-sins, and that's only because almost all the good telechains are finally dead. The only reason you think shadowstepping is easy to counter is because you've been playing with and against bad players. The intended role of assassins, jumping to one target every twenty seconds and instagibbing them, is also bullshit for obvious reasons. Also, has there ever been a non-gimmicky 'sin build? Serious question. --76.25.197.215 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) No, there has not. The closest thing to a non-gimmicky assassin build I have ever seen were the critical strike barrage builds, and critical axe builds. Assassins are never overpowered or underpowered, they're just broken. The same could be said of all the expansion professions, actually... ritualists promote overly defensive, location-based play; dervishes do TOO MUCH DAMAGE, assassins ignore positioning entirely (which is one of the most important aspects of every sport and almost every vidja gaem ever made); and paragons are just lol. --Jette 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Assassins (and ritualists) are in the same boat. They both have some very interesting utility skills that are overshadowed by broken damage/invincibility skills. Assassins were not balanced around shadow stepping. In other game styles, things can have cool mechanics because they are weak in other areas. This is not true of Guild Wars, since you can choose your skills. In a format using only premade builds, shadow stepping might be balanced (assuming the designer of those builds knew what they were doing), but for the one and only format existent in GW (anything goes, literally), shadow stepping should not exist at all. ~Shard 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently I've been using a build using

Personally I tend to define a gimmick as a build that requires little to no skill to play(such as a literally 12345678 assassin chain build I saw on PvX). To get the most out of what I'm running timing is needed to get the most out of WC and spider and due to the build's fragility(only real defense is shadow refuge, sadly) I need to keep an eye on opponents from a knockout. Skills 1-3 were chosen to add pressure while waiting for WC to recharge to go in with WC>FS>DB then either finish off the target if they are low, or shift targets if prots are thrown up or the target is getting healed. Downside is that I rely on my healers for hex removal and the same with conditions. Also there is no Deep Wound or other conditions aside from poison on it so condition utility is needed from other party members. Now these weaknesses are mitigated by the empty slot left over which I generally reserve for hex/condition removal, a utility skill to aid in defending another party member(typically a snare, and occasionally guardian to protect another player when I can't get to them quickly and WC is on recharge. A lot of melees swap targets after seing guardian go up and if they stay on em I generally peel them off with a dagger through the back) ,an IMS sch as dash to get out of tricky situations. Personally I like it and unlike most scythe builds that, which you yourself said, can be played without seeing your screen. I'll admit that my sin has a scythe in her inventory, but that's only because suli dropped it when heading to the Chantry, I'll either give it to my dervish or sell it.

I think the main reasons Assassins are broken is really because of the tons of builds focusing on killing the target in seconds on its own, and I think the surprise ability of shadowsteps allow them to do it much more effectively. I think that shadowsteps, a rather innovative idea really, are getting a lot of hate because of the fact the mobility it grants allows the assassin to seamlessly soar in and deal the damage capable of killing 2 individuals in that many seconds. I find the real problem with assassins is the allowance of huge damage potential of 4+ attack skill chains. Hmmm...why not add to every dual attack a short(1-2) second blackout, about half the damage of the chain, and in some cases the backbone of the multi-knockdown chains comes from dual attacks.

I love rits actually my first character was a rit, the thing I hated was the lack of 1) lousy elite choices and 2) lack of mobility. Para's never appealed to me that much, though I play one I normaly use a spear build with 1-2 shouts as E management. Assassins need a little work lowering their offense, mobility is their defense and offense, as such I think their static offense needs to be toned down due to their ambush capability. Dervishes, I hadn't picked the class because of the vaunted OPness of the scythe, which is warranted every bit, mostly because of the fact I have always enjoyed classes with 2h bladed weapons. After having some experience with Dervishes I had actually enjoyed using enchantments as a resource.

Some fixes I would advise personally would be, add a blackout to all dual attacks, lower scythe min damage to 35-38 and raze min damage to about 11-14, paragons need their shouts to be reworked to remove the effectiveness of chains, and rits need to add mobility and probably need a few countermeasures to weapon spells. That's all I can really think of right now at 12:30am, should I think of anything I'll add it...I really need to get some work done on my userpage. Alas I promised myself not to touch it untill I got that "group" photo of my characters. Weaponmaster 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you mentioned Scythes... enough with the "lower it's damage range" ideas already. It's not possible. The only weapons in the game that can "change" are Greens. We had situations like that already, and older white/blue/purple/gold weapons had to remain the same. If you lower Scythe damage, it will only effect green and new scythes. Old will remain the same, and everything will be even more fubar. The only option I can see is tinkering with the Critical Hit formula. — Poki#3 23:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lowering damage range on all scythes is possible. Changing the crit formula would only lead to imbalance of every other weapon. ~Shard 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's late and I'm sleepy... I don't mean to be offensive here, but could you find me an example of an update that retroactively changed the stats on non-green weapons? Only thing I can recall right now is raising stats of new sundering modsbut old ones remained the same. — Poki#3 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The game engine & development tools cannot be so badly designed that ANet is actually not able to change the damage range on existing scythes. If it is, then it should still be possible to lower the attack speed. Right now they attack every 1.75 seconds, the same as hammers. I think it should be 2.5 seconds to compensate for the XBOX HUEG damage they put out, as well as having the longest-lasting IAS in the game that isn't totally broken. --Jette 06:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be offensive either, but I know how the engine works, as I've proven many times. They've never changed damage ranges on weapons, but it's not hard to do. They would use a system similar to the one that gave everyone a flood of kurz/lux faction. ~Shard 07:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IDK, the normal weapons seem programed oddly. Apparently the fact that you can add mods twists the code a lot. And the K/L title is a bad example. The game tracks what quests and missions you completed, so that was retroactive, but note that it never tracked Elite or competitive missions, and you had to do them again. I don't see any parallel with weapons. — Poki#3 11:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

I don't give a fuck whether you still check this page, just here to see how "great" your balance is.

• Backbreaker: Not every warrior runs 12 Strength, so why do you intend to make this skill less usable for them? Just give it a 4 second KD even at low specs of Strength. Also, a 1 second KD is impossible.
• Magebane Shot: That's just a weaker unblockable version of Distracting Shot? If you're going to nerf this skill, nerf Distracting Shot equally hard.
• Rampage as One: Skills like this just need a rework. Even if it only increases attack speed, it can still be used with stances to get a roughly equal result.
• Comfort Animal: If you already hit RaO, there is no need to change this really?
• Choking Gas: This is a pretty meh skill anyway.
• Nature's Renewal: Idk what the reduced energy is for, but giving it anti-weapon spell is a good idea.
• Tranquility: Too much for one skill? Also promoting things such as Sway.
• Peace and Harmony: Hexes just need to be toned down in such a way that they are one-shot skills.
• Life Sheath: This skill makes indeed no sense. Putting together a prot and condition removal is just too much for one skill. Needs a rework.
• Order of Apostasy: With a high cost like this, it isn't likely to be abused a lot.
• Wail of Doom: Personally I would just revert it to its old functionality, but this should be fine as well. Perhaps a bit weak compared to Power Block.
• Foul Feast: Either needs to be moved to Blood Magic to force an attribute split or needs to be totally reworked.
• Lingering Curse: Did you even compare this to Defile Flesh? It makes no sense to turn an overpowered elite into an underpowered one. Just rework properly.
• Rend Enchantments: Meh, at 1-3 enchantment scaling this is fine.
• Visions of Regret: Then rework it.
• Searing Flames: The first version is a simple change that kills SF spikes. It's a fine change, albeit a bit ugly. The second however is overpowered. Compare to Rodgort's Invocation. Even if you can't constantly use it, that's still a ridiculously powerful spike support skill.
• Golden Fox Strike and Black Spider Strike: Assassin chains just need a total rework.
• Dancing Daggers: This is just a worthless skill that has some synergy with Entangling Asp. Tbh, your change fixes nothing for that chain and just makes it weaker.
• Augury of Death: This is another nonsensical skill that is likely better off with a rework.
• Assassin's Remedy: Isn't this that thing that was abused with Critscythes? Other than that, meh.
• Palm Strike: Nerfing it too hard. Just make it count as a lead attack and increase the recharge or remove the cripple.
• Weapon of Remedy: This skill is rather meh anyway, Ritualists don't have the kind of utility a monk has so they don't really benefit from it. Other than that, since this skill doesn't get DF bonus, it isn't that overpowered and tbh, an irremovible version of Vigorous Spirit with some extra's isn't much better.
• Xinrae's Weapon: Clone skills are boring, but your rework is way too weak.
• Wounding Strike: Dervishes need a rework. That change is fine on short term, but it won't change much long-term.

There ya go. Xhata 12:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and here are my responses:

• • Not every warrior runs 12 strength? When did this happen? I've never seen or even heard of anyone using less than 13 strength on a hammer war.
  • I want Dshot to be weakened. It's just not on this page. (there have been so many skills to fix that it makes me disorganized)
  • This list isn't a single update note patch. It's a list of individual changes that will not work together. If anet did everything on this list in a single update, it would be pretty bad, for the reasons you've stated. RaO is one way to nerf "thumpers," changing comfort is merely a different way.
  • CGas isn't a meh skill. It's a skill that, once you put it up, is completely uncounterable. That's not ok.
  • Tranq: I'm just trying to bring some anti-hex, anti-weapon spell skills into play.
  • PnH: Agree
  • I liked wail of doom's old use, but it still had a nearly unconditional shutdown effect (it's not hard to find something that's attacking), so I'd rather go with something else. Big shutdown should require big risk.
  • Removing all enchantments from someone is not fine, especially for a non-elite.
  • You're right, that second SF is quite powerful.
  • Dancing Daggers, even without asp, is still a 100+ damage skill that ignores most prots for 5 energy. It's not the function of it, it's the damage. Compare it to staples like fireball, which do the same amount of damage but have a higher cast time/recharge.
  • 20 second recharge on an insta-offhand that causes cripple is not too much. People just think it is because it's such a large power drop.

• • As for Apostasy, Xinrae's Weapon, and Weapon of Remedy, I have to ask you if you pvp. 40 seconds of multiple-person shutdown on xinraes is underpowered? Until now, I've only had people telling me it's too good.
  • 70 damage, 70 heal, and condy removal for 5 energy every 3 seconds (no cast time) isn't that overpowered? Have you EVER done a GVG? This skill, by itself, gives split rits immunity to small teams.
  • If you've never played against Apostasy, I'd see where you'd think it isn't abusable. When iway teams use it, it says something more like this: "For 6 seconds, enemy monks lose their channelings and can't be protted vs the 8 warriors that are training them." ~Shard 20:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Hammer Warriors running Tactics. This is an uncommon sight, but I see no point in spoiling it for them. Just make it do 4 seconds at low levels of Strength.
    • Idk why tbh, Distracting Shot is only so powerful because there are key-skills to interrupt. In ye olden days, when this wasn't the case, it was perfectly fine.
    • Then make that clear on the page kthx.
    • Cgas is very meh outside of Practised Stance combinations, which takes your elite. I think it's a fair trade-off.
    • That skill is just way too powerful for the reasons I stated. Even if it does "fix" hexway, it just brings new problems into the game.
    • Wail of Doom: Myeah, perhaps a comparable function should be in place. Perhaps something like "For 2 seconds, the next time target foe uses an attack skill, all his attack skills are disabled for (pre-change) seconds."
    • Rend Enchantments with two cast time and 3 enchants removed is perfectly fine, especially since it does nothing else besides it. I'd rather see you nerfing PoD which is a lot more overpowered.
    • The second SF is not only powerful, it's overpowered. Nerf recharge to 5 seconds.
    • Dancing Daggers is very VERY meh. Perhaps you should compare it to skills that are somewhat equal in function, such as Unsuspecting Strike. It just doesn't fit in well with regular sin bars. Have you ever seen a regular sin with Dancing Daggers? Of course not. Get your facts straight kthx.
    • It is too much. Name me one use of a skill like that. It would just be an unusable elite.
    • As for XW, three seconds is just too short for party members to benefit from. A good opponent will look out for such a skill and cancel it before the effect takes place. That way, it becomes like a shorter version of Diversion with a stronger effect but longer recharge that targets allies. Any opponent with skill will not have problems with that.
    • WoR doesn't benefit from DF. WoR is on a crappy profession. Is that too hard to grasp?
    • OoA isn't used like that anymore now that Energizing Wind isn't around. Xhata 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

lol @ hammers running less than 12 str. many run 14 for echarge cutoff, the rest run 14 ham/13 str. -Auron 22:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I wanna see a 1-second knockdown now. It'd be neat, your guy would look like he was on fast forward. --Jette 00:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What do hammers have to do with being tactical? It makes much more sense that the stronger you are, the longer your knockdowns are.

You said its ok for CGas to be broken because it "requires" an elite, so I'm going to assume you know absolutely nothing about this game and not answer the rest of your questions until you read any of mine or Auron's rants/articles actually pvp. ~Shard 10:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Moo? CGas broken? In what way exactly? Unblockable interrupts? Magebane Shot does the same. Seriously, I tried reasoning with you, but you have a pole stuck up your ass too far to be listening anyway. Xhata 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At your hammer "argument", just wtf. Basing balance on lore is about the stupidest thing you can do. Xhata 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And the final nail in the coffin, Cgas isn't even used anymore in HA. Perhaps it's YOU that needs to play PvP or research it. Xhata 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Magebane doesn't have aoe, doesn't interrupt people through obstructions if you're blind, and doesn't recharge in 1.5 seconds.

Basing balance on lore is stupid? Tell that to the makers of EVERY GAME EVER MADE. I'm sure D2 sorceresses having all spells is just a coincidence.

If you think something can't possibly be broken just because it isn't used, guess again. Skills aren't good because people use them - it's the other way around. I thought that was obvious. ~Shard 20:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is stupid. There's nothing wrong with basing class design on lore, but using lore to justify overpowered or underpowered classes is generally bad game design. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And here we get into the simulationist/narrativist/gamist bullshit all over again... --Jette 09:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Balance is more than math. The artistic part of it comes from making everything make sense. I'm not saying flavor justifies skills being too good or too bad, I'm just saying you can't ignore flavor when it comes to gameplay. ~Shard 09:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think flavour's part of balance, but I agree that ensuring everything makes sense should be part of the balance team's job. For example I don't think that balance would be sufficient enough to justify something crazy like giving warriors healing spells or turning Lighting Javelin and Water Trident into spear attacks, however both balance and flavour could both justify changing Crippling Dagger, Dancing Daggers and Disrupting Dagger from unblockable ranged earth damage spells to blockable ranged dagger attacks as long as the new versions are more balanced. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, there's nothing that states in the game that Hammer warriors aren't supposed to use Tactics, that's just your "logic". I see no reason to discourage Hammer warriors from using tactics.

Choking Gas is just as unstoppable as Psychic Distraction. Using Choking Gas as a random interrupt is generally bad because it's random. And tbh, Chocking Gas doesn't disable spells. I therefore think they are comparable (Choking Gas has AoE, PD has disable thus they are more or less equal) THUS Choking Gas is not half as imba as you say. Xhata 13:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Random Interrupts? Do you think people are ignorant like you? Needling Shot while using choking gas is gold. Balancing is obviously a topic beyond your comprehension.~>Sins WDB 15:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop hurting my eyes with your idiotic comments. You're so obviously trolling and doing so badly, it just makes me go ewwwwwwwwwwww. Dark Morphon 10:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not trolling, and no one can seem to explain why my comments are idiotic.~>Sins WDB 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I could, but then I'd have to explain why. I don't explain things to idiotic people. Dark Morphon 15:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusing idiocy and announcing you don't explain to idiots. Sounds like a defensive round-about way of saying "I'm wrong about something, but I don't want to admit it." ~>Sins WDB 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What point is there in explaining something to one that doesn't listen because of his idiocy? I have seen your reactions on your balance talk page and to be honest, you are very close-minded. If you are not open-minded to criticism you are an idiot and I see no reason in explaining anything. Ups, I just did. Dark Morphon 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am close minded? Definitely not. I will be the first to say I see many valid points all sides have to offer. I will also say what points are invalid. Make valid arguments you don't know I'm here, make bad ones I'm halfway down your throat trying to keep those bad arguments from spewing out. I also can and have admitted when I've been wrong or missed someone's point. Close-minded is not the word to describe me. Perhaps blunt jackass is fitting, but not close-minded.~>Sins WDB 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I really saw how open-minded you were when you still insisted number changes would work on totally unbalance-able stupid gimmicks such as Palm Strike and Warrior's Endurance after like everybody told you they wouldn't. You also were so very much open-minded when everyone told you Diversion is not overpowered. Very open-minded indeed. Dark Morphon 12:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You saw me slash my hex duration scaling on diversion too? I'm surprised. Obviously you haven't seen I've been pushing for PS to be an attack skill. Furthermore you don't realize my position on useless skills which is why I didn't want WE to be reverted.~>Sins WDB 04:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That duration scaling doesn't matter because mesmers run Diversion on full specs anyway. OWAIT THAT'D BE 1 SECOND LESS DURATION! SO MUCH DIFFERENCE! Uhm, no. The recharge penalty is what matters when you want to nerf this skill so if you'd be any good, you would have scratched that. The skill is balanced and does NOT need a nerf. PS being an attack skill won't change a damn cuz the other skills on your bar are attack skills anyway so they have to hit as well. Basically, if one of your attack skills is blocked/blinded/whatever the rest of the ones you use are worthless either. So you can't deal 50 damage every 4 seconds anymore. That's not going to make any difference at all. I assume your view on useless skills is "OMFG AVOID". Well, I'd rather make a useless skill than having a skill that's fucking overpowered. It at least doesn't screw up the game. Of course, the best way is to make a skill that ACTUALLY WORKS. Perhaps you will understand that one day when you stop failing so much. Dark Morphon 15:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't understand the obvious such as diversion yielding so much reward with no risk or that making a skill viably counterable gives it balance. Then you can't even see it's obvious you need to stop failing so much. Go try to annoy someone else, because I'm stubborn enough to try and reason with the irrational.~>Sins WDB 04:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nerfing Diversion's shutdown time will NOT fix the "problem" you state. Besides, this skill has already a big risk: the long cast time is like a neon board saying "INTERRUPT ME PLX". In case you didn't notice, that IS a balance factor. Dark Morphon 15:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a 2 second cast with FC. So is meteor, so is any prep, troll is 3. 2 second casts are not hard to get away with, you can almost guarentee them with stances like distortion, natrual stride, and mantra of resolve. The point is cast time isn't a penalty it's an inconvenience. The cast time doesn't balance out the skills current power.~>Sins WDB 18:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mantra of Resolve is a skill used only on VoR bars. That's the bar that needs to take a hit. Mantra of Resolve isn't used on standard domination bars because Diversion is the only long-activation skill. You don't take anti-interruption for that and anything else is just pure theorycraft. VoR is what is wrong with mesmers. So nerf that instead of perfectly fine skills such as Diversion. Dark Morphon 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

...

Xhata you're damn stubborn even when your wrong.

Shard that was a good attempt at reasoning until your temper went off the deep end lol.~>Sins WDB 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think that's my temper, you need to go back to when I cared about pvp and do some gvgs with me. ~Shard 20:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sins We Die By, this discussion is above your level of understanding. Please practise on ShadowFog. Xhata 13:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Xhata, you disappoint me. You are not insulting that sins guy enough. Dark Morphon 14:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys all have such terrible arguments. How lamentable. Also, I never imagined someone less intelligent than SF(guess which user^^) existed until I glanced at this page.Pika Fan 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What seems to be beyond comprehension for people is that unpopular skills that are OP need to be balanced too.~>Sins WDB 15:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What seems to be beyond your comprehension is that number changes don't fix OP skills. Ever. Dark Morphon 10:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that'd be a broken skill. If flare did three times as much damage, it would be OP, and yet a number change would fix it. Shadow Form is broken, Victorious Sweep is OP. Common mistake. ♥ Raine - talk 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant broken skills. Pardon moi for the miswording! (Also, I'd say Flare qualifies as a broken skill: Pure damage on spells just doesn't work out). Dark Morphon 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1 second KD? ok.. InfestedHydralisk 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently that's already in the game and if it isn't, it is obviously worth it putting it in there for one elite that will never be ran at such specs. Dark Morphon 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

theres no 1 second KD...only 2 InfestedHydralisk 15:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I really need a neon bord that reads "SARCASM". Dark Morphon 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>You really shouldn't try using sarcasm tags, whatever you do.</sarcasm> — Jon Lupen 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

how2notice sarcasm on the interwebz ;o InfestedHydralisk 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Buy a modded gaydar. Dark Morphon 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)