User talk:Vili/Archive 4

THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE AND SHOULD NOT BE EDITED

From January 29 to March 12.

Archives
[Add an archive] November 28, 2008 - December 19 December 20 - December 22 December 23, 2008 - January 28, 2009 January 29 - March 12 March 13 - April 8 April 9 - June 21 "bawwwwww" August 10 - September 7 September 8 - October 25 October 26, 2009 - January 31, 2010 February 1 - April 3 [Add an archive]

---

first

in b4 everfrost Vili 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

last --Cursed Angel 02:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Awe... That means I don't get it either *pouts* XD — Jon Lupen 02:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You

are so lucky that I have your back. You would so have been banned for that. Misery 07:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Vili 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You totally broke the archival policy AGAIN. Misery 07:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive policy page says otherwise. Vili 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"You are permitted to archive older comments as your talk page gets longer. Do so by copying or moving your talk page to an archive subpage, such as User talk:Example/Archive 1, and leave a prominent link to it from your main talk page. ... Discussions should be continued on a user's main talk page, rather than in their archives."

k Vili 21:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

and leave a prominent link to it from your main talk page is what he's saying. - Tanetris 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wth? I thought *I* addded that. Vili 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I totally had your back. Misery 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Now if only you could have my back more often in AB... Vili 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You want to AB? Misery 00:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We spent like three hours last night looking for a McRedbar, but none were to be found. Since I can't monk for beans, it's pretty much game over when Raine or our 2nd doesn't want to monk. :\ (Playing GW right now = lag because festival, but...meh) Vili 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Misery McRedbar. Misery 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was already aware of that IGN, hence why I said McRedbar instead of "monk". Vili 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Misery McRedbar was a Dervish ;o Misery 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That is irrelevant; I was using it to subtly and cleverly hint that I already had your IGN. Vili 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I subtly and cleverly hint that I took yours off your userpage? Misery 01:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a lot and usually bored/willing to monk for AB. Pm me next time. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This was after you logged yesterday (when we did Raisu HM), otherwise I would have. Btw, afterwards, Jon and I did Gyala HM and even though I D/C halfway through he got Master's. :p Vili 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite hints of AB, no pms were sent. Misery 13:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was busy grinding through Factions. I am also reasonably certain that no one was online (last night). Vili 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was online during that conversation, you didn't seem to be... Misery 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

~You weren't in-game. I checked. Raine - talk 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Appear Offline to hide from us imo. Misery 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You know that I don't use the "status" thing. Vili 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No table plz.

I like the asymmetry. Also, find that thing (the big one) I've been working on and help me please.  :> Raine - talk 04:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed what you are working on, because all I see in recent contribs is balance-related stuff and trolling. And you know I don't do either of those. Vili 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The former; the latter, we can just ignore and go on pretending I'm a nice person. =x Raine - talk 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someday, when I know wtf I'm talking about, I can join in on the various balance pages. Until then, I can only speak from a PvE standpoint, or be a parrot for those who are qualified to contribute. Vili 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm sure Shard, Angry Guild Wars Nerd, Misery, and whoever else decides to jump on board will let you know if your version of Swirling Aura breaks the game. You've got a safety net; get your feet wet.  ;) Raine - talk 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Change the specs for Swirling Aura to ~those of Shield Stance (in terms of duration vs. recharge); make it able to target other allies; change to 5e. Pretty simple to fix. A bit overpowered for Water Mesmers, maybe, but since it is 50% instead of 75% block, and only affects projectiles, it may be okay. By the way, I miss "Shields Up!", that was a fucking incredible skill before they nerfed it.

Oh, I guess that wasn't so bad after all. You may or may not see me contributing. Vili 05:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"The angry rantings of 1,000 anonymous and unknown users was not equal to the reasoned, logical arguments from fifty well-known and experienced contributors."

That. Right there. Raine - talk 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's found a new home. Raine - talk 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to bed.

G'nite, cupcake. Raine - talk 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"P.S.; nobody cares when you go to bed. Save yourself some time and don't bother posting new sections every time you do. -Auroñ 08:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)"

That being said, I appreciate the attention, and in fact I think I will join you. Dreamers don't dream, but here's to wishful thinking anyway. Vili 07:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved forum talk

Wild Blow. If you're using adrenal skills as a Dervish, you're doing it wrong. I'm not sure how making scythes even more powerful is a good idea, unless you want these adrenal skills to be in...I dunno...Mysticism. >.> Vili 11:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do I need to go to another profession for a good skill? (I used wild blow all through NF and it is good) --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 12:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that they did not take any adreline skills in the dervish line because the scythe hits either 3 targets or 1 target and therefore the skill can become really powerfull (quick charging) or really bad. Fox007 12:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

--Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Higher adrenaline costs? — Jon 19:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Adrenaline with a scythe is a bad idea because not matter what you do it will either be useless or broken. Being able to gain 6 adrenaline in two swings is very powerful, so to balance that you would need huge costs. The problem with that is that if you do that, the majority of the time you are not hitting many targets, so the skill becomes useless. If you balance it around the lower cost, it has the potential to be used very frequently. Its a catch 22. not matter what you do there is something wrong with it. It is either overpowered or useless. Kelvin Greyheart 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And they can't modify adrenaline on scythes to only count from the intended target? (<---notice singular) --Riddle 20:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. — Jon 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so because it like an axe with Cyclone Axe counting the targets which got hit. And because the adrenaline was there from prophecies it is probebly hard coded or something like that. Fox007 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless... Do scythes count as a swing per AoE targer you hit, or is it one attack with AoE splash? Would one scythe swing hitting 3+ targets trigger something like empathy or spiteful spirit multiple times? — Jon 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It does trigger stuff like hexes per person hit. --Antioch 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, kk. I couldn't remember. It's been such a long time since I;ve been on my derv. — Jon 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Redoing the adrenaline system just for scythes?...Why? I'm just not seeing the benefits here. If scythes only got one strike per hit, then that would basically be like adrenal skills with a Hammer - they'd have to cause KD or huge damage or something to be worth it. Scythes already deal huge damage and they really don't need knockdown too. You also have to remember that, if left as is, scythe can potentially get six adrenaline in like...1/2 second, with FGJ and Eremite's Attack, or just Eremite's plus Mystic Sweep. I don't see any way it could end up balanced. Vili 00:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A valid point. Redoing the adrenaline system alone almost makes it not worth it. I was speculating as to whether or not it could be done without reconstructing it, but I don't think it can be. I don't have many energy problems on my derv as it is. Adrenaline isn;t exactly needed, but it would be interesting to see what could be done with it. You could always slap a recharge time on the skills, so as to prevent spamming. — Jon 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(res. indent)What would be the logic behind giving basically caster profession with godly energy regen. adrenaline skills? Its understood why Paragons and Warriors have it they have barely enough energy regen to cover 5e attacks. If Dervishes get it, then Assassins would want it too and we can't have that. Biz 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Backbreaker says hi. Sins don't have adrenaline skills because they can gain these to quick what makes them either to powerfull or either useless because the high adrenaline cost. Fox007 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically, it could be done but it is too difficult to balance on multi-hit weapons. Did I summarize that well enough? 145.94.74.23 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but not practical. and yes, you pretty much got the idea. — Jon 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I second that Fox007 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't be hard to put 1 attack = 1 adren, no matter how many u hit. however it would need alot of skills to be rebalanced, dervs have no adren-increasing skills/defensive stances and the whole enchantment concept, skills over 10 energy, healing skills have to cost less. they have 70 armor, their attacks deal alot more damage to many targets, it would be a hell to rebalance. also, if u want a warrior; take a warrior, they're there to be just that adrenaline based strong and brave frontliner. --78.82.75.6 13:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why is this old thread on my talkpage now? Vili 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a winner:

(diff) (hist) . . m User talk:Regina Buenaobra‎; 13:53 . . (+1,337) . . Wizardboy777 (Talk | contribs) (→Why does anet offer to reconnect you after an 007?: ) Misery 12:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:Gaile Gray‎; 16:36 . . (+666) . . Jon Lupen (Talk | contribs) (→New Year 2010: ) this can't be good. — Jon Lupen 16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Leet contributions > the devil. Misery 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yah, but I've seen more leet contribs than evil ones >.> — Jon Lupen 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Metallica - Number of the Beast - zzz Vili 16:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Try again. That would be Iron Maiden. — Jon Lupen 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My playlist data is apparently corrupted, because it says Metallica. Brb reboot Vili 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they covered it. I remember in English class back in the day my dumbass teacher was trying to say a score was sixty and I was arguing that it was twenty and I was very confident because I knew that some versions of the bible quote the number of the beast as six hundred three score six. It was a really awkward situation because I knew what my source was but I didn't really know how I could say that without sounding like a satanist. I think the rest of the class was just wrong forever because of that. I should have cared less about what people think. Actually, I don't care that they are all wrong and dumb :> Misery 16:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Definately Iron Maiden. Also, no Metallica didn't cover Number of the Beast. — Jon Lupen 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Word of Healing is somewhat overpowered"

you bes be jokin nigga -Auron 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember when WoH sucked? — Jon Lupen 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I still used it then because it was still the only viable healing elite (imo). Also, go away Auron, I know you'd prefer me to change it to "somewhat fucking ridiculously overpowerd because ANet can't balance their own damn game" but I'm not in the mood. Vili 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, consider the amount of power creed to everything BUT monks for a while, you gotta make up for it somehow. They still lack enough good options in the ways of red-bar. — Jon Lupen 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Power creep = massive amounts of damage in the game = "consider why there is even a *need* to carry six copies of pot" Vili 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Every time I hear "power creep" I think of Star Craft. That's 6 years of my life that's never leaving me. — Jon Lupen 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure Star Craft, unlike Conga Wars, is a static game which only got one update, and that was Brood Wars. Afaik Star Craft is generally considered balanced, even though there's only like 2 viable ways to play competitively :p Vili 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the "creep" part of "power creep" that does it for me. And yes, Star Craft is AMAZINGLY well balanced and has changed very little in 10+ years it's been out. 1997-2003 was a great era for me. — Jon Lupen 01:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Vili, overpowered =/= strong. Eviscerate is strong, Restore Conditions is strong, WoH is strong, they are not overpowered b.r // talk 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Eviscerate has never been overpowered, Restore Conditions is one of the best skills in the game but it's never been overpowered; WoH has been overpowered ever since the buff where it became target ally instead of target other. Vili 01:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Eviscerate was overpowered when it was 7 adrenaline and had higher damage. And the rest of what you said.... being able to push up your own-red bar suddenly makes it op? If a monk was in real danger of being killed, a WoH won't save him b.r // talk 01:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to get an explanation why its makes it overpowered that it can target self now too. I mean the numbers didnt change much since the days where it was target other ally only. So in what way does it make WoH Overpowered that you can heal yourself now? Is it because other Professions (like Wammos) can use it aswell to redbar themselves? Also I agree to br that a WoH wont save you if you are in Danger. --SilentStorm 01:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit is out of chronological order.

That aside. What if you could RC yourself? "Target other ally" is a balancing mechanism. Raine - talk 05:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleave matches Eviscerate's DPS now, and very nearly did even when it was at its peak. Eviscerate is a very strong skill, but see, it's just very difficult to have an overpowered adrenal skill because of blockway, blindway, snareway, and so on and so forth. There are so many things that balance out the power of Eviscerate. You know what would make it overpowered? Making it energy-based.

It's not *just* the ability to target oneself that pushed WoH over the edge into OP'ness, it was also the major buff to the healing, and the <50% factor. Compare it to any other healing spell in the game, except maybe things like Infuse; WoH heals for more, is less conditional, recharges faster, can target yourself, casts faster, and/or costs less energy. There isn't a single other viable Healing Prayers elite except maybe LoD in some very special circumstances, but that got kicked to the trashcan. Unyielding Aura (PvE one) is perhaps the next most viable elite, but that is largely because of the instant full res; Healer's Boon, either the new or old one, is just not workable because it restricts one entirely to redbarring and offers no room for real utility. It's argued that "it makes all healing prayers just as powerful as WoH". The problem with that logic is exactly as it states - you're putting like six copies of WoH on your bar. Pretty much the only skill in the entire game which is viable with nothing but copies of itself is Seering Flooms; anything else is just a waste of skillbar slots and a detriment to the team as a whole. So in summary, WoH is the best healing spell in the game, and that makes it overpowered. Even with a spec as low as 9, because of Divine Favor it's still very effective and powerful. You can't say that about too many other elites in the game, period.

Thank goodness we still have Protection Prayers and Jesus Beam. Vili 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

what br said. there is nothing overpowered about word of healing. with all the damage that gets added to the game with no balancing factors whatsoever, monks need to be able to keep up. having an okay heal doesn't mean it's ridiculous. izzy used your logic when he nerfed SoR - it's powerful so it must be overpowered. which was the wrong choice because it killed the split game entirely. there's a fine line between good and too good - remember to look for it before calling things overpowered. -Auron 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe I said the same thing in fewer words already XD — Jon Lupen 01:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

o lawd, I forgot, I'm inexperienced so my opinions are totally fucking worthless and I should never comment on skill balance ever again. Go away. Vili 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

no need to get defensive bro, i'm not insulting you. -Auron 01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that we are out to prove you wrong, make you look stupid or something along those lines, it's that we are out to correct gaps in your knowledge. — Jon Lupen 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad I don't have the desire to be educated at this time. Like I said, end of discussion, feel free to bitch at me in-game or something. New messages is annoying when I'm trying to read watchlist. Vili 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm done now. — Jon Lupen 02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about OP.

When something is "Run this or lose", it's OP.

Teams run WoH or lose.

Let's compare WoH to what the other team brings to kill you.

Yes, it's necessary. Overpowered crap does not justify more overpowered crap. "It's okay to have WS in the game because of Life Sheath!" "It's okay to have WoH because of the stupid amounts of damage in the game!". It's the same (bad) argument, and so deserves the same answer: counter != balanced. No, it's not a niche counter any more at this point because every monk and their dog runs WoH. But WoH is the only real viable counter for the damage upon damage upon damage that characterizes GW at this point.

Let's compare WoH to other things that do similar things.

The reason why WoH is necessary is because non-elite heals don't keep up. Patient is an exception. Now, this isn't saying that WoH makes other heals in the game obsolete; everything else was already obsolete, but WoH got to be the golden child that emerged to make the line worthwhile again. Y'know. Like Palm Strike.

The only other things that really redbar well enough are Infuse and HB+noneliteheal. Infuse can't really be compared for obvious reasons (before anyone says it, you try bringing some other elite and Infuse, then tell me how it goes), ad HB essentially does exactly what Vili said it did: turns all your other heals into WoH. Raine - talk 05:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed because your premise is flawed. "When something is "Run this or lose", it's OP. " is completely false, and thus your argument that treats it as fact is similarly false. -Auron 07:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a very simple reasoning. If damage gets buffed, healing needs a buff. If you want to nerf healing, nerf damage too. WoH can't be overpowered if it is barely enough even with 2 other defense characters to keep up with damage.152.226.7.213 08:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that a single skill being essential to victory is overpowered (or that skills with similar effects are relatively underpowered, which is the same thing). No, it's not overpowered compared to overpowered damage (50 passive AoE DpS is srs bsns). But compared to Healing Prayers? It's the single strongest heal in the game, by a huge margin. Raine - talk 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly call WoH essential to victory, the reason for it's power is because it's extremely versatile. The reasons you listed mean prove that, that's is why it can be pretty much thrown on any bar in any team and still be useful. Of course if you compare WoH to only healing prayers then it's obviously the alpha male because healing prayers as a whole is underpowered with some exceptions (cure hex, dwayna's kiss and patient spirit spring to mind) b.r // talk 10:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So, instead of running WoH, you'd run... what, exactly, without gimping yourself? Raine - talk 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dervish healer/PnH monk backline in TA. Misery 22:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I should mention this; WoH is a very strong skill while the rest of healing prayers as a whole is relatively weak. If you are looking at healing prayers for an elite then WoH is without a doubt your best option because it's one of best elites in the game as well there not really any other options. Something similar is with the ritualist's restoration line, pretty much all the resto elites are sub-par at best with the exception of WoR which is insanely strong. If you had to pick a resto elite then 9 times out of 10 you'll be picking WoR (like WoH, WoR is also pretty versatile). That said, I can understand your point of WoH being 'op', in the end I'm sure we can both agree that it is a valuable skill that just about any team will want to bring given its strength and wide range of applications. b.r // talk 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like how everything is getting more powerful, more faster... etc Nikdanbro 09:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you...

...going to redirect the Vili pages to Entropy's user space? --Riddle 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would I do that? Vili 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some people on PvX who shift accounts do that, it just means if someone looks for Entropy on this wiki they find you. Misery 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not using the Entropy account for here; if anything I should redirect Entropy stuff to these pages. Vili 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that was what Riddle said because I try to interpret things in a way that means people are not insane. Misery 14:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I assumed Entropy was your main and your more prized name, so you would have all your vili stuff put under Entropy. --Riddle 14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

SOCK PUPPETRY!?! Misery 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

BURN THE WITCH. --Riddle 14:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah bro.

It's my main to people from GuildWiki... but both here, on GW2W, and on IRC I go by Vili now. (Besides, it would look strange to promote "Entropy" to bureaucrat on GW2W and then demote "Vili", and just as strange if both had the powers; it's just easier to leave as is.) People who met me in those places would also go by that name. It's been a long time (both since Raptors created the account originally, and since I've started editing here under Vili) so I think it would be unnecessary and confusing to switch now. Besides, there are still some people who never made the connection. :)

I do "prize" the name a lot more, but I had to give that up after having it "stolen" from me...here because Raptors beat me to it, and on IRC because I was too lazy to register it until it was too late. But, I think it's also a useful distinction. People can have very different personalities in different communities, so having a different username to differentiate that split can be good, I think. It is a fair trade-off for the initial confusion of not being able to easily tie one persona to another. (That being said, I honestly wonder sometimes, if I had been able to keep "Entropy" here/on IRC, if I wouldn't be such a troll now. Heh. New identity gives a chance to be different.) Vili 14:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I detest trolling int all it's forms. Misery 14:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a pity, I thought we were getting along pretty well. Vili 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I detest you. Misery 15:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I smell hate, and I am here to savour it.Pika Fan 23:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I detest you. Misery 23:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDPika Fan 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why am I funny?

and stop splitting. Misery 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

* Sugadaddy_Gronchenbottom has quit (*.net *.split)
* Silent|away has quit (*.net *.split)
* Pling has quit (*.net *.split)
* Anja has quit (*.net *.split)
* poke has quit (*.net *.split)
* FireFox has quit (*.net *.split)
* jpetrie has quit (*.net *.split)
* Spah has quit (*.net *.split)
* Fenyx has quit (*.net *.split)
* purple_llama has quit (*.net *.split)
* Snograt has quit (*.net *.split)
* Indochine has quit (*.net *.split)
* ChanServ has quit (*.net *.split)
* Aiiane has quit (*.net *.split)
* Rahja_The_Thief has quit (*.net *.split)
* Tanetris has quit (*.net *.split)
* Phenaxkian has quit (*.net *.split)
* MizzlesMcPretty has quit (*.net *.split)
* FASC|JonTheMon_work has quit (*.net *.split)
* Aii has quit (*.net *.split)
* Wyn has quit (*.net *.split)

I'd tell you if you didn't split. Vili 18:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Relatively speaking...

"Consider using with skills that require a water magic hex for a decent spike, such as Glowing Ice or Arc Lightning."
"It is important to note that while any spells cast directly on the target fail, the target can still be damaged by AoE (Area of Effect) damage targeted on a party member near you."
"Useful for running and The Underworld."
"Excellent for stopping spikes as it will interrupt many of the spikers at once."
"This is an effective skill for pre-protting spikes."
Considering that every other prot won't stop SB from triggering if it reduces damage below 60, I thought it was noteworthy. Raine - talk 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't really think of a situation where SB and SoD would both end up being cast on a spike target. SoD backline and a flagger with SB? I still don't think you would care because the double redundancy covers for shatters/someone being too slow. Misery 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how those other skills' notes are relevant. Anyway I don't think it's noteworthy because it ought to be obvious... "it's pointless to cast SB on a terra tank/defy war because they have a very low chance of taking the required 60 damage". Sort of in the same realm as "It's baed to use Reckless Haste and Insidious Parasite on the same target, because you actually want the target to hit". Oh, and Shield of Regeneration. Vili 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevance: "This big prot has baed synergies with every other big prot on your bar" is a lot less obvious than ^, considering that it and SoR are the only prots for which that's the case, due to them being unique in that they're not hard damage reduction.

Unrelatedly, why would any ally cast anything, ever, on a Defy Pain war or Terra Tank? I'd refrain out of sheer contempt.

@Misery: When they're already taking caster damage (SB goes up), and then they get targeted for physical pressure, too (SoD goes up on top of that). Raine - talk 20:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

20 energy to stop pressure on one target =/ Misery 20:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

<Vili> <Armond> fix your talk page  <-- wut
<Armond> "sb won't trigger if they have defy pain etc on them" <-- wut
<Vili> if you cast spirit bond on tanktype builds it's pretty obvious the chance of it triggering is low
<Armond> I would think that
<Armond> but then
<Armond> spirit bond triggers when I take 5 damage
<Vili> so, putting sb on a SoD target is just obvious
<Vili> what
<Armond> prot spirit + spirit bond = loltrigger
<Vili> =600smite
<Armond> personally I don't trust anet enough to predict what their skills will do before I test them/see them tested
<Vili> prot spirit and spirit bond have a special interaction
<Vili> (or should I say retarded)
<Vili> if spirit bond takes precedence over SoD or SoR, then that should be noted...
<Vili> but it doesn't (been tested), and so a note saying it acts as expected is redundant/obvious
<Vili> you are totally right that it should be tested with defy though, that could make the new 600/smite

SoD has great synergy with Rebirth, you're unlikely to be dshot during the cast. Vili 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rebirth is bad, use light of dwayna. AoE ress > single target ress.Pika Fan 20:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Spellcasting range > adjacent range. Vili 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm so? AoE > all.Pika Fan 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual AoE for Light of Dwayna is not "in the area", it's in fact so small you may as well be at adjacent range. Which sucks. If you want to bring the whole party back, take Lively Was or Restoration, which are marginally better. Both of those are a stronger res anyway and don't cost 25e. "But wait, the recharge is twice as good and it's unlinked and it casts faster!" Tbh if you *need* to bring the entire party back more than once, you're doin it wrong and you fail at the game. And if you're in PvE, lol? May as well use a Scroll of Resurrection, or UA. No one takes Light of Dwayna in PvP, either. Maybe if you were running some shitter build like healball or smiteball, then it might be considered, but still...terrible skill is terrible. Vili 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be bad, aoe res is good.Pika Fan 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll remember that next time I'm in DoA Vili 20:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FC resmers would sometimes run LoDwayna with EoE builds. Raine - talk 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, welcome to three years ago. No one seriously runs EoE bombs anymore (and no one cares about RA etc, any arena where you can win with echo mending isn't srs pvp). Vili 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Armond got it pretty well; it's not just PS and SB. It's every other prot and SB. SoR and SoD are oddballs, because they're the only two that do behave the way one would expect. "Acting as expected" really can't be taken for granted when every other spell in the line acts abnormally.

Also, I suppose someone should test it with Stoneflesh, Ether Prism, and all of the other non-monk damage redux; I never use them, so I wouldn't know about that. However, I'm assuming that the +9001 AL from Armor of Earth would preclude Stoneflesh from allowing SB to trigger on a terra tank. Raine - talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand anything you are saying anymore, so feel free to revert me. Vili 20:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is, if someone has SoA, or Shielding Hands, or RoF, or PS, or <insert damage-recuding prot here> and someone takes damage that would've been over 60, SB triggers. The only two that are exceptions to that are SoR and SoD. "Normal behavior" could either be defined as "SB simply not triggering on damage below 60", which most prots wouldn't follow, or "The way that the majority of prots behave", which SoR and SoD don't follow.

In any case, I do think that I documented that wrong. I think the appropriate solution would be to remove the note on the page for PS (because that phenomenon is not in any way unique to PS) and to reword the note on SB's page to properly explain the way that it behaves. Raine - talk 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

SoA and Shielding Hands are direct damage reduction, not armor; based on the Damage calculation formula, they work as expected and trigger after SB. The same would happen for any other skill that does direct reduction, such as Armor of Unfeeling. Things which give straight armor like Armor of Earth are factored in before that. Prot Spirit is unusual because it triggers before Spirit Bond; perhaps because the system works alphabetically?

Anyway, what other prots are there? Aura of Faith? That doesn't really matter because regardless if SB triggers or not, you're gonna be taking like no damage at all. Life Barrier and Life Bond? In PvP, if you're bonded and take more than 60 damage, that's a very strong blow; I suppose one could test that but really it's hard to imagine such a circumstance. Reversal of Fortune and Life Sheath are at the very bottom of the effects precedence list, so they should not hinder Spirit Bond (but I an not 100% sure). Mark of Protection is crap. Reverse Hex is like Shielding Hands. Vili 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you take 30 damage (after reduction by Life Bond) while bonded, SB triggers, iirc.

Although it does make perfect sense that a target with a higher armor level would trigger SB less, it also makes perfect sense that a target with AoF should almost never be able to trigger SB, while in actuality, they can take 30 damage and trigger it.

I think the note on the page for SB should read something more like, "SB checks damage immediately after armor, before any damage reduction (by protection prayers?)" instead of "SB checks damage before PS", because that doesn't explain how SB interacts with the rest of the prots. Alternatively, one could add notes explaining that if someone takes 50 damage under Shielding Hands and SB, SB would trigger, and do that for every other prot. However, that's documenting phenomena and not the cause of said phenomena.

The reason why I said that it should be tested with other non-monk damage reduction is because I'm not positive whether or not SB checks before them. For example, Reversal of Damage triggers before every other prot (unlike RoF, which triggers after every other prot that I've tested it with). I haven't tested it with SB, but if RoD triggers before SB, what's to say that Ether Prism wouldn't? We actually have very little documentation about the order in which certain things trigger within the same instant. I know, from personal testing, that

Backfire -> RoD -> PS -> RoF

But that begs the question, where would SB trigger? Would it be

Backfire -> SB -> RoD -> PS -> RoF, with SB triggering immediately upon damage? Or

Backfire -> RoD -> SB -> PS -> RoF, with SB triggering with the rest of the protection prayers (albeit before them)?

Of course, because SoD is direct +armor, it's the "first thing checked" (I'd even wager that base armor is a buff much like any other effect, checked after armor-ignoring damage); I simply thought it worthwhile to state that because of its nature, it triggers out of the normal order for its attribute. Raine - talk 21:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm glad I went and played some game instead of staying here for this conversation :> Misery 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think

you missed out on an update. PWK's armor boost got lowered. — Why 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh. Rits are Paras without shields now. QQ Raine - talk 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm. 60+10=70, right? And 70=/=80? Well, whatever. I am probably just retarded. Or sleepy. — Why 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Insignias do not exist b.r // talk 01:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

See, it used to be rits had 60 + 24 + 10 = 94 armor versus everything. A Warrior has base 80 to everything and 100 to physical, and with shield that's 96 everything. So rits were ~= Warrior level armor. (I know it's not really exactly true, but people still say paras and warriors have equal armor, so...go figure.) Now, rits have 60 + 10 + 10 = base 80, the same as a hammer warrior vs. non-physical and the same as a Hammergon. Or whatever. I mean, realistically, shields give you +24 armor anyway, so none of those comparison were true in the first place. But whatever. It's meant as a joke. Vili 01:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I give up. :P — Why 02:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Gah!

Which one is the correct spelling? I was going off of the redlink I saw on the NPC models formatting page. Either way, one should probably be merged into the other. -_- -- Wandering Traveler 04:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jejiang. I would remember, because I was the first one to document the exploit for that quest. ^^ Vili 18:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmk, I guess slap the delete tag on the one I created. And that is one helluvan exploit. -- Wandering Traveler 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why....

....would you be offline indefinately? I know I'm a tad late on asking, but just a little curious. — Jon Lupen 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't run into a tree at high velocity, so you can rest assured about that at least. :p It's some real life stuff which I don't particular care to discuss on-wiki, is all. Vili 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, running into trees is not good XD. I was figuring change of interests or something of the sort. Understandable. I you don't care to discuss it, then I won't inquire any farther. Hope anything out of sorts works out well for you. — Jon Lupen 03:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the word "amuse"

That's all I have to say, but it really had to be said. Misery 13:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I had the hardest time trying to figure out if "Amuse" was a typo this one time. It's the name of an enemy in Golden Sun. Even though I don't know the parts of speech at all, I know that "amuse" is a verb. And these guys were nouning it. Proper nouning, even! It's true that some words can be used both ways, such as "run". But "amuse" isn't one of those.

Also, I messed up the quote. It's "You amuse me, featherless one." I haven't played the BMP missions for too long. Vili 13:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quoting the BMP whenever I use it, I just like the word amuse, it has a very nice sound. As a side note, you amuse me Vili. Misery 13:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a Heads-up

I'm not trying to rip into you or anything, I just function a lot differently than a lot of people do in PvE so I was trying to make that clear. Half of what I said comes from personal taste, the other comes from my perspective. Take what I said with a grain of salt, and if it's contrary to what you think/know go ahead and dismiss what I said. Although, I DID mean Primal Rage and not Focused Anger, so take that as you may. I hope I'm not causing any conflict here. — Jon Lupen 23:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'd offended me then you would have known. Although I appreciate the gesture of pre-emptively apologizing... o_O Vili 00:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure to clear up any potential misunderstanding, keep things freindly and such. — Jon Lupen 00:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So can I hope that you're not offline indefinately?

That ^. Raine - talk 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

osht I forgot to remove that. As you can see, despite churing out WoT's, this wiki isn't terribly high on my priority list.

In other news, I haven't played with you for the longest time. It's such a struggle to motivate myself to play more H/H factions every day. I mean, seriously, even if I was playing Prophecies I would be getting a little bored by now... It makes me sad that I now know all the paths by heart. (Except for Echovald Forest. Because it sucks. No matter how many times I go through it.) Vili 10:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)