Curse

Trinity Fire Angel · Mar 04, 2010, 02:34 PM // 14:34

personally, i think ANet fixed SF. Now any profession in the game can run perma SF with only 12 spec in Shadow Arts. Granted it is only a spell breaker mode now... but perma spell breaker is better than nothing.

hint: 20% enchant staff + Deadly Paradox + Shadow Form = Perma Shadow

I dont; think glyph of swiftness will work here unless you go E/A or A/E. But honestly, yuo don;t neeed glyph of swiftness as Deadly Paradox is all that is needed.

i have been playing around with a few other skills... with heros its a little different difficult, but you can try using Life Barrier and Life Bond for protection on a hero. Or try running this as a 600.

For damage, we are all going to have to think outside the square a little. I am sure that a good build might be;

Player: E/A 16 Earth, 12 Shadow. Geomancer Insigs. Sliver, Stone Striker. Stoneflesh is too susceptable to AI interrupts.
Hero: Bonds, Balthazars spirit, Mending, Retribution

Problems that will arise now will be interrupts will actually work on you. lol. and melee dmg will too.

It is going to take a little thinking outside the sqare, but perhaps 3 heros / players each with Protective Bond and Spirit of Essence being maintained on the one player to offset the energy loss (each lose and gain 1e per attack). Prot bond only limits dmg to 5% of health.

Anyway. i am just theory crafting here as i have only tried these things out in Isle of Namless with PVP characters & Heros. Need to set this up for heros in HM after work tonight.

upier · Mar 04, 2010, 02:55 PM // 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuuda

Why? Most players don't have a clue on how to run, develop or improve a game. Most are also self-serving, in that they'll only make suggestions for purely their benefit. I dread to think what this game would be like if people like you had their way.

What I was arguing here was that anything a player wants to see in the game can only be added into the game if A.Net approves of it. I did not argue that anything players suggest is something that A.Net needs to consider or needs to incorporate into the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuuda

My goodness, is your vision so black and white? I'll repeat, shall I?

If you take advantage of something that was never meant to be, a backlash is inevitable.

Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you here?

I am not taking away A.Net's right to do anything they want (or as you put it, the "backlash").
Actually it's because of that right, that I am arguing that the crap that happens in this game is also their fault.

If players are to blame in such situations, then a second example of this would be how PvP players destroyed PvP because they chose to run overpowered skills. And that would mean that A.Net doesn't need to balance skills because the players themselves need to not choose overpowered skills.

Shuuda · Mar 04, 2010, 02:59 PM // 14:59

You know, Upier, blame rarely falls on a single person or group. Is it hard to envision the idea that's it's both Anet's and the player's fault?

Gill Halendt · Mar 04, 2010, 03:12 PM // 15:12

So upier, if a murderer shoots at someone with a gun and kill him... It's Pietro Beretta's fault?

Shasgaliel · Mar 04, 2010, 03:25 PM // 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

I am not taking away A.Net's right to do anything they want (or as you put it, the "backlash").
Actually it's because of that right, that I am arguing that the crap that happens in this game is also their fault.

If players are to blame in such situations, then a second example of this would be how PvP players destroyed PvP because they chose to run overpowered skills. And that would mean that A.Net doesn't need to balance skills because the players themselves need to not choose overpowered skills.

Ok so if buy a baseball bat and use it solely in street fights where people get badly beaten is it the fault of baseball bat producer or mine?

The way we use the product does matter. We use a common good and if we use it ignoring the effect it may have on other users then we get what we have now in GW. I would blame community as well as Anet. All this mentality "I do as I please and it is not your business" is at fault here. Sure people often do not care but some do. People fail to see that in the shared environment their actions do influence others and those others may not like it.

upier · Mar 04, 2010, 04:00 PM // 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuuda

You know, Upier, blame rarely falls on a single person or group. Is it hard to envision the idea that's it's both Anet's and the player's fault?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

Ok so if buy a baseball bat and use it solely in street fights where people get badly beaten is it the fault of baseball bat producer or mine?

The way we use the product does matter. We use a common good and if we use it ignoring the effect it may have on other users then we get what we have now in GW. I would blame community as well as Anet. All this mentality "I do as I please and it is not your business" is at fault here. Sure people often do not care but some do. People fail to see that in the shared environment their actions do influence others and those others may not like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

So upier, if a murderer shoots at someone with a gun and kill him... It's Pietro Beretta's fault?

You use a gun or a baseball bat to kill/hurt someone, you violate the law. You did something that isn't allowed.
Just by using (something like) SF, people did not violate a single rule. The rules in this game come from one source only - A.Net. The players do not get to decide the rules. So if you feel that the effect of using SF is something that shouldn't be allowed, that means that the individual creating the rules is to blame here for not creating a rule that would say that this effect isn't allowed.

So, on what grounds would this be the player's fault?
Blaming players in this case equals blaming Toyota-buyers for the recall.

Bryant Again · Mar 04, 2010, 04:19 PM // 16:19

It's a developers job to drive the game, it's the player's job to steer it.

In regards to who I'd put to blame for the state of the game? Depends on who I'm talking to.

Shasgaliel · Mar 04, 2010, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

You use a gun or a baseball bat to kill/hurt someone, you violate the law. You did something that isn't allowed.

If I used it in self defence..... Perfectly allowed.

If something is allowed by law it does not mean it is good or ethical. If I feel I am being affected in a negative way by someone else behaviour I will react. If the only reason why someone does is "because he likes it and it is allowed and does not care what others think" I would react even stronger. Drawing on a mini map is allowed but I cant stand people drawing crap there while we are in a mission and I am trying to draw a correct way. But hey it is Anets fault since they allow players to draw there... and not the kid who had fun by annoying others. Or those yeti sounds..... They were harmless and even fun until a band of xxxxxx decided it is fun to annoy the rest of the population by constantly spamming them in outposts. A lot of nerfs and changes would have been avoided if people were not so keen of abusing them or using them against the others. A lot of stuff is for people but when it is abused then there is the time to say stop.

upier · Mar 04, 2010, 05:03 PM // 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

If I used it in self defence..... Perfectly allowed.

Don't go there.
Let me just tell you that this isn't a valid counter argument and we should instead focus on the GW problem. It's going to be much easier than dragging this off-topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

If something is allowed by law it does not mean it is good or ethical. If I feel I am being affected in a negative way by someone else behaviour I will react. If the only reason why someone does is "because he likes it and it is allowed and does not care what others think" I would react even stronger. Drawing on a mini map is allowed but I cant stand people drawing crap there while we are in a mission and I am trying to draw a correct way. But hey it is Anets fault since they allow players to draw there... and not the kid who had fun by annoying others. Or those yeti sounds..... They were harmless and even fun until a band of xxxxxx decided it is fun to annoy the rest of the population by constantly spamming them in outposts. A lot of nerfs and changes would have been avoided if people were not so keen of abusing them or using them against the others. A lot of stuff is for people but when it is abused then there is the time to say stop.

Bolded the important part.

Gill Halendt · Mar 04, 2010, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Just by using (something like) SF, people did not violate a single rule.

Some rules are not written. Those are collectively known as "common sense", something the immature GW playerbase must be obviously lacking.

Stuff like permanent immunity doesn't exist in any other online game (not counting hacks, that is...). How couldn't people discern?

ANet's biggest mistake has been treating their playerbase as adults, when they clearly didn't deserve it. Now it's time for some intervention, since players can't help themselves.

EDIT - SF itself is allowed. 600/Smite is allowed. Abuses are deprecated. So ANet is toning down (not even taking away) something that it IS allowed but abusable. If they do, this probably means abuses are not tolerated by who's making the rules. There you go.

upier · Mar 04, 2010, 06:20 PM // 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Some rules are not written. Those are collectively known as "common sense", something the immature GW playerbase must be obviously lacking.

Stuff like permanent immunity doesn't exist in any other online game (not counting hacks, that is...). How couldn't people discern?

ANet's biggest mistake has been treating their playerbase as adults, when they clearly didn't deserve it. Now it's time for some intervention, since players can't help themselves.

So ... A.Net is aware that permanent immunity does not exist in other online games. And yet, they left it in this game for almost 2 years.
And that's the players' fault ... how exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

EDIT - SF itself is allowed. 600/Smite is allowed. Abuses are deprecated. So ANet is toning down (not even taking away) something that it IS allowed but abusable. If they do, this probably means abuses are not tolerated by who's making the rules. There you go.

Given how the GW update system works, the update removes the effects that they do not think are allowed. Which means that the players can only achieve effects that A.Net feels are allowed. Which can not be defined as abuse. It's use.

It's not my fault that they do not know what they are doing.

Gill Halendt · Mar 04, 2010, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

So ... A.Net is aware that permanent immunity does not exist in other online games. And yet, they left it in this game for almost 2 years.
And that's the players' fault ... how exactly?

That's solely ANet's fault. Not only they left such a thing in the game. They've done it on purpose not to upset abusers... untill the abuses became unbearable. Then came the reaction.

The players' fault was taking advantage of their slow reactions and tolerance about this issue for 2 years, to the point abusive gameplay is now considered normal. There were precedents, there were previews and announcement. Now people complain as this all was unexpected and unjust...

I agree it's mostly ANet to blame, but players always had the faculty to choose wheter being accomplices of ANet's mistakes or refraining from abuses.

upier · Mar 04, 2010, 06:54 PM // 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

That's solely ANet's fault. Not only they left such a thing in the game. They've done it on purpose not to upset abusers... until the abuses became unbearable. Then came the reaction.

The players' fault was taking advantage of their slow reactions and tolerance about this issue for 2 years, to the point abusive gameplay is now considered normal. There were precedents, there were previews and announcement. Now people complain as this all was unexpected and unjust...

I agree it's mostly ANet to blame, but players always had the faculty to choose whether being accomplices of ANet's mistakes or refraining from abuses.

It's not abuse.
It's use.

You can't blame the players for playing the game in a way that A.Net didn't find problematic enough to change. A.Net had the sole power to change this at ANY given moment.
And they chose not to.

Gill Halendt · Mar 04, 2010, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

It's not abuse.
It's use.

You can't blame the players for playing the game in a way that A.Net didn't find problematic enough to change. A.Net had the sole power to change this at ANY given moment.
And they chose not to.

You'd make a great lawyer. You have an astounding ability to play with words. So, ok, it was no abuse if you stick to sterile principles.

ANet tried to change this. They changed SF twice, then they tried the idiotic solutions suggested by players, such as altering areas to make invincibility builds more problematic to use. Then implemented those changes in the UW. Last resort was to take the toy away.

Well, ANet had the power to do it and did it. If you didn't get the message, there you have it, a nerf, the harsh and most superficial solution, because that's what the community deserved. You act like a lemming? You have no common sense? You don't know when to quit? Sorry, I'll take your toy away then...

Skyy High · Mar 04, 2010, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

So ... A.Net is aware that permanent immunity does not exist in other online games. And yet, they left it in this game for almost 2 years.
And that's the players' fault ... how exactly?

Well, to start with, they were probably a bit afraid of royally pissing off a large portion of the community, and so we got many small updates that tried to tone it down over the years (increased energy cost over time to maintain it, decreased damage you could do while under its effects, put some mobs in with skills specifically to get through it, etc). It took them 2 years to throw in the towel and get on with actually killing the invincibility button, but you can't have it both ways; you can't simultaneously complain that they took SF away, AND that they took too long to do it, because they took so long to do it because they knew people would complain this hard about it.

The thing you can't argue with is that it was abuse, because ANet tried to change it, many times, while still letting people be invincible, because they probably hoped that people would stop using it for solo-farms and SCs if it became costly enough and limited your damage enough, and would only use it to tank in team builds. That didn't work, so here we are. Just because it's been a problem skill for 2 years doesn't mean they haven't been trying to fix it...they just weren't doing it correctly.

UnChosen · Mar 04, 2010, 08:18 PM // 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

So ... A.Net is aware that permanent immunity does not exist in other online games. And yet, they left it in this game for almost 2 years.
And that's the players' fault ... how exactly?

Other games have "getting hit for 1 damage while having 100000 Hp" instead. If those people want to compare it like that then fine, I'll take the super armor and HP instead of Shadow Form.

Sjeng · Mar 05, 2010, 07:10 AM // 07:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Just by using (something like) SF, people did not violate a single rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Some rules are not written. Those are collectively known as "common sense", something the immature GW playerbase must be obviously lacking.

Oh, come on Gill, it's a friggin GAME! There are NO RULES BESIDES THOSE ANET MADE! There certainly are no "unwritten rules" about how people should or should not use skills. What a load of cr...
And if that makes me immature in your eyes, well so be it. I find it in no way immature to play a game in any way allowed by the creator. Immature is verbally abusing people, ragequitting, whining, flaming etc. Not using permasin builds. That's just clever.
I'm not saying I am for SC's or running people through the game. I agree that that's probably not the way Anet meant the game to be played. But it's THEIR gamedesign that made it possible, so people are obviously going to use that possibility. Millions of people playing the same game = big chance of discovering gimmicky builds. And now Anet did something about it, as they always do. That's all there is to it.
"unwritten laws" hahahahaha. really man. It's a game.

Gill Halendt · Mar 05, 2010, 08:45 AM // 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sjeng

Millions of people playing the same game = big chance of discovering gimmicky builds. And now Anet did something about it, as they always do. That's all there is to it.
"unwritten laws" hahahahaha. really man. It's a game.

Indeed, that's about it. But don't get me wrong.

First, some "unwritten rules" are there whatever you do, wherever you go: ethics, respect, freedom of tought and speech, those principles of civilized coexistence. Even if it's "just a game" those principles are still valid. Then, if you're adult enough, you should have grown some personal faculty of discerning between "acceptable" and "not acceptable". It's hopefully part of our culture, and that's even before the written rules in the EULA are taken into account.

Then... Why do you think we had 2+ years of debates about this? Why do you think ANet did something about it in the end, if there was no "written rule" to make it void? Because they though some gimmicks were used in a way they couldn't accept anymore. There's no "written rule" in the EULA that says "It's not allowed to play invincible builds". Yet their common sense kicked in: they run a game and thought invincible builds were gimmicky and not acceptable - even if nothing in the EULA says the contrary - and interveined.

tl;dr: All I wanted to say is that the mere fact something isn't expressely forbidden, doesn't automatically make it allowed or even approvable and "good". It just means that solo farming isn't a bannable offense.

*sigh* That's what you get when you try to discuss with upier, you end up dragging syllogisms and cathegorical propositions into a forum thread about a frigging game...

Shasgaliel · Mar 05, 2010, 09:45 AM // 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Indeed, that's about it. But don't get me wrong.

First, some "unwritten rules" are there whatever you do, wherever you go: ethics, respect, freedom of tought and speech, those principles of civilized coexistence. Even if it's "just a game" those principles are still valid. Then, if you're adult enough, you should have grown some personal faculty of discerning between "acceptable" and "not acceptable". It's hopefully part of our culture, and that's even before the written rules in the EULA are taken into account.

Then... Why do you think we had 2+ years of debates about this? Why do you think ANet did something about it in the end, if there was no "written rule" to make it void? Because they though some gimmicks were used in a way they couldn't accept anymore. There's no "written rule" in the EULA that says "It's not allowed to play invincible builds". Yet their common sense kicked in: they run a game and thought invincible builds were gimmicky and not acceptable - even if nothing in the EULA says the contrary - and interveined.

tl;dr: All I wanted to say is that the mere fact something isn't expressely forbidden, doesn't automatically make it allowed or even approvable and "good". It just means that solo farming isn't a bannable offense.

I agree with the post quoted. I would just add that EULA and its recent changes would not be necessary if people used common sense. We had so many threads about people being banned for names of their characters and parts of EULA were amended in the end.

enter_the_zone · Mar 05, 2010, 09:56 AM // 09:56

This isn't the real world. Applying real world arguments of conduct to a game is laughable.

The game belongs entirely to ArenaNet. They govern what is and isn't possible. Those are the rules. Ergo, if something is possible, it is defacto acceptable, or else why make it possible in the first place?