Curse

Morphy · Dec 08, 2010, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Nothing in PvE requires a player to be involved. Ironically, the most broken shit (speedclears and similar stuff) is usually the only thing that comes close to being slightly challenging. This whole thread is the pot calling the kettle black. Also, your analogy is flawed. MM builds aren't the only Necromancer builds that see use because those other builds are much stronger in a balanced setup. Nerfs to spirit spam builds wouldn't make other Ritualist builds (with the exception of channeling rits that already are played) see use because these builds outright suck.

Master Fuhon · Dec 08, 2010, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by drkn

Completely missed reference.

Not really.

Arguments are like advanced math problems, if you don't show your work, you obviously didn't do any and you just cited a memorized answer. What is the response to something with no reasoning, no inclusion of context, and more importantly, no counter definitions? If none of those things are included in an argument, a person really only said some form of: Wrong, NO U, or O RLY. Your first sentence says Wrong; the second sentence says O RLY. This is a now a form of NO U.

You complain about a reference, that's based around a definition of active; in context, the word active was starting to pop up like it's a synonym for involved. To some people, involvement is only physical. To other people, involvement is only emotional and mental. In the real world, involvement is all 3. I never said involvement is *only* mental and emotional. If I knew I was going to be quoted out of context, I would have said involvement is *also* mental and emotional. 'Involved' can also mean 'needlessly complicated', but that's a stupid definition, because if I wanted to say needlessly complicated I would say that. I wouldn't refer to involved, which most typically refers to human relationships, as being something people want to get into because they are needlessly complicated. Marty was the first to say that he was making things the wrong definition of involved.

You can be more active in a spirit spam build by wanding. You can wand when you run out of energy. You can wand when it isn't necessary to heal. The original problem is not solved by telling the guy to wand instead of standing around. Retargetting things, like the suggestions in the first post, are involvement and not plain activity. You're thinking about what DPS or skills they do. You're thinking about their positioning and likelihood of being killed/crowd controlled. Skills that you have to think about using on a particular summoned minion/spirit are more involved than a skill that you always use on the same physical on recharge.

On what Morphy is saying, the most complicated things left in the game are the tactics designed to speed clear something (pulling/tanking role), and having to give success to a bunch of newbs/noobs who don't listen. DPS is less involved the more organized the group is, and healing is less involved when you have more defense than you need. I wouldn't go as far as to say nothing is involving, because all things are certain degrees of involving.

Essence Snow · Dec 08, 2010, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

snip

No offense, but your posts are starting to look like the small print on contracts......no one will read b/c it's making things entirely too complicated.

The whole thing can be condensed into strategy>implementation=active?

I've debated w/ Lanier in the 6 other threads about Rits....no point in creating same arguements repeatedly in new/dif threads.

Lanier · Dec 08, 2010, 07:16 PM // 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

I've debated w/ Lanier in the 6 other threads about Rits....no point in creating same arguements repeatedly in new/dif threads.

You have?

I rarely discuss rits nowadays (mainly because im playing my paragon more and more and my rit less and less) but if i makes you feel better, I do agree that splinter + a-rage on a SoS rit is better than a pure channeling + communing spirit spam.

Master Fuhon · Dec 08, 2010, 08:27 PM // 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

I've debated w/ Lanier in the 6 other threads about Rits....no point in creating same arguements repeatedly in new/dif threads.

I'm really not concerned about a newly minted rank 3 Lanier slaying title (1 win=rank 1, 3 win=rank 2, 6 win=rank 3, 10 win=rank 4...), especially not when the join date says November 2009 under their name, which is after the patch that made forum arguing titles easier to farm. In order to command surrender from people, you still need Ensign Walking Amongst Mere Gurus. If you don't know what that means, it means honesty, quality arguing experience, and a put up or shut up attitude of demonstration with mathematical and in game evidence (no offense to the good posters I left out for not remembering names).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

The whole thing can be condensed into strategy>implementation=active?

That's not a good equation you have there. Using mathematical symbols to make your point even less clear is not logical. Vague terms are meaningless in an equation. I write alot sometimes, it makes dumb people leave the room and it makes their heads hurt, but it's better than repeatedly saying nothing across hundreds of forum posts, and having the same arguments again and again.

But regardless of that, it's clear your intent is to truncate instead of estimate, eliminate a point of view instead of combining it, and overide instead of convince. Apparently you don't like 'involvement', which now we have an 'involved' argument. Trust me when I say I don't mind involved arguments, perhaps just as much as I don't mind an involving build in an involving game (Blind/snare ele with spike assist and party heal). You'll find that argument activity isn't the same as argument involvement if you know what I mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

No offense, but your posts are starting to look like the small print on contracts......no one will read b/c it's making things entirely too complicated.

You're posts are staring to look like the guy who invented hiding the important stuff in the fine print while keeping the contract terminology as misleading as possible. Maybe what you should have said is this: "Lanier, I don't like your idea, because I don't want to be involved with this game. I just want my 50/50 HoM, and things to make my character look accomplished. And I don't want to think about playing the game when I put it down, and I don't want to have to think about playing the game too much when I pick it up. I don't want my runs to take near an hour either, and I don't want to train people to have to run every build in the game". That would be a complete winning argument that no one could debate the principles of. It's not beating around the bush and pretending to be logical to win. It's not picking a fight you aren't ready for. It's just simple honesty and clarity, and being like that typically results in better usage of time for everyone.

But if you are still too confused and want it simplified, I agree with the proposed concept request, but not the exact suggestions. An argument would speak for itself based on whoever played the Ritualist prior to it being overpowered, and whatever they played. Let's face it, designers can make many different concepts into the new overpowered meta if they weaken some of the current ones.

drkn · Dec 08, 2010, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Nothing in PvE requires a player to be involved. Ironically, the most broken shit (speedclears and similar stuff) is usually the only thing that comes close to being slightly challenging.

Come on, it takes more to land Panic and other mes hexes than spam spirits. It takes more to even be a fire ele than spam spirits. Nearly anything requires more attention and player input if it's viable. Spiritmancers are powerful.

Quote:

Arguments are like advanced math problems, if you don't show your work, you obviously didn't do any and you just cited a memorized answer. What is the response to something with no reasoning, no inclusion of context, and more importantly, no counter definitions? If none of those things are included in an argument, a person really only said some form of: Wrong, NO U, or O RLY. Your first sentence says Wrong; the second sentence says O RLY. This is a now a form of NO U.

Have you even tried to read the remaining part of my post or were there too many letters for you?

If you can't think yourself why the reference is missed, you probably never really played a spiritmancer without treating it like a serious shit. I vanquished most of the game with my girlfriend, me primairy mes or para, with her on a spiritmancer. She could just summon spirits and literally go afk for a while, before she needed to use Summon Spirits or set the new ones. She could do something in the meantime, being FULLY operational spiritmancer.
Prot monk has to, at least, pay attention to what's happening. His activity isn't based on mashing buttons, but awareness of the battlefield. What a spiritmancer has to do? Summon the spirits out of AoE and put the spirit up after it expires, period. This is where something's wrong.

Quote:

You can wand when you run out of energy.

A spiritmancer never runs out of energy.

Quote:

No offense, but your posts are starting to look like the small print on contracts......no one will read b/c it's making things entirely too complicated.

Not only complicated, but totally unnecessary and out of the game context; Fuhon's part about me complaining on the reference and how activity can be divided got too philosophical in the matter, lacking merithorical content in terms of GW.
Just to note, some Guru users might wish to improve their basics of English as their posts might be annoying to read, especially with long paragraphs.

Essence Snow · Dec 08, 2010, 09:13 PM // 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanier

You have?

My bad it was only in 3 threads...here,here, and here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

That's not a good equation you have there. Using mathematical symbols to make your point even less clear is not logical. Vague terms are meaningless in an equation. I write alot sometimes, it makes dumb people leave the room and it makes their heads hurt, but it's better than repeatedly saying nothing across hundreds of forum posts, and having the same arguments again and again.

It wasn't a mathematical equation, the ">" was suggesting "implementing said strategy" and the "= and the ?" were asking you a question. Basically I was asking what your definition meant....the short of the long if you will.

Quote:

You're posts are staring to look like the guy who invented hiding the important stuff in the fine print while keeping the contract terminology as misleading as possible. Maybe what you should have said is this: "Lanier, I don't like your idea, because I don't want to be involved with this game. I just want my 50/50 HoM, and things to make my character look accomplished. And I don't want to think about playing the game when I put it down, and I don't want to have to think about playing the game too much when I pick it up. I don't want my runs to take near an hour either, and I don't want to train people to have to run every build in the game". That would be a complete winning argument that no one could debate the principles of. It's not beating around the bush and pretending to be logical to win. It's not picking a fight you aren't ready for. It's just simple honesty and clarity, and being like that typically results in better usage of time for everyone.

But if you are still too confused and want it simplified, I agree with the proposed concept request, but not the exact suggestions. An argument would speak for itself based on whoever played the Ritualist prior to it being overpowered, and whatever they played. Let's face it, designers can make many different concepts into the new overpowered meta if they weaken some of the current ones.

Actually, I was confused (hence the ?)and simplifying it would be nice of ya. As long as its in a non-douche context ofc

Master Fuhon · Dec 09, 2010, 02:47 AM // 02:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by drkn

Have you even tried to read the remaining part of my post or were there too many letters for you?

I read the rest of what you wrote, you changed the subject in it, but now you're making up things to argue with. At least you elaborated this time. You've agreed with what I was saying on the Protection monk statement, despite still telling me my reference is wrong. It's not like I mind arguing with anyone who wants to attack people over the internet without comprehending what they write, but I would rather be discussing good ideas in my spare time. People who like to talk trash, I've given that a go too, but I rarely meet people good at it. Choosing to attack someone's intelligence and claim they have poor grasp of language makes for an interesting debate strategy, especially if you got the 'confidence' to think you pull off those things well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drkn

If you can't think yourself why the reference is missed, you probably never really played a spiritmancer without treating it like a serious....

Telling me I've never played spiritmancer casually is news to me, and saying that I'm also denying it's ease of effectiveness makes it clear I'm not the one having literacy difficulities. When I use it most, it's to farm Nicholas the Traveler, when I am watching TV, and under the blurry vision of Drunkard while on a Ranger (I don't uncheck effects). I've deleted my PvE Ritualist before recreating my current one.

Your girlfriend's playstyle, and even worse, is in pugs if you think I don't know how to 'screw it up right'. I've seen rushing ahead into patrols with spirit teleports have success. I've said I don't like the cast times being like that for any of the spirits, which encourages the horrid team playstyle (lack of overall concern for spirit resources). But there are actually people out there, most of them new players, who think this build is demanding and underpowered, because they are running face first into it's strongest counters (banishing strike, spiritual pain, aoe without teleports, not kiting as spirits die, etc).

Aside from that, a spiritmancer can place spirits distances apart based on the AoE radius he is facing, luring enemies first onto the more durable Vampirism/Bloodsong. When he keeps them in a heap though, for some reason single target mobs aren't intelligent enough to focus fire perfectly, and they spread damage that can be healed with Summon Spirits. Summon Spirits can be used to kite for survival, or retarget specific problem enemies after the teleport. You can also put spirits in body block patterns, and obstruct mobs that try to chase things. You recast Armor of Unfeeling to waste even more mob time while the spirits tank.

Those are some of the 'tactical' things that can be done with the build, but aren't always necessary in team play. The build is very preparation based, and so the combat gameplay is poorer. Putting up elementalist attunements on 45 second recharges isn't exciting, and they never 'fixed' that for being a boring/fragile preparation. But a better question would be, have the know-it-alls actually played a spirit build with longer cast times? Did they face a PvP meta based on an introduced Ritaulist class, while at the same time playing with PvE groups where players ran the Ritualist skills? Non-healing Ritualists were underplayed compared to the assassin, and it was because the Ritualist would have encroached on the niche that people select another damage dealer for (elementalist/necromancer are the most common caster archetypes). Rits could vengeful farm. But designers changed their minds about class overlap issues, as they did when they decided they wanted smite monk viability. It appears to be usage determined design among DPS classes. Elementalist/Necromancer are two DPS caster classes that people will probably play even if they were weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drkn

Just to note, some Guru users might wish to improve their basics of English as their posts might be annoying to read, especially with long paragraphs.

You pointed me to a your/you're page... and I get told I have a literacy problem because of impatient people who lack multiple reading and comprehension skills? There's supplemental material for those who have reading endurance problems, but I'd have to show it to your mother because it's too advanced. How about you have your parent sign your comments to confirm you read and understood the material you respond to. And don't argue with statements you agree with, because it makes it more obvious the difference between an attack (which lacks content) and proper criticism. I hope this was annoying enough for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

Actually, I was confused (hence the ?)and simplifying it would be nice of ya. As long as its in a non-douche context ofc.

Well, I waited to see if this was going to get deleted, but since it's appropriate to forum conversation, I'll bite.

You're promoting me to douche status? A douche, an unintelligent guy that gets discarded by a growing up (cleansing) process by people he knows, but remains overly concerned with upkeeping his status/appearance through it all, but who also annoys without malicious intent? Great! At least this means I'm no longer long-winded, I don't do things with calculated deviancy, and I have a status to worry about upkeeping. Well, I did start fist bumping before 2000, because we did sports and running makes your hands sweaty... but now I'm going to have to go all out by hitting the gym, getting a high maintenance haircut and tan, and start calling people something impersonal like bro/dude. Then I'll have to make my online profile a picture of myself blowing a kiss at a camera, with two girls on my arms, wearing a pink polo shirt with the collar popped, while standing around at a club where people should be dancing. But you know us douches, we can't be seen talking with stunted rejects who bring everyone down with their impaired mental faculties (paragraph reading is learned in a very early grade).

newbie_of_doom · Dec 09, 2010, 03:38 PM // 15:38

While I agree spirit spammers are OP and require zero effort, I fail understand how any of the suggested changes will change anything. That is, besides summon spirits, which probably deserves a nerf. Then again, so does SY and so on.

In my personal opinion, the concept of offensive spirits such as pain is simply retarded. It has proven incredibly hard to fix these professions (Ritualists, Assassins, Paragons and Dervishes) without making them inferior to core professions. This is why they aren't in GW2 and I'm happy about that.

I do not understand why they changed spirits to their incredibly short casting time for PvE and I would like to see it reverted. In PvE, I do not see a problem with regular Ritualist who heal or deal channeling damage, or even defense spirits. In PvP however, there is. This is because there is no way to counter (defensive) weapon spells.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morphy

Nothing in PvE requires a player to be involved. Ironically, the most broken shit (speedclears and similar stuff) is usually the only thing that comes close to being slightly challenging. This whole thread is the pot calling the kettle black.

QFT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morphy

Also, your analogy is flawed. MM builds aren't the only Necromancer builds that see use because those other builds are much stronger in a balanced setup.

Did you just say necromancers are balanced? Haha, you made a funny!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morphy

Nerfs to spirit spam builds wouldn't make other Ritualist builds (with the exception of channeling rits that already are played) see use because these builds outright suck.

It would, these builds (e.g. healers) are inferior to running the same build on a necro. It is a simple truth. And channeling Ritualist are terrible.

The Drunkard · Dec 09, 2010, 07:13 PM // 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbie_of_doom

Did you just say necromancers are balanced? Haha, you made a funny!

Balanced team setup= 1-3 frontliners, 3-5 casters/spikers, 2 monks

OT

The reason there are not a lot of MMs out there is because of death nova, and the asinine point+click mentality it promotes. Your suggestion only makes bad rit walls more tedious to maintain, while doing nothing to fix the inherent problem with spirits: there's no active synergy between a ritualist and their spirits that can be used with the powercreep today. Instead of spirits having a passive effect that promotes the rit to shit them out, spirits should have effects that add keep rits active. For example:

Rejuvination
: 10e 3/4s 60r
For 30-45 seconds non-spirit allies gain 1..5 health per second while not moving. Ritualist spells that target non-spirit allies heal for 15...25 health.

In this situation, there's a passive effect for the spirit existing and a secondary effect for the rit buffing/healing the rest of the team. Of course, spirit survivability would need to be reverted (which I doubt will ever happen) to keep things from being too broken.

/notsigned

Xiaquin · Dec 09, 2010, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanier

It just always seemed OP to me. However, today, in alliance chat, someone brought up a comparison of spirit spammers to minion masters, and Iv got to say... their comparison was pretty good. Both MM (minion masters) and SS (spirit spammers) can do a lot of armor ignoring damage. They both require no effort when it comes to energy management. They both create more bodies, which will make the monk's job so much easier. So why, in my mind, did I think that SS were so OP when I didnt think that about MM? I came to the conclusion that it was because ALMOST EVERY SINGLE RITUALIST AND THEIR BROTHER runs an offensive spirit spamming build, while this is not the case with necromancers. I always assumed that they were so common because SS were OP, but now, after this comparison has been made, I can see that the amount of effort and involvement may be the factor behind this.

I want to make some points that this alliance member of yours may have missed when comparing:

First, activation times for minions. You need to run a Bloodstained Insignia and even then it still takes time to animate one corpse. Spirit spamming is instant and unconditional.

Second, durability. AoU turns all spirits into tanks while minions are unprotected, suffer degen and get wiped by holy damage. In addition, rits don't sac health for summon spirits, while necros are punished for BotM and other useful skills.

Add to the above that unless you run fiends, minions have to melee, meaning it's slower and snaring wrecks them. Spirits can be moved around the battlefield and attack from very long distances.

I don't agree with your suggestions so much, but I would be happy to see longer activation times, health sac and higher costs/recharges in some areas.

Prince Rogrs Nelson · Dec 09, 2010, 08:58 PM // 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanier

This, I think, is the reason why you don't see nearly as many necros running minion masters as you see rits running spirit spammers.

Well, sure.

And then there's the fact that there are no PvE-only MM skills, whereas two of the central skills to most spirit spamming builds (vampirism and summon) are, in fact, PvE-only.

Hence there's no loss (and significant gain, from timing and targeting ability) to running a hero MM, but a fairly significant loss to running a hero spirit spammer, and a significant advantage to running that on your own bar.

Otherwise I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with your suggestions here, because I generally only use SS builds for solo farming, MQSC, and occasionally when requested (but I rarely pug with my rit). However, I think you should bear in mind that your changes will make spirit farming significantly less viable for /rits, and while many of you may LOVE if that were to happen, I think it would be a terrible move.

A11Eur0 · Dec 09, 2010, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackinthe

i agree with marty.
rits already have a single summon skill anyways.
and the reason people dont run mm on their necs is b/c a hero can minion bomb so much more effectively...while the player is free to run whatever build he/she finds most effective.

Fixed that for you. I don't run AP caller on any of my characters but I do prefer MM to be run by heroes.

Zawk Tirson · Dec 09, 2010, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Painful Bond would be a good change. But it would make them more powerful. Maybe just making them the old SoGM (where the spirit does more damage, but dies at the end).

Your Spirit Siphon is just annoyance for the purpose of annoyance. Having to select a spirit from a probably tightly clumped group is just artificial difficulty.

And Summon Spirits needs to summon them all. It allows groups to have a Rit and not be slowed down a lot.

edit: Now that I have more time to write more fully...

Your Painful Bond is a cool idea, but would end up making spirit spammers more powerful. Right now you can't always get all the extra damage from the spell. If you gave the +dmg to the spirits themselves, it'd be a lot more powerful.

The problem doesn't lie with Spirit Siphon, so I'd vote to keep that the same.

Your Summon Spirits completely kills the point of the spell. It's just Draw Spirit + a heal. As I mentioned above, it would greatlyslow down the party's movement through a zone. A MM's extra bodies follow him around, and the rit needs to take a spell to make that the case.

One thing that could be done is put a limit on the number of spirits you can have in play, similar to the Necro's limit of minions. The problem is how to implement this. The most obvious solution, tying it to Spawning Power, doesn't work out so well. Even if you allowed 1 spirit per 2 points of Spawning Power, a ritualist would need 6 points in it just to field Signet of Spirits.

newbie_of_doom · Dec 10, 2010, 01:21 PM // 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drunkard

Balanced team setup= 1-3 frontliners, 3-5 casters/spikers, 2 monks

I would disagree. In my opinion a balanced team set-up is a build with a balance in melee and caster damage with balanced offensive and defensive capabillities. Not what everyone thinks is most honorable.