Curse

Crom The Pale · Sep 14, 2008, 02:18 PM // 14:18

We all know there are 1000+ ways GW could be changed.

We all know some changes are for the best and others really suck, depending on your personal point of view.

Please give arguements for or against, not just /signed - /unsigned.

I'll start with 3 questions but would like others to add more as we go.

1) What if weapon requirements actually affected damage?
2) What if end game greens were limited to one per account rather than char?
3) What if the AoE area of some skills was scalled by its linked attribute?

Parson Brown · Sep 14, 2008, 02:28 PM // 14:28

1) Would make sense. Then all those q9s would be worthless and the pursuit of the godly q13 would begin!

2) Don't like this, the whole idea behind greens is to make easy access to cheap, max items.

3) Neat effect, but all it would do is keep people more tightly locked into a single profession. As it is, i might take a necro secondary with 4 points in curses for a 9-second [skill]enfeebling blood[/skill] but if it's only single target or adjacent in this scaling-AoE setup, I might not.

Konrow · Sep 14, 2008, 02:28 PM // 14:28

1) This would probably make pricing on weapons and the demand for certain reqs completely different. Then again, doesn't it already sort of affect dmg? Not sure exactly what you're imagining here.

2)Their price would be higher than it is now and they would be much more sought after. I don't like it though, because that would make some greens extremely rare and it isn't like many people would sell greens to others if they knew they wouldn't be able to get that green again. Pretty much would have to farm most of the greens you want, which most wouldn't do and then you'd have most of the greens completely unused.

3) I like this idea a lot. It would introduce some new ways to use AoE spells and new ways to avoid them. It would truly make AoE skills more dangerous instead of "oh little circle there, lets stand here instead."

Kerwyn Nasilan · Sep 14, 2008, 02:33 PM // 14:33

While it is easy to get a req 9 from collectors this really gos against what GW is all about. Plus it would give the few people with req 7 a real bonus, that your casual player WILL NEVER GET.

I really do not see what this would accomplish, If you are trying to up there prices of something, this would only hurt new players that havent done it on multible characters.

This is fairly reasonable actually, I would not mind it but I think unless it was very drastic size increase there would be little way to tell the difference and if they where increased in size it would be a little to much of a difference from 0 to 16 maybe if they then had a smaller higher damage margin.

Parson Brown · Sep 14, 2008, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerwyn Nasilan

While it is easy to get a req 9 from collectors this really gos against what GW is all about. Plus it would give the few people with req 7 a real bonus, that your casual player WILL NEVER GET.

Actually, it would do the opposite. Q13 weapons would be stronger that q12, which is stronger than q 11 and so on, so a q7 would be trash

I Is Special · Sep 14, 2008, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parson Brown

Actually, it would do the opposite. Q13 weapons would be stronger that q12, which is stronger than q 11 and so on, so a q7 would be trash

Unless it depends on how high above the requirement your stats are.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Sep 14, 2008, 04:11 PM // 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parson Brown

Actually, it would do the opposite. Q13 weapons would be stronger that q12, which is stronger than q 11 and so on, so a q7 would be trash

Acually he just said what if req affected damage, never said if lower or higher was better. Depends how you look at it.

Crom The Pale · Sep 14, 2008, 05:31 PM // 17:31

Time for me to expand my questions a bit...

1) I think it makes more sense to have the higher requirement weapons deal more damage, but what would the ratio be?

Assuming your attribute for the weapon is set at 14, then R9 weapon would do base damage, R10 would do +1, R11 +2, R12 +3 and R13 +4.
Then we would have to look at lower requirement weapon. R8 -1, R7 -2.
Anything below R7 or non max weapons would be excluded.

2) The idea behind this was to create a fixed number of items in the game. Since everyone that played would have access to 1 per campain they would have to choose weather or not to keep or sell.
These items could even be granted a new colour to distinguish them from standared boss dropped greens. Red?
Since these would be of high value players could choose to sell and invest in a gold item with a skin they prefer, or keep.

3) The scalling of AoE spells would deffinately benifit primary users far more than it would secondary. However the scale should be defined in such a was as to not eliminate the use of AoE skills for secondary professions.

New question.

4) What if the maximum range of AoE spells was increased to equal the max range of shouts? Would this tie into Q3-scaling better? Would durations of spells need to be drastically adjusted/recharge times?

Tyla · Sep 14, 2008, 05:39 PM // 17:39

1) /Notsigned. This will make gearing up your character completely money based, even more than usual.

2) /Care. It's free money to me, and I don't necesarily use my money at all.

3) Two words. Heroes' Ascent. Not to mention some AoE skills are already strong, for instance, Rodgorts' Invocation. Even AoE dots here.

4) Same as 3.

+ You can't have multiple ideas in a thread. Just throwing that out there.

zelgadissan · Sep 14, 2008, 08:07 PM // 20:07

If I answered the questions I'd be repeating basically word for word what Tyla just said, so let me give my two cents:

I would think that a lower weapon requirement would mean extra damage. I would assume that a low requirement = a weapon is made so well that someone with not as much experience with it (aka lower spec) would be able to get full effect. I would think that a req 8 max weapon should be much, much stronger than a req 13 weapon. Then I'd work with something like the suggested ratios once you're past the requisite of the weapon, aka speccing to 14 would be ~+5 damage on a req 9 weapon.

Edit: upon reading your next post I understand where you're coming from - I still think I prefer my idea

but I wouldn't complain about yours either.

placebo overdose · Sep 14, 2008, 08:41 PM // 20:41

1) no because it is fine now and it would take reworking to make pvp weps balanced
2) i dont mind much might hurt casual players
3) i always wanted everything to scale with attribute, recharge, cast, and the whole shabam, i say too much work now but maybe for GW2

Crom The Pale · Sep 14, 2008, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by zelgadissan

If I answered the questions I'd be repeating basically word for word what Tyla just said, so let me give my two cents:

I would think that a lower weapon requirement would mean extra damage. I would assume that a low requirement = a weapon is made so well that someone with not as much experience with it (aka lower spec) would be able to get full effect. I would think that a req 8 max weapon should be much, much stronger than a req 13 weapon. Then I'd work with something like the suggested ratios once you're past the requisite of the weapon, aka speccing to 14 would be ~+5 damage on a req 9 weapon.

The idea I had was that a weapon was crafted by a master requiring a master to use it. A novice with a murmasa Katana is still a novice, but in the hands of a master samurai it is a very deadly weapon.

This was meant as a Riverside thread, an open discution on any and all changes that could be made or might be implimented in GW2. A mod moved it here for no reason I can think of as this isn't a suggestion thread but a discussion thread.

As for the AoE scalling/increased range, this could be for PvE only or the skills would be altered to make them balanced in PvP.

Rhamia Darigaz · Sep 14, 2008, 08:58 PM // 20:58

having 13 weapon mastery already does more dmg than having 9 weapon mastery. no need to waste time redoing the dmg calculation system to achieve the same effect.

MithranArkanere · Sep 14, 2008, 09:54 PM // 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

1) What if weapon requirements actually affected damage?
2) What if end game greens were limited to one per account rather than char?
3) What if the AoE area of some skills was scalled by its linked attribute?

1) They do. With limited ranges, not in the way you may want, but they do.
2) Senseless. A player may want to make two elementalists with one energy storage Forgotten staves each. They have the right to them them without trading.
3) Can't be done a GW is right now. It seems that ranges are quite fixed. They can be changed, but not scaled.

Crom The Pale · Sep 14, 2008, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

1) They do. With limited ranges, not in the way you may want, but they do.
2) Senseless. A player may want to make two elementalists with one energy storage Forgotten staves each. They have the right to them them without trading.
3) Can't be done a GW is right now. It seems that ranges are quite fixed. They can be changed, but not scaled.

1) I know how it currently works, tell my you would not like it to change?
2) So they need to farm a green from a boss or sell the one to buy 2 golds.
3) Didn't ask if it could be done. This could be something for GW2, not limited to just modifying GW.

Trylo · Sep 14, 2008, 10:19 PM // 22:19

1) the weapon mastery attribute does this. you dont need 2 ways to change damage. it would however make requirements mean something, which would be a bad thing making it harder for pve chars to pvp. unless you want that distinction (but i dont).

2) could care less.

3) it would be interesting, but most of the times the AoE is already in a specced attribute, such as searing heat. making it scale at 4, 9, 13 would be interesting though, creating a necessity for being primary. i dont think this would really be a good idea though, less diversity (which i guess could be argued as good or bad).

4) lol no. nature and binding rituals are (were) already OP. nature's renewal, tranq, tox, EoE, shelter, union... most have had their share of competitive play and following nerf.

shoyon456 · Sep 14, 2008, 11:20 PM // 23:20

1) ooooh, good idea, I mean for req13 weps anyways... Yay my crap is now worth something

2)Even more pointless to bring more than one char through a storyline w/ this idea. /notsigned

3)Very good. Uber fire magic= Huge MS area
High scythe mastery= Extreme multiple enemy hit
Curses that hit "in the area" would become bombs across the landscape

on that note... leave that for PvE only.

tyrant rex · Sep 14, 2008, 11:24 PM // 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

1) I know how it currently works, tell my you would not like it to change?

because guild wars isnt supposed to be an item based game , your suggestion would turn it into one therefore it is stupid and you should really think before you post

Crom The Pale · Sep 14, 2008, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrant rex

because guild wars isnt supposed to be an item based game , your suggestion would turn it into one therefore it is stupid and you should really think before you post

Read a bit before you post.

I asked a question, and wanted a complete answer not just /signed or no this is stupid.

I should have known better than to expect more than this from people.

Arlan · Sep 15, 2008, 12:25 AM // 00:25

1) I like the fact that max damage is the same on req 9 or above.
To change this would mean that it would not tie in with the whole GW ethos of the upper limit of damage/armour/xp level is fixed and so promote skill play over which weapon you have.

It would also mean secondary skills lose out as everyone would hit 16/17 on their main profession - and secondaries would suffer.
Losing the variables you can load onto a char is bad.

3) Agree. AOE damage increases with increased att. points. Why not increase the area as well - not by much but maybe 12 points as it is now - 15 gives another 20%. Just makes sense.

2) I definately agree that end game 'greens' should be far better than they are now. Better stats and better skins.
One per account - not so sure.