Curse

valence · Apr 04, 2008, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Primaries giving straight energy returns have been bad for the game.

That said, only 2 attributes fall under this: leadership and soul reaping. Both have been bad for the game. In lesser extend crit hits from the assassin and dervish mysticism.

Energy is a balancing source of skills. Effects being to strong can for example be balanced by paying more energy for it. However other primaries have effects notable on energy as well. Take for example monks, divine favor lessens the need for healing and saves you energy over time. While an assassin trying to heal, might need to cast 2 skills for the same healing amount where as the monk casts 1 (with divine favor, healing near the same). The difference between good e-management through primaries is that the good variants can only be used on the primary line skills. For example the divine favor, which only works on monk skills.

Primaries are suppose to give reason to the prof you take. Expertise is good designed except for 1 part. It affects secondaries. Reducing the cost of the ranger skills isn't that bad on it's own. You basically reduce the cost of skills that a ranger is suppose to use, and the ranger will therefor be able to use it more often. Other professions can still use it, but not that often due the energy limit.

When a ranger can use secondary stuff with an huge expertise benefit, they can suddenly spam attack skills they aren't suppose to spam. Take for example the current R/D build where the ranger can spam infinite attack skills without problems. A ranger isn't suppose to do better what a dervish can do.

Most people against a change on expertise give the argument that it would remove the second profession from the ranger. 'we are suppose to use secondaries'. While you are free to use any skill from a secondary, this doesn't mean your build should be created from solely secondaries (see the problem with necros?). Better yet, if you use mainly secondaries skills you should ask yourself if you got the right primary. Sadly enough, the current scythe wielding R/D build only works with a R primary.

Your secondary is suppose to make your primary stronger, for example with utility skills. Your secondary is however not your primary job, leave that to the people who choose your secondary, as their primary.

In other words, don't be a whammo.

Skyy High · Apr 04, 2008, 06:48 PM // 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyla salanari

Skyy, please quit the game. Read Pyro Maniac's post where he described Warriors as a multi-dimensional powerhouse of damage.

And tell me how Thumpers require skill. Hit RaO on recharge and smash Hammer Bash -> Crushing Blow -> Mauling Strike or whatever the pet skill is, and there you go. For target switching? Micro your pet to go on aggressive on your next target. Simple.

Hey look, I can do that too:
"And tell me how warriors require skill. Hit frenzy when it goes down, and smash your adrenaline skills when they're filled up, and there you go. For stance canceling? Keep your mouse over rush and click if you see lotsa red numbers. Simple."

ANY melee class can be played, semi-effectively, by a button mashing monkey, simply because melee does great dps just by autoattacking. You literally just click someone, press your IAS of choice when necessary, and you're contributing by putting pressure on the team. Any depth of strategy that you can attribute to a standard warrior can also be attributed to a thumper; any simplicity that you attribute to a thumper can also be attributed to a warrior. There is nothing inherent about a thumper that makes it so much less skillful than a warrior, the build is simply is not capable of being as good as a warrior when both are used by good players, hence thumpers not being used in GvG.

Quote:

And pay attention to that thing I said earlier...EC -> SD spike would have probably been nerfed regardless of balance because Mesmers aren't supposed to be played like that.

Pretty sure that combo would have been nerfed had any class been able to do it. 150 or so armor-ignoring damage in a spike from one class is OP-ed, no matter how you slice it. And I'm not sure how this ties in at all to the topic; mesmers aren't pure damage classes, and their high-damage, armor-ignoring skills have been historically nerfed...but rangers' ability to go r/x and use secondary skills hasn't just been ignored, it's been supported. Clearly, they are supposed to be played like that. Just not in high-level GvG, because a standard cripshot or magebane ranger is more effective in that environment, and a warrior is better than a thumper.

Quote:

Oh yeah, if the majority of builds are mindless, I want to see you in high level GvG, kthx.

The majority of builds aren't used in GvG either. I suppose MMs should be killed off completely; who cares about them, they suck in GvGs, and the only times they have shown up there have been in annoying gimmick builds. Let's just nerf fire to hell, because eles are supposed to be blind-bots, runners, snarers, hp-spammers, and warders...according to GvG.

Quote:

Plus you're not paying attention to what I'm saying on anything. Coming up with the same "Even though ANet has specifically stated that rangers should be allowed to use secondary attack skills under expertise, I don't think they should, because it's 'degenerate'...so says I." crap. You've seen some of the retarded stuff that's been created. When Turret Rangers spawned they were nerfed because they were overpowered and degenerate.

They were nerfed because it was a build that could spike hard, and switch targets to evade prot incredibly quickly. Nothing to do with rangers not being "meant" to deal damage or spike. Builds should be judged on an individual basis, and balanced as such, not, "OMG HE'S USING SKILLS DIFFERENTLY THAN INTENDED, NERF NERF NERF," or "ZOMG HE'S USING SECONDARY SKILLS WITH A DIFFERENT PRIMARY ATTRIBUTE, HAX!" I think, at this point, it's abundantly clear that this is an intended result of the primary/secondary system, whether or not you personally think rangers (or any other class) "should" be played that way.

Quote:

Stop failing yourself, and stop posting because the whole "Warriors take no skill" thing is extremely stupid, likewise, your arguments.

Did I ever say that warriors take no skill? No. I just said that any attempt to simplify a thumper's playstyle can equally be applied to a warrior's; comparing a skilled warrior to an unskilled thumper is an invalid comparison.

Moloch Vein · Apr 04, 2008, 07:17 PM // 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by shru

If you can show me a strong necro primary toucher build, I'll consider that opinion actualy partaining to this thread, if not, why are you comparing something the ranger does as better than necro primaries if it is completely different?

That's my point. There is no strong necro primary toucher build, mainly because necromancers have no armor and no defense, but also because the cost of the vampiric touch skills is unrealistic. However, a ranger can use them just fine with high Expertise, something a necromancer can not do... period. This is a clear cut case of a secondary outperforming a primary with the primary's own skills. It's a disease symptom.

AshenX · Apr 04, 2008, 07:19 PM // 19:19

Tyla,

I have looked through the developer credits for GW and was wondering which was you. You have made it very clear that you know exactly what a ranger's role in the game was meant to be. This is only possible if you were in charge of creating that profession in the first place.

My next question is, If you were in charge of creating the ranger profession during initial development, if you never meant for a ranger to be able to run his secondary as a half-way primary why did you create the game to allow it ?

I am sorry for the sarcasm but you kep stating as fact what the specific cookie cutter role for ranger (and other professions) was meant to be. I have no problem with someone having an opinion. But opinions stated as facts don't help an argument when they are unsupported or unsupportable. If you can prvide me with any documentation from the design team, particularly those members tasked with creating the ranger profession, that they never intended the ranger to be able to run its secondary as if it were a primary then I will obviously have to reconsider my position.

Thank you.

Skyy High · Apr 04, 2008, 08:06 PM // 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moloch Vein

That's my point. There is no strong necro primary toucher build, mainly because necromancers have no armor and no defense, but also because the cost of the vampiric touch skills is unrealistic. However, a ranger can use them just fine with high Expertise, something a necromancer can not do... period. This is a clear cut case of a secondary outperforming a primary with the primary's own skills. It's a disease symptom.

And for a long time, eles used HP better than monks, and were integral to party support because of it. Paragons use warrior shouts better than warriors. Warriors use Shock better than an ele. Mesmers use Gale better than an ele. All casters use GoLE better than an ele, and that's a primary skill.

So...what's the problem here? Some classes can use secondary skills better than their secondary, this isn't exactly news. A toucher is a blood necro done ranger-style, or a ranger vampire, whichever way you want to look at it. Regardless, it's clearly how they are "supposed" to be used, as ANet specifically looked at the build and gave it the green light. What's so different between easy-to-use builds that rely on interactions between a primary attribute and secondary skills, and the tons of easy-to-use builds that rely on simply primary attribute skills. There are going to be simple builds in the game, it's as simple as that; removing touchers and thumpers isn't going to magically make everyone suddenly better players who run good builds by your standards. So, what's the difference? It only removes a little creativity and versatility in the classes, without actually solving any of the problems it's supposed to.

Randvek · Apr 04, 2008, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by valence

Primaries giving straight energy returns have been bad for the game.

QFT. If we went back and counted up how many nerfs have happened because of Expertise, Soul Reaping, and Leadership abuse, I think all you people trying to make a claim that Expertise isn't broken would finally come to your senses.

Nerfing Expertise is probably the easiest option, but honestly, I think buffing other primary attributes up to its level is a better one.

Dr Strangelove · Apr 04, 2008, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Epic thread. The only thing that needs to be nerfed is escape, everything else is fine. The A/D wounding strike guys are far more deadly than escape rangers anyway.

Thumpers are regulated by the cost of EW and RaO. Pack hunters are only decent on heroes in splits because heroes suck at everything else. They work for bad players too for the same reasons.

Touchers don't matter.

Rangersins don't matter.

Skyy High · Apr 04, 2008, 08:37 PM // 20:37

To be clear, I'm not saying Expertise isn't powerful, or even that it isn't broken, in the sense that all ranger skills are balanced around it (much like paragon and necro skills are balanced around their primaries as well). I just don't think that use of secondary builds that utilize a primary attribute effectively is unintentional, or automatically "degenerate". Can individual builds that follow this trend be unbalanced? Certainly, the N/Rt healer is/was a perfect example. However, you can also have balanced builds that work like this; crit-barrage is a good example of a build that is perfectly fine, but uses this kind of synergy.

I don't even think Expertise really needs a nerf. Sure, it completely outclasses all the other attributes in terms of energy gain, but unless you're suggesting ANet go back and re-work every single ranger skill's energy cost, that's just how it's going to be. It's not like it is possible to use Expertise in as broken a fashion as, say, soul reaping; pure energy that can be used for anything you want >> energy reduction on a specific set of skills. What game-changing build revolves around Expertise? The R/D, R/A, and R/N stuff? RA and AB fodder, and they're all as easily shut down (or moreso) than any other melee class. Thumpers? As has been stated before, the reduction on Crushing Blow from expertise really isn't the source of the thumper's power.

Lhim · Apr 04, 2008, 08:40 PM // 20:40

/unsigned

Changing the effect of a primary attribute just for a few builds (which aren't troublesome to begin with) seems silly to me and not needed.

And if you don't want people to run 'degenerate' builds, maybe you shouldn't play GW......or any other likewise game for that matter. But honestly, who cares?

Itokaru · Apr 04, 2008, 09:53 PM // 21:53

I love this thread. So much.

To Tyla, I have to ask, if secondary professions are meant to be played with the weapon(s) that ANet gave them, then why is there the assassin skill 'Way of the Master?

"Enchantment Spell. For 60 seconds, while holding a non-dagger weapon, you have an additional 3...27...33% chance to land a critical hit."

And why, when you choose a secondary profession, do you gain that profession's weapon mastery attribute? Because ANet OBVIOUSLY (at least, to us with a greater IQ than 2), wants people to experiment with different ideas.

Also, these builds are in no way 'degenerate'.

"Degenerate:
Having fallen below a normal or desirable level, esp. in physical or moral qualities; deteriorated; degraded"

As far as I can tell, these builds are very desirable, as half the rangers in low-end PvP use them. They have not deteriorated or degraded at all, except the RaO thumper, which I heard got a nerf.

Edit: Thought I would also post this :

"For each rank of Expertise, the Energy cost of all of your attacks, Rituals, touch skills and Rangers skills are decreased by 4%. Several skills, especially those related to Energy costs and skill recharge times, become more effective with higher Expertise."

See how it shows Ranger skills as a separate category? OBVIOUSLY, ANet intends for some rangers to use other profession's skills, as well as the ranger ones.

valence · Apr 04, 2008, 10:43 PM // 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itokaru

I love this thread. So much.

To Tyla, I have to ask, if secondary professions are meant to be played with the weapon(s) that ANet gave them, then why is there the assassin skill 'Way of the Master?

"Enchantment Spell. For 60 seconds, while holding a non-dagger weapon, you have an additional 3...27...33% chance to land a critical hit."

And why, when you choose a secondary profession, do you gain that profession's weapon mastery attribute? Because ANet OBVIOUSLY (at least, to us with a greater IQ than 2), wants people to experiment with different ideas.

Also, these builds are in no way 'degenerate'.

"Degenerate:
Having fallen below a normal or desirable level, esp. in physical or moral qualities; deteriorated; degraded"

As far as I can tell, these builds are very desirable, as half the rangers in low-end PvP use them. They have not deteriorated or degraded at all, except the RaO thumper, which I heard got a nerf.

You are funny. Basically you post an enchantment that provides an argument in favor of your point, then teaches us what degenerative is.

Then if we look in what kind of build that skill is being used. It is 100% degenerative. That same build also received some minor nerfs.

However if you think that a primary should outclass its secondary, then fine think so, but let others keep their opinion. I beleave that a primary should not make their secondary better and become his primary job.

Saying the R/D build is bad, fine by me because I really don't care about that gimmick. However you cannot deny in any way the R/D build does better what a dervish is suppose to do (and a/d in spiking purpose). The next time you roll a dervish, ask yourself why you are not making a ranger or assa, since they do their jobs better.

Now you could blame dervish for being a bad designed class, but denying the inherently flaws in expertise towards emanage which has been proven by several builds is keeping your head in the sand. It isn't hard to see expertise has huge potential of huge abuse. Which in fact is currently being proven daily.

You sound like izzy though, 'prove me wrong' aka pious assualt. Izzy lost.

PS: this topic is not just about the r/d. It is about expertise abuse in general. the r/d is just a perfect recent example.

stale · Apr 05, 2008, 03:02 AM // 03:02

alright, this is going to be completely off topic, but from the OP's arguments, that shouldn't matter in this thread.

it seems the majority of folks visiting the thread disaggree with the OP - which is fine. there's some other people who are honestly hoping for a change to expertise, so that the world can all be cookie cutter builds. since they're allowed their own opinions, this too is fine. however, could you please stop abusing the english language, and not call everything degenerate?

you've been given one definition of the word, and, to quote an excellent movie "you keep using that word.... i don't think it means what you think it means..." and, moreso, i KNOW it does not mean what you think it means.

de·gen·er·ate
pronounced: \di-ˈjen-rət, -ˈje-nə-, dē-\
Function: adjective

1 a: having declined or become less specialized (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state b: having sunk to a condition below that which is normal to a type; especially : having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state c: degraded 2
2: being mathematically simpler (as by having a factor or constant equal to zero) than the typical case <a degenerate hyperbola>
3: characterized by atoms stripped of their electrons and by very great density <degenerate matter>; also : consisting of degenerate matter <a degenerate star>
4: having two or more states or subdivisions <degenerate energy level>
5: having more than one codon representing an amino acid; also : being such a codon

(many thanks to the webster dictionary of modern english, stolen by yours truly from the wonderful mohawk college)

sorry, but reading your arguments has been like conversing with someone who arbitrarily puts the word "orange" in everywhere they would normally use "angry". (only an example, but you get my drift, i do hope.) it's not the word you're looking for. creative, abusive, synergistic, however you want to phrase it, degenerate is not the word to use here.

thanks, eh?

stale

Skyy High · Apr 05, 2008, 04:44 AM // 04:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by valence

Saying the R/D build is bad, fine by me because I really don't care about that gimmick. However you cannot deny in any way the R/D build does better what a dervish is suppose to do (and a/d in spiking purpose). The next time you roll a dervish, ask yourself why you are not making a ranger or assa, since they do their jobs better.

Because AoM >> R/D or A/D in GvG. Oh, and you lose the shadow stepping by going R/D over D/A, which is basically half the effectiveness of the spike. You'll never see an R/D or A/D being seriously run because of this.

And the point of mentioning Way of the Master is to prove that ANet intends for classes to be able to use their secondaries basically as their entire build, with the benefit of the primary attribute and related skills. The overpowered-ness of a particular build has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the build is "supposed" to exist in some (balanced) form.

yum · Apr 05, 2008, 06:14 AM // 06:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

Because AoM >> R/D or A/D in GvG. Oh, and you lose the shadow stepping by going R/D over D/A, which is basically half the effectiveness of the spike. You'll never see an R/D or A/D being seriously run because of this.

Are you sure about what you're saying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itokaru

"For each rank of Expertise, the Energy cost of all of your attacks, Rituals, touch skills and Rangers skills are decreased by 4%. Several skills, especially those related to Energy costs and skill recharge times, become more effective with higher Expertise."

See how it shows Ranger skills as a separate category? OBVIOUSLY, ANet intends for some rangers to use other profession's skills, as well as the ranger ones

Read my post and the quote from Ensign on page 3.

Skyy High · Apr 05, 2008, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by yum

Are you sure about what you're saying?

Judging from the most recent monthly tourney, which featured a number of teams running D/A trees and none running R/D or A/D...yep.

yum · Apr 05, 2008, 06:49 AM // 06:49

you should add "yet."

Kaida the Heartless · Apr 05, 2008, 06:57 AM // 06:57

Expertise needs a hit for the same reason soul reaping got hit. Primaries are so strong, people are taking them at a cut in attribute levels from thier secondaries. This means that expertise is so strong that a R/D with 12 scythe is prefered to the dervish who can run 14-16.

It's crap. Just because you dont see 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13 popping up over a rangers head doesn't mean they arn't receiving insane energy bonuses from thier primary.

4% for ranger skills, 2-3% for else.

AshenX · Apr 05, 2008, 08:52 AM // 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by stale

alright, this is going to be completely off topic, but from the OP's arguments, that shouldn't matter in this thread.

it seems the majority of folks visiting the thread disaggree with the OP - which is fine. there's some other people who are honestly hoping for a change to expertise, so that the world can all be cookie cutter builds. since they're allowed their own opinions, this too is fine. however, could you please stop abusing the english language, and not call everything degenerate?

you've been given one definition of the word, and, to quote an excellent movie "you keep using that word.... i don't think it means what you think it means..." and, moreso, i KNOW it does not mean what you think it means.

de·gen·er·ate
pronounced: \di-ˈjen-rət, -ˈje-nə-, dē-\
Function: adjective

1 a: having declined or become less specialized (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state b: having sunk to a condition below that which is normal to a type; especially : having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state c: degraded 2
2: being mathematically simpler (as by having a factor or constant equal to zero) than the typical case <a degenerate hyperbola>
3: characterized by atoms stripped of their electrons and by very great density <degenerate matter>; also : consisting of degenerate matter <a degenerate star>
4: having two or more states or subdivisions <degenerate energy level>
5: having more than one codon representing an amino acid; also : being such a codon

(many thanks to the webster dictionary of modern english, stolen by yours truly from the wonderful mohawk college)

sorry, but reading your arguments has been like conversing with someone who arbitrarily puts the word "orange" in everywhere they would normally use "angry". (only an example, but you get my drift, i do hope.) it's not the word you're looking for. creative, abusive, synergistic, however you want to phrase it, degenerate is not the word to use here.

thanks, eh?

stale

I am sorry to disagree with you sir, particularly as I am in opposition to the idea of changing expertise, but I believe that definition 1a is actually what the anti-expertise posters are referring to. Expertise allows a ranger to become less specialized from an ancestral or former state. Before the addition of new campaign professions and before the evolution of secocndary profession based builds rangers were in fact primarily Ranger skill users with a strong emphasis on condition spreading and interrupts.

Again I am sorry but you are wrong about the use of the word degenerate here. The first definition you give actually supports the use of the word in this context.

~ Dan ~ · Apr 05, 2008, 09:28 AM // 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by stale

blah blah blah 1 a: having declined or become less specialized (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state b: having sunk to a condition below that which is normal to a type; especially : having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state c: degraded 2
blah blah blah

So how is this not relevant? The first part - could maybe be related to not using a bow.. or something, but i don't care about that one.

However:

Quote:

having sunk to a condition below that which is normal to a type; especially : having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state

A degenerate build is just that - it has sunk below the norm (skilled builds?) to a lame, unskilled, c-space build. In a sense, it is corrupting PvP. A scrub being able to play as effective as a skilled player simply by mashing buttons was never a good thing for the game.

And so PvP went downhill; it sunk; it degenerated.. thanks to these builds.

Fear Me! · Apr 05, 2008, 09:45 AM // 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange Milk

On whos kitten Avatar is cuter Kyrein's or The puppeteer's.

Stormlord Alex has me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yum

/thread .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moloch Vein

That's my point. There is no strong necro primary toucher build, mainly because necromancers have no armor and no defense, but also because the cost of the vampiric touch skills is unrealistic. However, a ranger can use them just fine with high Expertise, something a necromancer can not do... period. This is a clear cut case of a secondary outperforming a primary with the primary's own skills. It's a disease symptom.

/agree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axagoth Baal

I have enough of those thumpers (more effective than a hammer warrior), of those R/D (more effective than dervishes), of those touchers (more effective than necro-touchers), of those R/P (more effective than paragons), of those R/A (more eff... ehm i don't really agree with this)... Expertise combines a low skill cost with a high elemental armor level + loads of runner-blocking-ias stances. Make Expertise work only with ranger skills would kill it, but i still think something should be changed. Maybe increasing ranger skill cost reduction to 6% per rank and decrease any other non-ranger skill cost reduction to 2% would be an idea.

/agree