Curse

moriz · Sep 23, 2009, 03:07 PM // 15:07

would something like:

balanced stance
5e 20r
for the next 1...7 seconds, you are immune to critical hits and immune to the next knockdown. This stance ends if a knock down is prevented by this stance.

work for you?

deluxe · Sep 23, 2009, 03:49 PM // 15:49

Yes. 1 Knockdown stopped you give you enough time to get some prots off if you already are slow.

urania · Sep 23, 2009, 04:11 PM // 16:11

why wouldnt one run doliaks over that then? or shield bash even.
i already run either of the 2 over balanced stance anyway @@

at kaon, 30 s is not a short downtime.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Sep 23, 2009, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

why wouldnt one run doliaks over that then? or shield bash even.
i already run either of the 2 over balanced stance anyway @@

at kaon, 30 s is not a short downtime.

Because, outside of TA, moving around the map can be quite useful.

Master Fuhon · Sep 23, 2009, 07:59 PM // 19:59

The accounts of single characters does not equate to being evidence of balance flaws. The game is team balanced; you cannot individually sum parts to get an understanding of the full composition. This understanding that most players use to view the game is considered to be a logical fallacy. There are some tricky equations on guild wars: 1 monk + 1 monk = 2.2 monks (synergies gained). 1 monk + 1 monk + 1 monk = 2.8 monks (overlap occurs). I made up the specific decimals but the point stands.

What is mostly missing in all accounts are descriptions of how the current most effective players and teams will benefit from any change, or descriptions of how the team as a whole is failing to work around balanced stance, or descriptions on how the team with balanced stance is overpowered in the sense that it does not allow enough working around. The example where balanced stance reduces a warrior to 10-20% effectiveness is also an example of a single character in narrow pursuit without a speed boost: 15 seconds of balanced stance, pre-kiting when it's down, and predictable target selection are all reasons.

There are also two major assumptions in there:
1) I should be more successful running 3 knockdowns instead of having to use another type of skill on my bar.
2) My knockdowns should be able to stop the characters that currently run balanced stance, regardless of the fact that a knockdown can be used to prevent any character from doing anything. In the example, it is made to sound like the knockdown character is helpless to serve as any part of a strategy.

I happen to think that Wild Throw is a flawed mechanic, especially when comparing the theoretical differences between Wild Blow; adrenaline loss/melee range/spammable versus fixed secondary/ranged/fitting in line with when a warrior spikes. I don't see much of a theoretical difference between thinking Wild Throw is fine and having a stance removal 8 adrenaline melee skill in tactics that has 50% fail rate below 8 attribute. I see the existence of Wild Throw as being used to support bad reasoning: if they can remove it in one strike, we should remove it in one knockdown.

The problem with that is then that you are removing balanced stance by doing what balanced stance was designed to prevent. If balanced stance is removed after limited knockdowns (especially 1), what is the difference between the bad player who mashes his knockdown buttons through the skill and the brilliant player who skillfully executes a knockdown to take down balanced stance? I guess the difference is that the good player can land his Bull's Strike, unless the bad player was smart enough to run Griffon's Sweep so he could have effect through guardian.

Assassins however are a different story. I do not see a 3-4 knockdown assassin build with Wastrel’s Collapse, Shock, Horns of the Ox (rarely Iron Palm) as being something that I want to support as a long term design, because that leaves so few other options open. I would be more accepting of two knockdowns and a snare/interrupt. There's just too much that can potentially be done with reliable access to three knockdowns, with the presence of ROJ smite for defensive assistance or other stacked AoE.

lutz · Sep 23, 2009, 10:48 PM // 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Aegis is better if it doesn't get shut down and even if it doesn't, when it gets rended on spikes you're stuck with a monk with less armor than a Mo/W.

So how does this disprove my sarcastic point?

Quote:

So all the people running Mo/E for Aegis were doing it wrong all along. They should have always run Mo/W with stances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Scruffy just nailed it. Balanced stance isn't up 50% of the time, it's up 80% of the time, and in it's short downtime all the monk has to do is preguardian himself. This is precisely what's wrong.

So, a Balanced Stance that's 3 seconds long with 6 second recharge would be balanced?
or 5 seconds long with a 10 second recharge?

50% is "okay", then? I mean, shit, according to you, your only problem with Balanced Stance is that it's 15 seconds long with a 30 second recharge.

Reverend Dr · Sep 23, 2009, 10:51 PM // 22:51

mo/e aegis allowed for midline to not have to all have defensive stances of their own

lutz · Sep 23, 2009, 10:54 PM // 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

mo/e aegis allowed for midline to not have to all have defensive stances of their own

Because midlines bring defensive stances now, outside of Rangers (who always had one)?

E/Me's don't really exist anymore, and outside of that, who the hell has run Balanced Stance within the past couple months on midline (and been successful with it)?

deluxe · Sep 24, 2009, 04:58 AM // 04:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

So how does this disprove my sarcastic point?

So, a Balanced Stance that's 3 seconds long with 6 second recharge would be balanced?
or 5 seconds long with a 10 second recharge?

50% is "okay", then? I mean, shit, according to you, your only problem with Balanced Stance is that it's 15 seconds long with a 30 second recharge.

It would still be good at 3 (maybe 4) seconds duration @ 8 spec, with a 15 to 20 sec recharge. Just like disciplined stance, an antispike skill.
Nobody here want's monks to be able in bstance for half of the time, idk where you read that.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Sep 24, 2009, 05:39 AM // 05:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

Because midlines bring defensive stances now, outside of Rangers (who always had one)?

E/Me's don't really exist anymore, and outside of that, who the hell has run Balanced Stance within the past couple months on midline (and been successful with it)?

Who has run Aegis within the past couple of years on midline (and been successful with it)?

Stop being a douchebag, if you ran a build with a lot of defense and (mostly) high armored characters having Mo/W was simply better than Mo/E.

Having high armored casters screws over physical pressure and is more reliable vs spikes than Aegis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

So, a Balanced Stance that's 3 seconds long with 6 second recharge would be balanced?
or 5 seconds long with a 10 second recharge?

50% is "okay", then? I mean, shit, according to you, your only problem with Balanced Stance is that it's 15 seconds long with a 30 second recharge.

Way to miss his point, Balanced Stance is there when you need it almost all the time, reducing the duration and recharge with the same factor will only make this worse.

Now I don't think Balanced Stance is a HUGE problem, I do think it's too easy to use and too forgiving, you don't even have to time it well for it to be effective.

lutz · Sep 24, 2009, 07:04 AM // 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Who has run Aegis within the past couple of years on midline (and been successful with it)?

Stop being a douchebag, if you ran a build with a lot of defense and (mostly) high armored characters having Mo/W was simply better than Mo/E.

Having high armored casters screws over physical pressure and is more reliable vs spikes than Aegis.

Way to miss his point, Balanced Stance is there when you need it almost all the time, reducing the duration and recharge with the same factor will only make this worse.

Now I don't think Balanced Stance is a HUGE problem, I do think it's too easy to use and too forgiving, you don't even have to time it well for it to be effective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

mo/e aegis allowed for midline to not have to all have defensive stances of their own

This is what my post was in response to. If you read and manage to comprehend the sentence correctly, you'd notice that the person implied that "midlines ran defensive stances in the absence of Aegis".

IMMORTAlMITCH · Sep 24, 2009, 07:06 AM // 07:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

This is what my post was in response to. If you read and manage to comprehend the sentence correctly, you'd notice that the person implied that "midlines ran defensive stances in the absence of Aegis".

Defensive stances can be subbed for defense in general and actually there's been a lot of Distortion Eles, Disc Stance Necros and Smiters about 5 months ago.

http://www.gw-memorial.net/nav/b_mat_i.php?id=273

http://www.gw-memorial.net/nav/b_mat_i.php?id=298

http://www.gw-memorial.net/nav/b_mat_i.php?id=318

Reverend Dr · Sep 24, 2009, 07:08 AM // 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

Because midlines bring defensive stances now, outside of Rangers (who always had one)?

I worded it poorly. In the current meta midline without self-defense stances are much more of a liability than they were during the mo/e era.

EDIT: but this turn to highly armored casters didn't evolve until Aegis chain was over, the general complaints then were not about high armor shield sets, but about the randomness of 40/40 sets

lutz · Sep 24, 2009, 09:07 AM // 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

I worded it poorly. In the current meta midline without self-defense stances are much more of a liability than they were during the mo/e era.

EDIT: but this turn to highly armored casters didn't evolve until Aegis chain was over, the general complaints then were not about high armor shield sets, but about the randomness of 40/40 sets

http://www.gw-memorial.net/nav/b_mat_i.php?id=256
http://www.gw-memorial.net/nav/b_mat_i.php?id=208
http://www.gw-memorial.net/nav/b_mat_i.php?id=193

High-armored targets and Aegis chains existed at the same time.

With the exception of Distortion (which has been toned down and seen relatively little play within the past 3 months), most of the other defensive stances found on midline characters (Dark Escape mostly) are simply specs against super offensive builds or spike builds.

Kaon · Sep 24, 2009, 09:22 AM // 09:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

why wouldnt one run doliaks over that then? or shield bash even.
i already run either of the 2 over balanced stance anyway @@

at kaon, 30 s is not a short downtime.

Didn't you read my post or scruffy's? Because we pretty much established the skill has no downtime.

I actually forgot the skill makes you immune to critical hits as well. I figured it was already overpowered without that feature. But this means it gives an average of like 10damage per hit reduction if you get hit by an attacking character, if not more.

lutz · Sep 24, 2009, 09:47 AM // 09:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Didn't you read my post or scruffy's? Because we pretty much established the skill has no downtime.

I actually forgot the skill makes you immune to critical hits as well. I figured it was already overpowered without that feature. But this means it gives an average of like 10damage per hit reduction if you get hit by an attacking character, if not more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Scruffy just nailed it. Balanced stance isn't up 50% of the time, it's up 80% of the time, and in it's short downtime all the monk has to do is preguardian himself. This is precisely what's wrong.

I'm sure a lot of people did read it; it's just that your comments made little sense so nobody really paid all that much attention to them.

Balanced Stance is up less than 50% of the time. If Balanced Stance is affecting you so that you can only knock a monk 20% of the time (yielding 80% "Balanced Stance"), then you're probably playing a warrior incorrectly.

How the hell did Balanced Stance go from more than 50% downtime to 20% downtime to "basically no downtime at all"? Last time I checked, 14/30 < 0.5. Your posts get increasingly more ridiculous and incredible.

Also, unless you're getting hit by an 18-hammer mastery warrior with Critical Eye and all those sin buffs, "immune to critical hit" doesn't reduce every hit by 10 damage. Not even close. Try more like 1-2 damage a hit (on average of a reasonable sample size of 5-10 hits).

urania · Sep 24, 2009, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Didn't you read my post or scruffy's? Because we pretty much established the skill has no downtime.

I actually forgot the skill makes you immune to critical hits as well. I figured it was already overpowered without that feature. But this means it gives an average of like 10damage per hit reduction if you get hit by an attacking character, if not more.

immunity to crits isnt such a big deal, unless one likes running around in their staff set a lot with a hammer/prage next to them.
+10 armor is more, kinda.
Do the math. 16 armor from shield (given u have fullfilled the req), +7 armor from weapon (or +5, if one prefers general armor bonnus), +10 from shield again vs certain damage type and +10 from doliaks.
16+7+10+10=43 armor bonus in doliaks, 33 when doliaks sig is down.
Not meeting shield req and using general weapon armor bonus:
8+5+10+10=33 armor bonus with doliaks sig active, 23 otherwise.

Imho, i prefer higher armor and reduced damage on all attacks instead of avoiding crits. though, one could even run both on same bar @@...

Moreover, I DID read ur post, but from my personal experience it makes little sense. If you have stance removal like wild throw, balanced stance is next to useless, moreover, if u see them put up stance how about swapping targets and coming bk after about 15 s? Or will guardian own u then :\.

Moreover, one normally uses doliaks when one's being spiked (given one couldnt preguardian or prekite to safety first), not when movement would be crucial, but I guess that's just personal preference. Moreover, unlike balanced stance, doliaks requires no energy nor any spec and has a shorter cool down time, as already mentioned. It basically has only 1 purpose, to avoid kd locks and guardian urself. After that any warr with half a brain will swap targets. It does take more skill than balanced stance tho, mainly cuz it cant be activated while casting or when already kded. So screwing up tends to be more risky, but thats why one runs a 2nd defensive stance or shield bash :P

At the end, it is dual stances (I used to run shield bash with bonettis in gvg with quite some success) or single stance coupled with a skill/signet that are hard to kill, but just one balanced stance...I doubt it.

deluxe · Sep 24, 2009, 01:17 PM // 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

immunity to crits isnt such a big deal, unless one likes running around in their staff set a lot with a hammer/prage next to them.
+10 armor is more, kinda.
Do the math. 16 armor from shield (given u have fullfilled the req), +7 armor from weapon (or +5, if one prefers general armor bonnus), +10 from shield again vs certain damage type and +10 from doliaks.
16+7+10+10=43 armor bonus in doliaks, 33 when doliaks sig is down.
Not meeting shield req and using general weapon armor bonus:
8+5+10+10=33 armor bonus with doliaks sig active, 23 otherwise.

Imho, i prefer higher armor and reduced damage on all attacks instead of avoiding crits. though, one could even run both on same bar @@...

Moreover, I DID read ur post, but from my personal experience it makes little sense. If you have stance removal like wild throw, balanced stance is next to useless, moreover, if u see them put up stance how about swapping targets and coming bk after about 15 s? Or will guardian own u then :\.

Moreover, one normally uses doliaks when one's being spiked (given one couldnt preguardian or prekite to safety first), not when movement would be crucial, but I guess that's just personal preference. Moreover, unlike balanced stance, doliaks requires no energy nor any spec and has a shorter cool down time, as already mentioned. It basically has only 1 purpose, to avoid kd locks and guardian urself. After that any warr with half a brain will swap targets. It does take more skill than balanced stance tho, mainly cuz it cant be activated while casting or when already kded. So screwing up tends to be more risky, but thats why one runs a 2nd defensive stance or shield bash :P

At the end, it is dual stances (I used to run shield bash with bonettis in gvg with quite some success) or single stance coupled with a skill/signet that are hard to kill, but just one balanced stance...I doubt it.

As said before, Dolyak Signet is not a substitute for Balanced Stance.
It is pretty sweet in RA/TA, played it myself. But in GvG it's going to be your death.
And i'm pretty sure you are the only one here who's talking about TA.

Byron · Sep 24, 2009, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Immunity to crits is a big deal. Especially when put on top of all the armor bonuses monks are packing these days. If the duration of balanced stance is reduced by about 1/3, that would be a suitable nerf. Making it end after one KD would be a smiter's boon.

Ec]-[oMaN · Sep 24, 2009, 05:18 PM // 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

At least you could shut it down.

Ward was only a problem when:

1) It worked on NPCs (problem with VoD and it has been fixed)
2) People ran it on Me/E (problem with fastcasting)
3) People ran it with Mantra/Glyph of concentration (problem with anti interrupt skills, can easily be fixed)

Aegis was only a problem when:

1) It was radar range (fixed)
2) Glyph allowed for infinite faking (fixed)

Both skills were quite easy to counter with interrupts, AoE in the case of wards, enchantment removal (specifically Mirror) in the case of Aegis.

Blinding Surge was only a problem when:

1) It was 5 energy (fixed)
2) Hex Breaker was insane (fixed)

E/Mo runners were never a problem.

Stances are too much low risk high reward at the moment and it does make positional errors a lot more forgiving and thus devalues (pre-)kiting.

Credibility -> Window

This better describes the problems with the different skills and mechanics within Guild Wars.

Passive defense could always be shutdown, interrupted, striped or hindered/altered by movement(wards) add AOE or play bring battle to somewhere else.

Active defense such as stances act as the oh shit I may be screwed, use this now in such situation with very little in the way for removal. Coupled by the fact that if teams just bring a tiny bit more midline active defense such as Blind Bots or snares your windows of opportunity on a frontline decrease substantially when paired up with stances.

Of course there are other problems that just boost stance potential and effectiveness, such as the current Heal monks there is simply way too much red bar potential even after you fake out a stance or land skills at opportune times, this wasn't the case before woh/patient.