Curse

Amy Awien · Jan 20, 2007, 10:19 AM // 10:19

We all know how expertise affects the costs of our Ranger's skills. And we know that, due to rounding, expertise is most efficiently set on breakpoints.

Now, the condition [wiki]Weakness[/wiki] is being changed to substract 1 from all attributes. Meaning that skills will suddenly cost more, a whole lot more, upto 50% for 5E skills.

I suggest 'raising some hell' about this with ANet. There are some forums here on GW-Gurus and you can find a link to GW's support here. Speak up!

ss1986v2 · Jan 20, 2007, 10:31 AM // 10:31

i actually like that changes to weakness. now you can be penalized for simply meeting your breakpoints and not investing heavier. punish warriors with 9 in strength with a strength shield. take that extra second of burning away from SF nukers and burning arrow rangers. make that e surge only do -7 energy rather than -8. deny that assassin some energy my lowering his CS. and yes, even make that ranger use one more point of energy to use some of his skills.

if you dont like it, bring some more condition removal (mending touch ftw!) or boost your attribute one above there breakpoints. yes that means you sacrifice somewhere else, but thats the point.

and dont worry, if they do keep this change to weakness, they will probably adjust skills like enfeebling blood, making it harder to to apply weakness to a large number of ppl.

Amy Awien · Jan 20, 2007, 10:53 AM // 10:53

How much heavier do we need to invest, spend 14 or 15 in expertise just to meet energy demands with weakness? No other class has such a heavy penalty. Imagine your 5E healing skills costing 7 or 8, or their effect reduced by 50% when under weakness. Would you not consider that to be a major effect?

I do worry, if the developpers cannot see now that weakness has this huge effect and that the cheap skills that cause weakness on a mass-scale may require toning down, they really are shortsighted and very poor at what they are supposed to do, maintaining a balance between the classes.

It is obvious that the ANet developpers are as poor at judging skills and maintaining balance as they were when they were with Blizzard.

ss1986v2 · Jan 20, 2007, 11:11 AM // 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

How much heavier do we need to invest, spend 14 or 15 in expertise just to meet energy demands with weakness? No other class has such a heavy penalty. Imagine your 5E healing skills costing 7 or 8, or their effect reduced by 50% when under weakness. Would you not consider that to be a major effect?

I do worry, if the developpers cannot see now that weakness has this huge effect and that the cheap skills that cause weakness on a mass-scale may require toning down, they really are shortsighted and very poor at what they are supposed to do, maintaining a balance between the classes.

It is obvious that the ANet developpers are as poor at judging skills and maintaining balance as they were when they were with Blizzard.

i do agree that the skills that cause weakness on a wide spread level must me changed. if not, then weakness will be too overpowered. that is a must.

as for 14 or 15 in expertise, who says you have to invest to get 5 energy skills down to 2 energy? why not just put it at 10, for example. that will cover you on both 5 and 10 energy skills, even with weakness on you. you get 5 energy skills down to 3 and 10 energy skills down to 6. plus you have freed up several attribute points which you can now invest elsewhere.

no, you dont get to run whatever you want, but thats kinda the point. force the opponent (as well as yourself) to rethink how to set up builds. dont forget that your team can also apply weakness, crippling them just as much as they cripple you. or you could just run a support e/mo with extinguish. or martyr or cautery sig or whatever other mass condition removals you may like. as long as skills like enfeebling blood are tweaked, weakness wont be an insurmountable issue and you can still run your 13 expertise. maybe a couple of your skills get fired off at +1 energy, but once the weakness is gone, you are right back where you should be.

but yes, things need to be tweaked so you cant maintain a perma-weakness on the other team, and if they are, i dont have a problem with weakness.

Amy Awien · Jan 20, 2007, 11:22 AM // 11:22

You are turning things upside down, you cannot free attribute points by having to invest more to counter the effect of weakness. You now have to invest 10 rather then 9, or 14 rather then 13. If I reduce expertise from 13 to 10, I may have freed some attribute points but I have also increased the energy costs of the majority of my skills by 50%.

Expertise is used to lower the cost of rangerskills, this is neccesary because, unlike other energy using professions, rangers only have 3 'pips' of regeneration. Rangers need expertise to be able to use skills.

This change has a far greater negative effect on rangers then on any other profession, and rangers weren't the most powerfull profession to start with and this isn't helping.

anshin · Jan 20, 2007, 05:46 PM // 17:46

i agree with Amy...

besides... this change in weakness makes almost impossible solo runs in the UW...

Raven Nebula · Jan 20, 2007, 06:56 PM // 18:56

I almost feel like my only chance to have the same energy in certain situations now will be to use barrage with a zealous bow to gain some of that energy back =\

Mesmer in Need · Jan 20, 2007, 07:08 PM // 19:08

I dont really mind this... so far. this just means my hammer war will become all powerful

Thomas.knbk · Jan 20, 2007, 07:17 PM // 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by anshin

i agree with Amy...

besides... this change in weakness makes almost impossible solo runs in the UW...

Man, I wish I bookmarked that thread where Ensign explains why farming is bad and boring.
Anyway, owned I guess

Vexed · Jan 20, 2007, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Honestly, I think it's a fantastic change.

Weakness only affecting your melee damage output has always seemed a little silly to me, as being "weak" could by definition affect any aspect of a person / character.

So now, having weakness actually becomes just that - a weakness. Condition removal still works just fine, by the way. But this punishes everybody who invests the bare minimum in a weakness-prone environment. Warriors with min req. for shield lose 16 armor, rangers end up spending 1 more energy per skill (panic!), monks / eles / necros / etc lose time off their hexes / enchants / conditions.

It's actually a viable condition now that requires attention. Fun! Seriously, weakness is only going to cost you ONE more energy for your favorite skills. Remove the weakness and you're fine again. It's inconvenient, but it isn't gonna break you.

Amy Awien · Jan 21, 2007, 06:30 AM // 06:30

It's +50% energy cost in many situations, Vexed, did you miss that? Because of the breakpoints the effect on Expertise and Critical Strikes is far more then just the reduced effectivness of skills.

jesh · Jan 21, 2007, 07:04 AM // 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Imagine your 5E healing skills costing 7 or 8, or their effect reduced by 50% when under weakness.

Imagine your monk removing a condition. This thread blows.

Isileth · Jan 21, 2007, 10:46 AM // 10:46

You seem to be forgetting, not only will you be able to put weakness on the enemy...you will also be able to remove it from yourself. I think its a good change, now means it effects those chars who arent about pure dmg.

Amy Awien · Jan 21, 2007, 02:29 PM // 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesh

This thread blows.

Only since you decided to post in it. If you don't care for it, stay away, no one is interested in what you have to say anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

I think its a good change, now means it effects those chars who arent about pure dmg.

It has nothing to do with doing damage, it affects Rangers and Assasins more then other professions because their primary attribute has 'breakpoints' where even a small

This would not be a problem when energy calculations were not rounded, or were scaled up, like health is.

Senrath · Jan 21, 2007, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Personally, I like the change. It makes weakness actually do something now. But I have to post what one of my friends said about this:

"Oh no! My muscles feel weak and now I can't cast spells right!"

Vexed · Jan 21, 2007, 03:04 PM // 15:04

The only time it's going to increase your energy cost by 50% is when your 5e skill, which you're casting for 2e, suddenly costs 3e because you lost your breakpoint. For the duration of weakness.

That's one energy, but it sure is more dramatic to say 50% more

Conditions are just as easy to remove as they were before. It's not that big a deal.

Amy Awien · Jan 21, 2007, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Expertise is needed to reduce the energy-costs of skills enough to make them useable, with the lower energy-regen and pool of rangers and the relatively high cost of ranger skills.

Weakness means loosing 1 energy everytime you use a skill.

Other professions don't suffer as much consequences from Weakness, being able to remove it does not change that. Following the reasoning that one can remove conditions easily, there would be no reason to make Daze so expensive and difficult to inflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senrath

But I have to post what one of my friends said about this:
"Oh no! My muscles feel weak and now I can't cast spells right!"

Similar for weakness and expertise, it doesn't make sense.

GourangaPizza · Jan 21, 2007, 04:01 PM // 16:01

Having a -1 to all your attributes is too severe for it to be part of a condition's effects. It also makes little sense that it should be related to weakness. This is going to add a huge problem to the rangers' and assassins' limited energy pool.

What it should have been is instead is a % of that skill being of a -1 attribute.

KamikazeChicken · Jan 21, 2007, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by anshin

besides... this change in weakness makes almost impossible solo runs in the UW...

"It's a good thing."

Crazyvietguy · Jan 21, 2007, 05:29 PM // 17:29

OK wow, this thread is boring. Everyones just saying the same thing, boo hoo weakness is good now, boooooo.

OK well, heres the thing. Anet wanted to create a "balance" of conditions. Blinding hinders warriors and Dazed.. basicaly shuts down a caster. Weakness used to ONLY be used against melee characters, because it only affected them. 66% damage reduction. NOW it effect everyone.

Because of this change, warriors MUST now take 1 req over their used item, but.. shouldnt you be putting more than 9 req in your sword? maybe even tactics/strength too?

Plus.. its a condition, which is the easiest thing to remove (hell of a lot easier than hexes). Perhaps characters should just "call" (i know.. PvP term) when they have weakness on them.

Weakness has basically turned into the new Blind/Dazed.. which were the most "needed" removal conditions.