Curse

Haijiibirdhead · Jan 26, 2007, 05:12 AM // 05:12

Quote:

1)kill him
2)remove weakness
3)Forget about weakness and do whatever you are supposed to do

.

Imo thats a really dumb thing to say.

Lets consider ways to stop the A of grenth dervish shall we. By your logic people shouldnt compain at all because you can simply

1)Kill him/her
2)Interrupt the skill
3)Forget about the Avatar of Grenth derv and do whatever you are supposed to do.

Never mind that each of your points has large problems and sub-difficulties to do.

Amy Awien · Jan 26, 2007, 08:51 AM // 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesh

Personal attacks don't help anyone.

The troll should have kept that in mind when posting.

dudeimoncoke · Jan 26, 2007, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haijiibirdhead

.

Imo thats a really dumb thing to say.

Lets consider ways to stop the A of grenth dervish shall we. By your logic people shouldnt compain at all because you can simply

1)Kill him/her
2)Interrupt the skill
3)Forget about the Avatar of Grenth derv and do whatever you are supposed to do.

Never mind that each of your points has large problems and sub-difficulties to do.

If you can't live without your precious enchantments or you can't kill a person then don't even bother playing the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

The troll should have kept that in mind when posting.

what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

I don't really care to spent much time on replying the that came out of the keyboard of some retarded monkey.

Don't come here saying we don't know our skills, retard.

Since we are going to flame each other I guess we can start with your english. I don't really care to spent??? much time on replying the that came out of the keyboard of some retarded monkey????? Did you let your autistic brother type for you again?
There's a little thing called "L2P" you should go try it.

Amy Awien · Jan 26, 2007, 06:21 PM // 18:21

So it's about spelling now? Well, it is weakness and not weekness, and the word monkey was spelled correctly. Oh, and your use of punctuation needs a little more attention.

HalPlantagenet · Jan 26, 2007, 07:22 PM // 19:22

I've heard rumors that spelling (and Antartica) may play a key role in Chapter 4, but that's neither here nor there.

To return to the previous topic, among the few spirited defenses of this change to Weakness, none have made it clear to me, how it improves game play. I'd deeply appreciate the kind of well-reasoned explication that, for example, Amy Awien, XvArchonvX and SnipiousMax have posted on a number of topics elsewhere. One poster noted a global trend towards speed which, in and of itself, doesn't imply quality, and may in fact preclude depth in some situations.

lennymon · Jan 26, 2007, 07:54 PM // 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by HalPlantagenet

...One poster noted a global trend towards speed which, in and of itself, doesn't imply quality, and may in fact preclude depth in some situations.

If I'm understanding this correctly (and I'm still working on my coffee...), you're saying there could be an argument for making the change to weakness while leaving the spammable factor in? In one sense yes it would still be 'balanced' in that it'd be available to anyone to spam, but on the other side wouldn't this defeat the purpose of balancing if everyone brought it because it was effective cheap and spammable? I'd like to see conditions be harder to remove slightly more dangerous overall and harder to apply personally (yeah old skool Ranger thinkin), but if one is easy to apply and has a good effect I think its safe to assume it will see a lot of use. This basically precludes the assumed goal of making more builds/skills playable right?

HalPlantagenet · Jan 26, 2007, 08:07 PM // 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by lennymon

If I'm understanding this correctly (and I'm still working on my coffee...), you're saying there could be an argument for making the change to weakness while leaving the spammable factor in? In one sense yes it would still be 'balanced' in that it'd be available to anyone to spam, but on the other side wouldn't this defeat the purpose of balancing if everyone brought it because it was effective cheap and spammable? I'd like to see conditions be harder to remove slightly more dangerous overall and harder to apply personally (yeah old skool Ranger thinkin), but if one is easy to apply and has a good effect I think its safe to assume it will see a lot of use. This basically precludes the assumed goal of making more builds/skills playable right?

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I wasn't making that argument at all. Rather, I was asking one of the defenders of this change to Weakness to offer a clear and well-reasoned exposition of how it would improve game play, not just for Rangers but for any or all professions simply because I don't see how it can.

My personal point of view at this stage, is similar to your own.

dgb · Jan 27, 2007, 05:54 AM // 05:54

Weakness with the change now is a viable condition in itself - it will make for a more varied solo-metagame which I think can only be a good thing. Condition removal choices are strong at the moment.

You can argue that all the previous weakness causing skills were balanced around the previous version, but they weren't. Weakness in itself was a joke. It saw use in comboing into various skills (Dev->Crushing->Fierce, Enfeebling Blood->Oppressive Gaze), but as something that would be run for itself it was garbage. Those skills were never balanced, they were allways horrible. IN it's old version enfeeble could have lasted for 60s and nobody would have particularly cared.

They might need a slight tweak now, but overall they look well balanced. Weakness is a weaker condition than Blind when dealing with physicals and a weaker condition that dazed when dealing with casters, however it's easier to apply and has some utility in both.

Will it mess around with breakpoints? Yes. That's the whole point of this change, to make it a condition with some potential. Is it overpowered? I'd argue personally that if someone can keep weakness on you for 21s without you removing it, then you're going to lose anyway because you clearly don't have counters to conditions. In the short run (5-10s), it's not going to punish you particularly hard and if you can't remove it in that time then you may as well resign yourself to losing anyway because you're facing someone built on conditions and you have no counters...

Does it excessively impact classes? There is no class that is really immune to it - monks play for enchant length breaks, warriors play requirement breaks on shields, elementalists look at breaks for just about every utility spell they have, mesmers commonly run at 14 dom only because there's no point beyond it, rangers are obvious, assassins get hit on CS, ritualists nobody cares enough about but they do have important breaks, paragons their leadership gets hit and dervishes mysticiism gets a major hit.

Effigy · Jan 27, 2007, 03:40 PM // 15:40

Well said. I do think the Weakness duration on current skills will have to be shortened a bit for the change to be balanced though.

Falconer · Jan 27, 2007, 05:13 PM // 17:13

DGB: You premise this on the assertion that the previous weakness was not a viable condition. This is a false assertion.

Even right now on the master of whispers I carry either enfeebling blood or enfeeble, as well as shadow of fear for PvE purposes. What is the net result of those two skills? I know quite a few people who will swear by enfeeble/enfeebling bloods old utility. (some of whom just were holding hall of heroes last night, and most of whom are hardcore PvP players).

One, any physical attacker has it's attack speed cut in half (50% damage reduction in damage).
Two, any physical attacker has it's DAMAGE cut by 66% due to the weakness condition.

The net result, of those two conditions is an astounding 16% damage output by physical enemies, but by far the larger portion of the effect comes not from the hex, but from the unbuffed/underappreciated weakness condition!

I repeat my earlier assertion. Weakness was a viable condition in it's own right before this. Simply not appreciated in it's effects. People still saw people hitting them, and don't realize how much it was helping them by reducing damage output. People saw themselves still getting hit, and drew the incorrect conclusion that it was less valuable than the harder to apply blind. They could clearly see, blinded foes have that nifty on-screen visual and you can know someone missing you w/ that is due to blind. People see the (weaker IMO) bleed and see someone slowly degenerating and think it's helping them more.

So I'm sorry, the loss of one rank on most things isn't that significant FOR MOST CLASSES... ohh the fireball hit for 8 less before armor (which means after armor it hit for probably only 5 less). Physicals still need to contend w/ the 66% damage reduction! And now on top of it you're asking rangers in particular to pay 50% more for 66% reduced effect?! This strikes me as a solid law of unintended consequences result here. I'm against any easy to apply condition reducing anyone from 200 down to less than 150 attribute points as well as garnering it's prior damage reduction effects.

HalPlantagenet · Jan 30, 2007, 05:53 PM // 17:53

First, many thanks dgb, for your clear, well-supported response, which in turn prompted Falconer's incisive comments which I find particularly pertinent.

One of the most complex issues in Guild Wars, (and many other games) is understanding the magnitude of an effect. You can see the developers trying to deal with it, for example, by providing the turtorial zones to help novice players understand the various types of range zones and the effect of skills in them. One of Falconer's key points is that players often don't understand the magnitude of the current effect of Weakness. This change would only make it more inscrutable.

Monks and Warriors may be the two most common of the core classes. They also may be the most difficult to play well. Monks, in particular, require exceptional strategic insight. At any given instant he or she must choose one of many problems on several characters to solve. This change to Weakness makes measuring the severity of that condition on a character significantly more difficult to judge, particularly in a PUG in which the particulars of a ranger's attribute point settings may not have been shared.

Again, thanks to you both.

Franco Power · Jan 30, 2007, 06:03 PM // 18:03

I think it's just another condition that needs to be removed, I mean there are much worst things then this, dazed and blind for example.

The arguement about the rangers expertise attribute, well what do you rather be? Blinded or have -1 on expertise?

The arguement about Warriors weapon attribute, mmm as far I remember PvP weapons are all r9, you re running 9 on weaponmastery? Oh and anyway, if you have weakness on you, you're not going to deal much dmg anyway, with or with not right attribute, If you are doing pve then ask mhenlo to kindly remove it instead of healing breeze you.

The arguement about Warriors sentinel armor, mm I honestly dont know many warriors that dont use gladiators armor but anyway, its just another condition, deal with it, I rather have weakness on my monk then dazed and I rather have weakness on my ranger then blind ^_^.

Just my 2 cents.

Dutch Masterr · Jan 30, 2007, 06:53 PM // 18:53

the change to weakness was only temporary for that "test weekend" it wasnt a permanent change....thats what it says on wiki under updates.

Amy Awien · Jan 30, 2007, 07:08 PM // 19:08

It's not just another condition to remove. Weakness already has a strong negative effect on characters that inflict physical damage, including rangers, by reducing damage by 2/3.

Although the proposed change, to lower all attributes by 1, seems to be intended - or so it is argued - to extend it's effect to casters, but it affects those professions that were already strongly affected by it - rangers, assasins, paragons ... - more then these casters.

It is not about condition removal, or which negative condition you'd prefer your character to suffer from. In designing a (team and character) 'build' many choices and compromises have to be made and the change in weakness will have it's effect on these choices. A stronger 'push' to reduce the negative effect of the changed Weakness would reduce the characters abilities in other area's.

lennymon · Jan 30, 2007, 07:57 PM // 19:57

I think weakness and a lot of the other skills were buffed for pvp use. the point was that they never see the light of day except as a cover condition or a cheap way to fulfil some requirement in pvp. For example blind bots use enervating charge to cover the blind. I ~believe~ the intention is to make these skills viable in pvp without completely unbalancing pve, the change to weakness makes it useable in pvp, but perhaps too much so, in light of which I wouldn't expect it to remain as is. The condition change alone is viable but in order to make it balanced in pvp it would take a fair number of ancillary changes that I think Anet probably won't have the time to do.
Weakness as it is pretty much doesn't do so well, while on the surface -66% damage seems great, it isn't in reality since it only affects the base damage. Any skill +damage in unaffected, rendering it a weaker condition for pvp. If you want to shut down a rampaging thumper/warrior/cripshotter you blind them, it works better.
I'm for the changed paradigm in theory, but the more I think about it I come to the conclusion that even if it sticks it will be less effective than the testing weekend. This is due mainly to the Discord thing (others likely would crop up though). Perhaps if it did something like reduced a ~random~ (used) attribute by 2 points or just shortened it's duration?

Amy Awien · Jan 30, 2007, 09:34 PM // 21:34

Bleeding isn't particularly usefull, as it is, except as cover. Perhaps it is more useable by itself when the degeneration is increased to the level of poison. Or perhaps bleeding and poison should both be boosted to give the same degen as burning?

A boosted Weakness might indeed better be accompanied by a shorter duration, or making it harder to apply.

LagunaCid · Jan 31, 2007, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Bleeding is still better than Weakness.

-

Franco Power · Jan 31, 2007, 02:49 AM // 02:49

Amy, if you playing in HA/GVG/TA or anywhere conditions matters and dont have condition removal, then you fail and its not weakness fault ^_^, I gave a very good point, dont come and tell me that its just not another condition that needs to be removed because it is, and a blind or dazed is much much worst then that, so deal with it, and stop crying.

Evilsod · Jan 31, 2007, 02:53 AM // 02:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch Masterr

the change to weakness was only temporary for that "test weekend" it wasnt a permanent change....thats what it says on wiki under updates.

Yup... which is why i grew bored of this topic. If they decide to implement this retarded new weakness in the next 'Test weekend' (Anet seem to be calling skill updates weekend events now, will the fun ever stop!?) when they become permanent, subject to change from small updates later on (sure.. on those that are found to be overly abusive/powerful, like they'll care about the ones that suck).

Amy Awien · Jan 31, 2007, 07:59 AM // 07:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legendary Ultimatum

I gave a very good point ...

No, you didn't, there was hardly any point in your post that had any merit. You also did not address any of the points given earlier, nor do you seem to even understand the full effect of this change.

Quote:

... and stop crying.

And this is such a strong point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch Masterr

the change to weakness was only temporary for that "test weekend"

True, and the changes were supposed to be discussed. That's why I posted here, to point people to the Test-forums.