Curse

Riotgear · Nov 26, 2006, 06:45 AM // 06:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

1) There is no guarentee that the game will ever reach that point.

As long as there is a problem, there is potential to improve. As long as there is potential to improve, people have the right to complain.

Quote:

Lastly, what guarentee do you have that the game dev's vision of a perfectly balanced game is the same as yours?

When anything gets dominated by one or a very small set of builds, it tends to chew on the nerf bat next round. See: Rit lords, thumper 1.0, smite. When anything has people asking why another class is better at what they're supposed to be doing, it tends to get buffed. See: Elementalists.

I'm hard-pressed to think of a rebalance where the FOTM didn't get nerfed.

Quote:

My entire post was about things deserving to be complained about. Searing does not. EF does. Regardless of whether I complain about it (and I do) I still run it because its one of the most powerful skills in the game right now.

EF is basically to the top of the ladder what SF/Thump is to the bottom. :P

Patccmoi · Nov 27, 2006, 11:54 PM // 23:54

Meh, lots of high guild say it's not so good but then again you watched cow last night running 3 Thumpers + 3 Searing Flames and they were litterally rolling over some of those top guilds. It didn't had to be that much versatile when the other team just didn't manage to hold the pressure at all.

I'm not saying it needs a nerf btw, but it is extreme pressure and it's by no way weak at any level of play IF the team applying the pressure is good at it too.

Ensign · Nov 28, 2006, 12:17 AM // 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

Well, yes, that needs to happen...but even if it did when would you ever want to use Mind Burn over Searing Flames?

Whenever I wanted to use the other skills on my bar. Searing Flames is not a skill that you put on an otherwise good bar. Searing Flames *is* your bar, just about everything else on your character is dedicated to that skill.

Mind Burn is a skill I would seriously look at if the fire line is ever actually made good in its own right. I like the spell.

Peace,
-CxE

Wasteland Squidget · Nov 28, 2006, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

Meh, lots of high guild say it's not so good but then again you watched cow last night running 3 Thumpers + 3 Searing Flames and they were litterally rolling over some of those top guilds. It didn't had to be that much versatile when the other team just didn't manage to hold the pressure at all.

Searing Flames eles are something you put into a build if all you care about is doing as much damage as possible. There are only so many melee types you can plop into a build before you start getting rocked by mass warrior hate. Previously you would throw smiters or death necros into the remaining slots to deal caster-based damage, but smiters have been nerfed to hell and death necros don't stack well beyond a single character. SF eles are really your only option for dealing damage at that stage. You could run Dom mesmers, but e-denial is pretty weak with so many paragons around and your Surges and Burns aren't going to accomplish nearly as much. Instead of trying to deplete their energy, you stack on so much damage that a BL monk with only 2 5s recharge heals simply can't deal with all of it, even when spamming skills non-stop. Then you put KDs or other mes effects on their monks and Heal Party guy through your warriors and it's game over.

On the whole, I think that says less about SF being good and more about all the other options being crap. If SF is the only viable non-melee offense it's because everything else just sucks. SF man lacks the utility and versatility a balanced build needs. SF doesn't make me want to drop my warriors for SF guys - you add SF guys when you want more damage and it doesn't make sense to include any more warriors.

Symbol · Nov 28, 2006, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Mind blast would be awesome if immolate had a 2s recharge. Hint, hint a.net..,

Wrynn · Jan 16, 2007, 03:11 AM // 03:11

Wow, I just read the whole thread, every post. Anyway, beyond that

I think what JR was getting at late in the thread how SF is not a "good" build in the strictest sense, is that, at least in my mind, your elite skill should be there to COMPLEMENT the rest of your bar. SF eles arent built that way. Their bar is built to complement, or otherwise enhance SF. As multiple people have mentioned, shut down that one skill on the eles bar, and the rest of the bar isn't that much of a threat. No other class has to do that(build around their elite to be viable at something). One could theoretically argue that a form dervish, or spirit rit does that, but dervishes in general are a whole other subject, and spirit rits are basically dead in gvg because well, they had limited use to begin with, and the list of reasons why they are so ignored now is numerous, and the top reason probably could be debated endlessly. IMO, Paragons killed spirit rits. But thats o/t.

Anyway...
Lets say you have a hypothetical sig humility spammer(s) around.
-A warrior without an elite, while possibly hampered a small bit in damage or pressure output, is still a VERY nasty threat, and still something to be dealt with, elite or no.
-A monk without his/her elite, can still heal, arguably some utility is lost, but the monk can still perform reasonably well with his elite in shut down.
-Mesmers sometimes have elites completely independant of the rest of their bar/task (usually shut down/disruption), see BSurge (and Yes, I realise that this is a disruptive skill, but most mesmers are caster disruption)
-A ranger is still a pressure threat with those two interrupts, ability to spread conditions, etc. (and the ranger could just interrupt the sig and not worry in the first place)
Im sure I dont need to continue because the majority of the people who would read this thread already understand what Im getting at.

And has already been beaten to death, and proven and re-proven over and over again, eles can't because their damage lines just dont do enough consistent damage, utility, etc.

What I am curious about is how Ensign, and others feel about Dervishes, especially in relation to elementalists. Just after reading this thread it almost seems like dervishes fill the "nuking" role (in a strictly numbers sense, obviously they arent ranged), simply because they do bigger, slower hits, with lots of disruption / pressure thrown in by the use of forms (and the skills that mesh well with said forms), they aren't hampered by having to build adrenaline, and they arent stopped by the "chain" that assassins are so dependant on. Right from the second the clock starts, they can be threatening (and yes, I know a warrior is threatening right off the bat, but a warrior is even more of a threat after he has the adrenaline engine rolling). They are however, limited by energy. But because of the way mysticism works, in the right build, they get fueled by the utility enchants already present or useful in other ways than just to power up the dervish.
In short : In many balanced builds, dervishes are at the very least, something to consider in place of a warrior, and may even work better.
And if I understand the OP enough, I think thats where he would like Eles to be. Never a requirement, but always something to consider when you plan your builds damage.

Hell, why not just get Ensign, JR, and a couple people of their choosing to just do a big round table and rebalance the whole ele line, one skill at a time. I would be up for seeing the results.

Thomas.knbk · Jan 16, 2007, 09:16 AM // 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrynn

What I am curious about is how Ensign, and others feel about Dervishes, especially in relation to elementalists. Just after reading this thread it almost seems like dervishes fill the "nuking" role (in a strictly numbers sense, obviously they arent ranged), simply because they do bigger, slower hits, with lots of disruption / pressure thrown in by the use of forms (and the skills that mesh well with said forms), they aren't hampered by having to build adrenaline, and they arent stopped by the "chain" that assassins are so dependant on. Right from the second the clock starts, they can be threatening (and yes, I know a warrior is threatening right off the bat, but a warrior is even more of a threat after he has the adrenaline engine rolling). They are however, limited by energy. But because of the way mysticism works, in the right build, they get fueled by the utility enchants already present or useful in other ways than just to power up the dervish.
In short : In many balanced builds, dervishes are at the very least, something to consider in place of a warrior, and may even work better.
And if I understand the OP enough, I think thats where he would like Eles to be. Never a requirement, but always something to consider when you plan your builds damage.

In my experience with Dervishes (on both ends of the scythe), I've come to think that Dervishes are indeed a very big thread, but they are also reliant on their elite. Maybe not to the extend Eles are (a Dervish with his form down is still nice pressure), but also most certainly not to the extend Monks, Mesmers and Warriors could make a build without an elite in it if they wanted to. Thereby a Dervish has exellent tools to prevent him from being shut down. Most obviously Avatar of Melandru, but also extend enchantments/sight beyond sight (requires rt secondary) and Featherfoot Grace. AoM and FG basically rule out conditions.
I realise I'm not Ensign but I wanted to give my opinion anyway

Clinically Proven · Jan 30, 2007, 05:50 AM // 05:50

Back on page 40 or so there was a discussion about Searing Flames, DPS and Ensign updating the original post for Nightfall skills.

Since it's been topical to my guild I was trying to get the DPS figure to something roughly usable. Now, obviously, I'm no Ensign, but I've given it a go.

Two questions for the experts:
* Is the end result reasonable? ie is the basic maths right?
* Do the assumptions render the answer useless?

Assumptions:
14 Fire Magic
Cast on Recharge
No aftercast
Doesn't include damage from burning (initially)
No AoE damage
60 AL target

Searing Flames
23 Casts p/min ---> 345 Energy
Damage p/min = 2,411
DPS = 40

Glowing Gaze
12 casts p/min ---> 36 net energy gain
Damage p/min = 564
DPS = 9

Total
Damage p/min = 2,975
DPS = 49
Energy usage p/min = 309

Sounds good but got to fuel it...

Fire Attunement
1 cast p/min --> 36 + 30% base energy costs = 123

4 Pips Natural Energy Regen
4 energy every 3 seconds = 60/3 * 4 = 80

Total Energy Gain p/min
80+123 = 203.

Energy p/min
203-309 = -106

Dammit, not enough energy. Better reduce casts so energy use doesn't exceed gain....

Searing Flames
13 Casts p/min ---> 195 Energy
Damage p/min = 1,417
DPS = 23

Glowing Gaze
12 casts p/min---> 36 net energy gain
Damage p/min = 564
DPS = 9

Fire Attunement
1 cast p/min --> 36 + 30% base energy cost - attune cost = 84

Total Energy Gain p/min
80+84 = 164

Total
Damage p/min = 1,981
DPS = 32
Energy p/min= 159

Add a full minute burning:

14HP * 60secs = 840

Best Case SF Total
Damage p/min = 2,821
DPS = 47
Energy = 159

Frank Dudenstein · Jan 30, 2007, 02:52 PM // 14:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clinically Proven

Dammit, not enough energy. Better reduce casts so energy use doesn't exceed gain....

You calculations are slightly off, because your Energy costs SHOULD exceed energy gain or you are seriously wasting resources.

Think about it this way ... lets say your ele goes into battle with 80 energy. For one minute he spams spells as fast and as hard as he can. If energy income=energy costs, then at the end of that minute he will have 80 energy. Huh?!? Has this actually ever happened to you??? IF it has, you are SERIOUSLY under-utilizing your ele.

I'd say for an ele you can easily budget 20-40 energy cost over and above your energy income. There will always be lulls in the battle where you make up the energy difference.

Thomas.knbk · Jan 30, 2007, 04:35 PM // 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clinically Proven

* Do the assumptions render the answer useless?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clinically Proven

No aftercast

I'm terribly sorry man, but yeah.

4thVariety · Feb 02, 2007, 08:26 AM // 08:26

Quote:

And in GW, melee should have superior dps because of the advantage ranged gives.

And which advantage would that be? Interrupts travel at lightspeed, so range is not protecting you. The distance itself is also not an advantage, because by the time the casting time is over ANYBODY could have just walked up to you and activate a nasty skill on you. Spellcasting range isn't that big. Levels aren't designed so you can effectively use your range. You don't have tanks, you get eaten alive, no matter if you play PvE or PvP.

We got a busload of spells supporting melee fighters and rangers in their damage output. Hell, we got an own CLASS of spells designed to do that. But the magician stands alone. No Necro Bloodmagic will raise his offense. no Ritualist weapon spell will buff him. Last but not least is the Low AL of Elementalist. Not only does he have no better offense, but he even needs more attention in his defensive. No wonder nobody is using him. No wonder everybody cries foul when a nasty spell puts him back on the map. People aren't used to having to deal with them. And when they start dealing with elementalists which appear to them as unbalanced they do it in the easiest way possible: Improve their gameplay? No! Go crying at Anets doorstep? Yes!

Thom Bangalter · Feb 02, 2007, 08:29 AM // 08:29

You can't kite most ele skills. That's the advantage they have.

(not that it matters, of course).

Ensign · Feb 14, 2007, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowleaf

EDIT: By the way, ANET, if you want to shake up the metagame, this is the way to do it. It would force a new tactic into GvG which could not be ignored. Area denial has NEVER been a factor.

It was relevant briefly when Sandstorm was starting to trickle into GvG. Of course it was promptly nerfed into a flaming pile of donkey shit, so there goes that idea. With Energy Surge taking a hit, we're at an all-time minimum of competitive AoE in Guild Wars.

Peace,
-CxE

Heavenly Lily · Feb 15, 2007, 12:28 AM // 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

If the Elementalist is to be viable as a damage dealing character, he needs to deal enough damage, front loaded or otherwise, to force his opponent to react to him and shut him down if they want to survive, in much the same way a Warrior forces that same response. In fact he needs to pose even more of a threat to make up for his low armor and relative vulnerability. Once an Elementalist is able to put that fear in his opponent, once he's able to push around the other team and force them to deal with him or die, only then will he be a viable offensive character.

If I hadn't read your whole post I would've thought this was some whining thread about how overrated Elementalists are.

Is everyone forgetting the concept of 'balance'? And speaking realistically, a warrior is never going to deal that much damage consistently. Though I agree that recharge time and energy cost is a pain, are you proposing to make it better? Nukers would become overpowered.

So are you suggesting that nukers are basically useless? Here I'd have to disagree. AoE spells can be a major pain to the other group and allow you to nail down a target or they could cast spells such as the aforesaid Frozen Burst which can slow down your foes.

If you're arguing that the nukers should be used for things other than nuking such as healing, I'd have to disagree (though agree in certain situations). If you're simply saying that Warriors deal much more raw damage than Elementalists, I'll say: "Ch'yah!"

Byron · Feb 15, 2007, 04:36 PM // 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

I don't really see this at all. Pre-nerf Searing Flames is the only Fire build that was good for GvG and people still beat it all the time without taking any specific counters. I see no problem in giving the Fire line the skills to make builds that are at the level of Searing Flames.

Quote:

The Sandstorm nerf is quite frustrating too. I can understand dropping the non-conditional damage, but hitting the recharge was retarded.

In top 50 play it was no problem, but for the majority of the ladder, SF and sandstorm were (and still are, more or less) capable of steam rolling guilds. For players who don't understand positioning or splitting well, which is 90% of the pvp population tbh, nukes dominate. Anyone who has played HA lately can see that. You might think, "too bad," but Anet is considering the majority of its clients here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

With Energy Surge taking a hit, we're at an all-time minimum of competitive AoE in Guild Wars.

I don't understand that move at all. Maybe Anet was worried about mesmer spikes? But that doesn't go at all with their constant re-inventing of necro spike, with OG in factions, discord, lifebane strike, etc. My best guess is that Anet's pet guilds were sick of dom mesmers. Which is a bloody shame, since surge mesmers were a constant in balanced GvG play. Surge is still a viable build so far as monk hate goes, IMO, and will hopefully come back once people get over the nerf.

Ensign · Feb 15, 2007, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavenly Lily

If I hadn't read your whole post I would've thought this was some whining thread about how overrated Elementalists are.

Balance discussions by those who don't know any better are usually whining. Any balance discussions are dismissed as whining by those who don't know any better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavenly Lily

Is everyone forgetting the concept of 'balance'?

Of course not. Everyone, at least, everyone worth listening to in this thread (and other threads), is familiar with balance (to varying degrees of understanding) and is generally very concerned about balance in Guild Wars. Hence, discussions like this one about imbalances in Guild Wars, what is causing them, and potentially how to resolve them.

Statements like this one are usually made by people who do not understand the present balance of the game, and furthermore tend to assume that the game *is* balanced - and that people are making threads like this one because they *want* imbalance. I will not deny that threads of that nature do exist, but the assumption that Guild Wars has good profession and skill balance is hopelessly naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavenly Lily

And speaking realistically, a warrior is never going to deal that much damage consistently.

Speaking realistically, a Warrior is hands-down the best source of damage in Guild Wars, with the (new) runners up being Dervishes and Paragons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavenly Lily

Nukers would become overpowered.

Incorrect. Nukers would become overpowered if they were already strong characters, and recieved significant buffs. Until the creation of Searing Flames and the widespread buffs to non-elite emanagement, nukers were so weak as to be *nonexistant*, and Searing Flames created an all-or-nothing gimmick rather than a strong, versatile 'nuker'.

The design of Eles-as-nukers failed pretty spectacularly, but they've recovered somewhat - as mediocre damage dealers that can pack some strong utility skills that physicals can't. It's a useful enough role to be considered balanced, but nukers they are not.

That's really the point of all this. Until Searing Flames came along, nukers simply did not exist in Guild Wars. They were instead poor DPS characters that had enough resemblance to the nukers found in other games for people to think they were nuking. But nuking has historically meant one of two things - the first being strong, persistent AoE damage (which, pre-Nightfall, was dominated by Barrage Rangers), and the second being short bursts of very high cost DPS (ala "3 minute mages" in WoW), which the skillset never has supported (spellcasts are sufficiently slow and low damage enough that you simply can't surpass a Warrior in DPS, even over shortish periods). Ele AoE was weak, and it's single target options were just less granular pressure. That's why everyone was running ice snares, blinds, and Heal Party on their eles - those were the things you were actually good at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

I think one of the main reason no one likes Rt is that they never actually used them as part of anything non-gimmicky.

It's written in the skill descriptions - 'this skill must be used as part of some gimmicky combo or it doesn't do anything'. That's reversed somewhat, but 'stronger but gimmicky' has been the defining characteristic of a Ritualist for some time. But if you meet the conditions of the gimmicks, Ritualists are pretty dangerous - they can actually nuke reasonably, too, with lots of 100+ damage, 1s cast spells.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron

In top 50 play it was no problem, but for the majority of the ladder, SF and sandstorm were (and still are, more or less) capable of steam rolling guilds.

Hey, at its peak Searing Flames was a problem too. Put four Searing Flames guys on fire map and you have a wonderful gimmick to try and run around on.

It was less of a problem from the standpoint of it rolling bad guilds, but more of bad guilds rolling bad guilds with AoE. Bad warriors are a lot less dangerous because the profession is more involved to play - a bad player with AoEs will miss a lot more often, but when he gets lucky and lands an AoE in the right place it does the work for him. That's one of the things working against eles-as-nukers in Guild Wars - they simply aren't designed to be terribly involved damage dealers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron

I don't understand that move at all. Maybe Anet was worried about mesmer spikes?

It's actually a nerf that I've supported for a long time. Why was the best AoE nuke in the game a Mesmer skill? Spiritual Pain just made it apparent - Mesmers were the AoE profession in Guild Wars, and the nerf started to address that paradigm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyunsai

Perhaps, simply put, Anet doesn't want some class, low armor or not, doing the same damage melee can do at range distance.

Damage dealt to a single target over a significant period of time is a statistic that realistically should be dominated by Warriors (or, if applicible to the game, some form of light melee). Damage over many targets due to AoE, or concentrated on a single target over a short timeframe, are mechanics that should be dominated by 'nukers'. Neither of those options are well supported, hence the design problems posed by the class.

Peace,
-CxE

Morganas · Feb 16, 2007, 01:48 AM // 01:48

Ensign, and all others on the side that eles must be able to nuke, why is that the case again? I've been keeping up with this thread, and with recent developments in nightfall, consider that elementalists, as they stand now, CAN nuke, while at the same time bringing significant utility to their team. You can offload monk spells to them, give them snares, ele specific defenses like wards, and all the while, on most of these builds, you can squeeze in a reasonable spike and some measly damage pressure. It's been acknowledged that eles as a whole are mostly balanced and useful.

Currently, the supposed problem is that physical damage dealers are necessary in balanced build, i.e. a build not centered around a single game mechanic, like all nec hex pressure, which I've been seeing alot of lately. Proponents of nuking have been advocating that eles should be able to function as the primary source of damage on a team. So if that were the case, why would anyone bring warriors, ever? I mean, the most utility I've ever seen on a warrior is empathic removal.

Now, suppose that like warriors, an ele would have to devote an entire bar to being dps, so few if any monk spells could be brought, and have to sacrifice utility, for instance, they couldn't achieve this damage by going water or earth.

Now we have two distinct flavors of balanced builds, but we have one that's going to be far easier to play. Nuking is brainless, in almost any rpg. Dealing with it, for the shutdown types, would largely entail "spread out" for aoe, and "omg prot me" for single target dps. Dealing with and playing as melee is fun and challenging, and there are a variety of ways to hinder enemy or help your own, through positioning, certain skills, and tactics.

To compensate, you'd have to make melee superior in the highest levels of play, or else it would be obsolete. So now all you've done is create a speedbump for noob guilds once they start to climb into the top 400 or so. If they've been running nukers all this time, they have to practically relearn how to play.

Now that we have 4 physical classes that can put out serious damage (A, P, W, D), you can't say that builds lack variety. The variety between offense is enormous these days. I just don't see why we should get rid of melee as a requirement, it's too much a part of guildwars.

Phades · Feb 16, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Damage dealt to a single target over a significant period of time is a statistic that realistically should be dominated by Warriors (or, if applicible to the game, some form of light melee).

The "light" melee options exist in the form of the dervish and assassin, who really should fit that model for the best consistant damage over time, due to the AL that "should" prevent the overextending that is used with high damage characters. Although unfortunatly the assassin is also a mobility/suprise character and the dervish has other options for mobility as well. Naturally difficult to kill characters, like the warrior, should be easier to stop and have lower damage, becuase it is more difficult to use pressure directly against them to disuade their actions, thus limiting the choices on what to use against them effectivly.

Due to the mechanics of the game forcing character animations to stop while attacking instead of moving with the target, we are also forced into the mobility versus anti mobility skills to try to keep the flow of battle favorable. As a result, this causes all physical damage dealers to have some form of mobility boost and mobility reducer within their skill lines, instead of reserving those skills for the "utility" caster professions, since caster professions could not be directly balanced in terms of damage with physical damage dealers for the fear of too easily applied instant death situations. This in turn causes too many direct comparisons with the ability to sustain damage versus the ability to apply meaningful utility supporting the rest of the group. Then again, the physical damage dealers also possess other control effects, such as knock down and interupts, which allow for even more blurred distinctions between damage dealers and utility options.

The odd thing is, there isnt much ANET can do at this point to really salvage it without either removing the utility options entirely from all physical damage dealing classes that cross over with caster professions, such as the elementalist, or giving elementalists the cheap and easy damage that physical damage dealers enjoy through either forced mehcanics like unavoidable DOT aoe (not fun) or overpowered up front nukes (also not fun). The sad part is, that ANET cant even go forward with comparable eliets (the eviserate nuke or the backbreaker nuke) for example without creating similar problems. I just anticipate more gimmic skills that end up either being totally or arguably broken and others that are completely worthless in terms of damage, as so far there doesnt seem to be much middle ground for caster professions like the elementalist.

Quote: