Curse

Kaon · Sep 29, 2009, 04:27 PM // 16:27

Exactly. Energy surge and signet of weariness were the traditional skills to take down wards, but they got nerfed, which made ward overpowered.

Ec]-[oMaN · Sep 29, 2009, 05:08 PM // 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

For ward as a chant, that would get the intended effect although in a workaround way. It would be really nice if a new mechanic could be introduced that doesn't allow faster cast time for a spell (by mes primary, equipment chance trigger, etc.), that could just be tacked on to specific skills. This would be a tremendously useful balance tool.

Would be a nice touch and this is something Guild Wars needs to certain spells to keep them in check, half cast and half recharge along with fast casting from a mesmer primary have always turned the tides of what was suppose to be rather balanced spells regarding recharge and cast times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

Why would you not use ward?
The only AoE there is to force you out is rodgorts every once in a while and rust.

I haven't played since July, but with the few games I've watched and with the updates that have come out since. I don't see a whole lot of physical characters with enough damage in team builds these days to warrant even bringing a ward of melee, it's caster and ranger/paragon ranged dmg sources.
Those ranger/assassins have disappeared too right?

Byron · Sep 29, 2009, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Exactly. Energy surge and signet of weariness were the traditional skills to take down wards, but they got nerfed, which made ward overpowered.

No, I'm pretty sure it was the GoLE buff, especially when it was bugged to allow for infinite cancel casts.

Wards right now would only be any good on certain maps. Otherwise, there are better alternatives to counter melee pressure (stances, armor, blind, etc). I see no reason to buff them.

kedde · Sep 29, 2009, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

Would be a nice touch and this is something Guild Wars needs to certain spells to keep them in check, half cast and half recharge along with fast casting from a mesmer primary have always turned the tides of what was suppose to be rather balanced spells regarding recharge and cast times.

I haven't played since July, but with the few games I've watched and with the updates that have come out since. I don't see a whole lot of physical characters with enough damage in team builds these days to warrant even bringing a ward of melee, it's caster and ranger/paragon ranged dmg sources.
Those ranger/assassins have disappeared too right?

While you're right about this, most kills in such builds come from a warrior knocking targets over, and spamming DW's to constantly do smaller spikes to draw prot and midline defense.

A WaMelee would decrease the amount of adrenaline the warrior/s would be gaining by ~50%, which means a lot.

Krill · Sep 29, 2009, 08:48 PM // 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

A WaMelee would decrease the amount of adrenaline the warrior/s would be gaining by ~50%, which means a lot.

Assuming the whole team moves to and stands in the ward. Can't remember the last I saw wards being used in GvG, the pre-nerf melee was ok in normal stand battles as part of the overall team defense but didn't really shine until VoD to help protect npc's and conserve monk energy. VoD has been gone for over a year so I don't see what the issue is here? At any rate it's an incredible stretch to say wards are a problem now, why not hit some other problem skills like arcing shot and swift chop while you're at it (hint: sarcasm)?

xDementia · Sep 30, 2009, 03:57 PM // 15:57

I agree with most of the op's suggestions except for balanced stance. It is indeed too strong but shouldn't be obliterated. In the current environment it needs to be playable even in a weaker incarnation. It's easy for frontline players to say it's retarded and that it needs to be killed but that's because you don't think about it from a backline's perspective or just don't want to admit how retarded and how easy it has become to keep people kd locked all day long because of powercreep. Even though it has been worse with the old gale and exhaustion swap exploit in the past, people still wish gale to come back... how silly. Sure it was fun back then, but the power level of dmg/healing was so much weaker it mattered less to have to deal with gale lock. Kd with the current power level of everything is one of the things that powercreep has improved the most.

Regarding Aegis, if it ever comes back there is a need to consider a few things:

-Should midliners be able to use it? Efficiency at low spec?
-Should flagrunners be able to use it again? Range?
-Does it need to have such a huge cost that using glyph is essential?

What do you think of this version of Aegis:

Enchantment spell -> Moved to divine favor

10e 2s 30r

For 1...5...7 seconds, all party members within earshot have a 50% chance to block attacks. Ends on party member if that party member attacks

5s at 9 divine favor
7s at 14 divine favor

With this kind of aegis I wouldn't mind having stances changed to skills like dolyak signet as it has been suggested.

Now the balance updates are supposed to happen every 2 months it is needed to discuss every single requested changes, the possible counters... new synergies, buffs that are going to bring broken templates into play... everything.

On a side note, it is funny how people critizice Anet because Pious concentration has been forgotten while people asking for an Aegis revert are predicting Mirror of disenchantment to be used when a newly buffed skill like Winds of disenchantment is just awaiting to see play.

Ec]-[oMaN · Sep 30, 2009, 05:23 PM // 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by xDementia

Now the balance updates are supposed to happen every 2 months it is needed to discuss every single requested changes, the possible counters... new synergies, buffs that are going to bring broken templates into play... everything.

Don't hold your breath. If the people responsible for balance changes don't even frequent this part of the GW Guru sub forum what's there to discuss? If they couldn't figure out the ramifications in previous updates why now? Lastly even if someone did decide to shift through this sub forum, how well would they fair going through this wall of text which was only suppose to be about stances and put together something meaningful?

Now I really wonder what the so called test crew will do for Guild Wars besides logging into a server with some changes 2 weeks before an update hoping to find skill bugs instead of skill balance and synergy with previous states of said skills.

kosh · Oct 01, 2009, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

The claim is implicit by usage of the specific case: Frenzy. IAS stance with high vulnerability drawback does not appear elsewhere in the game. There is no 'synergy with Frenzy' that 'works well' outside of the warrior class. Physical damage dealers have the highest capacity to punish the low armored classes that deal armor ignoring damage. Rangers/Paragons have the armor to use frenzy, but they do not have synergy with using cancel stances when they can attack from range.

Taken from wiki: Synergy (from the Greek syn-ergos, συνεργός meaning working together) is the term used to describe a situation where different entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome.

You appear to be using a vague variant of the definition of synergy. I consider synergy to be based on a stronger bond than what you mention. I consider synergy to be closer to 'two sides closer to being in direct opposition rather than being closer to being the same'. That is coming off my definition of different. Synergy is not a black or white issue anyway, so there need to be cases where the synergy is too low to be considered existent.

By using a vague definition of synergy, you would be making a weaker build based on many similar concepts all beaten in a similar way because they are too similar. What you would think is synergistic, would actually be a very easy build for someone else to break apart.

They are all stances, and they are all stances that fit in the same category of being used to 'reduce the punishment of positional mistep'. Sprint and Dash are no different. It is a positional mistep to chase a kiting or prekiting character.

Some of them are flexible enough that you can lure people into believing your positional mistep was not intentional. Some of them might also have alternate uses.

you know, u can werp around it with all the words you want, that fact remains that FAIL to see the difference between frenzy and LR,

yes, you get +10 for reading comprehensive, but you also get -85 for being not able to understand what role skills plays out. saying "they are all stances" is silly.

CAN you not see the difference from being able to dash out off danger path for 2 sec, and being able to stand under 2 war throwing a full adrenaline chain on you and walk away with out even needing prots.? i mean come on.

with IMs, u can move our of danger. or run to get single heal some on before they die. yes those are skills 'reduce the punishment of positional mistep'.

on the other hand, being able to walk into an enemy base and seeing the hammer war looking at you with that dumb look in his eyes, is not.

imo those skill do not 'reduce the punishment of positional mistep', they let you the ability to enter a bad situation and to know that outcome wont be so bad.

we all know some skills should have not in play, but they are, so we can at least try to modify those, for the least amount of damage they do for a skillful play.

also, all that aside, more stances need drew back, dont forget some stances have them, and imo more stances need them. even for a war, rush with its no drew backs so to speak, but your still giving out your IAS. not as to say for BS or Lr that are just "add" off. a war need his IMS+IAS in order to be affective in killing things. monk dont need BS to be a good monk. BS is the frosting on the cake. a ranger should be able to walk around feeling "godlike" for that 70 phy+100 ele +75% blocks+33% IAS.

btw sry for my grammar.live with it.

Master Fuhon · Oct 02, 2009, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Your description does not read like a problem with stances, but instead a problem with the tiebreaker. You describe a hammer warrior who is trying to prevent the other team from winning. This specific case does not hint that you have taken any initiating moves to achieve any objective related to winning. The other team is initiating, and I have no idea how rewarding the hammer warrior thinks that responding should be when compared to initiating.

The most important rule of competition is to allow the offense to have an advantage so that people don't wait for opponents to take actions. If we are talking about a game where most build viability has been reduced to prevent build wars, that means there are relatively few creative offensive attack strategies left to try in the game. As a result of this, it makes it easy to script response to them, counter, and initiate a transitional move in most of the situations people can come up with. Stances are part of the issue that if we can only initiate the same few attacks, you would be able to counter them easily and make them not worth trying.

Stance issues did start to creep up more as a result of the tiebreaker. One of the better aspects of the tiebreaker is that defending NPCs while initiating nothing cannot win. The flaw of the tiebreaker is that you start getting points for it while mounting a pathetic offensive that in no way has the potential to kill anywhere on the playing field. The mechanic of occupying characters in the base is not too bad, although it has produced some boring stalemates, it is a necessary evil in coping with the potentials of defensive synergies. It exists as long as there is some character in base that has an effect in determining the contest to a major degree.

kosh · Oct 02, 2009, 01:45 AM // 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Your description does not read like a problem with stances, but instead a problem with the tiebreaker. You describe a hammer warrior who is trying to prevent the other team from winning. This specific case does not hint that you have taken any initiating moves to achieve any objective related to winning. The other team is initiating, and I have no idea how rewarding the hammer warrior thinks that responding should be when compared to initiating.

The most important rule of competition is to allow the offense to have an advantage so that people don't wait for opponents to take actions. If we are talking about a game where most build viability has been reduced to prevent build wars, that means there are relatively few creative offensive attack strategies left to try in the game. As a result of this, it makes it easy to script response to them, counter, and initiate a transitional move in most of the situations people can come up with. Stances are part of the issue that if we can only initiate the same few attacks, you would be able to counter them easily and make them not worth trying.

Stance issues did start to creep up more as a result of the tiebreaker. One of the better aspects of the tiebreaker is that defending NPCs while initiating nothing cannot win. The flaw of the tiebreaker is that you start getting points for it while mounting a pathetic offensive that in no way has the potential to kill anywhere on the playing field. The mechanic of occupying characters in the base is not too bad, although it has produced some boring stalemates, it is a necessary evil in coping with the potentials of defensive synergies. It exists as long as there is some character in base that has an effect in determining the contest to a major degree.

again im sry. but wow? u have somehow to said just about nothing in 25 lines. so stances are not the problem is the game? funny as it seems to me stances only came up as a prob after enc removel got so cheap.

figure that one.

oh and defending npc... lol. pvp u say. pve i say. npc should have not been a win/lose breaker anyhow. we all know thats why vod got shut down.

and whats the part about "As a result of this, it makes it easy to script response to them, counter, and initiate a transitional move in most of the situations people can come up with. Stances are part of the issue that if we can only initiate the same few attacks, you would be able to counter them easily and make them not worth trying.
" like wth?

so we should all not go hammer since bs is so up and all. and just play hex way since its so meta and all. your argument is not valid. just because ppl have been Abusing skills, and i do mean ABUSING,doesnt mean it shold be O.K

Master Fuhon · Oct 02, 2009, 04:45 AM // 04:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by kosh

again im sry. but wow? u have somehow to said just about nothing in 25 lines.

The excessive writing is a combination of context and supporting evidence. I have found those two things to be essential in not repeating the same conversations over and over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kosh

so stances are not the problem is the game? funny as it seems to me stances only came up as a prob after enc removel got so cheap.

figure that one.

It's related to the tiebreaker. The most dangerous situation is still 1v1, because you have been isolated from the support skills of your teammates. In an 8v8, it starts to become difficult when the next stance is used, whereas the renewing/redundancy of stances turns the already advantaged 1v1 matchup into something hopeless. This is a strategy element forcing people to play some type of 'balanced' build instead of trying to overload the same weakness with a single unbeatable attack strategy (spike, knockdown, etc).

The tiebreaker produces a lowered necessity for dealing damage. When a lowered necessity for dealing damage occurs, you have more difficult recursive problems to solve. Individual characters can afford to slot more defense, because they don't need damage to win any small scale battles. If a strong solo defensive character cannot win at anything, it doesn't appear in the meta unless it can provide a synergy with an attack. If it can't win in any smaller scale battles that can be forced, it would be re-evaluated for performance on the larger scale. That evaluation on the larger scale would likely find some of the defensive capabilities wasted because other team members could be relied on for those things.

The most common lighting reflexes ranger is a specific case of a build that cannot be solved by particular classes depending on blockable damage and conditions. It can be made more problematic by adding a hex removal, but that explains why water elementalists and illusion mesmers are popular: for overloading single hex removals in the 8-12 recharge range, and limiting a split by forcing more hex removals or more frequent retreats. Crippling Shot is a likely choice for overloading mending touch, in cases where hexes are not used.

A stand warrior has high damage, but has the lowest possibility of solving a recursive problem solo. If you wanted to come close, you would take unblockables and rely on someone else's snare (and possibly removals). The main solutions rely on snare overload to occur on the removals, and collapse. Sending a healer back to stall is a strategy based on confidence that the stand team will push through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kosh

oh and defending npc... lol. pvp u say. pve i say. npc should have not been a win/lose breaker anyhow. we all know thats why vod got shut down.

The game needs an NPC based objective to create a minimum two build meta. The first build is any single build that manages to have success in wiping the other team and killing the guild lord; this is assuming the worst case that only one build prevails for whatever balancing reason. The second build is just a ton of defense supported by bare minimum offense, designed to stall the other build, amplify NPC contribution, and hope for mistakes. The problem is that without the Guild Lord, people are likely enticed into playing build 2 to grow confidence by hanging with everyone for 28 minutes. People might even receive enough false positives to believe they were close to winning or causing a wipe, ensuring the belief that they should continue to run the build despite lacking the offense.

I recommend an NPC objective for a separate reason as well, for what it does in reducing the hatred other players have for each other after competing against each other. The more competition is oriented around exploiting the flaws of people, the more it gets engrossed in hostility. Directing an objective against the player makes it easy to turn off sportsmanship and compassion. In fighting/boxing, people come close to killing their opponents when the referee does not step in because the mindset can be so focused. When it's an NPC causing the loss, anger gets directed at the NPC. The NPC has the ideal response to anger for people to learn anyway: he silences anger by making people feel foolish for blaming an NPC. NPCs also do not hold grudges. Consider that if the competition was more people focused, more people may have burned bridges for future social connections because of what they did in competition. Team PvP would end up dying out for that reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kosh

so we should all not go hammer since bs is so up and all. and just play hex way since its so meta and all. your argument is not valid. just because ppl have been Abusing skills, and i do mean ABUSING,doesnt mean it shold be O.K

If you don't read any of that, yes, run hexes or don't complain about losing. The game was not designed to be without hexes. No one is subject to any rules about hexes being unfair. The largest abuses I am seeing are the comments directed at people who play hexes.