Curse

the_deSKtructor · Sep 19, 2009, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by X Cytherea X

realistically, difficulty of execution does not matter as long as it's mathematically balanced.

The balance should take into account how hard it is to play a given build.

Lux Aeterna · Sep 19, 2009, 02:13 PM // 14:13

It's harder than you think to play a sin, especially under any pressure or against reasonably intelligent defense.

For example, in JQ, 560hp and no self heal: Ranger with burning arrow, apply, and blocking stances is trying to cap my shrine. I block his BA with a big square of jade, he runs around to try to shoot me. I hit him with my lead, he puts up natty stride. He autoattacks me once to poison me, I run aroud the jade block again before his burning arrow goes off. We continue going in circles around a block of jade for another few seconds like kids playing tag around a table, then after I know his stance is gone I blow him up and immediately warp away and kill an incoming RoJ monk.

It also takes more skill to counter, say, shield bash.
Additionally, most of the more complex attack chains can, and need to be, used in 3-4 or more alternate orders -- With most builds if you just 1234567 you're doing it wrong, if you play it badly you won't be able to kill a necro through faint when he's right next to his monk.

You may not like them, but that doesn't really mean they're easy to play.

X Cytherea X · Sep 19, 2009, 02:30 PM // 14:30

Quote:

realistically, difficulty of execution does not matter as long as it's mathematically balanced.

Quote:

What the hell does this mean?

that even if a profession/skill/playstyle is relatively easy to perform, as long as its raw numbers (energy/cast/recharge/damage/duration/etc) are balanced with respect to the 1:stuff it counters, 2:its own counters, and 3:its alternatives...that's fine.

of course, exactly what the balance of those raw numbers should be... is subject to opinion. but imo it should lean towards "things blowing up" for the game to be exciting.

Quote:

The balance should take into account how hard it is to play a given build.

maybe a little, but not really. mathematical balance (the way i described above) should count a lot more.

Nimble Night · Sep 19, 2009, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Shame they didn't hit rip harder, but better than nothing and illusion of pain needs toning down.

Iotan · Sep 19, 2009, 03:52 PM // 15:52

I think this is the way they should go about nerfing skills. Aside from MoR, all of those skills are still viable in different builds while not being OP and in every build.

The balance schedule still makes no sense, especially with skill changes like this. I don't look forward to two months of dual paragons everywhere

deluxe · Sep 19, 2009, 04:04 PM // 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iotan

I don't look forward to two months of dual paragons everywhere

I do, dual para has shit split capabilities :P

Reverend Dr · Sep 19, 2009, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by X Cytherea X

exactly what the balance of those raw numbers should be... is subject to opinion.

So its balanced, if my opinion says its balanced.

RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing brilliant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux Aeterna

Ranger with burning arrow

What you describe are not the difficulties of playing as an assassin, but the difficulties of playing against a ranger. "Hide behind walls to avoid arrows." is what every class other than another ranger should do. Assassin is still just a matter of finding an opening, then 1,2,3,4,5. Also I hear that Jade Quarry is representative of the difficulties of top level play.

Teh Jace · Sep 19, 2009, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Anet scored for the first time this year... gg

Magikarp · Sep 20, 2009, 02:20 AM // 02:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_deSKtructor

The balance should take into account how hard it is to play a given build.

qft.

If any build has X equal results of Y, but has significantly less obstacles to overcome, then X is overpowered.

Or in plainer words: tard builds that net pro results need dead.

Ghost Dog · Sep 20, 2009, 02:44 AM // 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux Aeterna

It's harder than you think to play a sin,

No it isn't.

At all.

X Cytherea X · Sep 20, 2009, 08:41 AM // 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

If any build has X equal results of Y, but has significantly less obstacles to overcome, then X is overpowered.

the obstacles must only be the quantitative kind, cuz that's what can be concretely measured.

Osiris_sam · Sep 20, 2009, 09:50 AM // 09:50

@cytherea... if you think that sin energy attacks are 'mathematically' balanced with warrior adrenal attacks, you clearly either totally misunderstand mathematics, or fail to see the larger picture.

by that (the larger picture ofc) i mean you are failing to see all the variables involved. You are assuming that, for the purpose of argument that the 'recharge time' of adrenal skills is constant... but it isnt. This can vary between taking a very very long time to a couple of hits depending on a number of factors including player skill, obsticals, blocks (and other active/passive defense), enviromental factors. (so unlike what you said, player skill IS a factor).
please note before you chew my head off, this is an example... not the actual case.

So please, before you argue that sins are 'mathematically balanced' try actually considering the whole problem.

In general however, not such a bad update. Even if dual para wasnt hit some more, its still by far the best update in a few months.

assassin skills on the other hand (assuming no shield bash/disables as above) have CONSTANT recharge time. I agree with the toning down of db, it allowed mindless damage pumping for next to nothing, escape is nice, rip is nice.
little more concerned about patient spirit, yes it was op (and maybe still is), but i still think that offense in general should be toned down somewhat before defensive skills are nerfed more

Borat_Best_Player · Sep 20, 2009, 01:03 PM // 13:03

Are we really going to compare sins to warriors? I thought that people realized that it's unfair to compare 2 classes about 2 years ago.

If you wanna go at it, tough, please think about the shit you're saying before you post it.

Quote:

It's harder than you think to play a sin

With such a statement, you're obviously going to get alot of feedback. Problem is that noone seems to realize there is no obvious right or wrong to this statement.

Firstly, what is concidered "hard to play"? In theory, all a warrior has to do is hit C, spacebar and use some adrenaline skills. Surely, a GOOD Warrior will be destinguished from a bad Warrior rather easy, but in essence, it's easy to hit 80-90% efficiency as a Warrior. (Freemen and other HoH'ers are proof of this)

As a sin, you 'only' have to press energy based attack chains, just as a warrior "only" has to c and space.

A GOOD sin, however, will also easily be destinguished from a bad one, and I'm sure the curve between the two is not as high as with Warriors, but saying sin is easy to play is saying as much as Warrior is easy to play.

In extend of this, the "skill required to play a bar should be included in game balance".
This, and I hope everyone realized that, should be a set condition.

If a Warrior has to use every key of his keyboard to score kills, it's only common sense to realize any other bar that can achieve the same WITHOUT having to invest any skill at all, that this isn't fair. (R/A's)

And we havn't even started on individual bars. Noone will disagree on the fact that PR or WE were pressure autopilot as a warrior. And also that playing a BBsin is harder than playing a palm strike sin.

There is no way to measure skill required to play a bar, but rather than to play it yourself. And going from that, I can easily say that some sin bars are ALOT harder to play than some warrior bars.

Sin is alot more than simply pressing 1-2-3, and if you want to reduce it to that, a Warrior is nothing more than than C and spacebarring, as I said before.

Sins are very prune to interrupts/disables on combo skills, and also don't have the survivability as a Warrior does.

Lux Aeterna · Sep 20, 2009, 02:23 PM // 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borat_Best_Player

"Sin is nothing more than 1-2-3, and Warriors require skill to play"

Basically this is what I'd always heard and thought, warrior is my main I hate palm strike etc etc etc.
(Warrior is, in fact, my main, before you ask, I hit every Bull's Strike and cycle Frenzy/Rush correctly)

I rolled a sin, and found it pleasantly refreshing, it's very different from playing war but most certainly requires some thought.
As you say there are definitely good sins and bad sins, and the difference is very clear.
A good sin will kill your monk, a bad sin will waste his entire long chain after you savage slash trampling ox.

For all the 1-2-3 people, it's actually like this:

1-2-3-4-5-6-7: Full spike vs. priority target, non-adjacent to foes.
1-2-3-4-6-7: Near full spike vs. priority target adjacent to foes.
1-2-5-4-6-7: Near full spike, non adjacent to foe, vs. non-crippled target.
1-7: Small spike, finish off a low target (as much damage as an eviscerate crit)
1-3-4-7
1-5-2-4-6-7

Right there are 5 different way to combine the attacks on a standard PS build.
You also have to kite more and worry about taking damage as a glass cannon class.

Another thing, there's a good bit of room for originality on sin bars, warriors certainly can't say the same.

Kaon · Sep 20, 2009, 03:02 PM // 15:02

This whole sin versus warrior thing is old. The thing is an assassin represents a wholly different playstyle (byob) a style much harder to play. Of course you can split with a warrior too but it doesn't have much skill difference because as a warrior you're going to have teleports too. I'd go as far to say sins reward skill more than warriors because sins get more opportunities and when you're good and see them, you get rewarded by a kill. It's always a matter of seconds and a wrong decision is the difference between life or death.

Again it doesn't really matter, they're both completely different classes in completely different roles. The R/A thing had nothing to do with assassins, it worked the same as those stupid WE warriors. Buttonmash.

moriz · Sep 20, 2009, 03:08 PM // 15:08

an assassin is a warrior with the need to execute offensively removed, since the build does it for the player. this allows the player to focus on other things, such as movement/position, calling strats, playing defensively, etc.

Silent Treason · Sep 20, 2009, 05:33 PM // 17:33

Sins aren't hard to play.

No, you don't land every bulls strike on recharge.

And sins have been used in a lot more builds than just BYOB, stop spouting nonsense. A lot of very good high end guilds have run them and they certainly aren't a hard class to play. I would know, I played sin for almost 4 months exclusively in dV and for a while in DF too.

Sins aren't hard, theyve never been a class that required micro or finesse. They simply teleport and hit their skills in sequence. The only challenge they present is target selection. That's it. Period. Warriors have to do a lot more than just "C Space" and hit adrenal skills.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Sep 20, 2009, 06:13 PM // 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Treason

Sins aren't hard to play.

No, you don't land every bulls strike on recharge.

And sins have been used in a lot more builds than just BYOB, stop spouting nonsense. A lot of very good high end guilds have run them and they certainly aren't a hard class to play. I would know, I played sin for almost 4 months exclusively in dV and for a while in DF too.

Sins aren't hard, theyve never been a class that required micro or finesse. They simply teleport and hit their skills in sequence. The only challenge they present is target selection. That's it. Period. Warriors have to do a lot more than just "C Space" and hit adrenal skills.

It scares me a little, but I'm gonna have to agree with less on this one.

Magikarp · Sep 20, 2009, 06:49 PM // 18:49

what is a Bull's Strike?

oops!

In all seriousness, comparing the two classes isn't fair at all. Even comparing a sin to another energy class, like dervs, is still really obtuse. You figure that the sin is designed under the in/out fashion, and more importantly, a very classic archetype of fast chained kills.

a good melee player knows how to pin/bodyblock/corner
a good melee player knows how to work around antimelee
a good melee player knows how to find openings
a good melee player knows who to go for first/during battle
a good melee player knows how to work with his/her team
a good melee player knows how to interrupt (if they have it)
a good warrior knows his combos (qlocks/snarings/finishers)
a good sin knows his combos (alternate combo uses/tactical kds)

and I don't like the argument of "warriors have more utility". Most of the warriors utility comes from Bulls and Shock. Shock is ran equally well on a sin (and has been many times) and bulls can be tossed onto anything.

Mesmer and Warrior are my mains btw.

Bobby2 · Sep 20, 2009, 08:33 PM // 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

and I don't like the argument of "warriors have more utility". Most of the warriors utility comes from Bulls and Shock.

And the tiny matter of viable timed interrupts, like Savage, Ago/DChop. Sword/Axe autoattacks are quite a bit more buff than those of daggers, which means Warriors can (and should) pressure when using a skill isn't warranted. This ability is of course balanced by the fact that a War's attack skills themselves aren't as damaging as an Assassin, it's only fair.

Following from this, an Assassin delaying his attack skills, waiting for the 'right' time to use them, isn't playing to his class' strengths, since the one benefit they have over Warriors is the ability to rack up big yellow numbers in a small time frame.

Adding to that, Warriors don't have to commit like Assassins do (compare Bull's Strike to Leaping Mantis Sting).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

Shock is ran equally well on a sin (and has been many times) and bulls can be tossed onto anything.

Stonefists' effect is BIG, do not underestimate the difference between 2 and 3 seconds. Also, the notion that Shock can be run equally well on Warriors and Sins is subject to debate. Apart from lacking the Stonefists, the Sin's reliance on energy may limit its use despite his more ready access.

I am, of all people I can think of, the best example. I played Assassin vigorously, but these days I enjoy my Warrior far more - simply because the class rewards real skill instead of just broad positioning and timing. So yeah, I'd say the Warrior class has more depth.

/endrant.

RIP Death Blossom, at least you're still 2s in PvE, where you belong.