Curse

Master Fuhon · Mar 26, 2009, 03:24 PM // 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

P.S. please skip the ad hominem attacks. I have been around since before day 1, and am knowledgeable about all important tactics that have been used since then.

I borrowed a tone to test its effectiveness; I’ll keep in mind its ability to produce longer arguments, for cases where I would like to discuss more entertaining topics. For future reference, that wasn’t ad hominem. But the passage I’m quoting right now; this is you defending an argument with your own character instead of with an argument. This is why you imagine ad hominem everywhere, because you imagine your presence is a force for arguing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Its not like its my duty to educate, I'm just trying to be helpful. Anyways,

This quote was why I responded. Arguing is effectively self-serving, and produces something “helpful” only when the goals of the people involved are the same. For that reason, arguing is generally better for finding out information, not teaching it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

However since you desired some past perspective I tried to include it in this post.

In relation to what I have just said about arguing, I’m not the one who desired the past perspective; the other person you were arguing with was. My post was the second example of a post giving past perspective; and I didn’t understand why you wrote another post without including any past perspective. I had an indication you needed to be reminded of the existence of past perspectives, which should no longer be the case.

My goals are towards future perspective. The problem we have, and will continue to have, is players who are relying on meta-specific information and quotes from the past. The solution is not to make it a hostile atmosphere for those seeking to learn new information, but to make it a hostile atmosphere for those who seek to prevent information from being spread. The life of the game has not been aided by hoarding the secrets that get passed on, or making it an arduous process to get them.

Neo-LD · Mar 26, 2009, 05:50 PM // 17:50

Fuhon, I believe that your post contained the following snipe at the very end:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

The basis of the argument that you two are having is that you have a definition of pressure that is limited to modern times; while he references Ensign/IWAY and dominant tactics of the past, something you don't appear to know about.

Which is Ad Hominem, not to mention false.

In regards to my original omission of past perspective: Reverend and I were discussing the following argument:

1. Eviscerate is best for pressure
2. Pressure is dead
3. (Via 1 & 2) Eviscerate is not used.

With the main conflict being my disagreement with both premises 1 & 2. Notice how both 1 & 2 are completely addressable by exclusively considering the present state of the game. Past perspectives in this case are only secondarily useful for understanding how we have come to understand the game in the way we do. However, since you did insist that we include it, I wrote up a post doing exactly that, leading to the present situation wherein I now have presented solid arguments for the same conclusion via both the present and past perspectives. Are there any further problems? Since you just declined to dispute the argumentation in my last post, I assume not.

pah01 · Mar 26, 2009, 07:04 PM // 19:04

Why don't you two [reverend and fuhon] reread post 218 of neos near the bottom of page 10. Then make a post about how he is correct.

Thanks

Master Fuhon · Mar 26, 2009, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by pah01

Why don't you two [reverend and fuhon] reread post 218 of neos near the bottom of page 10. Then make a post about how he is correct.

Thanks

A while ago, I was having an argument with ChopChop and others, I think. There was a group discussion on the function of how Primal Rage was used to create diversionary pressure while unloading the same low recharge spiking combo over and over, similar to what Enraging Charge does for hammer. Seeing the post Rev linked, Ensign said it before all of us did. If someone was right it was Ensign, not us regurgitating what he said. It’s good that we are all able to prove some things separately afterwards, but the group as a whole is not quite up to that standard.

You see, Ensign did not need to argue with people when the answers were perfectly in his head. If anything, Ensign only argued when the answers were not clear, which was only after the game was changed beyond the way he originally understood it. At that point arguing serves its purpose; to find out what one needs to know. But there was no one to argue against Ensign, because he was considered to understand the game perfectly while not yet being perfect in performance. That is the difficulty of being on top; the external cues you rely on to produce improvement are no longer there.

Theory-wise, I only disagreed with the generalization that Eviscerate is outclassed in every facet of the game. I even gave a specific theoretical example (even though no one would reasonably build for it anymore). It’s even closely related to that hammer warrior argument people are having about getting lucky with sundering over taking vampiric. It might not be smart to gamble: but if your build is designed to gamble, then gamble all the way and gamble on any and everything. If you intend to win by luck instead of theory, that’s how you build. But if you understand, settling this one argument settles others, so it matters how its done.

The other stuff in that post is definitely agreeable, but my opinion on that is only based on how right I thought Ensign was when he said that. I have to analyze how the game is changed. It’s wrong to generalize to 100%; that’s the only generalization I agree with. Generalizing to 100% is what causes an opinion to get discarded without consideration of whether it has any validity at all.

Sun Fired Blank · Mar 26, 2009, 08:52 PM // 20:52

This fact is pretty much not in dispute: one attack skill burst from Eviscerate templates does more damage than one attack skill burst from Warrior's Endurance templates. One should conclude that an attack skill burst from an Eviscerate template is more likely to kill a target than an attack skill burst from a Warrior's Endurance template.

For me this becomes relevant in terms of:

1) your directed midline assists being recharge-bounded and / or damage-limited, to the point where your spikes can choke on these assists and there's a greater dependency during spike on your frontloaded burst damage to ensure kill.
2) the other team being under a very specific and sustained level of pressure (in terms of red bar stability) where the additional frontloaded burst damage is relevant to ensure the kill in small windows of opportunity.

For me obviously there are two problems:

1) Midline assists are just outright stronger now. Spike frequency is greater, spike density is greater, damage diversity is greater. In most builds today, even those that aren't more spike-oriented, your choke on spikes would not your midline assists; your choke would be Eviscerate.
2) This pressure state generally does not exist for sustained periods as the pressure volume from modern builds is too great. When you would reach this interval, you simply pass through it; one team destabilizes and people start blowing up about five seconds later. There's not much time to retreat and fall back, and depending on how far one team gets pushed into their base, or how many deaths they've taken, or what has died, or when they've died, they may not necessarily be able to split, and in the case of IWAY (tombs) there's probably no place to retreat or split. Even if this state were sustainable, the best way to make it more unsustainable is to just generate a lot more DPS and more deep wounds.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Mar 26, 2009, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Bottom line: WE is broken and should be fixed (be it by a direct nerf or nerfs to power attack and prot strike).

End thread.

Thats Too Bad · Mar 26, 2009, 11:38 PM // 23:38

This post is about PRage not about WE vs t3h HULY SHUCK AXU. Both builds can have same spike / pressure consistency with slight skill changes (Conjure, Enraging Charge, blah blah)

Lets do the Anet spin!

New skill change --> Some classes used moar --> Some classes underused --> Nerf --> New skill change --> Some classes used moar... and so on.

There is seriously no need to complain about skill nerfs here, it wont do shhhh...

Reverend Dr · Mar 27, 2009, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Today's "pressure" is created via spiking over and over, often and more often. This is the exact idea behind the creation and play-style of R-spike.

Anyone today that claims they are running pressure is either:
1. Running an outdated and otherwise inferior build (myself)
2. Running a spike build (p much everyone)

I'm had been talking about what was/would be useful in a pressure build and every counter has been telling me about spike builds.

Master Fuhon · Mar 27, 2009, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Excuse me on being set up by the Decapitate argument to compare Eviscerate in the same way. The advantages of bars with different elites are based on the other skills you can fit into the bar. I knew something looked wrong in the argument. I just couldn’t figure out what it was, and was going about it a less efficient way.

Having an argument where we compare Warrior’s Endurance and Eviscerate in damage dealing capabilities is just about the ideal argument for the WE to always win. This thread was starting to get distorted by how the game is currently played to the point where previous knowledge of how the bars were used was getting lost.

The Eviscerate bar is more flexible to fit interrupts like shock or agonizing chop because of the extra skill slot. The Eviscerate warrior plays more like a shutdown character than a damage spike character. The niche for a shutdown warrior is shrinking; the overwhelming damage is being used to pressure, and the fast recharging skills are used for burst damage.

In its prime, the Eviscerate Warrior gave his spike while rendering a character unable to cast, making it a cross between the current hammer and axe specialized builds. It was more ideal at finishing off solo characters that relied on their own casts to defend themselves (i.e. shocking as a block skill runs out to time the spike).

Greedy Gus · Mar 27, 2009, 10:43 PM // 22:43

It's one of the major symptoms of power creep, explained in detail over the past few years: pure offense and pure defense become more worthwhile, leaving utility, disruption, and other meta concepts with a greater opportunity cost for bringing. At first it was more subtle, but who would have guessed conceptually that optimal warrior play in 2009 would include using power attack on recharge to generate legitimate damage.

Master Fuhon · Mar 27, 2009, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Human beings have to be trained to think certain ways; which means unfortunately a pick-up-and-play bar leaves new generations stuck never being taught how to think the old ways (I've seen the analogy comparing doing math with a calculator). A pick-up-and-play bar also trains old generations to not use the thinking they used to rely on, because the shortcut overwrites the long method.

What makes things worse, old knowledge is treated as “primitive”. It takes up space and it takes too much time to learn. Primitive stuff gets discarded because that is what people associate needs to be done with primitive methods. The problem with this is that primitive activity was always done for a reason, and that reason doesn’t get passed on. This is why at every step of the way, primitive knowledge needs to be translated and kept alongside current knowledge; not argued out of existence.

The same cycles repeat themselves when primitive knowledge gets thrown away instead of being brought up to date. What this does is put the meta in a permanently stagnant place where alternate methods of thinking are closed off to current players. Current players need multiple methods of thinking, but they don’t need to get caught in the endless cycle of learning primitive methods again only to remember why we currently don’t use them.

I don’t like forced meta transitions that come by buffs. Players always need to think their way into the next meta, in order to train themselves how to think and how to play. If you nerf something, they at least have to think about the next selection. If you buff something too much, they take it by copying and without thinking. I don’t think all buffs are disastrous; but I think all buffs that produce skills that are clear cut winners almost instantly are a serious problem. I would try to put new skills slightly below the point where it appears they are useful; some desperate person might use it and try to turn it in to the next great thing.

This is also the reason why things like various spikes are so effective. PvE trains people to march 8v8 into their doom against a build designed to counter them in such a confrontation. It’s a real disadvantage not to be able to just turn on observer mode and see how people try to split to produce matchup advantages other places on the battlefield. Most tactics have to be taught and learned as well as skill uses, even though they appear primitive.

Krill · Mar 28, 2009, 12:17 AM // 00:17

What's with all these 5 paragraph dissertations lol?

PR was a shit skill, WE is a shit skill. It's like we've come full circle now with a recycled version of the derv smite garbage mixed in with equally terrible bspikers and heroways. That's really all there is to it...

Rhamia Darigaz · Mar 28, 2009, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by arienrhode

PR was a shit skill, WE is a shit skill.

i hope by shit you mean overpowered and bad for the game.

Apok Omen · Mar 28, 2009, 12:55 AM // 00:55

In summation:

1) People who liked PR because it reminded them of RaO think PR was nerfed too hard, even though it wasn't

2) WE is still OP, even though everyone and their mother's poolboy/sextoy knew this from the beginning

3) Eviscerate is still good, but sucks in comparison to Dismember

4) Decaptitate is good for IWAY

5) Thread has derailed itself multiple times

Thread over?

Snow Bunny · Mar 28, 2009, 03:45 PM // 15:45

Primal Rage:
Elite Stance
5e
1...5...13 duration
0...6...10 additional damage
You attack 33% (or 25%) faster
You take twice damage

Thoughts?

IMMORTAlMITCH · Mar 28, 2009, 03:50 PM // 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Primal Rage:
Elite Stance
5e
1...5...13 duration
0...6...10 additional damage
You attack 33% (or 25%) faster
You take twice damage

Thoughts?

No.

Primal is 'fine' now, it's still potentially really good but at least it can be countered by forcing the warrior to cancel it.

I wouldn't shed any tears if it was never used again.

Reverend Dr · Mar 29, 2009, 04:39 AM // 04:39

The only tears I shed for Primal was that Primal Hammer felt like the good old hammer builds of pre-flail days.

RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO, revert Primal but make wielding a hammer contingent to getting the IAS/IMS.