Curse

ax mastery · Mar 04, 2008, 11:09 PM // 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

coward is great for skirmishes on the ice surface. unlike most KDs, its instant cast will allow you to keep moving at the same time, which means that you won't also snare yourself.

as for the comment about KDs.... i think the game will be better if we do not go back to gale-lock days. a warrior's sphere of influence should go no farther than melee range. if you want a ranged KD on a warrior, either bite the bullet and use the current gale, or sacrifice your elite for coward.

warriors are powerful enough as it is. there's really no need to buff them.

Then that adjacent "sphere of influence" limitation should be applied to all melee characters right??

Also, you seem to fail to notice that coward requires the building of adrenaline before it is useable, and thus, is utter shit for splitting.

hareth · Mar 04, 2008, 11:17 PM // 23:17

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Aftercast

that's why shadow stepping are retard, put a normal after cast shadow stepping and that will be ok

moriz · Mar 04, 2008, 11:18 PM // 23:18

4 adrenaline. pull out your spear/shield and start chucking and "sliding" with your mouse clicks.

and yes, the adjacent sphere of influence should apply to all melee characters... with the exception of assassins, who frankly would be utter shit without shadowsteps.

perhaps we should have all shadowsteps have the conditional: "50% failure chance below 5 critical strikes". that way shadowsteps can be assassin-only without the need to tweak each of them heavily.

not to mention, it also subtly nerfs the castersins, who generally don't run anything in critical strikes and their augury of death will fail to trigger.

ax mastery · Mar 04, 2008, 11:26 PM // 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

4 adrenaline. pull out your spear/shield and start chucking and "sliding" with your mouse clicks.

and yes, the adjacent sphere of influence should apply to all melee characters... with the exception of assassins, who frankly would be utter shit without shadowsteps.

perhaps we should have all shadowsteps have the conditional: "50% failure chance below 5 critical strikes". that way shadowsteps can be assassin-only without the need to tweak each of them heavily.

not to mention, it also subtly nerfs the castersins, who generally don't run anything in critical strikes and their augury of death will fail to trigger.

So after needing to kd someone, you pull out your spear, chuck it four times, hope none of them miss, and then hit coward? Definitely available when needed.

I dont see how shadowsteps are any less of a problem on assassins than any other character? As long as they can instigib and shadow step, sins will always be bad for the game.

Popo · Mar 05, 2008, 12:02 AM // 00:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

First of all: Everyone runs warriors, so there is no group of people that gets a disadvantage except the gimmicks.
Secondly: Better? It makes them more equipped in tactical ability and split, not really when it comes to killing power in an 8v8.

How hard is it to get it into your head that gale at 5e would be good for the game? It doesn't change much in standfights but gives the game a HUGE boost in the variety of playstyles. The arguments are fairly easy to understand. I feel like some people are really too scared that something might be "too much." This is nonsense, as long as an update improves the game it doesn't matter whether a skill is overpowered.

Lol @ "it doesn't matter whether a skill is overpowered."

On to the real part of your post.

1) Exactly. Everyone uses Warriors that's because they are already amazingly good and better than other frontliners, so why make them even better?

2) More equipped in tactical ability and split is pretty much the definition of better. I never mentioned anything about killing power but if you're trying to tell me that a ranged KD that can be used as either a snare or interrupt will not result in more deaths you are delusional. If others classes have a better ability to split then that should be what attracts people to use them over the more common Warriors.

5e Gale is not better for the game. It just makes the game closer to what it used to be. In the context of drastic changes that would promote skill level while at the same time promoting the use of the newer classes, this is not a change we really need.

Shadowstepping is not inherently evil. Shadowstepping with a powerful hex snare and high damaging combo is (on top of no aftercast and ability to go through walls). Change the mechanics of shadowstepping and reduce the ability to "instagib" and there won't be much of a problem.

Boogz · Mar 05, 2008, 12:10 AM // 00:10

so basically the big problem with shadowsteps is that they have no aftercast delay?
so , why don't give shadowsteps some kind of delay after shadowstepping?

Popo · Mar 05, 2008, 12:23 AM // 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogz

so basically the big problem with shadowsteps is that they have no aftercast delay?
so , why don't give shadowsteps some kind of delay after shadowstepping?

That is one problem, but not the entire problem. Shadowstep go through terrain (and different elevations), generally are near instant in cast time, are accompanied by some sort of powerful snare (cripple or hex), are accompanied by overpowered combos, and various other things. As I said before, take away what comes after the shadow step and change a couple of its mechanics and see how it goes from there. No reason to go nerfing with double exhaustion or whatever crazy remedy people have.

DutchSmurf · Mar 05, 2008, 12:27 AM // 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogz

so basically the big problem with shadowsteps is that they have no aftercast delay?
so , why don't give shadowsteps some kind of delay after shadowstepping?

Because Izzy doesn't want to do that and is looking for a more elegant solution.

Neo-LD · Mar 05, 2008, 12:31 AM // 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popo

Exactly. Everyone uses Warriors that's because they are already amazingly good and better than other frontliners, so why make them even better?

You know, you just repeated yourself from your last post, so theres no reason to do anything other than repeat what Kaon said the first time. Every team uses warriors except gimmicks, so only the desirable teams will benifit, which is what we want. It would raise the ability of balanced-ish warriors to compete in split situations, which is also what we want.

You seem not to grasp that the goal of game balance is not about making every skill/build/class equally effective, but rather to ensure that the strongest skills in the game are desirable skills, specifically that they reward player skill.

Quote:

If others classes have a better ability to split then that should be what attracts people to use them over the more common Warriors.

So basically, promote build wars? Unbelievable.

Quote:

In the context of drastic changes that would promote skill level while at the same time promoting the use of the newer classes, this is not a change we really need.

Why in the world would we want to promote the usage of newer classes?

Quote:

Shadowstepping is not inherently evil.

Yes, it is. Shadowstepping circumvents countless risks and decisions that must otherwise be made by regular characters. It thrives on build wars and lets weak players perform as though they were strong, regardless of whether there is an attached combo.

Popo · Mar 05, 2008, 12:41 AM // 00:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

You know, you just repeated yourself from your last post, so theres no reason to do anything other than repeat what Kaon said the first time. Every team uses warriors except gimmicks, so only the desirable teams will benifit, which is what we want. It would raise the ability of balanced-ish warriors to compete in split situations, which is also what we want.

I repeated myself because he chose not to address my actual point and was using terrible logic. What you're saying is false as well. Balanced should have the option to use something other than a Warrior and still be referred to as balanced. Why? Read further on.

Quote:

You seem not to grasp that the goal of game balance is not about making every skill/build/class equally effective, but rather to ensure that the strongest skills in the game are desirable skills, specifically that they reward player skill.

Wrong. The game should have pros and cons for every class. Every class should be balanced and require skill and every class should be able to see competitive play. I don't care about every skill being useful. I care about every class being useful. If every class shouldn't be useful for competitive play then they shouldn't have ever made them. Since new classes have been introduced, they should be brought into the mix in a balanced fashion.

Quote:

So basically you like build wars. Gtfo.

No, I like more frontline options based on preference instead of always picking a Warrior. If it is truly balanced there is no build wars.

Quote:

Why in the world would we want to promote the usage of newer classes?

Because they are there and are otherwise gimmicky and unbalanced. If there's a way to balance them to the point where they fit the original conception of the game then that's what should be done.

Quote:

Yes, it is. Shadowstepping circumvents countless risks and decisions that must otherwise be made by regular characters. It thrives on build wars and lets weak players perform as though they were strong, regardless of whether there is an attached combo.

Quit using the term build wars when it doesn't even apply to what you're talking about. Shadowstepping can be balanced if the classes that are able to use them effectively are balanced with shadowstepping in mind. I honestly don't believe you're putting much thought into my post (and yours) and are replying based on emotion.

Phe Belladona · Mar 05, 2008, 01:19 AM // 01:19

you want to improve gale a skill that will basically give free kills to all spike teams, or you want to give every warrior a ranged interupting KD. warriors and spike teams dont need help what needs done is drowning the other frontliners and destroying shadowstep.

i cant see any reason to improve gale already its used twice in a lot of balanced builds do you really need another 2???

Neo-LD · Mar 05, 2008, 01:29 AM // 01:29

Kaon's logic, as well as mine, addressed your point perfectly. You cling to an incorrect notion that diversity and equality are more important than creating the best possible competitive environment by rewarding player skill. There is little anyone can do to help you until you accept this.

Observe: Many suggestions in the OP are going to kill diversity, at least for a period of time. Sins, Paras, and Dervs will all (hopefully) be unplayable, and a new metagame develop in their absence. But where you see unfairness, we see necessity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by popo

I honestly don't believe you're putting much thought into my post (and yours) and are replying based on emotion.

I have a reputation for always being well reasoned. If you feel that I did not put sufficient effort into adressing your argument, I assure you that it is only because I do not think you are particularly competent or worthy of a more than minimal explanation.

TheOneMephisto · Mar 05, 2008, 02:42 AM // 02:42

The nature of warriors makes it so that you don't really need more frontliners. The three-weapon system has been pretty well implemented for most of GW history IMO, giving you three completely different playstyles and many variations within each that allow you pretty much every frontliner option that you'd want. Any other frontliner that ANet wants to implement is simply going to not have what you need in a frontliner (cough assassin), going to be degenerate (cough most of dervish history), or isn't going to bring anything new that the warrior can't accomplish.

xhappy feetx · Mar 05, 2008, 02:50 AM // 02:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

The nature of warriors makes it so that you don't really need more frontliners. The three-weapon system has been pretty well implemented for most of GW history IMO, giving you three completely different playstyles and many variations within each that allow you pretty much every frontliner option that you'd want. Any other frontliner that ANet wants to implement is simply going to not have what you need in a frontliner (cough assassin), going to be degenerate (cough most of dervish history), or isn't going to bring anything new that the warrior can't accomplish.

Yea, the 3 weapon system is under-played, you can be a "good" cripslash but fail at quaterknocking, something people don't acknowledge

Razz L Dazzle · Mar 05, 2008, 03:05 AM // 03:05

Watching a monthly tournament with Gale warriors seems much better than what it will be according to current balance: Derv spike, Sin-Fire, hex-way, para-spike.

wuzzman · Mar 05, 2008, 03:24 AM // 03:24

GALE FOR EVERYONE!!! Want to fast cast it? No problem mesmers can run it just fine. Want to spam it on recharge? No problem ele's can run between 70-90 energy. Want to put it on frontliners? No problem, warriors already use shock, so whats wrong with a skill that can KD anyone within caster range? I mean are you guys jerking on your epeen too much to even notice how broken that is? Leetjuice got in your eye?

Popo · Mar 05, 2008, 04:12 AM // 04:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Kaon's logic, as well as mine, addressed your point perfectly. You cling to an incorrect notion that diversity and equality are more important than creating the best possible competitive environment by rewarding player skill. There is little anyone can do to help you until you accept this.

Observe: Many suggestions in the OP are going to kill diversity, at least for a period of time. Sins, Paras, and Dervs will all (hopefully) be unplayable, and a new metagame develop in their absence. But where you see unfairness, we see necessity.

I have a reputation for always being well reasoned. If you feel that I did not put sufficient effort into adressing your argument, I assure you that it is only because I do not think you are particularly competent or worthy of a more than minimal explanation.

That's a laughable response. In other words, you have nothing else. I proposed a simple question. Why should Warrior be more powerful than they already are? The most you've said is that basically you want Warrior to be the only option (stupid), and the other guy claimed that Gale will not make them better (the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time). You resort to saying "I'm not competent" for a response because just like most of this forum, you have no real idea what you're talking about. If they introduced new classes, then those new classes should be tailored to this game and be viable options. If you disagree with this then I truly feel sorry for you because you have such a close-minded view of how this game should be played.

Quote:

The nature of warriors makes it so that you don't really need more frontliners. The three-weapon system has been pretty well implemented for most of GW history IMO, giving you three completely different playstyles and many variations within each that allow you pretty much every frontliner option that you'd want. Any other frontliner that ANet wants to implement is simply going to not have what you need in a frontliner (cough assassin), going to be degenerate (cough most of dervish history), or isn't going to bring anything new that the warrior can't accomplish.

This is the typical response. I'm not saying it's necessarily "bad," but it epitomizes the laziness of this forum. They implemented these new characters and thus it is up to them (and us) to rectify the problem they have created. By their nature, Dervishes and Assassins are intended to be on the front lines (Assassins are sort of different in this respect with their shadow steps) and thus I don't think it is unreasonable to at least give them some sort of advantage or reason to pick them while at the same time promoting skill and balance. It's a tough task, but it's what the game deserves. Otherwise, the classes should just be removed from the game and realistically that is not going to happen. You claim that new classes could not introduce something that Warriors cannot already accomplish and that is where your fault lies. You could not possibly know what we might be missing out on.

Nero_Fayth · Mar 05, 2008, 04:27 AM // 04:27

This is nice and all, but I think you were forgetting about other pvp mediums when you wrote it.

Alot of the talk on this thread seems to be directed as such, and i doubt that prophetic use of big words is going to get anybody anywhere.

Good intent, but I think this thread isn't applicable to pvp as a whole.

Vaga · Mar 05, 2008, 05:02 AM // 05:02

Look, dervs take less skill to play than warriors, so warriors should be better than dervishes in the hands of a skilled player. Assassins take less skill than warriors, warriors should be better than assassins in the hands of a skilled player. Until a balance update changes the fact that dervishes and assassins take no skill to play, they should not be viable in high level gvg.

No one has been able to come up with anyway to make assassins and dervishes viable frontliners whilst taking skill to play, so Gus' proposal is that they be nerfed out of play until ANet can better figure out how to balance them in PvP.

Unfortuantly for all you guys who love diversity and a bit of build wars, 99% of the skills are poorly designed in Guild Wars. So if only the well designed skills that take skill to use are viable, there isn't going to be a whole lot of diversity.

Guild Wars isn't going to be around forever, in fact it might already have died. We don't have time to spend another year or more playing in random metagames Izzy makes to see if there might be a better way to play/balance the game than gale warriors, edenial mes' etc...

Gale on warriors would be fine as Kaon and Neo have said.

DreamWind · Mar 05, 2008, 06:22 AM // 06:22

Quite honestly, I don't know anybody who has played this game since the beginning who wouldn't want to go back to Prophecies only. The new classes ruined Guild Wars. There is no doubt about it in the eyes of the informed.