Curse

erk · Jan 10, 2008, 03:31 AM // 03:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

Paragons, Rangers, and shadowstepping Assassins are all more or less subject to the same situation. Dervishes and Warriors are significantly harder to manage, though I can't say I like the kind of gameplay Mel's promotes at all.

/Agree That prompts me to make the monthly reminder to A.net to nerf Avatar of Melandru, it's should fight conditions when it's up but not be totally immune to condition stacks. eg. Make it like Avatar of Dwayna.

Elite Form. For 10...62 seconds, whenever you use a Skill, you gain 15...51 Health and lose 1 Condition. This Skill is disabled for 120 seconds. And reduce the energy cost.

Ensign · Jan 10, 2008, 06:25 AM // 06:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

I'm not convinced that the possiblity of this is ruled out at this time...In fact I'm somewhat surprised that more teams haven't been playing this way.

It's still possible to play in that way. It's just at a low point right now, build-wise, as the skillset favors teams that can pack more party defense in. The map rotation for the ATs has been favorable, which has helped, but that sort of build is extraordinarily fragile. You are playing build down, raw power wise, against everyone, and need to make it up by outplaying them. That's particularly stark at VoD, where not having that fourth defensive stand character is an enormous liability; we lost a ton of matches early on from just having mediocre VoD strategy.

We play that way because it is the only way that we can impose on the flow of the game. It's what lets us play Guild Wars and win and lose on a more strategic scale instead of on the small scale of 321spikes and interrupting 1 second casts. You're playing a dangerous game of forcing a stronger build to play a way that it's unable to do; but it's at least satisfying. The wins and losses are under our control.

If you want to know why more teams don't play that way just watch observer mode. They don't split properly, they use bad tactics, and they get blown up by simpler builds with more raw power. The ability to dictate terms is only good if your players can dictate terms; if they can't you're better off taking 4-5 defensive characters and slugging it out.

DF was the only team recently to play similarly, though their strengths and style are different from ours, and they would use a different build because of it. But the consequences are similar, they're set up to outplay everyone, but their margin for error has been stripped to the minimum by the hard pressure to bring a 4th defensive character with party healing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

Aegis and a whole host of other anti-physical defenses got nerfed... leaving the meta wide open for physicals to dominate MORE than they normally would do.

Well the only real change there is that the defensive/offensive hybrid 'caster' has turned into a Paragon almost universally. All that really means is that Dom Mesmers aren't really offense now as much as support; while edenial + offense from ESurge and EBurn used to be the core of a Dom guy, those simply aren't all that good anymore; similarly they haven't been really money in a skirmish ever since Gale got hammered. Besides the edenial angle, offensive casters have always been hex dependent; outside of spikes the good offensive skills have almost universally been of the form damage + effect. Which basically points us to HEV, and how everything that puts a hex on a Warrior is worthless because it loses the game if they happen to bring it.

Essentially damage Mesmers aren't good without active energy management for them to punish, and most other casters aren't good when they lose the game to HEV. You're left with Air Eles, which are still blind+spike just as they've been for years, and Fire Eles, which get decimated by PLeak. Paragons at least provide offense and defense without getting utterly destroyed by a few ubiquitous skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

Caster based support just doesnt get a look in because if you had to choose between the offensive/defensive abilities of a paragon and a bsurge midliner you would probably choose the paragon (the paragon far outshines the eles contribution at VoD)...

Well BSurge has never been a damage character, it's always been a spike character; I'm happy to see people move away from that at least. But the Motigon is essential for VoD for the party heals. My experience with the current state of things is that you need two paradigm party heals to have a good VoD plan, or a dedicated Heal Party guy. Dedicated Heal Party guy can't be your runner (massive single point of failure), he needs to either be a midline guy who can run away and pump parties, or a Healer's Boon guy, which unfortunately locks you into the Air Ele if you don't want that guy's face to get sat on hard.

LoD was really dumb as an overpowered, single point of failure, but cutting it from the game and replacing it with nothing certainly didn't help things. The mechanic is still absolutely necessary and without good options to provide it the game has seriously degenerated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

Wasn't this largely due to the displacement of the red-bar-go-up role on to monks? Again, maybe I'm not seeing it, but the monk toolbox aside from the LoD hammering seems to have only improved (if slightly).

It's due mostly to the vastly increased danger posed by Assassins, RaO thumpers, Fire Eles, and even just Paragons in a 'normal' build; another factor is the Heal Party runner being obsolesced by heartier split templates that required a more robust 3rd defensive character. If you knew that your opponent wasn't going to threaten with any of that stuff and was going to have a 2 Warrior + support offense, you probably could get away with the old Gift of Health / Mend Condition guys with the luxury elite. But Monks have to do more with less healing support from that 3rd guy now; the cost has been moving the flexibility onto the 3rd defensive guy.

The initial shift was flexibility from stand Monks to 3rd Monk, and party heal from 3rd Monk to stand Monks. Now you can't run it on Monks, the runner can't give up the flexibility, but it's still required...so you need to put it on a 4th 'Monk'. More required defensive characters is bad.

Animate · Jan 10, 2008, 08:33 AM // 08:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Aura of Displacement, Shock, Falling Spider, Twisting Fangs, Disrupting Stab, Death's Charge, Dark Escape, Shadow Refuge

vs.

Shadow Prison, Tiger Stance, Black Lotus Strike, Horns of the Ox, Black Spider Strike, Blades of Steel, Impale, Recall

The former being an extremely mobile, high utility character that timed its combo for a lot of degen + deep wound to set up a target and win a duel; the latter, a 7 skill, 1234567 combo Sin with Recall to teleport across the map. The former is a harassment character, the latter is an instagib lolsin. The former played Guild Wars. The latter instagibs or fails.

Mh yea I don't know what that has to do with me not paying attention. The first is better on his own, the latter drops his utilities for more damage and goes with another utility char. They're just different play styles depending on what you need more, which is actually an utility too. The first is the sin Bloodlight played... however, by the latter I meant any recent sin build and not 7 fixed skills of the a/w you refered to. Of course that a/w mashed three buttons more to deal more damage, that was the trade off and general idea of that char. Both sins can win or lose a duel, the first one can resort to his utilities on his own when "instagibbing" failed, the a/w to his team. I don't know whoever defines what playing GW is, but thinking like that is getting the game nowhere, only creating stereotypes and people creating the 9001 threat on the 9001 forum asking for another balance update because they limit themselves like that.

RhanoctJocosa · Jan 10, 2008, 08:47 AM // 08:47

I would love to see the old distortion tbh. I'd also like to see YAA buffed slightly.

DarkNecrid · Jan 10, 2008, 09:17 AM // 09:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animate

Mh yea I don't know what that has to do with me not paying attention. The first is better on his own, the latter drops his utilities for more damage and goes with another utility char. They're just different play styles depending on what you need more, which is actually an utility too. The first is the sin Bloodlight played... however, by the latter I meant any recent sin build and not 7 fixed skills of the a/w you refered to. Of course that a/w mashed three buttons more to deal more damage, that was the trade off and general idea of that char. Both sins can win or lose a duel, the first one can resort to his utilities on his own when "instagibbing" failed, the a/w to his team. I don't know whoever defines what playing GW is, but thinking like that is getting the game nowhere, only creating stereotypes and people creating the 9001 threat on the 9001 forum asking for another balance update because they limit themselves like that.

the first also requires positioning and timing

the second just requires mashing buttons

Yue · Jan 10, 2008, 09:48 AM // 09:48

Tbh right before the LoD nerf the game was pretty close to being as balanced as it would ever be. Sineptitude was really the biggest issue, and nerfing that is fairly independent of affecting other portions of balance since sins and clumsiness were OP in itself anyway. Splinter weapon and melandru's might have needed some work, but those were fairly minor in comparison the the dominance of sineptitude.

LoD was fine. It was efficient, it was OP, but it was balanced. It also allowed enough bar compression so that teams didn't have to run a million layers of defense. It allowed you to fit everything on your monks, and to be completely honest teams that needed passive defense when the most efficient skills were already on your monks were just bad. With the current meta, forcing off monk partyhealing essentially forces you to have a defensive character replacing an offensive one, and if that character's not at the stand you're forced to take more stand defense to compensate. That still doesn't excuse teams for bringing a ton of defense, since they're still bad. However, it just means more teams are taking defense than before since not having a dedicated party healer is near suicide if you're not running around or playing rawrway.

Rewind the game to pre lod nerf, fix sins, and mod splinter/melandru's.

There's your balance.

Tul · Jan 10, 2008, 10:02 AM // 10:02

I did not understand a couple things in a previous post so I thought I would just ask.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

You are playing build down, raw power wise, against everyone, and need to make it up by outplaying them. That's particularly stark at VoD, where not having that fourth defensive stand character is an enormous liability

Due to the Earth being round I am not familiar with the build that is being referred to here, but from what I get the key differences are a "split friendly" Fire Ele instead of a "stand" Air Ele or Paragon together with a lack of party healing. I can understand why that would give a weaker defense and overall poor sustainability of stand fighting, but in terms of raw offensive power I rather see the build on par if not above what is usually run, having 5 offense and pressure-dedicated characters instead of 4 (or 3...). That would seem as a trade-off between defense and utility / offense, rather than an all-around build down situation. Is the fact that it is not mainstream to play or that even a less than decent Dom Mesmer can shut-down hard the Fire Ele contributing to the "build down" definitive statement ? Or is the latter solely due to the lack of party healing ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Dedicated Heal Party guy can't be your runner (massive single point of failure), he needs to either be a midline guy who can run away and pump parties, or a Healer's Boon guy (...).

Why would the midline guy carrying Heal Party be less of a single point of failure at VoD than the runner, given the fact that running can be taken care of by another guy at VoD ?

Vanquisher · Jan 10, 2008, 10:05 AM // 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animate

Mh yea I don't know what that has to do with me not paying attention. The first is better on his own, the latter drops his utilities for more damage and goes with another utility char. They're just different play styles depending on what you need more, which is actually an utility too. The first is the sin Bloodlight played... however, by the latter I meant any recent sin build and not 7 fixed skills of the a/w you refered to. Of course that a/w mashed three buttons more to deal more damage, that was the trade off and general idea of that char. Both sins can win or lose a duel, the first one can resort to his utilities on his own when "instagibbing" failed, the a/w to his team. I don't know whoever defines what playing GW is, but thinking like that is getting the game nowhere, only creating stereotypes and people creating the 9001 threat on the 9001 forum asking for another balance update because they limit themselves like that.

If you ever played against them, and then played against Shadow Prison ones, you'd know. As I said before, AoD was the biggest part of playing an Assassin back then. Likewise, the chain wouldn't instant kill. A big part of playing with AoD involved placing anchors in positions where you could dictate the match by forcing advantages at either the stand or in the base, and that's essentially what happened when you had good players playing them. They'd outmanouvre other teams to catch people in the middle of no where and score cheeky kills, as well as forcing notable advantages by harrassing Flaggers. When something went to help, they'd ever jump on it while it can't be helped, or they'd ignore them and force a massive numerical advantage on the flag stand. Seeing as often that meant the other team was 2 characters down, it let to a strong burst of massively increased offensive power and often ended games. Then they'd go back and do the same again.

There's a big difference in the two Assassin types, even if you can't recognise it from just looking at the build.

Lorekeeper · Jan 10, 2008, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tul

I did not understand a couple things in a previous post so I thought I would just ask.

Due to the Earth being round I am not familiar with the build that is being referred to here, but from what I get the key differences are a "split friendly" Fire Ele instead of a "stand" Air Ele or Paragon together with a lack of party healing. I can understand why that would give a weaker defense and overall poor sustainability of stand fighting, but in terms of raw offensive power I rather see the build on par if not above what is usually run, having 5 offense and pressure-dedicated characters instead of 4 (or 3...). That would seem as a trade-off between defense and utility / offense, rather than an all-around build down situation. Is the fact that it is not mainstream to play or that even a less than decent Dom Mesmer can shut-down hard the Fire Ele contributing to the "build down" definitive statement ? Or is the latter solely due to the lack of party healing ?

guilds like DF and dR show the desire to move the fight away from the stand regularly.

its all about confidence. If you arent confident that you know how to force a conclusion to a GvG before VoD by forcing mistakes through flexible play then you are far better off running a build thats designed to either punch through a enemies defenses at the stand or failing that to be able to stand up for more than 2 seconds in the face of the barrage of damage at the flagstand when all the NPCs arrive at VoD.

Potentially the rewards for a guild experienced at more flexible play in the currrent 8vs8 meta are huge. But in order to reap those rewards you must have a team highly confident in its ability to finish that match before VoD. Otherwise a flexible build with a concentration of skirmish focused characters just cannot compete with builds built towards a more interdependent 8vs8 encounter if the fight comes to VoD.

It is basically because of the lack of party heals and party wide defensive support that isnt taken in favour of creating characters that are more self sufficient. Its a trade off that some guilds just arent prepared to take because they are too locked into thinking GvG is about the flag stand fight at VoD. But when you do see 8vs8 teams facing builds built towards flexible play its plain to see how they struggle, and its probably due to sheer stubbornness and unwillingness to embrace real change that prevent anyone from adopting that kind of play.

But its easy to understand this attitude, considering VoD now arrives at 18min. There is far less time nowadays to take the fight away from the stand. Especially since the pace of the game has become so compressed due to powercreep... the prolonged skirmishes of yesteryear are gone for good. Small mistakes made by skirmish teams have larger consequences in the long run because they have less time to really make a difference (especially if the small mistake turns into a death after the autorez).

Ensign · Jan 10, 2008, 12:34 PM // 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tul

That would seem as a trade-off between defense and utility / offense, rather than an all-around build down situation.

It's only build down when you fight straight up 8v8. The advantages of the build are in the number of tools you have to control the map, threaten different places, and create mismatches. Without decent party healing you're forced to rely on mobility for your defense, which isn't relevant at VoD or if you're cornered for some reason.

What I see as the problem is a bigger disparity between megadefense and more aggressive/mobile strategies at VoD now. That's when strong party healing becomes essential, and now instead of that being a universal feature it's something only a megadefense team can afford. I really hate seeing the metagame shift even more heavily towards megadefense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tul

even a less than decent Dom Mesmer can shut-down hard the Fire Ele contributing to the "build down" definitive statement ?

The Fire Ele is not a terribly good character in 8v8 situations - yes, a half decent Dom Mesmer can shut him down hard. The big strength of that character, in my opinion (and you'd have to ask Daemon or Divine for a better picture since they're the ones who have been playing it in GvG) is its combination of mobility and threat level; it can capitalize on or escape from mismatches better than most characters. You don't really slug anything out; it's a build that runs off and goes somewhere else as soon as the winds turn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tul

Why would the midline guy carrying Heal Party be less of a single point of failure at VoD than the runner, given the fact that running can be taken care of by another guy at VoD ?

If you're fighting 8v8 at VoD it isn't. I'm talking about it as a liability pre-VoD. If you're fighting 8v8 for an extended period pre-VoD, and they push your only party heal with a flag in hand, there's a good chance you'll blow up - especially if it's Heal Party.

At VoD, it's only really an issue if there are still a lot of NPCs in play and you're forced to split. If your 3rd Monk is also your only party heal, you're very likely going to have trouble at the stand once the damage starts to build up.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Jan 10, 2008, 12:51 PM // 12:51

An idea I just had that I think would be a good way to making diversion/shame spam less efficient is reducing the duration of both to 3 or 4 seconds.

I think basically shutting down a monk for 6 seconds with a single skill (in a build which off monk defense is basically a single ward against melee that's up <75% of the time) is too powerful because the other monk will likely be knocked/interrupt spammed/shamed/diverted as well.

The use of diversion and shame should be more finesse(=timing) based rather than stopping someone from casting for 6 seconds, especially cause the way monk bars are set up at the moment the only thing you can really use to break diversion is rof, if you divert anything it will be a huge liability.

Greedy Gus · Jan 10, 2008, 03:11 PM // 15:11

I've had the same feeling. Ideally if I suggested a skill balance, on the issue of shutdown I'd:

bring blackout back up in strength (lower self-blackout to 4s while increasing low-end duration to 3...6)
bring gale back into more play (either 5e or 3s, doesn't matter to me if it comes back to wars or mesmers)
lower all skills like diversion & shame to either 4 or 5 sec duration,
add some new skills like those to the curses line (while buffing some other curses skills to foster a curses bar that plays like a dom mes that supports damage/degen pressure instead of spike)

I'd like to see more pure shutdown type skills in play, but bring their individual durations down a bit in compensation to avoid excessive chaining. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with their synergy with massive 321 spike though (potential issue).

Dominator1370 · Jan 10, 2008, 03:58 PM // 15:58

Now, maybe I'm just dumb, and I'm not explicitly familiar with the build that dR is running, but I'm not understanding where this huge advantage is coming from at VoD.

I mean, I get the basic idea: NPC's and eventually the Guild Lord march to the stand, not to mention the increase in damage, so it seems like a dedicated stand team would have the upper hand, since that's the kind of thing they're built for.

However, if someone is actually running a more flexible team designed to take advantage of less flexible stand teams by forcing mismatches and whatnot, it seems to me that if they're doing their job they should either have a DP advantage or an NPC advantage by the time VoD rolls around. If that's the case, VoD shouldn't be as bad as it's being made out to be, and even if it's not, I don't see why a gank is out of the question. You should be better equipped to pull one off than a stand team, no?

Lorekeeper · Jan 10, 2008, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominator1370

Now, maybe I'm just dumb, and I'm not explicitly familiar with the build that dR is running, but I'm not understanding where this huge advantage is coming from at VoD.

I mean, I get the basic idea: NPC's and eventually the Guild Lord march to the stand, not to mention the increase in damage, so it seems like a dedicated stand team would have the upper hand, since that's the kind of thing they're built for.

However, if someone is actually running a more flexible team designed to take advantage of less flexible stand teams by forcing mismatches and whatnot, it seems to me that if they're doing their job they should either have a DP advantage or an NPC advantage by the time VoD rolls around. If that's the case, VoD shouldn't be as bad as it's being made out to be, and even if it's not, I don't see why a gank is out of the question. You should be better equipped to pull one off than a stand team, no?

short answer is yes longer answer is a ''maybe''

Winstar · Jan 10, 2008, 04:35 PM // 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominator1370

it seems to me that if they're doing their job they should either have a DP advantage or an NPC advantage by the time VoD rolls around. If that's the case, VoD shouldn't be as bad as it's being made out to be, and even if it's not, I don't see why a gank is out of the question. You should be better equipped to pull one off than a stand team, no?

Its true that if you actually accomplish those things during the match, either NPC or large moral advantage etc., then you should be in a reasonable position at VoD. But the main problem, as Ensign was saying, is that accomplishing those goals is very difficult and most teams aren't going to manage it when they trade build power for greater possibility of strategic victories. Having played this for a bit its not always out of the question that what seems like a good VoD situation can still turn ugly. Against a team with some DP and down on NPCs but still alive enough to churn out their defensive machinery its still possible for them to turn the tide at VoD. You can't always expect a numerical NPC advantage to take you to victory. In some cases you still have to maintain the threat of moving to their lord at VoD even when it seems like you have some kind of advantage going in. Long story short, its a hard road to hack.

Yichi · Jan 10, 2008, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominator1370

Now, maybe I'm just dumb, and I'm not explicitly familiar with the build that dR is running, but I'm not understanding where this huge advantage is coming from at VoD.

I mean, I get the basic idea: NPC's and eventually the Guild Lord march to the stand, not to mention the increase in damage, so it seems like a dedicated stand team would have the upper hand, since that's the kind of thing they're built for.

However, if someone is actually running a more flexible team designed to take advantage of less flexible stand teams by forcing mismatches and whatnot, it seems to me that if they're doing their job they should either have a DP advantage or an NPC advantage by the time VoD rolls around. If that's the case, VoD shouldn't be as bad as it's being made out to be, and even if it's not, I don't see why a gank is out of the question. You should be better equipped to pull one off than a stand team, no?

The advantage is comming from the fact that the build does have the flexibality to split off characters which in turn forces a dedicated stand team to do one of two things, either send someone back to deal with whats split off, or fight as an entire team and push forward while at the same time taking whatever npc loss the split manages to take from you. By not trying to deal with the split in any way, the stand only team is forced to be in a "Must" position in that they must be able to overcome the players that are left before the split can enflict enough damage to the base. If a dedicated stand team can't do this and the split is effective, if the remaining players can hold out long enough, the split can either kill the guild lord, come back to rejoin the team and push the game until VoD, or force the entire team to have to fall back to defend against the split in the future. Thus giving the split team an advantage of the opposing team having no support from npc's at vod or by giving the split team positioning when they have to fall back to deal with the characters that have split off.

This is where having a flexible build comes into play over a dedicated stand team.

Neo-LD · Jan 10, 2008, 06:33 PM // 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominator1370

Now, maybe I'm just dumb, and I'm not explicitly familiar with the build that dR is running, but I'm not understanding where this huge advantage is coming from at VoD.

I mean, I get the basic idea: NPC's and eventually the Guild Lord march to the stand, not to mention the increase in damage, so it seems like a dedicated stand team would have the upper hand, since that's the kind of thing they're built for.

However, if someone is actually running a more flexible team designed to take advantage of less flexible stand teams by forcing mismatches and whatnot, it seems to me that if they're doing their job they should either have a DP advantage or an NPC advantage by the time VoD rolls around. If that's the case, VoD shouldn't be as bad as it's being made out to be, and even if it's not, I don't see why a gank is out of the question. You should be better equipped to pull one off than a stand team, no?

The main problem is how quickly the NPC advantage you worked so hard to secure can evaporate at VoD. Megadefense teams can easily tank the piecemeal advance of NPCs, and it only takes a few moments for a single melee buffed with ancestors/splinter to clear an entire squad. And once that advantage is nixed, you're out in the open against a superior 8v8 build.

wuzzman · Jan 10, 2008, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

I've had the same feeling. Ideally if I suggested a skill balance, on the issue of shutdown I'd:

bring blackout back up in strength (lower self-blackout to 4s while increasing low-end duration to 3...6)
bring gale back into more play (either 5e or 3s, doesn't matter to me if it comes back to wars or mesmers)
lower all skills like diversion & shame to either 4 or 5 sec duration,
add some new skills like those to the curses line (while buffing some other curses skills to foster a curses bar that plays like a dom mes that supports damage/degen pressure instead of spike)

I'd like to see more pure shutdown type skills in play, but bring their individual durations down a bit in compensation to avoid excessive chaining. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with their synergy with massive 321 spike though (potential issue).

Honestly the above list will do absolutely nothing for the meta....a nerf to shame and diversion followed by a clumsy buff to blackout with some lol gale for everyone? Come on is this really the best this forum can come up with? Why in the world increase the power to spike? Teams will just drop what ever utility they bother bringing to keep themselves from being lol'ed gale locked for the entire match. Mesmer will just drop diversion for another interrupt and for gods sake, how the hell do you think the new version of shame, by the way shame is BADLY needed to be return to the meta, will be of any use at all?

Put real power back to shutdown and teams will counter it by scaling down their defense for utility. Helps bring back the need for stuff like off monk condition removals on MIDLINE CASTERS, not flag-runners that double as healers, but MIDLINE CASTERS. right now the only utility guys bring is interrupts, which isn't a problem in and of itself, it is the lack of incentives to put other forms of utility, which is the problem. Interrupts just make spike windows open, instead of allowing pressure to go through.

Winstar · Jan 10, 2008, 07:37 PM // 19:37

hmmm, update without skill update...Is the skill update likely to occur sometime before the weekend event, or will it occur after?

IMMORTAlMITCH · Jan 10, 2008, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

Mesmer will just drop diversion for another interrupt and for gods sake, how the hell do you think the new version of shame, by the way shame is BADLY needed to be return to the meta, will be of any use at all?

Diversion and Shame would still be very effective as they should rely mostly on timing them with casts rather than putting them on someone effectively shutting him down for 6 seconds (or untill it gets removed).