Curse

Greedy Gus · Oct 18, 2007, 10:13 AM // 10:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

In practice though, the DPS a paragon puts out mostly gets eaten up by LoD, and his spike isn't anything to cheer about compared to other characters.

his DPS isn't nearly as relevant in the grand scheme of things as many players claim.

"In practice" with the passive defense everyone subsequently runs, I think is more appropriate to say. I'm certainly not going off DPS numbers on paper for evidence either. The past few days we've been playing an old school balanced style build with 0 passive/party defense, and have been playing similar builds for the past 8 months off & on (that's back when the post-NF meta was still trying to find it's place between Izzy's buff updates, all the way through).

I can say with strong accuracy that there is a tangible difference in the feel of a match when the opposing team has an offensive paragon when you're not running much passive defense, especially if it's the 16 spear / 12 leadership guys pumping out full breakpoint flame anthems and decent GftE's (on 3-4 physicals) along with their damage. It's not necessarily felt instantly and blatantly obvious (like it is when you go overboard on the offense like cow or DF have played in the past), but you typically have about 4-6 minutes until the continuous pressure starts to set in and you start taking deaths or pull back. This is over time through constant, heavily directable attack damage and solo mini-spikes on un-protted targets.

Again, I'm not insinuating that there is any strange phenomena. Every additional legitimate physical that's put into a build, the weaker active defense is, and the stronger passive defense is; this has always been the case. My point is that it's quite a bit easier to run a paragon midliner than it is to run a 3rd melee character, and the resulting commonplace balanced archetype is dictating the passive defense measures.

Stuff like mel dervs, conjure wars, instagib sins, and splinter/ancestors are certainly extremely powerful, and are candidates for balance changes when looking at offense. But largely, those are replacements for other skills of various offensive power, assosiated with their own strengths & drawbacks to compare with the alternatives'. But the threat of offensive paragons in the midline is largely the most important actual paradigm shift in the balanced build environment post-NF. It upsets the delicate, classic play-between of GW balanced builds.

Yes, the meta can, will, and has adjusted to the presence of heavy physicals in the midline. (Hell, even the paragons I'm talking about have been pushed out of the meta by their own success, countered and replaced by their 'tacticsgon' DA brothers). But in the end, it's a negative direction for the meta, due to a few reasons. Once passive/party defense becomes so desired and rewarded that it's the dominant strategy, things start to go wrong; The very nature of passive defensive skills is that each additional one makes all the others quite a bit stronger, so you end up wanting more and more until you get to a tipping point where there's enough redundancy that something is almost always up. You wind up on a fairly slippery slope to a defensive meta that ends up actually restricting a lot of other balanced offensive playstyles. Both the defense and the offense of balanced builds move to fairly specific dominant setups. And the problem lies in that a lot of things in those setups don't reward player skill, don't lend themselves to fun/interesting gameplay, or don't allow for much diversity, which I consider striking out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

A game where teams can blow up quickly is a game where mistakes matter, and mistakes need to matter for gameplay to be interesting and competitive.

Agreed, but if the offense is too easy/powerful, it's a hard means to justify for that end.

--

edit: Off the top of my head, one direction to possibly explore is making party defense more active rather than passive, in an effort to move back to more skillful defense while still providing tools to fight builds with 3+ physical damage threats. Those are two mechanics which are typically extremely closely linked, although in theory they don't need to be at all. Hope everyone understands the distinction between all the terms.

Wasteland Squidget · Oct 18, 2007, 11:24 AM // 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

"In practice" with the passive defense everyone subsequently runs, I think is more appropriate to say. I'm certainly not going off DPS numbers on paper for evidence either. The past few days we've been playing an old school balanced style build with 0 passive/party defense, and have been playing similar builds for the past 8 months off & on (that's back when the post-NF meta was still trying to find it's place between Izzy's buff updates, all the way through).

I can say with strong accuracy that there is a tangible difference in the feel of a match when the opposing team has an offensive paragon when you're not running much passive defense, especially if it's the 16 spear / 12 leadership guys pumping out full breakpoint flame anthems and decent GftE's (on 3-4 physicals) along with their damage. It's not necessarily felt instantly and blatantly obvious (like it is when you go overboard on the offense like cow or DF have played in the past), but you typically have about 4-6 minutes until the continuous pressure starts to set in and you start taking deaths or pull back. This is over time through constant, heavily directable attack damage and solo mini-spikes on un-protted targets.

Layers of passive defense weaken any midline. Yes, if you're not running layers of block and blind, my paragon's DPS starts to look more dangerous. Similarly, if you're not running Aegis and DA, my Ranger is a lot scarier because he can spread poison and take his pick of skills to interrupt. If you're not running Wards and B-surge, my mesmer can stop camping your ele and focus on wrecking your monks.

If anything, your estimate of 4-6 minutes feels generous. I would expect an efficiently built midline to break an undefended backline much faster than that. This holds true whether the midline's gameplan is DPSing you out with paragons, disrupting your key skills with rangers and mesmers, or just shutting down LoD and blowing you up with a healthy blend of physical pressure and AoE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Again, I'm not insinuating that there is any strange phenomena. Every additional legitimate physical that's put into a build, the weaker active defense is, and the stronger passive defense is; this has always been the case. My point is that it's quite a bit easier to run a paragon midliner than it is to run a 3rd melee character, and the resulting commonplace balanced archetype is dictating the passive defense measures.

I'll put it this way - if paragons were removed from the game tomorrow, you'd still have to run passive defense to stay alive. If you didn't, you'd get rocked by rangers who land every interrupt, destroyed by warrior-heavy teams, and instantly wiped by any disruption on LoD.

Paragons contribute more DPS to your team than other midline alternatives, but they're not the sole reason why teams run defense. The virtual damage contributed by an unhindered ranger or mesmer can have a much greater effect on the battle, and will break an undefended backline just as surely.

Is paragon DPS useless? Absolutely not. It's an important part of your pressure, and an important thing to factor in when you choose to take the character. But midline characters applying pressure isn't a new thing. Whether that pressure comes from having to throw out extra prots to stop Para damage, or getting key skills interrupted, it still forces you to take defense into the game.

Lorekeeper · Oct 18, 2007, 12:47 PM // 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

one direction to possibly explore is making party defense more active ratherthan passive, in an effort to move back to more skillful defense

i think we have to consider the way in which frontline or midline paragons can inflict pressure and in doing so we will understand what might be the right way of countering them.

physical characters can cause a large amount of pressure because they can shift their dmg potential to several points of the field with ease. Even auto-attacks of a physicals cause the need for heals/prots to be used for 2 reasons, either to counter the health lost from the auto-attacks themselves or to counter the possibility of the damage being focused into a burst of concentrated dmg (through adrenal spike etc etc). Because physicals are potentially capable of bursting in this way at almost every target they attack, their is great need to heal/prot and for backlines to pay particular attention to their movement.

Compare this to casters, whos auto attacks are awful. Caster dmg is generally transmitted through the use of high dmg spike skills or the use of AoE. There are very few examples of caster pressure... like mind blast or searing flames. High dmg spike skills only allow casters to participate in spikes, they do not pose a continual threat when used on their own, nor is it usually possible for a caster to spam its high dmg skills at the same rate that warriors can choose to unleash a quick burst of physical dmg. AoE has the potential of eclipsing physical pressure, but the chances of catching multiple targets for the duration of the AoE is extremely low and as such not nearly as reliable as the pressure physicals can cause. AoE skills are also prone to being shutdown.

mindblast and searing flames eles are potential forms of caster pressure with the ability to switch the location of their pressure as fast as physicals, but they pack far less utility than regular midline casters do, and therefore they require build specialisation. Physicals on the contrary slot quite easily into a variety of builds and are useful in much more than 1 role, in general mind blast and searing flames eles are confined to the flag stand.

So if we take into account the inherent advantage physicals have over other forms of offense, in terms of being able to deliver constant pressure and a threat of high bursts of pressure coupled with the ability to switch the focus of this pressure easily.

We should come easily to the nature of what is needed to help defend against them. We need forms of defense which allow us to react or preempt the pressure of a physical or are able to counter the widespread health loss they so easily inflict. If physicals are able to switch targets quickly and deliver high bursts of dmg to those targets, we need to be able to counter that with fast prots and heals and defenses in order to reduce (not stop) that pressure.

We do already have limited forms of defenses that can do this... (ill list things that see play or dont see play and ill explain why later)

* Blinding Surge
* Blinding Flash
* Enervating Charge
* Lightning Javelin
* Crippling Shot
* Freezing Gust
* Blurred Vision
* Frozen Burst
* Water Trident
* Icy Shackles

* Heal Party
* Light of Deliverance
* Infuse Health
* Reversal of Fortune
* Guardian
* Shield of Absorption
* Protective Spirit
* Spirit Bond

* Aegis (not considered since it is an example of a passive defensive skill)

im sure ive missed a few but ive got enough to make my next argument.

The non-monk anti physical skills generally tend to be single target one dimensional forms of shutdown. Bsurge normally will only hit 1 physical character, same with enervating charge, and freezing gust and icy shackles for example. But the shutdown provided by these skills (which is pretty good i must admit) is easily removed. Draw conditions keeps warriors clean of blind and weakness with ease and at a fraction of the cost of inflicting those conditions, and a simple holy veil precast on a physical can help against freezing gust or icy shackle spam. Crippling shot remains an incredibly strong shutdown utility against frontliners. Of that i will admit. But again, it is easily removed with draw conditions. Using these defensive skills only slows the progress of physical pressure, and if a team is good, it will barely help in most circumstances (which explains why layers of passive defense became so popular).

and so this is why backline tools to counter physical pressure is so important. But the list is so short. Glimmer of light has the speed and recharge needed to react to the quick speed at which physical pressure can appear. But it just isnt a viable skill to bring for a heal monk. The heal it provides is quite small, and a heal monk will soon run out of energy healing each ally individually after taking small amounts of pressure (even with use of sig devo or sig rejuvenation). LoD remains the best if not THE only healing prayers skill that gives heal monks the ability to cope with the spread and amount of physical pressure physicals can output. Infuse health remains the only non-elite healing skill that can heal allies quickly and effective enough to survive a significant burst of pressure, especially if the prot monk was not able to adequatly preempt the dmg or if its prots were removed on the spike. Reliance on infuse and LoD is a heal monks downfall, because generally the heal monk is forced to cast LoD after infusing to self heal the health lost from infusing, there is not much room on a heal monks bar for other forms of self heal when you take into account the need for other utility like hex removal/condition removal/etc etc. LoD being such a pivotal skill in heal monks bar, therefore comes under alot of shutdown attention from the enemy, especially after the heal monk infuses. As good as these 2 skills are at allowing a heal monk to keep a team alive, they are far too good in comparison to other options, and the over reliance of the heal monk on these two skills is ultimately its downfall. (though some will disagree on the value of infuse - i doubt many will disagree with the overreliance on LoD).

Look at the prot monk. The options are pretty good, even in light of the hit to SoD, but look closely at the skills. Guardian is the general prot which can be cast preemptively on allies, its also cheap enough to throw up on allies during spikes as long as the spike will not insta kill that ally. Problem is, guardian only protects allies from physical attacks, which wouldnt be so bad if such a large proportion of a spike includes elemental dmg too. Guardian isnt even that great to counter general physical pressure, since a prot monk will easily run out of energy if he tries to prot every ally that takes some physical pressure (i know good prot monks wont do this anyway - but its a good point to make, since physicals do not suffer from the same limitation, they can always inflict a good amount of pressure on every target they switch to, whereas a prot monk cannot hope to match this efficiency), not to mention a 1 second cast that can sometimes be vulnerable to an interrupt, like distracting shot or power leak.

Shield of absorption is incredibly powerful, but with a 10 second recharge it is vulnerable to target switching. Its strength is ultimately its weakness and is generally most useful in situations where dmg on an ally is guaranteed (like a frontliner at vod).

Reversal of fortune is great, and has always been great, it negates dmg and heals for a good amount, one cast of this skill can negate several autoattacks from physicals. But again spamming RoF will only hurt a monks energy levels. It generally isnt spammed on random allies taking physical pressure, and when it is used against a spike or a burst of dmg, it is generally accompanied by another skill like spirit bond or PS or a condition removal. Rof is great, but its not enough.

spirit bond and prot spirit are great ways of limiting the dmg from all sources into decent packets that LoD can easily deal with. What these two skills cannot do, is mitigate low grade pressure from any sources, they only turn spike dmg into easily manageable dmg, and their energy cost stops them from being spammed as quickly as physical bursts can come.

from this list of backline skills what ones can we list as good ones?

LoD - but we rely too much on this one elite.
RoF - is not good enough on its own
Guardian - is interrupt bait
Shield of absorption - recharge too long + prone to interrupts
Spirit Bond/Prot Spirit - only useful vs high spike dmg

the list has but FIVE skills, with a few more possible candidates but i think its pretty obvious where the problem is.

(SoD could have been in the list, and it would be a fine addition to that list.)

The problem does not really lie in the prot line.

But it lies in the healing line and the overreliance on LoD. Without LoD (if it gets dhostted, interrupted etc etc) the few good prots available to prot monks lose their meaning completely. The partnership between the heal and prot monk hinges so delicately on LoD.

This is the source of the imbalance, and if dealt with, backlines would not be so fragile, and we would have much greater need for skillful offensive plays involving what some people call ''mesmer'' effects. Basically, breaking down the defense and scoring kills and possible team wipes would involve far greater tasks than dshotting or pleaking the LoD monk.

its a huge shame that GW:EN did not add new skills that would balance this dependance.

Greedy Gus · Oct 18, 2007, 12:54 PM // 12:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

If anything, your estimate of 4-6 minutes feels generous. I would expect an efficiently built midline to break an undefended backline much faster than that. This holds true whether the midline's gameplan is DPSing you out with paragons, disrupting your key skills with rangers and mesmers, or just shutting down LoD and blowing you up with a healthy blend of physical pressure and AoE.

I'll put it this way - if paragons were removed from the game tomorrow, you'd still have to run passive defense to stay alive. If you didn't, you'd get rocked by rangers who land every interrupt, destroyed by warrior-heavy teams, and instantly wiped by any disruption on LoD.

Paragons contribute more DPS to your team than other midline alternatives, but they're not the sole reason why teams run defense. The virtual damage contributed by an unhindered ranger or mesmer can have a much greater effect on the battle, and will break an undefended backline just as surely.

Whether that pressure comes from having to throw out extra prots to stop Para damage, or getting key skills interrupted, it still forces you to take defense into the game.

Your intentional simplification of the argument to "running defense" or "not running defense" is rather puzzling. I said we're running no passive/party defense, we have plenty of active & self defense. And I think we're going to have to agree to disagree at this point: With our defense, we can survive just swell against teams without 3 physical damage dealers, just like we could survive pre-NF without running aegis or ward, and we would continue to do so should paragons disappear tomorrow. These all then come down to differences in player skill way more than build, contrary to facing a paragon midliner.

Using and understanding the specific terminology is of critical importance to balance discussions like this, or else a lot of ideas and arguments become muddied and sometimes misleading. Drawing distinctions between active/passive/party defenses, melee vs. physical, midline vs. frontline roles, etc. is entirely necessary.

3 warrior builds are closer to focused overload builds than balanced builds, and have very specific risk/reward, luck (of the enemy build draw), and inherent weakness elements involved. They existed before NF, and 90% of the time the only passive defense encountered was a single ward (if that), but they didn't demolish everyone. On the other hand, paragons can very closely fit into the classical balanced archtype.

Finally, I'll re-emphasize that I think/agree that a lot of balance tweaks are in order, from adjusting healing & LoD, to continuing to adjust offensive power, and bringing down fire & forget passive defense even further. I think the ranger/mesmer/ele version of a blockway midline is testament to paragons not being the key that all offense/defense problems are based upon. But I feel that their existence & threat are indeed one of the primary issues, and it's more fundamental (opposed to a surface level skill balance problem) though also more difficult to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

But midline characters applying pressure isn't a new thing.

Midliners who deal damage are an entirely new thing, never seen before Nightfall, and I believe you're vastly underestimating the importance of it by twisting things around to point at characters who apply pressure indirectly and still rely on warriors as damage outlets to kill things. (Damage outlets are focal points that can be actively defended against)

--

edit: A few other skills to keep a close eye on that Ensign brought up are rending touch and HEV, which probably would allow 3 warrior builds to go around wrecking non-blockway metas.

Thomas.knbk · Oct 18, 2007, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

I'm not sure where you're getting 260 + dw with the current numbers.

You're right. 260 is an outdated number. It's lower now. I still see people run agonizing though. And there's the assistance from a paragon which is much stronger than any other midline spike assist.

Shmanka · Oct 18, 2007, 04:48 PM // 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

I stopped reading when he basically said frenzy had no drawback.

I stopped reading when I read the thread title.

Seriously, I don't think nailing down how top players exploit skills is a bad thing. The "exploitation" your trying to nerf in my honest opinion is actually considered player skill.

If the warrior is smart enough to cancel his stance's drawbacks then what is the problem whatsoever?

Warriors dealing massive damage to other players, (this means obviously all defence mechanisms have been shut down, defence monk wise is not put up) is not a problem, it still takes adrenaline and time to build up for that effect of dealing massive damage. Is it more powerful and consistent then anything out there in the gvg environment atm? Yes, if you want your warriors to absorb damage go to FoW.

EDIT:
Sprint= 15s Recharge and -2 in duration (more spammable) IMO

Neo-LD · Oct 18, 2007, 05:11 PM // 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

Seriously, I don't think nailing down how top players exploit skills is a bad thing. The "exploitation" your trying to nerf in my honest opinion is actually considered player skill.

If the warrior is smart enough to cancel his stance's drawbacks then what is the problem whatsoever?

Thats precisely the way I feel as well.

Warriors are not the thing that needs to change. Playing warrior involves a process of maximizing damage that rewards player skill and is achieved by optimal use of Frenzy, Rush, Bulls Strike, Shock, DChop, etc - all of which are perfectly desirable parts of the game.

Paragons and Assasins, on the other hand, promote mindless spam and button mashing styles that we dont want. Mel Dervishes promote build wars by breaking most of the melee counter system, which we dont want either. Passive defense promotes fire-and-forget, easy-button defense, which we also dont want.

I think that by nerfing all of those things, we would get away from the "Paragon vs. Aegis" rut that we've been stuck in, and get back to a "Warrior vs. Guardian" metagame that we do want.

Razz L Dazzle · Oct 18, 2007, 05:46 PM // 17:46

Most of my concerns were that as a whole IAS buffs on physicals have a very low opportunity cost. Frenzy is the most balanced of the others mentioned but it still lacks a true opportunity cost in practice, because of how easy it is to cancel. Rush being the main culprit. Ideas to buff sprint and heal signet would be a good way to go. Eviscerate out-classes all other warrior elites but if the desire is balance around that, this would be fine. Some of the others are balanced but they lack the true spike, and killing potential of Eviscerate.

I'd prefer a meta where warriors ran: Frenzy, sprint, Eviscerate, Executioners, D-chop (D-blow or shock), bull strike, heal signet, Rez signet. I think this is quite a balanced bar that could pressure, spike and split. I really have no problem with Eviscerate and Frenzy on that bar. Heal signet and sprint could use a boost. This would feel more like the balance template rangers currently have. Problems are larger in the context where warriors remove most of their splitability and take rush, possibly conjure, rend touch etc. Shutdown just the LoD and its pretty much over. Overpowered physical stand damage forces the block web. Its not that teams want to take melee, aegis, shields up and lose splitability it rather that we must take it to survive verse a physical heavy template

Aggressive refrain: I'd prefer the permanent armor reductions than reapplications of cracked armor.

Sprint to a 15 recharge: Makes this skill more usable and costly as a cancel and on overall energy. Not sure how to give it an interesting secondary effect, which would be the other way to go instead of 15 recharge. Hence why i suggested a block capability to protect healing signet's overall weakness.

Heal signet: Reduced armor penalty possibly. Or 1 second activation.

Captain Robo · Oct 18, 2007, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Quote:

Most of my concerns were that as a whole IAS buffs on physicals have a very low opportunity cost. Frenzy is the most balanced of the others mentioned but it still lacks a true opportunity cost in practice, because of how easy it is to cancel. Rush being the main culprit. Ideas to buff sprint and heal signet would be a good way to go. Eviscerate out-classes all other warrior elites but if the desire is balance around that, this would be fine. Some of the others are balanced but they lack the true spike, and killing potential of Eviscerate.

Implementing a global stance cooldown, such that you'd have to stay in frenzy for a minimum of three seconds before you could activate another stance would address this issue.

Lorekeeper · Oct 18, 2007, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Robo

Implementing a global stance cooldown, such that you'd have to stay in frenzy for a minimum of three seconds before you could activate another stance would address this issue.

but the OP already has given quite good reasons outside the skill mechanics themselves why rush is being run on most if not all warrior bars now.

heal sig and sprint/enraging charge/dash just arent such vital skills to take anymore. That was what dictated warriors bars in the past, i would have always liked to have run rush on my bars back then but the need for reliable on demand speedboost and heal sig to enable me or the other warrior to split prevented it.

Today these kinda of skills are not so necessary, which gives stand warriors the freedom to dedicate their builds towards being killing machines, hence frenzy+rush.

But i must say, frenzy+rush warriors have definately contributed to the increasing power creep in the physical game. It does allow them far more security to frenzy which is a good thing for them and a bad thing for everyone else :P

before anything else id like to see the game steered away from the stand, which will involve a change to VoD and perhaps a change to skills that might promote split play more. Promote split play and warriors wont be free to run rush anymore.

Captain Robo · Oct 18, 2007, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Right, warriors are now only taking rush because there's no longer a need for Healing Signet (I mean, what are monks for, amirite?)

The trouble with promoting splits is that you have to make a warrior function better on the split than he does in 8v8.

The end-all-be-all of splitting warriors are You're All Alone or Cripslash, but even still, warriors are most effective when a monk keeps them alive, enabling them to attack the target without concern to their own safety. Needless to say, you kill the monk healing the warrior, its not hard at all to take the warrior down thereafter.

However, now we have an interesting conundrum: do you buff warrior survivability to help them on the split and risk making warriors nigh invincible in 8v8? Or do you buff 8v8 defense in order to make splits the only means of doing anything proactive (i.e. perpetuate the current bullshit metagame)?

I think the days of splitting warriors are quite over; we should accept their inevitability as meat grinders and look to other classes capable of being better split characters (assassins, rangers, dervishes).

At the same time we have to realize that ability to split is also heavily map dependent, so even if splitting becomes forced upon us due to future game balances, teams reluctant to this change will just fight you on Jade, Burning, or Imperial Isle and own you 8v8.

Ec]-[oMaN · Oct 18, 2007, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Robo

The end-all-be-all of splitting warriors are You're All Alone or Cripslash, but even still, warriors are most effective when a monk keeps them alive, enabling them to attack the target without concern to their own safety. Needless to say, you kill the monk healing the warrior, its not hard at all to take the warrior down thereafter.

SOR on ele's made it so you could split with a stand war templete because of the heal+snares on SOR runner. Effectively removing the need for a warrior to bring snares or a heal. Mend touch distroyed any kind of viable splitting warrior template such as YAA.

Lorekeeper · Oct 18, 2007, 09:00 PM // 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

SOR on ele's made it so you could split with a stand war templete because of the heal+snares on SOR runner. Effectively removing the need for a warrior to bring snares or a heal. Mend touch distroyed any kind of viable splitting warrior template such as YAA.

yep, exactly. Flagger builds are responsible for much in terms of what is needed and run on splits.

weak flagger builds like old Eprod runner ---> split teams with self heal utility on each split character

strong flagger builds like SoR/ZB runners ---> split teams with less need for self heal utility on each split character.

strong flagger builds like SoR/Zb runners also make it far harder to gain an advantage on the split, so on one hand they give offensive splits greater stability and the opportunity to keep their stand like nature, but on the other hand they make defensive splits similiarly stable.

i think it would take some drastic skill changes to tone down the power of current flag runners, changes that would not be justifiable solely on the need to tone down flag runner defensive power.

hitting mend touch could maybe help... by scaling the number of conditions removed, but on flagger builds such a change would not make much of a difference. Though i am not sure and i think this might require alot of discussion.

elektra_lucia · Oct 18, 2007, 09:09 PM // 21:09

I think warriors take a lot of skill to play, unlike the mashing required to play a sin. Frenzy hurts bads players. Eviscerate has been nerfed already. I don't think that eviscerate should be nerfed again.

Quote:

How can we moderate physical damge but promote skillful play?

Reward skilful things such as good interrupting. Reducing damage is not always the way to fix something, making it harder to play is.

Thom Bangalter · Oct 18, 2007, 09:18 PM // 21:18

Monk flaggers are possibly the worst direction this game could head in, and seemingly everyone runs them.

Rit runners lack in truly strong heals but compensate with splinter, sor runners offer movement control but can get wrecked by rend touch. Monk runners, on the other hand, have strong powerful heals and means to counter movement control in split situations. They're really the worst template for the game in terms of what it does to splits, and the best in terms of actually keeping the base alive (including outside archers).

If you want more interesting skirmish situations, this template needs to go immediately. They're the least interesting, most shallow runner to ever be in the game.

Lorekeeper · Oct 18, 2007, 09:50 PM // 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

Monk flaggers are possibly the worst direction this game could head in, and seemingly everyone runs them.

Rit runners lack in truly strong heals but compensate with splinter, sor runners offer movement control but can get wrecked by rend touch. Monk runners, on the other hand, have strong powerful heals and means to counter movement control in split situations. They're really the worst template for the game in terms of what it does to splits, and the best in terms of actually keeping the base alive (including outside archers).

If you want more interesting skirmish situations, this template needs to go immediately. They're the least interesting, most shallow runner to ever be in the game.

yes but how do you get rid of them without proposing far reaching nerfs to the skills that appear on monk runner bars?

dont forget, part of the reason why we moved away from eprod runners was the addition of LoD to the heal monk.

Dzan · Oct 18, 2007, 10:23 PM // 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

yes but how do you get rid of them without proposing far reaching nerfs to the skills that appear on monk runner bars?

dont forget, part of the reason why we moved away from eprod runners was the addition of LoD to the heal monk.

If you un-nerf Weapon of Warding you get E/rit runners back, which in my opinion were the most offensive capable runners and also the most interesting to play. Plus it makes Ranger/Ele/warrior split build possible again.

Ec]-[oMaN · Oct 18, 2007, 10:49 PM // 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

dont forget, part of the reason why we moved away from eprod runners was the addition of LoD to the heal monk.

That's just part of the reason. I think the biggest reason is simple, dmg increases, I believe if people could run e prod runners they would and use a diff monk elite at the stand. Mend touch again destroyed b flash on the e prod runner, dmg increases on the split such as burning arrow+sins basically put e prod in the gutter. In order to promote skillful splits you'd have to tweak a wide range of skills but in turn may very well make them really crap compared to all the others added with each release. Anets way of balancing has always been nerf xxx, buff yyy, it's no wonder we've really never gotten anywhere better off.

Lorekeeper · Oct 18, 2007, 10:57 PM // 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzan

If you un-nerf Weapon of Warding you get E/rit runners back, which in my opinion were the most offensive capable runners and also the most interesting to play. Plus it makes Ranger/Ele/warrior split build possible again.

how would you un-nerf weapon of warding? And why would people choose to run the ele/rit instead of the SoR+mend touch/guardian ele/mo? Or the Zb+mend touch+guardian+sb monk?

correct me if im wrong but werent crip shot rangers quite rare back in the ele/rit flagger days?

it was mainly yaa/cripslash warriors with BA or BHA rangers... since crippling shot was 15 energy still. i think mend touch that came with NF explained the disappearance of the ele/rit more than anything, but please correct me if im wrong.

with crippling shot back to 10energy and seeing much play, i dont think any runner without mend touch would be very effective. i think most people who do run rits nowadays only do so to benefit from splinter weapon at vod.

if we want people to move away from highly defensive flaggers in order to promote more sustainable splitters... well... i honestly cant think of any way how. If only LoD never existed!

jaeharys targaryen · Oct 18, 2007, 11:09 PM // 23:09

Quote:

Sprint is just plain obsolete in the face of Enraging Charge

no, its not. enraging cancels as soon as you hit, so you cant train a target. sprint lasts for the duration and allows a nice and good train