Curse

Jaen · Oct 17, 2007, 09:39 PM // 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keithark

So nerf defense but at same time nerf offense? 2 gallons of gas cost $3.00 so lets make it better we want 1 gallon to cost $1.50?? To change meta from defensive to offensive then nerfing them both will not work, you have to nerf one and leave the other for it to be the new meta. I am simply pointiing out that everyone wanted nerf to defense and get away from GvG always going to VoD and they did that with wards and paragon then as soon as they did everyone starts talking about physicals being overpowered and monks not needing the nerf to sod due to the physicals being powerful. A-Net will never "win" with this forum that is for sure. It was balanced before more than it is now imo. It is not bad now though...I just hate the paragon and warrior nerfs because I think they were done wrong...what other adrenaline skill has a recharge than wy and gfte? The cracked armor thing is the worst, if the nerf is to stand at -20 armor that is fine but get rid of it being a condition because ai removes it and burns energy for nothing.

This clearly demonstrates that you don't understand how the balance works in this game.

I'll try to lay it out as simple as I can.

Overpowered Offensive options introduced by Nightfall, the often referred to powercreep led to players bringing a massive amount of defense in order to not explode.

By nerfing the defense, players will either 1) bring more defense (hardly practical) or 2) explode to the offense.

By nerfing offense along with defense, players can afford to survive with less defense leaving room for disruption/mesmer effects to dismantle existing defense alonging offense to go through. This is what the majority of the GvG players want. In contrast, by nerfing defense only, mes effects are not neccessary, just overload on offense and the opposing team will collapse.

Btw, I have no idea what you were reading, but very few people were advocating nerfing SoD. SoD exists as a short-lived active prot which rewards player skill as opposed to FC wards, aegis, defensive anthem which are all passive, use and forget defense.

Lastly, if you don't understand why a class with warrior-esqe damage, unstrippable party wide defense, virtually unlimited energy, permanent IAS, warrior-eqse armor and is ranged(all at once) needed a nerf then I have no idea what to tell you. The CA nerf requires paragons to pay more attention to their positioning, it requires monks to pay slightly more attention to them and makes it so there is some sort of opportunity cost for spamming shouts.

This is as simple as I can state it, if you don't understand still I apologize for my failure to further simplify the argument.

Ensign · Oct 17, 2007, 10:21 PM // 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moloch Vein

My question was if it was intended that the change would make targetting these foes impossible. I think that making a skill, that in some way would be viable to actually bring, function as an effective encounter to one (in my opinion pretty lame) gimmick or another would be a good thing.

Is this unreasonable?

Making Chilblains unable to target Spellbreakered / Shadow Formed foes was almost certainly not the intent of the change. It's a rather meaningless side effect; none of those skills are relevant metagame concerns in any competitive format. Furthermore the skill was never run in any meaningful capacity to remove those skills. It's a non-issue.

In order to make a targetable Chilblains be able to remove Spell Breaker and company, it would have to be type 'skill' instead of type 'spell'. Doing so would make it much more difficult to interrupt or otherwise deal with, as well as making it incompatible with Glyph of Lesser Energy - both of which are much more significant and relevant concerns than whether or not you can use it against someone with Spellbreaker.

Essentially you'd have to create a bunch of real problems to solve a non-problem.

tricolorsp · Oct 17, 2007, 10:43 PM // 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Making Chilblains unable to target Spellbreakered / Shadow Formed foes was almost certainly not the intent of the change. It's a rather meaningless side effect; none of those skills are relevant metagame concerns in any competitive format. Furthermore the skill was never run in any meaningful capacity to remove those skills.

little off-topic...

people used to run chilblains in ha to remove the sb on the hero back in the day of 3monks backline

Riotgear · Oct 18, 2007, 01:48 AM // 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moloch Vein

This reasoning would perhaps be more relevant if the skill balancer hadn't made it clear that he was aiming to boost Necromancer enchantment removal skills so that they weren't completely overshadowed by mesmer options.

As if Mesmer options for removing Shadow Form are any better? For any other application of the skill, it's a buff if anything. Spell Breaker was run on the Ritspike assist necro, before that, not much else other than HA with the old altar-hiking NPCs. Shadow Form balances itself out in by being garbage for anything but farm builds and making mobs in PvE more annoying, and has only looked even remotely good because of Deadly Paradox being a ridiculous and broken ability.

Moloch Vein · Oct 18, 2007, 02:09 AM // 02:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Making Chilblains unable to target Spellbreakered / Shadow Formed foes was almost certainly not the intent of the change. It's a rather meaningless side effect; none of those skills are relevant metagame concerns in any competitive format. Furthermore the skill was never run in any meaningful capacity to remove those skills. It's a non-issue.

Yes, it is a relative non-issue - mostly because of the fact that Chilblains was hardly ever carried by anyone. However, by removing this ability, you remove from the diversity of the game. If I am not mistaken Chilblains was the only PBAoE enchantment removal spell in the game. Now such a spell does not exist.

However, that's not the stronger argument.

Quote:

In order to make a targetable Chilblains be able to remove Spell Breaker and company, it would have to be type 'skill' instead of type 'spell'.

Actually, this isn't correct. All you would have to do, as I mentioned above, would make the spell able to target friend as well as foe. Additionally, such a change would not even require a change of the wording of the spell. Thus the explanation of why making it a "skill" is bad, isn't necessary.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaen

This clearly demonstrates that you don't understand how the balance works in this game.

I'll try to lay it out as simple as I can.

Overpowered Offensive options introduced by Nightfall, the often referred to powercreep led to players bringing a massive amount of defense in order to not explode.

By nerfing the defense, players will either 1) bring more defense (hardly practical) or 2) explode to the offense.

By nerfing offense along with defense, players can afford to survive with less defense leaving room for disruption/mesmer effects to dismantle existing defense alonging offense to go through. This is what the majority of the GvG players want. In contrast, by nerfing defense only, mes effects are not neccessary, just overload on offense and the opposing team will collapse.

Btw, I have no idea what you were reading, but very few people were advocating nerfing SoD. SoD exists as a short-lived active prot which rewards player skill as opposed to FC wards, aegis, defensive anthem which are all passive, use and forget defense.

Lastly, if you don't understand why a class with warrior-esqe damage, unstrippable party wide defense, virtually unlimited energy, permanent IAS, warrior-eqse armor and is ranged(all at once) needed a nerf then I have no idea what to tell you. The CA nerf requires paragons to pay more attention to their positioning, it requires monks to pay slightly more attention to them and makes it so there is some sort of opportunity cost for spamming shouts.

This is as simple as I can state it, if you don't understand still I apologize for my failure to further simplify the argument.

I don't understand how YOUR idea of balance works. My idea of balance is not seeing a team full of any one class every time I go into GvG. Not beating the other team because our build was better but rather we played our build better. I have seen more GvG's (before this update have only been in about 10 since) where there were 5-6 different classes as oposed to several months ago you always saw the imbalanced 5 sf's a runner and 2 monks, or bloodspike, or some other gimicky build...the game is balanced it was balanced a little more before this update than it is after. I like matches to go to VoD. If I want a run in and roll everything playstile I will go to RA, TA, HA..but I don't I want the battle. And stop with the para-hate, I didn't say they didn't need nerf I said the nerf was done wrong.

Jaen · Oct 19, 2007, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keithark

My idea of balance is not seeing a team full of any one class every time I go into GvG. Not beating the other team because our build was better but rather we played our build better.

I am not sure what this has to do with what I stated above. Unless you are proposing that nerfs to offense will result in everyone running spike builds?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keithark

I like matches to go to VoD. If I want a run in and roll everything playstile I will go to RA, TA, HA..but I don't I want the battle.

Nerfing offense will achieve the opposite of the "run in and roll everything playstile[playstyle btw]. I agree that matches between relatively evenly skilled teams should go to VoD (assume equal mistakes on both sides). With defense web, a less skilled team merely stacked enough defense so that games against opponents who were far more skilled would be drawn out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keithark

And stop with the para-hate, I didn't say they didn't need nerf I said the nerf was done wrong.

Part of the paragon nerf was to limit their infinite energy engine. After the update one your suggestions was to give paragon 3 pips of regen. Do I honestly need to explain the fallacy?

Honest question, do you read the posts before you reply?

I ask this because:

1) In this post, you failed to address any of what I stated, except the Paragon issue which I take you took personally.

2) Your original post stated that everyone wanted to nerf defense, when in reality people were advocating nerfs to defense and offense simultaneously. Which begs the question of whether or not you are reading what people write before posting your own responses.

3) Specifically, on the issue of SoD you stated that people wanted this skill nerfed. Everything I've read was to the contrary, where people who wanted defensive webs nerfed did not want SoD nerfed because it is an active defense and not a passive one.

Since you seem to reply without acknowledging or heck, even reading issues other people bring up, I will just take the advice in Ensign's sig (which I should've done from the get go, silly me).

Riotgear · Oct 19, 2007, 03:58 AM // 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moloch Vein

Yes, it is a relative non-issue - mostly because of the fact that Chilblains was hardly ever carried by anyone. However, by removing this ability, you remove from the diversity of the game. If I am not mistaken Chilblains was the only PBAoE enchantment removal spell in the game. Now such a spell does not exist.

The number of spells which can now effectively strip widespread enchants like Aegis or Taint off a team is now 2. That is adding diversity, not removing it. Having a PBAoE enchantment removal has uses against exactly three abilities, all of which are pretty useless except for running builds and griefing.

Bankai · Oct 19, 2007, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Chillblains wasn't nerfed, it was changed. It used to be a PBAoE enchantment removal. It's now an AoE enchantment removal, which is much more useful in my opinion.

Moloch Vein · Oct 19, 2007, 06:41 AM // 06:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

The number of spells which can now effectively strip widespread enchants like Aegis or Taint off a team is now 2. That is adding diversity, not removing it. Having a PBAoE enchantment removal has uses against exactly three abilities, all of which are pretty useless except for running builds and griefing.

So, they add diversity by by doubling the amount of spells with straight AoE, but they don't remove diversity by removing the only spell in the game with the PBAoE?

Make the spell able to target both friend and foe. That's a clean, logical change. I have yet to see one convincing argument against this.

And, if you have to stick with only 1 enchantment removed, then at least boost the damage of the spell so that it is more than an afterthought.

Bankai · Oct 19, 2007, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Who cares if it's a different skill from the rest- PBAoE enchant removal that's only usable on casters just sucks. Being diverse does not justify being bad.

Making the spell able to target friends as well is a pain the butt to program. Probably.

Moloch Vein · Oct 19, 2007, 04:19 PM // 16:19

Still no argument. They already have a spell doing it off the top of my head (Consume Soul).

Riotgear · Oct 19, 2007, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moloch Vein

So, they add diversity by by doubling the amount of spells with straight AoE, but they don't remove diversity by removing the only spell in the game with the PBAoE?

They decreased diversity in a category that has been worthless since the HA overhaul months back and was questionable before that by increasing diversity in a category that desperately needed to be populated by more than one skill.

Sounds like a worthwhile tradeoff.

Allanon754 · Oct 21, 2007, 01:54 AM // 01:54

Sorry I know this has already been discussed but please revert SF back to it's original form or delete it... it was already a super powerful skill at 3 seconds... let alone 7 seconds...

But you know... ruining the meta is always great!

moriz · Oct 21, 2007, 01:56 AM // 01:56

it went from 5 seconds to 7 seconds. not particularly gamebreaking, especially considering that the damage did not go back up.

Riotgear · Oct 21, 2007, 03:32 AM // 03:32

It needs longer burning and lower damage. The more it shifts in that direction, the more-viable it is with one copy and the less stupid it is with multiple.

Bankai · Oct 21, 2007, 06:50 AM // 06:50

Besides, SF is nothing like overpowered. Whenever we can't get a full team of 8, we run SF in the first round of ATs. And it's definately not overpowered.

Div · Oct 23, 2007, 09:54 AM // 09:54

Since I have no idea where to post this:

Was looking through some old monk elites that used to be popular but fail nowadays, and how to fix them. Getting sick of seeing the same elites used by 99% of monks. Some are just bad monk elites.

Blessed light: reduce to 5 energy, lose 5 energy if a hex is removed.

Divert hexes: 5 energy. remove 1..2 hexes from target ally and all nearby allies. ally gains 2..38 health per hex removed. lose 3 energy for each additional ally affected. 3/4 cast.

Word of healing: heal target other ally and up to 2 additional allies adjacent to that ally for 10..78 health. additional 10..78 health if below 50%. 6 second recharge.

Healing hands: reduce duration to 1...4 seconds. reduce recharge to 10 seconds.

Peace and harmony: 1...2 regen. 30 recharge. 3/4 cast.

Shield of deflection: 7 recharge. 1...7 duration.

Mark of protection: 1...6 duration. 1/4 cast. 20 recharge.

Boon signet: heal for 10...58.

Healing light: in addition, heal up to 2 additional allies adjacent to target for 10...58 health. 5 recharge.

Life sheath: 1/4 cast. 1...6 duration. negates 60..204 damage.

Empathic removal: 3/4 cast. 5 recharge.

Glimmer of light: 1 recharge. 30..78 heal.

Granted, these changes probably won't remove the reliability on LoD, but it'll certainly make SoD as playable as RC, and possibly equip life sheath as spike protection. DH/BL are much more viable elites against hexes. The glimmer and empathic change may prove to be useful in skirmishes. The AoE buff to WoH and HL makes them really good against crazy VoD dervishes that ball up your npcs and own them. Boon sig/PnH change can hopefully create some fun new monks (even if it's not in top tier GvG). HH/MoP change much needed to make them not suck so much and act as decent short-term prots.

Some interesting stuff:

Healing breeze: 4..10 duration. if this skill is removed prematurely, target is healed for 30..80 health. 4 recharge.

Mending: 5 energy. 1 casting time. 5 recharge. ally healed for 10..34 health when it ends.

Light of dwayna: AoE increased from in the area to earshot. Moved to healing prayers. return to life with 20..44% health and 0..12% energy. 15 energy. 3 casting time. 45 recharge.

Vengeance: deals 25% more damage, moves, attacks, and casts 10% faster. 30 recharge.

You know you wanna see these skills used

Some other things:

Ritualist:

Mending grip: 3/4 cast. 4 recharge.

Weapon of warding: 4...8 seconds.

Creates more diversity in runners, hopefully...

Paragon:

Vicious attack: +3..15 damage. 10 recharge.

Spear of lightning: 10% AP.

Wild throw: +3..15 damage. 8 adrenaline.

Anthem of flame: 1..2 burning duration.

Mending refrain: 3 health regen at 13-16 motivation.

Paragons still do too much damage for how much party defense it provides, and makes the blockweb have very strong spiking ability.

Assassin:

Siphon speed: 7 recharge.

Dancing daggers: 2 cast. 10..34 damage.

Beguiling haze: 15 recharge. 2..7 second daze.

Deaths retreat: 15 recharge.

Golden skull strike: 3..6 second daze. 12 recharge.

Locusts fury: 5 energy. 1/4 cast. 10..34 duration.

Assault enchantments: target foe and all adjacent foes lose all enchantments. 3/4 cast.

Siphon is too strong in its current state. Deadly arts sins are stupid. More sin elites being used is good. Changes are pretty random, and don't target any specific build.

Dervish:

Avatar of lyssa: +10..46 damage.

Wounding strike: cause deep wound+bleeding if enchanted. bleeding if not.

Guiding hands: 2..4 attacks. 25 recharge.

Eremite's attack: cap at 25 damage.

Mystic sweep: cap at 25 damage.

Some random buffs and nerfs here and there for more diversity and less lame. Too lazy to touch AoM atm.

Shuuda · Oct 23, 2007, 10:35 AM // 10:35

Wow, nice stuff there, I particually like your suggestion to Blight (which would make it a much for flexible elite) But I think deadly arts would need a lot more fixes than that to make it viable in none gimmick builds.

Thomas.knbk · Oct 23, 2007, 12:52 PM // 12:52

WoH needs to be self-castable and the unconditional heal should be upped.`