Whats more broken at this exact time, PvE or PvP. You decide.

upier

upier

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

Done.

[JUNK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Robo
PVE cannot be 'broken' because PVE pits you against the computer. When you can beat the game with nothing but heroes and auto-attack, it ceases to become a challenge. PVE is pointless in Guild Wars because you can never exceed the gear cap; once you reach the gear cap (which is pathetically easy), continuing to play PVE is all about farming and weapon skins/armor.
If I understand you correctly - if you played against the dumbest players around and them having access to insta-cast skill that steals up to 10k life that wouldn't be broken?

(Ohh and I would imagine that if PvE becomes "all about farming and weapon skins/armor" that gives meaning to PvE. So how can it be pointless?)

Bryant Again

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
If I understand you correctly - if you played against the dumbest players around and them having access to insta-cast skill that steals up to 10k life that wouldn't be broken?
Not only that, but the "dumb players" would have to be restricted from trying or learning anything new. In that case then yes it would be fair.

Would it be fair if the "dumb players" had access to the exact same skills as you, and were still restricted in the above case?

upier

upier

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

Done.

[JUNK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
Not only that, but the "dumb players" would have to be restricted from trying or learning anything new. In that case then yes it would be fair.

Would it be fair if the "dumb players" had access to the exact same skills as you, and were still restricted in the above case?
When you can insta-kill everyone in sight - who needs to learn anything?
Why would you even want to?
Learning just takes away precious time that could be spent killing things!

Bryant Again

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
When you can insta-kill everyone in sight - who needs to learn anything?
Another good reason why making PvE broken on the player's side was a bad idea.

The reason you'd want to learn more and become better - speaking on the "dumb players" side - is because just having those 1-hit-kill skills aren't enough to win. You may have the tools, but you need to learn how to use them correctly - and the computer will never learn that.

Aba

Aba

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Dec 2006

Vancouver,Canada

Being someone who mainly plays PvE, I never thought my day would come, But to be honest Its no longer that fun when your steam rolling everything.

lutz

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Apr 2006

Battery Powered Best Friends [Vibe]

Me/

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
You can infinately use foul feast to remove conditions because the energy return pays back for the cost of the skill.

Target Ally has deep wound + bleeding? Foul Feast, +4 energy > Spirit Light.

Next Ally, Foul Feast, +4 energy > Mend Body + Soul.

Target nearest enemy, Plague Sending.

Keep going. The heals only need to be done if required. If the ally has over 75% health, leave him for the monk or whatever else. I might not PVP anymore, but I know pretty well how to heal / support with Monks, Rits, Paras, Necros and Ellys.

Woohoo for Necro healers! (Really, if you arent using these in PVP yet .... )
The best way to do it not to take condition removals on your monks, and use 2 monks and 1 N/Rt maybe, and let the N/Rt handle conditions with Foul Feast. One monk concentrates on pushing red bars up with a lil help from the N/Rt, the other monk prots. Great backline support.
Here's how you can tell if something is broken:

If you are forced to bring Foul Feast Necros or Martyr into a game without normally bringing them, just to counter build against a stronger meta, then you know something is wrong.

upier

upier

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

Done.

[JUNK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
Another good reason why making PvE broken on the player's side was a bad idea.

The reason you'd want to learn more and become better - speaking on the "dumb players" side - is because just having those 1-hit-kill skills aren't enough to win. You may have the tools, but you need to learn how to use them correctly - and the computer will never learn that.
Now imagine ALL foes acting like Molotov.
1k shots - outside of aggro-range.
Yes, this IS simplified exaggeration - but that would mean that something like that is NOT broken.

The big problem them becomes when we are dealing with skills that ARE broken (and monster skills ARE broken!) compared to other options - but we allow them because of the AI problems.
In such cases - how can we say what is broken JUST ENOUGH and what is broken TOO MUCH? Or to put it into GW terms - how hard should hard mode be?

Captain Robo

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jun 2006

I've had it with guilds.

E/Me

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
If I understand you correctly - if you played against the dumbest players around and them having access to insta-cast skill that steals up to 10k life that wouldn't be broken?
I know next to nothing about 'high-end' PVE content in Guild Wars, so if mobs like these exist, obviously there's a way to kill them. Once you ARE able to kill them, they cease to become a challenge. When it stops being a challenge, do you like to come here and whine?

Now, if you're alluding to such a situation occurring in PvP, you don't have it exactly right. The problem with PvP is that the environment is stagnant and overrun with gimmicks. Here's the kicker: players are always going to be more difficult to beat than monsters. Even if both teams are running the same overpowered shit, the more skilled team (read: the team that makes fewer mistakes) will win.


Quote:
(Ohh and I would imagine that if PvE becomes "all about farming and weapon skins/armor" that gives meaning to PvE. So how can it be pointless?)
If you enjoy training and learning a fight against AI opponents, far be it from me to deny you your fun. I fail to see the difference between a super-rare skinned weapon and PvP created weapons, when my PvP created weapon has the same stats, does the same job, and was crafted instantly. Sure, you may LOOK better than my PvP char, but nobody looks good when they're face down in the dirt.

Also, as somebody stated before, using RED ENGINE GO RED ENGINE GO RED ENGINE GOing powerful builds in PvP is annoying and gimmicky, but at least you have the option to run something else, if you are so skilled as to be competitive with it.

With PVE, there's no reason NOT to run the best (read: broken) build for the job. You're not fighting for anything but loot.

Hell, nothing will stop you from being a RED ENGINE GOtard in PvP if all you want to do is win.

I believe the game should be balanced around how players interact with other players. Let PVE be an afterthought. Besides, if you want decent PVE, play wow.

Bryant Again

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
In such cases - how can we say what is broken JUST ENOUGH and what is broken TOO MUCH?
Through the widespread, common, and very workable method that is always used to determine difficulty: Playtesting. The only problem is that devs usually play from a much more knowledgeable and skilled perspective, considering the hard parts to actually be pretty easy. In such a case one of two bad things can occur: they either make it too easy or not easy enough. But if you playtest it numerous times and through numerous perspectives, you'll get it right.

bhavv

bhavv

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Sep 2006

I would have still taken 7 heroes and 0 PVE / PVE only skills, then use 3 imba PVE skills and H/H.

The ONLY PVE nerfs that I had a problem with were:

Armor Stacking nerf (hard core junkie of [skill]kinetic armor[/skill][skill]armor of earth[/skill] farming

[skill]light of deliverance[/skill] nerf and its removal from Mhenlo in EoTN (LOL Kathandrax and Great Destroyer on HM without LoD lol lol lol!!!)

[skill]'watch yourself!'[/skill] nerf, because I was perfectly fine with just using +16-24 AR on my party and could handle anything, then using an Imbagon and +100 AR SY / TNTF.

PVE skills and Consumables killed PVE, I never even knew where these suggestions have come from because I have never seen any kind of overwhelming support for the idea of crazy imbalanced PVE skills on any forums, nor players asking to make the whole game piss easy.

All we really wanted was skill changes like WY and LoD nerfs to be reverted because these skills were completely destroyed for PVE.

But noooo, instead we got Ursan, Shadow form now lasts 25s, Ether Renewal now lasts 21 seconds, and both can be permanantly maintained.

Who asked for crap changes like these??? NO ONE!

PVE skills were ANET's original answer to deal with people complaining about PVP skill nerfs affecting PVE, and believe me, losing LoD in EoTN was a big issue at the time. However, their answer to al the previous complaints was totally imbalanced PVE only skills and consumables, rather then just seperating PVP and PVE skills like they have done now, and giving skills that were nerfed purely because of their abuse in PVP their previous description back.

Instead they add PVE only skills, and then realised 'Durrrr, PVE and PVP skill split plox!!!', but they made a complete joke out of the skill changes for PVE!

This is how I see this, this is Anets joke to tell us 'Hey, you morons are playing a dead game that we only care about making worse and worse, because we know you're still going to play it anyway and we can sit and laugh at you'.

So, just please tell how Anet told us that '7 heroes would be imbalanced because we found this during playtesting', and how the hell PVE isnt any more imbalanced right now with all this PVE only crap then it would have been with 7 heroes and 0 PVE skills.

*Sits patiently waiting for all the noobs to respond with asshat comments*.

upier

upier

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

Done.

[JUNK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
Through the widespread, common, and very workable method that is always used to determine difficulty: Playtesting. The only problem is that devs usually play from a much more knowledgeable and skilled perspective, considering the hard parts to actually be pretty easy. In such a case one of two bad things can occur: they either make it too easy or not easy enough. But if you playtest it numerous times and through numerous perspectives, you'll get it right.
That brings into the game subjective balance.
Which would mean that having insanely overpowered concepts in the game (like Ursan or SR) could work if there is going to be enough players that will be bad enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Robo
I believe the game should be balanced around how players interact with other players. Let PVE be an afterthought.
If by "the game" you mean PvP skills/rules - then yeah.
If you are thinking of the whole PvE experience - then no. In that case - PvE demands just as much attention as PvP. Because basically, you have two different games. And if you don't pay attention to a side - that side will become more broken.
And that's the case with PvE.

Killed u man

Forge Runner

Join Date: Feb 2006

PvE can't be broken, as there only is 1 side...

NPC's/Monsters don't cry when something is imbalanced.

PvE can NEVER be imbalanced. It CAN be easy/hard, but that has got nothing to do with balancing.

I offcorse do get the idea of this thread. Ursan is "OP" in farming context. It steamrolls through any area, BUT maybe that's how Anet intended it to be? People who unlocked that skill, are allowed to acces Godmode, after all, you're fighting AI, so it's not like they can really complain about bad balance.

In other words: there is no such thing as balance in PvE. In PvP, well it's all about balance. And when 2 teams have to run exactly the same bars in order to compete with eachother, look at top GvG, U know things are very imbalanced...

So, I would go with:

PvP is very imbalanced, to the extend where it's Build Wars all the way, even in GvG.

PvE is "imbalanced" in terms of PvE skill, if You compare them to regular skills, BUT then again, it doen't matter, cuz there is no real victim, but the people who don't want to run these build, and thus can't gain as much money through farming...

Bryant Again

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
That brings into the game subjective balance...
The difficulty of a game is always subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
Which would mean that having insanely overpowered concepts in the game (like Ursan or SR) could work if there is going to be enough players that will be bad enough.
And seeing as it worked very well without Ursan and PvE skills (I consider SR to be in a different bag, but no less overpowered), reaching nearly four million copies sold before PvE skills started to become mainstream, it's safe to assume that they weren't needed. The game was selling, it was being praised, people had fun, and people were challenged.

You're right: Allowing players the same "overpoweredness" possessed by the later monsters could benefit people who were not very good at the game - but that's why you make the surface more accessible. You don't erase the depth.

upier

upier

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

Done.

[JUNK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
The difficulty of a game is always subjective.
Difficulty is, yes.
But balance shouldn't be.
Because that means you took into account the player skill (or the monster skill) level - and that can NOT work in a game like GW.
PvE should be balanced the same way that PvP (supposedly) is - on the player skill of the BEST players. Which then means that player skill (being constant - that is: always on top!) can be taken out of the balance equation.
That's also the reason why Ursan/SR/other godmodes should be killed - when you have the best players using it - it's better then anything else.
If you take bad players into account - nothing can be overpowered because they can (or better yet - WILL) still fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
And seeing as it worked very well without Ursan and PvE skills (I consider SR to be in a different bag, but no less overpowered), reaching nearly four million copies sold before PvE skills started to become mainstream, it's safe to assume that they weren't needed. The game was selling, it was being praised, people had fun, and people were challenged.
The argument "it used to sell without the crap" would work if the current game wasn't selling NOR seeing play.
"People had fun" is interesting though. Because the people that aren't having fun NOW are the ones that are screaming for a harder game. And I am pretty sure these people are more frequent (or even present at ALL!) on the forums - thus are more vocal.
Previously - if you had people that didn't have fun - because the game was to hard - they probably didn't visit the forums. So we have no ways of knowing how many people left the game because it was to hard.
And with that - I wonder how many bad players are actually enjoying the current game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
You're right: Allowing players the same "overpoweredness" possessed by the later monsters could benefit people who were not very good at the game - but that's why you make the surface more accessible. You don't erase the depth.
But that's the problem of subjective balance. This can happen.
And it did.
(It doesn't make it good though! It just means that we have proof that the devs do err. That's why a system (objective balance) that prevents errors - could be better. IF one is willing to give up the bonuses (or errors!) that this brought. And in our case - this includes increased difficulty that was the result of sacrificing balance!)

Kanyatta

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jun 2006

Guildless, pm me

R/Mo

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
The big problem them becomes when we are dealing with skills that ARE broken (and monster skills ARE broken!) compared to other options - but we allow them because of the AI problems.
Yeah, monster skills are broken because of AI problems, but PvE-only skills are broken because of player intelligence problems. THAT CAUSES BALANCE! AMIRITE?!?!

Red Sonya

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2005

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Robo
PVE cannot be 'broken' because PVE pits you against the computer. When you can beat the game with nothing but heroes and auto-attack, it ceases to become a challenge. PVE is pointless in Guild Wars because you can never exceed the gear cap; once you reach the gear cap (which is pathetically easy), continuing to play PVE is all about farming and weapon skins/armor.
Very well said Captain Robo I agree 100%. Thus I see no reason to whine QQ or whatever about the skills in PVE since it's pretty meaningless in the first place once the stories and missions and quests have been done. The rest is just an OPTIONAL grind if you want to continue to hack n slash for pretty pictures, much like a Diablo II except without the powerful weapons to go along with the powerful skills. GW stops at powerful skills and gives us rinky dink equipment that is boring and the only difference is a skin. But, at least with TIME I can be more powerful than some players and that's a plus to continuing to play PVE even after all the main content is done an over with. Yet, really I keep asking myself what good is it to be more powerful since there's nothing to gain from that power except a useless skin.

bhavv

bhavv

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Sep 2006

If PVE cannot be imbalanced, then remove the damage penalty from Shadow Form. Buff Incoming to last 20 seconds, buff the Motivation healing chants to recharge in 5s each, reduce every monk skill by 5e (5e become 1e), double the damage of all elementalist skills, allow dervish attacks to hit every foe within earshot, buff soul reaping to completely fill up your energy bar when something dies,
Make ritualist spirits instantly recharge, double the base armor of warriors, double the damage range on ranger bows ...

And nerf mesmers because they are stupid and no one wants, or uses them anyway.

enter_the_zone

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Nov 2007

R/

There's no denying that both PVE and PVP are imbalanced to some extent.

The difference is where balance matters. PVE was very imbalanced long before Ursan. Anyone else remember the minion masters with seemingly 100 minions? That got SR nerfed to some extent, but it's still useable.

PVE isn't supposed to be difficult for decent players, even HM is just stat pumping which can be effectively countered with consumables and/or PVE skills. It's meant to be a slight challenge, but paying attention and decent playing is MEANT to /win.

Requiring team gimmick builds to complete ANY area is utterly imbalanced. Decent balanced teams should be able to roll just about anything in PVE. Hello to all the so called "elite" areas out there, yes, that was aimed at you. PVE isn't competitive, so making it easier (via Ursan, consumes etc.) is ok, since it's the same for everyone. Stupid Ursan teams can and do fail all the time. I've been in a few and gone straight back to H/H teams. At least they know what they're doing, unlike far too many players.

PVP, on the other hand, is competitive. If both teams have decent builds and decent players, the field should be relatively equal. That's the definition of balance in terms of skills. GW has lacked this for a long time, and that needs to be fixed, badly.

So the answer is PVP, because being broken shows more in PVP than it does in PVE.

Bryant Again

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
Difficulty is, yes.
But balance shouldn't be.
The problem is, though, that the balance in this sense relates directly to the difficulty. Everything in PvE is not related to "how well you play". Granted, there is general knowledge in knowing kill order and certain events (like traps), but what ultimately leads you down the path of either victory or failure is how you build your team, what's on your skillbars, and how well each class works with each other.

More than anything else, though, is that in PvE you're still always going to be up against the "dumb player" known as the AI: predictable and systematic, even with the suggestions we've placed in together in other threads.

PvE cannot be balanced in the same method as PvP because in PvE you're not going against other players. You're not having a "meeting of the minds". The computer does not evolve or adapt. It's the players job to do that, and in a game with millions of monsters and thousands of seperate encounters, the only way you'll challenge the players is throwing at them numbers. This is what game developers have known and followed for years.

Instead of repeating myself, I'll just link back to my post in the other thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
The argument "it used to sell without the crap" would work if the current game wasn't selling NOR seeing play.
Saying "it used to sell" would imply that I'm arguing that it's not doing well currently. I'm arguing that there was no need for these updates as the game was selling fine.

And that is because of one thing: most players don't care. Most players will never care. This is shown brilliantly in WoW. They don't care if they're playing a gimped class, they don't care if they're "doing it wrong". They don't care about anything. These additions of the PvE skills and UB aren't accessible on the surface, they don't concern the casual player. They're contained in a deeper level of concern that's not shared by the silent majority.

Ultimately, I'm saying that it makes no difference. The game was selling good before, and it's selling good now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
Previously - if you had people that didn't have fun - because the game was to hard - they probably didn't visit the forums. So we have no ways of knowing how many people left the game because it was to hard.
And with that - I wonder how many bad players are actually enjoying the current game.
The thing is is that you can easily please both crowds: Those who are enjoying the challenge and those who aren't. They catered nearly exclusively to the latter, and I show you how they do that below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
But that's the problem of subjective balance. This can happen.
And it did.
Why?

That's the chief question here: Why? Why did they reduce the hardest areas and challenges of the game to be as easy as the easiest encounters? Why did they not increase the accessibility? Why did they only apply it to a select few who have the time and patience to grind out titles? Why did they not help out the "newbie" and instead a minority as large as the "elite players"? Why did they see a need to make Hard Mode accessible when it shares no difference than that of Normal mode - especially when all a player had to do was just stay on Normal Mode? Why did they go against what's been selling games and keeping players for years?

Ultimately, there's no excuse for it. It was a bad decision. They made the hardest difficulty as easy as the normal one for people who were having trouble on the hard one. This makes zero sense.

Red Sonya

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2005

Lol Bryant you ramble on an on day after day without one bit of documentation or proof of your statements. You still have no clue to the data that Anet has and why they made their decisions yet YOU continue to state THEY made a BAD decision based on what YOU wanted or think the direction of the game should have gone. lol When do you give up and realize Anet/NCsoft knows more than YOU do? Afterall they are the ones making the money off of this, you merely spent a few dollars.

See I can counter and cancel out your belief by stating I believe they made the CORRECT decision and GW is doing fine and well with the improvements. Though it's the bland equipment that has me feeling bored, but, not the gameplay, that part would still be fun an enjoyable if there were just something worth playing for within the gameworld. Perhaps they will include more phat loot in GW2 for me.

upier

upier

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2006

Done.

[JUNK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
The problem is, though, that the balance in this sense relates directly to the difficulty.
This is what I am trying to tell you.
Balance does NOT relate to difficulty.
As I have said earlier - if you want to talk balance - then the the skill level of the foe should not be considered.
What you want to consider is - if Orison heals for 60 and WoH for 190 - are skills that deal 1k damage balanced?
Is Mandragor's Charge balanced compared to other shadowsteps?
Is something like Ursan Rage balanced compared to other KDs?

I don't feel that GW with it's balancing system (where PvP skills aren't balanced on the skill level because it should be a constant - but rather on the effect that they have compared to other skills! (That's the reason why touchies aren't killed off when they ARE overpowered in random arenas - because of the team build and the general level of skill shown there - but aren't nearly as big of a threat in stuff like GvG.)) can afford such skills.
And that's why something like Ursan is bad. It's not bad because it devaluates PvE achievement, it's not bad because it makes the game easy, it's not bad ... for whatever (subjective) reason - it's bad because in a game that relies so massively on balance - it's dancing way out of line.
That's the objective reason why Ursan should be killed. (And by Ursan I mean EVERYTHING that is dancing out of line.)

You just want the game to be more difficult.
And in that case - in PvE - pretty much nothing can be to difficult - because the foes are dumb and the players are able to exploit that. If they are good that is. (As you said!)
But that doesn't make it balanced (in the GW sense!).

The game can be broken (as in unbalanced!) yet at the same time have no difficulty whatsoever.
And that's what we are seeing now.

Bryant Again

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Sonya
See I can counter and cancel out your belief by stating I believe they made the CORRECT decision and GW is doing fine and well with the improvements.
You can't cancel my belief by flatout just saying I'm wrong. You provide a reasoning for it, too - in which case, you have to give me a reason of why catering to unskilled and unlearning grinders is good for the game.

GW was doing fine and GW is still doing fine for the most part. As I said in my previous post, GW was doing so fine that none of this was required. Unless ANet specifically wants to cater more to the impatient individual, which is even more mind-boggling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
What you want to consider is - if Orison heals for 60 and WoH for 190 - are skills that deal 1k damage balanced?
Is Mandragor's Charge balanced compared to other shadowsteps?
In the "GW sense", no they are not balanced - and for good reason. We're not dealing with equals. We're not dealing with "like-minded" individuals. We're dealing with walls. ANet tosses a wall at us and it's our job, as a player and as a team, to figure out how to pass it.

You can never emulate a game to be as challenging and complex as it's PvP counterpart. Advocating for this kind of "balance" in PvE is the same as advocating balance for Diablo, Doom, and hell, Mario: For Diablo, there must only be one foe on the screen at a time, because if there's more than that it's unfair and unbalanced. For Doom, same thing - the player must only be fighting one demon at a time, and if there's more than that it's OP (and each one has to have the same health as the player). In Mario we have to remove all the bosses and replace each one with a koopa, because the bosses take numerous stomps to kill, whereas with Mario it only takes one (or two, if you got a mushroom) hit from anything to kill him.

This is the kind of "balance" you're advocating for. We're not dealing with players vs. players. We're dealing with players vs. environment, vs. monsters, vs. the AI. You can buff the AI all you want, but it will never have the sophistication in order to provide a decent "challenge". Instead, the damage and health of the baddies goes up - and yes, for many, many games, it provides a decent challenge. When you're confronted with a foe in God of War that deals a billion damage a hit with tough as hell armor, instead of throwing down your controller and saying "this is impossible!", you grin - because unlike the computer you have a mind, and are able to process and calculate problem solving to much broader degrees. When a monster sees you, all he sees is you. But when you see a monster, you'll pay more attention to his weak points. Granted, you can make it balanced, have the boss have the same everything as you, and have the monster pay attention to your moves, but would the Minotaur of Hades be as challenging and epic if he died in a couple of hits?

When it's against a computer, the rules are different. We're not dealing with Guild Wars, we're dealing with Guild Wars PvE. I'd only advocate for the curve in Normal Mode to be flattened a bit, but aside from that I see no trouble with giving monsters the tools they need to actual put a dent on me.

Welcome to video games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
And in that case - in PvE - pretty much nothing can be to difficult - because the foes are dumb and the players are able to exploit that.
Exactly, so don't allow such exploitations to exist. When a foe is aggroed, have him be aggroed by all players within compass distance so as to kill the concept of tanking and the Holy Trinity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
...If they are good that is. (As you said!)
Exploiting =/= solving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
The game can be broken (as in unbalanced!) yet at the same time have no difficulty whatsoever.
And that's what we are seeing now.
Precisely - which is why PvE skills suck. Unless you're saying the game wasn't providing any challenge before, in which case that further voids the purpose of giving players overpowered skills.