Is Ursan still with us!

I suppose you meant post nerf ursan users.

That said, can't say I've seen anyone using Ursan. Except my pet Bear of course.

It's the same question as asking why anyone would play Paragon after all the nerfs (besides the obvious imbagon).
It's not that something was changed from good to bad.
It's changed from overpowered to somewhat less overpowered.

And I know some players who play UB from time to time.
It's a tool and in certain situations and teams a tool that works rather well.

Why would someone play Paragon after all the nurfs... 100s of reasons xP
&
Yes but not in a NM Gates of kyrta you would think people would only use ursan if they are struggling with build for a high up area. Still i suppose some ppl do not save builds and simply run UB to save time. But since the nurf you have to have other skills on ur bar anyways so its hardly a matter of simply loading one elite and some stances. Perhaps at the end of the day its just people being lazy/ enjoying using ursan.

I myself can not understand these ppl but there are a few peeps : /

My guildy does Ursan.
He ran it before the change.
He does it now.
He's currently wasting money on the last few titles to get him to God Walking.

PvE is easy enough to waste a bar on something that they consider fun.

Edit:
You bastard!
R.I.P to one of the sweetest avatars of Guru.
In it's memory:

*bows head*

I kind of wish Ursan was still with us.

Hating Ursan was just some huge fad that everyone and their god damn mother jumped on the bandwagon for.

If people actually gave a damn about teams being balanced with the gameplay, we'd see even more threads on nerfing Cryway than we did with Ursan. The fact that Cryway is now PuG and guild meta just proves that it's about as difficult a concept to grasp as Ursan, which, remember, another reason people hated it is because it was too easy. Cryway is only marginally more difficult, if the PuG populace can do it.

People would also have the sense to realize that an Imbagon is about as overpowered as a full team of Ursans before their nerf. One person (the Imbagon) could provide the same AL benefits to the whole team at no cost on the skillbar of other players.

People are hypocrites who can't think for themselves; either want game balance, or don't want it.

People are stupid and bad, I did Duncan HM with a guildie of mine and 6 heroes...

ursan still isnt a bad skill. it just requires a little more thought, in most cases too much thought, for people to make it effective. I still use it every now and then, and still get done what I need to get done.

Ursan (along with those other blessings) was worse from a design perspective than other PvE skills because the other skills still required you to make a functional bar that used attributes and the other basics of the game.

That said, I can't think of anyone who argued against Ursan but promotes other PvE skills as a good addition. If you have examples, name and shame.

The problem is what WE here consider to be bad is actually completely sufficient to reward one with winning PvE.
Yeah, I am aware one can win with empty bars - but winning still is winning.

GW has this quite complex system of rules, but PvE just has this insanely simplified version of it. One seriously needs to ask themselves - are the players that exist ONLY in PvE, meaning they can only be judged by it's set of rules, and are able to WIN in it - really bad?

pve skill are baed

That's what the elitest PvP jerks would have you believe.

xP i thought i needed a change.... of course it had to be another cat! maybe i will change it back no?


did it H/H HM beat that! :E

Very good points but i always hated PvE skills in general....cept PI that never ever gets old! xP And i never said i hated ursan (accept just now O_O) i just think people are barking up the wrong tree when they are using it now. As for cryway........... its kinda meh to be honest ive been on a few VS farms ( i know cryway is used in other places) and infact about 70% of them failed Echo>cry>arance echo>echoed cry>cry
is a chain which most pugs imo fail terribly at.



__________

Insert lame ass sig

I just wish ANet went all the way and nerfed all the OP crap ,AKA CoP , SY! and SF. These skills are just a pinch lower on the OP scale than UB and everyone is silent about them?

Ursan still has it's uses.... and it isn't so bad with the nerf done. If you think about what doing you can still use it to your advantage. An ele low on energy can slip into Ursan and still do damage whilst energy regens then swap back and carry on... for example...

All it takes is brain cells and them firing to use it...

PvE doesn't push players, and as a result a player who only does PvE will in almost all cases not be that good at some aspects of the game - prekiting, preprotting, target prioritization, build recognition, positioning, macro tactics, and so on. One can say 'oh, those only matter in PvP', but that's only the case because PvE is simplistic. If PvE was made more difficult and dynamic, those factors would all begin to matter more - and the weaknesses of most players would show further.

So, yes, for the most part, PvE-only players don't have higher-level skills. You simply don't learn them in PvE, and aren't punished for the lack of them. You could make an argument that because PvE players are never forced to do certain things, it's unfair to judge them on those, but if there isn't equal importance placed on aspects when judging overall ability you can't come to a solid conclusion.

I submit as evidence the 'heroes are better than pugs' mentality. The AI, when given equal setup, often outperforms players. Would a team of 8 heroes defeat 8 PvE players? After all, it's not PvP - one side is AI. We could compare their results with PvP players in the same situation - since it's a hypothetical of what PvE would be like if the person designing the skillbars wasn't intentionally (I assume) making mobs terrible. After all - the opposition being bad isn't an excuse for the team to play bad.

Now there's a test I'd like to see.

If I, for example, fought a rank 10000 guild and only barely won, I'd have won. But I'd still be a really bad player. PvE doesn't have 'skillfull' challenge - HM is mainly pumped numbers and a question of how the players can exploit it. Winning in PvE sheds very little light on how good a player is - what's important is how they play in the process of that.

Your whole post is a complaint.

Ursan does still have its uses, however the other 7 skills you have need to do something in during the recharge. I have run teams with the oathshot ursan instant recharge and it does work very well, still giving a lot of the power the old ursan gave.

The reason people put down the pve skills is because there are some pvp people who if they dont have someone or something to say is bad, then they cannot see themselves as good in comparison, There are also some pvp players that totally suck at pve. I have a friend who is a pvp snob of sorts, very good at pvp, r11 Hero and whatnot, but he cant get his chars thru a campaign without someones help. Not all good pvp'ers are good pve'rs. Conversely not all pve'rs are bad pvp'ers. I am in a PvX guild and we have some Great PvP and PvE folks in there and I can tell you that the PvPers learn a bunch from the PvErs and vice versa. There are a lot of subtle nuances in both sides that must be learned and understood, but mastery of either most certainly does not mean mastery of both. AI vs Human behavior, PvE vs PvP skills, the strageies and dynamics are radically different. Anyone find it odd that pve folk rarely complain about pvp folk, yet it is mostly the pvp folk that find themselves so annoyed with and feeling superior to the pve guys? I think the competitve nature has something to do with it, but I also feel that perhaps a general lack of self esteem makes them feel the need to put something or someone down. In pve when you win, everyone wins. In pvp, there is always a winner and a loser.

Perhaps some of the hardcore pvp'ers just put down pve because they cannot come to terms with the fact that while they are good at pvp, they have some weaknesses in pve, and therefore put it down and say "pfft, that stuff is below me".

Why do so many people get so upset about what other people they dont even play with when it comes to what skills they are running? Why do people think that "bad" players shouldnt play guild wars? Who determines what bad is? If you are successful in beating an area or winning a pvp match, how can you still call that player bad?

There are 2 ways to be the biggest building in town. Build youself up or try to push everyone else down.

/winsthread.

But does your average Joe PvP understand those concepts? To a greater extent then your average Joe PvE?
Maybe the standard here (of what is bad) is set to high because we are basing it on the abilities of the best players around. Maybe your average Joe PvE really is your average Joe GW?

the_jos wasn't saying paragon's are bad. he was pointing out that paragon's are still useful even after nerfs to show that nerfing something does not necessarily make it bad. he used this to argue that the ursan nerf did not make ursan useless, only less broken.

why so eager to take single sentences out of context, misunderstand them, and "correct" them by reinforcing the posters point?

cool story bro.