Update - Thursday, February 25, 2010
Trinity Fire Angel
personally, i think ANet fixed SF. Now any profession in the game can run perma SF with only 12 spec in Shadow Arts. Granted it is only a spell breaker mode now... but perma spell breaker is better than nothing.
hint: 20% enchant staff + Deadly Paradox + Shadow Form = Perma Shadow
I dont; think glyph of swiftness will work here unless you go E/A or A/E. But honestly, yuo don;t neeed glyph of swiftness as Deadly Paradox is all that is needed.
i have been playing around with a few other skills... with heros its a little different difficult, but you can try using Life Barrier and Life Bond for protection on a hero. Or try running this as a 600.
For damage, we are all going to have to think outside the square a little. I am sure that a good build might be;
Player: E/A 16 Earth, 12 Shadow. Geomancer Insigs. Sliver, Stone Striker. Stoneflesh is too susceptable to AI interrupts.
Hero: Bonds, Balthazars spirit, Mending, Retribution
Problems that will arise now will be interrupts will actually work on you. lol. and melee dmg will too.
It is going to take a little thinking outside the sqare, but perhaps 3 heros / players each with Protective Bond and Spirit of Essence being maintained on the one player to offset the energy loss (each lose and gain 1e per attack). Prot bond only limits dmg to 5% of health.
Anyway. i am just theory crafting here as i have only tried these things out in Isle of Namless with PVP characters & Heros. Need to set this up for heros in HM after work tonight.
hint: 20% enchant staff + Deadly Paradox + Shadow Form = Perma Shadow
I dont; think glyph of swiftness will work here unless you go E/A or A/E. But honestly, yuo don;t neeed glyph of swiftness as Deadly Paradox is all that is needed.
i have been playing around with a few other skills... with heros its a little different difficult, but you can try using Life Barrier and Life Bond for protection on a hero. Or try running this as a 600.
For damage, we are all going to have to think outside the square a little. I am sure that a good build might be;
Player: E/A 16 Earth, 12 Shadow. Geomancer Insigs. Sliver, Stone Striker. Stoneflesh is too susceptable to AI interrupts.
Hero: Bonds, Balthazars spirit, Mending, Retribution
Problems that will arise now will be interrupts will actually work on you. lol. and melee dmg will too.
It is going to take a little thinking outside the sqare, but perhaps 3 heros / players each with Protective Bond and Spirit of Essence being maintained on the one player to offset the energy loss (each lose and gain 1e per attack). Prot bond only limits dmg to 5% of health.
Anyway. i am just theory crafting here as i have only tried these things out in Isle of Namless with PVP characters & Heros. Need to set this up for heros in HM after work tonight.
upier
Quote:
Why? Most players don't have a clue on how to run, develop or improve a game. Most are also self-serving, in that they'll only make suggestions for purely their benefit. I dread to think what this game would be like if people like you had their way.
|
Quote:
My goodness, is your vision so black and white? I'll repeat, shall I?
If you take advantage of something that was never meant to be, a backlash is inevitable. Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you here? |
Actually it's because of that right, that I am arguing that the crap that happens in this game is also their fault.
If players are to blame in such situations, then a second example of this would be how PvP players destroyed PvP because they chose to run overpowered skills. And that would mean that A.Net doesn't need to balance skills because the players themselves need to not choose overpowered skills.
Shuuda
You know, Upier, blame rarely falls on a single person or group. Is it hard to envision the idea that's it's both Anet's and the player's fault?
Gill Halendt
So upier, if a murderer shoots at someone with a gun and kill him... It's Pietro Beretta's fault?
Shasgaliel
Quote:
I am not taking away A.Net's right to do anything they want (or as you put it, the "backlash"). Actually it's because of that right, that I am arguing that the crap that happens in this game is also their fault. If players are to blame in such situations, then a second example of this would be how PvP players destroyed PvP because they chose to run overpowered skills. And that would mean that A.Net doesn't need to balance skills because the players themselves need to not choose overpowered skills. |
The way we use the product does matter. We use a common good and if we use it ignoring the effect it may have on other users then we get what we have now in GW. I would blame community as well as Anet. All this mentality "I do as I please and it is not your business" is at fault here. Sure people often do not care but some do. People fail to see that in the shared environment their actions do influence others and those others may not like it.
upier
Quote:
You know, Upier, blame rarely falls on a single person or group. Is it hard to envision the idea that's it's both Anet's and the player's fault?
|
Quote:
Ok so if buy a baseball bat and use it solely in street fights where people get badly beaten is it the fault of baseball bat producer or mine?
The way we use the product does matter. We use a common good and if we use it ignoring the effect it may have on other users then we get what we have now in GW. I would blame community as well as Anet. All this mentality "I do as I please and it is not your business" is at fault here. Sure people often do not care but some do. People fail to see that in the shared environment their actions do influence others and those others may not like it. |
Quote:
So upier, if a murderer shoots at someone with a gun and kill him... It's Pietro Beretta's fault?
|
Just by using (something like) SF, people did not violate a single rule. The rules in this game come from one source only - A.Net. The players do not get to decide the rules. So if you feel that the effect of using SF is something that shouldn't be allowed, that means that the individual creating the rules is to blame here for not creating a rule that would say that this effect isn't allowed.
So, on what grounds would this be the player's fault?
Blaming players in this case equals blaming Toyota-buyers for the recall.
Bryant Again
It's a developers job to drive the game, it's the player's job to steer it.
In regards to who I'd put to blame for the state of the game? Depends on who I'm talking to.
In regards to who I'd put to blame for the state of the game? Depends on who I'm talking to.
Shasgaliel
Quote:
You use a gun or a baseball bat to kill/hurt someone, you violate the law. You did something that isn't allowed.
|
If something is allowed by law it does not mean it is good or ethical. If I feel I am being affected in a negative way by someone else behaviour I will react. If the only reason why someone does is "because he likes it and it is allowed and does not care what others think" I would react even stronger. Drawing on a mini map is allowed but I cant stand people drawing crap there while we are in a mission and I am trying to draw a correct way. But hey it is Anets fault since they allow players to draw there... and not the kid who had fun by annoying others. Or those yeti sounds..... They were harmless and even fun until a band of xxxxxx decided it is fun to annoy the rest of the population by constantly spamming them in outposts. A lot of nerfs and changes would have been avoided if people were not so keen of abusing them or using them against the others. A lot of stuff is for people but when it is abused then there is the time to say stop.
upier
Don't go there.
Let me just tell you that this isn't a valid counter argument and we should instead focus on the GW problem. It's going to be much easier than dragging this off-topic.
Bolded the important part.
Let me just tell you that this isn't a valid counter argument and we should instead focus on the GW problem. It's going to be much easier than dragging this off-topic.
Quote:
If something is allowed by law it does not mean it is good or ethical. If I feel I am being affected in a negative way by someone else behaviour I will react. If the only reason why someone does is "because he likes it and it is allowed and does not care what others think" I would react even stronger. Drawing on a mini map is allowed but I cant stand people drawing crap there while we are in a mission and I am trying to draw a correct way. But hey it is Anets fault since they allow players to draw there... and not the kid who had fun by annoying others. Or those yeti sounds..... They were harmless and even fun until a band of xxxxxx decided it is fun to annoy the rest of the population by constantly spamming them in outposts. A lot of nerfs and changes would have been avoided if people were not so keen of abusing them or using them against the others. A lot of stuff is for people but when it is abused then there is the time to say stop.
|
Gill Halendt
Quote:
Just by using (something like) SF, people did not violate a single rule.
|
Stuff like permanent immunity doesn't exist in any other online game (not counting hacks, that is...). How couldn't people discern?
ANet's biggest mistake has been treating their playerbase as adults, when they clearly didn't deserve it. Now it's time for some intervention, since players can't help themselves.
EDIT - SF itself is allowed. 600/Smite is allowed. Abuses are deprecated. So ANet is toning down (not even taking away) something that it IS allowed but abusable. If they do, this probably means abuses are not tolerated by who's making the rules. There you go.
upier
Quote:
Some rules are not written. Those are collectively known as "common sense", something the immature GW playerbase must be obviously lacking.
Stuff like permanent immunity doesn't exist in any other online game (not counting hacks, that is...). How couldn't people discern? ANet's biggest mistake has been treating their playerbase as adults, when they clearly didn't deserve it. Now it's time for some intervention, since players can't help themselves. |
And that's the players' fault ... how exactly?
Quote:
EDIT - SF itself is allowed. 600/Smite is allowed. Abuses are deprecated. So ANet is toning down (not even taking away) something that it IS allowed but abusable. If they do, this probably means abuses are not tolerated by who's making the rules. There you go.
|
It's not my fault that they do not know what they are doing.
Gill Halendt
Quote:
So ... A.Net is aware that permanent immunity does not exist in other online games. And yet, they left it in this game for almost 2 years.
And that's the players' fault ... how exactly? |
The players' fault was taking advantage of their slow reactions and tolerance about this issue for 2 years, to the point abusive gameplay is now considered normal. There were precedents, there were previews and announcement. Now people complain as this all was unexpected and unjust...
I agree it's mostly ANet to blame, but players always had the faculty to choose wheter being accomplices of ANet's mistakes or refraining from abuses.
upier
Quote:
That's solely ANet's fault. Not only they left such a thing in the game. They've done it on purpose not to upset abusers... until the abuses became unbearable. Then came the reaction.
The players' fault was taking advantage of their slow reactions and tolerance about this issue for 2 years, to the point abusive gameplay is now considered normal. There were precedents, there were previews and announcement. Now people complain as this all was unexpected and unjust... I agree it's mostly ANet to blame, but players always had the faculty to choose whether being accomplices of ANet's mistakes or refraining from abuses. |
It's use.
You can't blame the players for playing the game in a way that A.Net didn't find problematic enough to change. A.Net had the sole power to change this at ANY given moment.
And they chose not to.
Gill Halendt
Quote:
It's not abuse.
It's use. You can't blame the players for playing the game in a way that A.Net didn't find problematic enough to change. A.Net had the sole power to change this at ANY given moment. And they chose not to. |
ANet tried to change this. They changed SF twice, then they tried the idiotic solutions suggested by players, such as altering areas to make invincibility builds more problematic to use. Then implemented those changes in the UW. Last resort was to take the toy away.
Well, ANet had the power to do it and did it. If you didn't get the message, there you have it, a nerf, the harsh and most superficial solution, because that's what the community deserved. You act like a lemming? You have no common sense? You don't know when to quit? Sorry, I'll take your toy away then...
Skyy High
Quote:
So ... A.Net is aware that permanent immunity does not exist in other online games. And yet, they left it in this game for almost 2 years.
And that's the players' fault ... how exactly? |
The thing you can't argue with is that it was abuse, because ANet tried to change it, many times, while still letting people be invincible, because they probably hoped that people would stop using it for solo-farms and SCs if it became costly enough and limited your damage enough, and would only use it to tank in team builds. That didn't work, so here we are. Just because it's been a problem skill for 2 years doesn't mean they haven't been trying to fix it...they just weren't doing it correctly.
UnChosen
Other games have "getting hit for 1 damage while having 100000 Hp" instead. If those people want to compare it like that then fine, I'll take the super armor and HP instead of Shadow Form.
Sjeng
Quote:
Originally Posted by upier
Just by using (something like) SF, people did not violate a single rule.
|
Quote:
Some rules are not written. Those are collectively known as "common sense", something the immature GW playerbase must be obviously lacking.
|
And if that makes me immature in your eyes, well so be it. I find it in no way immature to play a game in any way allowed by the creator. Immature is verbally abusing people, ragequitting, whining, flaming etc. Not using permasin builds. That's just clever.
I'm not saying I am for SC's or running people through the game. I agree that that's probably not the way Anet meant the game to be played. But it's THEIR gamedesign that made it possible, so people are obviously going to use that possibility. Millions of people playing the same game = big chance of discovering gimmicky builds. And now Anet did something about it, as they always do. That's all there is to it.
"unwritten laws" hahahahaha. really man. It's a game.
Gill Halendt
Quote:
Millions of people playing the same game = big chance of discovering gimmicky builds. And now Anet did something about it, as they always do. That's all there is to it.
"unwritten laws" hahahahaha. really man. It's a game. |
First, some "unwritten rules" are there whatever you do, wherever you go: ethics, respect, freedom of tought and speech, those principles of civilized coexistence. Even if it's "just a game" those principles are still valid. Then, if you're adult enough, you should have grown some personal faculty of discerning between "acceptable" and "not acceptable". It's hopefully part of our culture, and that's even before the written rules in the EULA are taken into account.
Then... Why do you think we had 2+ years of debates about this? Why do you think ANet did something about it in the end, if there was no "written rule" to make it void? Because they though some gimmicks were used in a way they couldn't accept anymore. There's no "written rule" in the EULA that says "It's not allowed to play invincible builds". Yet their common sense kicked in: they run a game and thought invincible builds were gimmicky and not acceptable - even if nothing in the EULA says the contrary - and interveined.
tl;dr: All I wanted to say is that the mere fact something isn't expressely forbidden, doesn't automatically make it allowed or even approvable and "good". It just means that solo farming isn't a bannable offense.
*sigh* That's what you get when you try to discuss with upier, you end up dragging syllogisms and cathegorical propositions into a forum thread about a frigging game...
Shasgaliel
Quote:
Indeed, that's about it. But don't get me wrong.
First, some "unwritten rules" are there whatever you do, wherever you go: ethics, respect, freedom of tought and speech, those principles of civilized coexistence. Even if it's "just a game" those principles are still valid. Then, if you're adult enough, you should have grown some personal faculty of discerning between "acceptable" and "not acceptable". It's hopefully part of our culture, and that's even before the written rules in the EULA are taken into account. Then... Why do you think we had 2+ years of debates about this? Why do you think ANet did something about it in the end, if there was no "written rule" to make it void? Because they though some gimmicks were used in a way they couldn't accept anymore. There's no "written rule" in the EULA that says "It's not allowed to play invincible builds". Yet their common sense kicked in: they run a game and thought invincible builds were gimmicky and not acceptable - even if nothing in the EULA says the contrary - and interveined. tl;dr: All I wanted to say is that the mere fact something isn't expressely forbidden, doesn't automatically make it allowed or even approvable and "good". It just means that solo farming isn't a bannable offense. |
enter_the_zone
This isn't the real world. Applying real world arguments of conduct to a game is laughable.
The game belongs entirely to ArenaNet. They govern what is and isn't possible. Those are the rules. Ergo, if something is possible, it is defacto acceptable, or else why make it possible in the first place?
The game belongs entirely to ArenaNet. They govern what is and isn't possible. Those are the rules. Ergo, if something is possible, it is defacto acceptable, or else why make it possible in the first place?
Turbo Ginsu
So basically what you are saying, in a nutshell, is that the TK are a bunch of idiots? As far as I can see, they are about the closest thing to real players that anet have anything to do with these days.
Tenebrae
Quote:
The game belongs entirely to ArenaNet. They govern what is and isn't possible. Those are the rules. Ergo, if something is possible, it is defacto acceptable, or else why make it possible in the first place?
|
PS: If someone really thinks that SF and 600/smite werent abused as hell , please uninstall the game because you are totally clueless.
Gill Halendt
Quote:
This isn't the real world. Applying real world arguments of conduct to a game is laughable.
|
This game is played by real people in a real world and it's not exempt by simple rules of conduct. Sorry, if you think you can do whatever you please while behind a keyboard just because "this isn't the real world", you're wrong.
The EULA is there for you to know what to avoid if you don't wanna get banned. Nothing more. That's why I called the playerbase immature: only immature people could think that only explicit prohibitions make something "wrong", while everything else is absolutely, universally acceptable and fine.
Quote:
So basically what you are saying, in a nutshell, is that the TK are a bunch of idiots? As far as I can see, they are about the closest thing to real players that anet have anything to do with these days.
|
I was talking about changing the enemies skillbars to make gimmicks harder instead of altering the "gimmicky" builds themselves (as often suggested on these forums... "SF is perfectly fine, just give Signet of Disenchantment to any foe in the game and you're done!"). A couple of changes that spring into my mind are the introduction of Reversal of Damage in CoF to slow 600/Smite runs, or the altered skillbars of the Spectres in the Chaos Plains to prevent farming.
Those changes happened way before the TK was set in place, but did little to stop speed clears and proved pointless if not counterproductive.
upier
Gill Halendt
upier
Gill Halendt
Quote:
If you need to play the game by rules that aren't specified by A.Net, what is a more universally acceptable rule than Don't kill?
|
Quote:
You can not be a jerk because the GW rules tell you that and not because real life rules tell you that.
You can not cheat in GW because GW rules tell you that you can't and not real life rules. |
The EULA is only there to tell you that if you act like a jerk or cheat, ANet can also take measures and have you banned.
I'm not mad, I've never advocated bans for gimmick builds users. Yet if we've been discussing this for 2 years now, and ANet ended up nerfing some of them, something is probably not that "acceptable" about them.
Quote:
There is no rule that says that you can't bring Blinding Surge into RA.
|
Fairness is a not-written concept. Why bothering?
I couldn't find any paragraph in the EULA about ANet's commitment to have the game "balanced", to have all classes receive the same ammount of buffs and nerfs, to give equal opportunities to all professions. Nor that we've to be given tools to make grinding acceptable. Because, you know, the EULA is the only rules of conduct we must follow in a virtual environment, right? So don't bother asking: the game is perfectly fine, ANet has been absolutely linear and blameless when we look at the Licence Agreement we've accepted. Anet is who defines the rules, ANet is free to make of the game whatever they please. They decided to leave Mesmers in their useless state, they decided to trash stuff they didn't like, everything is fine.
It's a virtual world after all.
Shasgaliel
Quote:
If you need to play the game by rules that aren't specified by A.Net, what is a more universally acceptable rule than Don't kill?
You can not be a jerk because the GW rules tell you that and not because real life rules tell you that. You can not cheat in GW because GW rules tell you that you can't and not real life rules. There is no rule that says that you can't bring Blinding Surge into RA. |
Gill Halendt
upier
Gill Halendt
Quote:
That would mean that cleaning out one's account isn't really wrong because just like your character it's just virtual crap.
So ... why are people getting banned over it? |
If I willingly hand over my credentials to a friend and tell him to clean out my account 'cause I won't be playing anymore but I'm too lazy to sell my stuff and delete my characters, he won't get banned for just doing it. Unless I lie and pretend I was hacked and contact support.
Or unless someone @ Support notices that I gave my account away, which is a breach in the rules of conduct, but that's another thing alltogether.
BTW, you failed to detect some obvious sarcasm about the "virtual world" thing... It's not me who's been saying that this is "only a virtual world". Check again.
I don't believe some rules of conduct need to be "written" to matter just because this a virtual world. Some principles (what I've been calling "common sense", you called them "morals") are broadly accepted and virtual worlds are not exempt from them. When I said this, I was quoted and laughed at because "this is just a game". Well, so? The EULA only lists breach of conducts that are considered bannable offenses. If the EULA wasn't clear enough, would you go around and insult people just because it's not forbidden? Threaten them? Verbally abuse them? Hopefully not, if you have any moral principle <- A non-written rule, that's all.
This has little to nothing to do with gimmicks tough, so I don't even know why we're still talking about it... *sigh*
* PS - About this... I seem to recall that some player faced consequences (a ban? don't remember) for /ranking a defeated opponent during a tournament. "Unsportly Behaviour". Something not found in the "written rules"...
Quote:
So, once again - where is the players fault in this fiasco?
Because A.Net decided to try to not piss of players BECAUSE that would potentially mean the loss of revenue for them? Seriously? |
This doesn't make people who are now whining for the nerfs any better in my eyes, but that's just a matter of personal opinions.
upier
Gill Halendt
How?
I just said that people usually have some (very personal) faculty of discern and some (very personal) moral principles that supposedly kick in even before the written rules are in place.
I don't think morals and ethics (whatever they are, not just MY moral rules) have no place in a game just because it's set in a "virtual world". Well, I was even laughed at for this. "It's just a game". So? Thank you ANet for conceiving a comprehensive end user licence agreement, or people would simply come at me and insult me because it's just a game. At least people refrain from insulting me because they fear a ban...
I admitedly never read the EULA paying attention, tl;dr. Yet I don't insult people anyway, I don't hack the game, I don't buy gold for real world money. I've used my common-sense so far. My personal set of non-written rules I abide.
About the specific issues of moral principles when it comes to gimmicks: I didn't find some gimmicks acceptable (I find them abusive and I'm not for abuses) and so never (ab)used them. That was my choice, it wasn't forbidden by the written rules, I chose not to support gimmicks, but never tried to deter people from using them. Looks like my "moral rules" are pretty close to those of the developers tough.
Also, my position about nerfs has always been absolutely neutral: you can't assume I was longing for the nerfs to come, only because I saw them coming. I'm the kind of person that usually takes it, rarely leaves it.
I'm not trying to impose anything. Never said people cannot complain.
Actually, there are tons of QQ-threads around I've refrained from even replying.
Find some posts of mine where I apparently try to shut the complaints down if you can. All I might have done so far was to "disagree with the complaints", providing my arguments.
I have the right to have an opinion on facts and people, haven't I?
I just said that people usually have some (very personal) faculty of discern and some (very personal) moral principles that supposedly kick in even before the written rules are in place.
I don't think morals and ethics (whatever they are, not just MY moral rules) have no place in a game just because it's set in a "virtual world". Well, I was even laughed at for this. "It's just a game". So? Thank you ANet for conceiving a comprehensive end user licence agreement, or people would simply come at me and insult me because it's just a game. At least people refrain from insulting me because they fear a ban...
I admitedly never read the EULA paying attention, tl;dr. Yet I don't insult people anyway, I don't hack the game, I don't buy gold for real world money. I've used my common-sense so far. My personal set of non-written rules I abide.
About the specific issues of moral principles when it comes to gimmicks: I didn't find some gimmicks acceptable (I find them abusive and I'm not for abuses) and so never (ab)used them. That was my choice, it wasn't forbidden by the written rules, I chose not to support gimmicks, but never tried to deter people from using them. Looks like my "moral rules" are pretty close to those of the developers tough.
Also, my position about nerfs has always been absolutely neutral: you can't assume I was longing for the nerfs to come, only because I saw them coming. I'm the kind of person that usually takes it, rarely leaves it.
Quote:
People have the right to complain, unless of course, this being Guru, a private forum, the Guru folks say that they won't allow it.
A.Net doesn't have the right to say we shouldn't complain and nor do you. You might disagree with the complaints, but that's your right. Just as it's our right to disagree with your disagreeing. |
Actually, there are tons of QQ-threads around I've refrained from even replying.
Find some posts of mine where I apparently try to shut the complaints down if you can. All I might have done so far was to "disagree with the complaints", providing my arguments.
I have the right to have an opinion on facts and people, haven't I?
Shuuda
Quote:
View Post There's no rule in the game that says Mesmers must have a place in PvE. They never had one, they were badly designed since the very beginning and are pretty much pointless. It's ANet who put the Mesmer in the game, while it obviously serves no purpose. |
Age
Del
Gill Halendt
Quote:
I'm in no way siding with Upier. However, I should remind you that there is such a thing as PvP in this game.
|
It was meant to be an example of some non-written rule - fairness - that some of us expect to be followed by developers when developing and mantaining professions, even tough non-written.
own age myname
Man, I hate quote wars. Ruin threads.
Orry
reaper with no name
So do Mending Wammos. Doesn't make them good or worth using.
Anyway, it's been over a week now. I haven't been able to get much play time in myself (and even if I had, it would just be one person's experience), so how has the meta changed so far? I've heard conflicting reports about the status of SF and 600/Smite. And I'm curious about how much effect the new Demonic Flesh has had on warriors with HB and WA.
Anyway, it's been over a week now. I haven't been able to get much play time in myself (and even if I had, it would just be one person's experience), so how has the meta changed so far? I've heard conflicting reports about the status of SF and 600/Smite. And I'm curious about how much effect the new Demonic Flesh has had on warriors with HB and WA.