Talk:Shadow Form

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Confirmed change of SF this year 2 Just to clarify 3 Maintaining & Counters 4 "All But 53hp" 5 Possible Change?

[edit] Confirmed change of SF this year

Just look up to Anet Official Twitter-- Daedalus93 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty vague, I wouldn't get your shorts in a bunch yet. -- Wyn talk 11:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That could just mean they're planning on doing a whole lot of farming. :P -- FreedomBound 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye? I wanna see all permas crying when this happens (not sure if it'll). But they'll do something because anywhere you go, you see lots of sins, Anet doesn't want that the game dominated by sins - solution: change the skill. What's the fun of being invincible and farm - moreover almost do anything with perma. I admit that I've tried perma and it was really boring. Sorry guys but I hope this ends :p It's destroying GW economy. Daedalus93 11:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! finaly after a year+ of SF exploit they decided to take action! M3G 11:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish they keep shadow form. Great skill, everybody apart from a small lot of zzzwhiners love it, anet shouldnt listen to zzzwhiners because they ruin the game. --Super Igor 12:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If it can make the game balanced again and take back the class tank to those elite areas, then I'm proud to be called zzwhiner ^_^ M3G 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You really think that just nerfing Shadow Form would balance the game? Get real, it would only make the game more boring. --Super Igor 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not balance the whole game at all. However you wouldn't see outpost (ToA comes to my mind) populated with 90% of Sins anymore. Come on, these places are just farm fest not elite areas. It ain't fun for people not playing sin class. M3G 13:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ToA will be like DoA, empty, almost deserted. I dont approve of it. ----The preceding signed comment was added by User:Super Igor (talk). 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for DoA, but ToA was never a desert place before and won't be after SF's nerf. M3G 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

SF nerf would only make the game even more boring. ----The preceding signed comment was added by User:Super Igor (talk). 14:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

U only say that because you make much money with it. But tell me sincerely. Now in game 70% of the people are sins. Anet will do something this I'm sure and it won't unbalance the game. You still have dervishes for farm, Eles, Rit, Monks, Necros - but a sin with a invincible skill it's not even fun. Daedalus93 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Igor, please don't bother trying to comment on balance, PvE or PvP. You are defending a skill that provides invincibility. Your opinion is completely invalid, and moreover, it proves you don't understand even the bare beginnings of balance. —Jette 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Should of never nerfed Ursan. It allowed people to actually play the game on any character without using niche builds. For a non-monthly subscription game why is ANet trying to take up more server space by making farming take longer. Making SpeedClears obsolete seems like a good business model for a Pay-to-Play game. How about letting us store more than 100 platinum and improving the economy. If SF is nerfed the usage of Consumable sets will drop off the table. Making public sale of ConSets a dead market. Thus taking Bones, Iron, Feathers, Essence, Grail, Armor of Salvation all off the market. GW already has an economy that looks similar to a desolate island. There are only a handful of items people need, and what people want is to get off the island. Look to EvE for ideas on creating a more dynamic economy. No supply chain is necessary. But making Gold actually valuable as a trade item would help. Since there is no value in the currency people buy ectos that are useless to be honest and have no market value. It is like buying Tupperware in real life because your bank account only holds $100 dollars, and somehow the community decided to store their value of money in Tupperware. Sometimes people need Tupperware so you can sell it. But there are thousands of people farming Tupperware from the UnderWorld. People's fortunes are determined by the rare material trader that says the Tupperware is worth a certain amount. This isn't even the market value since the rare material trader has a floor price set. I never liked the SF builds as they bred people who thought rolling their faces on a keyboard made them good players. But even more people will quit this game such as they do after every PvE farming nerf (ie. Ursanway, RoJ, Cry, Etc, Etc). If this is the goal to make people stop and save server space this way. Then actually that is a good idea. Let's face it nerfing RoJ was great. What was even better was the fact that W/Mo players can't 123451234512345 in FoW on a W/A Hundred Blades Bar. Just shows how stupid people really are, and Anet shouldn't keep stating they want people to be able to play this game casually in pick up groups as pugs but ignore the stupidity of people. On a side note lag on American servers is almost unbearable now, especially when euro idiots complain about lagging with 50 ping. 69.230.197.167

So is this a mistake? I don't understand how good an economy of a game could be. I've been on Guild Wars two years and an half. And only reached 100k (I've school so no real deal here). But the times I've played,(considerably) I couldn't have pass from the mark of 15k normal PvEing. Anet should look for a way to balance the game, economy - PvE. Not only for farming. IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET OBBY OR ANOTHER ELITE ARMOUR THROUGH FARMING? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Daedalus93 (talk).

all you ppl crying about SF are crying because you suck at farming with it,admit it.

No, we're crying about it because I fucked your mom. —Jette 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Just to clarify

Anyone who thinks that Shadow Form is the problem is hereby declared an effing retard with no game mechanic insight at all. The problem seriously is the working together of shadowform with certain other skills and the lack of removal skills in elite areas.
Nerfing shadow form would destroy yet another skill that will never ever see use again. BUT nerfing just ONE TINY THING regarding the other skills or the environments, that gives shadowform a place to stay, for actually fighting in parties the normal way or for running to areas.
Breaking shadow form's maintainability = break shadow form.
Breaking farming capabilities under Shadow Form = better attempt
There are seriously a million ways to break SF farming. Seriously, I could list 1 MEGABYTE of pure text here with ways to break SF-farming without nerfing SF's maintainability.

• Make sliver armor actually hit a random target = boss green farming dead
• Make SF disable all your spells for 15 seconds
• Add Signet of Disenchantment to the 4 Horsemen
• Add any PBAoE to Dryders
• Add any form of selfhealing to important quest marks
• Give Aatxe a weak Healing Signet (counters chamber build)
• Give Obsidian Behemoths troll unguent or Tranquility(nature ritual)
• Add a monster-skill "Target loses shadowform" to elite areas like UW, FoW, Slaver's Exile, etc. It's their game, they can code anything they want. (even scalable Knockdowns)
• ...you get the idea

As it is now, UWSC *does* take a bit of skill, have you seen how many PUGs fail? Mountains is a pretty hard area already. UWSC really barely works by a perfect working together of perfect thought-out builds in a perfect environment. Changing even one little thing will break UWSC without breaking Shadow Form.
But why do you think nothing happened yet? Because ANet made a mistake by introducing speed clears in their current form. ANet knows about their customer base, and what will happen if they nerf the farms. Countless speed clear guilds have formed, which would break apart, people would get pissed off and leave and NOT buy GW2. This is not what they want. --62.158.82.190 16:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

diaf —Jette 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

i dont even see reason why shadow form should be "Immortality" skill they could just change shadow forms functionality totally and if shadow form would be totally changed so what ? there is many other builds to go with. This is just like that ursan shiz. 89.166.101.7 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not allowed to claim that a skill which grants 100% invincibility, has no counters, and is permanently maintainable is anywhere in the same universe as balanced. ~Shard 04:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Great post. Too bad the above posters didn't actually take the time to read it. 69.129.205.198 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Too bad it's not the place for it. -- Wyn talk 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I did bother to read it. It combines bad logic, no understanding of game balance and a ponderous writing style that prevents the point being conveyed effectively. It also lacks common sense, as nerfing shadow form requires exactly 5 seconds in notepad, whereas all of the other changes requires at least 20-30 seconds in notepad, with most of them scaling up to several hours rather quickly. And as Wyn said, this isn't the place for it; this is the place for discussing A) the mechanics of the shadow form skill (i.e. "does it reduce damage by 33.333...% or 34%?") or B) the Shadow Form article (i.e. "is mist form really related? It doesn't really make attacks miss"). Bitching about updates belongs at Talk:Game updates/20090917. —Jette 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

THe counter to Shadow Form would be shouts, chants, and AOE spirits. If those skills are developed effectively rangers, Paragons, warriors, monks, and rits would all be able to counter perma while still leaving perma as a valid character. The problem with perma is that a team of them can take out just about anything. Thats not what the game is supposed to do nor what an assassin should be used for. I say leave perma alone, give them back their 50% damage and beef up the shouts, chants, and aoe spirits to counter it. This way permas can still be valid but will need the help of others to do high level missions. Give a monk something to counter the new counters or a ranger for that matter. Keep it off the mes or ele. Give warriors a shout that will affect adjacent to keep the assassin from being a tank (Which IMO should never happen). Make the perma need the help of others to accomplish what needs to be accomplished and you now have a useful skill bar that is not completely immune. Ohh and if you give em back their 50% damage please make it read "Spells do 50% less damage" or whatever to make it attacks only.

This game was meant to include all professions not exclude them from high level areas. Which all the complaining about perma is from. Its not that permas are too overpowered its that if you like playing any other profession besides necro, you are screwed. So make permas need to rely on teammates of other professions to some degree and now you have inclusion and happy campers all around. The perma still gets to do their job, just not without the help of other professions -Ideas 11:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oi, not exactly true. Only SoO requires a full sin party, for everything else more professions are involved with a spot for a leech. For example almost every profession can do vale support in UW, Monk can very quickly clear mounts. Kathy, Rragar, Boggies speedclears rely on other professions to be effective, in Urgoz and Deep perma needs support from other non-perma character to stay alive/kill. I only reply to the last bit. I think positive. :D -- Nectarines 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I was thinking making them more dependent than they currently are. Mainly to lessen the amount of permas that are in the game. What fun is a game that everyone plays the same profession? -Ideas 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Maintaining & Counters

I think it is cluttering the page up, perhaps move to to notes and decrease their size? Or any other suggestions? C4K3 Talk 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually discussing the article on the talk page? I'm sorry, I think you have us confused with Wikipedia. At GWW, we just whine on talk pages. —Jette 00:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cluttering usually suggests an obscuring of information. Can I ask exactly what is being obscured in this case? Misery 00:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The maintaining section really doesn't need to be there, since there's a full sub-page. The counters, I don't really have a problem with, unless you also wanted to move it to a sub-page. -- FreedomBound 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

@Jette lol @Misery the general page, it's to long for people to bother reading it all. @Freedom Bound I think it looks good the way it is now C4K3 Talk 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "All But 53hp"

I was trying to figure out if what would happen if you were below 53hp if it would actually heal you, and using burning speed and a 60% dp, figured out that it does not, worth noting? 76.250.193.135 00:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, as it says "lose," not "are set to." —Jette 00:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jette means to say that part of the skill only does something if you're above the given amount. If your health is at 1 when it ends, nothing will happen. ~Shard 01:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What they said. :D Nectarines 12:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Change?

I've been thinking this for a while and it is not new news that SF WILL BE changed at some point in the future. Whether it is related directly to SF or the skills that works with it that is debatable. However, I want to propose this as a possible change and didn't know where to get it in public view. The problem with SF is not the "All spells fail" becuase other elitse also have this same ability (SB/VoS/OF) with similar maintainablility. All attacks miss is what makes SF incredible, ecspecially considering that you can easily ignore the setback of lossing all but xx hp when it ends. Now what if instead of all attacks miss, all attacks have a 90% chance to miss. This would be same effects as having blind opponents which I think is a perfect match for this skill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.101.182.120 (talk • contribs) at 19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

actually this and SB are unique in the fail department, VOS and the other's wont let you be the target of spells which is a big difference. Roflmaomgz 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You can and are encouraged to create an account and to create a personal suggestion page -- although in my personaly opinion I think it's pointless because arenanet have stated that they will leave shadow form alone C4K3 Talk 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That was in june, if you looked at their twitter post in september, they said they vowed to change shadow form before the end of the year. 96.241.59.60 02:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

According to a post made today by Linsey: "We are not completely opposed to "nerfing" SF. Once we have the Test Krewe in place, we can think about trying some stuff out." --Silver Edge 09:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)