Talk:Necrosis

Acquisition
What can one do if he has already both Titles Maxed and no Hero Skill points to acquire these skills? -- Zerpha The Improver 19:43, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Trade 1 normal skill point and 1 plat, for 1 hero skill point. &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 19:47, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 * looks like i missed sth^^ ok thx :)

overpowered much?
this + discord will decimate..... everything
 * THIS SKILL IS GOD *drool*.... This + Weakness + fixed signet of sorrow = insane dps!
 * Wow.--&raquo; Life Infusion &laquo;T&raquo; 20:27, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Heh, they already nerfed the damage down from 80 to 66. DKS01 21:21, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 * still armor ignoring.--&raquo; Life Infusion &laquo;T&raquo; 21:47, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Ouch. Probably the fastest nerf ever. Spen 21:50, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 * How stupid, might as well make it unconditional now. P A R A S I T I C 21:53, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It's semi-spammable, so you can do some fair DPS with it.
 * Although it says the max is 66 where you buy it, I'm rank 10 and it's actually 75 in both the description, and in actual use. Supertrek32
 * Probably listed for ranks 1..8 --[[Image:lazyeyes.png]]Ishmaeel .ping ; .peek; 00:46, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Nercrosis + Enfeeble. Mmmmm, spam. --Curse You 00:19, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm thinking that Poison Arrow + Enfeeble will be useful for my non-touch R/N. Too bad I won't get the Expertise benefit.71.83.92.61 19:23, 7 July 2007 (CDT) Valkor

This was one of the better damaging skills of the new skills...It was Pre-Nerf Discord but non-elite and only required 1 of the two conditionals to be met. i can see where they toned it down. I expect the same of some other new skills. - 72.152.58.154 03:40, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I hope they get rid of them :). I'll be lolol all night. Readem (talk *contribs ) 03:42, 16 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Lol I kind of agree. Anyway, Mantra of Recovery mesmer uses this way better than a necro imo. Phool 04:21, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
 * /agree, i was thinking the same thing, too bad i monk =/ --Fatigue` ( talk / contribs ) 08:39, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Maybe Soul Barbs + Parasitic Bond + Nercrosis. Not only do you meet the requirement, but you can deal damage with Soul Barbs while Necrosis recharages. --Curse You 14:28, 16 June 2007 (CDT)


 * So Anet did spend time balancing these before release right? o.0 Sirocco 19:47, 16 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Hell no. They are going to be shafted within a few days. Readem (talk *contribs ) 19:49, 16 June 2007 (CDT)


 * You're an idiot. &mdash; Skuld 20:04, 16 June 2007 (CDT)


 * lol, do I look like I give a shit about what you think XD? Readem (talk *contribs ) 00:17, 17 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Fighting and brawling will get you no where. Readem remember YAI, Skulds opinion counts, and Skuld Remember NPA please. But... there is a reason why these skills are added,and they have been obivously tested in a beta stage, Anet don't release good strong skill into Pve without a reason. Solus  [[Image:DiscipleSymbol2.jpg|19px]] 00:58, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Hah, gave me a chuckle. After all, these guys know each other... But yeah, telling them about YAI and NPA xP 80.193.19.209 15:13, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Dude, I talk to Skuld >.>... Readem (talk *contribs ) 01:00, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It's cool :p &mdash; Skuld 10:43, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, and btw, if Anet actually tested these skills, the would know that most should be elites. So, of course, they will be nerfed. Readem (talk *contribs ) 01:02, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Whys that? These skills are great for Hard Mode, espically the Paragon/Warrior Shouts. Pve needs a few awesomeness skills, might setup a few more Pug groups now. Solus  01:04, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

"Hey, let's make Guild Wars PvE even easier! Then, it will take no skill at all! Won't it be great?" No. Wammos have become Wass's lol. Maybe if Anet made the skills for HM only, and nerfed them a little so people can't solo abuse them, then it would be a good update. Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">contribs ) 01:59, 17 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Do you have to be rude on every discussion page, Readem?

Keep in mind, to even use these at any level of effectiveness you need a rather high Sunspear title, and the people who would be most inclined to abuse these skills lack that kind of patience. Also, it's PvE, which nobody cares about being balanced. They care about their precious farming build getting nerfed or the like. So long as these don't work in PvP then I fail to see the problem perceived imbalance is causing. It's not as if this is ever going to be used against you after all. -Gildan Bladeborn 16:38, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Readem and Skuld are uber leet! Gosh. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 18:50, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Progression
Do we need data of this kind ?



! Rank || Title || Skill effectiveness:
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * - align="center"
 * 1 || Sunspear Sergeant ||
 * - align="center"
 * 2 || Sunspear Master Sergeant ||
 * - align="center"
 * 3 || Second Spear ||
 * - align="center"
 * 4 || First Spear ||
 * - align="center"
 * 5 || Sunspear Captain ||
 * - align="center"
 * 6 || Sunspear Commander ||
 * - align="center"
 * 7 || Sunspear General || 60 dmg (pre-update)
 * - align="center"
 * 8 || Sunspear Castellan || 80 dmg
 * - align="center"
 * 9 || Spearmarshal || 83 dmg
 * - align="center"
 * 10 || Legendary Spearmarshal (Max Level) || 90 dmg
 * }


 * Took the liberty of filling in General. Spen 01:15, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm going to go on some of my lesser characters and see if I can't fill in the blanks on a lot of these templates. Spen 09:42, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
 * i changed Spearmarshal, it just changed now.
 * I'm glad someone else noticed. I use this skill all the time... and was pleasantly surprised to see it buffed. In any case, I've updated rank 10 for this list. Solis 04:29, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
 * What was the old damage on this? I'm still confused about checking a skill's history :/ Anyways the buff is really nice and ill be usin this much more often. I hit r10 ss just for the damage P A R A S I T I C 12:53, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Note
Shouldn't it say "could be useful with a mesmer utilizing...and an easy to cast and spammable hex like parasitic bond."? IMO, it'd be a lot easier to spam parasitic bond and necrosis them to death, since you'd still meet the requirement with a slightly more spammable hex and gain health when it ends as well as PB being useful on all enemies, not just physical attackers.--Darksyde Never Again 11:48, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh yeah and Enfeeble and Necrosis are two totally different campaigns.--Darksyde Never Again 11:50, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

DAmage erroe?
how come i deal 120 damage with r9 against Varesh in Ruins mish?
 * Probably because of your lightbringer title adds extra damage -- [[Image:merty_sign.gif]]-- ( talk ) 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * oh i have r7--Balistic Pve 22:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note (2)
How does reducing the 2 second cooldown of Necrosis by 33% help with damage? Is this note old when MoR was 50% or is the cooldown rounded down?
 * "Per the note on Modify recharge time skills quick reference, all adjustments are rounded to the nearest second using round to even."
 * I believe that 2*2/3=1.3333, which means the skill will take 1 second to recharge given that rule. This means it would be twice as spammable, on a skill that already does almost as much dps as any other spammable skill. This skill rocks for anyone with necro as a first or second class. It's cheap, it's fast to cast and fast to recharge, and does a lot of damage with even moderately attainable levels of Sunspear. It is my number 3 caster skill choice after Pain Inverter and Ebon Vanguard Sniper Support (which it synergizes well with). --OBloodyHell 13:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lazy Editing
Listing "any" condition removal is silly, by the argument for this revert. Either take the time to remove the entire note if you have a problem with the notion of observing particularly effective lead ins or leave it alone. Removing "part" of a entry using an argument applicable for the entire note is lazy editing. I use EVSS as my primary lead in for Necrosis all the time, since the bleeding it inflicts on most things is perfect for anything it hasn't killed with a headshot -- and often if the piercing damage isn't enough to kill something outright, the 90 dmg follow up is likely to bring it close enough that something else will kill it right after. Frankly, I would list EVSS for this BEFORE i would waste time mentioning glyph of immolation, since one needs to be a necro/ele to use it whereas anyone with a necro class can use EVSS. So again, your argument against this alteration is a major FAIL.
 * Using Glyph of Immolation prior to casting Necrosis will cause Burning thus providing the condition requirement, as will Ebon Vanguard Sniper Support, which causes Bleeding.
 * The thing about Glyph of Immolation is they have a special synergy - no other skills are needed. Glyph will cause burning when Necrosis is used, and then Necrosis will deal damage in the same use. You could replace Sniper Support with any other condition causing skill, but you can only do that with Glyph of Immolation. Also, please don't break GW:1RV without discussing it first. Posting your opinion then reverting is not discussing. --Macros 14:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why Glph of Immo + Necrosis works better:
 * No chance for condition removal because the burning is caused simultaneously with the damage.
 * If your first target dies, you don't need to wait for anything to recharge, because the condition is caused (in effect) by Necrosis.
 * Bleeding doesn't affect non-fleshy foes. Very few foes are immune to burning (and those that are also happen to be non-fleshy).
 * Glyph of Immolation is Nightfall Necrosis is Nightfall, Glyph of Immo is EotN. Both can be acquired nearly immediately in their respective "campaigns." EVSS requires doing the Vanguard path, then doing the quest.

208.44.247.101 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Glyph of Immolation is actually from Eye of the North, But can be acquired very early. <font color="Fuchsia">Kurtan 14:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * D: 208.44.247.101 14:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the note to make the synergy with GoI very obvious. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not arguing against reverting things I've done, but if you're going to do it it needs to be done with a good, valid reason. NOW there's a reason for mentioning GoI instead of other things, which is not even vaguely obvious from the original entry. As I believe you've noted, and I concur, around here there's way too much tendency to "revert" when what's called for is an edit to make the reason for a point clearly worthwhile that makes the other point NOT worthwhile. Yeah, it's work. Feel free to note how rarely I revert anything someone else has done.<br \>

P.S., we've already been down this "revert" crap before. When a valid reason is given, that claim is correct. When it's blatant naysaying BS, the rule doesn't apply. I've never re-reverted in the instance of a valid reason being stated. --OBloodyHell 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Warwick did give a reason and it was valid, you just assumed it was invalid because you couldn't understand it. If you don't understand the reason given, ask that user directly.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)