Talk:Aggression

So are straight heals gonna be the only thing to be used for the guild lord? I was thinking maybe a maintained enchantment, so a bit of a setback, but its semi-permanent. Unless you're gonna lose otherwise anyways, you probably should just skip enchantments altogether. I don't know how to approach this. Arcdash 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If an enchantment can prevent the guild lord from taking more than 50 damage, it's worth it to place it, because your penalty is less than the other party's gain would be. --◄mendel► 23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Angelic Bond spam anyone? It stacks. Four Paragons could reduce damage to their guild lord by 93.75% with no penalty. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are using 4 elites on the guild lord. I think that the lack in offensive power would lead the other team to just start punching the monks81.206.253.73 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well first off, Paragons typically don't need their elites to be offensive powerhouses, but yeah, this would essentially be a healball gimmick. You'd probably have 3 monks and then a single team member who'd run off to outdamage the other team on his own, similar to what the dev page on GWW claims brought on the update the other day. If it worked, though, I hope they would simply add shouts to the aggression penalty rule rather than nerfing Angelic Bond, as I rather like it. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't have to, there are some nice counters such as: Vocal Minority, Well of Silence, Ulcerous Lungs and Roaring Wind. It would occupy a slot, but if you are facing a Paragon metagame it would be worth it. 81.206.253.73 23:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be true, except that I goofed. Angelic Bond is a Skill, not a Shout. Sorry. :X [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have checked it XD 81.206.253.73 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this change was terrible. The problem they were trying to address is defense ball builds, that combine a ton of defense from different party members (aegises, wards, Defensive Anthems, wowarding, guardian spam, and then defensive damage spells like ineptitude, clumsiness, wandering eye, etc). The problem is... the vast majority of those defense ball skills never touch the Lord. If they wanted to address that problem, they need to fix aggression to drop every time one of those skills is used period, not just on the guild lord. - Auron 00:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a defensive build that does not use it defensive skills on the Guild Lord won't survive long :) First, they can not defend the Lord without losing agression and second they won't compete in damage (on the enemy lord). If the other team knows to survive a defensive team ^^ it will also win the match. Alleycat! 01:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... have you ever done GvG on a competitive level? Or obsed any matches? Fights don't take place on the guild lord's doorstep unless that team is already losing. Fights take place at the flagstand, where all the defensive skills are used (most of which don't even benefit the guild lord - he isn't a "party member," so things like aegis and defensive anthem don't touch him at all, and they're the biggest problems with defense ball).
 * You don't play a match defending the guild lord. You play it fighting the other team directly. The problem with defenseball is you can't kill it head-on because they've packed no damage and overloaded on defense.
 * If you're at a point in the game where defending your lord is required, you better damn put prots on it. Guess what happens if he dies? You lose. If you have to choose between losing and possibly not losing, the choice is obvious.
 * However, my main point stands - defenseball is a problem on its own, no NPCs involved. It doesn't need to prot the lord because you aren't going to be damaging the lord anyway. You have to beat them at stand (or apply a significant amount of pressure, to lower their monks' energy) so their team drops back - if you push them back far enough, you will be in range to damage the lord. However, against a defense ball like rawr's, you won't ever push that far in because they take no pressure from you. Because, you know, all the fucking defense. This update didn't address that problem at all, even though it claimed to. That is my problem with this change. It's stupid and arbitrary, it fixes absolutely nothing, and it adds a "lottery" aspect to GvG tie-breakers that simply should not exist. - Auron 06:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am indeed more PvE oriented. I think i thought to simple about the "Patch". My appologies. Alleycat! 15:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There were healball builds that just camped the Lord and reducing all the damage dealt to the Lord to 0 with Life Sheath, RoF and SoA laming. Then a small split team would gank the base and deal a bit of damage to the enemy Lord. And they won happily ever after. Until this change. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  16:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if I don't PvP, this seems like stupid change since "being aggressive" has never been the mode of play, i.e. it has never been the goal of GvG assuming a tie at 28min. Defense is a viable tactic, if cheap/overpowered/whatever. VoD made more sense - and if it was still around, then this sort of change would make a bit more sense. As Auron says it is quick fix for problem that doesn't help it at all. Plus not counting things like Angelic Bond, etc etc. It's good to get out fixes quickly, it's bad to not think them through before implementing them. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Arenanet, what kind of fix were you expecting? --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 17:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...from the people who brought us Smiter's Boon (PvP), I guess you're right. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This new aggression still a work in progress. They're gonna see how it works and change it. That's what happened with VoD, and they didn't stop changing it until the day it was removed completely. Let's see how things work out :) ~ 71.109.234.213 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree :) Alleycat! 01:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * VoD was a work in progress? Heh...sure didn't get a lot of work for the amount of time they spent. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)