Einlanzer.1627
-
Posts
1,016 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Einlanzer.1627
-
-
Everyone loves to talk about the metas and that being a reason why PoF won't have the same lifespan.
They are wrong. It's purely about the rewards. People don't care about repeating map wide metas ad nauseam. They simply go where they get best rewards and the best feeling of reward. Right now, this is places like SW and AB. All they need to do is retune this to move the population into different areas, and PoF is in need of some reward buffs to keep players there.
It's actually something I think they should do more often as a way to move the population around and keep the game more fresh, and ensure that players can work on goals in areas that are currently underpopulated. They should do events like "Orr weekend" where everything in Orr has great rewards so those maps become highly populated for special event weekends.
-
> @zombyturtle.5980 said:
> I agree that alot of things you posted are a problem and should have been fixed long ago. I dont think they are stopping gw2 from being a AAA mmo though, the reason it struggles with that is
> - too much experimentation when the game launched led to some really bad decisions massively slowing down content release
> - PVP in an abysmal state
> - balance patches FAR to rare and too small
> - struggle to release good **repeatable** content after disbanding most of the dungeon teams
This pretty much nails all the major problems with the game, though I would add two more:
- Poorly configured fight mechanics. Way too many fights are just dodge-or-die when you can't see anything, and in-game explanations are always poor
- Poor development on existing frameworks like guild missions, weapon types, fotm, wvw, etc. The only thing we're getting at a good pace now is new general PvE content, which is all pretty high quality, but it's time for a rebalance in what's getting worked on.
Arenanet still has hundreds of employees. None of this stuff should be that difficult. It's a systemic game management problem. Mo did make the right call for a little while in focusing on expanding the world, because that was the biggest problem the game had for three years, but we're at a place now where he should be restructuring the teams to focus more on things like more frequent and bigger-in-scale balance updates, dungeons, development of new systems, new weapon types, and guild content expansion.
-
The combat really can be a little much. The real problem is that everything does too much damage relative to defense, and that's true in both PvP and PvE. It's been made worse by power creep over the years. When stacking lots of toughness and vitality barely helps you survive, you know you have a balance problem.
Random question - do you use a mouse with buttons? That can make a huge difference.
-
Races are a casualty of the way that Anet designed this game without much scalability in mind. In trying to make the game really awesome, the erred on the side of going too grandiose with a lot of the core concepts, which creates a problem of being hard to expand on in the ways people really want to see. A bit of a rookie mistake, honestly, and I worry they made a similar mistake with mounts, but we'll see.
That said, I still think they need to find a way to make it happen. Adding new races would be a good way to add new PS and leveling zones to the game, which I honestly think GW2 would benefit from.
-
> @blambidy.3216 said:
> > @Kahrgan.7401 said:
> > > @"Chris McSwag.4683" said:
> > > You do realise that you complained without giving any actual examples of whats bad, broken, unfun or similar?
> > > Which complaints have been seen since launch? What would be a good change?
> > > Why dyo you think pve/pvp is in a poor state? The meta that others impose on you? That some builds are better than others on certain things?
> > >
> > > Come on, if youre gonna complain you should at least put some effort into suggesting a possible solution - else it just seems like subjective whining.
> >
> > Your response is one of a shill.
> >
> > There are plenty of examples of what is broken, and they are aware of what is broken. This thread is about rethinking how they manager their dev team.
>
> You really think you know how to manage a Dev team? Have you ever worked for a Dev team? Do you even do game design? And you want to complain about how arenanet should do their job? XD. When you work for an understaffed game Dev company compared to wow, and FFXIV and eso. And still make top 3 of 2017 MMOs, then you can give advice. But the game is fine. I hear so much B's from people about flaws in the game. Yet don't ever discover anything people say. Done map completion. PvP. Wvw. Finished each expansion and living world seasons multiple times. And don't find anything that's detrimental as people think in their minds. Classes are fine. Maps are fine.
>
> It's no different from other MMOs. All MMOs have bugs. Depends how many people send in the report. And them needing to know how much of a priority it is. After all the B's people keep saying. It won't make me stop loving the game. Combat still more fluid than any MMO. Pve is still best. Classes are great. Are the bugs so detrimental that it makes you stop playing? No. Will it stop you from playing PvP? No. Raids? No.
>
> I find it funny sometimes reading these things.
I actually do know how to manage a dev team and have done game balance, and I agree with the OP. Yes, all MMOs have bugs just as all software has bugs - that's why iterating really slowly makes no fucking sense. Games with far less funding than GW2 do a better job of iterating their game's balance and systems. It's simply a management problem.
-
> @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > > > @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > > > > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > > > > > @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:
> > > > > > > > @xiev.6905 said:
> > > > > > > > I comment on your other post.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah having feel weapon swap, customized utilities and a legend would be OP.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to see weapon swap tie to the legend we equipped. Invoking legend will automatically switch weapon set and it is the only way to switch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Meta builds already stick to one set of weapons. All this would accomplish is forcing people to double up on their gear or lock them out of certain utilities for literally no reason if they're running something like staff backup for cc. This idea literally adds nothing and only makes the class worse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I dunno, I see both sides. I think it would depend on what the base Revenant was able to use and how. But it would be an interesting way to have Revs be "weapon swap but no weapon swap" more like Eles and Engis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ele and Engie have the potential for eight unique weapons swaps. For the former that's four attunement and four conjures. For the latter that's one weapon, six kits, and photon forge.
> > > > > That's 40 abilities, not include the six dual skills on Weaver, or the Engie's toolbelt.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have at most 23 abilities, all of which have cooldowns and/or resource requirements. It's not comparable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right now we have 23 abilities. The point of this thread is push for changing that.
> > >
> > > We get five skills from each weapon set, five from each legend, and three from f1-f3. It doesn't matter how many different combinations there are in the base legend, it will still be five skills and our total remains 23. Why mess with weapon swap?
> > >
> > > If you want two weapons, five customizable utilies, and a preselected set of powerful skills you can swap into then play necro. You can choose to invoke death, reaper, or sand.
> > >
> > > Don't make it complicated or the devs won't do it.
> > >
> > > Your desire is more easily satisfied by an F5 that restores 50 energy, and puts f1 on cooldown.
> >
> > I don't honestly really care that much whether the weapon swap remains or not. Either way, I still think this is the right way to do the Revenant.
>
> Okay.
>
> > @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> >~~ We get five skills from each weapon set, five from each legend, and three from f1-f3. It doesn't matter how many different combinations there are in the base legend, it will still be five skills and our total remains 23. Why mess with weapon swap?~~
> >
> >**If you want two weapons, five customizable utilies, and a preselected set of powerful skills you can swap into then play necro. You can choose to invoke death, reaper, or sand.**
> >
> >**Don't make it complicated or the devs won't do it.**
> >
> > **Your desire is more easily satisfied by an F5 that restores 50 energy, and puts f1 on cooldown.**
> >
>
>
Yes, because Necromancer and Revenant are anything whatsoever like each other thematically or mechanically. The entire purpose of this suggestion is to fill out Revenant's skill choices and make them have the same level of variety and build customizaton that every other class in the game has.
Thanks for the completely useless input.
-
> @Obtena.7952 said:
> > @Kahrgan.7401 said:
> > I give huge props to the artists, and designers of the world in this game, they are absolutely phenomenal.
> >
> > Developers trying to keep to a THEME instead of balance.
>
> It hasn't occured to you this might be their intention? Especially considering their approach to lacking trinity?
> @Obtena.7952 said:
> > @Kahrgan.7401 said:
> > I give huge props to the artists, and designers of the world in this game, they are absolutely phenomenal.
> >
> > Developers trying to keep to a THEME instead of balance.
>
> It hasn't occured to you this might be their intention? Especially considering their approach to lacking trinity?
Well, I actually like the fact that they design around theme. It's one of the reasons I prefer pretty much all of GW2's classes to pretty much any class I've ever played in a class-based MMO before. However, that doesn't excuse the extremely poor balance and design iteration we've been dealing with for years now.
-
I like the idea of providing more weapon variety through the use of different skin types for existing weapons, but I don't think that should preclude getting actual new weapons when it's appropriate. I'm not sure that crossbow doesn't just deserve to be its own weapon type. I actually think it might make sense to modify harpoon guns to be land crossbows, while spears and tridents could be combined into being land-based polearms.
It still blows my mind they didn't jump on making land spears available as part of this expansion. I think greataxes deserve to be their own weapon type also. A Hammer is a bludgeoning weapon - it is not wielded in the same way at all as a two handed axe would be.
I think they could get by permanently with just 4-5 new weapon additions, and any additional variation could be handled through skins. I also think there should be a viable empty offhand option, since IRL single-wielding a one-handed weapon would be quite common.
Spear/lance - new (can use existing spear/trident skins)
Greataxe - new
Chakram - new
Whip - new
Scythe - greataxe skin
Morning star - mace skin
Crossbow - rifle/harpoon gun skin
-
It's not just about balance, either. It's about overall class evolution. It's been 3 years since we got any kind of serious systemic reworks, and numerous things are overlooked in every balance patch, which is why only getting them once every 3 months is unacceptable (balance is iterative - and iterating slowly serves no purpose but frustrating people). This is why just about every other game ever releases balance patches every couple of weeks). Numerous skills have been bugged or obviously tuned poorly for years on end (see Ele Staff - anything but Fire). Balance changes we do get are often ham-fisted and have an unintended result that is then never addressed or discussed again.
Thieves complained about P/P and how off-kilter it felt for years before they finally did a rework with the most basic and obviously needed balancing adjustment of buffing the autoattack so it could deal reasonable sustained DPS so you didn't have to always dump all your Initiative into Unload for mediocre burst. P/P finally works about how it should, and it only took about 4 years to get it there.
The Revenant was released with half the number of skills that other classes have and was designed into its first elite spec to the point that it feels very incomplete without it; no other class feels this way because they were complete classes before the introduction of elite specs. Instead of addressing this mistake in PoF, they doubled down on it with the design of the Renegade. It's no surprise that the Revenant is the least popular class in the game and the Renegade was the most poorly received new elite spec. The whole class needs a redesign that puts them in better parity with how other classes operate in terms of skill choice and build customization (they should have 10-16 legend-agnostic skills and have a no-legend mode that lets them customize their skill bar with those skills.)
It kind of goes beyond ridiculous, and I can't help but assume it's because they've had the same small team in there for years that operates as an echo chamber with limited input of fresh ideas. They really need some kind of shakeup, whether it's bringing new people into the team or restructuring how the team operates and is managed.
-
> @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > > > @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:
> > > > > > @xiev.6905 said:
> > > > > > I comment on your other post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah having feel weapon swap, customized utilities and a legend would be OP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to see weapon swap tie to the legend we equipped. Invoking legend will automatically switch weapon set and it is the only way to switch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Meta builds already stick to one set of weapons. All this would accomplish is forcing people to double up on their gear or lock them out of certain utilities for literally no reason if they're running something like staff backup for cc. This idea literally adds nothing and only makes the class worse.
> > > >
> > > > I dunno, I see both sides. I think it would depend on what the base Revenant was able to use and how. But it would be an interesting way to have Revs be "weapon swap but no weapon swap" more like Eles and Engis.
> > >
> > > Ele and Engie have the potential for eight unique weapons swaps. For the former that's four attunement and four conjures. For the latter that's one weapon, six kits, and photon forge.
> > > That's 40 abilities, not include the six dual skills on Weaver, or the Engie's toolbelt.
> > >
> > > We have at most 23 abilities, all of which have cooldowns and/or resource requirements. It's not comparable.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Right now we have 23 abilities. The point of this thread is push for changing that.
>
> We get five skills from each weapon set, five from each legend, and three from f1-f3. It doesn't matter how many different combinations there are in the base legend, it will still be five skills and our total remains 23. Why mess with weapon swap?
>
> If you want two weapons, five customizable utilies, and a preselected set of powerful skills you can swap into then play necro. You can choose to invoke death, reaper, or sand.
>
> Don't make it complicated or the devs won't do it.
>
> Your desire is more easily satisfied by an F5 that restores 50 energy, and puts f1 on cooldown.
I don't honestly really care that much whether the weapon swap remains or not. Either way, I still think this is the right way to do the Revenant.
-
Poor revenant. It's my secondary main, but it's just not that well designed so I keep getting sucked back into Thief. Rev really needs an overhaul and a bunch of new skills.
-
Personally, I think they did it the right way. I wouldn't want WoW style flying mounts in GW2. It just doesn't fit.
-
> @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:
> > > > @xiev.6905 said:
> > > > I comment on your other post.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah having feel weapon swap, customized utilities and a legend would be OP.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see weapon swap tie to the legend we equipped. Invoking legend will automatically switch weapon set and it is the only way to switch.
> > >
> > > Meta builds already stick to one set of weapons. All this would accomplish is forcing people to double up on their gear or lock them out of certain utilities for literally no reason if they're running something like staff backup for cc. This idea literally adds nothing and only makes the class worse.
> >
> > I dunno, I see both sides. I think it would depend on what the base Revenant was able to use and how. But it would be an interesting way to have Revs be "weapon swap but no weapon swap" more like Eles and Engis.
>
> Ele and Engie have the potential for eight unique weapons swaps. For the former that's four attunement and four conjures. For the latter that's one weapon, six kits, and photon forge.
> That's 40 abilities, not include the six dual skills on Weaver, or the Engie's toolbelt.
>
> We have at most 23 abilities, all of which have cooldowns and/or resource requirements. It's not comparable.
>
>
Right now we have 23 abilities. The point of this thread is push for changing that.
-
> @KTap.4381 said:
> Like some other very high risk-reward things in game, it is easy to find yourself on the losing side of BLC's.
>
> I'm on the fence with this one. Would I like better overall drops from chests (specifically BLC only skins)? Sure. I also prefer less people to have what I have so I like the super rarity of some items I might get.
>
> Obviously not everyone would be happy with BLC's no matter how good or bad the drops were. They're also not going to remove the 'guaranteed' item, so I'll just say I'm ok with how the chests are now, but I wouldn't complain if some numbers were adjusted in our favor.
The problem with the BLC has always been that the risk to reward ratio is poorer than it needs to be. They have never been tuned well. Basically everyone needs to stop buying them until they retune to them to something a bit more favorable.
-
Yeah, this is kind of needed. Nobody wants a fully rigid wow-style trinity, but taunt really should be more of a thing than it is in GW2.
-
> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> >
> > No, the issue is the condition damage. The reason this is obvious is because the economy of stats that allows for ultra-high condition damage does not allow for the equivalent with direct damage builds. If condition damage was not over-tuned, you would expect Grieving to be about as good for hybrid builds that favor direct damage as Viper's is for hybrid builds that favor condi damage, but that just isn't the case. Any time you have equivalent Condition Damage and Power on a stat set, condition builds will benefit more than direct damage builds due to the tuning of Condition damage. That's the problem.
>
> Dire is the equivalent for Soldiers, and Dire wins. Rabid is the equivalent for Knights, and Rabid wins. On the flip side, Rampager was the equivalent for Berserker, bur Berserker wins. To some extent, that was due to the fact that Rampager was not a true equivalent, as Condition Damage was a secondary stat and the Power/Precision id offered was insufficient to make up for that.
>
> With HoT, the devs introduced new stat sets, which are in most cases better than the earlier options for a given setup and purpose. The exception is Berserker > Marauder. They also provided more boon duration and more condition duration. The addition of Expertise makes up a significant part of why condition damage builds dominate the perfect-conditions-buffs-and-rotations DPS tests.
>
> That said, defining the problem as being solely due to the Condition Damage stat is not cut and dried. Low-end condition builds (the ones an efficiency player would disdain, and only an immersion player might play) are much closer to or in some cases even worse than a low-end power build. Try, for example, a pistol engineer without Flamethrower for Incendiary Ammo. Why is this the case? Because the lower-performing specs cannot apply as many stacks of the damaging conditions they can access, and/or they do not have as many different damaging conditions.
>
> The problem with an overall tune-down for the Condition Damage stat is that it would affect both the low performing and the high performing builds. That's why I favor changes by adjusting the number of possible stacks and variety of damaging conditions available. Why do I speak for the immersion player? Well, being a "tweener" myself, I feel some of their pain when changes are made to rein in high-performing builds which also reduce their enjoyment as a side effect. Also, nobody else seems to be speaking for that play-style.
When I say "nerf condi", I mean it in a nuanced way. Obviously you can find condition weapons and skills that are not overtuned and do not need a nerf - it just isn't the norm at this point, and I think that's mostly due to condi damage scaling. Thief Shortbow is, IMO, and underpowered weapon even though it's condition-focused. However, the solution is not to individually rebalance every single weapon first, it's to bring condi baseline down and then adjust the weapons and skills that need additional tweaks.
But, to be fair to your argument - what you're suggesting is basically just an alternate method of dealing with the same problem in the same way, so I'm not trying to be pedantic. My main concern is the fixation on the idea that condition damage should always outdo direct damage given a certain amount of time. I will always think that's a faulty, indefensible balance paradigm. Condition damage should be balanced mostly around short durations and quick stacking, with target armor being the main controller for if and when it overtakes physical damage. There's really only one way to do that - and that's to keep the structure of condition application the same, but reduce the damage scaling. Outliers that are underpowered or still overpowered can then be addressed through balance iteration.
-
> @Lilyanna.9361 said:
> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > @saerni.2584 said:
> > > You misunderstand me Einlanzer.
> > >
> > > Of course armor should change those numbers. Just as more or less cleanse can change those numbers.
> > >
> > > I’m merely pointing out that in order to reduce the burst nature of conditions you need to eliminate the reason why burst is necessary: that is the abundance of cleanse.
> > >
> > > I don’t mean my numbers as serious suggestions. A condition user can expect to do more or less damage based on cleanses. Just as a power user can expect differences depending on armor. Ignoring that cleanse/armor adjusts the DPS a condition build should ramp up to higher DPS later. A power build should front load their damage.
> > >
> > > That said, a low cleanse target may die faster to a condition build (be burst down) than to a power build (assuming it has power damage mitigation). Or, a high cleanse target may take less damage even after a long period of time compared to a power build (assuming low armor).
> > >
> > > But, assuming equal armor and cleanse the short term game should power focused and the long term game condition focused.
> >
> > Yes, I more or less agree. However, my argument is that cleanses should be less abundant, and that condition damage should be downtuned. This would create better balance between the two, where the average glass target would be more susceptible to direct damage even over the long term. It is my adamant opinion that the paradigm of "conditions should always do more if you assume x length of time" is folly. Maybe if you assume a mid-high range armor value, but not otherwise.
> >
> > I also will restate my view here that "condi burst" is a red herring. Condi should be burstable to an extent, it just shouldn't result in the high short term damage it does. But, the problem is not the "burst" (as in the rapid fire succession of condition-landing), it's the tuning on the damage ticks. Immunity and cleansing mechanics are too prolific in the game, and too necessary to counter conditions.
>
> Then we have the problem with reverting back to the Core Tyria days. Power will run rampant again, and some classes will be booted out of meta in all terms and purposes. You will literally make half of the class roster useless.
>
> Though, I do agree that condi is definitely out of hand. A certain dev (which still grinds my gear) admitted to the fact that they were bias to condi, and did not exactly enjoy the full power meta, which most likely explains the existence of condi buffs and vipers gear. There needs to be a sweet spot.
>
> One should not outperform the other, and if you are to build hybrid then you are not better than the one that has dedicated themselves to full power or full condi. You overall have more to work with and a wider optiom choice.
>
> Edit: Another thought to my head. You would make a lot of gear useless with your condi suggestions. Markets will crash, prices skyrocket, pvp and wvw meta thrown into absolute chaos. It will cause more harm than good in the long-run. Unfortunately, your suggestions will end up only short-term. In a span of 2-6 months you would have killed s good portion of raiders, fractals, and wvwer because of your changes.
No. Because the problem in vanilla was the condition cap, which is rightly gone forever, and I see absolutely no reasoning behind assuming the suggestions I'm making would have the same impact. To the contrary, they would ensure that both power and condi have a place in the meta. Your edit also makes no sense. Where's your evidence of any of that? It's like listening to a doomsday preacher in some Podunk church.
-
> @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:
> > @xiev.6905 said:
> > I comment on your other post.
> >
> > Yeah having feel weapon swap, customized utilities and a legend would be OP.
> >
> > I would like to see weapon swap tie to the legend we equipped. Invoking legend will automatically switch weapon set and it is the only way to switch.
>
> Meta builds already stick to one set of weapons. All this would accomplish is forcing people to double up on their gear or lock them out of certain utilities for literally no reason if they're running something like staff backup for cc. This idea literally adds nothing and only makes the class worse.
I dunno, I see both sides. I think it would depend on what the base Revenant was able to use and how. But it would be an interesting way to have Revs be "weapon swap but no weapon swap" more like Eles and Engis.
-
> @xiev.6905 said:
> This is a great idea!
>
> But to be honest it could be OP if we have both weapon swap and customize utilities plus a legend.
>
> Maybe we can tie our secondary weapon set to legend invoking. Non-legend stance we are using for example, Sw/Sw and by invoking a legend we will automatically switch to another set of weapon.
>
> I can see a lot of new builds usIng totally different legend-weapon combinations. And the most important part, invoking a legend feels more impactful and more “role-changing”.
That's actually not a bad idea , especially since the weapons were all designed to synergize with a specific legend. It would basically kill two birds with one stone. Rev would officially be a "no weapon swap" class, but would more or less retain their current flexibility. Only issue would be which ones would and wouldn't be equippable by base Rev when not channeling?
-
I think that designing Rev in this way would polish them enough to remove the weapon swap per the original desire of the class, but they'd have to do a really good job with the new utility skills. I'm also not 100% sure it's necessary just for the sake of symmetry.
If they let us have two equipped legends in addition to no legend, that would be definite grounds for removing weapon swap. i wouldn't oppose that.
-
GW2 has always been really, really bad at explaining its own systems, story, and setting to new players. It's really almost critical to have someone that can hold your hand as a new player.
-
> @Verenhimo.3296 said:
> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > @Verenhimo.3296 said:
> > > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > >
> > > > In fact, I feel so strongly about this that I'm just going to start using the terms Malice and Spirit ubiquitously on the forums until the habit gets passed to around to other denizens.
> > >
> > > It won't - you're exaggerating how these things are pronounced in casual conversation, the current stat names are blunt and convey instantly what these stats do, Condition Damage instantly conveys exactly that, that the stat will improve condition damage, as does healing power, literally improving the power of heals.
> > >
> > > Clarity of purpose is much more vital than having a edgy or whimsical sounding name for a stat.
> > >
> > > Also barely anyone I've run into bluntly calls things "a condition damage build" it's always come with the armor prefix as the descriptive term, which tells far more about what you're trying to say than just bluntly saying "condi damage" which could refer to 4 common types of gear, all serving different purposes.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > **That's exactly the point. The problem with your assertion is that "malice" is in fact much clearer and to the point than "condition damage" once you know what it does because it's a _specific term that references a specific game mechanic_, which isn't exactly tricky to figure out **if you spend any length of time whatsoever playing the game. It's also silly to have to type out or say "condi damage" to refer to the attribute that increases condition damage. In some cases you actually have to specify "the condition damage attribute" which is even more kitten.
> >
> > Their original decision to replace specific names for attributes with generic names was misguided and should have never happened.
> >
>
> It's literally not, one explains the given stat and it's effect at a glance, one is a edgy name that has no meaning outside of flavour, I can tell the latter term to a hundred people and they'd be able to infer what I say instantly, I could say the former and come against a bunch of confused people thinking I'm talking about, A, a sigil, or B, a deadeye mechanic, or C a focus skin, but no. let's add another term to the bloat under that one name.
>
> Might I add that even games like WoW aptly name there stats directly after the stat it impacts, Mastery effects Mastery, Haste increases your haste, Critical Strike increases, you guessed it, Critical Strike rating, not some silly naming convention that is bound to confuse people trying to decipher stats at a glance.
>
Do you routinely talk to non-GW players about condition damage?
No, sorry, you're judging from intuition, and intuition is commonly wrong. For people who aren't experienced with the game, "condition damage" is no clearer than "malice", and for those experienced with the game, the former is less clear since it can be used in different ways based on context and doesn't necessarily only refer to an attribute. it's actually incredibly dumb to not have a short hand way to refer specifically to the attribute that everyone _automatically understands and interprets in the same way, or can look it up easily if they aren't familiar with it_. It just complicates discussion in addition to lacking the pizzazz that helps build immersion.
What a bunch of silly arguments. Why don't we go ahead and go change "Power" to "base attack bonus", and toughness to "base defense bonus" just to ensure discussion around those attributes is as complicated and unflavorful as possible.
The right idea is not always the popular one, I suppose.
-
> @Panda.1967 said:
> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > @Panda.1967 said:
> > > > @Adenin.5973 said:
> > > > > @Panda.1967 said:
> > > > > To be perfectly honest, i think a lot of the problem with condi truthfully stems from the existence of Vipers, Destroyers, Sinister, and Rampager stat sets... They allow condi builds to get high power damage alongside high condi damage. Other than Celestial, any statset that gives Power should never give Condi damage, and any statset that does Condi damage should never give Power. There isn't a single pure Condi DPS stat set that doesn't give Power, in fact they all give Power & Precision even...
> > > > >
> > > > > This means that every Condi build either A ) has high direct damage as well or B ) has high defensive or support stats. Usually high Power since it allows them to do heavy direct damage alongside high Condition damage. It creates an imbalance that favors Condi builds. Power builds just can't compete, even though Condi weapons generally have lower base direct damage.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the ANet devs gave an example before to explain why Conditions are as strong as they are... but they didn't really paint an accurate picture of what we actually have. Their example:
> > > > > > Given the choice between an attack that does 1000 damage over 10 seconds and an attack that does 1000 damage instantly, you will always take the instant damage.
> > > > > However, in GW2 what we actually have looks more like this:
> > > > > > Given the choice between an attack that does 1000 damage instantly and an attack that does 500 instantly plus 1000 damage over 3 seconds, you will always take the later.
> > > > >
> > > > > If stat sets that gave both Condi damage and Power didn't exist then the choice to build Condi would result in minimal direct damage in exchange for high condition damage, allowing both to actually be balanced. Instead we have pure power and hybrid power/condi DPS stat sets... and the hybrid sets give just as much direct damage as the pure power sets.
> > > >
> > > > I've got some numbers about vipers gear vs berserkers gear (On a Ranger). I've used full ascended gear, no runes, no sigills, no traits, no food or other buffs.
> > > > I then looked at the tooltip dmg of Axe MH, since Anet claims that it's a hybrid weapon and I looked at one skill from Greatsword.
> > > >
> > > > With full Vipers gear we get:
> > > > Power: 2173, Crit-Chance: 34% ,Crit dmg: 150%
> > > > Condition dmg: 1173, Condition duration: 42%
> > > > Wintersbite dmg: 1013 + 7sec 1970 bleeding dmg
> > > > Maul dmg: 1559
> > > >
> > > > With full Berserkers gear we get:
> > > > Power: 2381, Crit-Chance: 50% ,Crit dmg: 214%
> > > > Condition dmg: 0, Condition duration: 0%
> > > > Wintersbite dmg: 1110 + 5sec 330 bleeding dmg
> > > > Maul dmg: 1710
> > > >
> > > > **Which means we get with vipers gear on the different skills, compared to berserkers gear following numbers:**
> > > > Wintersbite: 9% less direct dmg, 596% more bleeding dmg, total of 1543 dmg (207%) more than with berserkers
> > > > Maul: 9% less direct dmg, total of 151 dmg (9%) less than with berserkers
> > > >
> > > > Seeing that, I can't argue that vipers gear seems somewhat overpowered compared with berserkers gear.
> > > >
> > > > _Edit: What we of course don't see here is the effect of the increased crit chance and the increased critical damage, which should help berserkers quite a bit._
> > > >
> > > > Used tool:
> > > > http://en.gw2skills.net/editor/
> > >
> > > A quick comparison of average crit values using your numbers. (Damage x crit mult) / crit chance
> > > This gives an average crit value per hit, so...
> > >
> > > Viper
> > > Wintersbite: +517 damage
> > > Maul: +795 damage
> > >
> > > Berserker
> > > Wintersbite: +1188 damage
> > > Maul: +1830 damage
> > >
> > > This puts total numbers up at:
> > > Wintersbite: 1530 + 7sec 1970 bleeding dmg (Viper) vs 2298 + 5sec 330 bleeding dmg (Berserker)
> > > Maul: 2354 (Viper) vs 3540 (Berserker)
> > >
> > > Wintersbite +33% damage Viper's
> > > Maul +50% damage Berserker
> > >
> > > Overall, with crit factored in they even out, especially when you factor in armor. Dealing slightly less direct damage in exchange for nearly 6x condition damage, is ultimately the preferable option. Especially when you consider the fact that you can stack the condition damage, turning the slight damage bonus of a power build per hit into nothing. Not to mention a condi build can get extra condition stacks from traits and runes with crits.
> > >
> > > The formulas and damage of Condi is actually quite well balanced, it's only thrown off balance by the fact that hybrid stat sets allow for both to reach high levels. Honestly Rampager's is the only hybrid pure DPS set that is remotely balanced since both Power and Condi are it's minor stats, and it has no Ferocity. The Condi equivalent to Berserker should give Condi, Expertise, Precision. Lower initial damage, but easier to stack due to longer durations allowing it to eventually surpass power. If they remove the hybrid sets and replace them with proper condi sets, we'd actually see a more balanced playing field between the two.
> >
> > Yes and no. The formulas and damage of condi are not well balanced at all, which his example plainly demonstrates. What you are describing is a product of the phenomenon that condition damage alone gives condition builds what it takes power, precision, and ferocity combined to give to direct damage builds. So, when you put power, precision, and expertise together with the major of condition damage, you end up with a massively over-tuned offense. Direct damage builds have no comparable option.
> >
> > Dire may produce damage numbers more in line with the berserker set, but then you have a lot of extra defense. If anything, direct damage builds should get free defensive stats since they require you to stay engaged with your target.
> >
> > This example just exposes how horrendously broken condition damage actually is in the game.
>
> The numbers presented are from Berserker (Power, Precision, Ferocity) and Viper (Power, Condi, Precision, Expertise) Both give power. This is a fact of all pure damage Condi stat sets. If you look at the damage values of a condi set that lacks power, you'll find the damage values are actually noticeably lower for condi than power. When factoring in stacking conditions, the lower base damage of conditions would be balanced.
>
> If someone would care to post the tooltip values of Ranger MH Axe with full ascended gear, no runes, no sigills, no traits, no food or other buffs utilizing a defensive Condi stat set, (Trailblazer or Rabid would be good examples). Then we can see exactly what sort of damage we would be seeing from Condi without hybrid sets that provide too much strength to both.
>
> Also, the new Grieving set will almost certainly provide even more overall damage for Condi builds by sacrificing Expertise for Ferocity. Enough that the small initial edge I outlined for Power builds should be completely non-existent. Berserker vs Grieving should be almost 100% advantage Grieving even with crits. Berserker would still be stronger for pure power attacks, but the margin would be so small even with crits that it's negligible.
>
> The issue isn't condition damage, the issue is the stat sets. They didn't consider the impact of hybrid sets enough and gave us multiple sets that provide heavy Power + Condi damage. If both stats are on the same set, both stats absolutely should be minors, never majors when both are present. This is for the same reason that there are no stat sets with Ferocity as a major. Can you imagine how overpowered Power builds would be with a 4 stat set giving Major Power + Ferocity with Minor Precision + Whatever? There would be no competition. This is exactly what we are seeing from Grieving & Vipers both giving Major Power + Condi with Minor Precision + Ferocity/Expertise.
No, the issue is the condition damage. The reason this is obvious is because the economy of stats that allows for ultra-high condition damage does not allow for the equivalent with direct damage builds. If condition damage was not over-tuned, you would expect Grieving to be about as good for hybrid builds that favor direct damage as Viper's is for hybrid builds that favor condi damage, but that just isn't the case. Any time you have equivalent Condition Damage and Power on a stat set, condition builds will benefit more than direct damage builds due to the tuning of Condition damage. That's the problem.
It's asinine to place the blame on the attribute combos - the attribute combos are rubber-banded and have the same total points. If one attribute combo is significantly stronger than another, there's an imbalance in the attributes themselves. Anet shouldn't have to not release some combinations of attributes to work around the fact that one of their attributes is overpowered.
I disagree that major power + ferocity, minor precision + whatever would be more OP than viper's is for condition builds, and have no clue why you'd make that argument. Power, precision, and ferocity are the only stats tied to direct damage, so nothing will ever be better than Berserker's for direct damage. Any hybridization of those three stats with a four-stat combo will only dilute direct damage builds, not help them. See Marauder's for an example.
-
> @Sarrs.4831 said:
> I like the idea of Revenants getting perhaps Shouts or Signets as part of an elite spec which is not associated with any revenant legend, and you can slot them into whichever of the core legends you like, but a Revenant not channeling a legend is basically just a Warrior.
Well, no, not if their skills are totally different. Lol. Are guardians just warriors?
Should Revs be forced to channel a legend?
in Revenant
Posted
> @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > > > @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > > > > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > > > > > @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > > > > > > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:
> > > > > > > > > > @xiev.6905 said:
> > > > > > > > > > I comment on your other post.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah having feel weapon swap, customized utilities and a legend would be OP.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would like to see weapon swap tie to the legend we equipped. Invoking legend will automatically switch weapon set and it is the only way to switch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Meta builds already stick to one set of weapons. All this would accomplish is forcing people to double up on their gear or lock them out of certain utilities for literally no reason if they're running something like staff backup for cc. This idea literally adds nothing and only makes the class worse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I dunno, I see both sides. I think it would depend on what the base Revenant was able to use and how. But it would be an interesting way to have Revs be "weapon swap but no weapon swap" more like Eles and Engis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ele and Engie have the potential for eight unique weapons swaps. For the former that's four attunement and four conjures. For the latter that's one weapon, six kits, and photon forge.
> > > > > > > That's 40 abilities, not include the six dual skills on Weaver, or the Engie's toolbelt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have at most 23 abilities, all of which have cooldowns and/or resource requirements. It's not comparable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now we have 23 abilities. The point of this thread is push for changing that.
> > > > >
> > > > > We get five skills from each weapon set, five from each legend, and three from f1-f3. It doesn't matter how many different combinations there are in the base legend, it will still be five skills and our total remains 23. Why mess with weapon swap?
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want two weapons, five customizable utilies, and a preselected set of powerful skills you can swap into then play necro. You can choose to invoke death, reaper, or sand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't make it complicated or the devs won't do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your desire is more easily satisfied by an F5 that restores 50 energy, and puts f1 on cooldown.
> > > >
> > > > I don't honestly really care that much whether the weapon swap remains or not. Either way, I still think this is the right way to do the Revenant.
> > >
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > > > @"Daniel Handler.4816" said:
> > > >~~ We get five skills from each weapon set, five from each legend, and three from f1-f3. It doesn't matter how many different combinations there are in the base legend, it will still be five skills and our total remains 23. Why mess with weapon swap?~~
> > > >
> > > >**If you want two weapons, five customizable utilies, and a preselected set of powerful skills you can swap into then play necro. You can choose to invoke death, reaper, or sand.**
> > > >
> > > >**Don't make it complicated or the devs won't do it.**
> > > >
> > > > **Your desire is more easily satisfied by an F5 that restores 50 energy, and puts f1 on cooldown.**
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, because Necromancer and Revenant are anything whatsoever like each other thematically or mechanically. The entire purpose of this suggestion is to fill out Revenant's skill choices and make them have the same level of variety and build customizaton that every other class in the game has.
> >
> > Thanks for the completely useless input.
>
> Well then this is a completely useless discussion. Your opinion of how the spec should've been designed from the start is irrelevant to their vision, and the costs of hiring an art team/programmers.
>
> There are 40480 possible combinations of skills 6-0 in every other class. It doesn't matter that the vast majority are terrible, and the remainder are superficially different. Or that Revenant was able to become meta in every game mode despite not having 40480 combinations.
>
> What matters is that 10 new utilities is 120 combinations, then multiply it by however many heals, then by elites. And whatever number you come up with, ANET will have bug test each one. Of course that would be after they fix the bugs in this expansion. And then do balance testing for the new skills, then art design.
>
> At this point its just as likely this would be the next elite spec in however many years.
Which would be the exact wrong approach - just keep piling stuff onto a bad foundation.