Percentage Damage boosts

[maddoctor.2738]

Banner of Strength gives +170 Power but Frost Spirit gives +10% damage

Bowl of Sweet and Spicy Butternut Squash Soup gives +100 Power but Bowl of Seaweed Salad gives +5% damage

Revealed Training gives +200 Power but Symbolic Avenger gives +10% damage

 

What would happen if they removed all percentage based damage boosts from the game and replace them with flat bonuses to Power?

That way the top damage builds will deal less damage, while the lower damage builds will see a slight increase.

By making them give a flat damage bonus they will be abilities that offer the same benefit regardless of the build they are used on.

 

Thoughts?

[Refia Montes.3205]

It would be pretty bad.... Power benefits a lot from % damage boosts and losing the multiplicative values of that would make them plummet. Condi builds wouldnt be that affected since a lot of the condi traits are apply x condi on x condition.

[Miellyn.6847]

Banners and spirits work fundamentally different. You can't change it without reworking the functionality. Banners are an aura and spirits have a percentage based chance for single hits.

 

A better idea would be to rework the calculation of %-based boost to stack additive instead of multiplicative and buff power accordingly. This way you reduce the impact of those boost without removing them.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Miellyn.6847 said:

> A better idea would be to rework the calculation of %-based boost to stack additive instead of multiplicative and buff power accordingly. This way you reduce the impact of those boost without removing them.

 

You mean that the other way around, which it currently does.

 

If it's additive without a cap we get into some really wonky 150% (pretty sure the most obnoxious one Maul got fixed with the signet nerf) bonuses. Seeing as that's not how the work anyway and its all %'s are multiplicative in this game it's nbd as is.

[BunjiKugashira.9754]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Miellyn.6847 said:

> > A better idea would be to rework the calculation of %-based boost to stack additive instead of multiplicative and buff power accordingly. This way you reduce the impact of those boost without removing them.

>

> You mean that the other way around, which it currently does.

>

> If it's additive without a cap we get into some really wonky 150% (pretty sure the most obnoxious one Maul got fixed with the signet nerf) bonuses. Seeing as that's not how the work anyway and its all %'s are multiplicative in this game it's nbd as is.

 

Nope, the current multiplicative system is way stronger than an additive system would be. Let's for example say a person has 5 buffs that raise damage by 10%.

Additive System: 100% + 10% + 10% + 10% + 10% + 10% = 150%

Multiplicative System: 100% * 110% * 110% * 110% * 110% * 110% ~= 161%

 

The point is in a multiplicative system a 10% dmg boost will always boost dmg by 10% of what you would have without that boost. In an additive system a 10% dmg boost would effectively boost dmg by 10% of the base dmg, resulting in a lower total value.

 

Still, I prefer GW2's multiplicative system. If I pick a 10% dmg trait I know that my dmg rises by 10% and not some lower number that I would have to calculate first.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @BunjiKugashira.9754 said:

> Still, I prefer GW2's multiplicative system. If I pick a 10% dmg trait I know that my dmg rises by 10% and not some lower number that I would have to calculate first.

 

Exactly why I made the suggestion to make them give flat Power bonuses. Although a +10% damage doesn't require calculations, when you get many of those modifiers at the same time you do need to calculate them

[TexZero.7910]

> @BunjiKugashira.9754 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > @Miellyn.6847 said:

> > > A better idea would be to rework the calculation of %-based boost to stack additive instead of multiplicative and buff power accordingly. This way you reduce the impact of those boost without removing them.

> >

> > You mean that the other way around, which it currently does.

> >

> > If it's additive without a cap we get into some really wonky 150% (pretty sure the most obnoxious one Maul got fixed with the signet nerf) bonuses. Seeing as that's not how the work anyway and its all %'s are multiplicative in this game it's nbd as is.

>

> Nope, the current multiplicative system is way stronger than an additive system would be. Let's for example say a person has 5 buffs that raise damage by 10%.

> Additive System: 100% + 10% + 10% + 10% + 10% + 10% = 150%

> Multiplicative System: 100% * 110% * 110% * 110% * 110% * 110% ~= 161%

>

> The point is in a multiplicative system a 10% dmg boost will always boost dmg by 10% of what you would have without that boost. In an additive system a 10% dmg boost would effectively boost dmg by 10% of the base dmg, resulting in a lower total value.

>

> Still, I prefer GW2's multiplicative system. If I pick a 10% dmg trait I know that my dmg rises by 10% and not some lower number that I would have to calculate first.

 

My point was that, there's a few classes with more than just 5 x 10% traits that could blow an additive system so far out of whack. Also, does anyone not remember when DR was bugged and had an additive effect ? Fun times when people could crit for 0.

[Tarasicodissa.7084]

TexZero I'm not sure you understand how math works. We're not talking about dmg reduction (multipliers <1), where additive effect is more powerful than multiplicative (2 x 20% reduction would yield 40% additively, but only 36% multiplicatively), we're talking about dmg boosts. As it was just demonstrated to you, 5 x 10% dmg boosts would result in 50% boost additively and 61% multiplicatively. Add one another boost and you have 60% vs. 77%. The further you go, the bigger the gap is gonna get.

[BunjiKugashira.9754]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @BunjiKugashira.9754 said:

> > Still, I prefer GW2's multiplicative system. If I pick a 10% dmg trait I know that my dmg rises by 10% and not some lower number that I would have to calculate first.

>

> Exactly why I made the suggestion to make them give flat Power bonuses. Although a +10% damage doesn't require calculations, when you get many of those modifiers at the same time you do need to calculate them

 

So when you look at just one trait and want to decide whether to take it or not, in which system do you need to calculate? In the multiplicative system the trait will boost your damage by exactly the written amount. Doesn't matter what else you have equipped. In an additive System though the trait might say "increase dmg by 10%" while in reality it only increases your dmg by 7% because you have other modifiers.

 

So it's a question of whether you want to know your total dmg boost (why would you need that?), which is easier in an additive system, or you want to evaluate the efficiency of a single trait, which is easier in a multiplicative system.

[Rising Dusk.2408]

> @Tarasicodissa.7084 said:

> TexZero I'm not sure you understand how math works. We're not talking about dmg reduction (multipliers <1), where additive effect is more powerful than multiplicative (2 x 20% reduction would yield 40% additively, but only 36% multiplicatively), we're talking about dmg boosts. As it was just demonstrated to you, 5 x 10% dmg boosts would result in 50% boost additively and 61% multiplicatively. Add one another boost and you have 60% vs. 77%. The further you go, the bigger the gap is gonna get.

The reality is that whatever math supports it doesn't really matter, what matters are the final DPS numbers. Currently there are very few power builds that even begin to compete with the current condition builds.

 

For the OP, the amount of raw numbers each replaced effect would need to give is massive to account for the lost damage boosts across the board. It also doesn't really help anything; what's the problem that this is even trying to solve? Support classes being ubiquitous? There are better ways to do that (like effect homogenization across more classes) than removing power damage multipliers that don't even really affect the top DPS performers.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Tarasicodissa.7084 said:

> TexZero I'm not sure you understand how math works. We're not talking about dmg reduction (multipliers <1), where additive effect is more powerful than multiplicative (2 x 20% reduction would yield 40% additively, but only 36% multiplicatively), we're talking about dmg boosts. As it was just demonstrated to you, 5 x 10% dmg boosts would result in 50% boost additively and 61% multiplicatively. Add one another boost and you have 60% vs. 77%. The further you go, the bigger the gap is gonna get.

 

I'm not sure you understand what i was pointing out. We've had situations where in this game we had additive occuring on top of multiplicative before and that was comical.

 

I know maths is hard, i r gud at it i swear. But any situation we can currently come up with as players that says additive is better is silly because its just lower and additive without caps leads to blowing numbers out of the water. Precisely because for them to even compete with the current system you'd have to make up said gap for whatever target number your trying to achieve. What's currently 10% would have to be shifted to 15% etc.....

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Rising Dusk.2408" said:

> For the OP, the amount of raw numbers each replaced effect would need to give is massive to account for the lost damage boosts across the board. It also doesn't really help anything; what's the problem that this is even trying to solve? Support classes being ubiquitous? There are better ways to do that (like effect homogenization across more classes) than removing power damage multipliers that don't even really affect the top DPS performers.

 

Remember when Elementalists had traits with damage boosts on all trait lines?

What problem I'm trying to "solve"?

For once if the amount of stat boost would have to be massive, then it clearly means that some abilities need a mass balance pass.

How much is the equivalent of Scholar rune bonus of +10%? How does it compare with other 6th set bonuses of Runes? Is the reason Scholar is so popular because it is completely overpowered compared to other choices?

How much is the equivalent to the damage of a Sigil of Force? How does it compare with other sigils, like Sigil of Battle that gives Might or Sigil of Bloodlust that gives a stacking Power bonus. Isn't Sigil of Force completely overpowered compared to the others in terms of raw benefit?

How much is the equivalent in power of Frost Spirit? What's the difference between Banner of Strength and Frost Spirit in terms of how much up-time they have and how much of a boost they give?

In the end, they did something similar with Boon Duration. By converting it to Concentration it allowed them to balance some clearly imbalanced items, like the Platinum Doubloons.

All I'm saying is that every trait/skill or food that gives +% damage boost is preferred over anything else in this game. Maybe it's because they are overpowered and if they were stat based we'd see something stupid like +500 Power to reach the same damage boost. Which would make it rather clear that those abilities need to be toned down.

[TexZero.7910]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> were stat based we'd see something stupid like +500 Power to reach the same damage boost. Which would make it rather clear that those abilities need to be toned down.

 

See though, thing is they tried this with the Assassin's Signet for thief and it's overall weaker than it's previous state of 5 guaranteed crits, because somehow 5 crits = ~500 power.

 

For them to remotely break even going to a flat number from 10% bonuses you'd effectively be granting like 480 extra power (based on above change) and that's before we take into account armor ratings.

 

Essentially it's worse all around for everyone and is even more ambiguous design than should be in the game.

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @"Rising Dusk.2408" said:

> > For the OP, the amount of raw numbers each replaced effect would need to give is massive to account for the lost damage boosts across the board. It also doesn't really help anything; what's the problem that this is even trying to solve? Support classes being ubiquitous? There are better ways to do that (like effect homogenization across more classes) than removing power damage multipliers that don't even really affect the top DPS performers.

>

> Remember when Elementalists had traits with damage boosts on all trait lines?

> What problem I'm trying to "solve"?

> For once if the amount of stat boost would have to be massive, then it clearly means that some abilities need a mass balance pass.

> How much is the equivalent of Scholar rune bonus of +10%? How does it compare with other 6th set bonuses of Runes? Is the reason Scholar is so popular because it is completely overpowered compared to other choices?

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. Scholar is not best in slot any longer and when it was, that was because there was almost no proper offensive rune sets available. The ones that were available had massive drawbacks. This has long changed with more and newer rune sets. It had nothing to do with Scholar being a % damage buff.

 

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> How much is the equivalent to the damage of a Sigil of Force? How does it compare with other sigils, like Sigil of Battle that gives Might or Sigil of Bloodlust that gives a stacking Power bonus. Isn't Sigil of Force completely overpowered compared to the others in terms of raw benefit?

 

Again. Apples to oranges. Force outperforms the sigils you are mentioning due to different reasons on top of it being very strong:

- Superior Sigil of Might is not needed, other classes provide raid wide might (currently cPS warrior)

- Bloodlust stacks off of trash, which there is very little of in raids and is lost on downd state, which happens quite often in raids

 

Those 2 reasons alone would be enough as to not take those Sigils. Also force is not the best in slot sigil for quite a few builds nowadays.

 

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> How much is the equivalent in power of Frost Spirit? What's the difference between Banner of Strength and Frost Spirit in terms of how much up-time they have and how much of a boost they give?

> In the end, they did something similar with Boon Duration. By converting it to Concentration it allowed them to balance some clearly imbalanced items, like the Platinum Doubloons.

> All I'm saying is that every trait/skill or food that gives +% damage boost is preferred over anything else in this game. Maybe it's because they are overpowered and if they were stat based we'd see something stupid like +500 Power to reach the same damage boost. Which would make it rather clear that those abilities need to be toned down.

 

No, what you are asking for is a nerf to all % based damage boosts. The fact that one is % based and the other is stat based is purely an issue of correlation, not balance.

 

You could just as well ask for % damage boost to get halved accross the board so as to be more in balance with flat stat boost.

 

They could have just as well changed the amount of boon duration offered. The change was made as to be in line with how other main stats worked. The change to food was in order to bring the food buffs more in line with other food buffs (and reduce the food efficiency gap between power and condition builds).

[maddoctor.2738]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> Essentially it's worse all around for everyone and is even more ambiguous design than should be in the game.

>

 

But if Scholar Runes gave +480 Power then wouldn't be much easier to compare Scholar Runes with other runes in terms of Power?

Also, if +10% damage is equal to +480 Power then Sigil of Force is 240, that makes Sigil of Bloodlust nearly useless as it gives +250 at maximum stacks, with all the drawbacks that it also has (have to kill 25 mobs to reach it, stacks removed on downed).

 

> @Cyninja.2954 said:

> You are comparing apples to oranges. Scholar is not best in slot any longer and when it was, that was because there was almost no proper offensive rune sets available. The ones that were available had massive drawbacks. This has long changed with more and newer rune sets. It had nothing to do with Scholar being a % damage buff.

>

There is another Rune that is the better than Scholar Runes for Power builds?

 

> - Bloodlust stacks off of trash, which there is very little of in raids and is lost on downd state, which happens quite often in raids

 

I covered this earlier, if Force is +240 Power and Bloodlust gives +250 at BEST with all the other drawbacks it has, it's clearly an inferior sigil.

 

> You could just as well ask for % damage boost to get halved accross the board so as to be more in balance with flat stat boost.

 

I'm not asking for % damage boosts to get halved, I don't know how much they should be reduced (if any reduction is even needed) I want to find out how they compare with other same-slot options.

 

Let's say you have to compare:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bowl_of_Sweet_and_Spicy_Butternut_Squash_Soup

with

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bowl_of_Winterberry_Seaweed_Salad

 

Before the nerf to Seaweed (was 10% changed to 5%), Seaweed was better, now Butternut Squash is recommended.

But how do I know this without reading tests and evaluations?

Choosing between any other type of food is easy, check your precision and if you break 100%, then all ferocity. With a percentage how do you figure it out?

[Rising Dusk.2408]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> But if Scholar Runes gave +480 Power then wouldn't be much easier to compare Scholar Runes with other runes in terms of Power?

> Also, if +10% damage is equal to +480 Power then Sigil of Force is 240, that makes Sigil of Bloodlust nearly useless as it gives +250 at maximum stacks, with all the drawbacks that it also has (have to kill 25 mobs to reach it, stacks removed on downed).

But why? Reading your above post directed at me, it sounds like you want to nerf power builds when so few of them even perform remotely well these days _anyway_. If you want to dial back Weaver power on large hitbox, the solution lies with revamping Meteor Shower and not with changing percent modifiers. If you were to change percent modifiers to the power stat strictly for ease of understanding, then that would be a huge developer effort for extremely little gain. I just don't think anything you're proposing here is a good idea, sorry. :(

[TexZero.7910]

I dont know if you didn't get what i was saying....you're almost there but missing it

 

If we take 10% damage to roughly be ~480 power (before armor) mind you then in order for people to get power builds roughly on par with condi the +Power bonuses would have to be in the 1.2k range. That's absurd, no really that's basically giving you another you as base power is 1000. Think about that for a second.

[thrag.9740]

This is not a good way to balance, because its effects are very broad, and untargetted. If anet wants to boost the lower dps power builds (like reaper, which they should), they should do so by adjusting that specific class/build.

 

Also, percent boosts have advantages too. They are most powerful with glass builds, so there is risk vs reward, especially in game modes besides pve. Flat stat bonuses would make tanky builds have a lot more damage.

[xDudisx.5914]

I like OP's idea. Replace % bonus for fixed amount of stats bonus.

[OriOri.8724]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Tarasicodissa.7084 said:

> > TexZero I'm not sure you understand how math works. We're not talking about dmg reduction (multipliers <1), where additive effect is more powerful than multiplicative (2 x 20% reduction would yield 40% additively, but only 36% multiplicatively), we're talking about dmg boosts. As it was just demonstrated to you, 5 x 10% dmg boosts would result in 50% boost additively and 61% multiplicatively. Add one another boost and you have 60% vs. 77%. The further you go, the bigger the gap is gonna get.

>

> I'm not sure you understand what i was pointing out. We've had situations where in this game we had additive occuring on top of multiplicative before and that was comical.

>

> I know maths is hard, i r gud at it i swear. But any situation we can currently come up with as players that says additive is better is silly because its just lower and additive without caps leads to blowing numbers out of the water. Precisely because for them to even compete with the current system you'd have to make up said gap for whatever target number your trying to achieve. What's currently 10% would have to be shifted to 15% etc.....

>

 

What are you even going on about?

[Zenith.7301]

I would prefer that they make skills effective baseline and we not rely on so many damage modifiers to make output good. It would be nice if traits were mostly about utility and playstyle than just stacking output modifiers.

 

If they also removed expertise and concentration and combined power with condi damage and allowed conditions to crit, it would also open up build variety massively as hybrid weapons would no longer be so garbage, and elementalist attunements would see greater variety in usage because earth no longer becomes worthless with power builds.