Mesmer explanation articles?

[Lankmaster.6507]

In the patch notes from Feb 6:

 

"Mesmer phantasms were heavily reworked in this update. For more information on our goals and reasons for these changes, please see our post on the official forums called **"Shattering the Status Quo."**In addition to the phantasm changes, there were also changes to confusion duration and stack counts, which are part of a larger effort to cut down on confusion uptime in competitive modes. Finally, as part of our update to alacrity as a boon (also covered in its own forum post called **"Alacrity: Time for a Change"**), we reworked some underperforming chronomancer traits."

 

This calls out 2 articles that explain the changes to alacrity and clones. I scoured the forums and couldn't find them. Anyone know if they are hidden somewhere, or if they just haven't posted them yet?

[Takoyakii.2146]

en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26687/shattering-the-status-quo/p1

 

Search function for this forum is working properly.

 

Use it.

[mtpelion.4562]

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26685/alacrity-time-for-a-change#latest

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26687/shattering-the-status-quo#latest

[notebene.3190]

They are both in general. I searched on 'Shattering the Status Quo' and it was the first post to come up. I'm assuming the second would work as well.

[Sojourner.4621]

[https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26687/shattering-the-status-quo/](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26687/shattering-the-status-quo/ "https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26687/shattering-the-status-quo/")

 

[https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26685/alacrity-time-for-a-change](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26685/alacrity-time-for-a-change "https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26685/alacrity-time-for-a-change")

 

30 seconds in the Dev Tracker... it's an ANet forum post, which means it will always show up there.

[Lankmaster.6507]

Thanks for the help and minimal sass :-)

[Astralporing.1957]

Too bad there was no article explaining sensibly their idea about Confusion changes in PvE, because all the explanations we received were completely PvP based.

[Sojourner.4621]

> @"Lankmaster.6507" said:

> Thanks for the help and minimal sass :-)

 

I do apologize if it sounded sassy... maybe cause I just woke up -_-

But yeah, usually Dev Tracker is the best way to find something specifically posted by a dev. Things get pushed off the front page FAST on some of the busier weekdays.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Too bad there was no article explaining sensibly their idea about Confusion changes in PvE, because all the explanations we received were completely PvP based.

 

Whether the confusion changes were good for pvp are not in question, right? This is almost inarguably the best way to make confusion a workable condition in that game mode... make the spike hit much harder than the passive ticks. Here's the problem with that in PvE. They literally CAN'T split the functionality. It is impossible. If the two share the same in game ID as a condition, they must have the damage scaling on the same part of the condition, and the condition **must** function in the same way. They can adjust the individual numbers, making the base ticks higher (which they are) in PvE, or making the condition scaling on the Active portion higher between one or the other (which wouldn't fix the problem), but they can't put condition scaling on the passive in one mode and on the active in another. The only way to do this would be to create two different conditions, both named confusion, with separate IDs and have each with different functionality... then only tie one version of it to one game mode, and one version of it to another. This kind of thing is generally considered bad programming and is actually the sort of thing that results in the overall spaghetti code that ANet has been trying to work with and around since launch. This 100% creates more problems than it solves.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Sojourner.4621" said:

>Here's the problem with that in PvE. They literally CAN'T split the functionality. It is impossible. If the two share the same in game ID as a condition, they must have the damage scaling on the same part of the condition, and the condition **must** function in the same way. They can adjust the individual numbers, making the base ticks higher (which they are) in PvE, or making the condition scaling on the Active portion higher between one or the other (which wouldn't fix the problem), but they can't put condition scaling on the passive in one mode and on the active in another.

They can use 4 different scaling, one each for passive pve, passive pvp, active pve, active pvp. We know they can, because _they've already done that before_. I see no reason why they couldn't just set the one for passive PvP to 0 (or to the minimum allowed value, which would be practically the same thing), without changing the one for pve.

So no, claim that there's a technical impossibility which some players make (Anet didn't make any such claim, btw) is almost certainly completely untrue.

 

[Sojourner.4621]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Sojourner.4621" said:

> >Here's the problem with that in PvE. They literally CAN'T split the functionality. It is impossible. If the two share the same in game ID as a condition, they must have the damage scaling on the same part of the condition, and the condition **must** function in the same way. They can adjust the individual numbers, making the base ticks higher (which they are) in PvE, or making the condition scaling on the Active portion higher between one or the other (which wouldn't fix the problem), but they can't put condition scaling on the passive in one mode and on the active in another.

> They can use 4 different scaling, one each for passive pve, passive pvp, active pve, active pvp. We know they can, because _they've already done that before_. I see no reason why they couldn't just set the one for passive PvP to 0 (or to the minimum allowed value, which would be practically the same thing), without changing the one for pve.

> So no, claim that there's a technical impossibility which some players make (Anet didn't make any such claim, btw) is almost certainly completely untrue.

>

 

If they put the scaling on both, yeah technically they could do that I suppose, setting the number value to zero (or close to... the smallest increment I have seen on condi scaling is .005, though never on its own e.g. .045xCondition Damage on Torment) for one mode or the other. This could be a workable fix.

[AliamRationem.5172]

If we could have working confusion again in PvE, I think that would be for the best.