DREAD.... What is this garb?

[Obtena.7952]

> @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > Um, no, but thank's for coming out. I said Anet has an atypical approach to balancing. Meaning, they don't balance primarily by performance. If you can't even bring yourself to see that, you're just being difficult on purpose.

>

> That's not called balance then. Call it something else.

>

Call it whatever you like, it's irrelevant.That doesn't change a thing I've said anyways. You don't think Anet can balance the game, but you insist they should do so for this ONE trait. You aren't being very consistent in what you believe here. How do you expect anyone to have a discussion with you if you play both sides of the coin to your convenience? If Anet can't balance the game, the whole thread is a waste of time. If they can, then clearly, they have other reasons to NOT do it, so some compelling argument aligned to their thinking to changing the game must be offered. You aren't doing that.

 

> > > @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> > > The fact is, they are _incapable_ of balancing the game.

> >

> > yet here you are ... demanding that they specifically balance the littlest elements of the game against each other, to satisfy the most insignificant kinds of issues that are already solved by exercising choice.

>

> Thats not balance. Balance is balance. Why don't you understand the difference between balance and choice? You are replacing balance with choice. They are not the same.

 

You are right they aren't the same and I made no attempt to give you the impression they were. Players having choice allows them to mitigate the lack of balance that exists ... and I don't think the fact we have choice is just coincidence either. I believe that's meant to be the intention, because Anet knows that balancing at this level is not a reasonable expectation anyways. Clearly, you have something to learn from them and the design.

>

> Answer this: Why do they alter their game at all?

 

I can think of lots of reasons, but I'm sure this is just rhetoric on your part to provoke an argument, so I'm going to flip that back to you. Why do YOU think they alter their game? Obviously it's not to deliver balance as you think it should be ... so what do you think it is?

 

 

[Anchoku.8142]

> @"DuckDuckBOOM.4097" said:

> > @"Anchoku.8142" said:

> > With Fear being Necro's pseudo-control effect available in all builds, can anyone describe their specific Fear-based builds?

> >

> To answer your first question: I used to play two variants of corrupt/fear builds.

 

Super excellent response! I love the detail and effort you put into it Duck Duck.

 

I would really like Fear-based strategies to come back. It is one of the hallmarks of Necromancer. Maybe if players do not build for it, Arenanet will notice but, as you said, various balances along the way have reduced its value.

 

Arenanet does watch but they are no doubt data-driven. Fear is one of those deceptive little skills where it may be used off CD but whether tactically or not is an open question that can give misleading answers.

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> snip

 

You keep revisiting the same stuff I've already said. I don't believe they can balance a class they don't play enough, not just because they are unable to. It's in my original post. You even said that was my reasoning and yet now you've excluded that portion of my reasoning from the argument. I believe they are incapable of balancing because they don't have enough people on their development team involved in the necromancer community or play/test the necromancer class as a whole.

 

You say its not a reasonable expectation yet they still try which is my answer to your question, which you still haven't answered yourself. They still try as an attempt but can't because of the people who make the changes are either working off bad information and don't play certain classes enough. They've never said they do not aim for balance and if they continue to release balance patches then we are to believe they are trying. Nobody can expect perfect balance in any game but when you are at a point where certain classes (*cough* mesmer *cough*) are getting banned in tournaments due to the clear disproportion of damage they can bring, you start to understand that the people "balancing" have some unsettling perspectives on the game.

 

For some people who have zero sentimentality about the class they play and just move on to whatever is the strongest, there will be no issue. There is an issue when the fact is people do become attached to the class they have played for a long time and have spent hours and hours learning. People who've spent time learning their class over a long period of time will have an unfair advantage if that class is also overpowered. In your mind, any other player will just be able to move to that overpowered class and reap the same rewards but that's not reality. People who are less familiar or only sortof familiar with those classes will still not perform as well.

 

Also, you claim choice is the all mighty default to this "balance" approach when the opposite is true. Look at dungeons and raids. For a very very very long time, necromancers weren't even allowed in the majority of player groups because of their poor performance. This means that even when the player wants to _choose_ to play the necromancer, they are practically forced away from playing it because of lack of *balance*.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > snip

>

> I don't believe they can balance a class they don't play enough,

 

You don't know how much they play it. You don't know if Anet playing it more will enable them to balance it. You don't know how many people are involved with balancing. You don't know what targets they set for class balance and if they are already at that point where they consider it done. All these things you are saying, you don't even know if they are true, but you like to say them like they are. So much of you posts are just pure guessing. I'm going to bring you back to what the game is and has been for the last 6 years.

 

Anet is not balancing primarily by performance standards, PERIOD. If they were, we would be there (or MUCH closer) now. I know games that balanced better, that were much shorter lived and smaller by comparison; it's not a question of if they have had the time or resources to do it, because they have. It's a question of why they don't user performance as the primary balancing consideration. I've provided speculative and reasonable answers for that; it's related to the design of the game. It's simply not necessary and the return on the investment to do it is very low. The market this game appeals to doesn't insist on it; it's more concerned about how black the most black dye is or when they can get a lion mount.

 

You want Anet to balance a single trait when you already acknowledged they don't even balance the game. :confounded: This doesn't make sense. Somehow you have convinced yourself after experiencing the game in it's 6th year, that Anet is still struggling to 'balance' the game. You have completely dismissed the idea that what we have now is the 'balance' we are going to get. What are these things that convinces you Anet is still chasing balance as **you** think it should be? \

 

The best part of this thread is that someone actually gave a VERY comprehensive explanation (that you have ignored to argue with me) on how to effectively use Fear in competitive scenarios, while you claimed it's useless in those. Maybe you should get back to learning from someone else if you want to continue to ignore what I have to say.

 

 

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> snip

 

All that "you don't know" stuff can be redirected back at you. You don't know either. They've never told anyone publicly that what you describe as their approach to balancing is true. You have no idea. You speculate just as much as I do only you do it from an apologist standpoint.

 

I want them to play necromancers more and bring core / reaper up to par. I want balance in the game as a whole. Just because they fail to do it, doesn't mean they can't do it. You don't understand the difference. I've been telling you the difference this entire time but you don't absorb any of it.

 

You've still dodged the question. You actually dodged the question, asked me the question and I answered it and you still haven't. Why do they do balance patches?

 

Balance isn't something invented by *me* or only promoted by *me*. Many many many people want the game as well as games in general to share a similar sense of balance. So yes, I think they should even though this is all again riding on *your* believe that they don't balance the way other games do. Thats *your* interpretation. *Your* opinion. That doesn't make it factual. Point me to the comment made by an ANET dev who say they've formulated their game around the way *you* describe. Because at this point, anyone can believe what they want based on the history of this game. You think they fail on purpose. I think they fail because they don't know as much as they think they know.

 

This games longevity lends much of it to *advertising* and the fact theirs is a well-known title from their previous game. I also don't know why im arguing. In fact, *you* are the one who thinks they can't balance this game, not me. I think they could. To me, I think it's laziness, lack of enthusiasm for the necromancer class as a whole, and bias. Could be a lack of care or perhaps resources. You can say just as much about my crackpot theory as I can say about yours. We both look at the history of this game an interpret it in our own way. I don't have to be right; but apparently, neither do you and neither does ANET.

 

I'd still like to hear your imaginative theory as to why they balance the game through patches like every other game if their approach is so "atypical".

[Obtena.7952]

No, I'm pretty sure I HAVEN'T seen Anet balance primarily by performance and I'm pretty sure that I play a game where performance is not the primary factor in how Anet changes the game. That's all I need to understand why what you are asking for is not inline with how the game works. I mean, you even admitted Anet doesn't balance the game ... what more is there to say? You're agreeing with me they don't do it.

 

If you don't think Anet balances the game, what makes you think they are going to look at Dread, think it's underperforming and do something about that? That doesn't make sense.

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> No, I'm pretty sure I HAVEN'T seen Anet balance primarily by performance and I'm pretty sure that I play a game where performance is not the primary factor in how Anet changes the game. That's all I need to understand why what you are asking for is not inline with how the game works. I mean, you even admitted Anet doesn't balance the game ... what more is there to say? You're agreeing with me they don't do it.

 

I said they fail to balance the game.

 

You still can't answer this question:

>I'd still like to hear your imaginative theory as to why they balance the game through patches like every other game if their approach is so "atypical".

 

O_o

>If you don't think Anet balances the game,

Let me stop you right there. Again, I've said and continue to say they fail at it. Not that they can't. They fail at it. There is a difference. Why have I had to explain this so many times now?

[Obtena.7952]

The reason we don't have balance is irrelevant. The important point here is that we don't have it. My comments are based on this point; it's irrelevant how we didn't get it. (though if you are interested in why I think we don't have it, I gave 3-4 reasons in my last post)

 

I don't really get your point about the cause of this game not being balanced; it doesn't matter. There are reasons it's not balanced, even if you don't know or don't believe them. Anet aren't all the sudden going to 'see the light', remove the cause of 'no-balance' and start with properly balancing the game ... starting with Dread. What game are YOU playing? Nothing I've seen in this game for the last 6 years gives me any hope that would ever happen and having an objective look at the game design, I'm convinced we will never get it either. (again, for the 3-4 reasons I gave in my last post)

 

Again, if Anet fails at balancing like they have for 6 years, what is the point of the thread? You MUST recognize that the lack of balance for 6 years means that requests to balance according to performance don't compel Anet to fix things. There are other reasons that you want to ignore because you know they would make your case for changing Dread make no sense.

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> The reason we don't have balance is irrelevant. Whether it's a failure because they try or simply because they don't do it doesn't change what I've said at all. My comments are based on the observations that we don't have it and we never did, regardless of the effort (or lack of) to try to get it.

>

> I don't really get your point about the cause of this game not being balanced; it doesn't matter. They aren't all the sudden going to 'see the light' and start with properly balancing the game ... starting with Dread.

 

You have a point. There you go. Now that makes actual sense. Yes, there is no reason for me to hope that they would actually start to do well in terms of balancing with all the glaring shortcomings they've displayed over the years. I think I've even said what you've said plenty of times.

 

Still, time goes on and change is inevitable but somehow they still fail to change for the good in many areas. That's why I get frustrated sometimes and instead become less likely to provide a detailed analysis and proposals for things I find bad. Still, the longer this game goes on, the higher the chances of new faces at anet who may have a better eye for balance.

 

If you can't do something because you are incompetent, doesn't really mean you should redefine the parameters of what it is you can't do. If a salesman can't sell their product, just because they then redefine a sale as "smiling at people", doesn't make him any less successful at what he's doing. Maybe that just means they shouldn't be a salesman. You can't just readjust the meaning to suit your own shortcomings. None of this means they can't learn to do better or hire people who are capable. They might also be able to take some feedback from their players.

[Obtena.7952]

You can word smith or make all the bad assumptions you like, it's hardly relevant to the discussion.

 

We have 6 years of history with Anet to see what kinds of reasons they make to change the game, how long it takes and what those changes result in. **"Anet doesn't know crap"** is not one of those reasons, the changes are relatively long (IMO) and the changes don't result in equivalent performance ... or what people typically call balance.

 

Frankly, I think there are probably some good reasons for Dread to change, but at this point, based on some poster's experiences and assessments, I'm convinced I was not appreciating it's clever use. I'm going to suggest you 'up your game' if you want to take full advantage of this trait instead of concluding it's trash because it's not good for average play.

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Frankly, I think there are probably some good reasons for Dread to change, but at this point, based on some poster's experiences and assessments, I'm convinced I was not appreciating it's clever use. I'm going to suggest you 'up your game' if you want to take full advantage of this trait instead of concluding it's trash because it's not good for average play.

 

Yes, I also think there are reasons for it to change, which is why I made this post. You assume there are clever uses but I don't think you've actually tried to find out in practice.

 

As for my reasons,

 

It seems more like a conditioned trait than anything. This is because you are less likely to apply your big-damaging skills during such short amount of time (1s - 1.23s). This makes it harder to capitalize the +20% damage. Not only because none of your high damaging power weapon skills also have a fear (aside from S3 and boon corrupt on axe) but because power weapon high damage skills either have long wind-up or multiple proc hits over time (AXE 2, S4). Also you have to take into account enemy condition reduction, condi removal, stunbreaks, and flips.

Since it feels like you're able to get more out of it for condition damage (expertise, condi runes with condition duration), you'll most likey run it as such. Even in this thread people have been describing it at most a hybrid build, not power. I'm actually fine with it being a hybrid trait but that doesn't make it any less unappealing for hybrid choices.

 

It's like this: theoretically, it would be cool to once in a while get a nice big power hit on a feared enemy but in practice, it will very rarely happen. Thats what frustrates me about the devs is their lack of obvious testing or familiarity with the profession.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > Frankly, I think there are probably some good reasons for Dread to change, but at this point, based on some poster's experiences and assessments, I'm convinced I was not appreciating it's clever use. I'm going to suggest you 'up your game' if you want to take full advantage of this trait instead of concluding it's trash because it's not good for average play.

>

> Yes, I also think there are reasons for it to change, which is why I made this post. You assume there are clever uses but I don't think you've actually tried to find out in practice.

>

Unfortunately, the underlying premise for those reasons are Anet is stupid and don't know anything about the game. I don't think that's the case at all; I can understand why not every 'conditions' thing is lumped into Curses, especially Dread ... but it's likely an average Joe player doesn't. Even if Dread is condi optimal, that shouldn't lead anyone to think it's a mistake that it's not a Curses trait. That's nonsense.

 

Since I've been paying attention to your thread, I'm not assuming there are clever uses ... someone else made a comprehensive post about how Dread works in builds they use and it's effectiveness. You know ... those 'useless' ways you didn't think about when you ranted about Dread in the first place. Clearly it hasn't occurred to you that the lack of familiarity with the profession and it's tools might not be limited only to Anet.

 

If you read the post I'm referring to, you would see that even if it does seem more like a condi trait, there doesn't seem to be anything unreasonable about Dread being in Spite; nothing prevents you from taking Spite as a condi user. Again, #choices ... you have to make them. If Dread isn't a good choice for you, don't use it. That doesn't mean Anet are idiots that don't play their own game enough to 'not know' how it works. If anything, it just seems to me that Anet wants people to make considered decisions about the choices they make; trade offs if you want to call it. That's a COMMENDABLE design approach if it's truly that well thought out.

 

Here is another thing that is strange; clearly you are unhappy about the 'illusion' of choice ... but then you go make a case to optimize a Fear-based trait that applies vulnerability for condition builds. I mean, doesn't that strike you at all as contradictory? You don't think that while 'optimizing' your use of Dread for condi builds ... you AREN'T optimizing it for others? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. In case you haven't noticed, just because something is optimal (debatable here) for condition builds, doesn't imply it should automatically be in Curses or have some lean towards condi builds.

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Since I've been paying attention, I'm not assuming there are clever uses ... someone else made a comprehensive post about how Dread works in builds they use. You know ... those 'useless' ways you didn't think about when you ranted about Dread in the first place. Clearly it hasn't occurred to you that the lack of familiarity with the profession and it's tools might not be limited only to Anet.

 

Is this what you mean?

>TLDR: While neither of my builds are that strong now... well reaper isn't that strong in general compared to scourge, that doesn't mean that Dread is inherently terrible and >irredeemable. If anything, I think scourge is too OP compared to base necro/reaper. Spite can be used for hybrid/condi builds and dread has a place in those builds. You >can make fear happen if you properly time corrupts. Chaining those corrupts + fear applying skills in hybrid builds with condi duration would actually give decent fear up >time on a Dread burst. You also don't need that long of a fear duration if your build has enough instant cast procs that can be spiked when the enemy is feared.

 

Because just in case it was I have this to say to that

1. If you corrupt an enemy stab you have to swap then fear again to "double up" (depending on the build). The second fear will eat time from the first which actually makes less sense than capitalizing on individual fears.

2. "you also don't need that long of fear duration if your build has enough instant cast procs that can be spiked when the enemy is feared". He'll have to give an actual example of this and what those instant cast procs are exactly. As necromancers, we don't have many.

 

If that wasn't the statement you were talking about, let me know which one it was.

[Obtena.7952]

It's fine you acknowledge what he's said there. That doesn't change my other points with what you are saying about Dread. There isn't a problem with where it is in the traits or how it works. Especially if you're whole argument is based on the fact that Anet are stupid and don't know their game. Dread is fundamentally a damage increasing trait ... it's in the damage-increasing trait line. It's not that Anet doesn't know their game, it's that you have focused on a specific optimization to justify an unnecessary 'fix'.

 

If you want more specifics from the poster, you're going to have to ask him about it. I see no reason to not believe him; what's his reason to lie?

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> It's fine you acknowledge what he's said there. That doesn't change my other points with what you are saying about Dread. There isn't a problem with where it is in the traits or how it works. Especially if you're whole argument is based on the fact that Anet are stupid and don't know their game.

 

Nobody has said it isn't a damage increasing skill. I myself have never claimed otherwise. The issue is with its function in practice. No doubt, the bonus vuln can be very sexy, the issue is the thought process that went into the fear-based damage increase. It's not very well thought-out because of its actual use in practice in terms of the 20% bonus damage (which doesn't include condition damage). This means it should essentially be for power damaging skills. You can read the issues with that above which basically explains how the window is too small. This is why I have issues with this trait; it doesn't make sense. Just by looking at the trait could see that your big power skills are not going to have enough time to capitalize on in that small time frame. The only way to really expand that time frame is by getting condition duration/expertise which is traversing into condi territory. This means you are now losing power damage. The best-case scenario is S2 into S4 (reaper) or S4 into maybe a Axe 2 (scourge). Axe 2 won't dish out as much damage as you think since its pretty much a dot.

 

Basically, we don't have those instant, big power spike damage skills like other classes do yet they gave us a trait as though we did.

 

> If you want more specifics from the poster, you're going to have to ask him about it. I see no reason to not believe him; what's his reason to lie?

 

I've never said he lied about anything. It could be he just believes he is getting a longer fear duration to capitalize on, but it's not really true. That's why I described the flaws in his theory. He could also be right about his instant casts but hasn't given specifics on any skill rotations. Again, I'm not saying he's lying, but I can't really say he's correct if he hasn't gone into detail.

[DuckDuckBOOM.4097]

> @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> I've never said he lied about anything. It could be he just believes he is getting a longer fear duration to capitalize on, but it's not really true. That's why I described the flaws in his theory. He could also be right about his instant casts but hasn't given specifics on any skill rotations. Again, I'm not saying he's lying, but I can't really say he's correct if he hasn't gone into detail.

 

Or it could be that you don't actually understand necro as much as you think you do. So long as your fear application is longer than the cast time it takes to apply it, it's often worth it to double up BECAUSE necro skills are slow. If I put a ~1.5 second fear on a stability corrupt when I hit F1 and then hit RS5, I might miss the burst because RS5 has a long cast time. Going F1, RS3,3, RS5 can land the burst because double tapping RS3 takes less than 1.5 seconds and extends the fear duration more than the time I spend casting RS3.

 

> @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> 2. "you also don't need that long of fear duration if your build has enough instant cast procs that can be spiked when the enemy is feared". He'll have to give an actual example of this and what those instant cast procs are exactly. As necromancers, we don't have many.

Uh...

> @"DuckDuckBOOM.4097" said:

> 2) Spiteful spirit also does decent damage itself and is *instant cast*. If you managed to corrupt a stab into fear with weapon skills and then instantly hit F1, Dread would be a nice 30% bonus damage to SS. Suffer and you are all weaklings are also instant cast that do some power damage on top of the reaper rune procs. Sigil of hydro and geo also *instant cast* that do some power damage and can trigger with SS on F1. While these might not seem like that much individually, a bunch of instant cast pockets of damage when your enemies are feared makes great use of Dread. Of course, spinal shiver proc is great for spiking 1 person but Dread doesn't have an ICD. The instant cast SS/Sigil/Shout combo is all aoe. If I'm solo roaming around on my reaper and instagibbing newbs that try to outnumber me, Dread would be my preferred choice.

I guess I can really spell it out:

Spiteful spirit 0.8 coeff

Sigil of hydro 0.75

Sigil of geo 0.25

Suffer 0.7

You are all weaklings 0.5

 

Corrupt stability, hit two shouts that are instant cast. Hit F1 for a 3.00 coeff with a 20% dread bonus on that power damage and extra condi damage. All of which is also enhanced by vuln. This is an aoe spike that happens in less than half a second.

 

Before you go to chill of death is best in slot so dread doesn't matter, think about it for a bit longer. Chill of death is 1 person every 20 seconds at 50% when some classes get auto immune to damage at 50% traits so it can do zero damage. CoD can also be accidentally wasted on a clone. My burst can be dodged while chill of death cannot. Basically it's not as easy to compare the utility but lets look at the numbers. Is it actually better than dread on a numbers level?

3.00 * 1.3 = 3.9 for Dread. That is a (3.9-3) 0.9 coeff increase in an AOE vs 1.75 coeff single target CoD.

This assumes I've only applied fear once. If I've recently applied fear twice for 20 vuln instead of 10:

3.00 *1.4 = 4.2 or a 1.2 coeff increase in an aoe vs a 1.75 single target. And of course, the vuln also increases both my (and my allies) condi and power damage by 10-20% for 5-10 more seconds.

 

So are you really so sure that Dread is a bad trait?

 

 

[HardRider.2980]

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

> What makes you think anyone in their right mind would use that trait in pve?

 

PvE and WvW would be a better place for it

[Anchoku.8142]

I really want a new armor type with *power,* ferocity, and expertise. Let's all beg for it!

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"DuckDuckBOOM.4097" said:

> > @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> > I've never said he lied about anything. It could be he just believes he is getting a longer fear duration to capitalize on, but it's not really true. That's why I described the flaws in his theory. He could also be right about his instant casts but hasn't given specifics on any skill rotations. Again, I'm not saying he's lying, but I can't really say he's correct if he hasn't gone into detail.

>

> Or it could be that you don't actually understand necro as much as you think you do. So long as your fear application is longer than the cast time it takes to apply it, it's often worth it to double up BECAUSE necro skills are slow. If I put a ~1.5 second fear on a stability corrupt when I hit F1 and then hit RS5, I might miss the burst because RS5 has a long cast time. Going F1, RS3,3, RS5 can land the burst because double tapping RS3 takes less than 1.5 seconds and extends the fear duration more than the time I spend casting RS3.

 

Agreed. If you can pull off that double fear, not be chilled, no stunbreak / condi clear up for enemy, and they have no condi duration reduction, you might pull off that RS5. I still have a hard time seeing that happen all that often in-game, however.

 

Also, if you need two fears, not one, but two to perform any of your large power attacks in that timeframe, it still feels like a bad design.

 

> > @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> > 2. "you also don't need that long of fear duration if your build has enough instant cast procs that can be spiked when the enemy is feared". He'll have to give an actual example of this and what those instant cast procs are exactly. As necromancers, we don't have many.

> Uh...

 

What do you mean "uh"?

 

> > @"DuckDuckBOOM.4097" said:

> > 2) Spiteful spirit also does decent damage itself and is *instant cast*. If you managed to corrupt a stab into fear with weapon skills and then instantly hit F1, Dread would be a nice 30% bonus damage to SS. Suffer and you are all weaklings are also instant cast that do some power damage on top of the reaper rune procs. Sigil of hydro and geo also *instant cast* that do some power damage and can trigger with SS on F1. While these might not seem like that much individually, a bunch of instant cast pockets of damage when your enemies are feared makes great use of Dread. Of course, spinal shiver proc is great for spiking 1 person but Dread doesn't have an ICD. The instant cast SS/Sigil/Shout combo is all aoe. If I'm solo roaming around on my reaper and instagibbing newbs that try to outnumber me, Dread would be my preferred choice.

> I guess I can really spell it out:

> Spiteful spirit 0.8 coeff

> Sigil of hydro 0.75

> Sigil of geo 0.25

> Suffer 0.7

> You are all weaklings 0.5

 

What does that mean? How much damage are you gaining from that 20% bonus from all those abilities used in that window?

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

[DuckDuckBOOM.4097]

1) I wrote a paragraph on exactly what instant cast spikes I use in my old build.

2) You quote me then say "He'll have to give an actual example of this and what those instant cast procs are exactly. As necromancers, we don't have many."

3) I write "Uh" and then quote myself on the paragraph that explains exactly what instant spikes I use. The "uh" was because I don't understand how you missed it.

4) I decided to explicitly explain the math of how much damage those instant cast abilities do. I then did math on exactly how much of a damage increase it is to use dread with that combo. Then I compared it to the damage on chill of death since that is the trait that competes with dread.

5) You write, "What does that mean? How much damage are you gaining from that 20% bonus from all those abilities used in that window?"

6) I feel the need to write... uh... what am I missing here? I think I was very thorough in my explanation of how much Dread adds to that combo but clearly something is not getting across. Do you not know what power coefficients are in this game?

Here is an explanation:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Damage

 

> @"TheDevice.2751" said:

> Agreed. If you can pull off that double fear, not be chilled, no stunbreak / condi clear up for enemy, and they have no condi duration reduction, you might pull off that RS5. I still have a hard time seeing that happen all that often in-game, however.

>

> Also, if you need two fears, not one, but two to perform any of your large power attacks in that timeframe, it still feels like a bad design.

 

If an enemy has stability, ~8 times out of 10, it's because they just used a stun break or it's wvw and they don't have many stunbreaks because they rely on guard stab. That combo hit very often when I used it because I paid attention to enemy stun break usage and stability usage. Fear in that build also applies 4 conditions (fear, chill, vuln, bleed). There are very few instant cast condi clears that can clear 4 conditions at once. The double fear was only for RS5 if you have less than 50% condi duration. The instant spike combo doesn't require double fear. A lot of classes have chain CC combos. Necro doing chain fear is not different conceptually to other classes chain CC'ing an enemy... except that necro can chain CC enemies with stability while most other classes cannot. If anything, that's "OP" but that's also why I loved doing it.

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"DuckDuckBOOM.4097" said:

> 1) I wrote a paragraph on exactly what instant cast spikes I use in my old build.

> 2) You quote me then say "He'll have to give an actual example of this and what those instant cast procs are exactly. As necromancers, we don't have many."

> 3) I write "Uh" and then quote myself on the paragraph that explains exactly what instant spikes I use. The "uh" was because I don't understand how you missed it.

> 4) I decided to explicitly explain the math of how much damage those instant cast abilities do. I then did math on exactly how much of a damage increase it is to use dread with that combo. Then I compared it to the damage on chill of death since that is the trait that competes with dread.

> 5) You write, "What does that mean? How much damage are you gaining from that 20% bonus from all those abilities used in that window?"

> 6) I feel the need to write... uh... what am I missing here? I think I was very thorough in my explanation of how much Dread adds to that combo but clearly something is not getting across. Do you not know what power coefficients are in this game?

> Here is an explanation:

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Damage

 

First off, sigil of geomancer's bleed damage won't be increased by the bonus 20% damage. That bonus doesn't apply to condition damage.

 

Again, I'm not sure what you're discussing. Are you just talking about how much damage you can get away with during a fear proc or are you talking about how many skills you can fire off for the 20% bonus?

 

Aslo, if you're going into RS, how are you then popping your shouts? Are you double casting F1 then popping all of your shouts? Suffer is also one of your condi removals... why would you pop it just for a 20% damage boost?

 

As far as I can see, you will get all those off in time but the damage you're gaining from the 20% isn't much.

 

> If an enemy has stability, ~8 times out of 10, it's because they just used a stun break or it's wvw and they don't have many stunbreaks because they rely on guard stab. That combo hit very often when I used it because I paid attention to enemy stun break usage and stability usage. Fear in that build also applies 4 conditions (fear, chill, vuln, bleed). There are very few instant cast condi clears that can clear 4 conditions at once.

 

> The double fear was only for RS5 if you have less than 50% condi duration.

Well you will have unless you're building condi damage.

 

>The instant spike combo doesn't require double fear. A lot of classes have chain CC combos. Necro doing chain fear is not different conceptually to other classes chain CC'ing an enemy... except that necro can chain CC enemies with stability while most other classes cannot. If anything, that's "OP" but that's also why I loved doing it.

 

Sure lots of classes have chain cc but I don't know of any other trait that requries chain cc to make use of its effect. Your damage spike is just popping all of your instant casts. Those instant casts don't do a lot of damage.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

I like how you argue with the guy that actually TRIED these builds, not just concluded they don't work ... in his head. If you like playing GW2 in your head and convince yourself things don't work in that 'gameworld', that's fine, but the reality is how it works in game. I'm going to suggest that if you want to slam a skill and claim it needs to be fixed, you learn how to use the hell out of it first.

[Brujeria.7536]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> I like how you argue with the guy that actually TRIED these builds, not just concluded they don't work ... in his head. If you like playing GW2 in your head and convince yourself things don't work in that 'gameworld', that's fine, but the reality is how it works in game. I'm going to suggest that if you want to slam a skill and claim it needs to be fixed, you learn how to use the hell out of it first.

 

A person keen with the class does not need to test everything, because if you have game knowledge and experience with a class you know how things play out.

 

>@"DuckDuckBOOM.4097" said:

> If an enemy has stability, ~8 times out of 10, it's because they just used a stun break or it's wvw and they don't have many stunbreaks because they rely on guard stab. That combo hit very often when I used it because I paid attention to enemy stun break usage and stability usage. Fear in that build also applies 4 conditions (fear, chill, vuln, bleed). There are very few instant cast condi clears that can clear 4 conditions at once. The double fear was only for RS5 if you have less than 50% condi duration. The instant spike combo doesn't require double fear. A lot of classes have chain CC combos. Necro doing chain fear is not different conceptually to other classes chain CC'ing an enemy... except that necro can chain CC enemies with stability while most other classes cannot. If anything, that's "OP" but that's also why I loved doing it.

 

Your so called "instant spike combo" is a hoax.

 

You blow your stunbreak condi removes and everything that does 20% more damage eventually? these skills all do hit like wet noodles, unless you can hit a full zerker thief. Besides you only use sigil of earth in condition builds, really and conditions dont benefit from that extra damage at all.

 

If you do this against good enemies you are dead - you wont kill revs, guards, mesmers or warriors with this combo ever, as you lack damage. You are then blank without stun break / condi remove after your burst and you get wrecked by any good player.

 

It might work against thiefes or glassy eles (if they have stability you could corrupt) but in such a situation you also could use chill of death and the target would be dead just as easy.

 

Again a lot of RNG reliant stuff here, you have to corrupt stability, you must be in a situation where you have not used your stun break / weapon swap / condi remove skill at this time and you have to hope your target cant condi cleanse or stunbreak / resistance it, you can keep track of cooldowns, yeah, but you cant know what skill a class has equiped. There are quite some variety factors here.

 

So much effort just to make a useless trait deal mediocre damage when all the stars align? This is madness.

 

 

 

[TheDevice.2751]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> I like how you argue with the guy that actually TRIED these builds, not just concluded they don't work ... in his head. If you like playing GW2 in your head and convince yourself things don't work in that 'gameworld', that's fine, but the reality is how it works in game. I'm going to suggest that if you want to slam a skill and claim it needs to be fixed, you learn how to use the hell out of it first.

 

Why do you assume I haven't used it. My entire argument is of the in-game perspective and how well it works in-game, not drawing out ideal scenarios.

[Obtena.7952]

Because you are arguing with someone about their experience with playing the build. Think about that. You're telling someone that has obviously taken effort to play Fear builds that what they do doesn't work ... sounds wonderful.