Guild Wars 2

Certain skills should be ineffective against certain enemy types.
A no brainer really, but that this is currently not the case severely limits the possibilities for adding challenge and variety to the game;

Possible examples
Undead immune to fear, poison, bleeding, torment
Spiders immune to poison, blind
Select Shiverpeaks mobs immune to chill
Dragonbrand immune to confusion
Ghosts immune to bleeding, poison

etc. etc.

That would make condition builds even weaker in pve.
For example a condi thief would be completely useless against an undead enemy.
Out of curiosity why should spiders be immune to blind?

I’m happy there’s so little condition immunity for most NPCs.

Things don’t need to “make sense” like they did in gw1. Going back and playing during the 10 year, made me said that I kept seeing “can not bleed, no skin” on most of the enemies in the game.

Turamarth.3248:

That would make condition builds even weaker in pve.
For example a condi thief would be completely useless against an undead enemy.
Out of curiosity why should spiders be immune to blind?

Yes, condi. builds may be less effective against certain foes – but then, this is part of the point in adding variety. In a similar fashion, certain enemies should have high toughness countering non-condi. builds.

In short, if players don’t need to think or prepare before facing different encounters, what then is the point in having the possibility to choose between condi./non-condi., if any build can just stomp through all the content?

As concerns blindness-immunity for spiders, it was just a liberal example, but the reasoning behind it being that as spiders can have up to 12 eyes, some of those eyes may escape the blinding effect…

Pure Heart.1456:

Turamarth.3248:

That would make condition builds even weaker in pve.
For example a condi thief would be completely useless against an undead enemy.
Out of curiosity why should spiders be immune to blind?

Yes, condi. builds may be less effective against certain foes – but then, this is part of the point in adding variety. In a similar fashion, certain enemies should have high toughness countering non-condi. builds.

What about professions that don’t get access to every condi? What are they suppose to do, if that’s how they want to play? Completely ignore an area because they cannot hurt any of the enemies?

It’s bad enough when I have to fight Destroyers on my War, 2 of my 6 attacks (both AoE) do nothing to them, and it is my only AoE long ranged weapon. What happens if I had to fight something immune to bleed, my sword would do nothing. In PvE, zerker is the meta, by running something else, you are sub-optimal, I do it anyway because it is fun for me.

Condis already have so many negative against them,
long build up time
shared, limited stack totals (thankfully this is changing soon)
still do less damage than direct attacks
can not crit (3 traits affect direct damage, only 1 for condi)
can be cleansed (or have reduced duration via food/runes in WvW/PvP)
will soon be completely countered by resistance

They do not need more penalties. Why should we be forced to change weapons in between encounters just so we can kill the next mob group? And what happens if they mob types get mixed together (anti coni and anti direct damage, or anti the 2 conditions that you can put out), you’re left not being able to hurt them.

Some enemy types are immune to certain conditions. Examples:

Dredge are immune to blind (they already are).
Destroyers are immune to burning.

Condition immunity exists where it makes sense, but stacking several immunities on a mob just for flavor’s sake would be awful. Imagine entire builds being not only suboptimal, but literally useless because a particular area/dungeon/etc. is stacked up with immunities.

Palindrome.8904:

Some enemy types are immune to certain conditions. Examples:

Dredge are immune to blind (they already are).
Destroyers are immune to burning.

Condition immunity exists where it makes sense, but stacking several immunities on a mob just for flavor’s sake would be awful. Imagine entire builds being not only suboptimal, but literally useless because a particular area/dungeon/etc. is stacked up with immunities.

The only one i could really see making sense is for earth elemental be immune to bleeding. What are they going to bleed..sand? And maybe the Icebrood be immune to chill.

Spiders can get poisoned by other spiders. And im sure you can poke the eyes out of a spider to blind it…
Dragonbrand, why would it make sense for them to be immune to confusion?

yea man, burning fire elemental boss seems wrong

Wallace MacBix.2089:

They do not need more penalties. Why should we be forced to change weapons in between encounters just so we can kill the next mob group? And what happens if they mob types get mixed together (anti coni and anti direct damage, or anti the 2 conditions that you can put out), you’re left not being able to hurt them.

1) The designers should be creating content that makes sense, so mob types with vastly differing attributes shouldn’t be mixed together too often. For example, Undead (high condi. immunity) and living Forest Bears (high toughness, low condi. immunity)

2) In cases where mob types were mixed, this should simply encourage more thoughtful play. Tactics.

3) While it would probably be silly to require players to swap builds/weapons per in-map area too often, entire zones should have a theme (e.g. Orr/undead) and players should be encouraged to spec for that zone.

4) Without variation in the level of effectiveness certain builds/weapons have against certain enemies, all we are left with is a ‘monotone’ approach to all the content i.e. all the content can be stomped and defeated with any setup, so ultimately one has to ask why we have the possibility of different builds to begin with?

1) Full immunities without any counter play is bad design. Destroyers having burning immunity made sense in GW1 but they also had vulnerability to cold. In GW2 it just looks like the devs were sloppy.
2) Condition damage is already a second class citizen in GW2.
3) There are plenty of games with this sort of system. GW2 is not one of them. It is not something you can just shoehorn in. It is something that needs to be considered from top to bottom or you end up with a kitten thing like the current trait unlocks.

I feel PvE is rather stagnant as it is, so introducing more immunities wouldn’t be all bad. Honestly, I think you people are blowing things way out of proportion. An entire build would be useless and do nothing? I think you’re exaggerating. Even a condition build can still do direct damage, afterall. If a foe is immune to bleed, there is burn, confuse, etc and if you only have bleed? Use direct damage.

The goal of a build should be to be adaptable anyway. The game already rewards you for specializing (i.e. if you specialize in bleeds and full duration for it, the new game will allow you to stack obscene amounts of bleed, likely over 25stacks on your own) but with specialization comes the downside: running into a counter. The game only mildly rewards the player who generalize so they can more easily adapt to the enemy and having more counters might help that.

That all said, I don’t think enemies should have multiple immunities or if they do, it should only be certain mobs like the normal version might have 1 immunity, the vet might have 1 immunity and a resistance and elite/champ might have 2 immunities and a resistance.

Granted, it shouldn’t be standard that all mobs have some sort of immunity but they should have more to them to mix things up.

And all THAT said, with more resistances/immunities introduced, more vulnerabilities should also be introduced as well! Like the beetles in drytop, they are vulnerable to CC which nulls their advantage of only hitting them from the front. It actually makes you want to put a CC utility or two on your bar when facing them and that should be how much of the game is: face an enemy that’s immune to bleed, you might want to swap in some other utilities that do other conditions or use a different weapon.

Khisanth.2948:

3) There are plenty of games with this sort of system. GW2 is not one of them. It is not something you can just shoehorn in. It is something that needs to be considered from top to bottom or you end up with a kitten thing like the current trait unlocks.

I honestly don’t understand this community. People complain about the meta this-and-that and how easy PvE is and how stale it is becoming and that things need to be tougher or more varied yet people do not want change or for the game to be made harder.

Perhaps the OP’s idea isn’t the best, but jeeze, people need to have an open mind. There is merit to the suggestion considering new content usually introduces stuff like this, new ways to counter mob’s attacks and different strengths they have. It takes people with imagination to make things new and exciting but I’m thinking the people on these boards just aren’t the lot that needs ideas pitched to them as they don’t know what they want.

You cannot have such system in a game that doesn’t have damage types. GW2 has just damage and different modes of it’s delivery. Physical, bleeding, poison etc damage are fairly meaningless terms.

However, it would be nice to have different types of enemies where one are highly resistant do physical, but weak against torment. Resistant to ice but weak vs fire etc.
But for such thing to happen you need actual DAMAGE TYPES and RESISTANCES.

Zergs.9715:

You cannot have such system in a game that doesn’t have damage types. GW2 has just damage and different modes of it’s delivery. Physical, bleeding, poison etc damage are fairly meaningless terms.

However, it would be nice to have different types of enemies where one are highly resistant do physical, but weak against torment. Resistant to ice but weak vs fire etc.
But for such thing to happen you need actual DAMAGE TYPES and RESISTANCES.

You do have damage types: direct damage and condition damage.

Within those damage types, you have sub-types:
Direct
-Base
-Critical
-Retaliation

Condition
-Bleed
-Poison
-Burning
-Confusion
-Torment

And the devs are adding more damage type mechanics such as traits that apply damage via a condition (whether that damage relies on power or condition damage will then place it within a type).

And before you say it, there is already foes that play with these different damage types/subtypes like some world bosses cannot be critically hit, Hylek cannot be poisoned, object-types cannot be condition damaged, etc. So to say there aren’t actual damage types isn’t quite true. And yes, I’m familiar with standard MMOs that have damage types (CoH had 9! smash, lethal, fire, cold, energy, negative, psionic, toxic and untyped). It’s really not much different if you look at things the right way.

Leo G.4501:

Zergs.9715:

You cannot have such system in a game that doesn’t have damage types. GW2 has just damage and different modes of it’s delivery. Physical, bleeding, poison etc damage are fairly meaningless terms.

However, it would be nice to have different types of enemies where one are highly resistant do physical, but weak against torment. Resistant to ice but weak vs fire etc.
But for such thing to happen you need actual DAMAGE TYPES and RESISTANCES.

You do have damage types: direct damage and condition damage.

Within those damage types, you have sub-types:
Direct
-Base
-Critical
-Retaliation

Condition
-Bleed
-Poison
-Burning
-Confusion
-Torment

And the devs are adding more damage type mechanics such as traits that apply damage via a condition (whether that damage relies on power or condition damage will then place it within a type).

AHem, he means stuff like the following i think.

Fire damage(Weapon strength)
Ice Damage(Weapon strength)

Etc. Look at the FDS in game already, its the only weapon i know(Guess its the only non legendary) that does Fire damage(https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Fiery_Dragon_Sword). If we had stuff like that i would fully support stuff being immune or resistant to different weapons and condition damage because they would have counterplay.

In GW1 we had the following weapon damage types. on some foes these did less damage on others it did more, if i recall correctly.
Ebon Earth damage
Fiery Fire damage
Icy Cold damage
Shocking Lightning damage

I’d be down for this as long as ghosts other appropriate enemies are immune to direct damage as well.

Dante.1763:

AHem, he means stuff like the following i think.

Fire damage(Weapon strength)
Ice Damage(Weapon strength)

See my edit. I’m quite familiar with damage types.

In CoH there were enemies who were extremely resistant to their own element. Or there were just enemy types that were thematically typed like Robot enemies were very resistant to psionic powers (makes perfect sense) and somewhat resistant to lethal damage (i.e. bullets and swords) but weak to smashing damage. It made fighting robot enemies with a psionic power user a nightmare and so help you if your primary and secondary powers were both psionic based…then you’d likely just call in help. There were some powers in the psionic pools that also did smashing though (telekinetic stuff) which helped a bit but barely.

So explain how the OP’s suggestion is so different? Don’t tell me what’s wrong, tell me how it’s wrong.

Dante.1763:

Leo G.4501:

Zergs.9715:

You cannot have such system in a game that doesn’t have damage types. GW2 has just damage and different modes of it’s delivery. Physical, bleeding, poison etc damage are fairly meaningless terms.

However, it would be nice to have different types of enemies where one are highly resistant do physical, but weak against torment. Resistant to ice but weak vs fire etc.
But for such thing to happen you need actual DAMAGE TYPES and RESISTANCES.

You do have damage types: direct damage and condition damage.

Within those damage types, you have sub-types:
Direct
-Base
-Critical
-Retaliation

Condition
-Bleed
-Poison
-Burning
-Confusion
-Torment

And the devs are adding more damage type mechanics such as traits that apply damage via a condition (whether that damage relies on power or condition damage will then place it within a type).

AHem, he means stuff like the following i think.

Fire damage(Weapon strength)
Ice Damage(Weapon strength)

Etc. Look at the FDS in game already, its the only weapon i know(Guess its the only non legendary) that does Fire damage(https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Fiery_Dragon_Sword). If we had stuff like that i would fully support stuff being immune or resistant to different weapons and condition damage because they would have counterplay.

In GW1 we had the following weapon damage types. on some foes these did less damage on others it did more, if i recall correctly.
Ebon Earth damage
Fiery Fire damage
Icy Cold damage
Shocking Lightning damage

Holy damage as well. Great vs undead.

My only concern with conditional immunity is that it might require a rebalance of all of the classes in order to ensure that everyone had equal access to every condition Or damage type (if such were added).

Leo G.4501:

Dante.1763:

AHem, he means stuff like the following i think.

Fire damage(Weapon strength)
Ice Damage(Weapon strength)

See my edit. I’m quite familiar with damage types.

In CoH there were enemies who were extremely resistant to their own element. Or there were just enemy types that were thematically typed like Robot enemies were very resistant to psionic powers (makes perfect sense) and somewhat resistant to lethal damage (i.e. bullets and swords) but weak to smashing damage. It made fighting robot enemies with a psionic power user a nightmare and so help you if your primary and secondary powers were both psionic based…then you’d likely just call in help. There were some powers in the psionic pools that also did smashing though (telekinetic stuff) which helped a bit but barely.

So explain how the OP’s suggestion is so different? Don’t tell me what’s wrong, tell me how it’s wrong.

Why? i agree with it partially. I think there should be more monsters that are immune to conditions, i have since the beginning, monsters that where immune to various elemental damage in GW1 should be immune to them still, here. Icebrood should be immune to chill, Mordremoths minions should be mostly immune to poison, Earth Elemental immune to bleeding, Fire imps Immune to or resistant to burning. I just do not think that every single creature should have a resistance or immunity, just the ones that make sense. As it stands in the current game condition builds already suffer.

In HOT a few conditions are going to be improved, Bleeding being the largest(Think confusion too?), with Posion and burning being looked into to stack intensity instead of duration. Thank goodness, as it means condition builds(which i run on various characters, warrior bleed build, Ranger bleed build, necro Condition build.) will be able to do better. But i do not think that every single thing should be immune to various types of damage or condition damage.

Ashen.2907:

My only concern with conditional immunity is that it might require a rebalance of all of the classes in order to ensure that everyone had equal access to every condition Or damage type (if such were added).

And this is why i think the way i do.

Edit: The damage type i agree with, if such a thing where added. The conditions can mostly be worked around. But if we went into a new zone where most of the monsters where immune to bleeding my build would be useless and the way i like to play would change to something i was forced to play just to do anything.

There’s a balance between playability, profession balance, and ‘realism’ (or what passes for such in RPGs). If the game were truly “realistic,” characters would have to spend some time sleeping, eating, or using the restroom (or latrine, or outhouse, or sewer). Some characters would be strong than others, some more nimble, and so forth.

ANet’s design for the game includes some elements that add local color (destroyers don’t burn, large foes can’t be knocked back, charr take orders from mice and talking cabbages). And it does not include other elements that would also be ‘fun’ from a lore point of view: ghosts immune to physical conditions (poisons etc).

Further, changing the game to include more immunities makes balancing everything else much, much more difficult.

It’s unrealistic to expect that a game can — or even should — include all such elements. Sometimes, the ‘fun’ in playability has to trump the ‘fun’ from lore.

I’m not opposed to adding things like this into the game, but I’d far prefer to see other changes first. If we do see such immunities, then I’d like to see a lot of foes become immune to physical damage, so that condition builds sometimes have a strong advantage over direct damage ones.

tl;dr condition immunities are an enjoyable aspect of some RPGs; that doesn’t mean that ANet needs to add them into GW2

Ashen.2907:

My only concern with conditional immunity is that it might require a rebalance of all of the classes in order to ensure that everyone had equal access to every condition Or damage type (if such were added).

Not necessarily.

I don’t think the game needs a balance rework just because the new Hylek enemies we’re going to face in HoT will be immune to the effects of poison (very likely). If a new enemy somewhere or even an existing enemy becomes immune to, for example, bleed, why do you think the whole game needs a rework for that? If tomorrow, all Earth Elementals became immune to bleed, what rework would be needed to facilitate that?

The way I see it, if you add more nuances like that, you can in turn, make more alternative mechanics like the ones you see in the new area (where they are particularly vulnerable to something else). Of course, that isn’t to say you have to saturate the game with this stuff but making this more varied would definitely be a good thing for the game.

Leo G.4501:

Ashen.2907:

My only concern with conditional immunity is that it might require a rebalance of all of the classes in order to ensure that everyone had equal access to every condition Or damage type (if such were added).

Not necessarily.

I don’t think the game needs a balance rework just because the new Hylek enemies we’re going to face in HoT will be immune to the effects of poison (very likely). If a new enemy somewhere or even an existing enemy becomes immune to, for example, bleed, why do you think the whole game needs a rework for that? If tomorrow, all Earth Elementals became immune to bleed, what rework would be needed to facilitate that?

The way I see it, if you add more nuances like that, you can in turn, make more alternative mechanics like the ones you see in the new area (where they are particularly vulnerable to something else). Of course, that isn’t to say you have to saturate the game with this stuff but making this more varied would definitely be a good thing for the game.

If the OP were suggesting a mob type I would agree. But what was suggested was much broader in scope and some classes/weapons have much less conditional versatility than others.

Leo G.4501:

Zergs.9715:

You cannot have such system in a game that doesn’t have damage types. GW2 has just damage and different modes of it’s delivery. Physical, bleeding, poison etc damage are fairly meaningless terms.

However, it would be nice to have different types of enemies where one are highly resistant do physical, but weak against torment. Resistant to ice but weak vs fire etc.
But for such thing to happen you need actual DAMAGE TYPES and RESISTANCES.

You do have damage types: direct damage and condition damage.

Within those damage types, you have sub-types:
Direct
-Base
-Critical
-Retaliation

Condition
-Bleed
-Poison
-Burning
-Confusion
-Torment

And the devs are adding more damage type mechanics such as traits that apply damage via a condition (whether that damage relies on power or condition damage will then place it within a type).

And before you say it, there is already foes that play with these different damage types/subtypes like some world bosses cannot be critically hit, Hylek cannot be poisoned, object-types cannot be condition damaged, etc. So to say there aren’t actual damage types isn’t quite true. And yes, I’m familiar with standard MMOs that have damage types (CoH had 9! smash, lethal, fire, cold, energy, negative, psionic, toxic and untyped). It’s really not much different if you look at things the right way.

You do not have different condition damage type because there’s no resistance to counter it. It’s just damage that ticks in different ways or gets procced in different ways. If I swapped around names on some condition you’d be completely oblivious. Poison and Fire tick almost in a same fashion. New fire stacks and bleeding stacks are almost identical method of delivery of generic damage. And no the color text and side effects doesn’t make them any different, it’s just an illusion of difference.

I could differentiate (for example) 4k fire damage from 4k bleeding damage if I had 30% fire resist and 0% bleeding resist. Bleeding would do more because there is a counter variable called resistance in case of fire.

I think it would be good for a game to introduce concept of resistances because it can produce more plays and counter plays than just condi cleanse and be done with it. This would also emphasize the importance of condi builds in situations where mobs are vulnerable to condies more than physical damage and potentially shift meta into more balanced waters where everyone has an important role to play. Also brings build variety.

I hope I made a bit clearer what I meant

Dante.1763:

In HOT a few conditions are going to be improved, Bleeding being the largest(Think confusion too?), with Posion and burning being looked into to stack intensity instead of duration. Thank goodness, as it means condition builds(which i run on various characters, warrior bleed build, Ranger bleed build, necro Condition build.) will be able to do better. But i do not think that every single thing should be immune to various types of damage or condition damage.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

I’m not opposed to adding things like this into the game, but I’d far prefer to see other changes first. If we do see such immunities, then I’d like to see a lot of foes become immune to physical damage, so that condition builds sometimes have a strong advantage over direct damage ones.

tl;dr condition immunities are an enjoyable aspect of some RPGs; that doesn’t mean that ANet needs to add them into GW2

FYI, I don’t think your views and the OP’s view are that far off. I think there’s definitely room for discussion here although I’d actually try to vary the effects from just aiming at conditions. Like Illconceived Was Na mentioned, more mobs that play with resistances/immunities to direct damage should be considered as well.

Ashen.2907:

If the OP were suggesting a mob type I would agree. But what was suggested was much broader in scope and some classes/weapons have much less conditional versatility than others.

Perhaps I misread the OP then. What I read was “possible examples”.

Leo G.4501:

FYI, I don’t think your views and the OP’s view are that far off. I think there’s definitely room for discussion here although I’d actually try to vary the effects from just aiming at conditions. Like Illconceived Was Na mentioned, more mobs that play with resistances/immunities to direct damage should be considered as well.

Yup i agree more mobs should be resistant or immune, but it should be varied up greatly and it should make sense! im hoping that they do add some more resistances because honestly GW1 was alot of fun with them, even though at times it sucked if you didnt have the proper items, at the same time though, it made it a bit more challenging. I just dont want condition builds to become even more useless than they are. If they made it make sense and not break conditions entirely i would love it

Leo G.4501:

Ashen.2907:

If the OP were suggesting a mob type I would agree. But what was suggested was much broader in scope and some classes/weapons have much less conditional versatility than others.

Perhaps I misread the OP then. What I read was “possible examples”.

With his use of plural for skills and enemy types, combined with his list, it seemed that he wanted a comprehensive application of the concept.

That said, I love the idea in concept. I do have concerns about the amount of dev resources that would be needed to implement it.

Zergs.9715:

You do not have different condition damage type because there’s no resistance to counter it. It’s just damage that ticks in different ways or gets procced in different ways.

Not true. I can bleed a Hylek but I cannot poison a Hylek. In that example, it works no different from a game that has fire damage against a fire elemental who will take greatly reduced damage or possibly leading to being healed by fire damage.

If I swapped around names on some condition you’d be completely oblivious. Poison and Fire tick almost in a same fashion. New fire stacks and bleeding stacks are almost identical method of delivery of generic damage. And no the color text and side effects doesn’t make them any different, it’s just an illusion of difference.

Again, this is no different than an MMO that has fire and cold damage. They act the exact same way except one will do less against a resistant foe.

I could differentiate (for example) 4k fire damage from 4k bleeding damage if I had 30% fire resist and 0% bleeding resist. Bleeding would do more because there is a counter variable called resistance in case of fire.

Perhaps I’m not understanding you then. The OP is suggesting more play with this mechanic. As is, the possibility is there, it’s just not as utilized as much as it could. Of course it won’t be like your standard MMO that uses basic resistance statistics, I don’t think anyone’s saying it should, but the game can definitely tell when and if you take damage, it’s source and how much of it you should take. For instance, if my Warrior’s Defiance Stance can turn any damage source into a heal, including conditions, then a fire-type elemental become burned but not take damage from the burn and while having that condition, take reduced direct damage (a type of mechanic would scream for a group to NOT use fire fields as it’ll possibly make this foe tougher to kill).

Leo G.4501:

Zergs.9715:

You do not have different condition damage type because there’s no resistance to counter it. It’s just damage that ticks in different ways or gets procced in different ways.

Not true. I can bleed a Hylek but I cannot poison a Hylek. In that example, it works no different from a game that has fire damage against a fire elemental who will take greatly reduced damage or possibly leading to being healed by fire damage.

If I swapped around names on some condition you’d be completely oblivious. Poison and Fire tick almost in a same fashion. New fire stacks and bleeding stacks are almost identical method of delivery of generic damage. And no the color text and side effects doesn’t make them any different, it’s just an illusion of difference.

Again, this is no different than an MMO that has fire and cold damage. They act the exact same way except one will do less against a resistant foe.

I could differentiate (for example) 4k fire damage from 4k bleeding damage if I had 30% fire resist and 0% bleeding resist. Bleeding would do more because there is a counter variable called resistance in case of fire.

Perhaps I’m not understanding you then. The OP is suggesting more play with this mechanic. As is, the possibility is there, it’s just not as utilized as much as it could. Of course it won’t be like your standard MMO that uses basic resistance statistics, I don’t think anyone’s saying it should, but the game can definitely tell when and if you take damage, it’s source and how much of it you should take. For instance, if my Warrior’s Defiance Stance can turn any damage source into a heal, including conditions, then a fire-type elemental become burned but not take damage from the burn and while having that condition, take reduced direct damage (a type of mechanic would scream for a group to NOT use fire fields as it’ll possibly make this foe tougher to kill).

I’d just like to point out that being resistant and being immune to something are worlds apart. First one offers soft counter that has ton of potential for expansion on the concept. The other one offer binary choice. You have condi on you > cleanse > You don’t. You apply condi > if immune > it’s not applied.

Damage that comes from power does have counter I was talking about, although a bit simplistic but there none the less. I’d love to see it being split into slashing / crushing / piercing with soft counters to each, but I know it’s a lot to ask for.

Edit: On topic of immune mobs. Wouldn’t it be great if you could bring down that immunity into realm of resistance? For example a mobs is immune to physical damage and can be only hurt by exposing it to physical damage. So by applying vuln to it you open up a window of opportunity to damage it for 25% of your damage if it has max vuln stacks.

I think most people have voiced the opinion I have: giving more condition immunities to enemies will hurt condi builds even more.

What about doing the opposite of what you suggest? What about certain foes being more vulnerable to particular conditions? This would bring more power to condi builds (which are somewhat lacking in PvE) AND add the flavour/realism you want.

I’d also like to see more enemies with the “tough bark”, where the best way to deal with them is through conditions rather than flat out power.

IMO, ice elementals (and maybe icebrood) should immune to chill, but that’s it.

Zergs.9715:

I’d just like to point out that being resistant and being immune to something are worlds apart.

And I think you’re not understanding that GW2 and the games out there that use standard damage types and resistances are worlds apart as well. So I feel that trying to pin the limitations and expectations of those systems here feels shortsighted.

That said, this is all sort of sidestepping the possible suggestions that could be made because we’re so fixated on arguing a stance and ignoring the possibilities. We see the resistance of the husk mobs but not the cool mechanics like using immobilize on the Teragriff and making them CC themselves. You don’t have to make a mob directly weak or strong to something.

Leo G.4501:

Zergs.9715:

I’d just like to point out that being resistant and being immune to something are worlds apart.

And I think you’re not understanding that GW2 and the games out there that use standard damage types and resistances are worlds apart as well. So I feel that trying to pin the limitations and expectations of those systems here feels shortsighted.

That said, this is all sort of sidestepping the possible suggestions that could be made because we’re so fixated on arguing a stance and ignoring the possibilities. We see the resistance of the husk mobs but not the cool mechanics like using immobilize on the Teragriff and making them CC themselves. You don’t have to make a mob directly weak or strong to something.

Excellent point. There is a great deal of possibility inherent to the idea of mob complexity regardless of the form that complexity takes. Anet seems intent on reducing complexity in character building in order to avoid alienating players who dont want to have to put some thought into their characters. Mob build complexity could be a way to avoid having the game becoming simplistic, lacking in engagement, without going against the new philosophy of removing complexity from characters.

I will never like complete immunity.

I much rather have altered mechanics and resistances. For example:

• Dredge, wurms, shadow and sand-themed creatures:
  • -90% blind duration, so you have a much smaller window to use it. Dredge still affected by blind right now (e.g.: grenadiers, some molten ones) will still keep full duration.
• Fire-themed creatures:
  • Burning heals them as much as it hurts them. Poison them to reduce healing so burning outdamages their regeneration.
  • If they get over 15 stacks of bleeding, they also periodically burn foes in melee range.
  • Chilled damages them always as if traited for damage.
• Ice-themed creatures:
  • Chill lasts longer on them and reduces their recharges and movement even more, but under chilled they get double power, condition damage, and healing power.
  • Burning does the opposite, reducing their damage and healing.
• Poison-themed creatures:
  • Poison does not affect their healing. They periodically spread poison to creatures around them (friend of foe) while poisoned
  • They also spread poisoned while bleeding.
• Lightning-themed creatures:
  • For each stun they get, they get a ‘charge’ that lasts several seconds. If enough charges accumulate at the same time, they release a lightning nova that deals damage, vulnerability and weakness.
• Chaos-themed creatures:
  • Confusion deals more damage to them, but they also deal more damage while confused.
• Tar-themed creatures:
  • Burning lasts longer on them, they deal burning when they attack or are attacked while burning.
  • When they bleed they also spread tar to creatures around them.
• Plant-themed creatures:
  • They get regeneration while they do not have any DPS condition on them (bleed, burning, poison, agony; fear and chilled if traited; etc).
• Rock-based creatures:
  • Vulnerability has half the effect on them, but can stack more.
  • Weakness lasts less on them.
• Demon-themed creatures
  • Torment heals them if they do not move. As with burning, poisoning them reduces the healing from this effect while keeping the damage.
• Flying creatures:
  • Torment does -25% damage to them, crippled lasts -50% longer on them.
  • Weakness lasts longer on them.

Leo G.4501:

Zergs.9715:

I’d just like to point out that being resistant and being immune to something are worlds apart.

And I think you’re not understanding that GW2 and the games out there that use standard damage types and resistances are worlds apart as well. So I feel that trying to pin the limitations and expectations of those systems here feels shortsighted.

That said, this is all sort of sidestepping the possible suggestions that could be made because we’re so fixated on arguing a stance and ignoring the possibilities. We see the resistance of the husk mobs but not the cool mechanics like using immobilize on the Teragriff and making them CC themselves. You don’t have to make a mob directly weak or strong to something.

I’m with the game since release and I think I understand what GW2 is and what is trying to be. I also find shortsighted attempts to innovate just for the sake of innovation. It does not automatically mean better and we have plenty of examples of that being the case right in this game. There’s usually good reason why something is standard. It’s widely accepted and understood, it works pretty well and is flexible.

There’s beauty in simplicity, no doubt, but if you strip core mechanics to their bare minimum you’re left with no maneuvering space if it doesn’t work. That is why instead of new content we keep getting overhauls of old ones.

I guess we can all agree that there should be something done to make condi builds more interesting and appealing.

Lots of responses, only read the OP.

This would only work if you added immune/resistance to physical/regular damage and power. (They already have mobs immune to critical hits)

And added mobs weak or strongly affected by said conditions or only able to die to certain conditions.

I don’t see that happening, that’d turn this game into a very hardcore rpg, and we all know, no one wants that.