Guild Wars 2

1. Every celestial build that you hear people complain about relies on burning for a lot of its damage. Burning as the highest base damage for all conditions, but has a trade-off of only stacking in duration. Easy fix, lower the base damage of burning and allow it to scale better with more condition damage. Currently, burning with 0 condition damage hits for 328 a tick. With a celestial amulet and no additional condition damage burning hits for 438 a tick. With a rabid amulet and no additional condition damage burning hits for 561 a tick.

Using Incendiary Powder as an example with 30% condition duration

Difference between 438 Condition Damage and 0 Condition Damage= 2,189-1,640=
549
Difference between 932 Condition Damage and 438 Condition Damage= 2,805-2,189= 616

2. Allow turrets to take condition damage like every other thing in this game besides doors.

tldr; Lower the base damage of burning and increase how it scales and allow turrets to take condition damage.

To address pt. 2, not sure if you missed the whole “turrets will now take condition damage” announcement they made, or if you’re just expressing your support.

Either way I thought I might point out that Grouch has proposed this as a potential balancing to turrets along with some other nerfs in case you haven’t seen it.

I know this isn’t the popular opinion, but in general, I feel like the game would have been better off if they never had condition damage at all, and instead, condition duration gear and just have conditions be purely utility. It’s not possible to change now, but I think the game would have done better without condition damage and the weird need to juggle condition clears as a form of defense, and if they were strictly utility there wouldn’t be such a need for the removal and cleanses would be similar to boon rips.

I think that’s the best way to put it, conditions should have been like negative Boons, and not a damage source, and some damage ones (like confusion) could just slightly scale with power. Regardless, just seems like it causes more issues than it solves. But alas, I shall end my tangent.

OT: Burning change would probably do some good, yes.

Anyone thinking the OP mains a might stacking build? How about we reduce the might stacking capacity to even out the professions? Then we can work on other things from there.

DeWolfe.2174:

Anyone thinking the OP mains a might stacking build? How about we reduce the might stacking capacity to even out the professions? Then we can work on other things from there.

I also agree that certain classes need less might stacking (cough-blast finishers-cough).

Yeah Ron. I kind of agree, though pure utility might not be the perfect solution. In GW1, all conditions had a specific amount of damage tied to them (meaning the sources could stack them w/o so much server strain) and applying them was much more active and complex and maintain them often more so (with cooldown rotations). This allowed for condis to be able to have a kind of ‘burst’ style of play, so condis didn’t get left in the dust. I’m actually responsible for a GW1 Elite skill getting nerfed in PvP b/c of my ridonculous Ne/M condi burst. #RiPFeveredDreams I believe they had the idea of it being supplemental damage in GW2 (as I think you’re implying) or as a tool for solo content (ie. the defensive stats that come with it and/or there is absolutely no need to have a guy playing an attrition ‘role’ in group content when you have self heals and personal/team active defenses). I just don’t think they anticipated people completely ignoring their ‘no roles’ philosophy and being so brainwashed into playing them that they would insist in doing so to their own (party’s) detriment often. Everything about what they said for the game has ALWAYS been that they want to have VERY intense and decisive fights. Even the flow of fights between mobs vs cooldowns reflect this (as well as devs flat out saying it pike in one of the Stronghold interviews). Condi builds simply don’t achieve that goal except for in a very small party setting. Now with HoT they’re trying to shoehorn condi in as something I don’t think they were ever meant to be. How many condi actually do damage vs. how many there are? This all points to supplemental damage with more emphasis on ‘debuffing’ for survival. “LFG need condi [X Profession] to start dungeon” was never on their radar.

Turrets are indeed going to take condi damage… i’m going to assume you just got on the forums and didn’t read Grouch’s post.

Anet doesnt want Burn to act like Bleeds. So no, what you proposed wont happen. Please read:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/guardian/Burning-changes-on-the-horizon
The above link already talks about Burn condition ideas. You’re more than welcome to give your 2cents in the matter.

ronpierce.2760:

I know this isn’t the popular opinion, but in general, I feel like the game would have been better off if they never had condition damage at all, and instead, condition duration gear and just have conditions be purely utility. It’s not possible to change now, but I think the game would have done better without condition damage and the weird need to juggle condition clears as a form of defense, and if they were strictly utility there wouldn’t be such a need for the removal and cleanses would be similar to boon rips.

I think that’s the best way to put it, conditions should have been like negative Boons, and not a damage source, and some damage ones (like confusion) could just slightly scale with power. Regardless, just seems like it causes more issues than it solves. But alas, I shall end my tangent.

OT: Burning change would probably do some good, yes.

You complain about turrets being useless and an unusable set of skills after the nerf but you would be willing to kill many builds by removing conditions? That makes lots sense, really.

DeWolfe.2174:

Anyone thinking the OP mains a might stacking build? How about we reduce the might stacking capacity to even out the professions? Then we can work on other things from there.

My burning suggestion is to make burning do good damage when you actually go into condition damage instead of just having a good base damage.

Saiyan.1704:

Turrets are indeed going to take condi damage… i’m going to assume you just got on the forums and didn’t read Grouch’s post.

Anet doesnt want Burn to act like Bleeds. So no, what you proposed wont happen. Please read:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/guardian/Burning-changes-on-the-horizon
The above link already talks about Burn condition ideas. You’re more than welcome to give your 2cents in the matter.

Ah thanks, I didn’t see the most recent dev post about the turret changes. I had this and my Stronghold suggestions in a different tab that I forgot to post last week. It is a step in the right direction, but hopefully they don’t nerf it completely into the ground as reducing build diversity is not good for the game. Also, I don’t think a quote by someone about the betas that were almost 3 years ago is valid point.

edits: typo

tone down ur post n leave it to the pros

Laraley.7695:

ronpierce.2760:

I know this isn’t the popular opinion, but in general, I feel like the game would have been better off if they never had condition damage at all, and instead, condition duration gear and just have conditions be purely utility. It’s not possible to change now, but I think the game would have done better without condition damage and the weird need to juggle condition clears as a form of defense, and if they were strictly utility there wouldn’t be such a need for the removal and cleanses would be similar to boon rips.

I think that’s the best way to put it, conditions should have been like negative Boons, and not a damage source, and some damage ones (like confusion) could just slightly scale with power. Regardless, just seems like it causes more issues than it solves. But alas, I shall end my tangent.

OT: Burning change would probably do some good, yes.

You complain about turrets being useless and an unusable set of skills after the nerf but you would be willing to kill many builds by removing conditions? That makes lots sense, really.

It wouldn’t be removing them, it would be streamlining how damage is dealt and conditions would be a form of offensive support. Not something you can try to consider in the current state of the game, it would require a complete rework of how a lot of skills work. Hence why I said its too late to consider.

how to counter high celestial DPS?

Well, how about running boon-removal? Since almost every celestial build relies heavily on mightstacking. That’s also why your change wouldn’t work for most celestial-amu wearing builds; they get up to high amounts of condition-dmg and power.

On the other hand, your change would hurt tankier builds that run tanky amulets (and they aren’t as good atm anyways) and potential builds we almost never see, but that maybe could see some play now and then, like Arcane/Elemental surge Ele with Valk-Amu (used to be THE Ele-build…. a long time ago).

And if a build with cele-amu does enough DPS even without high mightstacks, it should probably be addressed by directly looking at certain DPS-numbers or condition-durations on the skills/traits.

Run a Terror-Necro, Shatter-Mesmer or S/D-Thief once in a while and see how the DPS drops if they use their boonremoval well.

The burning damage scaling change seems appropriate I will still support that the real counter (boon hate) need to be buffed/improvement to match it. I’m not crying OP but it’s bad when a meta’s counter is that weak.