Guild Wars 2

Why does 3 increase duration of burning despite physics not working like that and it kinda being weird on a CC skill?
Why is 4 a wall and not a cone like Smiter’s Boon,
Why doesnt 5 give the burn increase like it should being smoke which can transfer flames easily?

Also why is Incendiary Ammo 3 attacks pre 60 instead of 1/20 giving it more synergy and consistency but less “surprise long burn”?

Thanks for any explanations.

My theories:

3 increases burning because it sends out a blast of hot air, which would really burn. It reminds me of one of the Saw movies where the guy is trying to escort a girl through a maze where they’re both being blasted with hot air, and wow. That would hurt.

4 is a wall because it just mimics the focus 4 skill for elementalists in fire and as for why they’re both shaped that way, I have no clue honestly. I think Arenanet just likes rectangles and walls, because thieves, guardians, mesmers, engineers, elementalists, and necromancers can all share in the wonder and glory of ground-targetted rectangles. (Warriors and rangers were unfortunately not invited to the rectangle party)

5 doesn’t increase burning because smoke actually would choke the air and cause fires to die faster, it’s the heat that causes burning, and smoke itself isn’t hot at all. (Ever had someone who was smoking blow in your face before? Gross, but not hot.)

Incendiary Ammo is probably 3 attacks because of the “Ammo” part of the title. If it was 1 every 20 seconds, it would probably be called Incendiary Burst or something, idk. Also, giving it 3 charges gives you multiple chances to inflict the burning, in case your first 2 attacks missed or something.

These are just my theories though. Sort of like asking “How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie roll center of a Tootsie Pop?” The world may never know. :P

Kako.1930:

5 doesn’t increase burning because smoke actually would choke the air and cause fires to die faster, it’s the heat that causes burning, and smoke itself isn’t hot at all. (Ever had someone who was smoking blow in your face before? Gross, but not hot.)

Fair enough on the rest, but that smoke aint in a vacuum thus it would behave more like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPJLw7Xkmzk or… any post explosion fire spread ever.

I wouldn’t try applying real life physics to something in a video game.

Technically speaking, it’s a different world in a different universe, so physical laws can operate differently there than they do in our universe.

In terms of game play mechanics, there’s a few reasons for why the skills work as they do:

FT #3 increases burning duration because the #1 ability does more damage to burning foes. This allows you to extend the burning duration to receive extra damage. For instance, if you channel the full #1 on an enemy, it will burn them for 1 second. If you then immediately use #3, it will extend the burning duration by 2 seconds, meaning you can then again channel #1 and gain bonus damage for the full channel since the enemy will be burning for the length of the channel. If you simply chained two #1s together, the burning from the first would wear out at the beginning of the channel of the second, so you would not be maximizing your damage.

FT #4 sets a field on the ground, and there aren’t really conical field effects in the game. Thus a wall was probably chosen since it was already used in an elementalist skill. One can try to use it to kite enemies into, and the fire field presents combo opportunities with various combo finisher abilities (i.e. flamethrower #2).

FT #5 doesn’t apply burning because it would probably be considered too powerful to have an additional source of burning on top of everything else that is available. It is meant as a defensive ability that works to relieve melee pressure or prevent something like a downed person from landing their interrupt. Having it apply burning would turn it into an offensive ability, and it would either need to have the defensive portion removed or the burning duration to be minimal as to not make it too strong (although IMO flamethrower #5 is a bit weak for what it offers).

I think you missed the point, 3 would extinguish the flame, 5 would increase its duration (thus taking suspension of disbelief, 3 just knockback, 5 increases the duration by 2s).
Also as said there are options for cone shaped fields, wall just makes no sense past lazy coding.

Hello frands! Vee Wee here, #1 Engi NA and world first rank 80!

3 wouldn’t extinguish the flame! Maybe if it was a candle! But fire feeds on air! That’s why it makes sense for Air Blast to extend burning!

Wahoo! Bye frands!

I keep voting for FT 5 to dish out a short duration smoke field. Especially now that FT 2 has a Blast Finisher.

Shaogin.2679:

I keep voting for FT 5 to dish out a short duration smoke field. Especially now that FT 2 has a Blast Finisher.

I just want backdraft back.