Ferocity or Condition Damage?
Ferocity.
/15char
Easily, option 1.
Flixx Gatebuster, Orwynn Lightgrave, Seras Snapdragon
[TTBH] [HATE], Yak’s Bend(NA)
[TTBH] [HATE], Yak’s Bend(NA)
So it’s that much of a no-brainer?
So it’s that much of a no-brainer?
Condition Damage for Guardian is just a leftover April’s Fool joke from ArenaNet.
Condition damage isn’t so much of a joke
However, that build heavily favors physical damage over conditional.
Fishsticks
So it’s that much of a no-brainer?
For people that want to stick their head in the sand thinking they know everything … yes.
So it’s that much of a no-brainer?
For people that want to stick their head in the sand thinking they know everything … yes.
For people who rely on years of theorycrafting and testing that has seen the contribution of many people, rather than guesswork that’s based on “I think”, “I believe” or “I feel” instead of thorough, determinable and compared evidence, yes, it is absolutely a no-brainer.
To the OP, in short why condition damage is a bad choice for Guardians;
- PvE : Guardians only have reliable access to 1 condition (burning), which scales pretty badly with condition damage. Added to this is that it stacks in duration, this means that if there is another source of burning that deals more burning damage, your lower damage stack will be overwritten by the higher damage stack. In other words, you won’t deal any burning damage while the person with higher burning damage will. So going for condition damage means that you’re investing stats into something that requires more stats to be as efficient as other offensive stats and, worse of all, can easily be completely nullified.
- PvP: Condition builds for Guardian are very dependent on various traits. In order to make a half decent pvp build, you end up sacrificing a lot of survivability compared to other power builds which also deal more damage.
- WvW: WvW is basically a combination of the problems you see in PvP and PvE. First you need to sacrifice survivability. Secondly, your stacks will be surpressed even faster due to the zerg nature of WvW.
You don’t have to believe me, you can check the “burning” stickied thread in this Guardian section. Any half seriously burning player mentions though, that they’re gimmicky ’let’s fool around’ builds that perform no where near as effective as power builds. Most people that take burning for Guardians serious either lack, do not or not thoroughly compare versus other builds both first hand or on paper.
Do what you think is fun first and foremost, but please confide in well documented, tangible evidence rather than ill-documented and shallow theories made up by one or two individuals.
(edited by Rangersix.1754)
You can elude to theorycrafting all you want but I haven’t seen any thing done that answers the OP’s question. He’s clearly not using zerkers, so … all that nice theorycrafting to prove zerkers is the best damage in PVE really doesn’t mean squat here.
Now, while it appears you’re taking the kitten from me for a lack of rigor, do yourself a favour and stop giving people WRONG information like “Burning doesn’t scale well”. Burning ties with Fear as one of the BEST scaling conditions for damage as well as the highest BASE damage.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Condition_damage
Since the OP hasn’t had the question answered sufficiently, this is what I think:
It depends what he’s doing.
I don’t think he’s PVPing with that trait load. I can’t imagine he’s WvW either. If he is, the more pressing question is how can we discourage him from either of those options …. he won’t live a second with a 6/6.
If he’s PVE, I would still say it depends. If he’s just killing trash, the small increase in direct damage is generally not better than an increased parallel damage track. In dungeons, I would take the higher direct damage option.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
You can elude to theorycrafting all you want but I haven’t seen any thing done that answers the OP’s question. He’s clearly not using zerkers, so … all that nice theorycrafting that people have done to prove zerkers is the best damage really doesn’t mean squat to him.
Now, while it appears you’re taking the kitten from me for a lack of rigor, do yourself a favour and stop giving people WRONG information like “Burning doesn’t scale well”. Burning ties with Torment as one of the BEST scaling conditions for damage. Head in the sand indeed.
Burning: scales 0.25 with condition damage. Only stacks in duration.
- Bleeding: scales 0.05 per stack, stacks in intensity up to 25. Scaling and overall damage outpaces burning after only 6 stacks.
- Confusion: scales 0.15 per stack in PvE and 0.075 in PvP, stacks in intensity up to 25. Scaling outpaces burning after 2 stacks in PvE and 4 in PvP. Overall damage outpaced without question in PvE after 3 stacks and 6 stacks in PvP.
- Torment: scales 0.0375 per stack, stacks in intensity up to 25. Ticks twice per second if the target moves. Scaling is outpaced after 7 stacks or 4 stacks if the target is moving. Overall damage is outpaced without question after 10 stacks or 5 if the target is moving.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bleeding
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Burning
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Confusion
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Poison
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Torment
Added to this is that any class that can apply any of these conditions can easily apply multiple stacks without much effort. So yes, burning scales terribly, especially compared to other offensive conditions. The only condition that burning outdoes when it comes to damage, is poison. Poison is a hybrid condition, who’s main purpose is to reduce all healing by 33% and stacks in duration.
Furthermore, only you are talking about “zerker gear”. Power-critchance-critdmg scales better with any Guardian ability apart from burning and the DOT effect of Binding Blades. In other words; the vast majority of any Guardian’s abilities. Needless to say is that these stats are also found in traits and consumables.
So could you care to provide any real, tangible evidence of your claims? Evidence supports our statements and discredits yours. If fully accept that I can be wrong about things, but there is no evidence of this. Care to enlighten us then?
Edit: I see in your edited post that you mention fear dealing condition damage. It only deals damage when you’ve traited “Terror” as a necromancer and scales with 0.4 condition damage if the target has another condition and 0.2667 if it is the only condition. Again, severely outpacing burning and not to mention that it has another effect on top of its damage.
(edited by Rangersix.1754)
That’s a nice story but the OP didn’t ask you what was the best condition damage or how they stack, how they compare …. or anything like that, so back to his question.
You presented theorycrafting as an answer to why he should pick ferocity over condition damage. To my knowledge, no theorycrafting has been done to show it’s better for the constraints he presented and that’s likely because no theorycrafter gives a rat’s behind about any build that would the have the values he presents. If there is some theorycrafting relevant to his situation, either I’ve missed it or …. it doesn’t exist.
You claim evidence … Do you actually have something that would show that with his build, condition damage is the worst for every situation? I like how you accuse me of lacking rigor … where is yours? The damage increase from ferocity only realizes itself over a long term mob where you accumulate hits over time for the average. Where bursting is concerned, you might not even land a crit, like on a trash mob … so that increase less meaningful. Condition damage may be better in that situation.
Like I said … depends on the situation. I don’t need theorycrafting to know my ferocity damage contribution is zero if I don’t land a crit on a mob that dies quickly from a Mace laying down a symbol and burning …. People need to think before just spouting off about what some dude with a spreadsheet told them.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
That’s a nice story but the OP didn’t ask you what was the best condition damage or how they stack, how they compare …. or anything like that, so back to his question.
No, but you did. You called it false information that “burning scales poorly”. I countered your claim with that.
You presented theorycrafting as an answer to why he should pick ferocity over condition damage. To my knowledge, no theorycrafting has been done to show it’s better for the constraints he presented and that’s likely because no theorycrafter gives a rat’s behind about any build that would the have the values he presents. If there is some theorycrafting relevant to his situation, either I’ve missed it or …. it doesn’t exist.
You claim evidence … Do you actually have something that would show that with his build, condition damage is the worst for every situation? I like how you accuse me of lacking rigor … where is yours? The damage increase from ferocity only realizes itself over a long term mob where you accumulate hits over time for the average. Where bursting is concerned, you might not even land a crit, like on a trash mob … so that increase is meaningless. Condition damage will win in that situation.
Like I said … depends on the situation. I don’t need theorycrafting to know my ferocity damage contribution is zero if I don’t land a crit on a mob that dies quickly from a Mace laying down a symbol and burning …. People need to think before just spouting off about what some dude with a spreadsheet told them.
No, there’s been plenty of theorycrafting actually. Guardians scale better with power-crit-critdmg than condition damage, it’s simply how they work. You can even do quickly yourself for a mace. If he’d just autoattack against a regular enemy he’d be doing more damage in the first option against most enemies you’ll encounter.
Since symbols like the hammer’s scale strongly with power (2.5 base for the hammer (or in his case with an additional 1.1 modifier due to Symbolic Power)), you can expect the overall gain to be much, much higher (and need to face a target almost as high as 3k armor before option 2 pays off). This is also considering that he has an exotic weapon and never has access to fury. If any or both of those apply, option 1 leads with an even larger gap. That is also assuming that his burning stack is never suppressed by a stronger stack and he never gets any stack of might. If either or both happen, condition damage is close to worthless.
The formula is easy; weapondamage * power * coefficient / armor. The coefficient of the mace’s #1 attack chain is 0.982 per second, or around 1.29 if you take symbols in account. You then add critical strike chance and critical strike damage, which can be somewhat easily calculated by (weapondamage * power * coefficient) + (((weapondamage * power * coefficient))(critdmg/100)) to get a rough overall image.
Up until 2200 armored targets, meaning almost all targets, option 1 pulls ahead if you just use your #1 chain. If you combine it with symbols, then you need around 2700 armor before option 2 pulls ahead. And this is only for single targets. It’s crucial to keep in mind that every attack can hit multiple enemies (Mace #1 = 3 targets, Mace symbol = 5 targets), while burning does not (or rather, with his build).
High armored targets are almost non existent, only take up a small portion of a fight and using option 2 just for them is ill-advised, considering the low condition damage a Guardian can do even in optimum conditions and that any benefit gained by doing this is simply removed by simply swapping target.
Arguing that “when you can’t crit you’d prefer to have condition damage” is also wrong, considering that the only situations where critical strikes have no effect is in certain large group fights. In these fights your condition damage made completely useless since only 1 person out of the entire group attacking that target will have his burning deal any damage, namely the person with the highest condition damage.
(edited by Rangersix.1754)
Let me guess, all of this is for pve?
Because if its not, then your whole theoretical analysis of ferocity vs condi damage falls apart quickly.
Amd Ryzen 1800x – Amd Fury X -64GB of ram
Windows 10
Windows 10
You’ve actually mostly confirmed Obtena’s claim that burning is one of the better scaling and higher base damage conditions. The only caveat is stack intensity, which is where total bleeding, confusion, or torment will pull ahead. Otherwise, burning scales better and starts higher than any other “normal” condition.
Dealing critical damage assumes your attacks are even connecting. Burning can still damage when you’re off target.
I’m not necessarily saying burning will be better in any case, I’m just presenting food for thought. Burning builds do have their place, just not take working the confines if op’s criteria.
Fishsticks
You’ve actually mostly confirmed Obtena’s claim that burning is one of the better scaling and higher base damage conditions. The only caveat is stack intensity, which is where total bleeding, confusion, or torment will pull ahead. Otherwise, burning scales better and starts higher than any other “normal” condition.
Dealing critical damage assumes your attacks are even connecting. Burning can still damage when you’re off target.
I’m not necessarily saying burning will be better in any case, I’m just presenting food for thought. Burning builds do have their place, just not take working the confines if op’s criteria.
What I highlighted in bold is important, its what most people do not consider. Assuming ranger is talking about pve, his calculations on exist in the scenario where the target does not move away from the guardian. Therefore, its like that the guardian will land all of its attacks on the target.
In pvp, this isn’t the case. Guardian attacks are highly telegraphed and easy to avoid. So this is where his calculations fall apart, because there is no guarantee he will land half of his attack chains.
A condi guardian does not have this problem, in comparison a guardian can land a few attacks and still deal damage on the target while the the target tries to get out of attack range of the guardian. In comparison, condi guardian has a new problem that a zerker guardian does not: condi removal.
But for the most part it doesn’t really matter due to how easy it is to reapply burning. Also, what ranger doesn’t factor in his calculations when he compares burning to the other damaging conditions is easy of application.
Burning doesn’t suffer the same consequences as stacking conditions when its removed. Bleed for example when removed will reset the stacks to zero, so the user has to build up momentum again. Burning can just be reapplied and will do the exact same damage.
So there is a lot of variables that need to be considered when comparing things. Most just look at it as guardian vs training dummy and base their conclusions off that.
Amd Ryzen 1800x – Amd Fury X -64GB of ram
Windows 10
Windows 10
Let me guess, all of this is for pve?
Because if its not, then your whole theoretical analysis of ferocity vs condi damage falls apart quickly.
That part, yes, but please read the whole thread to see my previous statements for PvP/WvW.
You’ve actually mostly confirmed Obtena’s claim that burning is one of the better scaling and higher base damage conditions. The only caveat is stack intensity, which is where total bleeding, confusion, or torment will pull ahead. Otherwise, burning scales better and starts higher than any other “normal” condition.
Yes and realistically you cannot not stack those other conditions on classes that have access to these conditions. Thus they scale in any situation a lot better, because they can and will stack. Saying that burning scales better than bleeding, because 1 bleed stack scales worse than 10 is basically choosing to ignore most of the actual mechanics that are in place in this game (abilities that apply multiple stacks in one hit, traits that apply conditions on crits, etc…) and how it would play out in reality.
Dealing critical damage assumes your attacks are even connecting. Burning can still damage when you’re off target.
In order to apply burning a Guardian also needs to perform a melee hit (purging flames aside, which also require your target to be close in melee range). A Guardian simply does not possess the means to apply long duration burning in one hit.
But for the most part it doesn’t really matter due to how easy it is to reapply burning. Also, what ranger doesn’t factor in his calculations when he compares burning to the other damaging conditions is easy of application.
Burning doesn’t suffer the same consequences as stacking conditions when its removed. Bleed for example when removed will reset the stacks to zero, so the user has to build up momentum again. Burning can just be reapplied and will do the exact same damage.
So there is a lot of variables that need to be considered when comparing things. Most just look at it as guardian vs training dummy and base their conclusions off that.
A Guardian has far less means to apply burning to a target than any other class that has access to conditions. Also, the required momentum for other conditions to surpass burning is, as said before, very low.
(edited by Rangersix.1754)
In order to apply burning a Guardian also needs to perform a melee hit (purging flames aside, which also require your target to be close in melee range). He does not possess the means to apply long duration burning in one hit or to stack it.
No you don’t. You just walk up to them and use zealots flame. you do not even need to hit them.
A Guardian has far less means to apply burning to a target than any other class that has access to conditions. Also, the required momentum for other conditions to surpass burning is, as before, very low.
More rubbish, if you want a easier time applying then trait supreme justice. No other class in game can consistently apply burning passively every three attacks. Then to go further you can trait spirit weapons to apply burning as well.
It seems you just went to the gw2 wiki and looked at what skills apply burning. But didn’t take into consideration other factors.
Amd Ryzen 1800x – Amd Fury X -64GB of ram
Windows 10
Windows 10
(edited by Aza.2105)
No you don’t. You just walk up to them and use zealots flame. you do not even need to hit them.
Zealot’s flame applies a 3 second burn at the start and end of the effect in what is basically melee range (it’s a tiny bit further, less than a step (180 range)). If you basically can’t stay in melee, you can’t affect them with Zealot’s flame either. You can choose to throw it, but it’s only 3 seconds base burn + increases the base CD (meaning less overall burn) if you do that.
More rubbish, if you want a easier time applying then trait supreme justice. No other class in game can consistently apply burning every three attacks. Then to go further you can trait spirit weapons to apply burning as well.
Yes, apply very short duration burning (1sec base, 2sec maximum +condition duration) for every three attacks. If you just consider that (and there is little else to take in consideration) you’ll still have downtime, most of the time, even without condition cleanses. It also requires you to keep attacking, countering much of your previous argumentation.
Any attempt to stack what’s even close to a “long” duration burn, will basically mean blowing all your burn abilities and leave you with no means of applying burning for a very long time. If it’s then also cleansed off, it’s even more disastrous than any other condition build.
It seems you just went to the gw2 wiki and looked at what skills apply burning. But didn’t take into consideration other factors.
Even if this was true, it would be a very poor argument to not use these “other factors” in your argumentation. Especially considering most thorough documentation, player compared experience and theorycrafting contradicts your claims. If it didn’t, wouldn’t you see condition Guards everywhere, rather than an (often ridiculed) tiny subset of Guardian players? So please, share your argumentation so we can adjust our opinions, results and theories if they lack this vital compontent that we’re all overlooking.
(edited by Rangersix.1754)
Zealot’s flame applies a 3 second burn at the start and end of the effect in what is basically melee range (it’s a tiny bit further, less than a step (180 range)). If you basically can’t stay in melee, you can’t affect them with Zealot’s flame either. You can choose to throw it, but it’s only 3 seconds base burn + increases the base CD (meaning less overall burn) if you do that.
What does this have to do with anything? I’m not even sure why you are theory crafting here. I simply pointed out zealots flame since you said guardian has to melee hit to apply burning with the exception of purging flames. And oh, I forgot to add burning on block. No other class has this. With shelter and other blocks you can apply burning at range easily. Without ever having to be near the target.
Yes, apply very short duration burning (1sec base, 2sec maximum +condition duration) for every three attacks. If you just consider that (and there is little else to take in consideration) you’ll still have downtime even without condition cleanses, most of the time. It also requires you to keep attacking, countering much of your previous argumentation.
Any attempt to stack a what’s even close to long duration burn, will basically mean blowing all your burn abilities and leave you with no means of applying burning for a very long time. If it’s then also cleansed off, it’s even more disastrous than any other condition build.
So what class is applying 10 secs of burning at a time? And what class is applying it much easier? Warrior? Engineer? Elementalist? I don’t feel anything I said is adverse to what I’ve said prior. Its you who aren’t seeing the entirety of what I’m trying to illustrate.
To simply put, those intervals where guardians aren’t in range of their target due to circumstances such as being crippled, immobilized or chilled, or if the target escaped guardian’s melee range. With condi guardian they can still do significant damage to the target during those intervals, where as a physical damage spec guardian generally can not.
Even is this was true, it would be a very poor argument to not use these “other factors” in your argumentation. Especially considering most thorough documentation, player compared experience and theorycrafting contradicts your claims. If it didn’t, wouldn’t you see condition Guards everywhere? So please, share your argumentation so we can adjust our opinions, results and theories if they lack this vital compontent that we’re all overlooking.
What argument? I’m not sure what you are talking about? Is me giving my perspective a argument?
To answer your question why we don’t see condi guardians every where, its because its a matter of competition. Even though guardian has extrodinary burning application and damage, they need to give up everything else to achieve it. That means no self and ally sustain that the class is known for, no boon sharing etc. I believe Anet referred to it as “holes in roles”. Meaning intentional negative features so that the class isn’t to powerful.
Amd Ryzen 1800x – Amd Fury X -64GB of ram
Windows 10
Windows 10
(edited by Aza.2105)
I’m done with the debate because there is clearly some misconceptions about burning in general. Instead, I’m presenting a example with made up numbers. The idea here isn’t to model something in GW2 accurately. My hope is to invoke some of those sleeping braincells in people that aren’t thinking about how their build affects their performance in different PVE situations.
Consider a character that does 10 damage per hit. Let’s keep it simple just to illustrate the concept; they don’t have any crits. They encounter a mob with 100 HP they have to kill. How many hits do they need to kill it? Easy … it’s 10 hits.
Let’s say I give that character a 10% increase in damage. Sounds great! How many hits does he need to kill the same mob? It’s still 10.
Moral: Increasing your damage isn’t always the answer. There are other ways to optimize your damage depending on what situation you are in.
(edited by Obtena.7952)