Guild Wars 2

The changing traits thing barely makes sense, anyways. I like it better in DAoC before players were allowed to reskill. The whole point of reskilling was to make all content more accessible to players that restricted play to one character. So, these games intentionally make skill/trait choices to differentiate finished characters of the same class or race, then smash that principle to remove barriers to players with a narrow character focus. What remains is something that is unprincipled, so it is confused essentially.

I want barriers to be removed for players, but some restrictions are part of the interest in the game. Look how less interesting these type of games became with this free-reign kind of thinking. Mobs are less likely to have damage type specific strengths/weaknesses. Mobs are less likely to move around. Mobs are less likely to use complex AI. Mobs are spaced and grouped equitable for every race and class combination. Players now run through a path of industrialized hack & slash while playing roles that use weapons to indicate their role, rather than very distinct effects.

Have you ever stood in a checkout line when the person before you reamed the cashier for something piddly or even irrational, then felt shocked to see such errant attitude rewarded with freebies and pathetic apologies by some hapless manager? Bad customers are treated as the preferred customers. Any questions?

The watchword for game devs these days is barriers. These changes that remove barriers for players with many characters has been due for a long time.

You know, I can’t comprehend what might have prevented these changes at the beginning. Were there actually devs that hated on players that bought more character slots. Was there some game management law about punishing players that actually replayed content? These questions can become argumentative, so it is best that people read them as sassy rhetoric.

The point is that there have been, and still are, some very big barriers for players that are alt junkies. Players like me. The barriers are like punishment, which is weird, because players with many alts are the ones most proving the value in the work done to make the game – all the work done. I have one of every race and class. I have played through every starting area; not for map completion, but actually as a starting character. There are many activities that I have not participated in as much as I would have liked directly due to the barriers in place to punish players with alts.

The point here is to thank the devs for correctly identifying barriers that were solely against players who did not main. I would like to see these changes continue. Maybe some day I will feel like there is fair enough reward in the experience to not feel somehow cheated at the end of a play session.

The possibilities must have something to do with Elder Scrolls Online and Everquest: Next both expected to release this year. Both of those titles escape precepts about how an mmorpg operates or how class restrictions define the characters. Guild Wars 2 has attempted to escape the “holy trinity” box. Removing restrictions is the creative momentum for this genre. Real competition in this focus area causes incentive for the competing titles to show their superiority. Guild Wars 2 will have the advantage of the free-to-play model. Players can always return to play and compare. Therefore, Guild Wars 2 has the highest incentive, of the three titles, to show its stuff.

MrRivers.9487,
Viewing your video was worth the time. I do not know how you managed to run into so many not specced for condition removal in the current meta, but winning a 4v1 is a feat, regardless. Your skill is tops. You played exactly how all of us should, given the paltry tools. You managed to stay around the edge of your damage range, avoiding damage by short range melee. You moved in and out of battle effortlessly. Your high health gave you a good margin to make use of healing, enough to counter the weakness of the offense a condition Ele faces. You also patiently reserved Cantrips until the optimum time. This video is evidence of the advantage player skill has in GW2. You are among the best, Sir. Bravo!

STRanger.5120:

… Devs are afraid to admit the mistake, even so obvious like this nerf was …

I am not an ANet dev. I cannot speak for them. We, however, are all taught to read what someone is saying by their actions. More so, what you do means more than what you say. When you read the forums often enough you learn the phrases that people use to interpret ANet’s actions toward the Ele. Become familiar with this one, “Eles are not allowed to have nice things.”

The original concept skills like RtL were based on was an Ele that used mobility to make up for low survival. It was intended for the Ele to live via ranged attacks, mobility, and superior healing. Two of those three have been severely nerfed to support the new concept of the Ele, spoken by this phrase, “The Ele must die.”

Take care of each other.

quaniesan.8497:

at least we can’t not be chased down anymore in wvw when roaming, of course when we are at peak health. Unless somehow they can land some hits on us, we are pretty much free of chill, cripples, immobilize.

Your double negative said opposite of what you meant to say. I fail to see how Diamond Skin is supposed to stop you from getting CCed. Are you telling me that classes do not have instant direct damage ranged skills that can hit for over 2k or crit for over 2K?

When you run as a the weakest link you’re doomed to die. Period.

Dual daggers around launch time was great with Rabid/Carrion/WvW gear. Part of the era known as The Great Ele Nerf got rid of conditions as a real options. Don’t worry, we’re versatile. You can find something else to do.

EDIT NOTE: I recorded several times through. I did forget to say in the posted recording that the gear stats shown do not factor trait points or the upgrades to the six worn armor. That gives us plenty of room to discuss Earth v Water options, and the upgrades that compliment them.

I had an important XNA assignment that kept me from replying. That will probably happen often, but this thread will live on.

Abraxax.7135,
I spent some quality alone time with your detailed posts. If only the world was full of people who would appreciate it. The downside would be the endless debates. I said it in the video and I will repeat it here, you have gems of knowledge in those threads. That is exactly what I want to bring together into this point-of-access thread.

Four minutes turns out to be the right amount of time to show something. Here is another video. It might appear a bit rushed, but use the pause button to your advantage.
http://screencast.com/t/q4dETlDM

Be good to each other. Oh, one correction in the video. I tried to vocalize an equation for the Combat Rating. It is (1 – ((L + eP) / (L * eP)) – 0.9) * 1000. I did not simplify it, so everyone could see the reasoning in the steps. The LEep score you see is L * eP / 1000.

^ positive thinker
Next stop 1300 rifles. Don’t stop believing.

Guhracie.3419:

Conncept.7638:

Guhracie.3419:

I’d say the fact that you can swap to four weapon sets as opposed to the general 2 weapon sets balances out things like confusion/chill affecting it.

That makes no sense, elementalist is the bottom tier class right now in every single game mode. We can use a staff in WvW, and give people conjures in dungeons, that’s pretty much all we have at this point that competes with any other class in usefullness. Having 20 abilities versus 10 does not add to our power in any way shape or form, it just adds to the complication of playing, which I and a lot of players like and consider fun, but which we would appreciate not punishing us for playing correctly, for example, trying to remove a condition causing the condition to kill us.

Azure Prower.8701:

Also why isn’t this in the elementalist forums?

Because it’s largely about the Dec 10th changes which were discussed here in GD and are currently stickied at the top of the page.

I don’t really like how elementalists play, so I’m not an expert on them. However, the ability to swap between 20 abilities doesn’t help you out at all? Really? You see no benefit to having twice as many available abilities as the rest of the professions?

Also, I’m in no way arguing that it’s fair or that it’s working, and I can’t change how the profession plays as I don’t have an Anet tag. I was merely offering a suggestion that makes sense to me. Especially given that I used to main an engineer, who can have up to four different weapon kits, at the cost of all their utility slots.

Since you are not an Ele player, then let me inform you. I would rather have all four elements on one weapon (favored element chosen as a trait or decided per weapon type to add the 5th slot ) and have the option to quickly move between weapons with the benefit of a “on swap” sigil only on one weapon to the get the benefit, rather than the delays that come with attunement and the kittening of Ele weapon skills that ultimately doubles the amount of time it takes to be equally effective. More to that point, our skills have been gutted of enhancements with conditions and traits synergy because of the concept of attunements adding strength through choice. In fact, attunements have weakened us because of time constraints and division of skill effects.

L2Ele

There is a steady stream of warrior players that come to the Ele forum to make a public announcement that the Ele is a strong class, to paraphrase: “if played skillfully.” Go home warrior. No one wants this sly trolling.

The two extremes for this topic gives the comparison of certainty versus uncertainty, surety versus the unknown, a constant value versus a random value.

A constant is easy to implement, x = 2. Randomness is not easy to implement. In fact, the fringe of computational theory is about implementing randomness.

We cannot tell how random the GW2 precursor drop system is without knowing their randomness algorithm. One longstanding test for human equivalent Artificial Intelligence is that the perceiver is sufficiently fooled by any means. We can apply that to RNG in GW2. Are we being sufficiently fooled, or do we notice the controlling factors that makes it artificial?

If you want a constant, then that is another thing. You want a sure thing.

serialkicker.5274:

You’re asking for more nerfs, really? What you gonna do then, farm for a month to be able to get 100g? Stop asking for nerfs for every single thing people find profit in it. Instead rather ask for buff where there are needed. Champ train might be the most efficient method to make gold for some, but it doesn’t mean it’s out of control. You could make way more gold of cof p1, before nerf.
If you want them to nerf everything, then just quit game now, no point in playing then…

Seriously. Someone is so focused on all the ways players can get less reward from playing. If it was nerfed, so that it took a month to get 100g, and the economy balanced around that, then the op would ask for a nerf because players can make 3g+ per day. This is another disguised post where someone really wants to exert control over others. It’s control through the system yo! Down with the system!

New 4m video disputing the theory of increasing effectiveness of more Armor:
http://screencast.com/t/ukCGiTClyxt

oZii.2864,
Your suggestion about a YouTube video series is a good one. Thank you for supporting my hobby time. To answer your question, even high health characters die to focused conditions dumping. The great thing about conditions is that they are often free, ranged, and hard to avoid. Health means the most versus condition damage, but every character should be specced to cleanse amply.

Sabull.5670,
I enjoy your participation in these mathy topics. Let us not forget that there is something this math supports – gameplay. Ultimately, I hope to get a good value comparison between Earth and Water.

Sabull.5670 reminded me of this link:
http://gw2buildcraft.com/calculator/

You will find a couple numbers similar to ones in my chart, Effective Health (EHP), and Damage Reduction. They are useful, but Tei.1704 is correct, in that, they are normalized by an arbitrary divisor. That website uses the base Armor for each class. My chart was normalized by the minimum stat, 916. I can show you both normalizations side-by-side in another short 2m video.

This video replies to Bhima.9518 and Tei.1704:
http://screencast.com/t/n51MRHLjA0e

There are so many threads that include lengthy dialogue about these value comparisons I thought it was time we dedicated a thread to this subject. There are two parts to this discussion, and both are viable – offensive ramifications and defensive ramification.

The obvious comparison, defensive ramifications, is what I will put forth with this short 4m video that is a spreadsheet view of the variable changes.

For those unable to use the link:
http://screencast.com/t/JKoBSs0ZbkF

Even if you posted your thoughts in another thread, post a link to your words there or restate them here. Also, keep it relevant. This is analysis about what is and what will be.

LordofRings.5371,
I have a limited space to use, so I must be selective of the terms. At this time I am not moved to add all that. If you offer a reasonable and compelling definition format, then I might be so moved. Thank you for contributing. Your addition will remain in this thread regardless of my decision.

Lukyromero.6780:

There’s not enough changes to ranger, I don’t want to play this anymore …
… okay I like the fact they got more health …
… does not do any damage at all …
… I’m just sick of everything anet has done to rangers since December …
… I [always die] vigorously …

I am baffled every time I read a Ranger player express this. Half of my play time has been on an Ele. When I want to feel overpowered I jump on the Ranger. I know you hate to hear that. It bothers me when people troll the Ele forum with those same words. Everyone knows the Ele has been trashed. I am serious about my words, though. There was a night when I solo defended Stonemist against 30. They were just scared and looking for quick kills. They came back with 40, and luckily two melee types showed up to fight underneath my Barrage a few times. Then they came back with 50. There was a funny side-to-side on the walls as they tried to escape my dps. I got so many stupid bags that night. I didn’t just fight on the walls, either. They did kill me once out of more than several times pushing them back, solo or with up to 3 others helping. Have you looked at the potential invincibility on the Ranger yet? There is a lot that could be nerfed on the Ranger. Be smart about what you complain about.

It is a totally different game we are playing.

Add to change log.
1. Corrected and expanded “damage reduction”
2. Corrected and added description for “effective hit points”
3. Added marginal information for “armor equivalency”

SaintSnow.6593:

ImProVocateur.5189:

Here’s your sign. Both untraited with Steady weapons.

Hey now, that ele has a zerk jewel and the engi is running soldiers. Harder to compare the two with pvp “over the top” stat boosting trinkets.

Are you saying that a Soldier amulet overpowers a Berserker amulet? Your statement does not make sense. The amulets are balanced.

The Ele needs crit to do enough damage with all their (nerfed) direct damage heavy skills. That is where the kill damage comes from. The Engi does not need crit because of their toolset, and their conditions do not need more Condition Damage or Condition Duration than what is given in the traits. Additionally, raising toughness and vitality “accentuates the positive”, since Engi survivability augmented through traits is tank-worthy.

You are looking at pictures of two builds that are supposed to counter each other. There is a problem with the current design. Anyone with experience playing both classes can look at the numbers and tell that it is broken.

Here’s your sign. Both untraited with Steady weapons.

Alphabetized the list of definitions. Added requested term.

Tyler Chapman.1832:

Leuca.5732:

Tyler Chapman.1832:

Not going to dive too far into answering this but the designers moved these traits to the master line because they consider them traits too strong to be adept. Surely you can imagine a bunch of ideas were on the table.

… wouldn’t a better solution have included identifying factors that make them so strong and then toning those down? For instance, how numerically strong would Cleansing Wave still be if it only affected the Elementalist? …

It’s the only tier 1 AOE cleanse in the game is the main reason, other factors are that its also an on demand cleanse, and it can be used every 10 seconds.

^^ directly from JP’s mouth just now

I am 40 years old. I have played mmorpg since UA. One common mistake I have seen is a misapplication of concept. If a dev reads this, then do not take that as a slam. I totally respect what devs do, and I do not want to make you think you are not appreciated. Heck, I am learning to do the same thing right now. What is important to recognize about balancing AoE buff spells is that the power is a team strength, not an individual strength. The buff spec shaman in DAoC is a great example of what happens when a class gets nerfed for giving strength to a group. AoE buff skills should only count toward meta changes and team synergies balancing.

I always gravitate toward the hated classes. I like the challenge and I want to understand the problem. That doesn’t mean I don’t feel the pain, though. I have always thought of it as a hard lesson, though, for when I get to be a game programmer. I hope not to make the same mistakes. I hope you guys can figure this out, and figure out a way to not punish an Ele player for making warriors stronger.

No need to respond. Just saying.

This post is to consolidate definitions of terms that are important for builds, but are not easily understood. It will be updated. Please post concisely and precisely if you want to contribute to this thread.

Terms:
P = Power points
C% = Critical Chance expressed as a percent
T = Toughness points
D = Defense points
A = Armor points
H = Health points, sometimes called Hit Points, HP
k = (product of all offensive damage multipliers)

Term Specifiers:
t = total
a = average
e = effective

Terms: with details given
——
Damage inflicted = Z
Z = O/A
The amount of damage per hit is found by the ratio of Offense and Armor. Weapon strength varies. For predictability, the average Weapon strength “aW” should be used to calculate damage. The result “Z” has a variable range correlating to the variable Weapon strength, but people usually do not show that.
——
Damage mitigation = M or M%
This accounts for the sum of damage avoided, whether by Armor, Invulnerability, damage reduction, Reflection, etc.
——
Damage per second = dps or DPS
(sum of damage recorded) / (number of seconds damage occured)
This is either an average of the damage recorded over a number of seconds, or it is a hypothetical number that scales up damage that occurs during a time less than one second. This is often used for damage comparison. ~requested by ThiBash.5634
——
Damage over time = dot or DoT or DOT
This term became popular because of Dark Age of Camelot; later adopted into the D&D lexicon. This is a duration-limited affliction, the same as a condition in GW2, that damages at regular intervals, called ticks.
——
Damage reduction = R% or R
R% = (1 – (H+(healing)) / tZ) = (tR / tZ);
In the D&D world it is abbreviated as DR or DR%. This value refers to an amount of damaged deducted from each hit. R is an integer. R% is a percent. GW2 damage uses a variable R%, not a constant R%. You do not get the same damage reduction each hit unless the Offense numbers never change. For this reason, R% is calculated as an average percent reduction; therefore, the total amount of damage inflicted “tZ” must be recorded for either of the calculation methods

What is difficult to grasp for many people is that R% adds to eH reflectively. Examples with fractions is an easy way to explain what R%<refelective> means. If R% = 20%, which is a fraction of 1/5, then the bonus to effective health is 1/4. The denominator reduces by 1; R% = 1/3 becomes R%<reflective> = 1/2, R% = 1/8 becomes R%<reflective> = 1/7. For instance, if H = 20000, and R% = 25%, which is a fraction of 1/4, then it adds to survivability the equivalent of 1/3 of Health. eH = 20000 + (20000 / 3) = 26666.
——
Effective Health = eH
eH = (H+(healing)) * (1 + R%<reflective)
(a.k.a effective Hit Points) Essentially, the damage it takes to down a target. This value imagines an increased Health by an amount of Hit Points equal to the extra damage a target can take thanks to damage mitigation and healing.
——
Healing over time = hot or HoT or HOT
This term can be confusing because it is often used incorrectly. This is a duration-limited buff, the same as a healing boon (Regen) in GW2, that heals at regular intervals, called ticks. It is used incorrectly when players refer to their intermittent active healing as a HoT, usually in jest, implying an unabating healing ability.
——
Offense = O
O = k(WPS)
This is the offensive portion of the damage calculation.
——
Skill coefficient = S or SC
This is used in damage calculation to account for the bonus damage from a skill.
——
Weapon strength = W or WS
A weapon has a range of damage values. The maximum value is added to the Attack score in the character window. The average WS can be abbreviated as “aW” or “aWS”.
——

COMMON USES:
Average damage calculation:
Z = (product of all damage multipliers) * (aW * P * S) / A
Z = k(aWPS) / A
Z = aO / A

Effective hit points, versus average damage:
Assign (H + (healing)) = G,
eH = G + (G * R%<reflective>)
eH = G + (G / ((1 / R%) – 1))
eH = G + (G / ((1 / (1 – (G / tZ))) – 1))
NOTE: If you use this formula, then remember that total damage only counts the damage that brings a target to zero health, the downed state. Using damage in excess of zero remaining Health will be erroneous.

Armor Equivalency:
Using the above equation for finding eH, substitute tZ,
tZ = t(O / A) = tO / A
Then change the equation to isolate A. Notice that eH must be known to do this.

Many months ago I took a break from d/d because I was taking a lot of damage. I remember it as retaliation damage, but I do not remember whether it was, in fact, retaliation. I remember thinking that retaliation as a hard counter to d/d was too strong and too available. People who call d/d melee could be misleading hopeful players.

I have not noticed retaliation spam while using dagger skills in the last couple months. Does anyone have facts on this? Was it changed in a patch? Did they nerf and un-nerf?

I urge people to stick with reasonable suggestions. If you think your build should kill an Ele 100% of the time, then you are wrong. We are not playing rock, paper, scissors. Every class, specced properly and by some common situation, should be able to repeat a win versus any other class. Fix your thinking before trying to fix a balance decision.

We have been doing well building strength in togetherness from these forums and in our guild chat. As things change, for better or worse, let us not forget that a path was made for us. We need to keep that path open for those who follow. Whoever that Ele is out there, friend or foe, respect that they chose your path, the path less chosen. It is ultimately our reverence toward each other that carries the torch aloft, so that future generations will see and join.

It is disingenuous for gripes from other professions to appear here on our Ele thread. Even so, I have yet to read comments from Ele haters that are of sound reason. Like, what is the sense in saying that some random build in another profession must be a killer of Eles, while demanding that no d/d Ele should be competitive. A whole freakin’ weapon set. Every build for that weapon set gone. I mean they go so far as to want to strip us of anything but a staff. What is so crazy about these extremely selfish and game ruining comments is that the devs have catered to them in the past.

Let’s stop treating the Ele haters like their opinion matters. They obviously do not care about fairness or reason or the quality of life of any Ele player.

FrownyClown.8402:

Prism.5649:

The niche for Ele … 20 different abilities … good offensive capabilities to good defensive capabilities to good healing capabilities to good control abilities … not “excellent” … Many other players argue that Eles are quite strong … I personally am a member … Ele can be a perfectly competitive (perhaps not the best but definitely not the worst) class

This is well said. This is the most unbiased answer you will get in the ele forums. It takes many months to be good.

Is there a debate book on Eles people keep quoting from? It sounds the same from “many other players.” Who writes the original copy? Who is the orchestrator of these shenanigans?

Be what you say. Show your talk in PvP. I want to see every one of youz guyz that make these comments show up in the final battles in the e-sports competitions.

They need a validation process on these forums. Seriously, how about we get some in-game achievements show on a tooltip when hovering over a name – something that gives credentials for claims that people make.

Caffynated.5713:

… This trait is completely broken. It’s extremely worrying …
… This is coming from an ele with over 3k hours played almost all in WvW and sPvP …
… staying above 90% … not some impossible task that people make it out to be …
… never listen to anything they have to say. Ever. That includes Jon Peters.

I have not said this to anyone before, but any time you are ready I will be. Jump on your Ele and we can see whose boss, and who knows their stuff. Don’t drop below 90%, and definitely don’t die.

I marvel at the amount of work you put into this, and how well you communicate. I do my own data collection and analysis, and our numbers match. The effort you have put into supporting Elementalists with enough information to find some strength in our disadvantageous position in the meta is commendable. You have two threads stickied as a result. Thank you for your support.

What we do differ on is what EHP should represent. I believe that it should represent hit points, since it is effective hit points. Your calculation creates a survivability score that is not hit points. It is useful for comparison between scores, but it does not translate into hit points. You cannot calculate EHP without considering damage because damage reduction is a percent of damage based on this simple equation Damage = Offense / Armor.

In answer to those who questions the worth of this type of analysis, it is useful to find an optimal range of values because the effectiveness of each stat is not linear. There are disproportional trade-offs when allocating points, so it is about getting the most bang for your buck.

Consolidated key posts by devs about DS for your convenience;

Roy Cronacher.1576:

vangedas.7358:

Diamond Skin
- this can be absurdly broken. Please, please, do not … passive immunity to conditions is very powerful, cheesy and and cannot be counter-played, but this new trait would literally kill specs like trap ranger, not to mention it would hurt necromancers …

There actually is counter play to this trait unlike some other similar mechanics. The goal of the elementalist with this trait is to stay above 90% hit points while the counter play is to do a bit of physical damage to the elementalist to drop them below this threshold in order to get the conditions rolling on them, which will in turn help keep them below that threshold.

In SPvP an elementalist can reach a maximum of around 20,000-21,000 hit points. This means that 2100 would be the most damage you would need to do to an elementalist to break through this trait and in most cases it would be a lower amount than that. That is not very much damage needed to do in order to start applying conditions. This still leaves room for the elementalist using healing traits/skills and kiting to try to stay above that threshold to increase their survivability vs conditions.

We have been doing internal testing and it feels like it in a good place for a tier 3 trait. That being said though and as a reminder, none of these changes are set in stone yet and are subject to change.

JonPeters.5630:

xiv.7136:

JonPeters.5630:

… bug fix for Lingering Elements is coming on Nov. 26th as well.

… Don’t be afraid of changing too much when a lot needs changing.

First of all, try Diamond Skin at 80% and see if anyone takes it. 90% is kind of pointless, esp for a grandmaster trait. I don’t even know if it’ll see much play at 80% …

Right now I am thinking 85% on diamond skin as high health eles could break this at 80% imo …

Seemingly off-topic, but, this had to be seen

Jacks.5367:

Jacks.5367:

… Windborne Dagger. Can this be buffed [so] that it work in and out-of combat?

… I think it would be a fine buff …

</em cheer> If you go Armor you might need this speed. Just a thought.
——

Armor will be just as much a waste as it always has been. I wrote a thread about Armor Efficiency. Bottom line, without counting healing, Armor is most efficient at 10% of your Health. That is the magic ratio here, 10 health : 1 Armor. We must account for damage that bypasses Armor when we account for healing.

(Optimal Armor) = (Health + healing – (damage that bypasses Armor)) / 10;

It is that simple. How optimistic are you that you will be healed? Gauge your points in Toughness according to your answer. Add 1 point of Armor for every 10 points of Health and for every 10 points of (healing – (damage that bypasses Armor)).

The current Diamond Skin is only helping an Ele in a good group because they will gain healing, protection, cleansing, etc. That is when a high health Ele could make DS appear to be overpowered. Like many other design choices it is meant to push team play. Consider DS used in those situations to understand the design concept of this trait. All circumstances of use must be addressed in any suggestion intended to be regarded as reasonable.

Yeah, my brain is having some hiccups, huh? Corrected it. The principle was about spending the same amount of points. Zelyhn.8069, thank you for your patience with me during a troubled time.

—Moved to the original post—

Done. The attached spreadsheet now accounts for the 1.04 multiplier with the wiki formula. This allowed me to be more picky about results. Now, only numbers that are not exact are shaded purple. My formula is still more accurate.

Lol, so I missed that fact, but there is something very interesting that happened as a result of my big mistake. It proves that bonus damage is not calculated the same. The spreadsheet I posted is correct. Effectively, the wiki formula ((P * WS * SC) / (Armor)) is increased by (0.04 * Tooltip). Therefore, the bonus damage from the Ogre is working off the mean score (2600), not the Armor of the opponent.

Eh. you’re probably right. I will continue checking the math. My intent for this post was not the damage part, but the Armor Efficiency part. I needed to get the damage calculation right, though. Thanks for helping.

I like the screenshots. The math needs to be verifiable, too. I have attached a small spreadsheet that is straight forward. Proof does not get more concise than this. Every number is in there. The equations have been repeated through this thread, so anyone can duplicate the math. One difference is that I divided the Skill Factor in my formula by four, so that it would be equal to the Skill Coefficient in the wiki formula. As well, anyone can get on their Ele in the Mists and verify every number.

Any predicted number more than 1 point off was shaded purple, meaning failure. Notice every number predicted by the wiki formula failed. The AV% was shaded red. The coefficient was shaded blue. If this is not proof, then nothing is.

Sabull.5670:

.. Your post does not make much sense … You should start off your post by telling your overall goal or argument of the post …

k*PROD(1+Attack_Mod) x (1+SUM(Defender_Mod) )x Power x Weapon / (Toughness + Defence)

… Are you saying this does not hold true?

If you say it’s correct, then what is this topic about?
… the burden of proof is on you here.

I thought it was common knowledge that the equation you showed is incorrect for calculating Actual Direct Damage (what is reported by the game in the combat window). Your equation, which is shown on the wiki, is for calculating Tooltip Damage only. I have broken the steps down to be thorough, and for proofing. All I have done is complete the wiki equation by adding in the Armor Vulnerability, so that the output you see in the combat window equals the formula result. In addition, I have proven that using the Target’s Armor as a value in calculating damage versus any other Armor value is incorrect.

First, I will address the value often referred to as the coefficient. The coefficient has become an estimate because the equation is not being used correctly. The only correct coefficient is the one that calculates Tooltip Damage. People that changed the coefficient so that it equals Actual Direct Damage made a math error.

Second, I will address the misuse of (Toughness + Defense) as a general rule. My formula shows that the Target’s Armor (tA) modifies the Tooltip Damage, and that there exists a base 4% (bAV%) increase to Tooltip Damage. The skill coefficient is correctly calculated based solely on the mean score (2600), and is compounded by the Armor Vulnerability%. Bottom line, you must calculate the Tootltip Damage before entering tA into the calculation. Also, you must account for the automatic 4% damage adjustment.

Third, I have provide proof in the second post attachment. Where is your proof?

I have provided a lot of information in the first two posts, and my hope is that people will start to use it to get a better understanding of balance, and how to gear for it.

Zelyhn.8069, I know you have worked on a damage calculator to help Ele players reach a peak damage output. Yes, you can simply multiply the Tooltip Damage by 1.04 to figure Direct Damage as reported by the game.

I deleted a bunch to get to the answer for your question, but recognize that damage is not a 1:1 comparison between classes of different Armor types. An Ele can not attain the Toughness that a warrior can because of the lower base Defense of the gear. If the heavy golem fought the light golem with the same skill and weapon, then the light golem will hit for (Tooltip * 1.041) and the heavy golem will hit for (Tooltip * 1.233). The heavy golem would need its Tooltip damage reduced by 15.6% to make their damage equal. That is without considering the Health difference.

Yes, but I can only prove that with testing up to the heavy golem, which is 3 points below the mean score of 2600.

The way I see it is if the +10% damage traits are the barriers, then get rid of the barriers. Every other class has 100% application of their traitline buffs. The Ele has loads of attunement only buffs. The ability of Lingering Elements gave the Ele a way to keep the buffs like every other class. It was intended to encourage attunement swapping. You can read that in the assisted beta notes.

There are other barrier issues that are preventing good fixes from happening. You have my blessing to get rid of them all.

The damage calculation has a constant record of vulnerability that the Vulnerability condition adds to. It is an armor value that increases damage based upon the Armor Points. The heavy armor golem has 2597 Armor, so it has close to the Base Armor Vulnerability% (bAV% = 4%). If you were to apply 10 stacks of Vulnerability to the heavy golem it would add 14% extra damage (4% + 10% = 14%).

I have updated the image attachment in the second post, so you should be able to follow the headings to see what is being calculated and compared for accuracy.

Zelyhn.8069:

Actual damage on a 2600 armor target is the same as that of the tooltip. (Before damage modifiers)

That might be true, if Armor Vulnerability% is removed at the 2600 threshold. All Armor values below 2600 take an additional 4% damage. If that Base Armor Vulnerability% is not removed at 2600 Armor, then you are wrong, and a target with 2600 Armor will also take an additional 4% damage. The real question is whether Armor Vulnerability% (AV%) continues above 2600 uniformly for every class, and whether there is an extra adjustment to the equation for Armor over 2600.

Where is a formula for actual direct damage shown? If you are referring to the wiki, then under what topic is it shown? The topic “damage” only shows an equation for calculating the tooltip value, and that equation uses a skill coefficient that is divided by the 1/4 scalar in my formula up to that point. Actual direct damage is not the same as the tooltip. I have introduced a formula that completes the calculation for actual direct damage, which must account for the Armor value of the target. The equation on the wiki that shows an equation that incorporates the target’s Armor value in the denominator is not correct. Additionally, we do not know how Armor values over 2600 affect actual direct damage.

—meaningless second post because I had written so dang much, haha—

Lian Olsam.9541:

Kanto.1659:

Dweia Tulenhenki.8127:

… [I] Feel like the elementalist survivability is the worst in the game. I know the ele is the most difficult to play, but …

… I went full berserk with a staff and annihilated my way through the game
… I started three elementalists and deleted them all. They felt slow, uber clumsy, the damage was not all that.
… Now I’m 95% in fire with a staff and most things don’t live long enough to touch me.

.. I play ele from d1 and in every dungeon my survivability is the worse of all party
… we need more survivability… if u run only cof 1 or world event doesent matter but in dungeons and fotm its really important

Actually, CoF1 is a perfect example. There was a time when no one wanted to bother with the Ele downing after the bridge or during the critical door opening part.

Staff was never a problem. No one seems to care about the Ele having a strong aoe once in a while wielding a staff, or the occasional cc while wielding a staff.

The reason d/d became an eyesore is because most players do not accept the concept of a magical assassin.

What you want is something the lets the Ele shine that is not being a buff slave.

blutstein.2468:

a wise man said:

you can’t cherry pick skills and compare them between professions in an effort to “balance.” With your logic there should be only one profession in the entire game.

Eh. You made a safe pitch, but consider the words of another wise person, who said, “Do not be duped by your own wiles,” which is often mistranslated as, “Be not wise in your own thoughts,” but is more commonly spoken as, “Don’t be a sucker for your own bs.”

Indeed, there is more than one conclusion to “cherry picking” player class abilities with an intent to balance. Let us not “think in a box,” but let us be wise in the alternatives. World of Warcraft Online half-way sucked because the interesting differences between player classes shrunk to cater to whiny kids who could not handle all the variables. DAoC was incredible because it maintained better player class diversity, but also suffered from kowtowing to players that wanted more predictable PvP results. All the interesting new things DAoC brought over the years was nerfed quickly due to control-freak players. The alternative outcomes to selectively comparing class abilities could lead to greater diversification or it could lead to mirroring. There is a wide range of outcomes. The result always rests on the design vision of the devs and the product strategy.

What follows this post is a bunch of back-and-forth where I had foolishly missed that Ogre Runes provide a 4% bonus to damage. I argued that there is a hidden +4% damage, while three people set me straight. Laughable. I deleted the original post, and replaced it with the post intended for this thread.
——————————
Below is the post as it should have been
——————————
The product of two numbers is always largest if the numbers are equal.
Spend 6 points between two variables
3×3=9
4×2=8
5×1=5

The number of hits it takes to kill a GW2 character in PvP is:
Given that the product of all damage is “Offense”,
N = targetHealth / (Offense / targetArmor), or
N = (targetArmor * targetHealth) / Offense

Notice that the numerator is a product of two numbers, so we know it is largest when both numbers are equal. Health and Armor will never be equal, but we can express this in equivalent terms. If A = B, then B = A, and A * B = A * A = B * B. If we assume that Armor Efficiency is 100%, meaning that points in Armor are worth the same Health as points in Vitality, then we will see maximum survivability. We can rewrite the equation as:
N = (targetArmor * (targetVitality * 10)) / (Offense), or
N = (targetArmor * (targetArmor * 10)) / (Offense), or
N = (10 * (targetArmor * targetArmor)) / (Offense), or
N = (10 * targetArmor^2) / (Offense)

To restate, the term (targetArmor^2) is only possible with 100% Armor Efficiency, otherwise the terms cannot combine. We could, instead, stay simple by changing the original kill equation, but assume total Offense equals total survival.
1 = (targetArmor * targetHealth) / (Offense), or
Offense = (targetArmor * targetHealth)

The above equation can be used to figure out how much extra survival will come from changes in Armor or Health. It is represented by the total Offense required to meet the total survival (Armor * Health). We need to work toward 100% Armor Efficiency. This is basic. We can find out how much Armor it takes to be equally as helpful toward survival as Vitality by making a conditional equation.
Armor = Vitality if (Armor_Equivalency * Armor) = (10 * Vitality)

There it is. We have a test for whether Armor Efficiency is 100%. Now we need to set that condition into an equation.
1 = ((10 * Vitality) / (Armor_Equivalency * Armor))

The goal here is to find out how efficient Armor is at any given value, so we need to combine equations.
First, we will rewrite the test.
Armor_Equivalency = ((10 * Vitality) / Armor), or
Armor_Equivalency = (Health / Armor)

If it has not occured to you yet, then recall that Armor = Vitality if Armor_Equivalency = 10. Armor Equivalency will be 10 when Armor is 10% of Health. This was figured out a year ago, but still not everyone knows that Armor as 10% of Health is 100% Efficiency. That means that zero healing is being accounted for. Anything that bypasses Armor cancels out an equal value of healing. Essentially, how much Armor you want above 10% of Health depends upon how much healing you are counting on. Every ten points of healing you expect to receive should be matched by one point of Armor in order to achieve maximum survivability.

There is nothing other than that to know about Armor Efficiency.

Cheers! Be good to one another. Special thanks to Sabull.5670 for the awesome ss and Nilgoow.1037 for figuring out my fault.

ThiBash.5634,
You and TheGameSlayer.7632 have been oozing negativity all week. What happened to you? I write an upbeat and nerdishly funny post in response to a mean poster just to read your reply calling me condescending to the meanie. If you were seeking attention, then here you go. I notice you.