Guild Wars 2

I’m nowhere near good enough to care about that. I just know that I can’t make it work.

The sad thing is, despite this being my favorite looking character, I’ve learned that Ele just isn’t my gig, so I never play her anymore.

SPvP players’ capacity to develop well-honed tactical play is severely hindered by the inability to see our allies’ and opponents’ skill selections. We enter skirmishes blindly, we make tactical choices just in case our opponents have a certain skill equipped, and we trip into vulnerable positions when they use a skill we didn’t expect. Fumbling our way through combat does not create quality PvP. It creates messes. Messy battles with messy errors, and the hope that you can correct your mistakes on the fly, by making another messy choice. We spend too much time figuring out the situation, and too little time using that knowledge to make good choices.

Here’s an anecdote to clearly illuminate how it feels: As an avid League of Legends player who had never got into the original DotA, I wanted to jump on the wagon with DotA 2. By this point I had learned the map and mechanics of MoBA games well enough that nothing surprised me about the map layout, controls, skill functions, gearing, currency, and so forth and so on. However, I knew nothing at all about the champions and their skill sets. As a result, every battle turned into a process of trial and error where, in order to learn my opponent’s capabilities, I needed to let them use those abilities on me. Until that point I couldn’t tell you whether my opponent was ranged or melee, burst caster or tank. As the game progressed I adapted to each new skill used, but overall this limited my choices to those skills I had already encountered.

SPvP reproduces this tactical limitation with every single new match. You’re up against a Ranger. Will she unload a host of traps in front of you, or will she hit quickness and use her pet to absorb damage? You’re up against a Thief. Will he call in more thieves for backup, or stun you with basilisk venom? You’re up against a staff wielding Necromancer. Will he swap out to daggers and dive in for some melee burst, or grab a scepter for kiting and attrition?

Granted, with enough time spent in DotA 2 I can eventually internalize all the champions and skills. They’re static: once you learn about a champion, you basically know their skill set forever. Heck, I can read up on the champions beforehand as a way to cull that learning process. Then I could go in and play using informed, tactical decisions from the start. In GW2, unlike DotA, I will never reach this point. No matter how much I know about the classes, their skills, their utilities, and their traits, I will encounter a barrier to tactical decision making because the possible skill combinations get scrambled with every new opponent.

Players’ choice of skills should be visible to opponents and comrades as soon as the match begins. Weapons, utility skills, healing, and elite selection all are necessary information for us to develop a reliable, fundamental set of tactics prior to entering battle. This knowledge changes the way we approach shared space, the weapons we choose, and the timing with which we use our own skills. Arguably, it controls everything about how we combat our opponents. Our decision making and tactical play should not hinge on whether or not we already face-checked our opponents. It should hinge on whether we know how to prepare for their skill set, and whether we can adapt to their timing.

How do we solve this? (TLDR:) The leaderboard seems like a good place. Just a few icons would suffice. Class, Name, Weapon/Weapon, skills, score. That could cut out most of the mess and replace it with clean, tactical play.

But while scrubbing out backstab builds could work, it’s a crude and short-term solution. If backstab builds go away, players would merely shift the blame to another build: shatter combo mesmers, or HB warriors. That doesn’t help the game at all. Not only will there always be a build with burst issues (as there should be), but it’s good for players to learn how to act when put up against a burst build. Unfortunately, written guides and playable tutorial can only do so much to teach players how to act in these situations, and it’s difficult to learn when those builds aren’t concerned with giving you the time to learn.

So if it’s not effective to remove builds, and it’s difficult to learn counter measures when playing against them, then you need to change the situation and make it difficult for those builds to run rampant. Realistically, 8v8 Hot Join creates the largest problem, because it allows for zergs to succeed. Glass cannon builds do best when they can run around freely in the chaos. Where zergs succeed, burst builds thrive. I haven’t met a burst build that doesn’t have a simple counter 1v1, but like mentioned in a prior post, you can’t always counter glass cannons in the middle of a group fight, and it’s impossible to escape group fights in an 8v8 server.

Most new players I’ve spoken to feel that 8v8 Hot-Join is the place for newbies. Solo Join tPvP feels inaccessible because of premade teams. 5v5 hot-join just doesn’t have a sufficient population for them to enjoy consistent games. Realistically, both of these areas would be a much better place for new players. Not that a newbie would never meet a burst opponent there, but I guarantee burst would get a lot more thinly spread out. In the meantime, the game play is less chaotic, players have more time to focus on what’s going on in the map, cheeze builds can’t get the same foothold that they do in large scale battles, and putting points into defense is more effective since you’re much less likely to get steamrolled by a player zerg.

Don’t get rid of 8v8. Just reduce its priority. Remove 8v8 from the “Play Now” button. Pressure players to join 5v5 instead. Segregate premades and solo/small group tourneys. This will do a whole lot more for the game than killing burst builds altogether.

TL:DR 2: if devs want to retain new players, then new players need tutorials, and they need to play under more accommodating situations.

Many of you have polarized two ends of the same problem. But rather than try to combine both into a cogent whole you’ve all taken to squabbling over which part of the problem feels more important. So stop it. Lets look at how all of these pieces fit into the whole, and work forward from there.

Long post incoming. Preemptive tl;dr: The game is terribly hard to learn, and certain builds greatly contribute to this problem, but class balance is overall great, and builds are only part of the overall problem.

New players have a crap time learning the game, and certain builds are offensively problematic to this situation. Both of these statements are true. Think on the amount of information a new player must encounter to jump directly into sPvP: stats and stat balance, conditions, boons, the entire package of skills (both used by you, and used against you), trait and rune specialty mechanics, map layout and game goals, not to mention just getting the feel of movement and skill usage. I wrote and posted a guide for new players in sPvP and it took 15 pages to explain just a few of these basics, even while cutting corners.

You could call this learning curve absurd, but realistically it doesn’t stray all that far from similar games. WoW, Dota, LoL, and other rpg PvP games have similar encyclopedic learning curves. The major difference is that GW2 does not, in any way, ease the player into this situation. In traditional MMOs, like WoW, you’ll learn most mechanics in PvE before you jump full force into PvP. In MOBAs, like LoL, you have the option to fight bots until you’re ready for real PvP. And in both genres, the customization unlocks slowly over time, rather than crash onto the player all at once. GW2’s sPvP lacks either access gate, unless the player is willing to grind PvE in order to catch up (which, I’d argue, shouldn’t be necessary).

So players have two options: dive headfirst into sPvP, or read guides and then dive headfirst into sPvP. Neither way properly primes the player for actually playing PvP, and while the newbies are attempting to learn all of the requisite systems, certain builds do a lot of damage to the incentive for coming back. Glass cannon burst builds in particular create this effect. Dying to burst sucks, in any situation, and it can feel especially brutal for new players. If someone can’t involve themselves in battle, then you can’t learn to get better at it. And if the devs want to keep new players around, then they need to fix the issue of burst.

Granted, I dislike the idea of “class balance problems”, because I don’t believe we have a problem with class or build balance. Rather we have problems of balance given a certain situation. You walk into your first Hot-Join game with no idea how to play and go up against three backstab thieves, that’s a problem of situation, not a problem with thieves. You enter PvP with a low tough/vit build and go up against three backstab thieves, that’s a problem of situation, not thieves. You join a game and run out the gate, but three thieves are waiting just out the door, that’s a problem of situation. So here’s the conundrum: if you got rid of backstab thieves then you’d remove the situation problem altogether, so it sounds very appealing to erase backstab thieves.

Sylosi.6503:

The general failure of sPvP, for which the dismal hot join is party responsible for and the attrition rate of new players, says different.

That’s a big claim. Can you back it up with proof?

Sylosi.6503:

I expect a lot of people would, if there was a matchmaking system, strangely enough being rolled by pre-mades using voice comms is not considered fun for many people.

To which I absolutely, fully agree. Similarly, the developer’s presumption that paid tournaments would alleviate this situation is, at best, laughable.

Alright; responses, responses, in a topical format—

Rank;
In the current format, Rank works as a metric for the amount of play, rather than the quality of play. As such, it doesn’t have a lot of use for dictating match making. Far too many other variables come in to play. But lets presume it does, just for the sake of argument. I’d propose that balancing qualitative rank between teams, so that each team shows overall equal prowess, makes a much more important standard than individual matching. Players often feel much more flustered by whole matches going sour than by poor 1v1 performance. So long as you can keep a proper sense of power balance throughout the match, divided along each team, the individual player matchmaking can take a back seat.

GW2 vs FPS;
True, you cannot equate the two styles. Cogbyrn already made a very acute illumination of the details why, so I’ll skip that part. Sufficed to say, it doesn’t really matter. Regardless of your favored mode, FPS games have set the gold standard for Hot-Join enjoyment, and I find no reason why an MMO cannot replicate that success. Granted, GW2 definitely has not achieved that mark yet, in terms of game play and reasons to pick a particular server. But plenty of opportunities for solutions exist.

Zerging & Hot-Join;
Find a RPG PvP map which does not promote zerging in some fashion (rhetorical, please don’t start a tangent argument based on that sentence). Like Nevir points out, the problem of GW2’s zerging lies not in the outlay of the map or goals. But GW2 seduces this play style into its game with the FPS style hot-join servers. When you force the players to prioritize the map’s goal (ie, winning), they adopt better strategical behavior. When you allow to ignore map goals with no negative impact on the sensation of winFning, the game will inevitably turn Deathmatch oriented.

That said, I’ll claim that the Hot-Join system, and the resultant zergs, are A-OK. Two reasons: first, primarily, because the game includes free tournaments as a locale for players who wish to prioritize map goals over deathmatch (though I would absolutely argue in favor of qualitative match making, pug vs premade included, for free tourneys); second, because H-J servers do include chaos. Team scrambling is a far more effective equalizer than match making over the course of multiple games. And since H-J isn’t necessarily invested in the arc of each individual game, I say the system needs no change.

And at the base I stand by the fact that many elements exist that neither chaos nor matchmaking can adequately cover: player dedication and mood, build advantage, team composition, and quality of communication. These aspects, if at all possible to quantify, will require enormous UI and architecture changes to appropriately accommodate. And if anything, the best matchmaking only serves to illuminate the problems of equalizing those elements.

Free tPvP;
Hot-Join is not wrong, or a bad choice, or a poor construct. It doesn’t even constitute a difference in casual or hardcore or professional styles (which themselves do not necessarily describe whether players adhere to map goals or not). It’s just a fundamentally different approach to sPvP. If that approach doesn’t float your boat, as seems to be the case for many of you, that’s totally okay. But I get the feeling you’re all going in to hot-join expecting an experience that it does not want to provide, and therein lies the source of these complaints. You should go play free tourneys; I think you’d feel a lot happier about life in general that way.

@Nevir:
Your statement made a solid platform for my soapbox, that’s all. I apologize for taking your topic in a new direction.

NevirSayDie.6235:

True, and there just aren’t a lot of people who are SO extremely casual that they’re all right with hotjoin. I think “semi-casual” is going to become a buzzword in the industry within the next five years.

Since when has an absence of match-making been the realm of the super casual? Most old pvp games with multiple, hot-joinable servers (especially FPS games, whom GW2 used as a model for the server list) have had nothing at all to do with match making. You join the game, and you play your best. Some people were worse than you, some were better, and everybody dealt with that. The concept of casual and hardcore never played in to it, nor did the want for match making. And those games were never worse for their situation.

On the contrary, I’d say everyone acts totally backwards about hot join. The whole concept of necessary matchmaking in non-tournament pvp is a poor byproduct of esports. As if once you reveal to players that they form a qualitative tier hierarchy, those players feel compelled to abide by it, when there’s no actual need to do so.

Play a thief!

As with all addons, so long as it doesn’t give you an unfair advantage or deal multiple actions with a single button press, it’s all fine.

Oh certainly, there’s a whole host of reasons why people like greatswords: consistently great skill sets which often include mobility, a lack of competitive weapons, brilliant legendary design, high visibility compared to smaller weapons, and the awesome factor. I don’t blame anyone for choosing a great sword, per se. But it creates a suspicion that all players would default to them, if given the chance.

Better to nerf something out of sync than to buff all other aspects of the game. It’s balance.

Yep, nothing to worry about.

Well, in that case I have no idea. Perhaps you should check out the bug forums.

Diminishing returns occur when you repeat the same content in sequence. The same dynamic event set, or dungeon path, for instance. If you aren’t running the same thing multiple times, you have nothing to worry about.

Dungeons, I should note, also have a DR timer that affects all dungeon paths, But it will only really apply if you’re rocking speed runs in quick succession.

Have you combed over each individual tip on the list to make sure they all show as completed? If you have one missing, that’s the quickest way to find it.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

Technically, Staves, Foci, and Scepters are just as “done to death” as GS’s (all of them on 4 different professions). Swords and Spears are the most “done to death” weapons in the game with 5 and 6 respectively.

Ah, I meant “done to death” to indicate the amount which players use the weapon. Players have a natural inclination towards the Greatsword, it seems. Those classes with the option are commonly found using them. Staves, Foci, Scepters, and the like, while more commonly accessible, are less commonly seen. (Staves being a probable exception to that observation.)

The Pale Tree burns her children who wander astray?

My friends, you have a perverse vision of your mother tree.

Why not greatsword? Because the game needs at least one or two classes who don’t use the bleeding greatsword.

Hammerheart.1426:

Pfft, as if Rifle Elementalist wouldn’t be the coolest weapon selection.

The possibilities are awesome.

This guy, right here, he gets it. Rifles have far more potential than another, “my blade spits FIAR!” In fact, most weapons have more potential. I’d take a mace over a greatsword, or a shield, a pistol, torch, or long bow. Far more fun to be had with those than the done-to-death greatsword. But Rifle, above all.

Late to the thread, and I don’t have time to read all eight pages, but at the risk of repeating arguments already stated I want to throw this out:

Is it possible to have AoE damage output scale differently (within a single cast of a spell) depending on the number of targets being affected? IE: An AoE with only one target deals maximum damage, where an AoE with five targets caps out, dealing less damage per target.

It seems to me that AoE spells become difficult to balance because you cannot consistently predict the opportunity cost in terms of targets effected. The number of targets in combat at one time makes for the most wild and least predictable variables in combat. With static damage output, skills must get balanced by assuming either Maximum target capacity (the skill is only totally effective when used on the maximum number of targets) or Minimum target capacity (the skill is totally effective even if used on a single target), where each one generally invalidates the users’ skill set in some part, either by making the single-target or aoe attacks too weak to compete.

But if AoE dealt damage dynamically, based on the number of targets affected by each tick or impact, then you could balance each end of the system without loss or excess at the other end. This effectively doubles the use of all AoE skills since they would function as both single target and aoe utility— and insofar as I can see it would preserve single-target functionality as well.

Dolan.3071:

Full glass thief trolling around on WvW. You can put a whole raiding party on edge, it’s amazing that one player can just shatter a group like that.

I’ve yet to meet a spike thief who came in handy outside of WvW. PvE annihilates any who can’t dodge with perfect accuracy, and in sPvP a proper tank (which I normally gravitate towards) can generally shrug them off unless they pack backup.

Not that they’re useless. On the contrary, in the correct situation they’re incredible. But people tend to over exaggerate their utility otherwise.

Warriors are actually one of the more mobile professions around, given the appropriate weapons and skills. Considering your list of specifications, I’d say they’re right up your alley.

Amos.8760:

It just feels like whenever I listen or read dev feedback, none of it has anything to do with me. I honestly think that I’ve never heard or read the word ‘engineer’ from a dev’s mouth or keyboard aside from the profession description on the website, or patch notes.

Something to remember is that the engineer was the very last class to go through an overhaul, which occurred late in the public beta tests. If i had to guess, I’d say that the devs have focused on other classes because those areas have gathered sufficient information relative to the distance from the last big change, and the devs are now ready to act on it. Whereas the engineer probably needs more time, if not to percolate, just to wait its turn.

I know that doesn’t mean the devs have to stay silent, but hopefully you can see why that would make them cautious about confirming or denying information that isn’t ready for public affirmation. Its a pain to wait, but devs don’t get a lot of breaks when talking to the public- backlash almost always happens, even with good news. While you, personally, might feel happy hearing a dev say that everything is fine with engineers- just because you got to see them post- many other players would riot over the idea. Their safest option is to stay out entirely.

Deniara Devious.3948:

It is pretty obvious Anet lead designers haven’t played engineer much at all.

Comments like this keep the developers out of the forums more than they bring developers in. The tone of conversation goes both ways. If you (and the community you represent) want developers to make an appearance, then the community needs to behave themselves in a manner that will encourage developers to visit them.

Amos.8760:

It’s incredibly frustrating to not get any feedback on your profession from the developers.

Yeah, it’s kitten frustrating. But that’s how it goes. I wish I had something more useful to say, but this is the nature of game development and community inclusion: the scales aren’t always balanced.

If that gets too much on your nerves, perhaps it’s time to take a break from the forums for a month or two. Just let the issue slide, and give the situation some time to balance. I promise that as long as you lurk on the forums in hopes that maybe today, or maybe tomorrow, a dev post will happen, it will only make you more sour about the subject. Forums are really great for reintroducing the topics that bother you, which is a large part why so many game forums become malignant over time: players who frequent forums subject each other to the same complaints and shortcomings over, and over, and over. Sometimes it’s best to leave it alone.

Shadow Behemoth, on the servers with the problem, only spawns once after the server resets. That hasn’t changed. You can make the event if you log in and play right after a reset.

If you find a group that’s willing to let you join, and if you keep it to a low level, it’s entirely possible. Personally, I began fractals at level 32.

Tiny black flag on the bottom right of the message. Just like forum posts.

Awesome.6120:

Dying in pve is embarrassing. I’d rather spend the silver and save a bit of dignity tbh.

You just need to make it a worthwhile death. Dying to a wasp? Embarrassing. Dying to three hives worth of wasps? Epic.

Or: a map function that allows you to tag a dead player as a way of saying, “Stay right there and I’ll come raise you!”

gimmethegepgun.1284:

No, in fact, it does not.
It’s easy to test: go to heart of the mists, bring a condition and something that gives a good amount of vulnerability (Utility Goggles toolbelt or “On My Mark!” work well).
Got 90 per tick from poison and 46 from a bleed, which did not change with a stack of 10 vulnerability.

Well, in that case, I revoke my answer.

Vulnerability increases all damage, so yes.

Furthermore, condition damage changes depending on the target’s current status, not the applied stats. This means each tick incorporates the current increase from Vulnerability, rather than the amount of vulnerability present when you applied the dot.

Britches.9652:

6) When you use a healing skill you and nearby allies are healed a small amount.(cooldown: 10s)

Was curious if anyone knows if this works on Signet of Malice (passive) heals when you attack.

While I’m not certain, I’d suspect not. You don’t “use” a signet, it procs.

Infernoz.9520:

1-15 area? What do you mean?

You can use the Asura Gates (pink portal on your map) in major cities to link between Lion’s Arch and each other. If you’ve completed the current map and are still below level for the next zone, try playing another starting area since even the lowest level events and hearts and stuff will give near-standard experience.

That said, have you actually completed the current map? That means all hearts, all PoI’s, all skill points, and all vistas. You’ll get about 2/3 of a level for the full completion (you can check your progress on the map). This is your most effective way to level (in PvE) by far.

PvP specific advice:
Control category (stun, daze, knockdown, knockback, etc) spells are absolutely necessary. The more you can carry, the better. Likewise, this makes Stability and Stun breakers just as valuable.

Now, how effective is it to make a build whose entire purpose is to stun? Well, it depends on what role you’re aiming for. Say you have a roaming partner, and that partner is a glass cannon build (or some other high damage low survival build): your ability to control opponents helps your buddy shine. Say you’re a tank, and you’re trying to hold down a node against an attacker while a teammate arrives to reinforce: your ability to control opponents will greatly increase your survival time. Other than that, a stun-oriented build may be, at best, excessive or, at worst, little more than a nuisance.

Seems dandy to me. But here’s a word of advice: don’t buy Alienware. Not that they make a poor product. They make great products. And you’ll pay a generous premium to have it carry their name. You can buy similarly built computers, or even custom assemble your own, for a vastly reduced price.

1:
Left mouse button: Look, but don’t turn.
Right mouse button: Look, and turn if moving or using a skill.
Both buttons together: Move forward in the direction you’re looking.

2:
That works. Or you can press the strafe and forward (ie, A/D and W) while holding down the right mouse button for the same effect. Doesn’t matter which. Technically you don’t even need to hold forward, though pure strafing is slower than diagonal forward strafing. Hell, back in WoW I held strafe, back, and both mouse buttons: the mouse controlled the camera, and holding back and mouse-forward at the same time negated each other, but I could lift up one finger or the other to move forward and backwards. It worked for me back then, so why not?

Just don’t turn with your keyboard. That’s all.

Stats are pretty much your priority. You can buy a new set of blues for just a handful of silver every 5-10 levels. Make sure to get a fair bit of vit or toughness in the mix, or you’ll drop pretty quick during dungeon encounters. Most importantly, keep all of your gear within, at worst, 10 levels.

Second priority is adaptability. While it’s true that certain builds overall work better in dungeons, few to none are unacceptable. More important than your build is your willingness to change traits or skills when necessary. If you’re packing a lot of condition removal in a dungeon that’s light on conditions, but high on control effects, you need to swap your skill set to include stability and stun breaks. If you’re fighting a boss that demolishes melee while ranged players get away without trouble, make sure you have a ranged weapon, at least as a backup alternative in your pack. People who adamantly stick to their build regardless of the situation are a much larger burden on the group than those who come in with non-dungeon builds, but are willing to adapt as needs change.

With those two things in mind, you should be fine.

I would have to guess Gold on a per-chest basis. No info to back that up, it just seems to make the most sense.

Cyrith.5249:

I can see myself playing something ranged. Mostly because it looks fun, but also because I get the idea that playing ranged will give me space and breathing room to blast enemies away. I find the idea of glass canon fun, it seems fun – the question is: Is it possible to survive, or is the class just not designed to survive, at all? I don’t mind beeing squishy, but I’d like a chance to survive. Aswell as I don’t mind playing support or direct damage, even though I like direct damage dealing the most, I think.

Necro, elemantalist and theif sounds quite interesting.

No class is designed to not have survivability. You just have to consider the type of survival tactics available. Where Thieves rely on erratic movement, evasion, and misdirection for survival, Necro relies on Death Shroud, Life Steal, and AoE walling. Both can survive well as a glass cannon, but since their manner of survival changes, so does your potential to best utilize the system. Some players innately know how to act really tricky with thieves, other players don’t.

Judging by your wants, I think you’d enjoy either Ele or Thief. Necro isn’t a bad idea, it’s going to feel fairly simple at face value, but really mastering the class will unveil a lot of complication.

Pandemoniac.4739:

There isn’t currently a way to disable it that I know of – it’s definitely annoying though, so maybe this needs to go into the suggestions forum?

There must be a way, because I have the exact opposite problem: I can’t ctrl+click to link items. It just doesn’t link anything. But I wish I could.

Things to consider:

1. The thief in that video uses a build centered majorly, if not entirely, around damage output stats. She has absolutely no defenses. If/when caught off guard, without cover, away from teammates, or even if caught by another ambush build, she’s screwed. As evidence, she twice almost dies to damage from already downed players.

2. The targets shown in the video were cherry picked for “omgfastkills!” as they themselves packed very little in the way of defenses. For a burst oriented ambush character, these players are like candy.

The video showcases a very, very particular build, and should not be considered representative of thieves on a whole.

To properly give you advice, we need some more specific info from you about your play style preferences. Do you like your combat complicated or simple? Do you like to glass cannon, or survive? Do you like to (primarily) support the group, or take out opponents? Ranged or Melee? Pets or No? Etc. Without this information you’re going to get back, at best, a lot of, “My favorite class is:” responses.

Something to keep in mind: there is no “right” class to play. Nor is there a “wrong” class to play. I’m not even sure there’s a proper fotm right now, just a few builds that garner more attention than others. So, really, this is all about what you would have the most fun playing.

Hah, whoops, LHound got it correct. Thanks, guy.

Nope. But realistically there’s no need, as you can get far more skill points than you need to spend on skills.

Well, I don’t know if I’d say it enhances my personal game experience. But economies are pretty fun to look in to in an academic or market-ownership sense. If you’re into that sort of thing, you can study how environmental impacts adjust market values, you can play a market shark and make money just by keeping an eye on trading post ebb and flow (a veritable mini-game in its own right). Stuff like that. Marketplaces are one of the most fascinating social institutions in our lives, and it’s no surprise that people get interested in the video game market places.

Also, gold = winning, so more gold = more winning.

Quickness, like Stealth, is categorized as one of the Other Effects. Since they are not boons, they are not affected by boon duration, nor can they be applied by skills which grant random boons.

Shpongle.6025:

all you gear and weapons should be power, toughness and vitality and nothing else

Aside from this being entirely untrue, it does have a point. Warriors need a good foundation of either vit, toughness, or both to survive well. Like Wolfheart mentioned, going for a power/precision glass cannon will inevitably lead to quick deaths. Perfect evasion will help a great deal, but it won’t change the fact that you’re squishy to begin with. Try weighting your stats more towards defense, and worry less about damage numbers. After all, a living player, no matter how little they gear for damage, does a lot more damage than a dead one.

Without having tried it myself: I’ve heard it suggested that you turn off post processing. It won’t reduce the quantity of particles on your screen, but it should diminish the amount of light they produce, which goes a long way for adding clarity.

Do you have strong feelings about play style or aesthetic? It would help us help you to hear them. But if not, you could always roll a die for the answer.

martyrius.8957:

damage for all but poison, do durating because poison affects healing abilities

Which is only helpful if the opponent uses some form of healing. Many mobs don’t heal at all, and the primary healing spells that players use are almost always on a longer cool down than poison application. So, while poisons effect is maximized against healing, +duration doesn’t necessarily promote this capacity.

In any case, this thread has left out a few essential bits of information which Darkace might need:

Condition damage (except for Confusion) is calculated by Damage per second * Truncated duration. Each condition applies a specific formula to determine its damage per second (the Wiki has more info.). Durations are not standardized, ie., it is not true to say that burn applications are always longer than bleeds, or vice versa. The initial duration depends only on the skill.

So all skills do a standardized amount of damage multiplied by duration. This means +damage can increase your overall damage, and +duration can increase your overall damage. Which is better? Depends on the situation. Imagine dps inside a vacuum: we’re hitting a test dummy. A 5 second burn at level 80 with 500 +condition damage deals 2265 damage. 5 seconds at 750, a 50% increase in condition damage, deals 2577. 6 seconds at 500, a 20% increase in duration, deals 2718.

Obviously a break point occurs where +duration will increase your overall damage more than +damage. But this is on a test dummy. In actuality you’ll have to deal with: condition removal, stack ceilings, multi-source application, and the target having died before the duration finishes out. All of which negatively impact +duration more so than +damage. This makes it very difficult to pinpoint exactly where +duration surpasses +damage purely by the numbers.

Sufficed to say, you’ll always get a reliable benefit from +damage. You’ll get a less reliable, though potentially more productive, benefit from +duration. If you feel you have the leeway to allocate some points into +duration, it won’t hurt to do so. But +duration is your bread-and-butter.