Guild Wars 2

Aaaand we’re back up folks.

Body blocking in PvP could be implemented, but body blocking tends to be a really calculation-heavy mechanic to add in the game. It also introduces griefing, IMO.

In any case, one issue that irks me is that skills can be cancelled at some point in time. Adding non-cancellable frames might be pretty useful, but it’ll take a lot of changing to skills that it’ll be likely a very, very large rebound.

The issue with dodging, I think, is that in PvE mobs don’t reliably place in counter dodge mechanics – immobilize prevents dodging, but mobs don’t place it in often. In PvP, immobilize is used primarily as a gap closer and not an invulnerability frame shutdown. Also, immobilize tends to be really short in duration, and condition cleans it quickly.

Also, skills have cast times before the effect is done, and aftercast frames. There may be some attacks that have no noticeable precast, but they are few in number and act as clutch skills, or others.

Nitpick on Era: the new ranger SB has all damage normalized between the attacks – ergo SB3 and SB5 have equal damage as the auto.

Defiance does prevent perma stun, but control classes aren’t really shafted at all in concept. I think the design concept of the control classes on bossfights was to make sure that either the boss gets moved around by force, or that the boss can’t even attack once. I don’t know if interrupts pass through defiant stacks, but if they don’t, I think that’s another oversight ANet probably has to fix, since there’s a difference between stun-locking and perma-interruption (where one is the constant uptime of control effects, providing passive bonuses to people with added effects on the application of stuns and the other the constant denial of an enemy to launch his attack).

Support classes, on the other hand, provide support either by pure healing, condition cleansing, and boon application, or stacking non-DoT effects on targets (cripple, chill, immobilize, poison, etc). The main issue people see is that they focus too much on the healing aspect, and not on the boon/cond cleanse aspect, as well as the application isn’t that really effective in most fights because of their simplistic design.

The other two types of combat classes become more favorable in quicker reaction fights and much more complex ones, as seen in the PvP scenario. If adaption was implemented in AI, then we could see classes that would find use again.

Linking thoughts from another thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/6-hours-with-out-GW2/first#post2559385

TL;DR: Lots of scripts that require exclusive access to enable safe changing of a lot of internal values inside our accounts make the game have to be shut down to be ready for the next patch.

Tamaki Revolution.3548:

daimasei.4091:

I don’t know what you understand for "maintenance " but in online games, that always take a while (they always said 6 hour but it may take less or way more than that).

6 hours is a bit strange for this game though. There hasn’t been a build update that’s lasted longer then just relogging since release :P

I think it’s a bit of this and that – major update to server-side rewards mechanisms (adding new loot tables to all champion bosses, which might be not just an update and replace change, but a full-sized change) as well as closing off a zone and relocating all characters who are logged onto said zone(closure of BotFW), and let’s not forget map updating of several zones, and either increase of number of people able to play on zones. Adding daily reward chests for dungeons might a bit minor (since the event table change did not require a full game server downtime), but it’ll be far-reaching since you’re accessing all the said instances available in the server net, as well as adding extra preset space to the account data allocation.

The issue with the account wallet also counts, as you’ll have to take care in merging the data as well as adding on-login scripts to clear tokens from inventory and add the value to the preset account wallet. This one also takes a bit of time to run scripted in the server side, and shutting the game down will prevent any new updates to the server that might conflict the process. The addition of a new leaderboard for SoloQ also will take time, as the server has to create a new list from all accounts present in GW2.

Finally, the addition for the IP addresses of the new instances available might be last in agendum, as well as item listing updates, and when all is done, to compile all address and location data and uploading it to the patcher network.

TL;DR: Lots of scripts that require exclusive access to enable safe changing of a lot of internal values inside our accounts make the game have to be shut down to be ready for the next patch.

Addenum: and of course, tabulation of all token data from the LS.

Large patch update on the servers. Wow.

nightwulf.1986:

Let me see if I can sum up the base arguments so far, please feel free to correct me on any point.

Argument A ) The high level trading on the TP allows wealth acquisition within the designed limitations of the activity. There is also an acknowledgment that the financial gains from this activity exceed all expectations of wealth acquisition elsewhere in the game. Players should be allowed to acquire wealth far beyond the norm of other activities so long as significant effort is put into doing so and it is allowed by the game designers. There is no double standard of expectation for the activity.

Argument B ) The high level trading on the TP allows wealth acquisition at a rate far beyond expectations set by the developers for an activity in the game. Players should not be allowed to acquire wealth far beyond the norm of other activities if the company designing the game has communicated that they want to limit wealth acquisition of players. There is a double standard of expectations for the activity.

There have been many secondary and tertiary arguments surrounding what I believe are the core ideas brought by both sides. In the end, we may just be arguing about economic ideals (still fascinating that a fictional economy can do this) and whether or not there exists a double standard in how wealth is acquired. Only Anet can answer that last one and from their PR thus far, I am led to believe that they feel there is not.

Nailed it.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

davidcrickett.8536:

Janson Smalling.1850:

That’s correct. Also, David, what OS are you playing on?

Mac OS X 10.8.4 — is that an issue?

I think your problem might be a bad IP connection, and the fact that you’re running a Mac. Macs aren’t made for gaming.

I think it’s the network connections. Might be that some ports are firewall’ed in your Mac setup, since the in-game browser is also bundled in the Windows renderer of GW2.

For any FoTM players, can you divulge your (average) latencies while playing the game? A way to check your latency in Windows is to first run the /ip command in your game client, then lookup the value inside the Resource Monitor->Network->TCP connections, matching the address ingame with the numbers in the ‘remote address’ column in the TCP connection window.

List your results with the home server connected to (whether EU or NA) as well as country/locale you’re accessing the game from. If you can share your connection data as well (whether fiber optic or cable modem, and if better yet, ISP), that’s great.

Piken Square! Go for Piken Square~ Tarnished Coast’s always full. >.<

Roleplay! There’s something fun here when roleplaying in GW2.

Color looks nice, especially in the dark. Meshes well with the mechanical necromancer look, although the white face markings tend to clash with the overall color theme. I’d give you an 8.75/10

Now, my night-time operations engineer!

LordByron.8369:

Advent Leader.1083:

LordByron.8369:

I ll try again….
I NEVER saw heard or suspected to see any bot in any dungeon in GW2.

I won t just try to go risky sites in the hope to find a concpet of a potentially working dungeon bot that may or may not work.

That is not credible.
While as said many players have seen suspectful atcivities on TP of istand undercut of 1 bronze at any hour :|

Not to mention that flipping base on math and statistic and as such is more easily automated.
Expecially if the economy hasn t any mehcnic to prevent manipulation as gw2.

I’m just saying this: you won’t validate there -is- proof, when there really is, so it seems my other point about bots being able to run dungeons is moot for you. For the other one, you have to take into account a lot of new items, and a lot of data to be retrieved -before- you can make a bot go to town and give you profits. If rough estimates are correct, your incoming updates will hit the update limit first before you’re able to incur profit – ergo it’s not directly profitable to bot than to do it with the human person behind the screen.

I’d like to reiterate that someone undercutting you in the TP as a bot might be most of the time a false positive, since there’s the TP being global, and you have lag estimates with your update (take into account latency and the likes).

I ll just close the debate saying how in a game called

guild WARS 2 (not sim-merchant)

The only player that can achieve TOP tier equipment is a player that can completely be incapable of using his character.

We are discussing about this.

NO farmer can get 3+ legendaries even the most lucky…..most flippers can making profit on players playing the game.

How would you feel if in this game jumping puzzle gave the mst score in WWW?
Well now you can understand why people complain…not because they are envious but because their game is made worse by people that plays a sort of unethical minigame.

Gonna put the original OP here:

With all of the farming nerfs the potential to farm gold has it’s limits. No matter how long someone plays or how efficiently they play, at the end of the day they will have been limited to the amount of gold they are able to produce.
When it comes to trading on the post profit potential is limitless. We already know that the tp offers the highest earning potential in the game by far and with every farming nerf that gap becomes larger.
So we have a wealth gap that becomes bound on one end and unbound on the other end, thus it grows.
There are many items in this game that have limited supply. We all know to well these items become costly. The costs of these items is always restricted by the amount players are able to pay for them.
Will this ensure that some items will only be attainable to players that trade for profit?

I think your statement on the first comes as an offshoot, but not exactly the main topic at hand. On top-tier equipment → at the moment, the Legendaries provide the top-tier by a few percentiles not that significant as compared to other players, and on the update would make Legendaries as convenience gear, with the capability to swap stats on the fly but still have the same effective stats as Ascended weapons.

At the point the Legendaries are not the -only- top tier weapons, they’re just top tier weapons that save you extra space by being swapped stats on the fly.

You have to understand two things about making this change:

a.) You need to make a method where every individual TP bought item can be stored back in your bank without breaking old bank code. As it stands, a change like this may be done in a couple of methods: you could make a separate stack to the bank showing bought items and not-bought items, as well as modifying recipes and the likes to work with the two kinds of items (account bound crafting materials and non-account bound crafting materials). Or you could recreate the bank mechanism so it tracks in one stack the number of items that you have. The problem is that such a mechanism would require a major overhaul just to add a small change to the over-all system, introducing new bugs that may be game-breaking in essence.

b.) You would inconvenience those who buy more materials than required for crafting, and would like to sell them back. To solve this to be doable in-game would require either addition of a UI for QoL changes for crafting, as well as having another layer of change to the UI to have a confirmation window when you are buying.

LordByron.8369:

I ll try again….
I NEVER saw heard or suspected to see any bot in any dungeon in GW2.

I won t just try to go risky sites in the hope to find a concpet of a potentially working dungeon bot that may or may not work.

That is not credible.
While as said many players have seen suspectful atcivities on TP of istand undercut of 1 bronze at any hour :|

Not to mention that flipping base on math and statistic and as such is more easily automated.
Expecially if the economy hasn t any mehcnic to prevent manipulation as gw2.

I’m just saying this: you won’t validate there -is- proof, when there really is, so it seems my other point about bots being able to run dungeons is moot for you. For the other one, you have to take into account a lot of new items, and a lot of data to be retrieved -before- you can make a bot go to town and give you profits. If rough estimates are correct, your incoming updates will hit the update limit first before you’re able to incur profit – ergo it’s not directly profitable to bot than to do it with the human person behind the screen.

I’d like to reiterate that someone undercutting you in the TP as a bot might be most of the time a false positive, since there’s the TP being global, and you have lag estimates with your update (take into account latency and the likes).

LordByron.8369:

Advent Leader.1083:

LordByron.8369:

Advent Leader.1083:

Then suggest a solution to effectively curtain inflation of market prices. As it stands, while you deem flippers unethical, they do have the impact of reducing inflation on the market.

Maybe you should first PROVE they reduce inflation because its only a biased speculation.

PS: and if a zerker warrior facerolling a keyboard cannot get as much gold as a flipper AND is nerfed, why shouldn t flippers left alone?

For the PS part: a zerker warrior, or rather that, a regular player doing farm events can be eerily similar to a bot in their logic, only that the bot works from perfection and then can be reprogrammed to add a certain level of randomness to evade base detection algorithms. (Also, detection algorithms for every player in the map add another layer of complexity to the game – teleports can be detected now, but if you’d look at how bots can be driven it’s less on the effort if you just assign them to kill targets in x area in y time then move to another spot).

OTOH, programming a bot to do TP flipping is not doable, as you have to manually sort through tons of data sets and determine which is viable and which is not, in addition to masking the transfer of inventory items from the game to the TP API.

Show me a bot playing a dungeon…
While there are suspects of BOT flippers (look at tp section), there isn t ANY of a bot dungeon runner.

Opposite from what you say it is possible to program a BOT flipper, while its not so easy for a dungeon.

Actually, try mucking around the accessible forums of some of the known bot/glitch/hack sites as a guest and you’ll see them showing proof of concept videos of bots being used in dungeon runs. It’s not that seen because these bot runs always have all the members of the party as bots.

Bot flippers, if they are programmed, work with both the game and a modified script loaded in the in-game browser. These bots, if used, do little gain as compared to the traversal of dungeon runs, as bots emphasize on being able to lightning-fast flip to have maximum profits, which is also not that doable since the TP has the feature of slowing down your list rate every x updates you send to the game. In addition, the entire TP is global – the amount of concurrent users accessing at the same time makes player-reported false positives occurring even more than possible.

LordByron.8369:

Advent Leader.1083:

Then suggest a solution to effectively curtain inflation of market prices. As it stands, while you deem flippers unethical, they do have the impact of reducing inflation on the market.

Maybe you should first PROVE they reduce inflation because its only a biased speculation.

PS: and if a zerker warrior facerolling a keyboard cannot get as much gold as a flipper AND is nerfed, why shouldn t flippers left alone?

For the PS part: a zerker warrior, or rather that, a regular player doing farm events can be eerily similar to a bot in their logic, only that the bot works from perfection and then can be reprogrammed to add a certain level of randomness to evade base detection algorithms. (Also, detection algorithms for every player in the map add another layer of complexity to the game – teleports can be detected now, but if you’d look at how bots can be driven it’s less on the effort if you just assign them to kill targets in x area in y time then move to another spot).

OTOH, programming a bot to do TP flipping is not doable, as you have to manually sort through tons of data sets and determine which is viable and which is not, in addition to masking the transfer of inventory items from the game to the TP API. [Addenum] If such method would be programmed, then we would probably start to see measures that limit TP profit even further, but would hit not only with the people flipping, but also those that don’t. (See: that change where TP items would be accountbound after being bought – you have to create another account-bound item version of the TP item, which makes you have a problem with arranging the storage stacks, as well as modifying particularly tens of hundreds of items currently available in the TP, not to mention disadvantaging those who want to sell back excess items that they have bought from the TP.)

Then suggest a solution to effectively curtain inflation of market prices. As it stands, while you deem flippers unethical, they do have the impact of reducing inflation on the market.

To me it seems humanity’s schtick is the extreme application of an existing techbase. They have slower progression, but more refinement of existing tech. Asurans have fast progression, while charr have fast production.

Instead of gear gating, try gear scaling – ergo, events are specificalled catered to challenge gear targets – for example, having full zerk means that mobs have more chance of having a kittenton metric of armor, as well as invu states and faster attack rates. Or people who go full clerics get mobs that have high health, but low armor and the likes.

The question is: how is endgame defined to you, OP?

The thing about WvW is that the CPU gets stressed so much in high-model battles because the data pathway tends to be receive packets->process packets to information->pull up and compile relevant data->check for occlusion->send off to GPU for rendering.

The render part is automatically done by the GPU, but the part that has sooo much stress to the CPU is the first three phases, especially in large scale battles since you’re tracking a kittenton metric of stuff on screen flying around (in particular, forty characters(20vs20) alone makes 40x number of objects, since you have to pull up data about class, armor, weapon, as well as any attached minions). You’re also calculating and tracking every state change to health, and conditions present in every character, not to mention on your own. Finally, you’re also calculating the data about world objects (state of siege gear, any consumables dropped on the field or bundles, NPCs and character data, as well as map-wide information).

The issue here is that if you try to hand it off to the GPU, you need to write longer code since the tradeoff in the CPU vs GPU is that the CPU has more processing complexity but lower overall processing as compared to the GPU, not to mention that you have to watch for data synchronization between the CPU and the GPU.

Redesigning the code ground up to take advantage of CUDA should be a viable solution, but it -will- take a lot of investment and time to shift properly to that model.

Shifting to Dx11 may improve render times, but your bottleneck here is the CPU code, and it needs to be parallelized even more that your regular parallelization methods.

The issue here is that bunkers always come in two types, I guess – one that tanks over direct damage, and another that tanks condition damage.

Bunkers choose between two setups, IMO: one that focuses on covering direct damage using high toughness and boons (prot and regen) and another that focuses on having rapid cleanses/wipe cleanses and high vitality.

That’s the base issue stemming from how I read it over here.

Be warned that a change like this to the primary game mechanic will turn over to WvW and PvE, rendering condi-builds there useless with bosses having high vit stats.

Im Mudbone.1437:

DanteZero.9736:

Im Mudbone.1437:

Stormcrow.7513:

While GW2 is CPU bound it is also CPU limited. The client does not use multithreading or use more than 3 heavy threads during operation. Thus, the game is limited as a previous poster mentioned to a tri-core CPU with 5-6ghz being the sweet spot. Anet’s implementation of an engine with high CPU draw with no room for ever advancing beyond 2007 standards is apparent in the design. The game’s predominantly relies on high amounts of users on the same map which of course the engine and servers cannot handle. Using an old API does not help but is not the main factor.
Try doing a T1 WvW zerg and toss all the settings down to their lowest. You will not see much of a difference in FPS at all. This is due to the server on Anet’s side not being able to handle the information it is sending and receiving.
TL,DR= It is both the client and serverside causing issues atm. Since client is apparently out of the question we, as a group can only hope that the issues be rectified serverside.

They are using the same outdated servers that GW1 is on and I heard word that they also moved AION to those same servers.

That sounds a bit dodgy to me. I’m not calling you a liar, but claiming to have heard a rumor makes me question the credibility of the source.

Researching this for myself, I know what you mean by hearsay, will divulge my findings.

EDIT Preliminary findings/research has turned up nothing on this, so, until I find otherwise the shared server hearsay is just that and only a rumor so far.

I’m not sure with how GW1 networks are set up, but I’m pretty sure that the number of shards that you need to manage as well as the processing power needed to provide for events and NPC AI makes the required infrastructure for GW2 wholly different.

Nuka Cola.8520:

kelman.9451:

With this game it seems CPU clock speed is the thing more than how many cores you have. Big WvW fights though, probably will bog down anyones machine. Turn of Post Processing, and things that will help some.

That’s not helping at all. I have a 2500k running at 4.3ghz, i hate post processing effect so its always off since game was launched and 10-20fps is all you’ll be getting in zergs.

Reduce the number of programs opened that access your data drive, as a greater amount of people in zergs increases the amount of particles and objects generated in game. For every person in the zerg, performance hit increases around exponentially, I think. Haven’t done the math to verify this.

For solutions, I really don’t have an idea how ANet will ultimately reduce lag in WvW without sacrificing too much visual fidelity.

Im Mudbone.1437:

Charak.9761:

MMOs are based on CPU not GPU

If this is true then why does my SLI work in GW1 but not here, that is one of the HIGHEST of priority optimizations that need to be done.

SLI is a mechanic used by multi-card setups to segregate graphic processing load towards the cards evenly. That being said, I think there’s an issue when post-processing happens on all models, regardless of distance. There’s also maps with a lot of dynamic objects that add to the lagfest, as well as occlusion code being laggy or not that efficient at best.

With GW2, a good optimization on the player’s end would be improving/changing data drives, as latency in data load from disk hits kitten GW2 with the number of objects loaded on screen at the same time.

Actually, AI attacking faster and using PBAoEs (when in close quarters) that drop non-damaging debuff conditions (weakness, chill, blinds, confuse) and buffs (prot, regen, reta, stability), as well as moving AIs will change the zerker meta. Oh, and for good effort, have AI cycle rotations as well as having proper reactionary stancing, and cooperative tactics (spamming conds while being approached, then lockdown by either stun/blinds, before nuking you on close range)

The lazy way is to have more of the Aetherblade-type mobs (ranged attackers with no projectiles come in mind) and add them in more numbers, since it increases enemy attack rate the lazy way.

Actually, program AIs as dumb AIs that can be really used for low-level PvP and add them to PvE and that solves most of your meta issues.

Maybe the devs forgot to update the instance connect code and the instance addresses per patch? The latest patches introduced subtle but noticeable (well, if you’re monitoring your connections all the time) changes to how dungeon connection and instancing occurs.

This is definitely something worthwhile – maybe items which can be opened and could act as ingame books, complete with UI? That would really help in differentiating what knowledge is available from an in-character perspective in Tyria and what is not from the player’s perspective.

The issue I have with some of your suggestions is that they require dynamic server-side interaction (especially noticeable with the parry timings and the likes), increasing the amount of data transmitted and need for low latency while playing, as well as modifying most of the skills in the game due to the addition of a spell/physical type modifier(which amounts to a lot of work, seeing as you also need to not only touch on physical skills, but also on bundles picked up in the overworld. A rough estimate would be around more than a hundred skills to be modified for the professions alone).

If the dueling crowd really wants an open-world dueling option, designated areas could work, because one of the technical issues ANet had to touch on is the interaction of dueling with open world events.

Defektive.7283:

Advent Leader.1083:

Defektive.7283:

Advent Leader.1083:

With the current condi meta, can minion classes actually help in teamfights by grabbing AoE priority from spells?

Yes. They are also a nightmare for single target DPS classes because of pet body blocking.

I hate you, spirit rangers.

Just a thought, should it be changed that offensive AOE spells (i.e, AOE effects that do not affect allies) grab priority on NPCs before PCs?

no way jose. that would break the game. everyone would run an insane amount of minons and AoEs would go down the tubes.

Oh yeah, did not think of the WvW aspect. But on PvP on the other hand… mesmers might be cheesed and improved so much with the change, with varying levels of improvements to other classes.

Then again, there are attacks that are multiprojectile AOE (meteor storm and ice bow come in mind, though they are not relatively viable. But just food for thought – would it shutdown necros/nades if there were minion spammer classes on the field? And how would it (theoretically, if the current minion status in GW2 didn’t change) affect node-cap based gameplay?

Defektive.7283:

Advent Leader.1083:

With the current condi meta, can minion classes actually help in teamfights by grabbing AoE priority from spells?

Yes. They are also a nightmare for single target DPS classes because of pet body blocking.

I hate you, spirit rangers.

Just a thought, should it be changed that offensive AOE spells (i.e, AOE effects that do not affect allies) grab priority on NPCs before PCs?

With the current condi meta, can minion classes actually help in teamfights by grabbing AoE priority from spells?

How about adding a trigger delay to marks?

Soloed T4 with bomb/nade kit engineer, via camping out in the spawn of the plunderers.

Hypothesis: Instance scales enemy stats with total effective party stats, enemy numbers scale with number of people in party.

The issue here is that dev’s can’t reliably pin down if the issue of gate glitching is within the actual area design of the map, if it’s a delay in the server’s received data that an update to the client causes the bug, or if it’s in the collision detection of the gate. That’s just the basics. There’s also some other instances that you have to consider, but those three directly come off my head – and even that may be separated into sub-issues if the code’s reused somewhere else.

Gandarel.5091:

But how would you remove it if the target cannot be targeted? More aoe?

Or if i can see you in stealth, wouldn’t that count as invulnerable? Wouldn’t that take away the surprise/ambush if you can clearly see the thief walking toward you?

The current stealth implementation makes it possible for melee characters (by way of their frontal 180-arc 130 range PBAoE to still hit targets. Ranged characters can also manually adjust their camera so that the launched projectile can hit the stealth target reliably.

Also, most boon-strip AOEs aren’t harmful, and in this case the AOE themselves are deterrent if they’re cast to the ground already, as you can dodge condi application through AOE via dodging. If they’re trigger based AOE, then dodging will also prematurely detonate them.

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Then reveal could be a condition lol

Yeah, forgot about the unintended side effect. There we go.

Title says it all: What if stealth was not just a typeless effect, but rather a direct boon? Stealth provides partial immunity to player-targeted (and not ground-targeted) ranged attacks because the targeting system cannot lock on to you.

Would it introduce counter play, or kitten up stealth reliant classes even more? Discuss.

Edit 1: Stealth when debuffed/removed automatically drops the condition reveal.

Nick.6972:

When is this update going live?
Just logged in – nothing, no downloads.

Patches usually get in around a couple of minutes to at the most, three or four (not sure on the number) hours after the patch notes go live on the forums.

Adding text to overflow to next page.

Aether McLoud.1975:

Giving Rangers stealth. What kind of kittenery is this?

I think Stealth may be used for Rangers as a means of relocation, esp with longbow. Maybe it’s the start of rangers being improved to be more reliant and capable of enhanced attacks from positioning bonuses, as well as first strike-reliant classes? I don’t really know.

You know, I have the faintest inkling that this skews votes even more in favor to Evon, what with the reduction of key prices and all….

One thing I’m curious is that Smite is an GTAoE, and the issue here is to how the volcanic fractal boss’ shield works – does it block ground ticks once, but loses a charge every time a unique object interacts with it (meteor storm or ice bow skill 2/3/4 or better yet LB barrage, every engineer grenade explosion on contact, etc.)?

Is it coded with the same hit detection routine that enables ticking off on retaliation or confusion, or is it unique in coding?

Also @ronpierce: IMO, another change that would help melee but still stick with the general theme of the trait would be that mobility-imparing conditions don’t get reduced to zero, or not get reduced at all, and that the other conditions are the only ones granted immunity.

Actually, when checking for damage, you really have to check the combat tab. The UI is bugged as hell when it comes to immune prompts. It would be nice if there is a vid which shows the combat tab being tracked. My earlier test was with a guardian slapping me with a virtue’d auto (applies burn on hit), and the auto damage still hit through.

Gonna test it later once I have my friend necro up, or we can test it now if you have a necro and a private arena. I’m on Piken Square (EU).

ronpierce.2760:

Advent Leader.1083:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Some of the arguments invoked by certain users around here in favour of AR are so dumb, not to mention self-contradicting and completely ignoring all counter arguments, that it makes my brain cells commit suicide by jumping out my ears.

If the trait is so kitten, and no one uses it, then no harm will be done either way to have it reworked.
I also find it rather funny how engis accuse necs of spamming conds, when they themselves can stack and spam conds just as much (including confusion stacking), while also seeing damage numbers non-power condispecced necros can only dream of.
And I won’t even start with the aoe grenade aoe on downed targets. Stop kidding yourself already. Mind this is meant in general, not strictly in connection with AR.

P.S. At above, your cond-inflicting phantasms should be unable to damage the endi with AR when under 25%, but if that is not the case, it proves even more how much condi necros are being kitten on for lacking any real raw damage.

Let me remind you again of this major issue everyone tends to dismiss (in addition to how permanent immunities are trash for the balance in any game):

The >RAW< DAMAGE of all CONDITION-INFLICTING SKILLS is COMPLETELY NEGATED.

The >RAW< DAMAGE of all CONDITION-INFLICTING SKILLS is COMPLETELY NEGATED.

The >RAW< DAMAGE of all CONDITION-INFLICTING SKILLS is COMPLETELY NEGATED.

The >RAW< DAMAGE of all CONDITION-INFLICTING SKILLS is COMPLETELY NEGATED.

The >RAW< DAMAGE of all CONDITION-INFLICTING SKILLS is COMPLETELY NEGATED too.

The >RAW< DAMAGE of all CONDITION-INFLICTING SKILLS is COMPLETELY NEGATED.

Maybe it’ll actually sink in this time.

The only time damage from a skill is NOT negated is when the said skill only has a CHANCE to inflict a condition (on crit, etc.), which is why DS no4 works to start with and which is why (certain?) phantasms can still hit the engi under 25%. I don’t know whether damage negation also happens with shatter mesmers, but their spike damage ought being FULLY negated too, because all their shatter skills also inflict conditions (Illusionary Retribution). But is that actually the case?

Just going to chime in here – it is not ‘total’ immunity, it’s immunity to standard duration conditions, ergo now that you know that this trait does exist, you can actually still kill the bunker by having modified and longer conditions, and stacking them as fast as you can to the engie.

I don’t have math yet, but sacrificing a little bit of cond damage to increase cond duration by half a tick or full tick will still kill the engie, aside from the direct damage that necro skills have.

Incorrect, I tested it with a Necro having + condition duration, it’s likely bugged, but the -100% condition duration is currently multiplicative and not additive. He had some (little) but still some condition duration, and his scepter 1 (which applies like 3-4 second bleeds) didn’t even try to place a condition on me. It’s about 3:00 into the video maybe a little before/after.

But does the direct damage from the scepter still hit?