Guild Wars 2

I think it’s the opposite. The playerbase (which couldn’t figure out how to dodge, remember?) complained that they wanted easier trait lines… So they got them. 2 years in. If they wanted to terminate the system they would have much earlier because they did solve exploits and cheat builds/invincible builds quite quickly.

A lot of “this trait is worthless” and “why isn’t this baseline?” later we have our current iteration. And people still complain they want to save trait lines because 9 clicks is too hard.

Dilemma: Paying customer wants to water down your ideas as a developer. Do you listen to the players or stick to your guns? People complain GW2 seems reminiscent of older games but demanded the changes themselves.

No such thing as a happy mmo.

Obtena.7952:

DGraves.3720:

And that’s the thing: Anet sold the idea, I didn’t come up with it, it did exist and they nerfed it.

Now wait a second here. It’s presumptuous to say Anet ever sold the idea that any class can be anything you want it to be; I never got the impression that the game concept for classes was that open and free; It’s never been that in fact.

What we actually have is what I have seen them promote and provide though; ‘play how you want’ combined with class choices and intentional class restrictions. This has always been a consistency with the game.

The old trait lines disagree though. You could literally be a defensive Healing Mesmer if you so pleased. Not a thing these days. Even Healing warrior builds existed… Seriously it was crazy.

:(

Nostalgia.

But I will agree with you that they’re not equal and never were. Warrior always did more damage, etc.

I noticed but thought it a one time fluke. Good to know it wasn’t just me.

For instance in PvE I could describe my style and build mantra as “The most effect for the least work.” while in PvP and WvWvW my build mantra would be “Pressure and wait for them to slip up.”

What’s your mantra? How do you typically think when building your builds (if you build your own that is, I understand not everyone does)?

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

DGraves.3720:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Actually, it’s almost always profitable in the long run…

How long is the “long run” exactly?

Combining a few stacks.

The most expensive scenario is you never sold majors and through away cheap exotics, so that your only income was from higher-priced versions. For sigils, 9 of 55 are worth more than the cost of the rares and 3 are worth a lot more. For runes, 19 are worth more than the costs and half those are high value.

Taking that distribution into account, I wouldn’t expect ‘average’ results with fewer than ~100 attempts, which means 400 majors.

---

Put more simply, the average player salvaging rares gear and forging leftover runes & sigils won’t see “average” results; for most of us, it’s simpler, faster, and (did I mention) easier to just sell them on the TP.

However, I was responding to a previous poster who said that forging upgrades was a loss — my point remains, it’s a net profit for the community to forge (but maybe not for any one of us individually).

I understand.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. Maybe I’ll rethink my own sigil strategy.

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

graph the points then. connect the dots. of course it depicts the shift correctly, accurately, and precisely.

As I said it only is accurate if every grenade explodes after another every time. Enough of this topic; it’s boring discussing how lines work. If you find one method preferable over another so long as it comes out the same I do not care. I am only concerned with your end results.

you should prolly be concerned with our methods since yours has errors.

If it makes you feel better.

No wonder this game is in such a state of disarray.

says the guy who consistently shows he cant math, thread after thread after thread.

The thing is I am actually able to explain through more complex notions than you can. For instance have you ever actually thrown your grenades against a golem at the longest distances possible? No.

How can I tell? Because when I logged on to do it there were times, just reading the combat log, you could tell that the grenades had “hit” before the application of vulnerability took hold. This means that your model that at least one stack of vulnerability must exist and therefore you can just start a line, going up by 1, starting at 8 is pretty much unrealistic.

I’ve known since I began this conversation. I am trying to be cordial. Even that doesn’t work with you people. You are so convinced of how correct you are but you actually don’t understand half the things I’m saying (which was obvious when you asked why you would take the new base for action over action to produce real comparative data versus just a base or when you said that the formula was 1.01 + .07 when in fact it is as I had it as 3(1.01 + 1.07) because you multiply as distribution first which I typed out and then “apologized for the typo” so we could move on since it’s sixth grade stuff) and that is okay.

I’m more concerned with the outputs you guys produce than whether you agree with my methods partially because there’s still a on of myths and questions not even asked and unchallenged concepts that, as I challenge them, seem to not add up even on the sheet DPS and definitely not in the game.

I mean I actually sat there in the PvP theatre and did it, predicted the outcomes, got them, and walked away a happy skylark over about 60 trials. You … just went sequentially because it’s something you understand. I don’t think at any point during my testing I ever had a volley where at least two grenades didn’t hit at the same time though.

Now I really am leaving. We’ll meet again on the battlefield of math! Or not.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Actually, it’s almost always profitable in the long run…

How long is the “long run” exactly?

I admit that is one of the best elements in the game. It is lax enough to allow you to truly take the options given to you and explore them even if avenues are regularly closed off from time to time.

shahryar.8437:

In WoW I used to play a Melee Hunter, that was removed, now it is being brought back…
Personally I think Anet’s problem was that they removed the holy trinity isntead of just freeing it up. Armor should have been like weapons, the armor you where determines your position in the holy trinity. So if you wanted to be a tank scrapper you wield your hammer(or maybe pistol and shield) and where heavy armor and then certain weapon skills give your threat generation, etc.

I agree. The game changer for this particular game was actually when they reduced the number of traits in a trait line. Instead of making the game more complex, that is, giving a bigger array of options, they reduced it greatly which made it easier for players who weren’t on the cutting edge of building their own games but made it impossible for players who are.

It was a catch 22 for Anet so I don’t blame them: Either the player base was going to be overwhelmed by choices or the choices were to be limited but a lot of builds had to go away. The latter route just made more sense. It is like the Nerf of Orr where now it’s boring as heck; I think that came before megaserver though, which is too bad.

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

graph the points then. connect the dots. of course it depicts the shift correctly, accurately, and precisely.

As I said it only is accurate if every grenade explodes after another every time. Enough of this topic; it’s boring discussing how lines work. If you find one method preferable over another so long as it comes out the same I do not care. I am only concerned with your end results.

you should prolly be concerned with our methods since yours has errors.

If it makes you feel better.

No wonder this game is in such a state of disarray.

insanemaniac.2456:

graph the points then. connect the dots. of course it depicts the shift correctly, accurately, and precisely.

As I said it only is accurate if every grenade explodes after another every time. Enough of this topic; it’s boring discussing how lines work. If you find one method preferable over another so long as it comes out the same I do not care. I am only concerned with your end results.

insanemaniac.2456:

hmm. it makes more sense to me to divide by 300 each time, not by the previous volley. why are you taking the previous volley?

insanemaniac.2456:

hmm. it makes more sense to me to divide by 300 each time, not by the previous volley. why are you taking the previous volley?

The reason is to create an incremental understanding of what’s actually happening. If you take it against the base every time you’re not including the salvos between, for instance 348 / 300 = 116% more than your first volley but this is actually the 4th volley so it doesn’t accurately depict what happened in the second thus producing a line. In reality there was a huge pick-up in the 2nd volley of 10% from 0% and a small increase of just 3% overall in the 3rd and in the 4th.

A line normalizes this but doesn’t depict that shift correctly.

insanemaniac.2456:

then it would be

volley 1 – 0 vuln before, 3 vuln after – 100, 100, 100 damage
volley 2 – 3 vuln before, 6 vuln after – 110, 110, 110 damage
volley 3 – 6 vuln before, 9 vuln after – 113, 113, 113 damage

Hence diminishing returns. 330 / 300 – > 339 / 330 – > 348 / 339 – > etc. though I thought you said they were additive, but whatever.

insanemaniac.2456:

idk what youre saying now.

volley 1 – 0 vuln before, 3 vuln after – 100, 108, 109 damage
volley 2 – 3 vuln before, 6 vuln after – 110, 111, 112 damage
volley 3 – 6 vuln before, 9 vuln after – 113, 114, 115 damage

and so on.

volley 1 will do 106.66% of base damage.
volley 2 will do 111% of base damage.
volley 3 will do 114% of base damage.

idk where you are getting 24% additional damage on volley 2 from, but i can only guess that youre taking the shaped charge bonus and adding it 3 times, because nothing else would make any sense. but that is wrong.

What happens if all the grenades hit at the same time?

And that’s the thing: Anet sold the idea, I didn’t come up with it, it did exist and they nerfed it. I have no problem with one class being better than another at an aspect but that’s totally different than from a class being unable to really engage that aspect.

In this game I don’t think there is a class that doesn’t fit the damage roles, that is, you can be a (quite effective actually) condition warrior or condition guardian or condition revenant and none of these are as good as the necro but that’s just dandy because they hold their own. You can also be a power ele or engineer or ranger with the same effect. Healing is a bit different. So is armor and survival and toughness. It’s super odd if you think about it; all classes can do adequate damage though there is a BiS for each type of damage but not all of them actually heal alike or even on the same level of effectiveness.

Solution: Ascended runes! :O

If I swap to another class for healing then I am making an efficiency choice. That defers from the mantra of “play your way” because I have to change classes to play a specific role instead of playing the role on the class of my choice or abandon the role to play the class.

That’s my entire point. Player efficiency demands that players not do the “play your way” thing when dev-side changes simply force you into new horizons. When you say that healing power wasn’t the only design I think you have it slightly backwards; healing power on an engineer is all but useless now since the coefficient total take-away is far, far below the native 30% it used to be and takes far, far more energy to get to it’s crest.

You can do it but it’s so impractical that it’s running Nomad’s in PUG fractal 50 and being sad you got kicked.

insanemaniac.2456:

there is a difference. you arent normalizing the bonus damage, or youre adding it across grenades, or something. idk which. but the way ive detailed is the correct way, up to differences in methodology, which is what youre trying to say youve done but havent.

there is no logarithm here. averages have asymptotes which is prolly the behavior youre referring to, but we arent exponentiating anything.

It’s fully provable.

My method gives a 24% increase at salvo 2 at 3 vulnerability but that burst never happens again and has diminishing returns on the following salvos until it hits the 32%. This is because it works off the previous base, so salvo 1 is base 300, salvo 2 would be 372 which is comprised of 63 from the bonus and 9 from the vulnerability. This becomes the new base, so the next salvo works against that one and so forth and so on forming a logarithmic curve or “diminishing returns”. There is no asymptote since 32% is the max of the range.

Your method just uses a straight line presuming that no two grenades strike at the same time and spreading the 1% along all grenades until the 32%.

Your method only works if no two grenades strike at the same time disrupting the pattern and creating a deviation, and my method works by normalizing it so as to account for all three as striking at the same time but rapidly adjusting between 0 and 32.

There is no “perfect” model for this so it’s not something to lose sleep over. We are, in fact, both correct. It happens.

Obtena.7952:

DGraves.3720:

But that doesn’t explain what to do if the way you want to play is specifically nerfed or terminated.

That’s a pretty vague question and it’s not black or white; it’s a personal choice. I’ve always found builds that allow me to play how I want, it’s just a question of how effective those builds are and if I’m willing to adjust my tolerance for a degradation when there is a change.

I can’t imagine what ’way’s to play would be or have been terminated. Changes get made, builds go up or down in effectiveness because of them but the way you have been playing still exists. I can’t think of a build that has been terminated because of a change. You’re going to have to be more specific for a discussion.

An example would be my old Healing Power Engineer. When Elixir-Infused Bombs went away the entirety of how I played went away. It is not replaceable by anything in the current game because the closest thing is Bunker Down and that not only has a requirement that EIB never had but it isn’t an area heal either nor is it consistent, reliable, or properly offensive since the mines drop at your location so kiting in a circle wrecks it.

I was sad. And then … I was Meta. DUN DUN DUN!

But seriously, I’ve no idea what to do with my Engineer. Themes are now just damage based with no real utility or cleverness or support. It’s so blaise.

But anyway, many things have been removed from the game. It’s just how games are. Adaptation is taking what you have offered to you and making the most of it which sadly isn’t taking what you previously had and updating it. Sometimes it’s just all gone. And I have no idea how to help others who ask me what to replace that stuff with since there’s no adequate replacement for half of it.

insanemaniac.2456:

sure!

lets say a nade does 100 damage, for simplicity.

nade 1 does 100
nade 2 does 108
nade 3 does 109

overall, youve done 317 damage. had there been no vuln or shaped charge, you would have done 300.

317 / 300 = 1.06666 -> 6.666% more damage

Oh, I see, okay; we’re doing this differently but coming out with about the same answer with the some variation. I personally would work it in single-instance behavior against it’s base particularly because of it’s cumulative nature so that it plays out as a logarithm (each iteration has diminishing returns and caps out) but your method should come out the same at the end.

My method would be 100 * 1.32 ( 25 stacks + 7%) * 3 which is 396.

Your method would come out as 300 * 1.32 ( 25 stacks + 7% ) which is 396.

Your line is just straight while mine is curved. No difference. I’m glad we got to the bottom of that. This is why numbers are such funny things.

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

i believe you are miscomprehending the figures i wrote down. what i am doing is converting to relative overall dps increase. not looking for breakpoints or trying to say something about how much power is how much ferocity or what the starting points are because the starting points dont matter.

Since ferocity is a ratio increase (read as: percentage) the base does matter. It’s multiplicative.

grenades: since its unlikely that each hits at the same instant then yes 2 of the 3 on the first volley should get the 7%, so the first does base, the second +8%, and the 3rd +9%. the second volley should get +10%, +11%, and +12%. this does not mean you are doing 33% more damage, it means youre doing 11% more damage. that is what i am saying is not additive. because that is what you were doing wrong when you said that the second volley gets +24% damage a couple posts ago.

If the bonus applies to every explosion it’s simply additive. In your first volley example for instance using real easy numbers:

G1: base 100
G2: base *(1.01 + 1.07) = 108
G3: base *(1.02 +1.07) = 109

If taking a volley at zero distance (what I did, standing on the golem) they all hit at the same time so it’s:

Salvo 1: base 100 * 3 / 3
Salvo 2: base*(1.03 + 1.07)*3 / 3

If taken in your spread:

G4 = 110
G5 = 111
G6 = 112

Your difference is better than mine from base but not between salvos. My difference bigger between salvos but lower than yours from base since every iteration of yours gets a cumulative bonus of +1% while mine get a flat bonus presuming the worst (that they all hit at the same time).

In short, I hope the game works your way, since from base, you get 57 more pts of damage and I only got 24. Still, grenades 2 + 3 bonus = 17% and grenads 4 + 5 + 6 = 33% so it’s actually higher than the 11% you calculated because it’s cumulative and not a singular attack like say, bombs.

Bah. I’mma leave this alone. You’re right. Let’s call it day.

ok, got it: the problem is that you are doing (1.03 + 1.07) when you should be doing (1.03 + .07).

but youre still incorrectly adding the percents. stop saying its 17% and 33% because that is wrong. the correct values are 6.666% and 11%.

I believe you are correct about the parenthesis and that is definitely a typo on my part them but it is distributed correctly. I originally wrote it out distributed [ ( base x 1.01 ) + ( base x 1.07 ) ] and foolishly just combined the two in my head and distributed as though it were a function to shorten it. Otherwise it would be much higher than 1.08 since it’s actually a doubling function (which would be even more awesome!) but nevermind.

Sorry for the typo.

Now I want to know how you are coming up with 6 and 11%. That is of more importance.

But that doesn’t explain what to do if the way you want to play is specifically nerfed or terminated. I used to run almost every class I play regularly much differently than I run them today and generally speaking because the methods of running them were terminated. Half the traits don’t even exist in the game anymore and weren’t rolled into other lines.

Given the trait core the direction is pretty clear. I mean there isn’t really room for innovation anymore; it’s damage based with some emphasis on active defense and improvement to core mechanics of specific conceptualizations for the class.

The adaptation becomes the Meta.

insanemaniac.2456:

i believe you are miscomprehending the figures i wrote down. what i am doing is converting to relative overall dps increase. not looking for breakpoints or trying to say something about how much power is how much ferocity or what the starting points are because the starting points dont matter.

Since ferocity is a ratio increase (read as: percentage) the base does matter. It’s multiplicative.

grenades: since its unlikely that each hits at the same instant then yes 2 of the 3 on the first volley should get the 7%, so the first does base, the second +8%, and the 3rd +9%. the second volley should get +10%, +11%, and +12%. this does not mean you are doing 33% more damage, it means youre doing 11% more damage. that is what i am saying is not additive. because that is what you were doing wrong when you said that the second volley gets +24% damage a couple posts ago.

If the bonus applies to every explosion it’s simply additive. In your first volley example for instance using real easy numbers:

G1: base 100
G2: base *(1.01 + 1.07) = 108
G3: base *(1.02 +1.07) = 109

If taking a volley at zero distance (what I did, standing on the golem) they all hit at the same time so it’s:

Salvo 1: base 100 * 3 / 3
Salvo 2: base*(1.03 + 1.07)*3 / 3

If taken in your spread:

G4 = 110
G5 = 111
G6 = 112

Your difference is better than mine from base but not between salvos. My difference bigger between salvos but lower than yours from base since every iteration of yours gets a cumulative bonus of +1% while mine get a flat bonus presuming the worst (that they all hit at the same time).

In short, I hope the game works your way, since from base, you get 57 more pts of damage and I only got 24. Still, grenades 2 + 3 bonus = 17% and grenads 4 + 5 + 6 = 33% so it’s actually higher than the 11% you calculated because it’s cumulative and not a singular attack like say, bombs.

Bah. I’mma leave this alone. You’re right. Let’s call it day.

Obtena.7952:

I guess the takeaway for me here is that players willing to adapt to whatever the devs throw at them area less likely to find themselves frustrated with game changes. That’s a universal MMO truth. I don’t see how the OP doesn’t avoid his frustration with the class based on this truth. Find a build he likes and play it; I think how optimal it is doesn’t enter the equation. If someone relegates themselves to optimal, then it’s only reasonable they recognize that what is optimal and what they like to play don’t necessarily coincide.

What if the build you like playing is removed? That is to say, what if there are no options other than the “meta”? Because honestly esp. with Engineer the nerfs on most of the other portions really does leave either awkward builds that don’t work well or the meta.

insanemaniac.2456:

idk what youre talking about with cruelty.

250 extra power @ 2500 is gonna give 10% yes. 250 power @ 3000 is gonna give about 8%.

16% crit damage @ 194% base @ 100% crit rate gives about 16% damage. @ 76% rate it gives about 12% damage. @ 56% rate it gives about 8% damage.

im not sure on nades. but what i do know is it isnt additive.

Power and Ferocity both have base numbers, you have a base of 1000 power and though it isn’t stated a base of 750 ferocity (critical hits automatically do 150% @ zero additional ferocity) so sheet ferocity isn’t 8% in this case, its 8% + 150%, or your “real/hidden” ferocity.

250 power added to base power is 1,250. Simple.
150% + 8% of 1,000 is 1,580 or 1000 × 1.5 + 1000 × 1.08. Simple.

The adjustment for precision has to incorporate the entire 158%. Because it’s a percentage in this form it’s native to power (each point of power is worth 58% more or 1.58) rather than converting twice through ferocity and then through power.

But it can be done however you see fit, I guess.

I just tested this on my Engineer using only one trait line in PvP taking only the trait in question, and the forced 10% increase to damage. Averaged out a volley and came out to 8% for each grenade. It’s additive. Or at least so the game is telling me.

It is a kit that doesn’t stand alone very well. It’s very supportive with all of it’s fields so in solo play it is weaker than most other viable options. It also is not a bursty kit.

Just make skill challenges where a player’s stats are set to a certain armor type. Commence tomfoolery.

This is true so long as core elements of the build aren’t removed though. Elixir-Infused Bombs ( R.I.P. ) and Gun Turret with bleeds ( R.I.P. ) along with turret related traits ( R.I.P. ) actually choked me up when I took a break and came back. My build wasn’t just obsolete, it was impossible, because it didn’t exist anymore.

The husk example exists specifically as a counter, not as a general standard, to the playerbases love of Zerker. I think you are right but I think that I am swapping what you define as “macro and micro”; the macro-translation is that while you don’t have to swap builds every time there is a way to make a build that balances both (thus why viper’s/sinister was such a big deal) and the more you play to those strengths the better off you are. The micro-translation is just your build itself; you are given options, none of which you are guaranteed tomorrow, and you do your best.

It’s working for you is the singular element, the microcosm, and by no means am I saying it’s impossible to play a way that works for you but on the same front in the macrocosm, the game at large, when I brought up the Nomad’s at fractal 50 this is the bigger picture. In the bigger picture personal preference often gets shoved out. You can think whatever you want but in PvP Diamond league is not played “your way”, in PvE high level content is not played “your way”, and WvWvW is really the only sanctum where you can indeed, if you so choose, run around in Nomad’s and consider yourself equal because you can do stuff like heal others or support a squad and whatnot.

When the player adapts to the developer it’s dev-side and you’re absolutely right that GW2 isn’t unique; instead of using power creep armor we have traits and while they can freely be swapped they are doomed to change with little to no warning and huge nerfs to builds happen almost every quarter which either kills the build entirely or just forces a lot more effort.

I guess it’s not just the armor then.

Can we increase central Tyria’s enemy density in general maybe by just 25%? There are events that have dense packs of enemies and that is always fun but otherwise you can go quite a while with too many spaced out enemies and just sort of doesn’t make it feel very alive.

Especially in old Tyrian Maguuma or the Risen zones (pre-Orr). Hordes of undead during events but random wandering solo artists otherwise. I understand that Orr is permanently nerfed forever.

guildabd.6529:

DGraves.3720:

It was too good. I mean area bleeds as an auto-attack that could procure bleeds multiple times if done in a pack? I don’t think there’s an auto-attack with that functionality now.

It wasn’t area bleed.

IIRC Sharpshooter used to be able to proc’ from the explosion. It may still but I don’t think it does anymore. Now I am curious again. And Double Earth Sigil. Oh those were the days!

Serval.6458:

Coefficient per second, the bombs may hit harder but the staff hits fast enough to do more damage overall.

If you were take the “coefficient per second” the calculation would be totally different. Much like “damage per hit” isn’t “damage per second”. This coefficient represents damage per hit.

I find that HoT is annoying. That’s all. It just didn’t bring anything good to the table. Brought overpowered, overbearing bullkitten that makes old builds worthless.

I recommend Engineer. For leveling bombs make short work of the whole game and for end game despite a complex rotation option you can also just press 1 with a number of kits and win. They are flexible enough that you can use almost any of their skills and not feel kitten. You can actually use all of their traitlines as well the same; iirc they are the only class in which the two main weapons are contained in the same trait line (firearms) and have little to nothing going for them so no worries of picking wrong.

Obtena.7952:

That doesn’t make sense to me … NPC’s that have specific traits that deter certain builds/stats (like in your example for husks with high toughness) doesn’t mean players can’t play the way they want.

If a group of players WANTS to play Nomad’s in a 50 fractal, they do it knowing it will take them longer than a highly-capable zerker group. For some people, that isn’t a problem, clearly based on their desire to use Nomads in the first place. I think you have it backwards. No dev-side behaviour has been so extreme that it prevents players from playing how they want. If anything, it creates situations where players SHOULD explore alternatives to their playstyles and as players, we shouldn’t discourage that because it’s a good thing. It keeps things fresh.

The key there is if a group will but realistically a group won’t. Nor will a group take on someone in Nomad’s if they have the option at that level of fractal because hopefully your skill will keep you out of completely defensive armor.

That’s the point though; dev-side sets the skill level requirements (rules and mechanics) and player-side sets the choice viability (efficiency and popularity). Nomad’s is terrible to the players (inefficient) , not the developers (because it’s offered), but this is because the developer’s set expectations that don’t cater to Nomad’s; prolonged fights in this game are usually a sign that something is horribly wrong and rarely end in the favor of the delaying party whether it be the NPC that can’t kill you or you who can’t kill the Champion NPC.

The game was built for quicker skirmishes as well so defensive stats have less weight than active defenses meaning that taking defensive stats as a buffer for your inability to actively defend is supposed to not work since that defeats their learning curve. It’s just how the game is designed. Working against the design of the game is optional, yes, but I wouldn’t call it … er… refreshing.

I want a ranger that uses Pistols and Rifles.

The class will be Texas Ranger and their ultimate will turn them into Good Ol’ Chuck.

insanemaniac.2456:

dont forget that cruelty gets blunted by only having 76% crit chance. its not 16%. its closer to 12%, and against boon strip more like 8%.

At 8% takeaway in ferocity it would be base 158% per crit at say a true 76% of the time for ease. So in equivalency we just take the power and divide it by the critical effect so just 250 / .58 as the power equivalent. After that point the power becomes less and less effective for every point of power beyond that number.

For instance 250 power is 10% of 2,500 but 2,500 * .58 * .76 = 1,102 which is 4 times greater. The flat increase isn’t as good. Obviously this is just these two sigils against one another though and definitely not using Assassin’s armor which would raise the cap higher.

nades on the 2nd attack will be at +10%. 3 vuln, 7% from shaped. not 24%. this is not how this multiplier works. you do not get 3×7% from hitting 3 times. you get 7%. thats around 100-200 damage per nade. rocket does 1k or 2k in 1 hit every 10 secs. under quickness, nades with shaped charge will give you like 500 more dps than rocket. without quickness, its a wash. vuln is also gonna be the first thing cleansed every time.

Each salvo is 3 separate attacks as I understand it so I simply did what you did and expanded it without the middle step, but I think we are in agreement, it’s (.07x + .03) where x is the number of grenades that hits the target in the salvo, so if it’s one it’s 10%, 2 it’s 17% and if 3 it’s 24% total.

I could be wrong and the salvo itself be just “one attack”. If I am wrong I apologize.

this build should easily maintain 15ish might, tossing b on cd will simply push it to near 25 for ~50% of the time.

I agree with that. But what of the stability?

bearshaman.3421:

Now I know most everyone is pvplayers which I don’t do, but my thing is that line from Pier: if you don’t like it, don’t use it. (I know you still have to deal with everyone else using it against you in pvp, but that just means you have to be more creative? (I dunno.) But anywhere else (except raids X-p ) you can play whatever you want! So enjoy your class the way you want to.

There is but one problem to this. The dev-side. When Berserker became Meta husks were introduced to have incredible toughness not not as much vitality meaning that while sticks and stones wouldn’t break their bones bleeding and burning could hurt them. The Dev-Side behavior dictates player behavior more than any other element in the game so whether it be PvE or PvP or WvWvW players are actually unable to play their way and are limited by Dev-side behavior.

Can you do fractal 50 in Nomad’s armor? The realistic answer is no. The technical answer is yes. Yes, you could spend 6 hours in fractal 50 in Nomad’s armor and win. But … I mean you’ll be solo for sure. Also you brought up Raids; this is another dev-side behavioral issue and it hits my point exactly. You cannot play however you want in a Raid. That is simply not going to work, a team in Nomad’s will not win.

It was too good. I mean area bleeds as an auto-attack that could procure bleeds multiple times if done in a pack? I don’t think there’s an auto-attack with that functionality now.

Manuhell.2759:

DGraves.3720:

In a Raid setting why are you using auto attacks primarily to begin with though? The proposed 20% boost to the coefficient of the hammer wouldn’t do anything to that. This is why the analysis is so bad; we can’t keep shifting gears and changing the battlefield then talk about the results.

When every other good choice is on cooldown. Something that, in a power build, does happens – and rather often, i should add, since we haven’t got many of them, and they’re all from different sources (on purpose, due to how kits work – else you could just equip some kits and chain high direct damage skills by swapping continuosly).

Last I checked people didn’t even use bomb auto in Raids all that often even for power builds and it does de facto have the highest coefficient of it’s own skills per attack.

People don’t use engineer/scrapper power builds in raids to begin with. Aside from that, using bombs would indeed be a good choice if the need arises. As said above, those other skills do end up being on cooldown…

If running shrapnel Grenades would be the better choice since it has a coefficient of .99 when all three hit and gives a 45% chance to proc’ Shrapnel, 99% chance to proc Sharpshooter, and with Sigil of Earth an additional chance for a bleed and also induces 3 vulnerability and all three hits would gain from the 7% bonus against targets with vulnerability plus it has more team play and you can be further away.

Not that bomb kit is inferior or anything for single strike damage but it is more of a rapid termination weapon in my opinion or if you are solo-playing. But that is my opinion of course.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

DGraves.3720:

First, bomb auto attack has the highest coefficient in the game for an auto

False. Thieves are higher for every single melee weapon.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Staff_Strike

The coefficient for the staff is 75%. That is lower than 125%. The staff is a melee weapon. This just isn’t true.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Double_Strike

Dagger. 80% coefficient.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Slice_%28thief_skill%29

Sword. 80% coefficient.

Unless you disagree with the wiki itself?

That’s a bummer. Thank you though!

Manuhell.2759:

Applied Force works on everything, though. And those needed might stacks will be provided by someone else in party/raid settings, either way. So the end result is that you’ll still be using that quickness with bomb autoattacks, rather than hammer ones.
Yet again, people are convinced that the hammer is so strong, despite no one actually using it in any optimized setting. Go figure.

In a Raid setting why are you using auto attacks primarily to begin with though? The proposed 20% boost to the coefficient of the hammer wouldn’t do anything to that. This is why the analysis is so bad; we can’t keep shifting gears and changing the battlefield then talk about the results.

Last I checked people didn’t even use bomb auto in Raids all that often even for power builds and it does de facto have the highest coefficient of it’s own skills per attack.

It is working as intended.

First, bomb auto attack has the highest coefficient in the game for an auto so this doesn’t even require discussion. I wouldn’t have even brought it up.

Second, comparing secondary effects of traits is ineffective. If we were to do that your analysis is worthless since Hammer literally gives itself (when traited) quickness boosting it’s own DPS by 50% (it’s a little higher, actually). So does flamejet when you take Juggernaut. You are selectively choosing Shrapnel as a “natural decision” in the bomb trait line but ignoring many other traits that make weapons viable.

The analysis is just bad altogether.

The Scrapper is the herald of the return to basic combat roles. It is as boring as it was in the past when you ran a bruiser. That is, after all, the entire basis of the Scrapper.

Heart of Thorns is meh. It isn’t Game of the Year but it isn’t terrible either. Very middle of the road in it’s current state.

There is no simple solution to this problem. Your idea wouldn’t solve the issue since those who are cheating within the system likely will find a way around your clever behavior.

The game is too easy and not diversified enough. That’s why the Elite professions exist; it was a return to the “Holy Trinity” in essence though more covert, from the obvious Support Herald and Healer Druid to the more subtle Bruiser Scrapper and Battlemage Reaper it’s nothing more than a small admittance of defeat.

But it was a good run when they tried. Power Creep is taking it’s toll now in the traits giving everyone instant access to overwhelming power with few players knowing what to actually do with it still stumbling around with the same old builds ignoring their inefficiencies or convincing themselves they don’t exist to say the least.

That is why you are so dissatisfied. There is no puzzle, no new world to overturn, no myths, no math, no thought, and it has become a mindless point and click filled with frivolous RNG that guarantees you nothing more than the sheer ability to claim you won a lottery rather than showing pure skill and ability.

Hundreds of options splayed out but only three viable ones? And that’s build diversity?

Is it possible to create more than one key configuration and have them swappable for different classes? The buttons I use for Engineer (lulz) differ than what I use for my Elementalist, for instance. I would like to be able to bind the keys two different layouts.

If this is already implemented, sorry for missing it.

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

Sigil of Bloodlust needs to be Sigil of Cruelty. You get more damage out of 250 ferocity than 250 strength.

Shaped Charge is better than Aim Assisted Rocket hit over hit if using explosives.

Where is your stability coming from to make Mass Momentum worthwhile? I don’t see any. I would take Rapid Regeneration instead. You’ll live longer and have easier access to swiftness. The 10% toughness to power isn’t worth it.

That’s all I can think of without completely making it my own.

off the top of my head, bloodlust and cruelty should be about the same in his build.

Nowhere near. The ferocity is significantly better because it exemplifies every current point increasing it’s value by 16% (250/15 rounded down). This matters a lot when you start handling coefficients.

shaped charge does nothing when condis get cleansed, rocket bursts and nades proc it quick.

Grenades in just two attacks will go from +3% to +24% since the vulnerability and the explosion itself pushes all three individual attacks up as it’s 7% per grenade. The rocket doesn’t attack anywhere nearly as quickly though I do agree if it does go off it will be a strong contender for burst. In WvW sustained damage tends to work better overall when not alone.

would agree on mass momentum… if he had any super speed at all. but he does have toss b. its a good cover for the stab since it refreshes might. prolly doesnt need recovery matrix. perfectly weighted could be a better choice, giving more stab without really hurting prot uptime when it matters.

It’s the lack of stability that concerns me. It’s usefulness is extremely limited and his timing has to be impeccable to make the might worthwhile. Even then it’s only 7 stacks; that isn’t really game changing. As for recovery matrix that’s something I left alone as personal choice.

I wonder if you could just store EXP in a container whether for other characters or to spend at a vendor. Same difference.