Guild Wars 2

I honestly never noticed.

SkyShroud.2865:

it is subjective
it really all depends on the overall game design

In what game design are raids good for games? Curious.

This person doesn’t have HoT though, I don’t think. The Scrapper line isn’t actually available to them for the flamethrower thing not to mention they’d have to get to 80 and then get 250 skill points to get it all together? Or are we just stopping at Mass Momentum?

Andulias.9516:

Second, you could pre-order the expansion months in advance. We have no idea how many people ended up doing that, but I was one of them. Meaning the money I gave did not appear in the 4th quarter report at all.

This is (or rather, should be) inaccurate.

Revenue recognition principles require that revenue is only recognized when the product is actually delivered regardless of when the funds are received. In other words it becomes deferred revenue until the release of the expansion and should be reported in the quarter where the expansion launches.

The same is true of costs so the cost of the expansion also should only be recognized when the revenue is and that is only recognized when the service is completed or in this case the expansion goes live. Hopefully NCSoft didn’t choose to do otherwise as that would be problematic when they get audited.

I do agree with you for sure that adaptive armor is a tad too good. But I like things that are a tad too good?

The only balance problem for the engineer is probably effort. It is significantly harder to get results that are marginally better, if better at all, through rotations.

The rest is fine. I would like to see more streamlined kit based traits rather than general traits but that’s just me personally.

Zedek.8932:

Inspired from this epic adventure, I tried it but “I need a key” to open that kitten Level 2 door…

Just raise “Lockpicking”.

Behellagh.1468:

The last one in English was in 2013. The Korean site has 2014. The last time ArenaNet was broken out on it’s own was 2012, after that their income is folded into the NC West Holding numbers. NC West includes Carbine and NC Interactive as well as ArenaNet.

I’ve been following NCSOFT since 2004 and I’ve only seen the numbers change once from their initial values but not in terms of game sales, just expenses. So yes, it could change, but that damages the company’s stock value if they have to reissue so for the most part they are on point.

As for when the 2015 audited numbers come out, it appears late March is when it’s normally released. But like I said, they no longer break out ArenaNet from NC West Holdings numbers. But who knows, the NC West run ncsoft.com no longer lists Guild Wars 2 in their games pull down but GW2 is still listed at the bottom of the page menu.

Not since 2012… That basically means that the entire report is impossible to read externally; division numbers can involve multiple moves of money in the intercompany sense (which is probably why they started using division numbers to begin with) with say, a developer swapping to a new team changing the expense report of one team by raising it and another by lowering it. These silent changes happen all the time thus the SoCF.

Generally speaking raids are bad for MMOs.

They oppose player choice and diversity for the most part. You will never see a Settler’s warrior in one not because it’s impractical (player-side) but because it’s impossible (developer-side) to complete.

I would never use another skin again.

It’s never too early for an expansion. I like content.

“Disclaimer

The financial results for 4! 2015 have been prepared on an unaudited basis, and may be subject to change during independent auditing process."

-pg. 2

The report isn’t even worth reading if not actually audited. Is there an audited version?

Maybe I was wrong. The average seems to be a few years or so higher than I guessed.

Power creep. As offense goes up reliance on personal skill versus in-game defense rises as well.

Paulytnz.7619:

DGraves.3720:

Don’t play engineer.

Nonsense, DO play an Engi – the most fun you can ever have. And for my piece of advice? Don’t quit this time. :P

Why would anyone want to endure leveling up an Engineer only to find the most ridiculous rotations for mediocore output?

You’re cruel for even jesting about that suggestion.

Bellatrixa.3546:

I’m as old as Back to the Future and disappointed we still don’t have hoverboards

I like this.

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

Glacial.9516:

Serval did use the correct formula and his adjustments add up.

DGraves.3720:

(1 × 1.73 × 131.5) + (1 × 1.73 × .155 x 1382) would be the same thing at one second. The value that is a base is equal to 227.495 and the value gotten from condition damage is 370.5833 totalling 598.0783 in a second.

(1 × 2 × 131.5) + (1 × 2 × .155x 1192) equals 263 + 319.6348 which is 582.6348 in one second.

Your Viper calc would be 263 + 369.52 = 632.52. Which is higher than Sinister. What you did was 1192 * 0.155 * 1.73, using the Sinister duration instead of Viper.

You are right about the mistake and I did misapply.

It is indeed 632.52 and 598.0783.

Thanks for catching that.

Correcting for b <> 0 @ 2x duration it’s 183% considering only gear.

soooooo does this lead you to the conclusion that viper > sinister when duration is not already capped?

The conclusion is not so simple. You should get as much condition duration as possible from non-obstructing sources (basically things that don’t have condition damage trade-offs) and make the up the difference between 83 and that number through whatever means you choose.

Taking bleeds for instance if you took sigil of agony ( 20 ) + rare veggie pizza ( 20 ) + rune of the krait ( 45 ) you would have 85% on bleeding, you only need 83% so you would not take Viper’s armor. This doesn’t include a toxic oil.

A more well-rounded set up ( saying that you apply and maintain maybe 4 or more conditions at a time permanently ) might be Sigil of Malice ( 10 ) + pizza ( 20 ) + a toxic oil ( 10 ) + combinations of runes depending on the focus ( 25~45 ) with low end equaling 65% ( 10 + 10 + 20 + 25 ). You need 83% so you would only want 18% which is 270 expertise.

None of these obviously include traits or other elements. Presuming you wanted your runes for something else you would need 43% which requires full Viper’s stats but is also short 1%.

If we included a trait that gave 33% to a condition, any special skills or sigils or other elements, and so forth and so on these numbers change drastically, for instance in the first presentation the 33% bleed duration wipes the need for the pizza or frees up the sigil and them some. All over 83% that doesn’t involve a trade-off between condition duration and condition damage is just a bonus. It isn’t “bad”.

The name of the game is to avoid taking less condition damage when you can.

so youve finally convinced yourself that viper > sinister when you dont have enough condi duration?

Actually I never said condition duration was bad. I said that the 100% base thing using tradeoffs made no sense and was fundamentally wrong; the whole calculation behind how it was found just seemed off at first glance. And it was. Viper’s and Sinister have a relationship similar to Assassin’s and Berserker’s. You take just enough Assassin’s to hit whatever your goal critical chance is and the rest is Berserker’s; the same is true of Viper’s and Sinister, but because this is a generic assessment I can’t make sweeping claims for all classes. The odds you need all Viper’s armor to reach 83% is very, very low in most instances, esp. with builds that specialize in only one or two conditions.

echo.2053:

DGraves.3720:

Did anyone who is complaining here read the old forums of GW1?

Because it’s riddled with complaints about the game. Nostalgia is amazing sometimes.

is there actually a game where there no forum complaints? Its amazing how its so easy to blame nostalgia sometimes. XD

To be honest though – had no idea there actually was a gw1 forum. seriously always thought gwguru was the actual forum :o Live and let live I suppose

I’m not so much blaming nostalgia as sort of poking fun.

Seriously though the mechanics of the two games are like night and day though; GW"2" is not exactly a successor in the traditional sense.

I am sure I can’t ask that question here. But it does pertain to GW2. I don’t really know the median age of players vs. the median age of forum users and those who engage the game on a deeper level. I’m guessing mid-20s for forum users.

Qugi.2653:

DGraves.3720:

I’m surprised no one has brought up the RNG of Outside.

When I was many year younger and play Outside I was not very smart. Many time I throw some thing into mystic forge with another player with out worry if maybe it would bring new player to game I have to mentor. Lucky for me RNG work out.

I am extraordinarily jealous.

Did anyone who is complaining here read the old forums of GW1?

Because it’s riddled with complaints about the game. Nostalgia is amazing sometimes.

I’m really hungry. I do wish that part would stop.

What would a legendary rune or sigil actually do?

Don’t play engineer.

I personally would like to see Inventions reworked.

I am sure the parts may be salable.

Technology bro.

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

Glacial.9516:

Serval did use the correct formula and his adjustments add up.

DGraves.3720:

(1 × 1.73 × 131.5) + (1 × 1.73 × .155 x 1382) would be the same thing at one second. The value that is a base is equal to 227.495 and the value gotten from condition damage is 370.5833 totalling 598.0783 in a second.

(1 × 2 × 131.5) + (1 × 2 × .155x 1192) equals 263 + 319.6348 which is 582.6348 in one second.

Your Viper calc would be 263 + 369.52 = 632.52. Which is higher than Sinister. What you did was 1192 * 0.155 * 1.73, using the Sinister duration instead of Viper.

You are right about the mistake and I did misapply.

It is indeed 632.52 and 598.0783.

Thanks for catching that.

Correcting for b <> 0 @ 2x duration it’s 183% considering only gear.

soooooo does this lead you to the conclusion that viper > sinister when duration is not already capped?

The conclusion is not so simple. You should get as much condition duration as possible from non-obstructing sources (basically things that don’t have condition damage trade-offs) and make the up the difference between 83 and that number through whatever means you choose.

Taking bleeds for instance if you took sigil of agony ( 20 ) + rare veggie pizza ( 20 ) + rune of the krait ( 45 ) you would have 85% on bleeding, you only need 83% so you would not take Viper’s armor. This doesn’t include a toxic oil.

A more well-rounded set up ( saying that you apply and maintain maybe 4 or more conditions at a time permanently ) might be Sigil of Malice ( 10 ) + pizza ( 20 ) + a toxic oil ( 10 ) + combinations of runes depending on the focus ( 25~45 ) with low end equaling 65% ( 10 + 10 + 20 + 25 ). You need 83% so you would only want 18% which is 270 expertise.

None of these obviously include traits or other elements. Presuming you wanted your runes for something else you would need 43% which requires full Viper’s stats but is also short 1%.

If we included a trait that gave 33% to a condition, any special skills or sigils or other elements, and so forth and so on these numbers change drastically, for instance in the first presentation the 33% bleed duration wipes the need for the pizza or frees up the sigil and them some. All over 83% that doesn’t involve a trade-off between condition duration and condition damage is just a bonus. It isn’t “bad”.

The name of the game is to avoid taking less condition damage when you can.

Glacial.9516:

Serval did use the correct formula and his adjustments add up.

DGraves.3720:

(1 × 1.73 × 131.5) + (1 × 1.73 × .155 x 1382) would be the same thing at one second. The value that is a base is equal to 227.495 and the value gotten from condition damage is 370.5833 totalling 598.0783 in a second.

(1 × 2 × 131.5) + (1 × 2 × .155x 1192) equals 263 + 319.6348 which is 582.6348 in one second.

Your Viper calc would be 263 + 369.52 = 632.52. Which is higher than Sinister. What you did was 1192 * 0.155 * 1.73, using the Sinister duration instead of Viper.

You are right about the mistake and I did misapply.

It is indeed 632.52 and 598.0783.

Thanks for catching that.

Correcting for b <> 0 @ 2x duration it’s 183% considering only gear.

Ayrilana.1396:

DGraves.3720:

Ayrilana.1396:

DGraves.3720:

Seera.5916:

You’re not accounting for having the ability to have more stacks of the condition.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t wait until my 1 bleed is gone to apply another. So please, do calculations based on how people actually play the game. Not to make the numbers fit your conclusion.

The condition stacking effect can be measured and graphed as X = Y.

The maximum number of stacks you can have of a condition is equal to the product of that condition’s single stack calculation. They are completely interchangeable.

A bleed that does 100 dmg over 10s does 1,000 damage total.
A bleed that does 100 dmg at ten stacks is worth 1,000 damage.

Do it using real numbers. Also show where you are getting the 1.73 multiplier that you have used for both burning and bleeds.

( applications per second x base x condition duration x condition damage x coefficient )

One application of burning @ 5s.

Stack Method:

(1 × 5 × 1.73) x 0.155 × 1382 = 1852.92

Simplified: 8.65 × .155 × 1382

Product Method:

1x 5 × 1.73 x (0.155 × 1382) = 1852.92

Simplified: 1 × 5 × 1.73 x 107.105

If applying two in a second:

Stack:

(2 × 5 × 1.73) x 0.155 × 1382 = 3705.83

Simplified: “17.3 × .155 × 1382”

Product:

2 x 5 × 1.73 x (0.155*1382) = 3705.83

Simplified: “2 × 5 × 1.73 x 214.21”

Explanation: The parenthesis used dictate the type, the product method processes the coefficient first and then the time, the stacking method processes the time first and then the coefficient.

Since bleeding only changes the coefficient I am only going to do it once.

And again, you’re using numbers you made up and ignoring everything that I suggested that you do.

I can do an analysis of Dual Shot by Warrior as that applies two real stacks of burning, each at one second, applied every 1.19s?

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dual_Shot

Otherwise asking me to just “pick one” isn’t really helpful since these numbers represent a myriad of commonly found variables mixed with genuine coefficients. Whether it’s kitten burn or bleed or torment or confusion (active and passive) or even the reaper’s chill the coefficient itself doesn’t matter and doesn’t change anything.

Serval.6458:

DGraves.3720:

Ayrilana.1396:

Somehow I think that 1 sec bleed was intentional rather than the duration most bleeds last.

5s burn:

5*1.73*0.155*1382 = 1852.917
5*2*0.155*1192 = 1847.6

1852.917 / 1847.6 = 1.002878 (proposed ratio)

You can do it with any length of condition. It does not matter.

That’s not the formula for condition damage, they have a base value that you are conveniently ignoring.

For burning this base value (131.5 at level 80) is a significant part of the total damage.

5(1.73(0.155*1382+131.5)) = 2,990
5(2(0.155*1192+131.5)) = 3,162

I’ll reduce this to 1s for ease of explanation.

(1 × 1.73 × 131.5) + (1 × 1.73 × .155 x 1382) would be the same thing at one second. The value that is a base is equal to 227.495 and the value gotten from condition damage is 370.5833 totalling 598.0783 in a second.

(1 × 2 × 131.5) + (1 × 2 × .155x 1192) equals 263 + 319.6348 which is 582.6348 in one second.

598.0783 > 582.6348, 598.0783 / 582.6348 = 1.026506 which is the new slope adding in the burning damage. This means that for every second the shorter condition duration does one “unit” (I have not deciphered how that unit is measured, as I am busy with this, whether in percentage points [compounding most likely or damage points [linear]) more per tick.

I broke the two into two equations specifically because you misplaced your parentheses. 131.5+(.155 × 1000) x 3 for instance is 596.5 while (131.5+.155 × 1000) x 3 = 859.5. What you did is took the base, reduced it to 15% of itself, and multiplied it by 1,000.

“(0.155 x Condition Damage) + 131.5”

Please note the actual formula from the GW2 Wiki. Thank you. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Burning

Ayrilana.1396:

DGraves.3720:

Seera.5916:

You’re not accounting for having the ability to have more stacks of the condition.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t wait until my 1 bleed is gone to apply another. So please, do calculations based on how people actually play the game. Not to make the numbers fit your conclusion.

The condition stacking effect can be measured and graphed as X = Y.

The maximum number of stacks you can have of a condition is equal to the product of that condition’s single stack calculation. They are completely interchangeable.

A bleed that does 100 dmg over 10s does 1,000 damage total.
A bleed that does 100 dmg at ten stacks is worth 1,000 damage.

Do it using real numbers. Also show where you are getting the 1.73 multiplier that you have used for both burning and bleeds.

( applications per second x base x condition duration x condition damage x coefficient )

One application of burning @ 5s.

Stack Method:

(1 × 5 × 1.73) x 0.155 × 1382 = 1852.92

Simplified: 8.65 × .155 × 1382

Product Method:

1x 5 × 1.73 x (0.155 × 1382) = 1852.92

Simplified: 1 × 5 × 1.73 x 107.105

If applying two in a second:

Stack:

(2 × 5 × 1.73) x 0.155 × 1382 = 3705.83

Simplified: “17.3 × .155 × 1382”

Product:

2 x 5 × 1.73 x (0.155*1382) = 3705.83

Simplified: “2 × 5 × 1.73 x 214.21”

Explanation: The parenthesis used dictate the type, the product method processes the coefficient first and then the time, the stacking method processes the time first and then the coefficient.

Since bleeding only changes the coefficient I am only going to do it once.

Seera.5916:

You’re not accounting for having the ability to have more stacks of the condition.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t wait until my 1 bleed is gone to apply another. So please, do calculations based on how people actually play the game. Not to make the numbers fit your conclusion.

The condition stacking effect can be measured and graphed as X = Y.

The maximum number of stacks you can have of a condition is equal to the product of that condition’s single stack calculation. They are completely interchangeable.

A bleed that does 100 dmg over 10s does 1,000 damage total.
A bleed that does 100 dmg at ten stacks is worth 1,000 damage.

Further explanation:

Since conditions only tick on the second even applying multiple stacks, such as with an attack that does two stacks of a condition every second or an attack that applies one stack of a condition every half a second follow the same rules. The maximum stacks you can have is always equal to the full value of all stacks applied within the second they are applied.

1. Find a way to give more tomes of knowledge.

2. Give me more gold for less work.

3. Legendary Armor better not be stupidly hard to make. It’s the only legendary anything I’ll actually do.

Seera.5916:

It can take upwards of 12 seconds for the switch to happen where Condition Duration gives more damage per second than Condition Damage. And don’t forget that most people don’t attack, wait until the condition goes away and then attack again. Players continuously attack, so any calculation you do needs to account for new stacks being added over the fight.

Please look at the timers of longer boss fights and use times more relevant to those bosses when telling us which is better.

Because I don’t know about everyone else, but I build my characters for the harder fights that last longer. Not the under 10 seconds and dead enemies.

600s burn:

600*1.73*0.155*1382 = 222,349.98
600*2*0.155*1192 = 221,712

222349.98/221712 = 1.00287752 (Ratio / Slope)

600s is 10 minutes. As I said it does not matter.

Hell, 3,600s burn:

3600*1.73*0.155*1382 = 1,334,099.88
3600*2*0.155*1192 = 1,330,272

1334099.88 / 1330272 = 1.002877517 (a more defined slope due to size)

3600s is one hour.

Ayrilana.1396:

Somehow I think that 1 sec bleed was intentional rather than the duration most bleeds last.

5s burn:

5*1.73*0.155*1382 = 1852.917
5*2*0.155*1192 = 1847.6

1852.917 / 1847.6 = 1.002878 (proposed ratio)

You can do it with any length of condition. It does not matter.

I am going to put this to rest because honestly I don’t want to read all that over a simple linear equation.

I went and grabbed the ascended numbers.
Viper’s condition damage is 1192.
Sinister’s condition damage is 1382.

Taking a 1s bleed & burn I tested for when Sinister’s stacks outperformed Viper’s though this could be done with any trade-off between the two.

1382 * .155 * 1.73 = 370.5833
1192 * .155 * 2 = 369.52

1382 * .06 * 1.73 = 143.4516
1192 * .06 * 2 = 143.04

I did a ratio test, the ratio is 1.002878 for both so it passes as a function. This means that having it be 50s or 50,000s will produce the same result thus the same difference.

Analysis:

Viper’s gives ~42% condition duration at 635 expertise. Of that with sinister outperforming just in the gear (considering nothing else, Optimization in Differences) ~ 27% of that is waste stats which equals 405 expertise that should actually be condition damage when considering double length.

At this exact value considering no additions over the course of a minute you would lose 24.696 damage per stack of bleed by using the doubled value, simply found by taking the base bleed of 143.04 and multiplying it out by 60 to 8582.4 at double length versus 143.4516 at 60 for a total of 8607.96.

Conclusion:

The math is right there. Anyone can do this themselves and get the same results. The effect of stacking doesn’t change this since the crest value is equivalent to the product of a single-second capture of any condition. If you have a higher condition duration than 173% through food, for instance, you are not hurting your damage because Veggie Pizza gives condition damage and is not traded off for condition duration, the same is true of sigils which improve condition damage and duration, any effects which may from your traits or skills, and so forth and so on.

I overestimated that it was 178% when it is truthfully 173% (the actual number is 172.52%).

Anyone who has inquiries and would like to offer a rebuttal please do so with a formula that is fully testable in this format:

( Condition Damage x Base Condition Length x Condition Duration x Coefficient )

I will test your formula. I don’t think it is worthy to discuss a linear formula and truth be told someone in this thread thought that condition damage had diminishing returns so I can’t fathom how riveting a discussion on this would be.

TL;DR: Only wear what you need to in order to get 73% condition duration. Anything more than that is a waste. After that point go full condition damage.

Aidan Savage.2078:

The problem is that some people WILLINGLY ignore anything that isnt on paper or is not an absolute, and exhibit an alarming ability to fail to consider beyond the confines of their own thinking.

A simple way to settle this in under 10 words:

“Protection” is to toughness/armor as ________ is to vitality.

I like that your name is fluffball.

Well apparently:

“The April update is about reducing grind, clearing away some tedium, getting quickly to the fun, and improving rewards. We’ve always said that Guild Wars should be about having fun rather than preparing to have fun, and this will be a back-to-our-roots kind of update.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/48zlyd/im_mike_obrien_here_with_gw2_dev_team_ama/

So there’s that for your hope?

Alright, fine, but let’s say that we do allow this. Doesn’t that make the weapon swap itself into just sort of a pseudo-kit?

Yes. Just because there is resistance doesn’t mean that you should fear being completely left out.

Stand The Wall.6987:

wow lol you should be a politician.

I’m am a member of the Order of the Dismal (economist) by day. It’s far, far worse than any politician.

I despise it. Masteries in Tyria are QoL. Masteries in HoT are required.

That was the mistake.

Do you think it would cause imbalance to the game to have a sigil that burns on critical strike now that burning duration is reduced in exchange for it being stackable?

EphemeralWallaby.7643:

DGraves.3720:

I understand that but there’s a difference between “Vitality is a defense” and “Vitality is a defense against condition damage” since the latter is a statement of design.

Lucky for us Vitality is both those statements. Which just goes to show how awesome it is!

~EW

I’ll never understand how this works in your heads. You do everything to prove it wrong, succeed, and then go with it anyway. You literally proved that vitality isn’t a defense against condition damage because it doesn’t mitigate anything and with the 20k / 15k comparison showed that incoming damage reduction is more effective than vitality at everything!

You did it but… It’s like weird to me.

Aro.8275:

So to summarize, Sinister is better for shorter fights while Viper is better for longer fights?

“You have two DoT (Damage over time) effects, which one is better?
One lasts 5s but is worth 110/per second.
One lasts 60s but is worth 22/per second.”
You state the first.

No. The claim would be closer to “At a certain amount of condition duration you do better just going damage instead.” Turns out that was 78% but, meh. In most builds you don’t have to sacrifice condition damage for duration to do well since there are plenty of sources that get you to that mark.

“If an enemy would take all damage from an attack wouldn’t it be simpler to equate the full damage it would do?”

No. The reason is because that ignores the time vertex. It’s not that the enemy won’t take all the damage it is that the player is deliberately doing lower damage over longer periods of time to see shinier numbers.

“A. 100 damage attack, 1 attack per second, 0% crit. 100 dps.
B. 100 condi attack, 1 attack per second, 100% duration. 100 dps.
C. 50 condi attack, 1 attack per second, 200% duration. 100 dps.”

Equivalency. The attack that does 50 damage per second does… 50 DPS. It just does it over twitch as many ticks. This is not 100 DPS. This is why you don’t equate variables.

C. Does half the damage of B. A simple proof is to just use a 60s base.

A, 60 × 100 × 1 (for zero crit)

B. 60 × 100 x. 1 (base condition duration)

C. 60 × 50 × 2 (double duration)

Now wait. DPS is just damage measured in (generally) one minute. C. Is actually 2 minutes long, not one, so to get one minute we divide it by half to get 50. Does this check out?

How much damage does A do in one second (hence the name)? 100. B? 100. C? 50. I mean it’s 50. It’s exactly what it says on the tin. Nothing to calculate actually since conditions tick in seconds. This brings us to:

“Comparing dps makes the second better. 550 dps vs 1320 dps. There is no trap about it, higher dps is higher dps. Arguing against this would mean dropping condi and going full Zerker since there is no ramp up.”

The issue here is that this omits one tiny thing: B vs. C is actually unfair. B can have condition duration too! Why does only C get it? What if B had 50% and lasted 90s? What if B had 80 duration?

The problem here is that in the “all/nothing” mindset this model works but if we quit that nonsense and gave B more than 0 not only are you doing double damage but you’re also doing it without sacrificing damage.

A 20% loss per tick for no reason adds up fast. As with most things it’s what you don’t see that’s actually getting you, doing 80% of what you can for a gain of 23% up time? How does that make sense?

“Condi has a ramp up, ignoring it in a final calculation is illogical.”

Which is exactly my point. People

A. Miscalculate the “ramp up”.

B. Ignore the time aspect shooting for the product.

C. Cannot and do not take measures towards an opportunity cost analysis. “How much condition damage am I losing for condition duration?” I have news for you: That equation isn’t linear, it’s logarithmic, you do really well taking it at first but every percentage point actually is diminishing because even if you last longer you begin to lose more damage than it’s worth at some point.

You know what else is like that? Precision.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

No, you aren’t. 7 stacks of bleed at 135 damage per bleed is 945 damage every second. 10 stacks of bleed at 100 is 1000 damage per second.

Hence the product trap. 1,000 > 945 but (945/7) > (1,000/10). The ignored dimension is time. The longer the struggle the more time compression matters. The belief that the product is more important is wrong, and I purposefully used an extreme example (22@60s & 110@5s) to show this.

Basic rule of thumb is to want as much damage as possible in as little time as possible.

“The whole point of condition duration is that, by making each individual attack do more damage in the long run, you end up doing more total damage overall than if you went with shorter but more intensity.”

Expansion trap. First you do less damage per tick, not more, when you trade condition damage for duration (or anything else) and by expanding the proposed crest (or max stacks) value incorrectly you basically make an inconsistent model. The easiest way to tell, and how I caught it from other’s claims, is to test ratios.

Since condition damage is linear the ratio between two values shouldn’t change based on condition used but often did. The error was in measuring:

“Once you get past that initial ramp up time, going for longer but overall stronger conditions wins out. And by “wins out” we mean they have a higher overall DPS and make the fight shorter."

This.

The “once you get past” part often failed to account for damage lost during that particular phase. This meant that shorter timers were basically misrepresented. The 7 to 945 for instance actually does more, not less, because you have a whole 6 more seconds during the minute where it’s at crest and during “ramp up” a whole 7s where it does better, 1s where it’s marginally better in interval @800, and then your 900 and 1,000.

Because of the mirroring pattern you only need the first 30s of data to build this which means I’m that 30 you capture 3 more ticks at full for the 745 vs still working up to the 1,000. This greatly effects average values and DPS.
______

EDIT: found it. I’ve already explained all this to you before.[/quote]

And you were wrong then too.

Fire Elemental is a delicate boss.

Before it was too hard, what people called “respect” today they called “utter frustration” yesteryear. SB was painfully easy and Fire Elemental was stupidly hard no matter what you were wearing since you could easily suffer permanent burning.

Now that burning stacks it’s just worse for them to work with. People generally didn’t like either version of the boss, the easy or the hard, esp. since it’s level 15.

That’s an excellent idea.