Guild Wars 2

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

I think lots of players had L80 characters for the 3 years before HoT launched. No reason to think one must play in the jungle just because one has hit L80. There’s plenty to do in Core Tyria.

But he won’t get LS2 either. Just 1. Actually can he even access LS3? He’ll not have enough masteries to glide well. Or is that me not knowing how many MPs were added?

Paulytnz.7619:

DGraves.3720:

Paulytnz.7619:

DGraves.3720:

Paulytnz.7619:

If you have the time to play then yes it’s worth coming back. There would be a ton of content for you even if you don’t buy the expansion so why not?

Most newer and more intense content de facto demands the new classes. Raiding as “core” classes will be significantly more difficult for example.

Well being that the player only played 2 days after buying the game I would say raiding would be far off for him/her. Besides that fact, there would still be a ton he/she could do even without the expansion as I stated.

But to reply specifically to what you wrote I have to say that would be a matter of personal choice as well. I have all classes at 80 with world complete and all stories done. Of course I have HOT and it’s only on about 4 or 5 of the classes that I use the Elite Specs.

I main Engi and don’t use it for if I do I lose either survivability or mobility/speed just for a small bonus of extra damage (+6 might basically on top of my typical +6 might before procs enter play). So on that class, for me not worth the loss. But like I said – player personal choice and the game is perfectly playable without HOT.

Without HoT he doesn’t even get the option to play Revenant.
Without HoT he doesn’t get any of the new ascended combinations.
Without HoT he will not have suitable endgame since that lies in HoT and slightly beyond for LS3 right now.

HoT brings a lot to the table. Not that jumping in again is impossible but you won’t get the most out of the game without really doing so since Core suffers from many of the limitations it did 4 years ago only now there are nerfs that really don’t jive well with someone who has any previous experience since the whole system has literally been revamped from the ground up and plays completely differently from it’s previous iterations.

Basically if would be like he bought it all over again. <3

Well he/she has plenty of time to decide later if he/she wants to buy HOT, It’s not like there’s a limited time to buy it. I think you are thinking too far ahead here tbh. :P

Just doing dismal. It doesn’t take long to become lvl 80 even in pure pve.

Less in pve + pvp.

Less still with dailies giving tomes.

In just two hours of dedicated play a day he’ll hit that cap before maybe a month.

That’s just how the game it’s designed.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

DGraves.3720:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

I think you are still misunderstanding: “better” depends on the circumstances and the intended goal. There is no stat combination that is absolutely better for each and every player in each and every situation.

The Economist in me disagrees but fortunately I’m less belligerent than I used to be!

I agree to disagree.

You are of the opinion that there is a single stat combination that is best for every player in the game in every possible situation?

Yes. Given controlled parameters there is likely a best option in the game for a player’s distinct level of skill and ability. It’s likely a mixed set of starts that best encapsulates both survival and offense. For some that may even be Nomad’s (bless their souls).

Or you are of the opinion that for any given situation, there is a single stat combination that is best for everyone?

Now that’s madness.

I would have thought that economists would be more likely to understand that one size doesn’t fit all, which is why we have things like peak-load pricing, supply/demand curves, and differing prices on identical airplane seats.

“One size doesn’t fit all.” shouldn’t be mistaken for “No size fits you.” Think of it like talents, everyone has some level of talent in some respect, and there likely is a unifying class, build for that class, and stat combination that’s best fits those talents.

The natural Mesmers will do best as Mesmers even if their great at other classes for instance and will play perhaps condition best even if they are just dandy with power and will have a tactic that they pretty much look like they created even of they’re fine using other tactics.

Best shouldn’t be mistaken for only either. There can be many good results but only one best.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

DGraves.3720:

Linken.6345:

DGraves.3720:

Linken.6345:

Well then s/he is in luck they get a brand new game for free since they bought it 3+ years ago and havent seen the total revamp

Complete with nerfed Arah and Cursed Shore!

Well since OP played what 2-3 days they dont know how it was before so no loss there.

I reckon being able to solo Arab but no other dungeons may be a tip off. Presuming op is observant.

Yes, a change many, many clamored for. It is the last part of the Personal Story. Lucky OP!

You mean after everyone left that content behind forever? Not sure how lucky that Is in MMO terms.

Well, each explosion is an independent event that’s right.

But calculating the chance for x outcomes within y events is what you call a dependent matrix. And the probabilities of all possible outcomes always add up to 1.

By your calculation the chance for at least one bleed within 3 explosions is 15% + 15% +15% =45%.
Let’s try to simplify this and say we toss a coin three times. each time it’s 50% heads or tails.
By your calculation the probability for at least one heads toss would be 150%. And so would be for at least one tails.
Both by themselves already are above the total possible sum of probabilities however.

No.

You’re asking a set question and using independent event math. Can’t mix them (which is my point all along).

First it’s not 150% because what you do to one side of An equation you must do to another.

(X + Y) = 100 is the formula.

In coins that’s 50 + 50.

3(X + Y) = 3(100) is what you’d use to maintain that equilibrium and if you removed the iterations you’ll get the same base probability.

(150+150)/3=(300)/3 = (50 + 50) = 100.

Same is true for Shrapnel.

(15 + 85) = 100.

3(15 + 85) = 300

(45 + 255) = 300

(45 + 255)/3 =300/3

(15 + 85) = 100.

You can think of the above this way: if you had one grenade per attack and made 100 attacks that is 100 chances set at 15%.

If you have three grenades per attack over the same 100 attacks that’s 300 chances at 15%.

15% of 300 is 45 positive results.

85% of 300 is 255 negative results.

In a set matrix this changes drastically because you’re looking for a specific outcome while linking all the events dependently.

In coins the odds of getting at least one heads on two flips isn’t 50% in a matrix, it’s 75%:

H + T
H + H
T + H
T + T

Think punnet square or Nash equilibrium.

Another way it differs is that the number of trials doesn’t matter in independent events. I can throw 15b grenades and get the same results. In sets that’s not the case. But sets are not dynamic either, it produces a table of results that only works for that specified set of trials.

Your odds will be proportional in independent events but not dependent ones.

Linken.6345:

DGraves.3720:

Linken.6345:

Well then s/he is in luck they get a brand new game for free since they bought it 3+ years ago and havent seen the total revamp

Complete with nerfed Arah and Cursed Shore!

Well since OP played what 2-3 days they dont know how it was before so no loss there.

I reckon being able to solo Arab but no other dungeons may be a tip off. Presuming op is observant.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

I think you are still misunderstanding: “better” depends on the circumstances and the intended goal. There is no stat combination that is absolutely better for each and every player in each and every situation.

The Economist in me disagrees but fortunately I’m less belligerent than I used to be!

I agree to disagree.

Linken.6345:

Well then s/he is in luck they get a brand new game for free since they bought it 3+ years ago and havent seen the total revamp

Complete with nerfed Arah and Cursed Shore!

Paulytnz.7619:

DGraves.3720:

Paulytnz.7619:

If you have the time to play then yes it’s worth coming back. There would be a ton of content for you even if you don’t buy the expansion so why not?

Most newer and more intense content de facto demands the new classes. Raiding as “core” classes will be significantly more difficult for example.

Well being that the player only played 2 days after buying the game I would say raiding would be far off for him/her. Besides that fact, there would still be a ton he/she could do even without the expansion as I stated.

But to reply specifically to what you wrote I have to say that would be a matter of personal choice as well. I have all classes at 80 with world complete and all stories done. Of course I have HOT and it’s only on about 4 or 5 of the classes that I use the Elite Specs.

I main Engi and don’t use it for if I do I lose either survivability or mobility/speed just for a small bonus of extra damage (+6 might basically on top of my typical +6 might before procs enter play). So on that class, for me not worth the loss. But like I said – player personal choice and the game is perfectly playable without HOT.

Without HoT he doesn’t even get the option to play Revenant.
Without HoT he doesn’t get any of the new ascended combinations.
Without HoT he will not have suitable endgame since that lies in HoT and slightly beyond for LS3 right now.

HoT brings a lot to the table. Not that jumping in again is impossible but you won’t get the most out of the game without really doing so since Core suffers from many of the limitations it did 4 years ago only now there are nerfs that really don’t jive well with someone who has any previous experience since the whole system has literally been revamped from the ground up and plays completely differently from it’s previous iterations.

Basically if would be like he bought it all over again. <3

Paulytnz.7619:

If you have the time to play then yes it’s worth coming back. There would be a ton of content for you even if you don’t buy the expansion so why not?

Most newer and more intense content de facto demands the new classes. Raiding as “core” classes will be significantly more difficult for example.

Are you color sensitive / color blind?

Because I can understand that.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

DGraves.3720:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

You realize that you just used more words to repeat what I said. If you need more health, Marauder’s is a better choice for you; if you don’t, zerker’s will kill things faster.

Which is why it’s news to me that “Marauder’s is better” all the time — it’s only better when you need the extra health.

The only way to settle this is actually to answer a very specific question: “How much faster?” Because that actually would dictate whether it was always better or not. It doesn’t really matter if you need the health because you only need the health if you get hit.

Of course that’s the only way to settle it. People should use what works for them.

But that’s exactly my point: Marauder’s isn’t automatically better than Berserker’s, which was the fallacy to which I was responding.

I think you misunderstand. Let’s say we have an enemy with 1.6m HP.

On average your zerker does 7,000.
On average your marauder does 6% less so 6,580.

1.6m / 7,000 = 229 strikes. (228.57… but you can’t have a partial strike)
1.6m / 6580 = 244 strikes (243.16… etc.)

244 – 229 = 15.

If the attack pattern were exactly 1 per second it would take 15 extra seconds but the total time of the slowest is 244s or simply 4 minutes and 4 seconds versus 3 minutes and 49 seconds.

Realistically you likely wouldn’t even notice and then you have a lot of realities in the game like the attack patterns are generally much faster than 1 per second and then quickness and alacrity and conditions you can tack on and all sorts of sexy goodness. Basically the time to deplete 1.6m HP alone wouldn’t vary enough to justify not taking Mauraders.

But these are made up numbers though that’s how you would test it. The rule of thumb is that the larger the number for the base (Berserker) the worse you will get for taking anything but (for Maurader) so there’s a substantial difference between attacks based on their base coefficients and the weapon being used to deliver it and a whole lot of other stuff that’s just not going to be accounted for here.

I’m sure someone will someday make that spreadsheet just to defend their choices.

If you do not want to buy the expansion I do not recommend returning.

I’m pretty sure the game’s coding wouldn’t support this as is. Thinking about it “junk” is a predetermined set of items not a category of items. Just like mastercrafted gear is a predetermined set of stat combinations not a category of items. You probably can’t, as things are, simply roll one into the other or change one into the other and I have no idea what happens if you add two item classes to one item, say rare + junk, since they’re in direct overlap. So either the rare becomes junk or the junk becomes rare in the core code which just screws the data tables up because there is, in fact, no “junk” equipment in the game at all.

A guess.

SirPrizeBartSachs.4670:

The cheapest ascended armor is Rampagers (the rest aren’t answering OP’s question smh)

So the hearts are the cheapest T6 mats right now. Good to know.

The problem with this is I’d need to know your armor class to answer. Some sets are really valuable to light armor for instance that are just abandoned and dirt cheap for heavy armor. This effects the price of T6 mats quite a bit since I still think the blood vials are way more expensive than the totems.

I don’t know if you have the expansion but if you do go Revenant. You can give yourself infinite protection with Herald which for all rights and purposes makes you nigh invincible.

Reasoning:

1. Heavy Armor
2. Infinite One-Click Protection (that pulses, you sexy party member you)
3. Decent Standing HP

SolarDragon.7063:

The level down system is working as intended.
I can’t do thousands of burn damage and onehit champs in a level 10 zone, but I can do more damage than a beginner. Otherwise, what was the point of me levelling up?
The current system is one of the best systems in any game I have seen for keeping low-level content relevant without “punishing” the player for playing down.

The problem with the level down system was that before it was “nerfed” into oblivion people wouldn’t even leave Queensdale. DLA has one major flaw and that is that it actually inhibits exploration while rewarding you for simply refusing to do so. You can ( and many do ) power level yourself ahead of the zones you need to enter and then skirt around getting the same ratio of experience over and over again basically skating over the game and because the first 15 levels (if that’s still true, I’ve not checked on that since launch) are quicker and there’s crap to shoot you instantly to level 30 and tomes of knowledge grow on trees DLA actually only exacerbates a problem that will now never go away.

You just created a toon about 13 minutes ago and visited a bank. It’s now level 80 and just walked out of Rata Sum, killed a firefly that had zero chance against you, and it drops three stat armor?

Say wut?

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

lLobo.7960:

insanemaniac.2456:

lLobo.7960:

Can you include a coefficient for skill level, so I can adjust the values based on my performance on each situation and decide what sigil to use in case I’m not at my best at the moment? [/s]

minimum acceptable for raiding is .75. “pretty good” is .9-.95.

additive or multiplicative?
does it influence base stats or final dmg?

additive, duh.

It’d be multiplicative.

he’s being facetious, so I was being sarcastic

So am I.

my bad, I couldn’t tell from your 3 words.

I wonder what this game would be like if we did have rank coefficients like they do in Chess. Which quarter do you think you’d sit in? Top 25? Upper mid?

meh

frankly my engi play is stagnant since engi isnt in demand in high end pve like the other other ezmode, moste potente deepz, or moar versatile classes. i have one of everything, and engi isnt special any more. just requires more concentration, leaving more room for error, and errors are more punishing and time wasting in high end pve.

I do admit that this is true. Which is really unfortunate since Engineers really are falling behind and are just too cumbersome to master anymore when it’s much easier to do other classes and they are more engaging as well.

Eragon.8234:

@DGraves
You went into far more detail then I thought you would, and I appreciate you explaining this in great detail, most people wouldn’t do that.
After reading your posts, I have to say, it makes sense. A lot of people blindly accept what some people with a little fame say. I was one of them, sad to say, until I tried to experiment with my own builds. Yes, I use the SD build right now, but I’m not sure how long i’ll be using it.
Do you have any builds that might worth for me to try?
I would really like to see if you have come up with any unique builds.

Everyone has thoughts just as deep. It’s all a matter of making the choice to try your best to express them. That said I don’t think it’s bad that builds exist and I don’t want to sound like I am “against” people making general observations or progressing theorycrafting and gameplay by being honest I just don’t see the point in not verifying people’s claims. It becomes dangerous to take everything people commonly believe as just outright truth because it hurts the community since it takes time to pluck the idea and then reinsert the newer better idea no matter who it is endorsed by or how true it is.

But as for builds, ha! I’ve none. I change mine constantly looking at all sorts of things and testing ideas all the time. I help build some builds but I don’t really have any to give out simply because I’m always doing something different all the time. I really should take notes though; the only thing that I’m proud of lately is the Valk/Knights hybrid instead of using Soldier’s in WvWvW which uses an idea I came up with.

It’s not bad. But it’s definitely not MetaBattle worthy. :p

Mork vom Ork.2598:

DGraves.3720:

Ging.6485:

Well the chance of all three grenades failing to proc would be 0.85^3. 1 minus that number is the chance that no failure occurs, meaning that at least one succeeds. I did it in excel and am writing from my phone right now, but the chance for a complete failure was 61% and change.

That isn’t true.

Let’s take two six sided dice. We know that the probability of getting two sixes (or two of any number really) is 1/36. We know it’s 1/6 × 1/6 right?

So if that’s the case using your logic 5/6 × 5/6 or 5/6^2 would be the direct opposite, right? Well, let’s do it: 5/6^2 = .69444 or 69.44%. So using your logic if we take 100% and subtract 69.4% there’s a 30.56% of getting two sixes?

We know that is wrong. So why is it wrong?

…

Your math here is missing something: the event where one six is rolled.
The probabilities of rolling no sixes and rolling two sixes therefore do not add up to 1.

Two sixes: 1/6 × 1/6 = 1/36 or 2.8%
No sixes: 5/6 × 5/6 = 25/36 or 69.4%
One six: 5/6 × 1/6 + 1/6 × 5/6 = 10/36 or 27.8%

So the probability for one or more sixes is the total (1) minus the probability for no sixes = 30,6%

The same applies to Shrapnel. The probability to get 0 procs in one grenade throw is 0.85^3 = 61,4%.
Therefore the probability to get at least one Shrapnel bleed is 38,6%.

The chances for a single grenade throw are:

61.41% no bleed
32.51% one bleed
5.74% two bleeds
0.34% three bleeds

Let’s say you had 100 slips that told you the outcome of your attack. You’d pick a slip and afterwards you’d take it out and continue picking until you had none left. You have a 15% chance of success at whatever.

61.41% of those slips would say “total failure”.
32.51% of those slips would say “meager success”.
5.74% of those slips would say “astounding success”.
.34% of those slips would say “miraculous success”.

This is a dependent variable matrix. You will eventually get all of the outcomes because every time you choose a slip you get to remove an outcome.

However in independent variables the success of your previous action does not dictate the success of your next. That means that when you pick a slip you simply have a 15% chance of getting “You win” and an 85% chance of getting “You lose”. The event either happens or it does not regardless of the previous pull.

I stopped using matrices like that a long time ago but used to in order to dissect critical strikes. Turns out it was total crap and never panned out correctly because the matrix size wasn’t big enough. It was great when I wanted to know the odds of continuing to get critical strikes in a specific number in a row but otherwise it doesn’t tell you anything about the actual event’s expression itself.

Some things you just take at face value. Don’t overcomplicate it.

Sidenote: the purpose of showing that 1/36 and 25/36 =/= 36/36 was specifically to acknowledge the fact that it was a dependent matrix table. I just didn’t know how to explain that at the time because I’m not a teacher; I do math all day and can see errors but don’t expect me to be able to relay my thoughts to others on the matter? Ha! Pathetique!

https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/statistics_and_probability/probability/further_concepts_in_probability

Ging.6485:

DGraves.3720:

Ging.6485:

Well the chance of all three grenades failing to proc would be 0.85^3. 1 minus that number is the chance that no failure occurs, meaning that at least one succeeds. I did it in excel and am writing from my phone right now, but the chance for a complete failure was 61% and change.

That isn’t true.

Let’s take two six sided dice. We know that the probability of getting two sixes (or two of any number really) is 1/36. We know it’s 1/6 × 1/6 right?

So if that’s the case using your logic 5/6 × 5/6 or 5/6^2 would be the direct opposite, right? Well, let’s do it: 5/6^2 = .69444 or 69.44%. So using your logic if we take 100% and subtract 69.4% there’s a 30.56% of getting two sixes?

We know that is wrong. So why is it wrong?

Actually it is because you can’t replace the odds of something not happening with the odds of something happening when setting up probability matrices. You should always take the odds of the event occurring and find the values you’re looking for, for instance:

1 – .15 = .85. Easy.
1 – (.15 × 2 ) = 1 – .30 = .70. Easy.
1 – (.15 × 3) = 1 – .45 = .55. Easy.

So there is kitten percent chance that none of the grenades in a salvo will produce Shrapnel. It’s that simple. What I want you to note is that the final results of those problems changes but the actual probability of the event does not. It’s still 15% in all three problems but 85% is not the unified odds of failure, and in fact, changes the more iterations you have.

This makes sense if you think about it. Again with six sided dice:

If I roll 1 the odds are 1/6 that I’ll get (number)
If I roll 2 the odds are 1/6 × 1/6 that I’ll get (number combination)
If I roll 3 the odds are 1/6 × 1/6 × 1/6 that I’ll get (number combination)

But note that 1/6th doesn’t change. I guarantee you the result does:

1/6
1/36
1/216

Now if you took 5/6 and tried to apply it to this you would get:

5/6
25/36
125/216

That gap is worsening by the way.

I feel so boring!

The chance for exactly two to proc shrapnel is 0.15*0.15*0.85, the chance of 2 successes and one failure. There are three ways that could happen. 12 23 13. that number comes out to 0.05735 or something close to that.

Alongside the above this is wrong for two distinct reasons; first you never ever double-attribute a behavior. This means that if you need only to find the probability of an event the size of the pool of events doesn’t matter. Let’s say that instead of throwing 3 grenades we throw 4 at the time. Does that mean it becomes .15 × .15 × .85 x .85? If so, how does that look?

Well combining those four numbers produces the value 1.6% but if it were 5 grenades looking for the same thing …

That value becomes 1.4% ( .15 × .15 × .85 x .85 x.85 ).

It’s going the wrong way. Your odds should increase not decrease so what is happening? You’re not checking to see if two will succeed you are finding the odds of two succeeding and specifically one failing, or defining the odds by specifically searching out the distinct behavior of two unified events.

The point is though, its about a 40% chance that you will get at least one 32 second bleed worth 4100 damage every time you throw a grenade. Each grenade throw is .5 seconds, meaning that in the time it takes you to cast Orbital Strike once, you have about 240 chances to proc shrapnel.

How are you getting 32s? First, the base for Shrapnel is 12s, when you take Firearms trait line you are forced to take a trait that makes your bleeds last 33% longer, so it’s 16s after that trait is forcefully applied not before. So you’ll cap out at 24s.

That said if every grenade throw is .5s and you get three at a time it looks like this:

60 / .5 = 120

120 × 3 = 360

So it’s 360 not 240 presuming continuous attack.

So 15% of 360 would be 54 activations? That’s amazingly high, no doubt, but in the rotation we were using bombs, not grenades, because the answer is completely different when you use grenades over bombs due to more opportunities. Let me think, uh, 360 – 107 (number of bombs in one minute under 100% quickness) = 253 additional chances with grenades?

I feel so old!

Oh, and let me correct one more thing, the cast time of orbital strike would be .87s so you wouldn’t gain 240 opportunities in that time, and in fact, lose a grand total of six, or two salvos altogether, because of the CD itself. That was spun way out of control there.

First of all by my logic the chance for getting two 6’s would be 1/36, but the chance of not getting 2 6’s , meaning the chance to get anything aside from 2 6’s would be, 1 – 1/36, or 35/36.

The chance of getting 2 procs of shrapnel in 4 trials is (4c2) x 0.15^2 × 0.85^2 = 9.75%, the chance of getting 2 procs of shrapnel in 5 trials is (5c2) x 0.15^2 × 0.85^3 = 13.8%. So it does increase.

I got confused though what you were talking about. When you do a grenade throw you throw 3 grenades. Each of them have a 0.15% chance to proc shrapnel, and each have a 0.85% chance to do nothing. The chance that ALL 3, do nothing is 0.85^3 . That is the chance that in a throw you proc none. Meaning that 100% minus that chance as a percent, is the chance that you do NOT get nothing, that you get something, anything.

Now if we are talking about a pure Berserker bomb build. I have had Orbital Strike hit up to 20k on the golem during a perfect non realistic trial. With that build, it would have a 34 second cooldown and a 0.75 cast time. In which case, 20,000/34.75 = 575.54 dps.

In the same build , according to GW2skills.net numbers, Shrapnel would have a bleed with 21.25 seconds duration and 1654 damage or 77.84 dps. 575.54/77.84 = 7.4. That means it would take more than 7.4 procs of shrapnel to outdo the damage done by the extra Orbital strike.

In 34 seconds you can place down 68 bombs. You need at least 8 procs of shrapnel for there to be a DPS increase of shrapnel over Orbital strike. The probability that at least 8 of the 68 bombs you place will proc shrapnel is 82%. I placed an excel snippet to show how I got that number.

For clarity, the reason it only goes up to 24, is because the chance of getting 24 or more procs of Shrapnel out of 68 trials is extremely close to 0. As you can see, even 24 shows up as 0 to 4 decimal places. Obviously it’s not 0, but it’s not really a number of concern either. Pretty much there is a 99.99999% chance that you will get less than 24 procs of shrapnel during 68 trials.

Have you ever actually tested your numbers?

I’ll go on regardless but before I do I need to know. It’ll help me know how to explain.

Well GW2 was a new type of experimental MMO and what you’re experiencing is really the staple reality of not having “anywhere to go”. It isn’t that content is produced particularly slower but instead that content can be beaten significantly faster and that keeping up with the player is harder due to the nature of the MMO itself.

It’s primary focus on removing the need for other players as well as “play as you like” has created a huge hole in what makes or breaks something so ultimately being “good” or “bad” is meaningless since everyone can essentially do everything. With it being an MMO you end up with strong sources of information such as Dulfy or the Wiki and bam, you’ve “beaten” the content before you’ve even started it.

Combine this with the general episodic feel and you’ve got the brew for your complaints.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

You realize that you just used more words to repeat what I said. If you need more health, Marauder’s is a better choice for you; if you don’t, zerker’s will kill things faster.

Which is why it’s news to me that “Marauder’s is better” all the time — it’s only better when you need the extra health.

The only way to settle this is actually to answer a very specific question: “How much faster?” Because that actually would dictate whether it was always better or not. It doesn’t really matter if you need the health because you only need the health if you get hit.

Ging.6485:

Well the chance of all three grenades failing to proc would be 0.85^3. 1 minus that number is the chance that no failure occurs, meaning that at least one succeeds. I did it in excel and am writing from my phone right now, but the chance for a complete failure was 61% and change.

That isn’t true.

Let’s take two six sided dice. We know that the probability of getting two sixes (or two of any number really) is 1/36. We know it’s 1/6 × 1/6 right?

So if that’s the case using your logic 5/6 × 5/6 or 5/6^2 would be the direct opposite, right? Well, let’s do it: 5/6^2 = .69444 or 69.44%. So using your logic if we take 100% and subtract 69.4% there’s a 30.56% of getting two sixes?

We know that is wrong. So why is it wrong?

Actually it is because you can’t replace the odds of something not happening with the odds of something happening when setting up probability matrices. You should always take the odds of the event occurring and find the values you’re looking for, for instance:

1 – .15 = .85. Easy.
1 – (.15 × 2 ) = 1 – .30 = .70. Easy.
1 – (.15 × 3) = 1 – .45 = .55. Easy.

So there is kitten percent chance that none of the grenades in a salvo will produce Shrapnel. It’s that simple. What I want you to note is that the final results of those problems changes but the actual probability of the event does not. It’s still 15% in all three problems but 85% is not the unified odds of failure, and in fact, changes the more iterations you have.

This makes sense if you think about it. Again with six sided dice:

If I roll 1 the odds are 1/6 that I’ll get (number)
If I roll 2 the odds are 1/6 × 1/6 that I’ll get (number combination)
If I roll 3 the odds are 1/6 × 1/6 × 1/6 that I’ll get (number combination)

But note that 1/6th doesn’t change. I guarantee you the result does:

1/6
1/36
1/216

Now if you took 5/6 and tried to apply it to this you would get:

5/6
25/36
125/216

That gap is worsening by the way.

I feel so boring!

The chance for exactly two to proc shrapnel is 0.15*0.15*0.85, the chance of 2 successes and one failure. There are three ways that could happen. 12 23 13. that number comes out to 0.05735 or something close to that.

Alongside the above this is wrong for two distinct reasons; first you never ever double-attribute a behavior. This means that if you need only to find the probability of an event the size of the pool of events doesn’t matter. Let’s say that instead of throwing 3 grenades we throw 4 at the time. Does that mean it becomes .15 × .15 × .85 x .85? If so, how does that look?

Well combining those four numbers produces the value 1.6% but if it were 5 grenades looking for the same thing …

That value becomes 1.4% ( .15 × .15 × .85 x .85 x.85 ).

It’s going the wrong way. Your odds should increase not decrease so what is happening? You’re not checking to see if two will succeed you are finding the odds of two succeeding and specifically one failing, or defining the odds by specifically searching out the distinct behavior of two unified events.

The point is though, its about a 40% chance that you will get at least one 32 second bleed worth 4100 damage every time you throw a grenade. Each grenade throw is .5 seconds, meaning that in the time it takes you to cast Orbital Strike once, you have about 240 chances to proc shrapnel.

How are you getting 32s? First, the base for Shrapnel is 12s, when you take Firearms trait line you are forced to take a trait that makes your bleeds last 33% longer, so it’s 16s after that trait is forcefully applied not before. So you’ll cap out at 24s.

That said if every grenade throw is .5s and you get three at a time it looks like this:

60 / .5 = 120

120 × 3 = 360

So it’s 360 not 240 presuming continuous attack.

So 15% of 360 would be 54 activations? That’s amazingly high, no doubt, but in the rotation we were using bombs, not grenades, because the answer is completely different when you use grenades over bombs due to more opportunities. Let me think, uh, 360 – 107 (number of bombs in one minute under 100% quickness) = 253 additional chances with grenades?

I feel so old!

Oh, and let me correct one more thing, the cast time of orbital strike would be .87s so you wouldn’t gain 240 opportunities in that time, and in fact, lose a grand total of six, or two salvos altogether, because of the CD itself. That was spun way out of control there.

Ging.6485:

The chance that at least one grenade in a group of 3 will proc shrapnel is 38.5%. The chance that exactly 2 will is 5.74%.

It’s not 0.15^2, it’s 3c2*0.15^2*0.85 = 3*0.15^2*0.85.

It should be just 45% since they are independent events for “at least one”.

Basically it runs like any other form of basic dice game; if you have two twenty sided dice the odds are additive for rolling a twenty on either and multiplicative for rolling a twenty on both, I.E.

5% + 5% = 10%

5% x 5% = .25%

In fraction form:

1/20 + 1/20 = 2/20 = 1/10 = 10/100 = 10%

1/20 × 1/20 = 1/400 = .25%

I’d be lying to say I knew where you gathered your numbers from. Combinatorics doesn’t really support the idea as far as I know and we’ve no evidence that isn’t a fair throw though it is possible that you are correct via the algorithmic nature itself and maybe you know something I don’t about the algorithm but that wouldn’t explain multiplying in the failure rate.

Eastcorn.5901:

I think solutions like these should not be the way we should go about the projectile problem (assuming it was raised because of how weak projectiles are in pvp).

Rather, we should be looking at why this game has so many reflects and projectile blocking.

The reason for that is simply because it is an “action” game. Active defense is the core of the whole thing which is rather unfortunate for some classes.

Just go kill champions. That’s what I do; hunt yourself some big game.

Jerus.4350:

DGraves.3720:

Bombs.

It’s hands down the best auto in the game.

Staff Thief? But, yeah bombs are great, if talking just pure weapon it’s hammer, but bombs is a much higher coefficient.

I’ve never actually compared that particular DPS so you may very well be right and I may very well be wrong. Bombs come with a lot, they are their own source of vulnerability, get a 7% boost on second iteration for having vulnerability, another 10% boost from just being an explosion and 5% just for having +90% health. All without considering effects like shrapnel which are also in trait line.

But I know dodging does something wild for thieves or something.

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

lLobo.7960:

insanemaniac.2456:

lLobo.7960:

Can you include a coefficient for skill level, so I can adjust the values based on my performance on each situation and decide what sigil to use in case I’m not at my best at the moment? [/s]

minimum acceptable for raiding is .75. “pretty good” is .9-.95.

additive or multiplicative?
does it influence base stats or final dmg?

additive, duh.

It’d be multiplicative.

he’s being facetious, so I was being sarcastic

So am I.

my bad, I couldn’t tell from your 3 words.

I wonder what this game would be like if we did have rank coefficients like they do in Chess. Which quarter do you think you’d sit in? Top 25? Upper mid?

Sprays will be, overall, weaker since you’ll have distance issues.

Tranq allows you to get in close with your opponent having weakness already on them.
Glob allows you to either get away or pursue at a distance.

If you’re already that close with either one of them you’ll be better off in another kit for the same price.

Not to mention that tranq spray can only apply its effects once since weakness stacks in duration; mixed with viper even a three hit spray would result in too long an application if you’ve cripple following right up.

insanemaniac.2456:

DGraves.3720:

insanemaniac.2456:

lLobo.7960:

insanemaniac.2456:

lLobo.7960:

Can you include a coefficient for skill level, so I can adjust the values based on my performance on each situation and decide what sigil to use in case I’m not at my best at the moment? [/s]

minimum acceptable for raiding is .75. “pretty good” is .9-.95.

additive or multiplicative?
does it influence base stats or final dmg?

additive, duh.

It’d be multiplicative.

he’s being facetious, so I was being sarcastic

So am I.

It is true that people do not want Engineers as much as some other classes. I’d put them in the lower middle range. You’ll find plenty to play but you won’t be the golden boy. Getting in is very doable though so don’t be discouraged.

Elementalist has the highest DPS in the game right? Or potential highest etc. People used to believe they were utter trash. Then you had people with a little fame coming out with numbers that were impossibly high DPS before ascended ever hit the scene and others believing they did insane DPS. Then you had people believing that they could optimize a super rotation when, in fact, even within the same quarter ( meaning before any quarterly updates were applied ) they were shown to be wrong.

Things noticed in year one like how you don’t have 100% damage uptime and the like were blatantly ignored, mechanics of the game were declared unsound, random spreadsheets were, are, and probably will forever be “the answer” to questions that really require more than a spreadsheet to answer in any given situation and you often have bad metrics to boot.

For instance, Shrapnel, if you throw one volley of grenades what is the probably that two of those grenades will proc Shrapnel? Simple probability:

.15^2 = .0225

All three? .15^3 = .003375.

Basically it’s so rare for it to happen it’s not even worth discussing as a possibility and it is incredibly unpredictable. But people do it. People somehow “roll” this into their calculations. I’ve seen too many times where people take and mix principles that don’t belong or account for things wrong or ignore basic pragmatism for theoretical propositions. They overcomplicate it and make claims that don’t even make sense about their skills and abilities for things they actually can’t calculate or, if they do, don’t come out anywhere near what they say it should using commonality.

But what makes this possible is simply reputation. We will believe anyone not based on the merit of their claim but based on the warmth of their ideas. An easy to read spreadsheet, even if wrong, is the best way to win fans. Show a video of you doing something people consider difficult or some crazy large numbers and you’ve got people hooked. After that you can go the way of L. Pauling (the source Vitamin C myth) and just say whatever the heck you want and people will hang on your every word.

Attack speed in the AI, in my opinion, is too slow; is that a game limitation or a design choice?

If it is a design choice is it possible to increase the attack speed so that all of the defensive stats can be normalized in effectiveness across game modes?

More curious than anything.

insanemaniac.2456:

lLobo.7960:

insanemaniac.2456:

lLobo.7960:

Can you include a coefficient for skill level, so I can adjust the values based on my performance on each situation and decide what sigil to use in case I’m not at my best at the moment? [/s]

minimum acceptable for raiding is .75. “pretty good” is .9-.95.

additive or multiplicative?
does it influence base stats or final dmg?

additive, duh.

It’d be multiplicative.

Very well, I’ll help.

Healix.5819:

A low level maxed equipped character is fairly equal to a downscaled 80. Both can pretty much kill regular enemies instantly.

I would have believed this before I had taken the plunge and leveled a Mesmer to 80. That was the worst and most frustrating thing I had ever done in this game. The difference is not even comparable between a level 20 mesmer and a level 80 mesmer downscaled to 20.

The trade-off is a strange one in my opinion.

You get to trounce everything when you’re of a higher level but you also get level 80 loot so you can’t really farm anything. My question is simply “Why would I go there?” which was the first problem I had with World Completion back in the day; when you pass through leveled zones and level through them to 80 it’s not bad but backtracking through level 1 zones sucks. It’s disinteresting to me. And I have to do it “or no premium item”?

I mean I don’t like DLA for the opposite reason actually; it makes you weaker needlessly to match content and “keep it challenging” when that’s really sort of an excuse for a lack of end-game. You rush to 80 to get the honor of being weak as kitten in a map filled with annoying goons in Ascended armor that cost you 700g.

I’m an all / nothing type of girl. I want all my power or just lower my level and the level of my equipment to be appropriate. I can see why the three stat thing screws things up though when the enemies were built for two stats or whatever.

My concern is with people becoming so incredibly theoretical that they lose touch with the game itself. The DPS arms race is the worst thing to happen to gaming overall simply because it creates a false standard of superiority through numerical mastery.

The only problem is that numbers are so easy to manipulate and all it takes is a “solid reputation” and you can tell people anything and create an equation to equal whatever you want. I just sit quietly and watch most of the numbers I see are either flat-out wrong or completely theoretical and ignoring many realities that you’ll face in encounters rather regularly.

Not that I would be against GW2 being played on a spreadsheet. I am good with spreadsheets.

“Don’t Diversify” in the words of Warren Buffet.

Giving up Power, Precision and Ferocity for a fourth stat weakens all damage even if it grants you more of another stat. True of all the 4 stat sets.

Endless Soul.5178:

Wasted.8497:

That’s why all the good players left, along with the good pvp community.

Today I learned that since I don’t PvP at all, AND since I’m still playing this game nightly, I’m not a good player at all.

That was funny.

It’s terrible and inefficient.

Build the ascended armor.

Did they fix Giver’s armor yet?

Because the fact that there are tons of stat combinations missing is all that bugs me.

That and my now lower base starts which were never compensated for a few years back.

Bombs.

It’s hands down the best auto in the game.

Very well. What a bummer. I miss the days when we actually explored builds instead of just talking about DPS but times have changed. So should I.

I’d say “You’re welcome” but I’ve a feeling that would earn me more ire.

+1

Oh joy, another rendition of treasure hunts. My fave.

So basically OP is scraping their posted rotation right? Because this has nothing to do with that rotation. As a master of fact OP now uses rifle instead of hammer.

Bypass answering questions: Tell others how to play.