Guild Wars 2

As Neare and others have already pointed out: Elite players don’t necessarily have the right mindset to objectively balance the game.

They could however provide helpful insight about the meta and their class/es, but (for example) not attune for the affects balancing has on new players.

OK, so we want AoE in the game to further depth. The problem however is that Conquest places a bias on AoE making it easier to land/take advantage of.
This coupled with the nature of AoE makes it overpowered with respect to most other ability-types, reducing meaningful choice as a result.
This isn’t just a learn-to-play issue as it’s counter-intuitive to match design; unintentionally hurts depth.

We probably shouldn’t reduce the effectiveness of AoE because it’s working as intended; supposed to be advantageous in this regard, and so reducing the potency could negate its usefulness regardless of skillful play.

With that in mind I propose to address the difficulty in landing an attack to raise the skill floor; indirectly or directly reducing the vantage Conquest instills.

Suggestions include but are not limited to:

• Increase ability travel time.
• Increase ability animation time.
• Add or increase ability charge and channel time.
• Reduce reticle size for targeted ground AoE.
• Reduce splash and bounce range accordingly.
• Reduce active ability range.
  and/or
• Increase capture-point size.
• Team Deathmatch

This is selective to and shouldn’t apply to all AoE.
With that said this is where my opinion ends, as I don’t know and am unwilling to learn the ins-and-outs of all profession abilities and their effective use.

Criticism is welcome.

Interpret Interrupt.3824:

The end result is bring down classes not bring them up.

Erebos.6741:

Or only nerf in general as opposed to buffing?

I don’t mean to misinterpret you (no pun intended), but don’t these mean the same thing?

Interpret Interrupt.3824:

In PvP power creep implies over buffs.

So you mean to say power creep is born from buffs? Because that doesn’t mean all buffs breed power creep.
Power creep is if an ability supersedes the viability of an effectually similar ability; rendering it obsolete.

Again I’m really sorry if I misunderstood what you’re saying; please correct me if I’m wrong.

Okay, so what I’m hearing is that AoE is too prominent in play.

a) Is this due to strong effectiveness in contrast to other abilities?
b)Too prevalent in play due to ease of accessibility?
c) Both (a) and (b)?
d) ?

Interpret Interrupt.3824:

In PvP power creep implies over buffs. People say class X is weak, so class X is buffed. Then later Class Y. Then Class Z. All to bring them up to par with Class W. Now you have 4 stronger classes then before. When simply Class W could have been toned down to the levels of the other weaker classes. If everything was brought down to warrior level in terms of specialization, game would be much slower paced.

So… you want Arena Net to only buff Warriors next patch? Or only nerf in general as opposed to buffing? Because buffing things allegedly hastens the pace of play, which is definitely a bad thing?

Sorry I really don’t get where you’re going with this or why it involves power creep.

Hammerheart.1426:

Don’t fix it if it aint broken son.

Hehe ^^

Down-state does add depth and strategy, only that same depth overshadows preexisting depth; shifts the priority of ones tools and abilities elsewhere.

If you’re gonna argue down-state, you have to accept both points of validation

I actually (when I used to play) like the skill involved in managing a downed player, at the expense of the player of-course ;P

However this in no way, shape or form adds jurisdiction that down-state isn’t of bad design

Edit: What? No silly emote? shame

Double Edit: Now whether down-state increases depth is another question entirely

Hammerheart.1426:

Love that downstate
/sarcasm.

Really adds depth and strategy.

Fixed?

I’m not critiquing your opinion or anything, but I don’t agree with your use of the term “power creep”.

“Power creep is the concept that elements introduced to a game over time grow in power as compared to the original elements of said game”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be comparing apples to oranges; Warriors to Necros; incomparables, thus falling under balancing methodology.

Power creep has the negative effect of pinning power in place due to linear progression, as undoing that power will open up a hole in the linear path.

I don’t remember Arena Nets’ take on power creep, but if I had to guess it would have something to do with player level scaling to the zones in PvE – as to invoke non-linear progression and replay-ability.

Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxszx60ZwGw

Gandarel.5091:

Downed state is ESSENTIAL FOR PVP. Since we have no healers, if you get spiked, you can get downed in a blink of an eye. With downed state, your teammates can pick you up, thus surviving the spike.

Gandarel, are you asserting that it is too difficult (e.g. not well telegraphed) or beyond player capability to counter spike damage either or for sustained intervals?

Edit (to save you a reply):

If yes, than the core of the problem lies in the lack of player capability and/or failure in design to cater for human debility.

If no, than you got outplayed, which normally inflicts a penalty (death) to advantage the player towards winning the match, promote skillful play, and give meaning to/reward combat!

[rant]

Instead GW2 implemented down-state, which degrades the capability of the afflicted, which means the fight is biased; not appointing to skill! Or a corrupt loss due to unfair vantage set up by the downed player; also not pertaining to skill!

This demotes skillful play which in-turn degrades combat and befouls the fairness of competition.

[/rant]

There are good points associated with down-state, but if skill isn’t the prominent factor than the meaning of competition is lost.

I haven’t played in a considerable amount of time so I cannot accredit the following, but I understand the player who sourced it is reputable:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/warrior/Defektive-s-New-Meta-New-Patch-New-Build/first

http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/

: If you need help to differentiate between time zones

Gandarel.5091:

Downed state isn’t designed to make the guy that first gets downed to be the winner..

I’ve never said or implied this.

It is designed for teamplay where if you get bursted teammates can still pick you up, since we have no healers to prevent spikes.

Even if this is true, that doesn’t excuse poor design.
And personally I think that’s terrible design as well, as passive defense (down-state) should be the last line of damage mitigation to further depth and promote skill, but that’s beside the point.

1. Do you think it’s fair or good game conduct to degrade player skill/adeptness as a factor in the determination of combat?
2. How do you think down-state influences player capability from the downed perspective? i.e. Chance of winning?
   e.g. 1v1: Downed versus non-downed opponent.

Alissah.9281:

mjharrison.3209:

• precludes skilled 1v2, 1v3 victories

in the case of a skilled 1v2 or more, downed states are not the things that kill you. you just have to be prepared when you down someone, you cant just prepare to down them, you have to prepare to also finish them.

You are right that using foresight is a composite of skill that could increase ones chances, but I think the point Mjharrison is trying to make is that the inception of down-state lowers the likelihood of soloing 1:2/3 odds.

But is this a bad thing?
No. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing either; it’s subjective to personal taste.

Generally players like to feel powerful and important. Down-state dampens this feeling due to the inept ability to counter situations it ensues.

e.g. 1v1. Player dexterity can’t facilitate a probable comeback after being downed.

This is a flaw in design on the premise that it isn’t the fault of the player.

p.s. Please don’t respond with something along the lines of “it was the fault of the player for getting downed in the first place”, because while somewhat true, it misses my point entirely.

Skill: Skill is the learned expediency of player tools and abilities. Skill comes from ones knowledge and understanding.

There are times where no amount of skill could prevent player stomps or revival. This is due to over-powered and/or under-powered mechanics and abilities.

In my opinion, this is akittens (… at + its) core, the biggest problem with down-state and possibly the whole of GW2 PvP.

Hammerheart.1426:

Someone needs to address that most of the biggest proponents of the downed state are the veteran GW2 players.

Hammerheart, what you have is a conspiracy, which means: any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

While it follows a logical train of thinking to suspect Elite players of defending Down State due to fear of losing their title, it is both highly unlikely and destructive.

It is my understanding that supporters of Down State do so because they acknowledge the associated positives. They may also acknowledge the negatives, but feel the positives outweigh these negatives due to logical reasoning and/or emotional investment.

If you’ve read some of my previous posts, you probably know I’m biased against Down State. My motive is the satisfaction I get from winning (strange I know) – a feeling tainted by the inclusion of the Down mechanic, because it’s unsporting to finish a disadvantaged opponent, aggravating how they stall and spit in your face when losing, and just plain insulting when they get back up despite your keen effort.

When you dig beneath the surface, all Down State offers is Depth. That’s not to belittle Depth – Depth is hugely important to progression in games, but (counter-intuitive to its design), Down State hurts the potency of combat; the very thing it seeks to advance.

It’s like if you have an apple, but (without your consent) someone trades half of your apple for half a banana. This is good because you get greater diversity! But what if you don’t like bananas? Or just preferred the full apple? Well too bad! They mashed them both together so now it’s all or nothing! ^^

Muramasma [+1]

Rare and insightful post =)

Vena.8436:

In a game of skill, equal skill, 1v2 or 1v3 is impossible unless you fall into a case of massive hard counters.

If I interpretted you correctly, this is obviously true. One player versus two or more similarly skilled players has a snowballs chance in hell of winning, unless the combat facilitates it:
e.g. Strong Crowd-Control effects.

Vena.8436:

This is why anyone who’s talking about being unable to win “skilled” 1vXs is lying through their teeth when they use the word “skill”.

“Skilled” implies the player is more adept than his/her opponents. Your premise compared evenly skilled players. How does this conclusion correlate with your premise?

Vena.8436:

What they really mean is:

“Down state prevents me from curbstomping newbs with my leet skillz!”
or
“My class is absolutely OP, but this dumb down state prevents me from murdering countless foes!”

Down State makes defeating enemy players harder. So without Down State, skill would have a larger influence in defeating multiple opponents.

Ostricheggs.3742:

And I HAVE argued about downed state and why it’s good for the game. People aren’t used to it, people rage when they “kill” a player and he gets back up. Why people complain about it is beyond me because once you get past the initial shock of it you’ll realize it’s an incredibly balanced mechanic with more to offer the game with it than without it. That’s especially true given the lack of any dedicated healer in the game.

Believe you me! I’ve done my share of pondering over the worth of Down State, and I know exactly what it has to offer! And what it doesn’t!

What does Down State offer?
Depth!

What does Down State withhold?
It cripples combat potency!

What should Depth withhold?
Nothing!

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

lets continue this in a new topic if you must.

Why? Is it not pertaining to the subject matter?

guild wars 2 is a team game.
if 1 vs 2 or 1 vs 3 is possible due to skill, then there is something very wrong with that profession who can 1 vs 2 or 1 vs 3 easily.

… “easily”?
Anyway, your allegation attests that the game doesn’t promote skill enough to devalue those odds. Is skill not supposed to be the predominant factor in PvP? If professions don’t have enough depth to support the potential to 1v2/3 opponents than the problem lies with the game, not with the profession.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

strength in numbers.
1 vs 2 or 1 vs 3, the larger team should always have a higher chance to prevail.

Obviously yes, but I’m not debating probability.
You implied that because GW2 is a team game, individual skill can not overcome 1v2/3 odds.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

anyway, if the so called skill person is really that skilled, he should have no problem stomping or dps-ing the downed player and proceed to defeat the remaining player(s)

You just contradicted your whole dissertation… O_o

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

mjharrison.3209:

• precludes skilled 1v2, 1v3 victories

gw2 is a team game.
your point is invalid.

How does a team game by definition invalidate the skill of its players?

; Updated as by adding new information.

Amended the post arguing for the refined point:

• Favourable support for recuperation in grouped play; adds a higher level of bias

Erebos.6741:

- This is due to the effective options and counteractive options each side has to offer, which if you list tend to cancel each other out, e.g. stealth stomp/revive, stability stomp/revive, knockback, etc. But there are a couple disparities which decide the imbalance:

1. The revive ability is the counter equivalent of the stomp ability, however slightly stronger due to its stacking effect with multiple allies
2. Downed specific abilities such as Warriors “Battle Standard” have no measurable counter

Pip.2094:

I find downed state in Pvp rather disturbing to be honest…for in the most of cases, it just forces me into lie there and wait for an unavoidable banner. Makes me feel rather pathetic, that’s all personal vision I have, anyway. I would prefer to just die as soon as I fall.
And, I truly hate when a teamate or a friend ends up downed and killed as well, just for trying to rez me, for then I feel guilty. I prefer to die alone than bring anyone with ne x)

Thank you for sharing

While I wouldn’t go so far as to describe it as “disturbing”, I personally don’t like being at the mercy of other players, friendly or foe.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for working as a team, but I don’t want to be utterly dependent on them either.

Oh and before I forget (again), thank you very much Zanthrax for the support

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

PvP without downstate would result in an even more bunkerish-playstyle, as there is no acceptance to die.

That doesn’t even make tangible sense. Please explain why you think dying without downed is so bad.

Thief would probably dissaper instantly from tPvP.

No they wouldn’t.

So no, the depth of the actual state is claimed on the downstate.

Also doesn’t make sense, although I think what you meant to say was that “the downed state adds depth” – which I never claimed it didn’t, so what you really meant to interject was that because the downed state adds depth it (somehow) refutes my affirmation that asseerrrrtss:

• Overall depth lost from prevailing alternatives

My rebuttal:
Depth basically means “possible number of meaningful choices bound by rules, pertaining to a setting or scenario.”

In the circumstance that a player is downed, strategy didn’t change; it remains constant. You could choose to stop all action and spam the /dance emote, but (however funny), that wouldn’t be a very effective strategy. This is where depth comes in; effective choice; where the environment predetermines effective means to counteract the situation.

The situation is a downed enemy. Motivated by your goal to win, (capturing points and so forth), you want to overcome this obstacle that is the player. This is where you best choose from your range of options to dispose of said player.
You have two options:

1. Kill it with fire!
2. Stomp its brains out! >_>

Stomping is the most efficient means, but adding more players into the mix can bring about nuisances which prevent you from landing a stomp via countering your (presupposed) counteractive measures.
Using foresight you could opt for the less disabling route to damage the remaining life away while simultaneously applying protective and restrictive measures to prevent death of yourself and recuperative strategem of the downed player. This ultimately limits your effective course of action; narrowing effective, selective output (not necessarily a bad thing because it takes deductive means to find that result! But lowers your chance of success).

That was deep (what did you expect? We explored depth!) But think of the depth involved in before downing the player and the downed players perspective.
Now I know what you’re thinking, “You just clearly explained how the downed state adds depth!” And this is how adding depth made it onto my pros list (on a technicality),but, the original allegation takes into account if the downed state were removed, and on the premise that prevalent play has greater depth and would see more play if downed state were removed (see pace of play), my statement holds merit.

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Illusion of Life useless, many revive traits and abilities useless

Erebos.6741:

- To achieve this and solve the burden of consequential redundant-made abilities, redesign downed-specific abilities (e.g. Toss Elixir R) to instantly revive the player. The amount of players and longevity of the effect can vary between professions if you want to avoid homogeneousness.

Erebos.6741:

Resurrection could continue to exist the same way it does in other games; having no reliance on down state. I also concluded its existence in my suggestions.

Regards of a player that thinks a bit wider

Saulius.8430:

biased an opinionated

And this detracts from my argument… how?

Saulius.8430:

Pros
Rewards team oriented play
Adds depth/strategy
Mandates team oriented play
Porlong play
Cons
Mandates team oriented play pro
Overpowering effectiveness – what does that even mean?
Little depth gained from added level of complexity - just opinion of shallow person?
Overall depth lost from prevailing alternatives - the only alternative you mentioned was instant death, which has less depth
Interrupts and slows the pace of play pro
Favourable support for recuperation in stacked play; adds a higher level of bias just your opinion, imo stacked play itself is disadvantageous, as you lose map control

I’ve provided critical reasoning for my claims, that which you’ve wholly disregarded in your disclosure.

Link:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/Downed-State-Evaluation/first#post1892184

While presenting suggestions that I (at this moment) wholeheartedly adhere to, the topic as a whole studies an existing quality from a SPvP point of view.

As such it had arguably more consensus to stay in the Structured PvP section, where its intended audience is better suited and found!

Erebos.6741:

a SPvP

[tangent] - I know it’s grammically correct to say “an” before an acronym starting with a vowel-sounding letter, and sure it sounds better, but it doesn’t make sense I say! [/tangent]

MaXi.3642:

welcome in suggestions… lost my post due to it

Thank you! Yeah I got quite the shock at first; not knowing what had happened. Sorry to hear about your original post

beating 1v3 would be worthless anyway

You don’t really believe that… do you?

its not possible without gear advatage or brainless enemies…

While having newbish enemies definitely helps, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s otherwise impossible. I’ll elaborate a little more in a future post addressing the same concern, but I’m done for the day.

I appreciate your feedback and hope to discombobulate (what an awesome sounding word! xD) your opinion in a latter post

emikochan.8504:

It doesn’t “interrupt and slow the pace of play”. IT IS THE PACE OF PLAY. kitten how can people not understand this so long after launch.

I think you interpreted that as strictly literal notation, where the hypothesis wherein suggests the reformed removal of the mechanic as a component of play.

emikochan.8504:

Longer fights are better than shorter fights anyway.

That is incredibly subjective.

emikochan.8504:

If you see 4 people trying to revive you don’t all stack and stomp, that’s dumb

Perhaps you missed the part where I said “Now you’re probably thinking “that’s silly!” and subjectively you would be right!”

The purpose of that synopsis (and synopsis’ in general) is to get you to think about the subject matter and wholly investigate the question!

Valkyriez.6578:

Darwin here, Holla!

Cool! Greetings from a fellow aussie

…

ninja.4139:

Erebos.6741:

• Interrupts and slows the pace of play

I disagree, in my mind someone that is downed is either dead or they’re a potential resurrect that I just need to keep down. It doesn’t interrupt my pace at all.

You don’t deduce that extra management of downed opponents extends the time required to defeat them? And what if they rally?; Would you acknowledge the time then?
- This adversely affects the pace of play between downing multiple enemies.

Think of it like a race between two people with the addition/removal of the mechanic to see who could defeat the most enemies in a set amount of time. Who do you think would win?

ninja.4139:

I like the situations that having a downed player creates.

This is down to personal opinion, but I think based on your (presumed) enjoyment of other aspects of combat, that you would also enjoy transposing your time elsewhere. e.g. say, besting more opponents

ninja.4139:

Erebos.6741:

• Overall depth lost from prevailing alternatives
• Favourable support for recuperation in stacked play; adds a higher level of bias

I don’t understand what you’re saying with these points.

Overall depth lost from prevailing alternatives:

While adding depth to play, the downed state is such a powerful mechanic that it takes precedence from both teams to finish/rally the afflicted player, effectively condensing meaningful choice!

Favourable support for recuperation in grouped play; adds a higher level of bias:

I’m asserting here that the likelihood between stomping and reviving downed players favour reviving.

(Edit: Added critical evidence to my claim.)

- This is due to the effective options and counteractive options each side has to offer, which if you list tend to cancel each other out, e.g. stealth stomp/revive, stability stomp/revive, knockback, etc. But there are a couple disparities which decide the imbalance:

1. The revive ability is the counter equivalent of the stomp ability, however slightly stronger due to its stacking effect with multiple allies
2. Downed specific abilities such as Warriors “Battle Standard” have no measurable counter

Thank you for your response Valkyriez

If your GMT +9.5, where u at? Darwin or Adelaide or SE ASIA?

Adelaide

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

downed stated will not be removed.

Why?

get over it already.

Why?

ninja.4139:

Erebos.6741:

• Overpowering effectiveness

Effective how?

What’s more effective:
a) A player with their tools and abilities before reaching downed?
b) Or after?
- I argue that players are exponentially more proficient before descending into downed.

Can you see how restoring someone to that aforementioned effectiveness can be seen as a massive leap in one’s own ability relative to other in-game competencies?

The five points gained from killing an enemy generally makes up for a fair amount of time spent fighting them.

The point systems main focus is to transmit an individual’s predominance in play. How does an accurate representation of that make up for being an accurate representation… ?

ninja.4139:

Erebos.6741:

• Little depth gained from added level of complexity

I don’t think this is a con, but I can see where you’re coming from in that you feel the added depth from the downed state doesn’t outweigh its disadvantages, correct?

No that’s not quite what I meant =(
You don’t agree with the design goal to achieve the maximum amount of depth out of the minimum amount of complexity?
See this video

…

Valkyriez.6578:

Sure, I can speculate. I don’t think arena net intends to change it at the core mechanic level because of the other game types (PvE and WvW). Anet likes to keep thier ducks in a row with all game modes the same at the mechanic level. Down state works in PvE, as far as I understand anyway with my limited PvE exposure, and outside of some number tweaking I think it will remain relatively the same.

Can we agree that PvE and PvP are separate in the fact that PvE places a bias on the player to be better than the environment, while PvP is wavering? Assuming you agree, do you think it’s fair to condone both play types to the same endowment?

Valkyriez.6578:

As to my opinion? I’m kind of in the not fussed section. I see its good points and bad points. It does an ok job in organized team play but is woeful in pug play. I would prefer changes to some of the down state abilities per class and the stomp mechanic but that’s just me.

Not trying to pick on you, but do you think the good points outweigh the bad?

How does it do an “ok” job in organised play but not disorganized? Could it be that it’s because organised play generally takes better advantage of the associated pros and cons likely due to… well, better organisation?

Hammerheart, the con wasn’t that it “promotes” team play, but “commands” it! Due to the overpowering nature reviving players induces, coinciding with the loss of a teammate making stacked odds even steeper.
Furthermore Guild Wars 2 could still function as a team game with no negative repercussions as a result.
Calae iterates an aspect of my feelings well! – Appreciate your feedback btw ^^

Rerroll.9083:

Downed state balances glass canon builds. If it didnt exist, glass thiefs, for example, would be insanely overpowered.

Reroll, having the downed state cater as a failsafe with no player input is terrible design philosophy for the same reasons why proactive defence is more astute than reactive defence which is more calculating than passive defence; complexity and the risk : reward ratio of abilities.
- If that really is the case and burst was superseding proactive/reactive defence, then the core of the problem lies in those elements and shouldn’t excuse the downed state mechanic.

It also adds depth and makes some utilities useful (rez,stability,immunity) that otherwise wouldn’t be used.

While adding a level of depth, overall depth is lost due to prevailing alternatives as a result of the overpowering effectiveness downed state ensues.
Stability/immunities counteract disabling abilities which (while correlating to strategy involvement) don’t originate from down state and wouldn’t lose effectiveness if downed state was toned down/removed.
Resurrection could continue to exist the same way it does in other games; having no reliance on down state. I also concluded its existence in my suggestions.

Sorry for the lateness of my reply. Where I live the time is GMT + 9.5, and I’ve been busy with work, etc, but I intend to rebut all criticisms that don’t disprove my logic while willing to acknowledge/submit to evidence in the contrary.

Ruler, thank you for your feedback; I’m glad you were able to critically question the routine, and I agree that the downed state simply cannot compete with prevalent play in its current form; based on the lack of depth.

Valkyriez, without bashing Arena Net, can you speculate as to why the downed state won’t, or likely will not receive any substantial changes?
Also, (if you care to mention), do you have any weighty opinion about the overall value of the state itself?

Edit: Between time past since creating this topic I’ve continued pondering over down-state and my perceived problems with the mechanic.

There was a time when I loved down-state! But admittedly I was naive.

I used to take pride in my expertise managing the play installed by the mechanic, and maximizing the simple aptitude fighting while downed felt like an achievement!
But sadly that hour was short-lived before it became grossly stagnant and routine. It only went down hill from there.

I felt like I had maximized my proficiency while downed, even perfecting timing on the ever annoying, lagging Wolf ability: Terrifying Howl to increase chances of survival! (I also exploited Nature’s Renewal during build experimentation when times permit) But obviously I couldn’t always recover despite playing at or near the skill-cap.

(Oh and FYI, I played more than just Ranger with my time spent in the game.)

1. And that constitutes my first problem with down-state – that as a result, skill is not a determining factor of combat!

And while the justification that this is a team game may ease some minds, it remains a very real and valid concern to many if balance and adjoining fun are to be of preceded value to PvP.

In the interest of publicizing my opinions throughout the community I’ve neglected adding suggestions to fill the void left behind from my argument.
Furthermore I disregard the suggestions in my former post as they were not well thought out and I no longer adhere to them.

I’ve condensed the original version to a spoiler listed below for the sake of interest. Unfortunately due to the post character cap I opted to edit out the old suggestions:

Warriors: The Yamcha of GW2.

Xolo.3580:

I’d just like to see what would happen if you added “Downed State Toggle”.

I’d be very interested to see what happens!; I might even come back to the game (left early Jan)

I placed the blame on lag. Most irritating when trying to use “Toss Elixir R” and the AoE reticle appears and disappears upon mouse click, but nothing happens : /

http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/time-converter

Another well known but rarely used trick (mostly due to the difficulty) is near-instantly self reviving from the downed state by activating Nature’s Renewal from the Elite skill Spirit of Nature just before going down.

It’s already well known, but equipping a Warhorn from your inventory to use Call of the Wild for the AoE speed boost only to swap back weapons is a good source of mobility every so often.

Note: You can switch weapons by either double clicking the icon or right click and select equip from the drop-down menu.

I did some quick testing using Forceful Explosives (Bombs and Mines have a larger explosion radius.) and while still within range, the auto attack didn’t persist.

The Burn duration trait is bugged/broken along with most every other + condition duration thing in the game except for sigils and the trait line attribute.

Personally I can’t believe these traits/runes/whatever haven’t been fixed yet as it’s a detrimental stat used to help define multiple profession builds : /

Edit: Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, because I know there’s some tooltip errors and the like but my testings have shown no additional damage ticks.

Before buffs/nerfs I would rather Anet fixed bugged abilities/traits, as I imagine Signet of the Hunt and Moment of Clarity will affect the entirety of damage from channeled abilities, potentially making Longbow burst OP; especially if the effects stacked additively!

^
The graphical representation is fine, but try testing the alleged damage increase using steady weapons.

Last I checked it didn’t affect my damage whatsoever.