I’m for a mass reset when a meta-wide change is made. But if a path is radically changed, like if they fixed Arahp3 door or something and the old times could never realistically be beaten I would like the flexibility to reset just that path.
In regards to this patch specifically, we know that the movement skill thing is a fairly big nerf but I think it remains to be seen if old records cannot realistically be beaten. Why not let the old records stand for a bit and see if its actually impossible before we reset?
I just realized something.. with the changes to burning, Tar in Arah p1 is going to be a pain, especially in pugs.
One Guardian should be able to do perma burning. If you have some eles they will be getting burn on crit too so it would only be an issue in really weird party comps.
’cause non-PS build will still do more damage than a PS build in a solo scenario. Or if you have two warriors in a dungeon group and one is already using PS.
I’m not entirely sure on sigil choices or on optimal food yet. We should easily hit 100% crit chance with signet mastery so I could see sigil of strength becoming a thing, or it could stay sigil of night and sigil of force.
Runes will probably be strength and zerker armor as always.
Greatsword / AxeMace
As for skills. Signet of Might might replace signet of fury, but not sure on that. Only speculation.
This suggested build isn’t going to work. I suggest you go to the indestructible golem and test your dps rotations on it. You will see that you dont even come close to maintaining 100% Berserker’s Power uptime. Either need Furious or Burst Mastery if you want it at 100%, and believe me, you do.
edit: not trying to be mean and shoot you down, just pointing out that theorycraft is sometimes more than “pick the highest dps looking traits and go.”
What about signet mastery and popping SoF for the full adrenaline?
If the new healing surge (shout skill) doesn’t have a cast time, could use that as well for another full bar of adrenaline. Would actually require using most of the warrior skills for once.
The quickness from heightened focus will also help after using your signet/heal skill for the initial adrenaline, the 2x attack speed will help you build it from there.
Are you sure all of these combined things are not enough to keep your adrenaline buildup in line with berserker’s power?
Other than that, it’s hard for me to really test without the patch going live. I don’t have a stopwatch on me, and I can’t test the changes which I feel will help to build adrenaline without sacrificing a damage based trait.
The new Healing Surge will have the same cast time I believe. There is no doubt you can start the fight with Berserker’s Power up due to SoF or HS, but you won’t be able to refill your adrenaline in 8 seconds without Burst Mastery or Furious. I would recommend Furious because Heightened Focus is a bigger DPS gain than Dual Wielding.
@warlord I do not believe that Discipline will be useful in group scenarios for warriors. The Fast Hands rotation is worth approximately 3 stacks more vuln compared to pure greatsword which is entirely made up (and then some) by the Guardian buffs. Additionally, elementalists and Thief will continue to provide their usual Vuln capabilities. The extra Regeneration from the Banner trait would be significant if Guardian Mace was not becoming their meta weapon. Lastly the Arms traits, except at the Master level, are superior to the Discipline traits except for Fast Hands. I have been a proponent of Fast Hands builds for a while due to superior vuln capabilities, but taking a wide view of the patch and seeing how all the buffs and nerfs interact makes it pretty clear that it is unneeded at this point.
’cause non-PS build will still do more damage than a PS build in a solo scenario. Or if you have two warriors in a dungeon group and one is already using PS.
I’m not entirely sure on sigil choices or on optimal food yet. We should easily hit 100% crit chance with signet mastery so I could see sigil of strength becoming a thing, or it could stay sigil of night and sigil of force.
Runes will probably be strength and zerker armor as always.
Greatsword / AxeMace
As for skills. Signet of Might might replace signet of fury, but not sure on that. Only speculation.
This suggested build isn’t going to work. I suggest you go to the indestructible golem and test your dps rotations on it. You will see that you dont even come close to maintaining 100% Berserker’s Power uptime. Either need Furious or Burst Mastery if you want it at 100%, and believe me, you do.
edit: not trying to be mean and shoot you down, just pointing out that theorycraft is sometimes more than “pick the highest dps looking traits and go.”
At the very least it will allow axe to compete with GS.
Why would we want that? The best way to get DPS from greatsword is to use your skills in a proper rotation. The best way to get DPS from axe is to… press 1. You really want to make a press 1 weapon better? ZZZZZ
I’d rather have a Fast Hands build, but it is not going to happen, is it?
At the very least it will allow axe to compete with GS.
Why would we want that? The best way to get DPS from greatsword is to use your skills in a proper rotation. The best way to get DPS from axe is to… press 1. You really want to make a press 1 weapon better? ZZZZZ
How do you come up with only a slight increase on the non-phalanx meta build? There are a ton of new damage modifiers for the patch. Berserker’s Power alone is going to be a massive increase to the DPS warrior build.
The meta dps build currently uses Scholar Runes and Truffle Steaks. The new build will use Strength Runes and Golden Fried Dumplings. You lose about 8% dps from the rune swap and about 5% from the food swap. If somehow you could use Scholar and Truffle Steaks with the new traits you would see a pretty nice dps buff. But Strength + Boon Duration food is pretty much mandatory to get Phalanx to function properly now.
The new meta warrior build on 6/23 will be a slight DPS increase over the current DPS warrior build, not counting any buff in stats we get from our gear.
The new meta warrior build (which has Phalanx Strength) will have about 50% more dps than the current Phalanx Strength build.
The new meta warrior build will still be about 20% less dps than the meta Staff Ele build vs. single targets.
too bad most people dont want to get their head out of tyria because they are somewhat fame and dont want to start from zero because they couldnt be the “best” anymore ….
I am 100% sure I would have fun in Wildstar. However, I have no real interest in it. Before GW2 I didn’t really play any video games seriously from 2008 – 2012. I played Gw1 casually during that time, and hardcore before that from like 2005-2008. I have plenty of other hobbies and interests. If I stopped playing GW2 it wouldn’t be because I moved onto other/better video games, it would be because I stopped gaming entirely to do other stuff.
The bottom line is whether or not you feel $50 for the expac is worth it. Who cares about the bundled core game? It doesn’t matter. If some new players spends $50 and gets both thats good for him surely, but it doesn’t affect you. Your decision to buy or not to buy comes down to the offer you get, not the offer someone else got. If you genuinely feel $50 for the expac is too high and not a good value, don’t buy it. Just don’t cite the core game bundle as your reason for not buying it, since that is totally irrelevant to your circumstances.
You have all these arcane ideas to “solve the problem” of skipping trash. From a philosophical standpoint, this makes no sense. In order to solve a problem you first have to establish it is a problem at all. Since no one has yet been able to cite why this is a problem whatsoever, any solution offered to solve it is automatically irrelevant.
I asked Roy to clarify how the gear will work and his response is basically your stats will be about the same as now. I gently said that we are all min/maxers who care about stats down to 0.1% and we are dying to know the exact formula but his response was “i understand, I’m that way too.” My guess is that haven’t exactly finished that stuff and they dont have a formula to reveal just yet, which is why the patch notes were so vague.
again, we somehow managed to get along more or less fine without weekly voting on minutiae and semantics. No one is asking you to allow people to exploit the rules. If someone posts a new record and they do some new strategy that appears to be shady or questionable to quite a few people we can vote then as needed. What we don’t need to do is vote weekly to decide about allowing Lupicus walling when that issue was addressed and settled. You are trying to reduce uncertainty, but there wasnt any uncertainty until all this voting started happening.
Well thats just the problem. I dont agree that we need “clarification” votes to “refresh” issues that have been long settled unless the sentiment has changed. And if your response is “we needed the vote to gauge the sentiment” then my position is “if there is no debate / conflict over the rule then there is no need to worry about the sentiment.”
There is a saying in baseball here that the best umpire is the one you don’t even notice is there.
Unless the stun or whatever you get for breaking the breakbar is worthwhile. A 4 second stun is basically as good as a Freeze so I don’t see why you wouldn’t do it.
Yeah but thats a problem in itself. These things are borderline exploity. When i think of the restricted ruleset i expect things like that to possibly be banned. So when its not clarified in the rules and i dont remember an old decision made by the community im going to bring it up.
Not necessary to vote again. These things have been accepted for years and, yes, it was voted in a meeting. Specifically was discussed in regards to SEp3 records when intentionally killing the NPC at the car was found to speed it up considerably. We voted that it was allowed to let the npc die to speed it up. You don’t remember, I get it. But every time you forget something we get to have a new vote? It’s a permissive rule set. Banned things are banned. Allowed things do not need to be enumerated or listed.
How about “only bring up items for votes if there is a genuine debate within the community”?
For example, at the meetings it was settled that NPC death and teleport manipulation was allowed. Why are we voting again on this? There is no new impetus for rehashing this topic as far as I can see. It’s a good example of an unnecessary voting topic since we are basically discussing an issue that was settled long ago.
I dont remember this being discussed in the meeting. There is no rule mentioning NPC or cutscene manipulation currently which is why it was brought up.
There is no rule currently because you dont need a rule to say you’re allowed to do something. There would only be a rule if that thing was banned. And yes, it was discussed and allowed and has been allowed for years. No need to debate it again.
No need to debate coe door, arah p3 door, lupi wall, cm guns or anything else. These are all issues that have been voted and decided on in the past and there was no good reason to unsettle these topics.
How about “only bring up items for votes if there is a genuine debate within the community”?
For example, at the meetings it was settled that NPC death and teleport manipulation was allowed. Why are we voting again on this? There is no new impetus for rehashing this topic as far as I can see. It’s a good example of an unnecessary voting topic since we are basically discussing an issue that was settled long ago.
Ah, I am. For some reason when I was looking at the notes took it as armor only. Reading again it says “equipment” which appears to be the entire panoply. This is is a really big boost for professions that didn’t go all the way to 6 in one of their DPS trait lines.
Let’s say you are a Thief running a 66XXX build. With full ascended gear after the patch you will lose 106 Power, 141 Precision and 141 Ferocity compared to now. Now they have buffed many traits to make up for this, but I think people are overestimating how much DPS buffing we are getting. It will definitely be a buff, but it would be a bit off to think of it as a buff to the moon.
So they revealed the gear stat changes and all that?
I was under the impression from earlier talks that our chosen gear stats would remain similar to before, but this is good.
The gear stuff was in the dragon season full notes. Let’s say you’re the aforementioned Thief…
Right now you get 300 power, 300 precision and 300 ferocity from your DA and CS traitlines. Those will be gone.
instead, you get +74 base stats so -226 net. Then your gear will be improved which will grant you an extra 120 Power. So your net Power loss is 106 after these changes. For Thief Critical Strikes has many +Precision +Ferocity traits so my guess is that from a pure stat perspective you will be able to make up those losses and then some.
Ele is in a weirder spot. They get a 150 Power trait… but you have to be in Fire. They get a 190 precision trait… but you have to be in Air. So it seems like Ele is going to be in a position where depending on your build you’re going to lose either Power or Precision relative to now. Scepter will be losing Power AND Precision since it will be water camping. Staff losing precision. Dagger/Focus losing Power. Soooo… more encouragement to run staff I guess. =/
Let’s say you are a Thief running a 66XXX build. With full ascended gear after the patch you will lose 106 Power, 141 Precision and 141 Ferocity compared to now. Now they have buffed many traits to make up for this, but I think people are overestimating how much DPS buffing we are getting. It will definitely be a buff, but it would be a bit off to think of it as a buff to the moon.
Weth, you’ve done an amazing job with the website. The features are really superb. The approvers have done a good job approving the records timely.
The criticism I have is that we have been constantly tweaking the ruleset for what seems like months. Constant votes. Constant changes. This is tedious. Voting on issues or having a community meeting is something that should happen rarely, and only out of necessity when there is a major controversy. I appreciate that you have been an excellent arbiter of the rules, but I don’t know that what we need is endless confusion and uncertainty. What I am advocating is a hands-off approach for rules management, where changes to the rules are only made out of necessity or from obvious need. When was the last time someone posted a restricted record run that caused true controversy? Molten Facility? That’s a quick vote to resolve and be done. Before that? I can’t remember one. What I am getting at is, there isn’t enough controversy and dispute to justify the tweaking and adjustment that has happened.
Again, I think you have done a great job with the website and I would vastly prefer you continued to do so rather than anyone else take over that job. But I think, except in case of real controversy, that we don’t need to be revising the rules more than once or twice a year. And even in the case of controversy, a simple vote on whatever that particular issue is would suffice.
I know it’s always annoying when things don’t go as one would like but that’s something everyone (including me) has to deal with. If people were happy with how things are, then the voting result should reflect that.
Its another thing when the rule in question is innocuously worded, and then when it is approved you come out with “ok well as a result of last week’s vote wallsploit is legal.” Nobody wants wallploits to be legal. It’s a joke that you guys (and by “you guys” it’s rT just look at the cast of people defending this, or is that a coincidence?) don’t understand how mismanaged it is. You are introducing uncertainty into a system where there previously was none, and then use that uncertainty to justify further meddling.
But I don’t see issue with voting about things which have been decided long time ago.
Because there was no impetus to do so? No one was looking to revisit wallsploits in restricted runs. No one was looking to revisit consumables, jumping puzzles or any of the rest of the general rules that were brought up for votes. If there was some community outcry against these things (besides Spoj) it would make some sense, but basically no one else was interested in revisiting these.
I know some probably see this voting as a pretty slow and inefficient way to decide things.
No, it’s just tedious revisiting issues over and over again. Especially when no one in the community can understand why if we all hate the changes that the changes are happening.
It resolves nothing. Why are we voting on things every week? Why did the rules only need occasional semi-annual meetings to keep running smoothly before but now need weekly updates that no one is happy with? Why is there an urge to create a ruleset without path specific clarifications when by all accounts the rules using them worked well? All of this reeks of too much meddling and trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Well it’s very close to breaking now after all the tampering.
What he presents here is simply the implications of the voting that took place in the weeks before. If anything, it is great that he points out so clearly the changes that our voting entails. He is provoking a reaction. Now it is only our responsibility to act if the implications of our voting do not match our conception of the rule set.
We can reopen our past votes, or we could vote on additional rules, that build upon what we already decided, in order to shape the scene to our liking. All we need to do is design a rule that bans wallsploits on Lupi.
No one said his logic was wrong. The problem is the the micro-management is atrocious. We don’t need to re-write the rules. The rules have worked well for the last two years with one meeting every 6 months or so to iron out specific issues, somehow in the last 25 weeks we have managed to create a “logical” ruleset nobody is happy with that have completely muddled the goal here.
As cheezy said, we don’t need or even necessarily want 100% consistent rules across all paths. We just want a ruleset that everyone agrees upon, is competitive and is fair.
It stretches the imagination to believe that when people were voting last week that they understood that what they were really voting for was allowing the Lupicus wallsploit. This feels to most of us like a “gotcha” thing designed as some bizarre trap. And Weth can say, “you voted, I am just administering the rules pursuant to that” but the fact is that Weth set the agenda in the first place by bringing to a vote issues that people didn’t even necessarily want or need to address.
So we had a community meeting that specifically banned wall sploiting Lupicus and now it’s unbanned? kitten that kitten. What the kitten is going on with this community? This is out of control.
The community voted to ban that, it should be banned. Understand that your job here is to follow the will of the community.
Umm well this was kind of the stuff I was trying to mitigate for future things last week because a lot of the stuff we had decided in previous meetings was getting thrown out the window.
Most of the stuff we had decided in previous TS meetings was predicated on the basis that we were trying to avoid most things people thought were exploits or unintended since what we as a community back then decided. We don’t have anything like that now.
It’s one thing to do voting to resolve a new tactics / issue that has never risen before. But now we are in the realm of reversing on a whim things that were determined and voted on in community meetings. This is ridiculous.
So we had a community meeting that specifically banned wall sploiting Lupicus and now it’s unbanned? kitten that kitten. What the kitten is going on with this community? This is out of control.
The community voted to ban that, it should be banned. Understand that your job here is to follow the will of the community.
I think a lot of people are talking about PvP in this thread and others are talking about PvE and they are debating each other without understanding that.
It’s all moot come Tuesday as PS warrior wont be much of a DPS loss at all, I would expect to see a lot more of them.
Where did they say the specialization patch would be Tuesday? I thought they said “next patch” which could mean any time between now and HoT launch. Not trying to be snarky but would like to know where, the Go Home to LA post did not say Tuesday.
Because they are doing a Ready Up showing the patch off on Monday. Normally they do that on Fridays? Why push it to Monday if the patch wasn’t coming Tuesday?
Generally speaking, if you have two eles in your party, you don’t want a PS warrior as your third. If you for whatever reason have a Guardian or a Thief along due to path neeeds with an ele you will gain more from a PS warrior as third than a second ele.
It’s all moot come Tuesday as PS warrior wont be much of a DPS loss at all, I would expect to see a lot more of them.
But contradicting rules like these simply open up the possibility of endless path specific rules. Do we really want inconsistencies like this which requires people to go and check a long list of rules everytime?
Yes. And don’t exaggerate, most paths don’t have anything like this. It would be like 1 rule here or there.
People voted for disallowing CoE because its unintended. And voted for allowing arah p3 because everyone already does it despite it being unintended. Does that not strike you as a problem?
Not a problem because it’s how the voting went. I’m personally on record saying I’m opposed to the Arahp3 door philosophically, but when this has been voted on multiple times it’s always been allowed by the community so I accept that.
I
ts a clear lack of clarity in what the ruleset is supposed to do. Play as intended or allow minor exploits? You have to pick one or the other. Not both.
“Have to”? No, we don’t have to do anything. We can have whatever rules we want, even if some of them do not follow the same internal logic. We aren’t beholden to anything except the will of the community.
The problem enko is we already have general rules that exist as a frame work. Everything that you think of as a loosening or whatever is legal as the result oftentimes of an up or down vote.
Arahp3 door was specifically voted on and allowed.
NPC dying to speed up dialogue was voted on and allowed
CoE door was voted on and disallowed.
We don’t need any more specificity in the general rules, the general rules are very clear and they do a good job of “describing what restricted is supposed to be.” I know what you want is to establish a basis for the “spirit of the law” to use as a guidepost for future grey issues come up, but we are already doing it. When the community meetings happen and/or guild leaders vote the spirit of the law is being invoked whether we have a written mission statement or not.
Whenever a grey issue comes up like the above cited ones or a newer one like molten facility we can just do an up/down vote on those specifically. It’s much simpler to do that.
The weapons that apply the best condis: (necro scepter, warrior sword, engineer grenade kit, ranger axe) all have terrible direct damage coefficients per second. This means that if you take stats away from condition damage on them to buff direct damage you are losing sigificant DPS because the weapon does 80% of it’s damage from conditions.
Conclusion: hybrid will never be good. Either condi builds are viable in which case Pure condi will be run, or condi builds are not viable and full berserker are run. Or both are viable and either can be run. A mix will never work so long as the weapons themselves are biased towards one type of damage or the other.
I’ll say it again, the best solution is dealing with each issue individually on a path by path basis and not try to aim for some universal overarching One Rule To Unite Them All. If you try to create a rule system that allows Arah p3 door but disallows CoE door you’re going to be treading the finest of fine lines in your wording and you WILL have unintended consequences. Much easier to just say “Arah p3 door is an issue open to interpretation with the simple rules we already have, lets vote on that encounter on it’s own” rather than trying to change the rules.
Sure, having a corpus of path based errata isn’t elegant but its a good deal better than trying to write a brand new constitution every time someone finds a new bug/exploit.
I think you’re wrong. The community again and again has come down in favor of the restricted rules and has consistently opposed loosening them. I really wish you would end your crusade for changing Restricted from what it was designed to be and spend your time working on getting the Unrestricted rules to a place where people care about them if you have so much energy.
I think that the interpretation of the rules have loosened up which why I think we’re having this discussion now to clarify them so they are more clear cut instead of everything being in a grey area.
All of the current records could still be valid if we reworded some of the rules by actually defining what we’re considering an event and such. Some of us were holding ourselves to a much stricter interpretation than others.
I agree, the interpretation has loosened up over time. But in every community rule meeting and in most of the voting we’ve done so far most of the time the community comes down in favor is tightening the restricted rules when given a voice.
Contract law is really not my strong suit or something I studied beyond the minimum requirements, but I can tell you that the tighter we try to word the rules to prevent shenanigans the more loop holes it opens up. People will see a rule that was designed to allow Arah p3 door but prevent CoE door (or whatever) and then use the wording of that rule to allow them to jump over some other door in some other path. Eventually enforcement comes down to the spirit of the rule vs precise wording. This is why I have always been a bit more in favor of case by case decisions that might not make internal sense when you compare two different rulings for two different paths. Sure its a lot more unwieldy and less elegant, but the benefit is that we don’t have to jump through hoops to make two seemingly contradictory rulings fit the same single rule.
I dont remember anyone saying anything bad about the KR CoE records. Apart from a few comments from people who obviously couldnt jump.
I remembered better after thinking more. It wasn’t KR. It was Stop Stealing who did the crazy run with all sorts of shenanigans. As far as who couldn’t jump I’m not sure who you are referring to, because we were the first ones to do the jump in a record.
KR posted their unrestricted runs after the Restricted rules came out because they didnt like them, sorry to besmirch KR.
