Why not u make some suggestions yourself to improve this guardian paladin 2.5 built based on its ‘flavor’ or the philosophy of this built?
It’s fine the way it is. Nothing has changed since the last time it was reviewed to warrant a change to it.
If you lack objectivity and the understanding that motivates the philosophy behind this build, what positive value could you possibly add to the thread? I doubt very much you will get answers to satisfy your inquiry in a thread about a build you think aims to be the least effective in absolutely everything. (unless your just aiming to be rhetorical, in which case would be inappropriate)
The build itself is very vanilla Guardian. It always has been. It’s a great starting point for people new to the profession. It’s a build that’s very independent of weapon. It has a broad range of application.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Isn’t it in the end all about being as effective as possible in the specific kind one has been aiming for?
The purpose of this thread is a description of the build that Silentstorm has proposed. If that build doesn’t fit a certain philosophy, It’s only fair to the author of the thread that it be discussed elsewhere so the content and purpose of the thread isn’t diminished.
Based on the responses, I’m not seeing anything in particular that makes me think the suggestions being proposed are anything but DPS builds we are already familiar with and have nothing to add to the topic of the thread. Thanks for the clarification.
Sameness in gear and weapons are very trivial elements compared to suggestions to completely change the trait selections, especially into selections that we already know are popular DPS builds for PVE.
Personally, I think the ‘suggestions’ being presented are builds that have enough merit to warrant their own threads without tarnishing the efforts of the author of this one. I would like to think that in the interest of maintain a healthy community, you would simply opt to discuss new builds in new threads.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I don’t consider it an improvement to the build to simply suggest using a different build. I don’t think these are very well thought out or honest suggestions because they have nothing to do with the flavour of the original build.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Honestly, I think perma-vigour in high-crit builds from a level 5 trait IS unreasonable. Surprised it was only ‘soft’ nerfed the first time it was looked at.
Maybe it’s just me, but you guys seem to be derailing this thread. What does this have to do with Silentstorm’s Paladin build?
Proposing improvements and providing solid mathematical reasoning why has everything to do with the discussion.
Like Lonewolf, I to have missed the improvements that have been proposed by you or your other friends. Can you be more specific and point out what improvements to the most recent Paladin build have been proposed so we can have a less one-sided discussion and test them out?
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Calm down cowboy. You’re reading way too much into what I have said. I’m not here to argue with you. I’m simply saying that a ‘conversation’ would probably not be a very useful approach to communicating to a group of people that don’t understand why Anet hasn’t thrown us all the mobility, HP, Regen, damage and warrior-godliness they have been demanding.
I’m still going to stand by the fact that if someone goes into the conversation with the mindset that the class is ‘lacking’ something and Anet is just too clueless/careless/inexperienced to fix it, they aren’t going to hear answers to the questions they want to ask.
Glad to see someone sees the problem with the ‘sword’ solution. For me the problem with the ‘sword solution’ is that it’s already top damage but it’s the least interesting weapon we have access to. Maybe giving it some love that isn’t damage would change that but if it’s not done right, it’s just going to be the high damage, least interesting weapon that gives cool effect X. I think at this stage, we can ensure that cool effect X turns the sword into an interesting weapon by considering the following:
Let’s go over things that make sword a very un-Guardian-like weapon
1. Sword builds don’t have symbol access
2. Sword builds don’t have as direct access to boons
3. Sword builds don’t have support effects (or limited ones)I don’t see that being addressed in one trait but I haven’t really made a significant suggestion here because I don’t see the aspects that I see lacking in the profession being addressed this round of balancing. From where I sit, I feel there isn’t a fundamental change going on with what’s been proposed by Anet. I’m just hoping whatever is going to happen with this trait, the scope goes beyond ‘sword’.
It wouldn’t be a bad thing. Swords could be made an unique weapon by having it such that it provides no support, boons, or CCs but in exchange gives the user a huge amount of pure DPS. The Selfish Guardian isn’t quite right in principle but it wouldn’t be a bad option to go to.
Well, you might get your wish because it already does that anyways and Anet was ready to throw an extra ( and IMO, unneeded as well as unimaginative and trivial) 5% damage to it. I know my threads are long but basically …
I would like to see things we want/need apply to more than just one weapon. No one was really complaining that sword didn’t have enough damage … and now they are reconsidering that proposal. Good. Let’s be sure we have their ear, it’s a change we can live with for longer than the meta cycle.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Glad to see someone sees the problem with the ‘sword’ solution. For me the problem with the ‘sword solution’ is that it’s already top damage but it’s the least interesting weapon we have access to. Maybe giving it some love that isn’t damage would change that but if it’s not done right, it’s just going to be the high damage, least interesting weapon that gives cool effect X. I think at this stage, we can ensure that cool effect X turns the sword into an interesting weapon by considering the following:
Let’s go over things that make sword a very un-Guardian-like weapon
1. Sword builds don’t have symbol access
2. Sword builds don’t have as direct access to boons
3. Sword builds don’t have support effects (or limited ones)
I don’t see that being addressed in one trait but I haven’t really made a significant suggestion here because I don’t see the aspects that I see lacking in the profession being addressed this round of balancing. From where I sit, I feel there isn’t a fundamental change going on with what’s been proposed by Anet. I’m just hoping whatever is going to happen with this trait, the scope goes beyond ‘sword’.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
There is obviously a personal agenda here. If the OP is denying it’s a high damage weapon and the damage potential of this weapon has been established and confirmed by the community for about … 1 year now?
I’m interested in hearing the REAL complaint.
While I echo the sentiment on a need for soft CC, I would HATE to see that tied to a particular weapon THROUGH a trait. That’s probably the most build-limiting way to service this problem.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I’m not talking about people on the forum. I’m talking about on the moderator side.
Well, maybe that should tell you something. Perhaps your on someone’kittenlist for the reasons I have mentioned.
Yeah, that’s it … everyone that doesn’t agree with the Correct Way Play People are just paranoid and shouldn’t be offended whenever they are called bad, leecher, etc …. because it’s facts and when it’s facts, it’s OK to badger and berate everyone that doesn’t agree with you … got it. Thanks.
><
Obtena, are you aware that he picked the fight with us?
I don’t care. I’m talking about the offensive approach that many ‘correct way play’ people tend to present their information with. A certain rigour and zest that usually end by insulting everyone, creating the toxicity. I’m not the only one that sees it, so it’s no figment of my imagination either. Maybe that general attitude is exactly why you got someone snapping on you guys … again.
Besides … are you saying it’s OK to turn the forum into a battleground because you are a victim instead of the instigator? You could just flag his posts for moderation and be done with it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
This is Anet’s weird system … it’s always been whacked. I noticed a while back that any effects that increase CONDITION duration will not directly be included in a specific condition tooltip number. It seemed that only the ones that give BURNING duration will be included in the tooltip number. I haven’t tested that for a while myself but it should be easier now that we can see the condition damage ticks.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Can you make a DPS build with AH … hell yeah … and a good player is going to play the hell out of it too. That’s not a debatable thing.
A good player won’t use AH.
The thread is about making a DPS build with AH in it. I could care less what a ‘good’ player does. Unless your going to quantify the difference in damage, your labels ‘good’ and ‘bad’ don’t mean much to me or anyone else. In fact they never will because there isn’t a boundary that defines good or bad damage. I would love to see your theorycrafting to see how you did it though.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
You make it sound like builds change one’s playstyle.
Do they? Do you really think so?
The builds don’t change playstyle .. but you might need to change your style if your build changes.
The problem here isn’t really pushing a build, but more of a philosophy on playing the game. The difference between means to an end or end to a means. Think about it … and realize there isn’t a RIGHT way here. The game is open. It allows people to do either, without punishment, to suit their own satisfaction. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be game. People do not play games to satisfy the value that OTHER people get from it. That is why there will always be a segment of the population that will always play ‘bad’ builds … so instead of the crusade to berate everyone, there would be much more success in figuring out how to navigate and work with (or not work) with those players.
Can you make a DPS build with AH … hell yeah … and a good player is going to play the hell out of it too. That’s not a debatable thing. It’s not conditional on what you are doing or your skill. It’s simply a matter of IF you would be the kind of person to DO it. If someone doesn’t fall into the camp of people who proclaim a ‘correct’ way of playing, then they just might, and like it and learn from it and decide they can do better. You can’t ask for more from this type of player.
(edited by Moderator)
Not sure if valid is the right word here. Does anyone realize that the things we are deficient in might be inline with the concept of the class?
For Christmas, I wish that certain people would stop beating everyone down about damage builds and how to play that most people don’t care about. You create a very negative atmosphere here.
The recommendation is:
PVE: full damage
WvW: something else (i’m not a expert in this area of the game, but I understand that only the most daredevil people run the full DPS builds there)
Swap between them as you need.
stuff
Every time I see you post, my sight gets locked on the words “PVE Burning Build”.
And I just spend a few moments, looking at them. Thinking.
Those are just there to distract the people that aren’t interested in having a discussion. It helps me figure out who is worth the time responding to.
That’s a narrow perspective. It depends on the player; not everyone is using that as a crutch. If someone wants to learn and get better, they will. Their build isn’t a crutch that lets them limp through. It’s training wheels to get them to the next level. You should be pleased at that because it will take them to DPS builds.
For people that do use it as a crutch, you simply need to get over it. You seem to believe that what you think about that matters to those people. I bet it doesn’t.
In either case, I don’t see what would motivate a person to discourage either. The one guy is learning, the other guy doesn’t care. What more do you expect?
(edited by Obtena.7952)
That depends on the person … if you are observant and you care, then certainly someone with that build will start their discovery there is a better way. That’s how I did it. Basically I sucked. I seen people killing stuff in 2 rotations … I was taking 5. I stepped it up. Full Zerkers is a breeze now. that being said … it was very expensive journey.
Based on my own experience, I can see the point that you start with the best and just get used to it. It’s cheaper but it also depends if you are that kind of person to jump into that scenario. Some people get discouraged enough to not bother when they down too much.
Again, this is all a lack of player consideration. You can’t ignore the guy behind the keyboard. Your not going to force them into a build they don’t want to be in for whatever reason.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
You didn’t understand. I didn’t say it’s not easy to learn. I’m saying you don’t just jump into a full DPS spec and perform at the highest levels of the game instantly. I don’t care how hard or easy it is because that varies from person to person … someone will still have to learn it, get comfortable with it, etc… In fact, you are parroting what I have said and disagreeing at the same time …. simply to be disagreeable?
The interesting part about reading these threads is there is a stigma that it’s not just about having a DPS build, it’s about HOW someone comes to the understanding it’s the best. All too often I see the promotion that newbies shouldn’t learn the class for themselves and just jump into the flavour of the month damage build to be pro.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
There is a lot of vitrol in that post and that’s why a conversation wouldn’t work. I believe they know the class because only they know what direction and concept they want the profession to go. It’s pretty presumptuous to say they don’t know, don’t care and don’t want the class just because it doesn’t work the way players envision it.
^^ That’s debatable. If I’m with someone that doesn’t know how to play, my only expectation is that they don’t down. There is a lower risk of that with a non-DPS build.
Obviously, people lost perspective here again … you can’t ignore someone’s capability to run the gambit of builds. It might take a you days of play time but you don’t start of being top tier DPS PVE master. You have to get there. Only a few people can simply pick up the standard DPS gear and builds and go off running with that.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I think you haven’t gotten much advice because the topic has been covered quite a bit. If you search the forum, you will find many threads on the same idea. None of them are too encouraging because you will only be mediocre for both aspects of the game. They are so different that the gearing is almost on opposite ends of the spectrum.
You builds don’t focus on any one particular thing so … for doing both, I guess it’s OK. Pretty much anything middle of the road will be perform average. You simply need to play it and figure out what you don’t like about it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I think a conversation would be cool. I’m not sure how that could work on the forum. Frankly, I think it would be a gong show because I can anticipate it going like this:
Jon: OK, let’s talk about Guardian
Forum Mob: MOBILITY! CONDITIONS! WARRIORS!
Jon: Here is what I think about that
Forum Mob: OMG, Anet doesn’t know anything about the profession! This class will always suck! I’m deleting my Guardian!
(edited by Obtena.7952)
^^ I would think this says something about the suitability of using this class in 1 vs. 1 and solo roaming.
What you say is true and you wouldn’t run an AH build because of it. That’s fair but that’s not the case for everyone.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Sure, but that doesn’t apply to everyone so speaking in absolutes is debatable. I think it’s easy to forget that there is a segment of the population that don’t run engineered teams and I’m certain the correlation between people running non-engineered teams and those that would consider this build is pretty high.
i’m a customer, usually big company spend alot of money for know what customers want, i tell him for free
The reality is that there is a business model here … I can tell you customers want stuff for free, but that’s not going to happen because giving stuff for prices that don’t fit that model will me the business fails to meet it’s expectations for ROI.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
You’re just missed my point. I’m not QQing, and can afford 200g skin. Just Won’t.
That’s exactly how it’s intended to work. If the price is right for you, you make a purchase. If not, you don’t. Not only is this common sense, I’m certain that Anet is aware this would be the result as well. Trying to convince people there is something ‘wrong’ with that approach defies logic.
I don’t think the prices are unreasonable because its not something I need.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
For PVE play you don’t NEED anything unless you are engineering your team.
The point being that it’s more in the interests of being clear and concise for the DEVS, not the people. If we want ideas that are looked at, the last thing we want is for them to be buried 4 pages deep in a thread like they will be in the original Dec patch discussion thread. Well, that’s how I see it.
I seriously considered that realizing the backlash due to spamming but for the sake of continuity and clarity, I believe each trait warranted it’s separate thread. If this format hinders open discussion, then the threads will simply vanish to page 2.
Valor V: The proposal is a percent increase on a trait that is a percent increase on overall damage. It’s extremely underwhelming as a ‘buff’. it’s unclear to me that someone who has focused on creating a build around toughness will even benefit by more than a couple of percent in damage increase.
Though the buff to a well-used trait is always welcome, I don’t think that the number was arrived at through a thoughtful assessment. If the motivation is to benefit defensive-focused builds with more damage, the proposal falls short.
I suggest that if this is a legitimate effort to increase damage of builds with high toughness, a hard bonus of 120 precision be added for obtaining 1600 toughness on top of the 5% conversion.
In an effort to ensure that good discussion and ideas don’t get lost, I’m going to start a thread for the proposed changes I have issue with. Hopefully, these will be congregating threads that the devs will see that stand out as opposed to ideas getting things lost in the sea of other profession stuff. It would be ideal to use the same standards/rules in this thread established in the main December patch proposal. (e.g., concise, constructive, etc…)
Zeal XII – The proposal is that this will do 13% instead of 10% conversion.
There isn’t much to say here. Even as someone who has extensively used burning on Guardian, the proposal isn’t significant enough for me to consider spending more trait points in Zeal to get. Consider the following numbers:
I have about 2000 power. The proposal buffs the burning DPS to 15 … this amount is LESS than the variation I get from a regular hit. In otherwords, it’s less than the noise I get from my direct damage. Even for someone with a dedicated burning build, this trait is not considered
For the proposal to have an impact on someone using a dedicated burning build, I have two suggestions:
1. Add more damage. This one is obvious but not very interesting. It’s been discussed that a trait like this requires about 30-50% conversion to be attractive as a GM trait and to make up for the loss of other more effective and cheaper traits. This would still be weaker than most damage-focused builds and still have the weaknesses associated with access to single conditions. This suggestion would be of limited impact in PVE.
2. Add a condition damage defense. In addition to the buff for given damage, I can imagine a similar reduction for taken damage, again based on power. The conversion can be modified to an appropriate amount as well. I can see this kind of condition damage reduction being attractive in all aspects of the game.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
In an effort to ensure that good discussion and ideas don’t get lost, I’m going to start a thread for the proposed changes I have issue with. Hopefully, these will be congregating threads that the devs will see that stand out as opposed to ideas getting things lost in the sea of other profession stuff. It would be ideal to use the same standards/rules in this thread established in the main December patch proposal. (e.g., concise, constructive, etc…)
On to the first one: Zeal V – The proposal is that this will do damage instead of burning. The greatest impact will be when in a team situation against AOE damage, much like it would currently, but the damage would be a burst effect instead of a prolonged, removable burning condition.
This will compete with existing traits in the Adept and Master levels that are widely applicable (Fiery Wrath) or more situational but with significant effect (almost anything in Master). I assume the damage will be in the range of the existing effect damage (656 burning) or at most, a good crit (2K?).
I feel the proposed trait will still be undesirable because 1) it’s infrequent and 2) it’s reactive. In a PVE situation, it’s unlikely it will be considered over the currently popular traits because it won’t lend itself superior to Fiery Wrath, regardless of the build.
It may see some use in WvW bunker/roaming builds (not my specialty, so I won’t comment further).
My suggestion to improve the proposal:
I don’t feel that a buffed damage effect will compete with Fiery Wrath on it’s own. I understand the concept of the trait so tTo keep inline with the reactive aspect but make up for it, I would suggest that a stun be added to the proposed damage effect.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Guardian Feedback:
Zeal V – Shattered Aegis. Damage instead of Burning.
Whatever damage this will do, keep in mind you are competing with a 10% damage modifier that is always on because it triggers on duration stacked condition for Adept and then the Improved Zealous Blade in Master …. I have a feeling it’s still not going to get used if it doesn’t compete with those two traits.
Zeal XII – Kindled Zeal. Increased conversion from 10% to 13%.
This is a rather weak effect for a level 30 trait. The 3% difference @ 2000 power is … 60 condition damage stat. That’s a whole 15 more condition damage per burning tick. Someone making a dedicated burning build will have around 700-750 burning per tick. The increase is insignificant. If the goal here is to make it condition build more attractive, you have to seriously start considering 30-50% here.
Valor V – Retributive Armor. Increased conversion rate from 5% to 7%.
Another insignificant increase IMO. At 2000 toughness (a value that someone might have if they focus on a defensive build), this will give at BEST another 2% crit rate increase. If the goal here is to provide people making defensive builds with damage benefits, it’s of no consequence with the suggested increase.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Kindred Zeal will be a thing as along as Anet wants to give people options for gameplay instead of THE build for a particular situation. I’m happy to see focus on it. It’s a good indication of the divergence between the direction Anet want the game to go and the ideas that some people have of ‘how the game should be played correctly’. The wider that gets, the more silly the concept of ‘playing the correct way’ becomes.
While buffs are nice, these seem insignificant. Single digit relative increases won’t even affect my build decisions. It’s still unsettling that core deficiencies that I think exist with the class aren’t addressed. Of course, my priorities aren’t theirs so I will have to continue to cross my fingers.
What is ESPECIALLY nice is that they give us all an indication of what they think the concept for Guardians is and where it should be in terms of damage, etc… in their opening statement. Something like that should be sticked and referred to every time I someone wants to make a comparison to Warriors.
As for specifics:
Shattered Aegis: This is competing against a 10% modifier that’s almost always applicable. The damage it will hit for better be REALLY good.
Kindred Zeal: I can understand the motivation to keep the burning damage on par with regular hits but a 3% increase is insulting
Retributive Armor: Does a 2% increase even HAVE an impact on a precision to crit rate conversion of 21? I don’t think it will. WEAK!
Supreme Justice: While this will be a high significance on a select group of builds, still a very limited application.
The rest are OK.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
The problem with this question (as phrased here) is that it depends on the exchange rate between % crit dmg and % crit rate — which is not constant across equipment or across traits.
Thanks for providing the math part because frankly, I’m just too lazy for that it loses most people, so I don’t bother.
I’ve been through the same question myself but once I realized it’s more about the limitation on gear vs. engineering my stats, I dropped the whole idea. I do wish it was more like this though.
Ran it once. Even successfully run, it was too long for my tastes … and that of my group. Especially considering the rewards are:
1) not matching the risk/difficulty
2) not inline with the other rewards from other dungeons
It’s a ‘story’ dungeon … don’t run it if you don’t care about interesting story and poor rewards. On the other hand, do run it if you want your ‘more than average’ difficulty in dungeon running.
He’s not after a maximized build (because the answer is just zerkers for that).
If I understand correctly, he’s asking for a build where he gets equal damage increases by balancing between crit damage and chance.
You won’t be wasting stat points in crit damage because you damage increases regardless …. but you won’t be getting equivalent damage increases between crit damage and chance until you reach about 50-60% crit chance.
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Your not really going to get many left over gear slots if you target that crit chance anyways. Maybe it will be a more relevant question once we get ascended gear.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
It appears the OP is new and without delving into the details of his post, he makes a reasonable point. Their isn’t alot of ‘training’ that you get in the open world game that will prepare you for dungeons. The dungeons punish you pretty heavily if you don’t know what to do when.
Some people might direct the OP to the many videos on the dungeons but for me the problem is that the majority of these aren’t made with helping the new guy prior to their first run. Their really isn’t anything that prepares you for what you will encounter their WITHOUT dragging on 4 other people to do it. That missing smooth transition makes it very unappealing for a player who has to think about what content they will do with the little time they have.
I doubt a dev PVE blog for a profession you play is very interesting but it’s probably useful to someone thinking about trying a profession they haven’t played without wanting to waste dozens of hours trying it themselves.
I’ve looked at this but your question is a little confusing so I’m going to say stuff, you can let us know if that’s answering your question.
Your primary resource is the chart on this page: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Critical_hit
If you do some math, you can find out the percent increase by moving in any direction in the chart.
IF you are trying to get the most damage for a build possible, the answer is you don’t balance your crit chance and damage. You simply take the highest damage gear possible: This is Zerker gear.
IF you are trying to move in the chart and determine the best bang for your crit chance and damage gear values, then I would advise you get around 50% – 60% crit chance, then try to get equal amounts of crit chance and damage after than. WHY?
Take at look at the damage increase at 0 Crit damage and 50% Crit chance. If you add 5 more crit damage, you move to 1.275. If you add 5 more crit damage, you get 1.275. Therefore, if you are at the point, getting crit damage vs. chance does not affect your damage (ignore sigil on crit effects for the moment). You want to follow this line of ‘equivalent damage increases’ if I have understood your question correctly.
The cool thing is that you can actually make a build really easily with this concept. You just start with Knights until you are at 50-55% crit chance, then load up on the zerkers. You almost follow this line with that. That’s a nice way to get a good balance for a build IMO.