yeah I know, but I have weapon and armor smith to 500 which makes sense for a guardian, now huntsmith for a guardian is kind of odd… Iwill have to spend more money on other toon just to get an ascended bow for a guardian…
Um, you know your scepter and staff are artificer weapons too right? The crafting skills are not aligned to any particular professions.
I don’t regard the burning changes being proposed as anything but a nerf:
1. The high damage ticks are ideal to how burning is implemented on Guardian
2. Nothing I’ve seen so far is changing how conditions are cleansed, meaning that a lower damage, stacking burning will have less opportunity to do damage in the time they are applied than they do now.
3. Low Damage, stacking condition will require significantly more skills and focus to perform at a level burning does currently, leaving less room for other necessary skills.
4. Trait-wise, little has changed to improve burning builds.Unless there is some amazing Specialization we haven’t seen, my prediction is that Guardian burning builds are going to suck. If Anet is trying to PROMOTE use of conditions through burning, they sure have a stupid approach to do so.
I’m going to assume that quite a few of our skills will apply a burst of stacks rather than just 1’stack. Zealot’s fire/flame probably applies 5 stacks, Judge’s probably 3, Purging probably 2 per each time the enemy crosses the ring. I’m hoping it’s that way anyway.
Saying that, we also have the ability to use Kindled Zeal x Amped Wrath which means 46% more damage to burning. Which is 191 base, based on what has been calculated by the Saiyan.
We can guess all the stacks we want.
What I do know … everything that applies burning currently, will need 2.5 stacks to have equal to the burning damage potential we have now, assuming other factors like duration and condition damage stat/conversion stay equal. I am hopeful that the major skills meant to apply burning (VoJ/Torch) get 3 or 4 stacks.
I’m not disappointing that it’s potentially better, I’m disappointed that this is what Anet came up with for integrating burning in our toolset. It’s almost something you can’t ignore now.
I think the negativity is based on the idea that all that nice stuff is coupled to a seemingly crap condition, assuming Anet doesn’t flood our skills with lots of burning stacks and doesn’t change cleansing capabilities overall.
I had a speculation thrown my way:
Guardian (Long Bow) = Guardian/Elementalist – Attunement mechanics mixed with virtues. Virtues change the effect of weapon skills and utilities.
Thoughts?
I definitely think Guards are getting another virtue, probably related to resistance or stun breaker. Other than that, no idea.
IMO, if you were to give burning an additional effect to differentiate it, then it should be a ‘different’ effect. Adding damage to a stationary target is just a rework of the torment effect.
Burning : Transfers to nearby characters. Adds 1 stack of 1s burning to other characters (PCs, NPCs, Mobs, allies, or enemies) on touch.
Some of the most interesting idea I’ve seen so far. I wouldn’t make it touch but it would be a pretty small radius.
I hope our spec doesn’t give us 6 shouts >< What a terribly linear-minded approach to an upgrade for the profession.
Speculating, we get another virtue and alot of long range support in LB skills with OKish damage. Traits will support ranged and Spirit Weapons’s better (The proposed core trait changes have only 1 SW enhancemen which is lame for a whole class of skills)
Why? He’s right, when you assume that those percentages refer to the raw skill stats and not to the current displaying times.
a 10s skill recharge under the effects of alactriy will take 10*0.66 = 6.6s to recharge.
a 10s skill recharge under the effects of Chill will take 10*1.66 = 16.6s to recharge
a 10s skill under the effects of both Chill and alacrity will take 10*0.66*1.66 = 11s to recharge
They do NOT cancel each other out. A increase % and a decrease % are not the same thing
You’re assuming that’s how it’s calculated. It could be calced off the BASE value too, which would cancel it.
I am pretty sure I never said my suggestion would completely remove any grind or faming or reputation completely
I’m ABSOLUTELY sure you never suggested such a thing. That’s why it’s sad you continually push your grinding ideas in ‘no grind’ threads.
Does "difficult PvE" mean open world events?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: Obtena.7952
If it is going to be open world, then it should be at the level of Triple Trouble and the Twisted Marionette.
^ Not really, they have to cater to all types of players—from casual with limited time to hard core that camp on a map for an hr before the event start. They can’t exclude one over the other.
Why do they have to cater to all player types? It’s not necessary.
I hope there is increased difficulty in OW for HoT but I don’t think it’s going to be too much harder than what we get in Dry Top/Silverwastes
(edited by Obtena.7952)
In other words, you don’t seem to be against grind at all.
Bingo. He just rides the no grind train to promote his own ideas of what how he actually wants grind implemented in the game. Nice bit of trickery that ay? This isn’t new either. There is at least one other huge thread where this happens and it’s pointed out. Little is different here.
I wouldn’t be so quick to equate manipulation with obscurity. Some people only have vague ideas of what they mean, while having a communicable point – or has the business discussion faded from memory in the last 24 hours?
It’s not faded, there just isn’t anything left to discuss there. I’m not quick to equate … it’s pretty clear. It’s not the first time a no grind thread has been hijacked to push a different grind agenda by this person. It’s not the first time he was informed that he was supporting grinding in a no grind thread.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
In other words, you don’t seem to be against grind at all.
Bingo. He just rides the no grind train to promote his own ideas of what how he actually wants grind implemented in the game. Nice bit of trickery that ay? This isn’t new either. There is at least one other huge thread where this happens and it’s pointed out. Little is different here.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
You can split hairs if you like and convince yourself crafted precursors are a move away from gold/mat earning. Anet creating craftable precursors is just supporting their current approach to the game and will be as much about earning gold and mats to get it as anything else. That’s the ‘grind’ that people are QQing about. I don’t see how anything has changed.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I did show how it would work out (in the previous topics) with numbers, calculations and comparing it with GW1’s numbers.
Yes, all made up from your own imagination of how it would work based on a completely different game. GG!
“all made up” vs “based on a completely different game.”. Yeah.. And that completely different game still is the game that pretty much made this game.
More correlations that aren’t related. What happens in GW1 has no impact on what happens in GW2.
You’re saying it’s a gamble as if projections can’t be made within reason. If I had a week with ANet’s fiscal reports, history and player metrics, I could offer an annual projection over the course of 2016 if HoT included less “grind.” (Although this game isn’t that grindy, it’s just based on RNG, which in itself becomes a chore because effort != success). I’m not going to do this, I’m just saying anyone with business experience could. Gambling has nothing to do with it.
And assuming Anet has same competent people, they have done the same and come to the conclusion that they aren’t going that direction, yet we see the same cheerleaders for no grind waving their pompoms. It is a gamble to implement something that would be seen as disruptive to your core market and unless you need a miracle, there is no reason to do so.
Fair enough … then I’m going to apply the same standards to the guy QQing about too much grind and claiming it’s going to improve the game if it’s removed. He’s not reading any metrics and making correlations either, except those he has invented in his head to convince him it will make the game better. The difference is that I’m not claiming it would be better, it’s status quo and status quo ain’t bad in this case.
If that’s the logic you want to argue with, then it’s better the devil you know than the one you don’t, especially if Anet’s shareholders don’t seem to have a problem with it.
ArenaNet is a private incorporation. And, as I stated, there’s no correlation between status quo and success. While you’re certainly free to argue ideologies, unless someone here is going to start dissecting these metrics – it’s all an asspull whether or not it’s a business decision.
Is it? I would love to see that because I couldn’t actually locate their corporate information. AFIAK, they are wholly owned by NCSoft.
If that’s actually the case, little changes except who the company answers to. It’s still there to make money and not gamble with their investments on chance nonsense.
ArenaNet is a subsidiary to NCSoft. Being a subsidiary of NCSoft differs quite radically from being a division of NCSoft. ArenaNet is entirely independent though and, based on the company’s history, I’d dare say NCSoft gives them a long leash in experimental try-outs.
OK .. they still aren’t going to gamble their resources to placate people. Worth saying again … craftable precursors.
Oh I know what he’s referring to. It’s awfully easy to make up stories about points on a graph. All the same thing over and over again. If such a change was so good for the game, Anet would have done it by now. The only thing we see is Anet reinforcing their position on this with craftable precursors in HoT … obviously they don’t agree with the OP or his cheerleading squad.
Fair enough … then I’m going to apply the same standards to the guy QQing about too much grind and claiming it’s going to improve the game if it’s removed. He’s not reading any metrics and making correlations either, except those he has invented in his head to convince him it will make the game better. The difference is that I’m not claiming it would be better, it’s status quo and status quo ain’t bad in this case.
If that’s the logic you want to argue with, then it’s better the devil you know than the one you don’t, especially if Anet’s shareholders don’t seem to have a problem with it.
ArenaNet is a private incorporation. And, as I stated, there’s no correlation between status quo and success. While you’re certainly free to argue ideologies, unless someone here is going to start dissecting these metrics – it’s all an asspull whether or not it’s a business decision.
Is it? I would love to see that because I couldn’t actually locate their corporate information. AFIAK, they are wholly owned by NCSoft.
If that’s actually the case, little changes except who the company answers to. It’s still there to make money and not gamble with their investments on chance nonsense.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I did show how it would work out (in the previous topics) with numbers, calculations and comparing it with GW1’s numbers.
Yes, all made up from your own imagination of how it would work based on a completely different game. GG!
I don’t regard the burning changes being proposed as anything but a nerf:
1. The high damage ticks are ideal to how burning is implemented on Guardian
2. Nothing I’ve seen so far is changing how conditions are cleansed, meaning that a lower damage, stacking burning will have less opportunity to do damage in the time they are applied than they do now.
3. Low Damage, stacking condition will require significantly more skills and focus to perform at a level burning does currently, leaving less room for other necessary skills.
4. Trait-wise, little has changed to improve burning builds.
Unless there is some amazing Specialization we haven’t seen, my prediction is that Guardian burning builds are going to suck. If Anet is trying to PROMOTE use of conditions through burning, they sure have a stupid approach to do so.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Fair enough … then I’m going to apply the same standards to the guy QQing about too much grind and claiming it’s going to improve the game if it’s removed. He’s not reading any metrics and making correlations either, except those he has invented in his head to convince him it will make the game better. The difference is that I’m not claiming it would be better, it’s status quo and status quo ain’t bad in this case.
If that’s the logic you want to argue with, then it’s better the devil you know than the one you don’t, especially if Anet’s shareholders don’t seem to have a problem with it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I hope they don’t change course on many things, including this because whatever they are doing, it’s working quite well for them. I think it’s nonsense to make simple statements indicating if it’s bad for the game, it needs to be changed. It’s not bad for the game at all. It’s only bad for the people that can’t pull themselves away from it. The game actually thrives because of its concept appealing to its core players. Indicating it’s anything but is showing a lack of understanding what this game means from a business perspective.
I think it’s funny you mention HoT … we already know what big surprise we are going to get and it’s not rare drops from raids or anything close to it, In fact, precursors are craftable. That means more of the same of what we have now.
The changes would not have to alienate the people who like the current system. So I can’t see how it would be bad for them.
Of course you can’t, because you demonstrate time and again how you don’t understand the business impact these changes you want would have.
And you can demonstrate the business impact that the current objective holds?
Absolutely … the game exists and continues to be developed. Games that don’t do this don’t last more than 1 year or plan expansions, etc… A quarterly report would be nice, but it’s not necessary to know that the game isn’t failing and if it was, it’s because of ‘grind’. That’s rather silly.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I hope they don’t change course on many things, including this because whatever they are doing, it’s working quite well for them. I think it’s nonsense to make simple statements indicating if it’s bad for the game, it needs to be changed. It’s not bad for the game at all. It’s only bad for the people that can’t pull themselves away from it. The game actually thrives because of its concept appealing to its core players. Indicating it’s anything but is showing a lack of understanding what this game means from a business perspective.
I think it’s funny you mention HoT … we already know what big surprise we are going to get and it’s not rare drops from raids or anything close to it, In fact, precursors are craftable. That means more of the same of what we have now.
The changes would not have to alienate the people who like the current system. So I can’t see how it would be bad for them.
Of course you can’t, because you demonstrate time and again how you don’t understand the business impact these changes you want would have.
If you didn’t get credit for the kill, you need to try harder because if you are already in SWastes, you should already HAVE a setup for PVE mob tagging.
I hope they don’t change course on many things, including this because whatever they are doing, it’s working quite well for them. I think it’s nonsense to make simple statements indicating if it’s bad for the game, it needs to be changed. It’s not bad for the game at all. It’s only bad for the people that can’t pull themselves away from it. The game actually thrives because of its concept appealing to its core players. Indicating it’s anything but is showing a lack of understanding what this game means from a business perspective.
I think it’s funny you mention HoT … we already know what big surprise we are going to get and it’s not rare drops from raids or anything close to it, In fact, precursors are craftable. That means more of the same of what we have now.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Is this thread a thing? … almost NOTHING in this game is time gated ><
“They either jump off the cliff and take their chances or they smarten up and learn how to avoid it.” what might in reality mean they stop playing the game ….
I hope so because no one should be so stupid they play a game they don’t enjoy. Cliffs aren’t their for people to jump off. I get your angle here: If I try to make them scared the game will fail because of this, they HAVE to change it. That’s not a realistic look at what’s happening with the game. The current ways aren’t going away. At best, there might be some things that move away from it, but it will remain the core, for many varied and complex reasons that have been explained to you many times already. At this point, it’s pretty much a joke to see you bang the pot on your street corner about this.
You can join the guy that wants Sprocket mining pick removed from the game and make ‘The END is NEAR’ signs.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
There simply is no denying there is a lot of grinding going on in this game.
Can’t deny that people are dumb enough to subject themselves to it when they don’t need to.
So you do agree there is a lot of grinding going on? That is great.
For people not smart enough to avoid it, sure. Just like jumping off a cliff is a problem … for people not smart enough to avoid those too. I think of it as Darwin effect … but for people playing MMO’s. The problem fixes itself in the end for people impacted by this effect. They either jump off the cliff and take their chances or they smarten up and learn how to avoid it. Grinding in THIS game is no different. It doesn’t exist if you decide you don’t need to jump off that cliff. Feel free to jump off that cliff, but if you do, l don’t expect too many people to be sympathetic or understanding, especially when Anet puts up more interesting distractions to keep you from jumping.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
There simply is no denying there is a lot of grinding going on in this game.
Can’t deny that people are dumb enough to subject themselves to it when they don’t need to.
OH yeah… the same people, the same arguments. Please Anet, don’t change how your reward system works. If I wanted to experience low chance loot drops from mobs in zerg raids, I WOULDN’T be playing GW2. I’m not alone.
“If I wanted to experience low chance loot drops from mobs in zerg raids, I WOULDN’T be playing GW2.”
This is exactly what GW2 gives you.. with the exception of the word ‘raid’. But then again, nobody here asked for raids." I WOULDN’T be playing GW2. " Well, many people AREN’T playing GW2 because of this.
That’s not true at all. I get loot drops from zerg raids all the time, and they aren’t low chance. In fact, they are 100% chance. I almost know exactly what quality of loot I’m going to get doing a raid.
That’s OK, you twist what people say however you want to convince yourself everyone agrees with you. Luckily, most of us are smart enough to know what we mean when we type something.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Having a Inspect Gear option would do NOTHING to force players into min-maxing … except making those players LEAVE GW2.
Seems like a great thing to happen.
If your ignorant I guess. How long do you think the game would last if it didn’t appeal to it’s core market anymore?
I have no idea why you play. I never suggested why you play. I’m not talking about if they would have more players or not. I’m not talking about the reasons more content doesn’t exist. Frankly, I don’t know what you’re going on about. You’re making alot of assumptions about what I’ve said, when I’ve not said any of those things. So I’m just going to go back to why I think there are so many players in this game that don’t care about min-maxing, etc…
I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to understand that the success of this game is due to appealing to underserved markets and people that want to play, be successful and do it without being told HOW it should be done are one type of those players. That’s also why I think when these players are told how to play by other players or treated badly because of it, there is hostility. This is a pretty simple logical connection being made here. I get you don’t feel this game is any ‘special’ to PHIW or casual or whatever label we want to give them, but who do you attribute GW2’s success to if it’s not some kind of player like that? Certainly not people looking for challenging team content. I don’t hear raving reviews about the PVP … Not alot of people left once you take those types out of the equation. Logical conclusion … it’s the people this game appeals to. That’s the kind of player the OP is describing in this thread. Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge this?
It’s the same reasons that dungeons are stagnant, that the NPE was made stupid, why the game is based on gold farming vs. loot drops from raids, why LS is a ‘thing’, why content isn’t balanced around BiS gear, why BiS gear doesn’t have significant stats increases, why you can buy a Legendary instead of farming it …. I could go on but to me, it’s very obvious how all this comes together to one common point: Anet makes a game that appeals to PHIW, casuals, whatevers on purpose because it makes them more money than any other gamer type they could target.
You can laugh all you want. The joke is really on everyone denying how all these game design choices aren’t targeting THEM as the core playerbase.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
<<Inserts obligatory post about game’s concept appealing to underserved market of ‘filthy casuals’ … on purpose >>
Man, that underserved with casual part makes me laugh so much. Every game I’ve played has always catered to the more casual, why? because there’s more of them! makes sense. The difference in games is how well they balance their content between the different crowds though. That was one nice thing about other MMOs with the treadmill, they did make more challenging content because they knew in a few months it’d trickle down to the more casual as they gained power.
I don’t think there is a correlation … there are generally more casual players in the population because of the law of averages. Just because you see more casuals in a game than any other kind of player doesn’t mean those games serve their needs equally.
I don’t think there is any denying that GW2 does a very good job towards biasing content to this group of players. Again, it’s on purpose because Anet recognize an under served market and know there is a business op there.
Not really, other MMOs server their more casual base just as well (if not better aside from the gear treadmill thing), plus they add more content on top. GW2 is actually VERY slow on content compared to most other MMOs… but no sub, so /shrug.
And to a casual player, slow and steady is a GOOD speed for content to be introduced. Are you getting it yet?
So you’re saying they don’t produce as much content because casual players would be overwhelmed… that’s the most laughable thing I’ve ever read on a gaming forum.
I don’t understand why that’s such a joke to you. Perhaps if you explain yourself, we could have a discussion instead of you laughing your way out of it.
I can completely see why Anet’s approach to content is more appealing to someone who doesn’t want to play to anyone’s expectations but their own, including the frequency and type of content Anet offers with LS. If the frequency of content matches someone who logs infrequent, along with their available playtime, that actually makes a huge amount of sense.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
And thats why even the casual players get impatient and occasionaly go full berserk with demands? I think you have rose tinted glasses or something.
They might be trying to satisfy that player base. But that doesnt mean they are successful in doing so better than other MMO’s.
I think their track record and sales speaks otherwise.
I find it laughable that people are calling this a blow to dps guards or meditation guards. The trait is goes mostly unused in PVE due to the light field on the hammer for min-maxers and hammer’s sluggishness for casuals. In pve it only became a thing after the tournament with the one meditation hammer guardian on the winning team, which is a couple of months old. Before that very few guardians actually ran this trait in pvp.
You assume a significant portion of the population gives a rat’s behind about light fields and min maxing. I think that’s not a sound assumption and may even be the opposite based on the kind of people this game caters to. The fact is that if your not a min maxer, you play the weapon you like and you choose the ‘easy’ traits because they are made for the weapon you use …. and hammer has massive ‘cool’ appeal.
I can see how it’s a blow to PVP med guards … what traits do they use if they use a hammer? Pretty sure one will be Glacial. OP already explained it’s value in PVP. Not sure how you find that laughable unless you didn’t read the OP’s post.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
GW2 does an excellent job of making their content accessible.
They do make things accessible but to imply that they satisfy their more casual crowd better than other MMOs outside of the lack of treadmill would be quite an exaggeration.
It’s not an exaggeration if you consider how well GW2 has done and see how it’s content is biased to that kind of player. These aren’t exaggerations. There are SO many things this game has done to cater to this crowd. In fact, so much so they have went too far on some things, like new player experience.
<<Inserts obligatory post about game’s concept appealing to underserved market of ‘filthy casuals’ … on purpose >>
Man, that underserved with casual part makes me laugh so much. Every game I’ve played has always catered to the more casual, why? because there’s more of them! makes sense. The difference in games is how well they balance their content between the different crowds though. That was one nice thing about other MMOs with the treadmill, they did make more challenging content because they knew in a few months it’d trickle down to the more casual as they gained power.
I don’t think there is a correlation … there are generally more casual players in the population because of the law of averages. Just because you see more casuals in a game than any other kind of player doesn’t mean those games serve their needs equally.
I don’t think there is any denying that GW2 does a very good job towards biasing content to this group of players. Again, it’s on purpose because Anet recognize an under served market and know there is a business op there.
Not really, other MMOs server their more casual base just as well (if not better aside from the gear treadmill thing), plus they add more content on top. GW2 is actually VERY slow on content compared to most other MMOs… but no sub, so /shrug.
And to a casual player, slow and steady is a GOOD speed for content to be introduced. Are you getting it yet?
<<Inserts obligatory post about game’s concept appealing to underserved market of ‘filthy casuals’ … on purpose >>
Man, that underserved with casual part makes me laugh so much. Every game I’ve played has always catered to the more casual, why? because there’s more of them! makes sense. The difference in games is how well they balance their content between the different crowds though. That was one nice thing about other MMOs with the treadmill, they did make more challenging content because they knew in a few months it’d trickle down to the more casual as they gained power.
I don’t think there is a correlation … there are generally more casual players in the population because of the law of averages. Just because you see more casuals in a game than any other kind of player doesn’t mean those games serve their needs to the level they desire.
I don’t think there is any denying that GW2 does a very good job towards biasing content to this group of players and is successful because of that. Again, it’s on purpose because Anet recognize an under served market and know there is a business op there.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Having a Inspect Gear option would do NOTHING to force players into min-maxing … except making those players LEAVE GW2.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
<<Inserts obligatory post about game’s concept appealing to underserved market of ‘filthy casuals’ … on purpose >>
I think this has alot to do with the kind of people this game attracts. I know alot of people think this way "Finally, a game that doesn’t tell me what stats or gear I need to play it. Doesn’t gear lock me from content, etc… " This is a VERY REAL and SIGNIFICANT population of the MMO market that wants the kind of freedom that GW2 gives. SO of course there is a backlash when the game design doesn’t force it … but then players start the self-imposition of the exact opposite thing the targeted players come to this game for.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
They never even implied a “full week of reveals” they only said each specialization would get it’s own week. That starts this week and given their previous schedule that means,
Wed: an interview they won’t tell us about.
Thurs: a blog post telling us the same thing that was in the interview
Fri: a POI/Ready Up about the blog post.Well that’s somewhat disappointing. This expansion seems to be a trickle of small things instead of a flood of big reveals. Hopefully we get some interesting information in the interview at least.
It’s only disappointing if you aren’t someone that wants everything right now. I’m confident that the content they are revealing is properly portioned so we aren’t sitting around for a few months going “So what new?”
OH yeah… the same people, the same arguments. Please Anet, don’t change how your reward system works. If I wanted to experience low chance loot drops from mobs in zerg raids, I WOULDN’T be playing GW2. I’m not alone.
In a 30 second rotation, wouldn’t you get at least two chances to swap to each weapon and need to cover what happens in the second GS rotation? The Mace symbol will recharge faster in that 30 seconds time than the GS one will.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
OK, I understand. I think their might be situations where ignoring GS will be optimal, like where fury is not available reliably. I can appreciate most people doing their theorycrafting in the best possible scenarios but I don’t find that’s realistic for most of the population playing the game, even for activities where the meta is most relevant. Like the name says, it’s theory; it’s not always matching the game experience so people should be aware of when it’s not and how they can adjust to compensate if they want optimal play.
Why would camping mace beat the greatsword when greatsword still has access to a symbol and better damage coefficients on the skills ?
If you’re in a PUG with no fury right hand strength MIGHT make it superior, that’s a maybe, not a certainty unless someone has done the math. RHS + 25% + 50%+ will be 90% without fury. Of course the alternative to RHS is potentially 80% fury so…
This, including higher symbol uptime on Mace. I believe that the 7 second weapon swap is going to limit one’s ability to apply a symbol when you are on the second GS rotation because it’s still on cooldown? If that’s true, your rotation is going to force you to camp mace for two-ish rotations anyways. Mace2 -> GS 2,3,4,5 -> Mace 2, Mace #1 filler, Mace 2 -> GS 2,3,4,5. Some theorycrafter will revel in all this detail.
Fair, in engineered, good player groups for dungeons, that’s true. We aren’t all as fortunate or base our assessments of PVE on only those situations; I guess it depends on how critical you are on team composition. I think that with these levels of buffs, the deviation between teamed content PVE builds and not team Builds gets a little wider. Can’t wait to have that argument.
Hopefully what comes SOON after HoT is a build library because I do want the ability to swap out builds using RH STR and not in those kinds of situations.
Still not certain if the GS rotation while Mace Symbol is up is better than camping Mace. Someone will figure that out, it probably is. It is nice GS still has it’s 5% damage boost so that gives it a bias. My bet is in.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Fury isn’t a reliable buff, but again, my point isn’t crit uptime, it’s symbol uptime. GS just doesn’t have it. Frankly, maintaining that Fury in PVE is a pain in the kitten if selfed.
It’s quick math but I haven’t done it. I think you need RH strength to get close to 100% crit rate in full zerker exotics. I don’t think you can with 2H weapons, even with food. Maybe it’s an academic point … is missing 15% crit rate a big deal? Probably not because you don’t actually want to exceed 100%, but it’s not the crit rate that’s the determining factor here, it’s the huge symbol uptimes you get with Hammer and Mace compared to GS. The comparison is very similar to Unscathed … you don’t need much uptime there to break even when Aegis is down. Here, it’s about symbol uptime.
Simply put, on trash, Mace, because you can load your symbol up front, on Vet’s and higher, Hammer, because you can get permanent symbol uptime. GS doesn’t come close with a 20 second symbol recharge. I can’t even use that reliably in Openworld.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
For very short fights I think you will be using mace/focus + gs 66006.
^^ I don’t even think that anyone will even need GS for short fights. The frequency of the symbol on Mace doesn’t compare to what you get with GS and that damage multiplier is not insignificant. I suspect 1H weapon setups will also be very close to 100% crit rate, buffed self, maybe without food even. I don’t even think that trash will live through to the first auto rotation if they are in a symbol. It’s going to be stupid.
I’m not even sure GS will BE in rotation for a PVE build. It’s symbol is just way too long a recharge to be having an impact like Mace and Hammer will be if the symbols give such predominant damage. You can also get the Retal damage boost multiplier blasting hammer with MB more reliably. No contest I think.
(edited by Obtena.7952)