No no no, no PVP. PVE content, but where players fight other players in PVE manner. Such as racing to get crystals, like we have now, possibly doing events in parallel to see who is faster and better, you know, standard stuff, but make a winner and a loser side and reward the winner and punish the losers. Why should everyone get all the rewards? Make them at least slightly exclusive.
One of the distinctives in this game, and it is brilliant, is non-competition for loot and resources. What this incentivizes is players playing successfully with other players. Gone is ninja looting. Gone is the feeling that seeing another player is like adding another rat to an already full cage.
What you are essentially asking is for something other than one of the core innovations of this game. I wouldn’t expect to see it anytime soon.
Yeah, same here. Silverwastes is fine. I tried to play dry top once and made it for maybe a half hour or so and I haven’t been back. HoT manages to combine the obscurity of verticality with annoying mobs nipping at your heels.
Bottom-line, I’m just not a platform gamer and I don’t enjoy it at all. And, that’s why I focus on MMO’s and ARPG’s. (I know the joke is on me with GW2.)
Lucky for me I have 22 characters and lot’s of map completion to do. Then, I guess it’s back to Orr or other games for me.
One of the first things I noticed about the games I played was that there was a website somewhere that helped you achieve an optimal build for your role. And, those sites that report on the best players in the world usually showed that the top players all had the same build or variations to account for raid utility.
And, this is true in games that have evolved in terms of build complexity. Whether simple or complex, players (or algorithms) would find the optimal and everyone would copy it.
So, for players who want to play at the top of the game there will be little diversity. For the rest of us it is nice to be able to vary builds a bit without significant impact on DPS. One of the problems with the current elite specializations is that they are so clearly the winner that players will feel (usually gratefully) shoe-horned into them. I would prefer the focus to be more on fun and less on diversity though, since diversity for those who want something near optimal performance really doesn’t exist
(edited by Raine.1394)
IMO : Anet tried to destroy the solo (casual) player but it backfired on them and everyone walked away. You can’t please everyone all the time but you can’t design your game for only one playstyle and expect everyone to like it.
Vertical maps seem like they have a lot of depth, but create unneeded confusion and frustration. To push this game further Anet needs to put the Fun back into the game.That is not the problem, again this was discussed to the death at HoT launch. Any experienced player can solo HoT area just fine and you can constantly find people around that this is not a big problem at all. The game has many problems plague it but this is not one.
Well, I appreciate your chutzpah in pronouncing it not a problem, but as long as it is a problem for people it will continue to be a problem. (I know, it’s almost too simple.)
It is a problem for me, a largely solo casual player. It’s similar to the issues we went through with Orr very early in the game. Mob densitity, respawn rate, hard CC, all combined to make play un-fun. They addressed this and my play experience improved. Can I get through the packs of mobs in HoT? Yes. Is it fun? No. I also agree with the poster on the verticality of the maps being a contributing factor. The maps are confusing and not navigable on entry, you have to acquire mastery points to function in the area you are expected to function. When you add the mobs nipping at your heels while you are simply trying to get from point A to point B, it becomes annoying. I have to admit I’m not a platform gamer; that is why I pick MMO’s and ARPG’s.
As to whether all this is a general problem, only Anet is in a position to know really. They have all the data necessary to understand players response to HoT. Hopefully, they will respond in a manner appropriate to that data.
Just a note on the Tiger. It is worth it and can be had fairly easily. Just use the LFG tool to find a group in Dragon’s Stand, preferably central, and then teleport to a member of the group. You can google for the location. My rangers all do this and then get the hell out of there.
Right now run speed is in the mix for trade-offs. You generally have to give something up for 25% run speed, but it is available through runes, utilities, traits, or for those willing to spam abilities. Any kind of perma-boost would take it out of the mix which I don’t think is happening any time soon.
(edited by Raine.1394)
Mastery itself is brilliant. It is an attempt to introduce a key aspect of horizontal progression and, as such, is a laudable goal and great direction for the game. Sadly, they’ve done it in a most unhelpful way. Yes, the end of mastery here is largely the ability to function in the maps that really require it. It should be more about bringing interesting build diversity options and general QoL enhancements . The requirement for the results of mastery acquisition to make play in HoT viable is a problem in itself. The mastery idea itself is great, the implementation unfortunate.
Just quickly, marauder (exotic) gear is made the same way as any other gear. Buy the insignia recipe from the master craftsman for, say, tailoring. Create the insignia and components for an armor item, then discover the item producing one piece of gear. I believe you only need 400 crafting for the exotics. Ascended marauder (e.g. Svaards) gear requires 500 level crafting.
It’s interesting that several of the “too difficult” threads answer the problem by suggesting that players ally with large groups in order to do the content successfully. That’s really not the answer for a contemporary MMO where the solo player is a large and growing piece of the player pie. HoT is definitely not solo friendly and that is a problem that will need to be addressed. It’s doable solo, but it’s not fun.
I think that HoT misses the mark for the experienced casual player, which is really the center of the bullseye for MMO design. The modern MMO is a massive sprawling thing which should have something for everyone recognizing it has a very diverse playerbase.
Open world PvE which is the core of core content should be playable comfortably (i.e., be normally challenging) by the common casual player. It’s really what you are selling them. Challenge should be there and every MMO has it because they need to address a diverse playerbase. Usually you find challenge up to the very crushing kind in instanced play.
HoT will be nerfed further because it’s not tuned for the experienced casual player. How do I know this? Because I’ve played from the beginning. Orr was exactly analogous to HoT in terms of difficulty. There were massive quantities of mobs spawning near instantaneously that had access to near infinite hard CC. You would get CC’d, break stun, get CC’d, be released, get CC’d, …, and die. Orr feels about right now. And, HoT will eventually feel right.
I, too, loved everything. The music was awesome. I even liked the cooking. I especially like the fact that horizontal progression is large in the expansion and the future. I had a major problem with vertical progression when it was added and am so happy to see where the game is going.
Very happy that meaningful roles are coming to the game. I’m not sold on the orthodox trinity but I feel that meaningful roles are absolutely necessary. Love where the game is going.
I’ve been away for a year, but unless there have been changes, the problem with condi builds is the cap on condition damage on the mob in question in group content. That is, if the boss is capped adding a condition player means that she will only be doing white damage. Contrast this with a direct damage class/build where all of their damage is accounted for.
Until condition damage is managed as damage over time by player condi builds will always be viewed as sub-par in terms of group content. And, btw, this is how DoT damage is managed in other games like WoW where it’s conceivable for an affliction warlock to be top DPS as all of their damage is counted against the encounter. Anet has played the “I’m sorry but the servers can’t do that” card but of course they can as that is how it’s done generally.
Condi builds are fine in certain game modes but don’t work well across general PvE. Of course, they are fine for leveling and soloing content. Just don’t try to destroy environmental destructibles, leave that to a warrior.
Once when playing my full size Norn I had two Asuras doing figure eights between my legs in Rata Sum. I thought it was kinda cute.
why would you think guild based wvw is lower and narrower concept? individual based concept is not concept at all. there’s no organization at all.
It is lower level because if you made an organization chart guilds would be under worlds, even if the guild exists across multiple servers it is still a member of the world it exists on. ‘World’ is not a member of ‘guild’. ‘Guild’ is a member of ‘world’. World is a higher level concept. Guilds across servers does present an interesting modeling concept though.
I’m not promoting individual based. As I mention, the only thing I can think of that would work in a megaserver world is a higher level concept like faction. But, I don’t see that working in GW.
WvW being server-based was a generally good idea. There were problems like the spate of server hopping we saw and the woes of being stuck on a losing server.
Megaserver changes everything really. The problem with guild-based is that you are still routing players to a world but using a narrower (lower-level) concept, the guild, to get them there. I don’t believe it’s a good idea, nor one that would work. And, guild membership should never be a requirement for accessing content (guild missions not withstanding).
In a megaserver world it makes more sense to introduce a higher level concept similar to Alliance and Horde in WoW. That makes sense in terms of solving the problem, but may not be suitable in terms of GW lore. I hope they have something in the works as they must be aware of the issues.
(edited by Raine.1394)
People play games for a variety of reasons and game design must take account of that. One of those reasons is abnegation. Sometimes after a hard days work you just want to mow down a couple thousand zombies and not meet a single crushing challenge.
GW2 should have, and does have, a variety of content in terms of challenge. With the addition of raids they’re upping the bar for the elite player. This is as it should be.
Yes, if you haven’t tried the level 80 areas you should find some challenge there. Higher level Fractals require more of a player. And, find a guild that is interested in raiding. There will be something here that frees you from your boredom.
Lots of changes in the last six months. In terms of the game check out the build tab as it has changed dramatically.
The PvE meta probably has Warrior, Guardian, Elementalist, Mesmer, and Thief. I’m sure arguments could be made here. And, yes, Zerk is your friend.
Necro is playable but I’ve shelved my conditionmancer (what I play Necro for) as pretty much worthless right now.
I’m a bit put off by the OP’s setting up the hardcore against the casuals. It doesn’t have to be that way. What is an elite or hardcore player? It is someone with a high skill level and knowledge of the game. Personally I want as many of those around as possible. In every game I’ve played it is the elite players (I’m not one of them) who offer the most to the community. This is done in terms of theorycrafting around classes, builds and gear, tactics for fights that they have blazed the trail on, etc. They generally share the knowledge they acquired and I’m thankful for their contribution.
The problem is not players with a high skill level; the problem is that we humans are broken in some fundamental ways and have the capacity to do evil great and small. Please don’t divide the community in this way. It doesn’t solve a single problem.
I really don’t see a problem here. The hardcore cannot prevent casuals from raiding; just group with casuals and all is well. Groups in GW2 generally indicate whether they are hardcore or not with dungeons now.
I think that one thing that would be helpful would be to not view raids as solely for the hardcore. WoW has LFR (looking for raid—i.e. pug), normal, and heroic raids. The raids there are viewed as “content” and the design is to include the more casual members of the community so they don’t have to miss the content. It works well there and would here as well.
It really does sound like a fart rather than a warhorn; please fix it. I too loved the youtube examples, but rather than taking the risk of improving it worse, I believe it would be preferable to just return it to the original sound.
Yes, I understand that. The character that opened the most I watched as it went up 11%. All other characters remained at the original number—no one else increased MF by percent. So, there is a discrepancy now between characters. Shouldn’t all characters be at the same MF if they have received no additional buffs?
I just opened a number of essences of luck. What I found is that, for the character I opened them on, the magic find went up. On the character opening the most it went up 11%. All other characters remained at 84%, the original number. I did try logging out and back in (by exiting the game) but the numbers didn’t change.
My understanding was that luck was account-wide. Is this no longer the case or is it a bug?
Leveling up and doing story/appreciating lore are really separate issues. There really is no need for leveling in an MMO. To me, it would be preferable to have a longish tutorial that got you gear, familiarity with your character and skills, basic lore (like a story line), and then just turned you loose on the world. Then you could do what you want to do in the game.
This won’t happen here but someday, somewhere there will be a game without levels.
Awhile back MarvelHeroes made the decision to incorporate this feature and it was just a huge quality of life enhancement that players loved. Basically, if you’ve managed to open up the world on a character and have seen it all, it really makes little sense to make you do it over and over. This particularly hurts the altoholic; account-wide features are very helpful. I would love to see this added to the game.
Just a simple tought…
Guardian’s damage would be totally monstuous as they continuously apply and reapply burn.
So, yeah, maybe what you propose may work for bleeds. But for burns at least it would be totally unbalanced.
No, all forms of condition damage would be perfectly balanced if it were tracked and managed by player. How can I say that? Because conditions can be translated directly to damage—it’s just damage over time, right?. And, that damage over time would be a given amount of damage for a given number of ticks. Nothing mystical about conditions, it’s just damage over time. Whether burns or bleeds it would simply be X damage over Y ticks. Burns, bleeds, poison, it’s all the same.
I like the suggestion, I think there is something to it. It’s the one suggestion thus far I’ve read that wouldn’t be a huge problem in PvP. So kudos there.
This debate with Raine is fairly infuriating because you guys are arguing two different things but using the same words.
Raine: ramp up time is the trade off for dots
Wexxe: ramp up time is still a problemSo the issue here is that condition damage is inherently backloaded and direct damage is inherently frontloaded. That’s a given. In almost every other game with viable DoT pve DoT specs, the DoT has a higher top end. You give up a fast start for greater max damage. The problem, as Wexxe points out, is that in GW2 you have the drawback of ramp up time but the max damage is ALSO lower so its objectively worse.
Raine’s point is valid and correct so long as they buff condition damage to the point where a fully min/maxed condition toon with the full time needed to hit his ramp up has higher DPS than a berserker. This is a big change to the current system and hardly a given.
The problem is, as Wexxe described, two-fold. You need to buff condition damage so that a fully min maxed character has greater dps with condition after his ramp up time, and you need to account for groups that have multiple condition classes.
If you want my opinion, I would suggest that the easiest way to buff condition damage is a pve/pvp split where Might stacks granted 30 power (as it is now) and 45 condition damage in PvE. This would be better, in my opinion, than a straight buff to condition damage itself.
The issue is actually sustained damage, ramp up time with DoTs is simply a given and a trade-off. If I may clarify my position, I am not arguing that condition damage needs to be buffed in any way. It may or may not but that is a separate issue. My issue is with condition damage itself, how it is tracked, and why it is a problem in this game. Why can you add 5 more condition necromancers to a group and only realize additional ‘white’ damage? That’s the issue.
And, the solution is simple. Condition damage needs to be tracked in exactly the same way as direct damage already is—by player. The fact that it is not tracked by player is the reason threads like this one continue to pop up over years without a solution. Manage condition damage by player rather than by stacks on a mob and all problems with condition damage go away. That’s really my argument here.
(edited by Raine.1394)
You guys miss the point: I’m not trying to fix the issue. I’m trying to turn the issue into something new and unique for DoT mechanics in GW2. Of course the simple solution would be to somehow make each condition per player and not grouped up into an enemy: but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. I repeat this 398538641 times but no one seems to listen. If you know your suggestion is already attempting to break technical limits, why do you persist on it?
My idea utilizes the cap limit and turns it into its own unique mechanic while greatly boosting group condition damage where it doesn’t exist without changing individual small group play or PvP at all.
So, if you know your solution is going to break technical limits….
What technical limits are those? Are they the technical limits that prevent WoW from accounting for damage over time by player? No, that’s how they do it—they are somehow breaking GW2’s technical limits. My position is that there is no technical reason for NOT accounting for all damage by player. And, since accounting for all damage by player is the only thing that will ‘fix’ condition damage, this is significant.
There are no technical limits here. I do believe that A-net has painted themselves into a technical corner, but they simply need to fix it. ’I’m sorry but the computer can’t do that’ worked well in the 1960’s, but it’s not going to fly in 2015.
I have a potentially very simple solution to massive calculation overload from condition damage.
Consider bleeding. Create a ‘bleed queue’, say capped at 90 seconds, with a single damage number for each second. So, bleeding is simplified to tick exactly once per second. In design terms, bleeding is now a managed by a 90 slot circular queue. So, each second you simply apply the single number of damage. When someone applies a new bleed you simply calculate how much damage it is per second and add that to each queue slot for it’s duration.
For example, if I hit something with 8 stacks of 5 second bleeds at 120 damage per second per bleed, then I update the next five slots of the queue with +960.
There’s no need to track each individual bleed and calculate it each time it ticks, or to have “stacks” as we have now.
(Obviously this means people won’t see their individual condition damage numbers popping off the screen, but the damage monitor can be simplified to report duration and damage per second on the initial hit only, so you at least know what your damage potential was, even if you don’t see when the condi was cleansed.)
I’m going to suggest something heretical here. Condition damage, or damage over time, should not result in any kind of ‘overload’. It is simply a set amount of damage, delivered over a set number of ticks. Direct damage is front-loaded, damage over time is a set amount of damage delivered over a set number of ticks. Yes, A-net played the technical difficulties card here, but realistically, how do other games manage to pull this off?
The only actual solution to this problem is to account for damage by player whether direct or over time. It’s almost too simple. At the end of the day only one ‘solution’ will work and solve all the problems the current system breeds. It’s simply to account for all the damage that each player does, regardless of source. It is amusing though to see people argue against this ‘novel’ idea.
So let me get this right …
This other game has it so GW2 should
Let’s ignore the fact this game is designed for zerker as the most optimal stat for pve.
People want a rewrite of GW2 to be a more DoT game.We’ll tell you what Papa Smurf – it’s not gonna fly.
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that it is OK to not account for the damage each player does. You are saying, therefore, that it is OK to exclude a class of players from groups, condition players, because they won’t be adding any damage beyond white damage. This has nothing whatsoever to do with some novel way that some other game handles this. I am only suggesting that all damage, regardless of source, should be accounted for. In what alternate reality would you design a system that doesn’t account for each players actual contribution to achieving the goal of combat.
I do agree with you that a rational solution to this problem is not going to fly. If a rational solution were sought it would have been implemented long ago.
So why do You think that you need to do the damage of the new condy directly?
if any I’d say: put the new condy in the stack but get the overriten condy as direct dmg.so example:
1st condy in the stak will be removed when the stak is maxed and new condy (of the same type) is applyed.
So whe have 25 bleeds and the 1st is 10s*100dmg/s so someone is aplyind a new bleed:
this bleed of 100dps(10s) goes in 1000 direct dmg. as simple as that.Read my post, then consider the situation I used as an example. Every “solution” in everyone’s post does nothing to fix the underlying problem. Figure out how to fix the technical issues, then you can probably figure some new way of doing conditions.
And, regardless of the cost of any given solution, there really is only one that will work. You must manage damage by player as that is the only solution that makes sense—unless you like dealing with the same issue over and over again.
No, there isnt only one solution that will work. No, you dont need to manage damage by player, like the game ALREADY does. Even if you did, you suddenly increase the server load by a LOT because now it’s multiplied by player in addition to enemies, not just by players like it is now.
Want a workable solution? Go read my previous post.
You don’t need to manage damage by player like the game already does? What exactly does that mean? That, my friend, is the issue, the game doesn’t manage damage by player, but rather by stacks on a mob. And, you are worried about a LOT of server load. How, then, do games like WoW accomplish this?
(edited by Raine.1394)
So why do You think that you need to do the damage of the new condy directly?
if any I’d say: put the new condy in the stack but get the overriten condy as direct dmg.so example:
1st condy in the stak will be removed when the stak is maxed and new condy (of the same type) is applyed.
So whe have 25 bleeds and the 1st is 10s*100dmg/s so someone is aplyind a new bleed:
this bleed of 100dps(10s) goes in 1000 direct dmg. as simple as that.
Right now, if you add 5 condition necromancers to a group you are not adding any damage, assuming you have one already. That’s the problem. If you account for all damage as damage by player you are adding damage when you add a player to a group regardless of spec. That’s the issue and the solution is to manage damage by player rather than by stacks on a mob.
(edited by Raine.1394)
Raine’s solution and Wexxe’s are very different. Wexxe’s would require programming additional effects on top of the existing condition stacking system. Raine’s would require a complete rewrite of how conditions work.
DoT’s as implemented in other games are all balanced around skill use and CD’s. GW2 stacks conditions in a huge variety of ways, including FX with little to no CD’s (like auto-attacks, bleed-on-crit, etc.) For a WoW-style approach to DoT’s to work in GW2, all of the skills and procs that currently stack bleeds would need to be reworked. Since we don’t know how or exactly why the server infrastructure would have issues due to massive numbers of stacks in large group content, we also don’t know how many traditional DoT’s could be tracked. I do know that in other games, damage-over-time classes typically only have a few DoT’s, nothing like the number of stacks a fully-pimped condition character can generate in GW2. That is why I say that implementing Raine’s suggestion would require substantial changes to the game’s combat system.
No argument there. It obviously would require work. Consider an affliction warlock in WoW. Practically everything they are throwing at an enemy is damage over time. But, that damage is managed by player not by stacks on a mob—and it works. If you add 5 affliction warlocks to a group you are actually adding damage. And, regardless of the cost of any given solution, there really is only one that will work. You must manage damage by player as that is the only solution that makes sense—unless you like dealing with the same issue over and over again.
(edited by Raine.1394)
In terms of your response to @Pandaman it is actually much simpler. You get that condition damage is damage over time—good. However, there is no need to introduce the notion of stack(s). It is simply an amount of damage delivered over a number of ticks. If you want to introduce a concept around stacks, fine, but it is not inherent in the discussion of damage over time. In a non-trivial fight there is no need whatsoever for there to be a marked difference between direct or damage over time in terms of the amount of damage delivered.. And, if all damage were managed by player we wouldn’t be talking about condition damage here.
Before I go any further,
Did you read what my idea was?
Also, the theme of condition of damage is what I was talking about. Damage is damage: the only differences is how it looks and how we deliver it. In GW2, this isn’t the case: damage through conditions are managed per enemy and not by the player. You want it to be the latter but that’s never going to happen since it directly violates the current design. What I’ve suggested keeps within the design’s boundaries.
My position is very simply stated. In order to solve the stated problem with condition damage it is necessary to actually solve it. And, it has already been solved in every game that maintains the distinction between direct damage and damage over time—except GW2. All you need to do is track the damage done by player, whether direct or over time—problem solved. Anything short of this will not solve the problem.
In terms of design boundaries, A-net has already addressed this issue and they have played the technical difficulties card. They haven’t disagreed with me conceptually as that would not be logically possible. They have agreed but said it’s not technically possible. They may well have painted themselves into a corner technically, but it is obviously possible as this is how all games work that maintain the distinction between direct damage and damage over time. Tracking damage by enemy rather than by player is the source of the problem. Damage needs to be managed and accounted for by player, not by stacks on a mob.
(edited by Raine.1394)
@Hayashi, interesting.
Actually, this suggestion of mine does not kill server load as it uses a direct formula, as follows for bleed:
If Bleed Condition Cap is already met when trying to apply more bleeds:
((0.15 * Condition Damage) + 47.5) * Stack Amount * Duration of Condition)
So, 1700 condition damage would cause 10,586 bleed overflow damage immediately if attempting to apply a 5 stack bleed of 7 seconds.
If there is any confusion: it does NOT use anything that has to do with the stack of 25 ticking down on the enemy. The game simply reads the information, plugs it in, does the damage: simple as that.
I don’t expect a red post either, because for most suggestions and stuff they don’t bother but might read them if enough people get on it.
@Pandaman
I tried searching for similar posts but nothing came up. Hmm.
I read it, but the problem with that is that it digresses from the nature of condition damage, which is basically damage over time.
Also, in that same post, Frost Spectre pointed out the problem with it as well:
“Should it prioritize conditions applied by players with high Condition DMG and Condition Dur. That high powered conditions are more likely to burst.
Should there be a threshold for burst, that prevents lower stat player’s conditions from bursting.
Should it keep the condition stacks still on the target, while weaker (As in, applier has below the trigger threshold cond dmg and cond dur) conditions will never trigger burst, but maintain the stack, and any additional condition with high cond dmg + dur will always burst over them, dealing “direct damage”.”There’s just too much stuff to deal with and its kind of weird how your stacks just blow up for something that is supposed to be sustainable damage.
What I’ve tried to do is make it as simple as possible without destroying any mechanics and keeping all limits and issues in mind, save the replace old stack effect.
In terms of your response to @Pandaman it is actually much simpler. You get that condition damage is damage over time—good. However, there is no need to introduce the notion of stack(s). It is simply an amount of damage delivered over a number of ticks. If you want to introduce a concept around stacks, fine, but it is not inherent in the discussion of damage over time. In a non-trivial fight there is no need whatsoever for there to be a marked difference between direct or damage over time in terms of the amount of damage delivered.. And, if all damage were managed by player we wouldn’t be talking about condition damage here.
No. Again ramp up time is not a problem it is a trade-off. What we are interested in is sustained damage in a non-trivial fight. And, it should be comparable whether the character is direct damage or damage over time. There is no need to talk about individual ‘stacks’. There is only sustained damage done by a player. If you account for that and manage by that you will have broadly comparable damage whether delivered directly or over time. Again, no stacks here, only damage. That damage is either direct or over time. If you account for it by player, all problems with condition damage go away.
There is actually a solution to this problem. And, there is no need to invent concepts to account for condition damage. Simply manage condition damage like any other game does it—by player. This is why you can have, say, an affliction warlock in WoW topping the charts in sustained damage (It’s actually happened in the past.) The damage over time there is managed by player, not by some artificial mechanic like condition caps. The only solution, and the simple solution, is to manage all damage, direct or over time, by player where it should be managed.
There’s a reason why this post is so long: I’ve included a lot of the basic suggestions and such, and why I wrote in the first few lines to read the issues part before saying stuff like this.
No, we can’t do that because it kills PvP. And even still, you have incredibly ramp up time which will become the new problem as people no longer share stacks, and at this point, this is a lot more work and a lot more different than merely using a simple formula to deal a single instance of damage.
It absolutely will not kill PvP, no more than it kills PvP in WoW. Damage over time presents a trade-off in playstyle. I learned about this experientially when I killed an unholy Death Knight in WoW only to die of his dots a few seconds later. There are many advantages, especially in PvP, to damage over time.
However, what we are talking about is sustained damage. Whether delivered front-loaded as in direct damage, or over time, it’s just damage done by a player. Damage by a player, whether direct or over time, can not kill PvP. I know this because I’ve played other games that know how to account for damage. A-net initially agreed with this but cited server performance as the reason they couldn’t do this. The simple fact is that all games with this distinction account for all damage by player. And, that is the only solution that will work.
Nope, still goes with the issues I listed, assuming A-net isn’t lying.
First off, you are pulling an example out of an entirely different game.
Next, you are basically increase the bleed cap, which again, we can’t do. How so?
Imagine two warriors stacking bleeds. If each could apply 25 stacks of their own bleed, then you are basically increasing the bleed cap to 50, except with each and every player you are increasing the potential cap higher and higher, whether or not they use bleeds. At least they get to actually deal condition damage, right?
The part where it kills PvP comes due to healing and cleanses. You’d have to significantly buff cleanses to make it work, but it won’t, because the amount of individual instances of each and every debuff will make it impossible for either the person use condition damage or taking it.
While it may not be an issue for bleed, it will most certainly be with poison and burning. Burning is a strong condition, but only if you are the only person using it. Since it will no longer be shared, be prepared to take 2-3 instances of burn, along with whatever the enemy chooses.
In an additional note, we do not have healing or tank roles in GW2. In WoW, you can have a constant stream of health that out-heals the damage being taken. Also, Affliction Warlocks, if I recall, do not have stacking debuffs: you instead refresh multiple single-instance debuffs.
Lastly, your suggestion still doesn’t help the main problem I tried to address: Group PvE content. There is the issue of ramp up time, which only happens if one person has full control of the conditions (which was also included in my post, which you most likely didn’t read. I covered a lot of stuff.) Ramp Up Time is not an issue in groups because they share the condition stacks. It’s also not an issue in WoW because it takes very little to manage and the fights can be a lot longer. So maybe it won’t outright kill PvP but it won’t do much good either.
Ramp up time is the trade-off around damage over time. It is not a problem, it is a trade-off. Let me try this again. Damage can be delivered directly or over time. The amount of damage is the key, that is, sustained damage. If you account for all damage by player you have accurate sustained damage by player (what we are seeking here). No distinctions around healing or cleanses have any bearing whatsoever on this—it’s just damage done by a player. When damage is managed and accounted for by player all the problems around condition damage go away. I don’t know how to make this any more clear.
There is actually a solution to this problem. And, there is no need to invent concepts to account for condition damage. Simply manage condition damage like any other game does it—by player. This is why you can have, say, an affliction warlock in WoW topping the charts in sustained damage (It’s actually happened in the past.) The damage over time there is managed by player, not by some artificial mechanic like condition caps. The only solution, and the simple solution, is to manage all damage, direct or over time, by player where it should be managed.
There’s a reason why this post is so long: I’ve included a lot of the basic suggestions and such, and why I wrote in the first few lines to read the issues part before saying stuff like this.
No, we can’t do that because it kills PvP. And even still, you have incredibly ramp up time which will become the new problem as people no longer share stacks, and at this point, this is a lot more work and a lot more different than merely using a simple formula to deal a single instance of damage.
It absolutely will not kill PvP, no more than it kills PvP in WoW. Damage over time presents a trade-off in playstyle. I learned about this experientially when I killed an unholy Death Knight in WoW only to die of his dots a few seconds later. There are many advantages, especially in PvP, to damage over time.
However, what we are talking about is sustained damage. Whether delivered front-loaded as in direct damage, or over time, it’s just damage done by a player. Damage by a player, whether direct or over time, can not kill PvP. I know this because I’ve played other games that know how to account for damage. A-net initially agreed with this but cited server performance as the reason they couldn’t do this. The simple fact is that all games with this distinction account for all damage by player—well, except GW2. And, that is the only solution that will work.
(edited by Raine.1394)
There is actually a solution to this problem. And, there is no need to invent concepts to account for condition damage. Simply manage condition damage like any other game does it—by player. This is why you can have, say, an affliction warlock in WoW topping the charts in sustained damage (It’s actually happened in the past.) The damage over time there is managed by player, not by some artificial mechanic like condition caps. The only solution, and the simple solution, is to manage all damage, direct or over time, by player where it should be managed.
(edited by Raine.1394)
DaveGan and Raine will you two just agree to disagree and move back on topic? Or take you arguing to PM
I’d hate for this thread to be locked over an off topic argument.
I understand what you are saying and am sorry for this. I’m actually shocked that it hasn’t been locked—perhapss everyone is on holidays.
I am, perhaps, easily entertained, and I really shouldn’t assume everyone else wants to be along for the ride. I’m out. Ciao.
(edited by Raine.1394)
So the absence of any statements on functions indicates the absence of knowledge of functions. That seems legit logic. Humor me though, since everyone’s attempts have flown over my head just show me one more time what you are talking about. (This should be educational for you.) As queen of assertion (and not proof) this may, of course, be impossible for you. Maybe I’ll win big and get the king to chime in here, but I’m looking at you dear.
And, really, ’everyone’s’ attempt to show me? What is this an appeal to and what weakness does it display?
Haven’t I already said? It’s far more educational to do the work yourself instead of asking others to do it for you.
It’s why we’re stuck in this mess right now, and it would also explain the deficiencies in your education coupled with that that putrid egocentric arrogance.
Are you attempting to overthrow the king of assertion here? I say no, you are the queen of assertion. If you want to move down the ranks though you will need to actually say something of substance. It still ain’t happening. I will take the suggestion offered here elsewhere and desist from further engagement. There is really no point.
—
But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.If this was a game all your posts would suddenly make sense.
You guys do realize you’re so far off mark with the discussion now it’s not even in the same galaxy.
The math doesn’t matter. It’s human nature to find the best way to do something. It’s also human nature to want to find that and use it as much as they can when they do find it.
In order to give some justification for my posts I will claim that I partially tried to remind everyone that “best” a.k.a “optimal solution” is subjective.
Realistically, am I going to get anything of import from you—just based on thread history it hasn’t happened yet, should I wait for it?
And, i love what you find on webster’s for ‘subjective’: ‘based on feelings or opinions rather than facts.’
Weth, are you saying that you have come to your personal build(s), the one(s) you use for top of the game content, through your feelings and opinions? Have any facts ever intruded themselves?
(edited by Raine.1394)
Your continued denial and failure to understand the relevance of functions demonstrates your own lack of understanding and failure to keep up.
As everyone’s attempts to show how you have been wrong have flown over your head or ignorantly dismissed as irrelevant and off-topic, there is nothing more we can say other than to tell you to educate yourself.
So the absence of any statements on functions indicates the absence of knowledge of functions. That seems legit logic. Humor me though, since everyone’s attempts have flown over my head just show me one more time what you are talking about. (This should be educational for you.) As queen of assertion (and not proof) this may, of course, be impossible for you. Maybe I’ll win big and get the king to chime in here, but I’m looking at you dear.
And, really, ’everyone’s’ attempt to show me? What is this an appeal to and what weakness does it display?
(edited by Raine.1394)
But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.
Every time you’ve been shown to be wrong you simply deny having been shown anything. It’s like talking to an evangelical Christian creationist who listens to conservative talk radio.
Why even attempt to discuss proper math when you continually confuse who you’re talking to and can’t tell the difference between an equation and a function?
Do you notice anything interesting or significant about your post? I found it interesting that you simply asserted I was ‘wrong’ and didn’t suggest anything I said that was wrong. Playing with you will be almost as fun as with Weth though. Go ahead, talk to this creationist and show me…exactly…where all those places are where I was wrong. BTW, I never even discussed a function, other than to tell you that I haven’t been discussing functions, so I don’t really understand how you determine I didn’t know it from an equation. Regardless your mental process certainly won’t be logical. But, let’s start there. Prove to me that I don’t understand a function. And, remember context—when I referred to algebraic expressions it was always (and stated specifically, over and over) that I was discussing an expression of the nature of x=4.. I suppose it would be possible to discuss functions but I’ve not found any compelling need to so far. They are even farther off topic than we’ve gone to date. Weth is certainly the king of simple-minded assertions, but you rank right up there as queen. At any rate, go for it.
(edited by Raine.1394)
My character needs better gear. The clock tower contains several gears. “My character needs better gears.” is not proper usage. Also, “The clock tower contains several gear.” is not proper usage. Gear when used to refer to equipment is a singular collective. It refers to all of the component pieces of equipment used for whatever purpose. When used to refer to machine parts, it’s not collective.
/endtangent
Bravo!
To be honest I wouldn’t really call this a discussion.
If I had a problem using the word ‘option’ properly, I probably wouldn’t call this a discussion either.
If you merely assert that someone is wrong it bears no weight. If you have an esoteric tool, say, a dictionary, you can at least argue that, conventionally, a person might be wrong in their use of a common word like option. The person who can’t function at the level of basic English, however, is unlikely to move beyond assertions. Generally they function at the level of the ad hominem, never actually engaging with a stated proposition. Unfortunately, that is where you find yourself.
I really love these kind of thinly veiled insults which only further show your ignorance and level of “discussion”. I have nothing against people with a condescending attitude, but you better be right or it looks really dumb.
Thinly veiled? I wasn’t aware of being subtle with you. The game is played, ideally, not through asserting that someone is dumb, but rather in showing how that someone is dumb. That’s the way adults do it—they don’t simply stick out their tongues like children. And, since when have you ever dealt with whether I was ‘right’ or not. You’ve seldom got close to any issue raised. You seem much more comfortable with simple-minded assertions.
But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.
(edited by Raine.1394)
And now this thread is headed towards the English launguage itself. Mind the Grammar kittens.
Oh, and “gears” sounds perfectly fine to me. “Gear” as a plural sounds stupid.
Edit: I assumed you were talking about cogs, but it seems to me that you are thinking of equipment in general.
It hasn’t devolved to the point of grammar, at least not yet. There has been a consideration of words, their usage, and meaning. Yes, equipment. Do we talk about kits or kit, though it may contain many elements? If I were running the dictionary I would define gear as the plural form. However, I am not.
You do have to be careful with words that have multiple meanings. Especially if talking about does a particular form of the word look odd. Gears doesn’t look or sound odd by itself because it is a proper form of the word gear. Just not the one you were implicitly referring to.
“She put on her gears.” however does look and sound odd. Because now our brains have a context to infer which meaning was meant.
Yes, “She put on her gears.”, sounds odd to me. And, if I were discussing the equipment she used I would refer to her kit, not kits. Dictionaries, however, will always eventually catch up with popular usage. But, they will leave a trail in terms of etymology. ‘Prevent’ when Shakespeare was writing meant ‘to go before’. And , if you understand the Latin roots it makes much more sense than its current definition. It is, however, not what the word means today. Words and their forms will change over time.
And now this thread is headed towards the English launguage itself. Mind the Grammar kittens.
Oh, and “gears” sounds perfectly fine to me. “Gear” as a plural sounds stupid.
Edit: I assumed you were talking about cogs, but it seems to me that you are thinking of equipment in general.
It hasn’t devolved to the point of grammar, at least not yet. There has been a consideration of words, their usage, and meaning. Yes, equipment. Do we talk about kits or kit, though it may contain many elements? If I were running the dictionary I would define gear as the plural form and be done with this. However, I am not.
(edited by Raine.1394)
Isnt “gears” correct even in american english? I can understand your perspective with deer and maths. But saying “gear” for the plural form sounds completely messed up.
‘Gears’ will be used by American English speakers. Sadly, it grates every time I hear it…no less than deers would. Again, this is just my personal issue, I’m actually not arguing for a correct form.