Guild Wars 2

Dadnir.5038:

What the op call “mantra” ain’t GW2 mantra. Sorry but mantra in GW2 is something without passive effect. You charge the thing and you get 2-3 instant skill. Nothing more nothing less.

In current gw2 wells had the same effect every pulse, guess what, that changed with the chronomancer. Also there is a trait in gw2 that boosted you damage equal to the amount of mantras you have charged so it’s not that far of a stretch.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

What i’ve learned from this thread is that most people don’t really understand how DS works anymore than they know how CS works…

They seem to think it’s some magical bar that gives us a full second health bar… lol

I share the sentiment.

I like the passive mantra idea (when swap in DS gain boon) to be quite honest but the ‘actives’ are really bad. You need to be hit in DS, is too restrictive especially you can be easily knocked outside Ds with enough damage.

I would make the actives to upkeep skills (without draining anything) which are on even in death shroud. You can only de/activate the upkeep outside of death shroud and you lose the passive when you enter while active.

To support this I would propose 3 traits:
-Best of both worlds: when you enter death shroud with an active mantra you still get the passive mantra effect. Cooldown of mantra skills are reduced with 5% when a charge is used.

-Shared empowerment: Passive Mantra effects are shared with allies, mantra’s have an extra charge when used.

-Revenge is mine: When a charge(s) is used you gain 1 sec of quickness and 5 secs of 5 stacks of might.

Now about the effects:
-I think 2 boons might be too much but in order too use it effectively you need to flash death shroud so it might be balanced. Mantra of death and mantra of defiance is op with the massive amount of cc death shroud or not. So I suggest this:

Mantra of Life (heal skill), 1.5s cast time, 5 charges, 15s CD.
- Heal for some amount when you enter DS with this mantra charged.
- While in DS, heal you for some more amount whenever you or an ally is struck. This effect consumes 1 mantra charge.

Mantra of Persistence, 1.5s cast time, 5 charges, 25s CD.
-Passive: You gain Protection you enter DS with this mantra charged.
-Active: Whenever you or an ally is struck, consume 1 charge and gain 1 stack of Toughness buff (+100 toughness).

Mantra of Defiance, 1.5s cast time, 5 charges, 35s CD.
-Passive: You gain Resistance when you enter DS with this mantra charged.
-Acitve: Transfer a conditions to the enemy whenever you or an ally is struck. This effect consumes 1 mantra charge.

Mantra of Retribution, 1.5s cast time, 5 charges, 20s CD.
-Passive: You gain Retaliation when you enter DS with this mantra charged.
-Active: Whenever you or an ally is struck, deals dmg to the attacker (1200 range). This effect consumes 1 mantra charge.

Mantra of Hatred, 1.5s cast time, 5 charges, 20s CD.
-Passive: You gain Might (3 stacks) when you enter DS with this mantra charged.
-Active: Whenever you or an ally is struck, inflicts Torment (2 stacks) and Poison conditions to the attacker (1200 range). This effect consumes 1 mantra charge.

Mantra of Death (elite skill), 2s cast time, 1 charge, 180s CD.
-Passive: Grant stability and aegis when you eneter tdeath shroud with this mantra charged.
-Active: If any ally around you (1200 range) is downed or defeated, your F1 turns into “Vengeance’s Mark” skill. Consume the mantra charge when this happens.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Watch us get Spirits -_-

Please don’t joke about this, it’s not funny. I don’t want a second set of useless critters in my skill list.

It’s also nice to notice that continuum split and shift is just a better version of spectral walk and recal.

It’s even worse when you realise that the well of precognition is down right better then our wells combined . I mean burst, defense, support in one well, that’s just not fair.

It is not a bad idea:
-merge terror with grand masterminor and revert target the weak to the flat damage boost and create a new power friendly grandmaster (maybe based around weakness)
or as an alternative
remove reapers precision and moving a grandmaster trait to master tier. The lost grandmaster would be replaced by a trait that functions like the old target the weak but by adding life force (0.1~0.2) on (critical) hit per condition.
- allow (self)healing in death shroud
- make shrouded removal grant resistance instead of condi clear.
-allow for life force on death in death shroud with soul comprehension
- add bloodthirst to vampiric and buff vampiric precision and add it to vampiric
- remove icd mark of evasion
-move minion siphon back to master
-buff deathly invogiration by a lot (double healing in the least. I mean soothing mist is just better in healing range and requiremnts)
-revert weakeing shroud to old one but add one sec of weakness and maybe a blast finisher

How about we merge terror with grand masterminor and revert target the weak to the flat damage boost to limit the power creep a bit?

Edit: make to merge.

IllegalChocolate.6938:

These are just ideas of how it could work of course. What are your guys’ thoughts? Should we sacrifice attrition for more active support power?

Feel free to post some thoughts.

What attrition?

The Gates Assassin.9827:

Roe.3679:

- I think Path of Corruption and terror should be reversed, putting Terror and Lingering curses on the same GM level hurt a lot of PVE necromancers (although for pvp, for example, it didn’t change anything so I missed this).

This has been mentioned by a few players, and honestly, I can’t imagine this ever happening. Imagine if Doom, Fear (necro downstate) and Reaper’s Protection was a 4s fear and Fear of Death, Spectral Wall, Corrupt Boon and Well of Corruption were 2s fears with terror! That sounds just awful to play against. I’m not totally sure why everyone is underestimating the potency of the new scepter trait.

Well of corruption? Really?
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/necromancer/Necro-Boon-Removal-Priorities/4252200

Fear is last priority if you have any boon on your stability is spared. Stability for corrupt boon is second last. With the addition of resistance and maybe quickness the priority will be even lower (because I believe Anet is competent enough to understand and make sure that resistance is prioritized).

Anubis.7058:

Tim.6450:

First healing in ds (certainely what we trait ourselves )should be baseline for several reasons:

-We can’t time our heals. The majority on our heals are tied by triggers the necromancer have little to no control over, so we can’t time our death shroud to fully optimize on the heals.

-our heals are mostly over time: regenration , siphon’s, signet of vampirism, well of blood, … all of them heal the necromancer over time, so a good uptime is needed to be efficient, but we cut in our own uptime by using death shroud and we can’t stop using death shroud, so we are cutting in the efficiency of our healing, making them supbar.

- Other classes don’t have this restriction. SIimple as that necros is the only class with such restrictions on healing.

Opening siphon’s with a minor trait sounds great but it won’t work because we have ton of other heals which suffer the same hindrance of death shroud and again other classes don’t have this requirement.

How about healing at a reduced rate (like only 25% of a heal), but siphons are stronger in DS (regen always fully working)? It would encourage the health/lf manipulation play, but keep people form burst healing while under ds. Or maybe making it a minor in blood magic.

What burst healing does a necro have in ds? Also it would not be enough. Our enemies have next to no restrictions regarding healing so why should we?

The Gates Assassin.9827:

Aktium.9506:

The Gates Assassin.9827:

Something crazy like Dark Path steals 1,500 health (doubled if from behind). I’ve always wanted to be a vampire necromancer! Think crazy and fun guys.

That sounds great and all, but you forgot the little part where we can’t be healed in Death Shroud so I’m not sure that trait would work all that well.

Also you misspelled my name in a previous post.

Besides, I tried to think outside the box with some of my suggestions here

Heh, I have a word doc where I’m making my own Blood Magic line and in that I created a minor trait that reads “Life stealing while in death shroud restores your normal health”.

Sorry about the misspell. Fixed it. Long night xD

First healing in ds (certainely what we trait ourselves )should be baseline for several reasons:

-We can’t time our heals. The majority on our heals are tied by triggers the necromancer have little to no control over, so we can’t time our death shroud to fully optimize on the heals.

-our heals are mostly over time: regenration , siphon’s, signet of vampirism, well of blood, … all of them heal the necromancer over time, so a good uptime is needed to be efficient, but we cut in our own uptime by using death shroud and we can’t stop using death shroud, so we are cutting in the efficiency of our healing, making them supbar.

- Other classes don’t have this restriction. SIimple as that necros is the only class with such restrictions on healing.

Opening siphon’s with a minor trait sounds great but it won’t work because we have ton of other heals which suffer the same hindrance of death shroud and again other classes don’t have this requirement.

spoj.9672:

Banshees wail maybe. Or whatever replaces reapers precision. I do admit if you arent using a warhorn (quite likely with the elite spec) you are struggling for choice in the curses master tier.

But I would still rather have Bitter Chill in curses so there is atleast something worth while in the line in the grandmaster slot. And with this we can get Spiteful Talisman + Bitter Chill at the same time.

The Soul Reaping line isnt perfect for DS flash builds so i doubt we will be using it for the elite spec. I would expect to use elite spec, spite and curses. But we need curses to be improved for power builds first.

Another idea is to move Banshees Wail to adept in spite. That way you choose Spiteful Talisman or Banshees Wail. Then move Bitter Chill to curses Master. But then you cant have warhorn and focus cooldown reduction at the same time. Which is not going to be good for regular necros.

The thing is that I choose soul reaping since chillblains, spectral grasp and/or dark path are more likely to be useful in a bitter chill build then chilling darkness.

I do agree on the sentiment on improving curses for power builds, which I would do by removing removing reapers precision and moving a grandmaster trait to master tier. The lost grandmaster would be replaced by a trait that functions like the old target the weak but by adding life force (0.1~0.2) on (critical) hit per condition. This would make curses an agressive sustain line for power builds.

spoj.9672:

How? You can still take curses and spite + the new specialisation.

Tell me, what master trait should I use in curses on power greatsword build? Even then Spite+soulreaping+new specialisation is more likely to be better.

spoj.9672:

Move Bitter Chill to curses grandmaster and add +10% damage to chilled foes. Power grandmaster problem solved. Synergises with chilling darkness in the adept slot aswell.

But marjory’s greatsword gives chill on auto, so moving it may be a nerf to the specialisation.

misterman.1530:

Tim.6450:

misterman.1530:

Does anyone know what is happening with Focused Rituals? It appears to have been removed from its Trait line. Will all Wells now be focused automatically?

yes

And where did Anet point that out? About wells and ground targeting?

http://dulfy.net/2015/04/23/gw2-specializations-part-one-a-primer/

misterman.1530:

Does anyone know what is happening with Focused Rituals? It appears to have been removed from its Trait line. Will all Wells now be focused automatically?

yes

Lily.1935:

Thats what Unholy Martyr should be. A Sustain option for Power builds. Which it isn’t, but could very easily be made into with a few adjustments.

I think that unholy martyr should be a sustain option for any build, the difference I envision with curses and blood magic, is basically the difference between medition guard and bunker guards. Blood magic should support you and your allies while curses should support you and your damage.

I suggest removing reaper’s precision, move terror there. and create a clone of the old target the weak with the addition of the following effect : gain 0.2 life force per condition on critical (not sure) hit. It would make curses on aggressive sustain option for power builds.

spoj.9672:

A few tweaks should be made. Otherwise most people are going to select the same traits for every build.

This seems to be my biggest fear for the necro at the moment.

Wait didn’t the necro greatsword apply chill on auto? Maybe this will become our pve niche. Also I see a bit of potential in pvp for a chill build.

The biggest thing they need to do is:
- allow (self)healing in death shroud (especially with the spite grandmaster)
- swap doom with path of corruption ( I think that poc is more dangerous with the scepter trait)
- improve curses for power users
- make shrouded removal grant resistance instead of condi clear.
-allow for life force on death in death shroud with soul comprehension
- add bloodthirst to vampiric
- buff vampiric precision and make it minor
- remove icd mark of evasion
-move minion siphon back to master
-buff deathly invogiration by a lot (double healing in the least. I mean soothing mist is just better in healing range and requiremnts)

Benson.9063:

ok i read through more of it and now i wish i hadn’t.

but that 1 in 1.6 million number… what does that represent the chances of? rolling duplicates? or rolling duplicates consecutively? i don’t get what you are trying to prove to be honest. Rolling duplicates – there is a very high chance of duplicates the higher and higher you get don’t you think? there’s only 26 outcomes. once you achieve all of the outcomes, you have 100% chance to get duplicates.

So i think you are trying to get the probability of obtaining the same ring consecutively with the math that Tim provided you and based on your picture; that is a very specific hypothesis and not the only claim you are making in this thread (and i’m not sure if you’ve even made that specific claim yet).

Why are you trying to figure this out? If you believe that if you get one ring you will then have a far greater chance to get it again on the next run, you should use this to your advantage – try to figure out if maybe you have higher chance to get the same ring on a sunday, or on back to back runs, or at night-time, or with your warrior, etc. if you get a ring you also want for another alt, then repeat and give yourself a better shot at it, if not come back later.

let me know if my logic anywhere if flawed. btw… you really put your rings in your bank in the order that you got them? and you haven’t touched them since? O_O

*edited to be more clear.

Well what we were trying to (dis)prove (I’m not sure whether this thread is on track anymore) was that the rng for rings is not an independant. Meaning a ring’s chances does not change depending on the result before. Nevets tries this by placing a counter example. His example has 15 occurences where the drawn ring was the same as the previous ring drawn in a batch of 84 rings. The chance of this or worse (more “doubles”) occurring is 1 in 1.6 million.

Halvorn.9831:

Secondly, the major difference between a prng and a trng is that the first one creates identical sequence of numbers when seeded identically. Apart from that, the statistical distribution of values is the same considering a huge sample size.

Which is what I said.

The major difference with prng is that there is one sequence that is constantly repeated. The seed is just where you start your sequence. Given this knowledge there are things that have no represenation in prng even though you could make your sample size big enough for that event to reliable occur in trng.

So taking a big sample size and then showing that an equivalent event did no occur, has little meaning in prng.

Halvorn.9831:

Even after 10 minutes of looping not a single sample had more than 8% doubles. Because at this sample size the result is much closer to the expected average of 1/26, ca. 3.8%

Your sample size is at least factor 10 too small to contain any clues on anomalies in the RNG distribution. Even for an even distribution of random results (read: the RNG produces white noise when viewed as a frequency graph) your results are expectable because of your sample size.

First I assume this is java code, then I have to dissapoint you. Math.random() is a pseudo random number generator and therefore is made to not show such anomalies.

Aidan Savage.2078:

• For starters, you dont even know what the RNG formula is, so any test is FUBARed and false-premises to begin with.

That doesn’t matter a true RNG has properties no matter the formula. One of them is previous results don’t affect the next result. You can test such things no matter the formula.

• Second, you dont know what information is used to determine chances of what loot (aside from any statistical values of your account being irrelevant [as stated multiple times by people who know a hell of a lot more than people on the forums with tinfoil hats]).

That doesn’t matter the thing the OP wants to prove is that the current way of determing the chances is not completely random. He wants to show this by pointing out the occurence of doubles is far higher then it should be. The only thing you need for that are results and the knowledge of the distribution he wants to disprove. Anet for all I care may use the position of the moon to determine the loot. The only thing that matters is what comes out of the loot, how often, and when.

• Third, your micro-sample size is just too small to start with to even give serious consideration to. Is it 84 runs period (nice RNG getting rings every run)? Or is it just the 84 runs that you got rings (out of how many runs? which also skews your ‘proof’)? Or is it just 84 convenient rings in your inventory/bank you’re using?

Prove it, statistics have formula’s to prove/disprove hypotheses , these formula’s are based on the size of the sample. Show me such formula and fill in the numbers, then you can talk about sample size.

edit: @tim, the drops are fully independent regardless of situation. You could drop a zerker ring, followed by a rampager ring, then followed by a magi ring. One does not affect the previous or following result in any form. Mind you, this is assumed from simple logic and the fact that we dont know the internals of the RNG system

But getting a zerker ring will influence what you need to get for a double which was what I wanted to point out.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

The odds of my number of doubles are about 1 in 1.63 million, which COULD be due to chance,

You still have less chance to win euromillions then getting this kind of result and that does happen as well.

though I’m inclined to believe otherwise, due to others getting similar results.

Well the problem is that the one who post about will get similar or bad result as well while the positive result are less likely to respond (especially since forums are for addressing problems therefore no problems=>no post)

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I’m becoming more convinced that you’re correct, but for whatever reason I thought that you can’t use a single drop in two trials.

you are confusing the statiscal independance with independance.

independance means that you’re previous result will not influence the next one which it does in a way, if you got a zerker ring in your first test and a rampager in your second. you would not have a double. so that previous roll influenced your result so it’s not independant.

In statistics the only thing that matters are the probabilities; The definition (from wikipedia) is:
“Two events are independent if and only if their joint probability equals the product of their probabilities.” Now let’s put this on my case:
What is the chance you get a double and the previous ring was a zerker? 1/26*1/26= chance previous ring a zerker*chance double. So the previous result and the chance of getting a double is independant.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I made the image and I initially highlighted each of the doubles and the one triple, but as an afterthought I was thinking it would be better to look at them as pairs because then each trial is independent. If a single drop is used as the second comparison drop AND as the first initial drop, the drop is no longer “independent.” One of the assumptions of using a binomial probability distribution is that each “trial” has to be independent. If you’re using the same ring in two trials, it’s no longer independent and the assumptions of your test are violated.

How is it not independant? Your chance of success is always 1/26.

If we are talking by affected by conditions, only damaging ones should suffice. One of the charms of turrets is that the cant be crippled, chilled, blinded, stunned but in return can’t be buffed and I think it best that we keep it that way. not being able to ignore four stats (condition damage,condition duration, precision and ferocity) will be a very good start.

Seera.5916:

But are 15 doubles just an outlier or statistically significant? THAT’s the question. And 84 trials is not a high enough sample size to say it is or that it is not with high confidence.

Every result is statistically significant. Especialy when you want to verify if something follows a certain distribution, that’s what you are looking for: an outlier so far off the average that the probability of occurence in the suggested distribution is way too small.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Awesome, thank you so much.

So, if I’m reading this properly you’ve calculated the cumulative probability of getting 15 or more doubles out of 84, not just exactly total of 15.

Correct though I have the data for excact 15 as well in my chart (second collum).

Perhaps you can explain one more thing to me – why would this model be preferable to a model where you view 2 drops as a “trial” and count successes as 2 of the same rings (with odds of 1 in 26) and a failure as 2 different rings (25/26). Under this model you’d have 42 trials, 8 successes.

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Under this model you get a kitten prob of 8 or more of 1 in about 6,000 which seems a lot more likely to be “RNG is RNG” than 1 in a 1.6 million.

Thoughts?

First thing in statistics is that how larger the sample how more accurate the result.
Secondly because that’s not how a player will experience it, he will not compare every set 2 of the same. He will look at his current ring and think about his previous ring evvery time he gets a ring. take a look at how it is highlighted, he didn’t took sets of two and compared them. He took every occurence of a double (even triple) and marked them.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Tim.6450:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

For those of you saying that 84 isn’t enough, can you please give me your statistical power analysis? Do you have any statistical data at all, or are you just making up numbers?

Like I said you’re 1 in 1652159 to get 15 or more doubles in a 84 test case with 26 rings. GW2 sold in it’s first year more then 3500000 copies. So it’s not that impossibleto happen if you think about it. The fact that it is you, well that’s just bad luck.

Can you show your math? I used a binomial probability calculator with 42 trials and 8 repeats to get odds of 99.98% chance I should get less than 8 repeats.

Also, the fact that other people tend to get repeats too indicate it’s not just me.

Sure:
consider P_n: the probality that you get for getting exactly n doubles in a test with 84 draws and 26 rings to choose from.
now your first draw is unimportant since we talk about doubles so that may be anything. After that you have a 1/26(D for short) chance to get a double and 25/26(U for short) to not get a double. This goes for every draw after the first one. Since we want to calculate the chance of getting n doubles. We want to add the chances of all situations with exactly n D’s.
So P_n = DDDDDDD….UUUUUUU+ UDDDDDD……UUUUU+ … + DDUDUUDUDDUDDDUUD…. + ….. .
Since the multiplication is abelian we can rewrite P_n= (#amount situation with n doubles)* D^n*L^(83-n).
The only thing that we need to calculate is (#amount situation with n doubles) and this can be calculated as 83!/n!/((83-n)!).
Now that we have a formula for P_n we can calculate the probality that you have n or more doubles is P_83+P_82+…+ P_(n+1) + P_n.

That is my mathematical basis for my formula.
For my calculations , I can’t send them since they are made in excell and I can’t post excell files.
That being said I have a screen shot of the results for 1 to 27, the first collum is n, the second P_n, the third is ‘the probality that you have n or more doubles’, and the fourth is ’ you’re 1 in to get n or more doubles’.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

For those of you saying that 84 isn’t enough, can you please give me your statistical power analysis? Do you have any statistical data at all, or are you just making up numbers?

Like I said you’re 1 in 1652159 to get 15 or more doubles in a 84 test case with 26 rings. GW2 sold in it’s first year more then 3500000 copies. So it’s not that impossibleto happen if you think about it. The fact that it is you, well that’s just bad luck.

Yes please, I’m getting stacked with this useless stuff.

Vague Memory.2817:

I definitely see a pattern in when I get ascended, exotic and rare drops. I will literally get a bunch of these in a row and then nothing for about 2 weeks. The RNG software used in MMOs are usually pretty bad, that being said you ultimately can’t get away from the fact that true RNG doesn’t exist. It can’t be programmed, therefore non-random patterns and sequences will occur. Good RNG programs just make it less visible to us, but it is still there.

Technically you can create true rng , you can’t program it but you can create it using hardware. It’s just far easier to work with pseudo random generators. So yeah it is far more likely that GW2 has no true rng only pseudo rng.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Here it is again for future peoples:

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/177902/Fractals_Rings.png

Euhm you are 1 in 1652159 for getting 15 or more doubles in a set of 84 rings (considering 26 possible rings). I have less chance winning 71332,60€ when playing euromillions .

EDIT: 15 instead of 14 doubles

What are your sigils?

Jekkt.6045:

there are certain builds or classes that are better against certain builds or classes but there are no full counters in this game.

Shoutnow comes pretty close and diamond skin can easily ruin a condi user’s day.

and defensive conditions are usually of a short nature, 3s blinds etc, and are not cleansed most of the time because you don’t want to waste a cleanse if it’s not necessary.

spinal shiver 5 second chill,enfeebling blood 6 seconds of weakness, signet of spite 10 second cripple, weakness, weakness from corrupt boon 10 seconds,… . All of them stacking in duration.

Bhawb.7408:

It has bleed, fear which gives terror, transfer does scale with your stats just not your condition duration.

How did you come to this conclusion? I can’t seem a proof for it and everything seems to point in the opposite direction:
-The transferred conditions keep the original source.
-The combat log doesn’t show it as your damage.
-The trait parasatic contagion doesn’t work with transfered conditions.
-Sigil of generosity use the original applier’s condition damage.

phys.7689:

its kind of funny, because i was just randomly looking at skyrim mods for examples, and someone made a balthazar armor set, skyrim breaks each armor into head, body gauntlets boots legs and guantlets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQZoOdxWkxA

look at 2:51

1 dude, in his free time made a 5 part balthazar armor, i dont think its beyond the capabilities of anet to do the same.

It’s not ‘burning’ which is what causes the neck to be invisible. Also it’s not the same armor, it has a lot of simularities but also a major amount of differences.

phys.7689:

Tim.6450:

Is it even possible to cut the existing outfits while having decent individual pieces? I find it hard to do with the new balthazar outfit (the neck issue), the female ancestral outfit (the feet would look ridicolous) ,the male raiment of the lich (feet again) and the mad king ourfit (arms) and that is ignoring the division between body and legging .

yeah ancestral would be extremely easy
pants coat gloves shoes, or they could do socks. cut at a but under knee, you would only see it when its together.
balthazar is tricky because of lava, but still doable.

modders and 3d modelers cut skins all the time.

raiment is doable, but i could see why that one might not get cut up since it uses a different model.

So wait, you would cut ancestrel leggings through the markingon the right leg ruining them? Also socks with buttons, strange.

Balthazar is at the moment cut wrong if you remove the helm you will not see the neck.

And how do you think raiment of the lich will doable? The legs are made in such way that they don’t even have the same form as char legs.

Is it even possible to cut the existing outfits while having decent individual pieces? I find it hard to do with the new balthazar outfit (the neck issue), the female ancestral outfit (the feet would look ridicolous) ,the male raiment of the lich (feet again) and the mad king ourfit (arms) and that is ignoring the division between body and legging .

Bhawb.7408:

I don’t think a conversion rate is needed, I think this trait is reasonably powerful already, even if it is niche in requiring you to take pulsing blinds.

The ‘problem’ that I have with this trait is that I don’t see the synergy between chill and blind, especially if it requires a niche in blind. If you’re blinded you’re most likely going to use auto attacks. So you’re chill won’t improve on the cooldown aspect and the movement impairement aspect doesn’t help since you can easily dodge out of it.

Bhawb.7408:

Making the chill scale with blind duration doesn’t really change the trait to being good, especially since they would almost guaranteed make the chill portion not scale with condition duration (otherwise the trait would double-dip scale with condition duration), it would just change it to being worse with pulsing blinds but good with other blinds.

What conversion rate do you consider? Everything above 33,333.. % is better compared to now for every necromacer blind aplication but plague form and snow balls (without any condition duration). Well of darkness and well of corruption our other pulsing blind aplications would be buffed.

I use a ‘typical’ 0/6/2/0/6 build with spectral grasp instead of S-walk, the extra life force, the chill and CC are very nice. The loss of swiftness and the telport is not that worrysome.

Cyninja.2954:

Tim.6450:

Cyninja.2954:

All good points. Here is your solution: check on gw2spidy or similar site what the last actual transactions for your item were instead of relisting for 1 copper less then the next highest Sell Order.

The system is fine as is. Removing the fees or implementing the changes will just create a situation where more no-life = better. That is not even touching on the subject of bots.

Strange that you complain about him not doing market research. While in the next paragraph you are against it because other people not doing market research. Also there is a point where undercutting/ no life will result in more demand then supply which result inhigher prices so no life/undercutting will have only result in a better speed of selling.

Nice how you put words in my mouth. Knowing or following the market is not = being online ingame 24/7. Especially with expensive slow moving goods. Nice try though.

Good move on sidestepping the bot argument too. Removing listing fees or substantially reducing them WILL make bots even more useful than they are now.

Actually knowing or following the market means that you place the right price for the product. Being constantly undercut means you did not place the right price.

Also for the bots I considered you meant something about placing the right selling order by constantly monetoring and undercut when his price is undercut. So it fell under my second sentence.

Obtena.7952:

Isn’t that just the same thing, said a different way? Conforming to the market is exactly why he’s in the mess he is in now. If someone wants to sell something worth 1000’s of G, they better do some kitten research before posting it, something the OP obviously didn’t do.

Because market’s can fluctuate very easily especially around products with low chance of occurence like precursors and legendaries. I bought a precursor in one evening while being 100 G under the highest buyer (I offered 500ish G so he offered 20% more). So being able to lower the price would be very nice. Another example was the chaos of lyssa price drop.

Cyninja.2954:

All good points. Here is your solution: check on gw2spidy or similar site what the last actual transactions for your item were instead of relisting for 1 copper less then the next highest Sell Order.

The system is fine as is. Removing the fees or implementing the changes will just create a situation where more no-life = better. That is not even touching on the subject of bots.

Strange that you complain about him not doing market research. While in the next paragraph you are against it because other people not doing market research. Also there is a point where undercutting/ no life will result in more demand then supply which result inhigher prices so no life/undercutting will have only result in a better speed of selling.

Astralporing.1957:

Yes. In this way, he is incentivized to not go for maximum possible profit, but to pay attention to the possible risks as well (which promotes moderate sell prices). In the free price reduction system however, the cost for “getting it wrong” would be much lower, which would make more people willing to gamble with overinflated sell prices.

Yes but the ease of undercutting will make prices drop faster, so it evens out. In fact prices will propably move faster to market conform position this way.

Toxsa.2701:

because they want an advantage to reposition themselves in the market after others have posted their goods, that’s why. The Op’s example is a good one. He realized he wasn’t going to make a sale in his desired timeframe because of poor pricing. He will have pay the relist fee for the opportunity to change that and price more competitively. He’s actually recommending a system that works AGAINST his complaint that he was undercut. It’s rather nonsensical IMO.

The problem (from what I get from his post) is not that he is constantly undercut, the problem is that he can’t readjust his price that is conform with the market, without paying a huge sum of gold.

Toxsa.2701:

Frankly, there doesn’t need to be a reason to justify leaving it the way it is. It’s up to the people supporting the suggestion to say why it needs to change. “Because I screwed up” isn’t that good a reason.

See my first post for reason why I believe this will be a good idea.That bein said the counter-argument against this is actually undercutting which is the same as “will screw up” which isn’t a good reason either.

But realistically everyone thinks like him, so it’ll ended up being who is more no-life, and able to undercut others more frequently.

Yes in the first stages prices will drop, but it will reach a point where the supply for that price is lower then the demand. So the price will rise again which means that his stuff will be sold.

Wanze.8410:

They already had the opportunity to sell at a lower price, when they made their first listing and they chose not to.

So? Why should they pay an additional fee on top of the money they already lost? The person who placed it at the right value is still better off since his listing fee is still smaller.

First I’m absolutely in favor for this system. It will be favorable for the seller and the buyer. The buyer will get the advantage of lower prices (since people are more likely to undercut his opponent), the seller gets the advantage of having the option to take a cheaper risk by placing a higher sell offer (they can’t exagurate too much because they still pay based on their highest selling offer). Eventually the price will become ‘balanced’.

Also I find saying that undercutting is out of the question and then ‘blaming’ the OP for placing at a too high price, is hypocritical. If you are being undercut then it just means you have have placed it a too high price, you’re own fault.

This is the place where Lord Faren tried to ‘heroically’ save the pact from a mordrem assualt. Unfortunatility for him his sneak attack from air failed after he ‘accidently’ revealed his position. A mordrem branch hit the wing of his airship forcing Lord Faren to ‘land’. The pact decided to honor the loss of a fine airship by naming the waypoint they managed to drop after it.

On a side note: Asuran scientist are stumped by the phenomenon known as lauging mordrem.