Virtuality.8351
-
Posts
276 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Virtuality.8351
-
-
@Swagger.1459 said:
@"Virtuality.8351" said:The idea comes from the discussion a few of us had across two threads (&) initiated by @JusticeRetroHunter.7684. In these posts, we and primarily JRH explored the potential and limit of a variety of effects of different nature and their application.A quick summary of th relevant part:- Several major properties of Positive Effects (or simply, Buffs) are here of our concern: their duration, stack-ability, interval of application, and number of affected allied targets.
- Take Superspeed and Stability fo example.2-1.for example. It's a buff that does not stack, of very limited duration and typically applied to 5 allies.2-2., on the other hand, is a buff that stacks in intensity, of medium duration and primarily shared to typically 5 but in one case ("Stand Your Ground!", or in short "SYG!")also 10 allies.2-3. In the conventional setup with 5 players in each Subgroup, Superspeed and Stability except in the case provided with "SYG!" would be evenly provided across all members in the Subgroup, provided that they are within the areas of the effect.2-4. Stability provided with "SYG!", however, will be provided first to the 5 Subgroup members, then also 5 other allies in the squad based on the rule of proximity, which potentially leads to uneven distribution of the effect.2-5. Now, instead of the current structure of 2 layers (Squad and its Subgroups), imagine a structure with 3 layers: Platoon, Squad and Party. Say, we have a group of 20 players. A Platoon of 20 players may consist of 2 Squads. Each Squad holds 2 Parties of 5 players. Effects are first prioritized for members in the Party, then other members in the Squad, then other members in the Platoon based on proximity, then to anything else. With this structure, players have better control over the distribution of effects when they are distributed with skills of 10 allied targets.2-6. It would look like this:PlatoonSquad #1
- Party #1-1Firebrand (Commander), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-2Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, TempestSquad #2
- Party #2-1Firebrand (Lieutenant), Scrapper, Revenant, Spellbreaker, Scourge
- Party #2-2Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Weaver, Tempest
Now, consider the case of Soothing Mist.3-1. Soothing Mist is an effect that does not stack, lasts for 10 seconds and is applied to 5 allies every 3 seconds.3-2. As @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 suggests in the, the effect is maximized when the source of the effect (i.e., the Tempest) is assigned to a standalone Subgroup under the 2-layered structure we currently have, in which case a maximum of ~13 allied players may receive the full effect. The reason is that, bynotbeing in a Subgroup with other allies in it, the effect is no longer guaranteed to be prioritized to the same group of allies and thus overlapping on top of the existing effect.3-3. This approach, however, leaves the Tempests more vulnerable, since there is neither a Firebrand nor a Scrapper in each of their Subgroup and thus Stability, Superspeed and other crucial effects are not guaranteed to be shared with them. Furthermore, when there are more than 1 Tempest in the group, the chance of overlapping of Soothing Mist increases.Squad- Subgroup #1Firebrand (Commander), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Subgroup #2Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge
- Subgroup #3Firebrand (Lieutenant), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Subgroup #4Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Weaver
- Subgroup #5Tempest
- Subgroup #6Tempest3-3. With a 3-layered structure provided with Platoon, however, the Tempests are at least guaranteed with Stability provided via "SYG!". On top of that, Soothing Mist from each source is now prioritized to the members of the same Squad, and the chance for the effect to overlap is decreased.PlatoonSquad #1
- Party #1-1Firebrand (Commander), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-2Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge
- Party #1-3TempestSquad #2
- Party #2-1Firebrand (Lieutenant), Scrapper, Revenant, Spellbreaker, Scourge
- Party #2-2Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Weaver
- Party #2-3Tempest
We'll look at one last example, Alacrity provided by Renegade. Here, I don't think further explanation is required.PlatoonSquad #1- Party #1-1Firebrand (Commander), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-2Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge,RenegadeSquad #2
- Party #2-1Firebrand (Lieutenant), Scrapper, Revenant, Spellbreaker, Scourge
- Party #2-2Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Weaver,Renegade
Please let me know how you think about this!There is nothing wrong with the current Target Priority design. Zero purpose to change something that works. There are also way bigger issues that the devs need to use money and time on, as opposed to something that doesn't need any fiddling.This is the priority list btw...Jon Olson- Programmer..."Priority is:1 Party/Subgroup2 Squad3 Allied players4 Your kennel5 Allied players’ kennels6 All other allies"Sorry if my post was not clear. I was not arguing to change the current priority system. Instead, I advocate to build on top of it to achieve better result in terms of both player experience and server load.
Plus, I do not think this change would be anyway development-intensive. It's just an enhanced structure of what we already have.
-
@Blockhead Magee.3092 said:I'd hate to put more computational pressure on wvw engagements. Lag is strong as it is.I'm no expert here, though I think this structure actually creates less load for the server than what we currently have. Think about this: a 10-target AoE skill will now provide its effect always to the same group of 10 people within the Squad, provided they are all within the radius, under 3-layered structure, and thus the server will not have to bother to calculate the proximity, which actually reduce the load.
@subversiontwo.7501 said:The current system is sufficient for how things should be.That we gained a number of 10-target skills was a mistake and something that initially carried over from PvE raids.Hopefully that is adressed with the balance patch and then that makes this entire suggestion redundant.@borgs.6103 said:I wanna go back to a time where 10 target skills are limited to the elite skill slot.
Not exactly relevant here, but yeah I can relate.
@XenesisII.1540 said:So what you're saying is boon balling will be even stronger...Yes, and I do not consider that a 'problem' to be addressed. Or rather, I have not yet seen any alternative that is actually better being proposed.
@Strider Pj.2193 said:So you aren’t actually asking an opinion. You have yours in the actual poll description itself, of course not trying to bias anyone....I am asking for opinion about my proposal, apparently.
@Loffels.5934 said:Personally, I think the system should be simplified down and re-worded.
Skills that are limited to 5 people should first prioritize those 5 people within the PARTY where the buff is originating, if they are in range, else be applied to the closest SQUAD member.
Skills that are capped to 10 people should operate the same way. Prioritize the 5 PARTY members of the originating group first, else just apply to the closest 10 SQUAD members.
If I understand correctly, this is exactly how the system currently works.
@kash.9213 said:I don't group up often and usually with some of the guild roaming around or with other usual floaters to communicate so I'm used to call outs at least being registered. Most squads and blob players already don't pay attention to Alert Targeting or other simple tools. Most people benefiting from your structure are just trying not to be popped out of their squads ball currently and are frantically trying to make sense of voice comms and keep up. I think most guilds at this point have finally figured out a comfort zone and would rather fill spots than create more. Nice write up though, not saying ditch the idea or anything.
Thanks! <3 Hopefully this structure will make it a bit easier for people.
-
The idea comes from the discussion a few of us had across two threads ([1] & [2]) initiated by @JusticeRetroHunter.7684. In these posts, we and primarily JRH explored the potential and limit of a variety of effects of different nature and their application.
A quick summary of th relevant part:
Several major properties of Positive Effects (or simply, Buffs) are here of our concern: their duration, stack-ability, interval of application, and number of affected allied targets.
Take Superspeed and Stability fo example.2-1. Superspeed for example. It's a buff that does not stack, of very limited duration and typically applied to 5 allies.2-2. Stability, on the other hand, is a buff that stacks in intensity, of medium duration and primarily shared to typically 5 but in one case ("Stand Your Ground!", or in short "SYG!")also 10 allies.2-3. In the conventional setup with 5 players in each Subgroup, Superspeed and Stability except in the case provided with "SYG!" would be evenly provided across all members in the Subgroup, provided that they are within the areas of the effect.2-4. Stability provided with "SYG!", however, will be provided first to the 5 Subgroup members, then also 5 other allies in the squad based on the rule of proximity, which potentially leads to uneven distribution of the effect.2-5. Now, instead of the current structure of 2 layers (Squad and its Subgroups), imagine a structure with 3 layers: Platoon, Squad and Party. Say, we have a group of 20 players. A Platoon of 20 players may consist of 2 Squads. Each Squad holds 2 Parties of 5 players. Effects are first prioritized for members in the Party, then other members in the Squad, then other members in the Platoon based on proximity, then to anything else. With this structure, players have better control over the distribution of effects when they are distributed with skills of 10 allied targets.2-6. It would look like this:
Platoon
Squad #1
- Party #1-1 Firebrand (Commander), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-2 Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Tempest
Squad #2
- Party #2-1 Firebrand (Lieutenant), Scrapper, Revenant, Spellbreaker, Scourge
- Party #2-2 Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Weaver, Tempest
Now, consider the case of Soothing Mist.3-1. Soothing Mist is an effect that does not stack, lasts for 10 seconds and is applied to 5 allies every 3 seconds.3-2. As @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 suggests in the thread, the effect is maximized when the source of the effect (i.e., the Tempest) is assigned to a standalone Subgroup under the 2-layered structure we currently have, in which case a maximum of ~13 allied players may receive the full effect. The reason is that, by not being in a Subgroup with other allies in it, the effect is no longer guaranteed to be prioritized to the same group of allies and thus overlapping on top of the existing effect.3-3. This approach, however, leaves the Tempests more vulnerable, since there is neither a Firebrand nor a Scrapper in each of their Subgroup and thus Stability, Superspeed and other crucial effects are not guaranteed to be shared with them. Furthermore, when there are more than 1 Tempest in the group, the chance of overlapping of Soothing Mist increases.
Squad
- Subgroup #1 Firebrand (Commander), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Subgroup #2 Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge
- Subgroup #3 Firebrand (Lieutenant), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Subgroup #4 Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Weaver
- Subgroup #5 Tempest
- Subgroup #6 Tempest3-3. With a 3-layered structure provided with Platoon, however, the Tempests are at least guaranteed with Stability provided via "SYG!". On top of that, Soothing Mist from each source is now prioritized to the members of the same Squad, and the chance for the effect to overlap is decreased.
Platoon
Squad #1
- Party #1-1 Firebrand (Commander), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-2 Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge
- Party #1-3 Tempest
Squad #2
- Party #2-1 Firebrand (Lieutenant), Scrapper, Revenant, Spellbreaker, Scourge
- Party #2-2 Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Weaver
- Party #2-3 Tempest
We'll look at one last example, Alacrity provided by Renegade. Here, I don't think further explanation is required.
Platoon
Squad #1
- Party #1-1 Firebrand (Commander), Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-2 Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Scourge, Renegade
Squad #2
- Party #2-1 Firebrand (Lieutenant), Scrapper, Revenant, Spellbreaker, Scourge
- Party #2-2 Firebrand, Scrapper, Revenant, Weaver, Renegade
Please let me know how you think about this!
P.S.
Regarding the concern about server load, I'll just quote myself here from my reply below:
@Virtuality.8351 said:
@Swagger.1459 said:How does adding in another layer of target priority reduce "server load"? There is a lot that goes into changes, and it's not like the devs can just snap their fingers to make things happen. And you also have UI work to consider...There is zero purpose to changing something that's working just fine.Please refer to my reply to another person above. Or rather, I'll just paste it here.@Virtuality.8351 said:@Blockhead Magee.3092 said:I'd hate to put more computational pressure on wvw engagements. Lag is strong as it is.I'm no expert here, though I think this structure actually creates less load for the server than what we currently have. Think about this: a 10-target AoE skill will now provide its effectalwaysto the same group of 10 people within the Squad, provided they are all within the radius, under 3-layered structure, and thus the server will not have to bother to calculate the proximity, which actually reduce the load.The idea is that it might reduce the need of proximity calculation, which is necessary when the number of targets of the skill exceeds the number of prioritized allies, by getting even more allies prioritized under the structure I proposed.As for the UI and so on, these are relativelylesslabor-intensive part of the development, compared to, say, skill design, animation, complex interaction between mechanics, etc. Plus, as you stated, we have something already fine as the base which we can build on top of. Not like it'd be a complete overhaul on everything.Also, I am bringing this up only because there is room for improvement. I agree the Squad function works well, or fine, as you'd prefer, but as stated in the title, this change could give players even better control over distribution of effects to allies, on top of the aforementioned side benefits.Regarding the concern that this might just divert the developers from addressing other major issues at hand with their already limited resources:
@Virtuality.8351 said:
@Swagger.1459 said:and this is what you want the devs to even bother with at this point.And I do see your concern over developmental priority in project management. Though I am not asking this to be implemented right away or even anytime soon. I, too, eagerly want to see other major issues, such as those you brought up, get properly addressed. This is just a post summarizing the issue a few of us have analyzed and identified, and proposing how this might be addressed. A time table was never included in the post.Putting the nonexistent time table aside, maybe you'd agree the proposal is at least something worthy in itself.
-
...since structures are technically passive pinatas anyway :P
A few examples of the functions mentioned in the title:
- Unsuspecting Foe (Warrior) - Increased critical-hit chance against disabled foes.
- Merciless Hammer (Warrior) - Hammer skills gain reduced recharge and deal increased damage when striking a disabled foe.
- Stormsoul (Elementalist) - Deal increased damage to disabled foes.
- Predator's Onslaught (Ranger) - You and your pet deal increased damage to disabled or movement-impaired foes.
The change may lead to:
- PvE: Players become even better against massive world bosses, such as Tequatl, Claw of Jormag and the Shatterer, whose hitboxes are technically structures.
- WvW: Rangers and Elementalists become even better at tearing down defensive siege weapons on the wall. Warriors become more efficient at raiding against siege weapons in the field.
Thoughts?
-
@Aeolus.3615 said:
@Virtuality.8351 said:Ascalonian Human with Spirit Weapons.That’s actually my pve firebrand LoL... and sometimes spvp XDSame here. And though unknowingly, the deity favored by my toon, which was created way before PoF, happens to be Kormir -- so yeah, a good reason for my toon to go Firebrand despite being while :P
-
@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:So if one revenant is able to provide a squad of 15 with all those glint buffs, rather than having 3 revenants to provide those glint buffs, you’ve compressed that particular job, freeing up 2 positions, in which you could run something else instead, like a jalis/x and a malyx/x or whatever other build or class you desire. It speaks more to the fact that it’s an optimization process, to squeeze as much as you can with as little resources available to you.
Before I continue, for those who might be reading and out of loop, we had another discussion also on the topic of effect sharing in WvW and its efficiency in another thread under the Revenant sub-forum. In case this interests you, here is the reference.
https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1141540#Comment_1141540
And, yes, I know we are in the sub-forum dedicated to Elementalists. Sorry for derailing :P
I am ambivalent about assigning a reduced amount of Boon Revenants into standalone sub-groups.
While most of the Boons the class provides stack in duration (Fury, Swiftness, Protection, Regeneration, Alacriy), and therefore their effect can potentially be maximized when assigned standalone, Might stacks in density and its effect thins out across all affected allies. If we go unconventional on this one by assigning a reduced number of Revenants to standalone sub-groups, we just might need additional source of Might just to make up and keep it at 25 stacks, which could take up additional slots in the squad if unable to be incorporated or compressed into other units.
There's also another point to consider. Under the current Boon-Stripping/Corruption meta, in terms of Boon management, it is as important to consider how fast one may recover the lost Boons, as to consider the maximum allies one unit is able to provide with continuous Boons.
We are running a mix of Tempests and Scrappers, which means that a greater portion of Conditions than convention get cleansed insteand of converted into Boons. Since conditions, particularly Torment and Weakness (which get converts into Might), are spammed under the current Scourge Bomb meta, less conversion means that we are more reliant on conventional Boon generation. This limits how far we can go on cutting and compressing source of Boon support, in this case, Revenants.
And last but not least, many guilds run with one Revenant per party just for Rite of the Great Dwarf. The sheer sustain the setup offers is just too much to give up.
Right. So in a setting where it’s hard to accommodate everyone (for example, scrappers stealth is based on 5 target limits, and is required to effect everyone with an even duration) means that there must always be a compromise like you said. The best we can do is do our best to optimize what we can.
Right now I’m working towards exploring all the possible ways in this line of optimization to see if it’s possible to create a super borked 15 man sub-party squad. But for now i have to think in terms of the confines of 5 man sub parties due to guardian and scrapper, which means having eles and perhaps boon/heal revs to be in standalone sub-squads. There’s definitely multiple avenues to explore outside of healers, but it’s a process to figure out what’s possible.
Also, I just came up with this idea. What we need is actually a new feature: Nested Subgroups. For example, a subgroup may consist of multiple, say, four parties. Two of those hold a Firebrand, a Scrapper, a Scourge and a Spellbreaker, while the rest hold a Tempest and a Revenant respectively. And a squad is composed of multiple subgroups like this. Boons are first prioritized to allies in the party, then the subgroup, and then the squad.
And we can actually achieve this by simply creating multiple squads and using them as subgroups. The driver will be off-tag and marked with Green Arrow across all squads, so people know who to follow, while the squad leader marked with Purple Circle.
So a medium-sized guild group might just look like this.
Squad #1 (Commander Frontliner Squad)
- Party #1-1: Firebrand (Commander, marked with Green Arrow across squads) , Scrapper, Berserker, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-2: Firebrand, Scrapper, Reaper, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-3: Tempest
- Party #1-4: Frontline Herald (Might source #1-1)
Squad #2 (Fireteam)
- Party #2-1: Firebrand (Fireteam leader, marked with Purple Circle within their own squad), Scrapper, Scourge, Scourge
- Party #2-2: Firebrand, Scrapper, Weaver, Backline Herald (Might Source #2-1), Alacrity Renegade (Might Source #2-2)
- Party #2-3: Tempest
Total: 20 players in 2 squads.
We are going asymmetric here in terms of Boon support, prioritizing on the Fire team by assigning double source of Might, so that we have better confidence in Might stacking for our primary source of damage. This is still far from how compressed you'd preferred (15 units per Revenant), though still a 33% improvement (20:3, or 6.67:1) over the convention (5:1).
The same goes if you look forward to a 13-unit squad. For example, and of course this is premature and to be further optimized:
Squad #1 (Commander Frontliner Squad)
- Party #1-1: Firebrand (Commander, marked with Green Arrow across squads), Scrapper, Spellbreaker
- Party #1-2: Firebrand, Scrapper, Berserker (which maintains high stacks of Might itself)
- Party #1-3: Firebrand, Scrapper, Reaper (which maintains 25 stacks of Might itself)
- Party #1-4: Firebrand (Marked with Red Heart, which is the designated support for members in the 4th to 7th party and whose position is where the latter should rally to as close as possible.)
- Party #1-5: Scrapper (Follows the Red Heart marker; designated support for members in the 4th to 7th party.)
- Party #1-6: Frontline Herald (Might source #1-1)
- Party #1-7: Tempest
Squad #2 (Fireteam)
- Party #1-1: Firebrand (Fireteam leader, marked with Purple Circle within their own squad), Scrapper, Spellbreaker, Weaver
- Party #1-2: Firebrand, Scrapper, Scourge, Scourge
- Party #1-3: Firebrand (Marked with Red Heart, which is the designated support for members in the 3th to 7th party and whose position is where the latter should rally to as close as possible.)
- Party #1-4: Scrapper (Follows the Red Heart marker; designated support for members in the 3th to 7th party.)
- Party #1-5: Backline Herald (Might Source #2-1)
- Party #1-6: Alacrity Renegade (Might Source #2-2)
- Party #1-7: Tempest
Total: 26 players in 2 squads. The overall unit-to-Revenant-support ratio is 26: 3, or 8.67:1, which is a step further.
-
@"Hannelore.8153" said:The truth is you'll be wasting your time, most of the time. This level of min/maxing requires coordination and small group play, which is much more common in PvE/PvP than it is in WvW due to the zergy, messy, noisy nature of the game mode.
The reality is that even with extreme coordination in squads, most battles come down to luck and skill. This is the kind of game mode where hitting the right skill at just the right time, and getting lucky that they don't block, evade, etc. will do 10,000 times more damage than min/maxing, because you can't just think about physical damage you have to keep in mind psychological damage like pressure, which leads to mistakes.
How dangerous an enemy is, is determined by how resiliant and adaptive they are, not their DPS. Because you can have all the DPS in the world and if someone figures out how to counter it, you're dead meat because there goes your whole game.
That's why hybrid builds that can do everything are optimal in WvW and always will be, so in the specific case taking sigils that have a guaranteed effect all the time will trump taking sigils which have situational conditions, even if they're less efficient. Individual battles will show some suprising results but when you average out all your battles you'll find there's usually a net loss rather than gain.
Its hard to explain, but you can't go by theorycrafting and benchmarks because they aren't real world results, and WvW is much closer to "real world" than any other game mode in GW2, even PvP which is designed to be highly artificial on purpose.
Sorry for the overblown explanation, but I hope it helps to understand.
I see your point on this, though I'd still disagree.
First, on min/maxing. I'd argue that min/maxing, as long as ones does not take it as far as building a glass cannon and so on, still to some extend helps. To me the discussion we had in this thread makes sense and only makes sense if the OP has already attained a certain degree of survivability, etc, that is, being hybrid to some extend. And we can always take the latter as the foundation and min/max on top of that to achieve desired result.
Secondarily, I do not agree that functions with a guaranteed effect always overweigh functions with situational conditions. Let's just take the case posed in this thread for example. The prerequisite of Sigil of Impact is successful movement-inhibiting CC, and when it comes to attrition, movement inhibition is in my opinion the single most important factor, because it isolates the target from its allies and prevents it from receiving stunbreaks and cleansing. And thus, exploiting on the opportunity seems to me crucial, because of course with a constant, guaranteed effect one may eventually end up outputting more overall damage, while downing and killing fewer, while maximizing (within a certain scope of trade-off) the chance of downing and even killing a target already hampered might actually create an advantage in sheer number. Damage, eventually, must translate into kills. If the way it is applied does not generate downed enemies, there's no point of such, and it must be taking into account while accessing loss and gain.
So, yeah, during the flux of an engagement, there are of course full of factors that we cannot control. That being said, it does not mean the the soundness of min/maxing or other approaches of theorycrafting is completely negated. There's still plenty that we can do to engineer for the best result under the given circumstances.
-
@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:Hi again,Oh hey :) Did not notice it was also you in the post on Herald's Boon distribution potential. Thanks for answering my questions, both of which happen to be related to the interaction of pulse mechanic and effect duration. I have to amid that I've never seen forced randomization of buff application possibly more beneficial and you really changed how I saw it. The idea that the inherent fluctuation in WvW is not merely a problem to be dealt with, but an opportunity that one can exploit to further enhance their performance really fascinates me. Kudos on this one!
I see in your screenshots that sometimes the Tempest(s) are assigned to a 5 to 8 unit squad, while sometimes standalone.Ya, I’m almost always the stand-alone ele. It’s not easy to convince people that running this way is the most optimal for the groups sake, that’s why the other ele’s are in their 5 man sub-squads...holding onto beliefs perpetuated since the beginning of the gameThat for me brings up another point though. Since Soothing Mist does not stack in either density or duration, there is always a loss of of healing potential due to overlapping Soothing Mist on allies already with the effect on them, and even more of such with multiple Tempests as healers in the squad. What would your take on this be?It seems to me that either we resize the sub-groups somewhere between 5 to 13 and place one Tempest healer in each of those, so that at least only overlapping from the same source occurs instead of from multiple sources, or we embrace the randomness, keep the conventional 5-unit structure while assigning each Tempest healers to their own standalone squad, hoping the effect more or less saturates (literally and figuratively hehe :P) the entire squad. After reading through this thread, I am more toward the latter.
-
Thanks for the analysis. This is gold.A question if I may. Does assigning the Tempest to a sub-group with less than 10 people really reduce the number of targets of Soothing Mist? That seems rather counter-intuitive to me. And, if it is confirmed true, where should Healing Tempests go in the Squad panel? I see in your screenshots that sometimes the Tempest(s) are assigned to a 5 to 8 unit squad, while sometimes standalone. And, do you still get proper Stability and all other benefits for personal survival without anyone else in your sub-group?Also, where does the number '13' come from?
Well that turned out to be more than just one, but anyway. Thanks in advance :)
-
As @steki.1478 suggests, depending on your current critChance and critDamage values, it is possible that Sigil of Accuracy yields higher and more consistent damage output. Although, I'd speak against the application of Sigil of Blood, for that, if my memory serves, it is single target.
Instead of calculating the general damage potential over an extended period of time, which simulates your output in a prolonged engagement as @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 demonstrated, I'd like to shift your focus toward short term damage potential.Meteor Shower, which is your major source of large scale burst damage, lasts for only 9 s, which means Sigil of Fire would proc only twice during its span, which really does not seem a lot to me. On the other hand, Sigil of Impact adds to all offensive spells you cast during the time frame, including everything you throw at your enemy, after finishing casting Meteor Shower and before the Shower ends. If you are running a Weaver build, that might be, for example, Lava Font, Pyroclastic Blast, Unsteady Ground, Eruption, and, depending on whether your allies require healing, Stone Tide or Earthen Synergy. I'd suggest a 3% to 10% damage bonus for all the skills enumerated above would easily outweigh the damage a five-target AoE unable to critically hit enemies could provide.
That being said, Sigil of Impact requires a well coordinated squad that can strip off Stability and CC at a designated spot (which is also where you land your Meteor Shower) to perform at its maximum potential. So you might also want to take the squad composition and organization into calculation.
-
Ascalonian Human with Spirit Weapons.
-
@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:You can maintain your boons on glint on up to at least 30-40 people at any given time via Draconic Echo, not just 10.
You can also maintain all boons on 15-20 at any given instant on people without Draconic Echo so that you can take Compassion instead.
Do people know this or is this news to most revenants? Seems like not many people knew that was a possibility.
How exactly?
-
@Stallic.2397 said:Ele signet : passively generate auras- every X sec.Active : gain all auras at once
@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:Well the Banner of Tactics was this prior to them removing the banner bundle skills. The should bring the bundle skills back and move tactics to the heal slot, or instead of the stat bonuses make it pulse healing per interval, something like 1.5k with a 5k burst heal on summon.
I've updated the OP with your proposal. Also, on Warrior's Banner Healing skill, how about we keep the Tactics theme in the Utility slot, rename the Precision and Ferocity one with Arms, while assigning Discipline to the Healing skill instead? I'm thinking about something as the following:
(On top of that, I'd suggest it also provides some other effect, such as 1-sec reduction of Weapon Swap for affected allies.)
-
@Aeolus.3615 said:Wait for the next skill changes.
I'm more toward having this proposal included in the next skill changes myself, but yeah. :P
-
This post is to advocate for new skills for the core professions, specifically for completing the missing Healing and Elite skills for several slot skill sets.
Since we are not expecting another expansion in the near future, and many of us are a bit tired of existing builds and combinations, maybe this is not a bad idea! (Particularly regarding that the rework of Traps skills of Thief into Preparation was very well received.) At least it should not be as much work as creating a new and complete elite specialization!
So, here is a list of slot skill sets with Healing and/or Elite skills missing. Proposals are welcome, and I'll update the post from time to time accordingly. See if we can develop on this idea.
Guardian
- Consecration: Missing Healing and Elite.Also, Shelter has been long plead for to be added to this skill set. Maybe this could be achieved with some modification?Say, it also provides a Light field that pulses Aegis periodically for a short span. This is how I personally imagine it to be:
Shelter (Cast: 1.5 s / Cooldown: 30 s)Block attacks while Healing. Create a shelter that heals and grant Aegis to allies.Self Healing: 4555 (0.7)Block Duration: 2 sAoE Duration: 2 sAoE Radius: 240AoE Heal: 1000 (1.0)AoE Aegies: 1 sAoE Interval: 1 sAoE Combo Field: Light(Only the AoE duration may be increased via Master of Consecrations)
- Spirit Weapon: Missing Healing and Elite.How about, say, Staff or Focus as the theme for Healing (and maybe another Spirit Weapon skin as well) and Greatsword for Elite? For the latter, I am thinking something like the picture of the tarot card, Ten of Swords. Also, maybe change the primary function of Bow of Truth. My suggestion as the following:
Bow of Truth (Cast: 0.5 s / Cooldown: 6 s) (Utility)Command the Bow of Truth to barrage a location with blinding arrows.Blindness: 2 sDamage (6x): 1596 (6.0)Numbers of Impacts: 6Number of Targets: 5Casts: 2Duration: 6 sCount Recharge: 25 sRadius: 360Combo Field: LightRange: 1200
Staff of Diligence (Cast: 0.5 s / Cooldown: 6) (Healing)Command the Staff of Diligence to heal and grant allies Alacrity.Alacrity: 2 sNumber of Targets: 5Casts: 2Duration: 6 sInterval: 1 sCount Recharge: 25Radius: 240Combo Field: LightRange: 900
Warrior
Banner: Missing Healing.This could also potentially make up for the lack of group healing skills for Warrior! Maybe rename Banner of Discipline to Banner of Arms so we can take the relieved name for the healing skill. My suggestion:
Banner of Discipline (Cast: 1 s / Cooldown: 80)Place a banner that heals allies and reduce the recharge on Weapn Swap. Picking up the banner reduces the recharge of this skill.Banner of Discipline (Effect): Heal 150 (0.2) every seconds. Reduce Weapon Swap cooldown by 10%. (Both effects are affected by Double Standards)Recharge Time Reduced: 60 s.Number of Allied Targets: 10Duration: Duration: 60 secondsEffective Radius: 600Combo Finisher: BlastRange: 600(Or, alternatively, the skill pulses Alacrity instead of reduce the recharge on Weapon Swap.)Also, per suggestion by Lan Deathrider.5910,Banner of Tactics (Cast: ? s / Cooldown: ? s)Heal allies and place a banner that continues healing for a short duration.Initial Healing: 5000 (?)Pulsing Healing: 1500 (?) (Split for PvP/WvW: Base Healing is to be halved while Healing Power coefficient is to be scaled up, presumably at least doubled.)Number of Targets: 10Duration: ? sInterval: ? s
Shout: Missing Elite.My proposal last year might be of interest here.
Stance: Missing Elite.With the existing Stance skills already covering a great variety of defensive and even offensive features, it is indeed difficult to come up a new idea for the missing elite skill. On the side note, before Rampage was included into the Physical set, I always thought it would fit the Stance set well. Maybe move Rampage to Stance and create a new Elite for Physical?
Revenant
No missing slot skills.
Engineer
- Gadget: Missing Elite.Something gimmick yet strong when it comes into play. Oh, and don't forget to include its corresponding Toolbelt skill if you are proposing!
Ranger
- Signet: Missing Healing and Elite.Post your proposal in the comment!
- Trap: Missing Elite.I've always thought that Entangle would go to the Trap category. Since the skills in this set have been pretty centered around condition damage and soft CC, maybe we can instead have something with Torment, Cripple, etc.
Thief
- Preparation: Missing Healing and Elite.It was a rework well received in terms of both function and visual effect. Would really like to see a complete set for this category.
- Signet: Missing Elite.Post your proposal in the comment!
Elementalist
- Arcane: Missing Elite.Something with good damage potential and short-to-none cast span would fit the theme. Also, it should not relate to any of the four elements, of course!
- Conjure: Missing Healing.This could become the Med Kit for Eementalist!
- Signet: Missing Elite.Per suggestion by Stallic.2397,
Signet of Aura (Cast: 0.5 s / Cooldown: 30 s)Passive: Gain Aura based on your current Attunement periodically.Active: Gain Auras of all four elements at once. (I wonder if it is technically feasible though. If a developer happens to swing by, would you help enlighten us here or maybe refer this question to someone with the knowledge? :))Interval: 20 s
Necromancer
- Spectral: Missing Healing.My suggestion:
Spectral FeastHeal yourself. Send out ghostly grasps toward foes within a certain radius, and gain Life Force periodically from them for its duration. (The effect can be mitigated by dodging, blocking, etc.)
- Signet: Missing Elite.Post your proposal in the comment!
- Well: Missing Elite.Drawing inspiration from the original Well Spell in Guild Wars 1:
Well of the Profane (Cast 1 s / Cooldown 60 s)Target area pulses, desecrates your enemies with conditions on yourself. Enemies with conditions on them cannot receive Boons. Enemies without a Boon on them takes more damage.Damage: 798 (3.0) (At the same rate as Well of Corruption.)Damage against Boonless Foes: 1596 (6.0) (At the same rate as Well of Suffering.)Life Force: 1%Conditions Copied: 3 (per pulse)Curse of the Profane: 1s (A new, special Effect that prevents Boons from being applied if the affected target has at least one Condition on them)Number of Targets: 5Pulse: 1 sDuration: 5 sRadius: 360Combo Field: DarkRange: 900Unblockable
Mesmer
- Mantra: Missing Elite.NEED MORE YOGA! There are a great variety of yoga poses that may serve as inspiration here.
- Glamour: Missing Healing.Something that heals, and perhaps provides some other effect, with a field of Light or Ethereal which lasts for several seconds, while not overlapping the function of Well of Eternity.
- Clone and Phantasm: Missing Healing and Elite.Maybe merge these two categories into one named 'Illusion'. Also, modify and move Ether Feast into this category since its clone related? Also, it would be nice if we get another Phantasm for Elite.
Ether Feast (Cast: 1 s / Cooldown: 20 s)Heal yourself. Gain additional health for each active clone. Summon a Clone if you do not already have one (after the healing effect is applied).Breaks Enemy TargetingHealing: 5560 (1.0)Heal per Clone: 640 (0.1)
- Consecration: Missing Healing and Elite.Also, Shelter has been long plead for to be added to this skill set. Maybe this could be achieved with some modification?Say, it also provides a Light field that pulses Aegis periodically for a short span. This is how I personally imagine it to be:
-
@XenesisII.1540 said:But it wouldn't be wvwvw anymore.
Well that is true to a certain degree, since we will no longer have a fixed 'World'. Though I believe the experience will be the same, if not better, and thus still merits its name?
-
@Strider Pj.2193 said:But what number do you set the limit for ‘guilds’ to queue up together?
10?25?50?Map queue?
My idea so far would be as the following:
A guild may create a 'WvW-Specific Squad' (similar to Raid Specific Squad; guild members only; 10 members at the minimum) to rally up members who are going to participate. Then 10 minutes before the match starts, the squad leader of the guild may 'sign up' for it.
Say, if a map is capped at 100 vs 100 vs 100. The guilds that have signed up for the match with the longest roaster of participating members will be taken in to the World/Team roaster first. Similar sized guilds will be distributed across different World/Team for the match as evenly as possible. Maybe something as below:
Team A
- Squad 1: 40
- Squad 2: 15
- Squad 3: 10
Team B
- Squad 1: 50
- Squad 2: 20
Team C
- Squad 1: 35
- Squad 2: 30
The system will stop filling guilds any team with new guilds at ~70% capacity to save spots for roamers and party-sized groups to hot-join.
There will be no map queue. If more guilds have signed up at the same period than one map could hold, a new map will be created. This will certainly happen during prime time. The matchmaker will try at is best throughout the 10 minutes before the match starts to find the best distribution for the most equal matches.
What do you think?
-
@subversiontwo.7501 said:As far as guild distribution goes it could be a good system. The pitfalls comes with the individual players, how to calculate contribution, and not make the system feel anonymous and pointless to them (which is a discussion on it's own since an MMO is not meant to be played anonymously alone and if a system instills that feeling in people who do, that isn't necessarily something unfair; however, if negativity can be avoided that is obviously always the superior route, even if people bring said negativity upon themselves).
I think add-ons like arcdps (or potentially similar function to be implemented officially by ArenaNet developers) have already met your demand. People can see their on output as well as other people in the same group/vicinity and have their own evaluation.
If there must be something, this is what I have been thinking so far.
There will be 2 different system.
- Scoreboard, which is related to completing certain objectives, such as successfully capturing or defending territory. It may also determine material rewards or titles and other things as rewards.
- Rating, which is related to combat efficiency, such as K/D rate, damage output, healing output, boon uptime maintenance, and so on. It may also serve as a balance factor for the new matchmaking system.
Both guilds and individual players will have their own Scoreboard and Rating. If people still feel like having a global Scoreboard and Rating as what we currently have for each World/Team, they can have that too. And if people feel like some fame would be nice, a leaderboard similar to what we currently have in PvP may be presented.
-
@Stand The Wall.6987 said:this is sounding a lot like straegens idea of 6 hour (example number) time slots that separates servers into tiers based on population within said slot. so a server could have t1 presence during na prime and be in t3 during eu.
@Stand The Wall.6987 said:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/87267/8-hour-matches#latest
Well then yes and no. Straegen's plan is still based on Servers as Worlds, while in my proposal I prefer the new matchmaking mechanics the developers are working on. Also a match that lasts for 6 or 8 hours to me still seems way too impractical. Typically a guild can only run so long through the evening, maybe 3 to 4 hours at the maximum, before the squad starts to lose people.
Skimming through the linked thread, I consider my proposal more similar to Edge of the Mist, as KeyOrion suggested, with an improved matchmaking system and scoreboard/rating system.
-
@Stand The Wall.6987 said:this is sounding a lot like straegens idea of 6 hour (example number) time slots that separates servers into tiers based on population within said slot. so a server could have t1 presence during na prime and be in t3 during eu.
Sorry I have not been consistently following this forum. May I have a link to said idea for reference please?
-
So, this is something I come up with while doing my dishes. Everything is about to be proposed here is still very premature and all inputs and critics are welcome.
For TL;DL, skip 'Premise' and straight to the 'Deconstructing WvW' and 'Introducing Mega-Server' section.
Premise
The game mode has been long plagued with two major issues related to the server-based matchmaking system and the score system.
First of all, it is indeed technically impossible to balance population and time zone difference among different servers. Speaking from a player's perspective, we hardly log in and just get an equal match, and when we do, it slips away the next match comes up, if not just next weekend for some major guild decides to black out, or even just next hour due to off time and prime time.
Next, the score system simply does not reflect the effort players and guild/communities commits. You maybe having a great time and some successful result tonight, sure. But then, the next evening you log in and find your server scoring the third, and all objectives you spent time to hold and tier up yesterday lost, simply due to lack of coverage by and organization of players from different time zone during your daytime.
The developers aim to tackle these issues with the upcoming restructuring. We will be distributed into different 'Worlds' no longer based on the server we are in. Instead, a new system, Alliance, will become the new standard. [1]
Now, I am not going into every single detail about the new system. In case anyone is still new or out of loop, please refer to the link above. What I intend to propose here is that, the new system still kinda misses the point. You see, we will still be getting 'Seasonal Matches', some fixed, non-dynamic distribution of the playerbase for an extensive period of time (based on the info at hand, 8 weeks, or a 'Season'). But, say, what if during the span some guild just for any reason decides to take a time off or restructure or simply dissolve? What if a new episode of living story comes up and some players just get diverted?
Equal matches will never be created for an extensive period of time like this, and a World-based score system will never truly reflect the effort individual guilds/communities and players put in. To put a score on a real-time world persisting through 24-7 is way too demanding for the community overall, and overestimating the organizational power of the latter. The only server we've ever seen to have been consistently achieving such is Blackgate, and none.
No more fixed 'World'. No more Seasons. No more expectation of cross-timezone organization. No more obligatory participation throughout the match and the stress comes with it. No more non sense score system that does not reflect the performance of you and your community.
What the playerbase of the game mode need is something different, something real-time. A match-making system that is based on the population at the moment, and distribute the players accordingly for the moment.
Deconstructing WvW
What is fundamental to this game mode? Not for scores. Not for material rewards.
People play WvW to fight, together with other people, against other people. This is what constitutes the core of the experience. The entire game mode is centered around communities, however the size of which may be.
We need a system built around it. The Alliance system proposed by the developers is a good step forward to the right direction, but we need an even more radical approach. Matchups should be consistently more or less equal at any given moment, and scores should reflect the performance of the guilds/communities so that they can finally become meaningful.
Introducing Mega-Server
Imagine this.
A system that does not create 'World', that is, a fixed distribution of the playerbase over an extensive period of time, but rather, a system that creates matches based on more or less real-time population.
A system without a global, 'World-wide' scoreboard, but scoreboard for individual players and guilds.
How may this be achieved? We already have the tool at hand: the Mega-Server system. A system that creates maps according to the real-time population at hand.
Instead of 'Worlds' and 'Seasons' that last over weeks and 24-7, we will be getting far shorter match-ups -- each lasting for only 2 or 3 hours max with a new map generated for its duration. A guild may 'Sign Up' for a match within 10 minutes before the match starts with a roaster of participating members, and the system will create matches accordingly, similar to how the developers currently plan. Several similar sized guilds will be pitched against each other, in addition to individual roamers and party-sized groups, which may participate without signing and just hot-join to be automatically distributed to a random match.
During the 2 or 3 hour match, a score system will record the performance of you as individual, as well as your guild, and put a score/rating and perhaps even game-mode specific rewards accordingly. Say, guilds may earn special rewards for completing objectives in a match. Heck, maybe even new guild missions to provide goals and step up the competition!
Plus, only a necessary amount of maps will be created at any given moment, so the chance of dead, empty maps should be minimized, and ArenaNet can power off some of its servers during off-time to save the planet. <3 (and perhaps their electricity bill :P)
This way, we get far better match-ups, far better experience, far more true score system to your performance, far better community building. This is the WvW as players want it to be.
(Some tweaking will certainly have to be implemented though, such as lower amount of delivery per tier required to tier up an objective and such, new, smaller maps for matches during off-time, guild-based-only squad system in the game mode. But those will be easy to solve.)
-
So, maybe we can conclude that:
while countermeasure as a mean to balance, to truly achieve diversity, players' decision-making based on opportunity cost must be taken into consideration. Providing attractive or even mandatory alternatives alone will not solve the problem; the developers must also reduce the opportunity cost by, in this case, making sure that no class can alone serve different roles effectively at the same time (i.e., Scourge must not be effective on both offense and defense/support at the same time).
-
@Dadnir.5038 said:ANet took a balance direction that does not analyse fully the issue in WvW. In itself, neither barrier nor the coverage of the scourge are an issue. The issue is that a high level of support associated to an equaly high damage potential made stacking scourges a must. If ANet really wanted to open room for other professions in WvW zergs, they just had to remove the damages from the shades (because, obviously, since the core necromancer offer no other defensive option than the shroud, the shades have to offer defense to the scourge).
Neither druid nor ventari revenants were ever stacked for the good reason that they sacrifice their damage to be able to support, if you want scourge to not be stacked, scourge simply need to sacrifice it's damages as well. And it's not by modifying healing coefficient on barrier that it will ever be achieved.
I agree. Though until the release of the next lineup of elite specialization, I do not think we'd see its support aspect decoupling its offensive one.
Well, at least not per elite specialization. In practice, I do think there are means to make sure that, while packing both offense and defense, the specialization can only be good at either one, instead of both, at the same time.
One mean we had seen as the developers originally proposed, was to scale down the base value of all crucial functions that make Scourge fulfill its two different roles, only allowing them to shine if associated traits are selected or gears providing relevant attributes are equipped. In this case, we had reduction of the base value of its Barrier skills, at the same time increase in scaling on Healing Power (which was added in the later announcement after my suggestion <3; glad to know the developers do collect feedbacks), so that Power/Condition DPS Scourges can no longer provide as much Barrier support as before, while a spot is retained for dedicated Healer/Support Scourge.
And I believe the same approach is viable as well for other support features and even offensive features of this class. This is also probably the only way we get this issue properly addressed, before the release of next expansion and with it a new elite specialization that can maybe take one of Scourge's two major functions away from it.
-
@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:Will the 50% damage from this trait be too much? Or is the threat of this trait Anet trying to dissuade barrier spam?
There are plenty of you on the warrior forums that can't see dropping defense or discipline for tactics, so will the rarity of this trait being taken be self balancing enough to justify the numbers?
I do not think rarity alone would ever justify design decisions. It is precisely how people react to design decisions, and one does not justify with such for two reasons: a), years of experience have shown that players do not always react to balance changes as the developers intend them to, and b) even if players react as the developers intend, why on earth would the developers intend to get poor reception from their player base? Wouldn't that already suggest a huge sign of failure for them to make something desirable and practical?
Plus, I do not think Barrier spam would ever be successfully dissuaded, since its excess has been more often than not unintentional. In WvW, few Scourge players gear up for Barrier support, yet we still regularly witness overabundance of Barrier. (In an earlier announcement on Sept. 13, a plan was proposed to reduce base Barrier value while increase its scaling with Healing Power. Later in the Oct. 1 announcement, the plan was scrapped and instead we get this Anti-Barrier specialist.) At the very least, as long as there are several people in the group playing Scourge, one would inevitably end up with some shared Barrier on them. And since Scourge is apparently too good an asset to give up upon, there will always be a spot for dedicated Anti-Barrier role.
Would people actually take it though? In other threads you and several others have come up with new tactics, with a few warriors coordinating with each other and focus firing at the same time on the same target, etc. To get the best result, these Warriors will most likely stick with Strength, so either Defense or Discipline will be dropped. Or maybe, the elite specialization. In any case, they'd be more vulnerable and more dependent on support provided by allied Firebrands and Scrappers than what people have been running, only to be made up with Whirlwind Attack with the new Martial Cadence. To make the most out of the 6 s Unblockable effect duration with Signet of Might, They also have to time well and target well, preferably aiming at those close to or within reach of your Scourges, in order for them to follow up after you break through the Barrier and to out-damage the healing, which could be aided with Leg Specialist with Aimed Shot. That seems to me a great lot of effort required than what we currently have. Only in actual combat one could tell if it is worth all these effort.
When it comes to balancing something unique and thus having nothing else directly comparable, I think one needs to look at what countermeasures is available at hand to us. Either people double down on group Barrier, which to me seems unlikely since the relevant skills generally do not scale so well with Healing Power (though we will have to wait until Tuesday to see the numbers on Warhorn skills), or seek to get more group damage reduction. And for the latter we have our good old Frontline Herald with Rite of the Great Dwarf, which requires no investment in attribute points, and, if timed well (when the Barrier is decaying or close to be depleted), could preemptively minimize the threat of being one-shot by opponents with the trait. That, of course, requires coordination, though not as much as the Anti-Barrier Warrior required.
[POLL] Dear developers, the Squad function is awesome, but a Platoon would be even better.
in World vs. World
Posted
Technically a full Squad we have is about the size of a Platoon already. What I am trying to do is split it into smaller units. And this might actually improve the control the commanders have. Take the following as example:
The commander may assign more frontliners into the first squad and lead them, while more backliners in the second squad and have them follow the Lieutenant.
...which is completely irrelevant to the issue we are trying to tackle here, ugh. Maybe you can start a thread on that topic.
I think the majority of the people who voted and/or replied here did not even know what this post is all about. Many of them just jumped in trying to fix something I've never said or bringing up things completely irrelevant here. The quality of discussion under this sub seems to differ from the profession sub, sadly.
Also, great example there.
Please refer to my reply to another person above. Or rather, I'll just paste it here.
The idea is that it might reduce the need of proximity calculation, which is necessary when the number of targets of the skill exceeds the number of prioritized allies, by getting even more allies prioritized under the structure I proposed.
As for the UI and so on, these are relatively less labor-intensive part of the development, compared to, say, skill design, animation, complex interaction between mechanics, etc. Plus, as you stated, we have something already fine as the base which we can build on top of. Not like it'd be a complete overhaul on everything.
Also, I am bringing this up only because there is room for improvement. I agree the Squad function works well, or fine, as you'd prefer, but as stated in the title, this change could give players even better control over distribution of effects to allies, on top of the aforementioned side benefits.