Crinn.7864

I have for a long time been of the opinion that all boons and all conditions should be rebalanced to stack intensity not duration, and that boon-to-condition and condition-to-boon conversions should convert equivalent stack quantities. i.e. 3 might corrupts into 3 weakness wherein 1 stack of weakness equals 2% glancing and endurance redux.

No, they should absolutely return the damage to all CC weapons skills. That change was stupid then, and is still stupid now. We can debate the merits of returning damage to utility CCs.

Ranger because pulsing immobilizes need to kitten off.

This is a very odd time to be complaining about corrupts. Since the feb 2020 patch halved the amount of boon corrupts and the duration of boons, no necro even bothers building for corrupts. Lets look at the modern necro builds: Core condi necro: Has 2 corruption skills; Scepter 3 and Dagger 5. 1 boon apiece. Might have a double corrupt if they took path of corruption trait, however Terror seems to be more popular these days. Scourge: Same as core. Spectral Reaper. Axe 3 only. Single corrupt. The only class that is majorly affected by modern necro's corrupts is warrior as warrior exclusively produces might and has no cover boons, thus every single corrupt will hit the warrior's might. This is a warrior only problem. This is also why nerf weakness threads are exclusively written by warrior mains.

Because whenever a "nerf weakness" thread shows up, it's always a warrior main that posted it. Every single time. With the exception of the rev stuff, all of those things you linked have been around since before the specialization update in 2014. This is not a balance problem. Throwing nerf requests at random stuff is not making sPvP any better. They literally halved the duration of weakness application on most skills in the feb. 2020 patch. If they make it anymore "tactical" it literally won't exist.

This is objectively incorrect. All necros will continue using staff even if Soul Marks is deleted because there is no other option for that slot. Core necro has 3 mainhands (axe, scepter, dagger) and 1 two handed weapon. (staff) Mainhand dagger is nonviable in all gamemodes so in practice necro only has 3 options for 2 weapon slots. Axe and Scepter are polar opposites the former is a pure power weapon and the latter is a pure condition weapon. As such there really isn't any reason to have both on a build. Thus the only sane weapon combinates are Axe/x + Staff for power builds and Scepter/x + Staff for condition builds. Now lets look at elites. Scourge is a given an offhand torch and comes in either condi dps or support flavors. Since torch is offhand only it doesn't compete with anything scourge is pigeonholed into scepter/x + staff for all gamemodes. Reaper is a given a Greatsword which *is* a viable alternative to staff, and you will periodically encounter Axe+GS Reapers is SPvP. (I am one of those.) Harbinger is given a MH pistol, however both pistol and scepter are 900 range pure condition weapons and as such are competing against each other rather than competing with staff.

Between HoT and megabalance necro was competitive due to having a monopoly on boon corruption in an era defined by extreme boon uptime. ArenaNet in their infinite wisdom have since decided to halve boon uptime, eliminate concentration, and halve the amount of corruption necro has access to. As such necromancer's old claim to viability no longer exists and necro don't even run corruption builds anymore because there is no point. If necromancer is reduced to it's pre-megabalance level of relative survivability, then the class would simply cease being usable and would join warrior in the "Why would you even play this?" Who is using rune of speed on necro? The choice runes for necro right now are +10% HP runes because such runes are amazing on a class whose sustain scales almost linearly with HP pool.

For our purposes the config isn't what you want to be looking at. You want to be looking at the Pseudo-Code which is the next section on the wiki page. The relevant function being the scoreRoster function at the bottom. def scoreRoster(roster, team, maxRosterSize, config): score = 0 # adjust score by time queued score += roster.age * config.age.seconds # adjust score by rating difference distance = abs(team.averageRating - roster.rating) score += distance * config.rating.distance # adjust score by games played difference distance = abs(team.averageGames - roster.games) score += distance * config.rating.distance # adjust score by rank difference distance = abs(team.averageRank - roster.rank) score += distance * config.rank.distance # adjust score by roster size difference distance = abs(maxRosterSize - len(roster)) score += distance * config.rosterSize.distance # adjust score by profession counts for profession in allProfessions: # roster has none of these professions if roster.count(profession) == 0: continue # too many of the same profession totalCount = roster.count(profession) + team.count(profession) if totalCount > config.professions.max: score += (totalCount - config.professions.max) * config.professions.common # otherwise favor the variety elif team.count(profession) == 0: score += config.professions.unique return score Unfortunately, even this doesn't tell us what we want to know because we need to know how roster.rank and roster.rating are implemented. No other information is given. There is the XPath section which has definitions for Scoring/Rating/@distance and Scoring/Rank/@distance. I have no experience with XPath and I don't know if it is referring to the same thing and the pseudo-code or not. If it is, then your position is correct. However I have a very distinct memory of ArenaNet patching the ranked matchmaker to only use the highest player in the group due to people exploiting the hell out of it. IIRC this was sometime in the early seasons.

Ranked PvP uses the highest rated player's rating. It does not average. Unranked however does use an average.

I'm convinced ArenaNet was so traumatized by the power creep disaster that HoT and PoF releases where that they are terrified of giving EoD specs anything without a dozen tradeoffs.

Elixer heal is objectively better than consume unless the enemy team is heavy on condition damage. Elixer elite is also good. Elixer of Bliss is also decent, although I don't understand why Anet put the Resolution boon on a skill that dumps 5 conditions. What makes Harbinger totally unplayable however is that they put the charge skill on shroud 3 instead of shroud 2. Are they seriously really going to force me to unlearn 5 years of muscle memory?

Every single time

The problem with your entire system is that you are assigning value to actions while ignoring that the value of various actions varies wildly with context. My system does not assign value to actions, but instead only gives value to the outcome of actions. Outcomes are definitive and quantifiable. Actions are neither. Your system would just result in players never wanting to push nodes for fear of getting point screwed. Let say you have two evade spam weavers fighting a eternal 1v1 on a neutral node. After awhile a thief shows up and stabs one of the weavers to death. Under your system both the weaver and the thief get equal credit for scoring the kill. Under my system the thief gets the bulk of the credit, since he the one that scored the kill. See the difference? Like if I'm in a blowout match under your system, the best thing for me to do is to go cap close and sit on it. I don't want to push any enemy nodes because I would just get penalized and since the match is tending towards a blowout I just want to cut my losses via holding that one node for my value points. My system gives better rewards to those who go above and beyond, while players that contribute what is expected of them get the expected reward.

The invisible/positive/negative distinctions are irrelevant. 1.) Decaps/caps should only give points to the capper up until the node is contested again. Once a node is contested it should only give it points to the currently defending players. Players contesting a neutral node should get 1PPS. Players contesting a friendly node should get 2PPS. (1 for the node not being in enemy hands, and 1 for it being in your team's hands)2.) Points should not be awarded for merely being in a fight, as per #1 a player is already gaining points for simply fighting over a neutral or friendly node. Extra point rewards are superfluous as simply being in a fight is not necessarily contributing to winning.3.) Fighting on a enemy node does not need a penalty as the penalty is already there the form of the player not gaining points for defending as per #1.4.) Points awarded per kill should be distributed by a player's eDamage* against the target. If player 1 has 60% of the eDamage dealt to the killed foe and player 2 has 40% of the eDamage dealt to the killed foe, then player 1 gets 3 points of the 5, and player 2 gets 2 points of the 5. If you count kills via tags such as you currently have proposed, you'll just have thieves running around tagging everything.5.) death penalty is too heavy handed. A 5 point loss is enough, moreover there should be a 2 point loss for friendly players within 1500 range for failing to peel for their downed comrade. If you leave the death penalty as you currently propose you end up with stuff like a Scourge getting screwed over pointwise because his team's firebrand is a moron.6.) Fighting outnumbered should not just give points. Whether or not fighting outnumbered is advantageous is highly situational, if your team has players on respawn then you being outnumbered is contributing nothing. *eDamage = Effective Damage. eDamage = Damage Dealt to Target - Healing Target Received. So if you hit a enemy for 5k and the enemy then heals himself for 4k, then your eDamage is 1k. If you DO NOT use eDamage, you end up with players getting lots of damage credit for beating their face on a bunker for 3mins, while the guy that runs in a bursts the target down would get little credit. eDamage insures that credit is distributed only to players that where actually responsible for killing the target, and not give credit to players that are just tagging. Having the value be the only measure towards the leaderboard is also going to be ripe for abuse, as players would basically try and find whichever class is best for farming value points. A better system is this: At the end of the match the values of all the players on a team are added up. You can then compare each individual player's value against the total value of their team to get each player % of team value. We can expect each player to contribute 1/5th of their team's value. If a player has more value than 1/5th then they get bonus rating equivalent to how much above the expected 1/5th they are. If a player gets less than 1/5th of the team's value then they get less rating. If a player gets exactly 1/5th then you give them the exact glicko2 rating change. that they would have gotten if our system didn't exist. In the case of a loss the player's with above expected value loose less rating than the player with below expected value.

It works perfectly fine for me if I input correctly from my side. And my ping is about 100-150. The reaction time of a college aged person typically around 0.25 seconds for a visual cue and 0.2 seconds for a audio cue. Adding 100ms of ping to that brings it up to 0.35 seconds for a visual cue and 0.3 seconds for a audio cue. I 100% guarantee that you can not reactively dodge a 0.25 second cast.