Zenix.6198

I have been wondering about this for YEARS already. Like, for certain conditions (bruning i.e.), the Death-Breakdown in PvP shows insane numbers at times (like 6-digit numbers).Is this a correct display, or is there maybe a calculation error? Could be a remnant of the Core-game system where conditions like burning didnt stack in intensity but by duration.

Thanks for pointing this out.The number in my initial post seemed quite low to me to begin with. Couldn't put my finger on why tho.This makes perfect sense however.Edited my initial post accordingly.

honest question, do you even understand how toughness works? What exactly do you disagree with here? If I take a 22k without toughness now, and 18k with toughness, I’m dead either way so it’s a wasted stat. Large HP pool professions can also get the largest potential benefit from toughness in extended fights because they can take the most hits and thus mitigate the most damage over time. But in most cases that extra toughness won’t matter as much as their ability to heal/generate life force/barrier over the course of a fight. I’d see more opportunities in a damage reduced meta for toughness to matter more to those high damage scenarios and also for extended fights. You’re not just getting “two or three ticks” of a healing signet. That’s the wrong comparison. The right comparison is, because you get that off each and every attack, how much HP that saves you over your whole HP bar plus healing. If you can‘t heal, because you got killed 100% to zero without a chance, that’s much less HP and comparatively much less HP wiggle room for toughness to help. This is quite correct.Toughness makes Healing "more valuable" in a sense if you take EHPs (Effective Health Pool) into account.Effective Health Pools basically combine Armor and HP into a single stat that shows how much (raw) damage you can take before dying. If we go with Necro as an example: Necro A with 900 extra vitality and 0 extra toughness (carrion i.e.) has 28.212 HP.Necro B has 0 extra vitality and 900 extra toughness (rabid i.e.) has 19.212 HP. BUT since 900 toughness equals about ~33% damage reduction, that means that necro B only takes 66% of every power damage flung at it. Thin in turn means, that the damage that is needed to kill necro B (100% of any one value) has to be 50% higher (150% * 0.66 = 100%) than it is for necro A.Therefore Necro B effectively has 28.818 HP against power damage. More than Necro A. Now if both Necros would use their heal skill, Necro B would actually get more value (50% more value in this example) out of it, because heals restore a flat amount of HP and not EHP. Then again, You would need pretty high amounts of toughness and healing to reach value-levels that beat flat out HP increases. (A stat combo the devs have gone down HARD on in HoT).Also, the fact that Armor rating does nothing against condies has to be considered. Edit: Old cleric Tempest is a good example of Toughness beating vitality, since Diamond Skin took care of conditions and the earth traitline added extra toughness and damage mitigation, to the point were you could survive outnumbered situations on 11k HP simply because each of your heals restored a massive percentage of your EHP. Edit#2: A calculation error for the EHP.

Im actually not sure about that.Their survivability took a (much needed) hit for sure, but the dmg nerfs seem kinda in line with the rest of the classes and for some skills even on the light side. Take deathstrike for instance. The scary part of this skill never was the initial port, but the flipover. And that "only" received a 15% cut.How big the shackling wave nerf is, is to be seen I suppose, since only the initial hit lost it's damage, but the secondary strikes didn't.The auto chain and #3 sword skills seem to be in line with the general -33% theme. A lot of Rev's future damage potential also hinges on their might uptime, which did get cut to be fair AND on how the sword #2 rework turns out.But overall....I'd say their damage nerfs seem to be pretty average compared to all the other classes changes.

The first comment in the entire thread that actually makes sense.

Except its stab on ONE dual skill PER WEAPONSET.But sure, EvEn MoAR OhPEE

Counter spec into counter-couter spec into counter-counter-counter spec into counter-counter-counter-counter spec into ....

From what I have gathered Might, Stability and Quickness are the big losers in this patch (good riddance btw.).The removal of the concentration Amulets is kinda w/e since they didn't really see much play to begin with.Boon duration from runes tho, is quite substantial as well.Like, Runes that gave a maximum of 50% duration increase to specific boons will now only give 20% (which is a 60% nerf).Runes that gave maximum general Boon duration have received a similar treatment (i.e. Leadership from 25% to 10%). Couple that with generally lower base durations and the nerf will be felt even harder. Just as an example:Elementalist's Pyromancer's Puissance base might duration went down from 10s to 6s.If you ran might duration runes (50% increase) pre-patch that would have been 15s of might.After the patch with a 20% to a 6s base duration would result in ~7.25s of might.So even a bit lower than half.

Hate to break it to you, but that is pure bias coupled with intense overreaction. Yes, Mesmer has quite a few CCs....but almost all of them barely do any damage to begin with.0.2 on illusionary Wave; 0 dmg on Diversion, 0 dmg on Mantra of distraction; 0.2 on Magic bullet, 0 on focus pull.I guess an argument can be made for gravity well....but thats about it.On top of that Power Block didnt even lose damage. (Just some weakness duration). Mesmer CCs aren't part of its damage, they enable it (which is the gold standard for this patch).

While yes, the almost 100% increase in CD to twist of fate is quite massive, I don't think it is unwarranted.Personally I expected at least a 50% increase to it's CD but what can you do. And tbh...without the stab trait, this skill actually isn't that good to begin with (even with the current CD).Personally I will probably just switch to another stunbreak, like mistform, armor of earth or arcane shield.Considering those are close-ish to the CD range of current ToF ....you effectively lose 1 stunbreak and 1 dodge / 75s (which is laughably bad) and can substitute with either a 3x block, a 3s invuln, or massive stab and prot on demand.

No, you are right but we are touching on different things.I guess some of my "toughness" words are used for "4-stat amulets with toughness in it", for example demolisher and paladin. Since it's a percentage damage reduction, if you get hit by a higher damage attack, your toughness does more work.So, if the total damage is nerfed, toughness loses value as a stat since it'll block x% of a lower damage skill instead of x% of a higher damage skill. ah okayye, in terms of absolute number reductions, this seems like a fair point.Thanks for clarifying.

I might be completely misunderstanding your post here....but I really don't get why you would argue for Toughness being more or less viable after the patch. From my understanding, armor rating is a %-based damage reduction. So even if amulet values change for the patch, the general value of any one unit of armor will stay the same (since Anet didn't touch the damage formula). The damage formula according to the wiki: (Weapon strength Power Power coefficient) / (Targets Armor) Since the only value in this equations denominator is the Armor value, you can treat this value as %-based reduction. Some napkin math We assume the following:Weapon strength is equal to the midpoint of a 1H weapon: 922.5 (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Weapon_Strength) We assume a Power stat of 2050 and make our calculations with a Power coefficient of 1.0/2.0/3.0 respectively We compare 2 armor ratings:Armor Value A = 2167 (which is the base armor of a heavy armor class without any bonus toughness)Armor Value B = 2727 (which is the base armor of a heavy armor class WITH 560 extra toughness) For simplicity we call the (Weapon strength Power Power Coefficient) portion of the equation "Gross Damage". Power coeff. of 1.0:Gross Damage = 1.891.125 for Armor A (2167) that equals: 872,7 damagefor Armor B (2727) that equals: 693,5 damage Power coeff. of 2.0:Gross Damage = 3.782.250 For Armor A (2167) that equals: 1745,4 damageFor Armor B (2727) that euqals: 1387,0 damage Power coeff. of 3.0:Gross Damage: 5.673.375 For Armor A (2167) that equals: 2618,0 damageFor Armor B (2727) that equals: 2080,5 damage The damage Reduction (for any Power coeff.) always stays the same. About 20.5% for 560 extra Toughness. Thats about ~3.7% Damage reduction per 100 Toughness.So even if the Amulets lose 60 Toughness...that doesnt really mean that toughness will be "less effective". They just lose about ~2% Damage reduction.

you mean literally cutting its healing in half and reducing it's damage overall by about 33% (like literally any other class)?Ye, FB didnt see ANY nerfs /s

yeah theres not much incentive to actually dodge those cc skills anymore if they do no damage and if everything is getting nerfed damage wise. so theres not much incentive to use those cc skills anymore on the majority of skills unless the cd is short like @ArthurDent said above. I think damage mitigation stacking is going to become the new meta, so tankfest inc. that said the new team has proven they have the balls to make changes so I wouldn't be surprised if they nerf that too. I don't disagree with nerfing the damage on cc skills don't get me wrong there, but these nerfs are ridiculous putting the damage on meme levels. idk man, changes. I dont think we will see a tankfest.The nerfs that happened to damage, mostly - at least from what I have seen - have also happened to sustain and general survivability. Speaking for sword weaver for instance:Healing has been reduced across the board (signet, traits, actual skill values) by about ~33%.Evades on sword skills saw their CD increased by 50%.Twist of fate saw its Cooldown increased by ~90%-All pretty substantial nerfs ....And seeing how damage gets cut equally throughout all classes in a similar manner. This seems fine.(FB tome 2 skills also were massively nerfed by about ~50%.) So all in all, we have reduced damage AND reduced healing at a pretty similar level.All that is effectively going to do, is increase TTK....which a lot of players have been asking for.

Cause increasing the coefficient with the number of shattered clones would lead to exponential damage growth. Which is not desired I suppose.

As for the whole "condi didn't get hit much" debate here.While it is true, that the skills themselves didn't see much in terms of less stacks and whatnot. The duration nerfs and CD-increases coupled with the removal of atrocious Condi-duration buffs from runes and amulets, they got hit appropriately imo. 33% expertise amulets are gone.Runes that increase specific condi-durations by 50% (which was nuts to begin with) are gone.And most condi skills saw CD increases. Primordial stance for weaver (for instance) saw a 50% cut in its burn duration....which IS 50% less damage.Would have liked a similar treatmeant for GoEP, but it's hard to say from just "on paper"-changes.

Ye, I would very much like more "stat slots" as well.Doesnt necessary mean more stats, just more customizable options. Like, if an amulet now gives a total of 3000 stats for 1 slot, they might as well split that total over more slots.Like 3 slots with 1k total stats each.Or one with 1500 total stats and another two with 750 respectively. Definitely would allow for more build diversity and enable more theorycrafting, since the current system kinda pigeonholes you.With a 3 slot system that splits the 3000 stat total into 50%/25%/25% segments one could craft their own stat combos.(like 50% zerker and 2 x 25% paladins or whatever).

thanks guys, you're over nerfing things no one even uses.inb4 but power level down. they nerf damage of all CC skills to 0. for everyone sigh... the point is nerfing skills that no one uses is entirely counter productive. we could have a ton more choices if the right things get nerfed. instead we will have the same meta, only everyone will be sporting their noodle weapons and politely tapping their enemies on the head. I hope i'm just being cynical here, and they follow up with some buffs to the things that need it, but until they say they will I don't think this patch will be good in the long run. its going to be a tankfest. Depends on the proportions of the nerfs really.If a meta weaponset / skill for instance sees a 33% dmg cut and an off-meta weaponset / skill sees a 20% cut, that might already enable the less popular one.

@"Cal Cohen.2358" could you please consider, putting percentage-values next to the coefficient changes?Like "Reduced the power-coefficient of "Skill X" from 2.0 to 1.5 (25%)". Having to do quick maffs for that many changes is pretty tedious.Comparison between changes would also be way easier and more practical.

Im okay with the pilosophy that CCs shouldnt do massive dmg. Reading the reaper shroud #5 made me laugh pretty good tho. 0.01 / 0.015 / 0.02 coefficient tiers are hillarious.

As a thief player wouldn't shiro be closest to ur preferred playstyle? Was just curious lol If I switch mains to renegade then I will always have an excuse when I do poorly. I can always blame my class. You can't. I played only Renegade and got to legend a year ago. Ofc you can. Unless you re looking for a dps renegade.Pretty sure he means the "without shiro" part, since shiro is so broken, that you basically want it on literally any build.

I'm kinda fine with IS on its lonesome.Im also kinda fine with sword dual skills on their lonesome. But if you combine the excessive engage/disengage abilities of sw#2 with the potentially perma evade frames from either Flanking strike or Pistolwhip, we start to have a problem. So I wouldnt say that it's either sw#2 or FS/PW on their own, but the combination of the two.Like, any sword kit already has tons of en/disengage potential and on top of that both it's available dualskills evade.

No wonder matchmaking is so bad if you guys really think average mmr makes balanced teams. Honestly....this match seemed pretty fair 1 - ~1400 player on each team2 ~ 1300 players on each team2 ~ 1200 players on each team and about a ~200 rating gap between highest and lowest rated player pear team.this aint so bad, srsly. If a matchup with close ratings leeds to an one sited match you cant claim that matchmaking makes a decent job. But to blame the matchmaking alone is also false.Class MUs and snowball-mechanics also play a detrimental role in match outcome.Matchmaking alone won't stop people from getting steam-rolled or being able to recover from a losing position more reliably....especially in the lower tiers.When you/your team consistently makes bad decisions (like solo pushing into an already lost teamfight straight from respawn), the matchmaker can hardly be blamed for that.

No wonder matchmaking is so bad if you guys really think average mmr makes balanced teams. Honestly....this match seemed pretty fair 1 - ~1400 player on each team2 ~ 1300 players on each team2 ~ 1200 players on each team and about a ~200 rating gap between highest and lowest rated player pear team.this aint so bad, srsly.

Personally I think that ressing and rallying adds more depth to combat.It's an added level of complexity that challenges the players decision-making. As an example:In a 2v2, 1 player of each party goes down: Is it better to rezz or try to go for the stomp? Can you interrupt an opposing stomp/rezz? How healthy is the remaining player of the other team? Go for the down on the remaining player and rezz afterwards? ...etc.etc. Additional complexity and decision making isn't a bad thing.The only gripe I could possibly have with the system right now, is the implementation of instant rezz mechanics....and thats mostly only because it strips away the aforementioned added depth.