Malus.2184

Scales the best is never the same as the most efficient for the purpose intended. If the purpose is to go into direct fights then the gear is the best, however, there are other ways to play. While that is technically you did say this. Fair enough, then tell me what the I should do to counter a Reaper who kites people around an object while their damage ticks away and everything you do is absorbed by their shield? Nevver fight the enemy where they're strongest if you have another option. And 1v5 in an open field with them just clashing against each other would be creative suicede. So, you never fight that way. Instead you queue the Benny Hill music, except that BennyHill usually ends with naked women, this just ends with death. That you can onlky imagine that Reapers could fight in one way "due to how they scale" tells me everything I need to know about your playing skill, or lack thereof rather.

They did several times. And your first argument was "players bad" and now it's "something is wrong with your gear." Have some consistency in your arguments, that has nothing to do with language. It's attitude. I also never said they were Power. They were in fact Condi. Far from the most efficient Reaper build out there however, it gets the job done as he was able to go in and out of Shroud several times as the Condis fed him Life Force. As I said previously, winning flashy is irrelevant ina PvP-situation. What's relevant is that you win. ANet could nerf that specific trait, which would screw over every other version of Necro that uses it all to target one spec. And they were adjusted later, and they need another adjustment, one that makes it so that Shroud is far less effective than it currently is. Except the objective reality is that Reaper is often as an all-or-nothing and used defensively instead of offensively. The offensive powers is just a bonus. I've far fewer issues dealing with a Reaper who uses Shroud offensively rather than defensively. The Reaper is able to use skills, once I use skills they go into Shroud, which effectively negate my skill usage and since I'm then "naked" I lose. Perhaps you having an okay time against Reapers is more indicative of them being bad than you being good. I know that when I played Reaper in sPvP just to get a feel of it, my personal skill increased exponentially. It's like Mukluk refusing to play Mesmer in pvP because it's too easy, I refuse to play Reaper in PvP for the same reason. None of them, it's the Shroud itself. All of the Skills of the Reaper would be fair (with a damage reduction) if the Reaper themselves took normal damage when in Shroud. Shroud is a variably duration Barrier that opposed to most Barriers can be activated on command and can up to double the health bar of the Reaper.

You indeed never said it, however you expressed it when you siad it was their core mechanic. Also, tweaking the damage numbers without doing anything else would literally break the spec. Shroud has a high damage because the Shroud itself has an extremely volatile duration. Exchanging high damage for medium to low damage without guarenteing a longer duration for Shroud would make the spec bad to useless. You misunderstand the sentiment expressed. No one should be able to win a 1 vs 5, ever. Killing a few of them is okay if they're bad at playing. Winning, however, should never ever happen as they should at least die to attrition eventually. Reaper can easily bypass the "sying to attrition" aspect completely. The only thing that comes close to that iirc was the Scrapper's damage to barrier conversion. That one was nerfed quite hard and the pentalty for having the ability remains the same. If Reaper Shroud absorbed 66% of the damage done and there was a Trait option to make it 100% that option would be taken almost universally in PvP environments since while killing your opponent is well and good, never dying is better. If you outlast your opponents you win. And even if it's less flashy, a win is a win. "Sorry to disagree, but..." that says it all . It's just an empty platitude and especially hilarious when you here express Reaper is fine and earlier said that it would be okay if they had their damage reduced. And in a way that would literally break the Spec. Reduce the survivability of Reaper, reduce the damage they do in Shroud since the reduced survival would mean a longer duration. Just reduce it so it's propertional. It's the same I would suggest for all Wells and Traps. Keep the damage, just spread it out over a longer period. Example, doing 7k damage over 10-sec is toletable. Doing 7k over 5-sec just means high burst. And the damage of Dragonhunters if they pull you into two or three traps is disgusting. I should kow, I've done it myself plenty of times after all.

English is a secondary language for me. And most people who speak English natively would say the same thing as you said earlier since they think 'logical' is the way to think. People who due to brain damage can only think in 'logical' terms are unable to choose what pants to wear if they've multiple as they're unable to ask themselves, "how do I feel wearing these?" How would it break the spec if their class mechanic only absorbed 33% or 50% of the damage they recieved? Right now, the spec is as balanced as a hippo on a seesaw as the spec can potentially be ripped right out of the Shroud due to taking a large amount of damage. This makes the Shroud duration extremely unstable. As a consequence of that the skills in the Shroud have to be extremely powerful to make up for this unstable duration. Anecdote-time: Yesterday in WvW I saw an extremely good Reaper player. They soloed five people since a majority of the damage they took was absorbed by the Shroud, the rest never happened because they were able to kite them around a structure, only attacking when they CDs were ready. As far as I know no other class even have the potential to solo five people since they would slowly die to attrition. A Reaper has no such weakness since the Shroud works as additional health. Any damage is absorbed from that first, any attrition that would normally kill people is taken from that first and thus discarded. This is unfun to play against in PvP and WvW since one spec can completely disregard the normal rule of, "everyone will eventually die if they're attritioned down." You're unable to attrition a Reaper down if they're set up for it. This should never, ever be possible under any circumstance. If a spec is unable to be attritioned down for no other reason than simply existing then something is wrong balance-wise.

That is appropriate if you keep the context. Misrepresenting the argument to say something that was never even expressed is dishonest. Following my reasoning. It's impossible to argue anything logically. 'Logic' is merely the acceptance of something being real. Like, "that's a fire." And in reasoning it brings their skills up to an eqaul number that everyone else have. As I said, having the toolkit in itself has no utility. The additional utility of both the Reaper Shroud and the ability creates some maaxing synergy. There's also that if you want a certain Toolbelt Skill you have to choose a certain a Skill that perhaps might do nothing for the spec. Réaper has no such issue. The utility inherent in their skills are one to one, they choose one and get the effect they desire.

Then it would be more like a 6v3 😛

Ele only have one weapon set. While they do have 20 attack Skills switching activates a shared cooldown before you can go into a new one, like Weapon Swaps. Reaper can use one, then go into Shroud, get a new set, and can most often use the weapon again when it ends, and then swap to their other weapon. Comparing the two is a "whataboutism." For an Engineer, using those skills takes up another skill who can be used for nothing else than that. No utility in the Skill itself at all. Reaper has skills with pure utility and going into Shroud is a pure utility in itself. There's no need to find a quote since A, there was none, and B, you expresed it instead of explicitly stating it.

I have no idea how you got your straw-person from anything I said. It honestly baffles me.

So, you just want to dodge the argument by doing a whataboutism? I'll give you 8/10 politicians.

ANet, when you get around to doing the balance patch you should change the Reaper Shroud so that it only eats at most 50% of the damage taken. Having it eat 100% is grossly overpowered since it's effectively an ablative health bar. In addition because the Reaper can get punted out of Shroud relatively easily due to the aforementioned the Skills in Shroud also have to be extraordinarily strong. This makes sense in a high-risk-high-reward playstyle, however, the effective result of these two things combined is that Reaper is no-risk-high-reward since when they're in trouble they can activate their Shroud. Before this they also have all their other Skills they can use before they enter Shroud. This gives then an addtional five new Skills. In addition to this, they also have weapon swap. So, a total of 15 different attack Skills, one healing Skill, three Utility Skills, and one Ultimate Skill. Except going into Shroud is also a Utility Skill in itself since it gives the tangial benefit of serving as additional health. For other specs that have a similar effect activating their special effect only gives them access to a new set of skills rather than it having an intrinsic effect on top of that. The sheer amount of Skills to use was also the rationale to limit the Bladeseworn from being able to switch weapons. Likewise, the same rationale was employed for Engineers since they have kits Yet, Reaper skirts right past that. To remain consistent Reapers should be disallowed from swapping weapons due to the Reaper Shroud effectively being a weapon swap. That the Reaper can do this puts it comparatively in a higher effectiveness tier than either who gives up a lot for their special abilities. This means that a Reaper can have a Scepter on hand to either boon strip or corrupt boons, which in itself is a massive utility. Scepter is a condi weapon, however, this means nothing as the Reaper can still have a power weapon and go into Reaper Shroud which is also can, effectively, be a power weapon, even though traits exists that can make it condi. It's the only spec in the game that effectively has three weapon sets, on top of that it has an ablative health bar. Reaper Shroud is also unaffected by the weapon swap cooldown. This means that a Reaper can use the Scepter to affect Boons and then instantly go into Reaper Shroud, be completely unaffected by what comes their way, and do massive damage. All of these combined creates a force multiplier effect that makes the Reaper increase in a level of effectiveness that's outside that of what most other specs. Do you want a team only of Reapers? No, because then you'd lose access to some things that the Reaper is unable to bring, however, having one is a benefit to team, espcially a pug, as it can effectively count as almost two people.

I see it now, thanks, I've corrected it to "subjectively" as it should had been in the first place. Managerd to striketrough the "objectively" so it's still there.

I never used "objectively feels," so I've no idea where you picked that up. I used "objective reality" and "subjective sentiment." And Claw has a few "instant death" attacks that if you get hit by then you do down then you're effectively dead as the Chill or the insane amount of mobs will kill. The Claw screams and oushed you away, and if you go back too soon instead of hiding behind a rock the Claw will sometime breahte, which shatters the rocks and you if you get hit by it. The only mechanic that's even half as punitive as that one is the Bite. I would think people have more issues with the 14-sec invul from the Bite than the Bite itself as that's well-telegraphed. The breath just happens instantaniously.

Yes, it only happens rarely these days, because the people who are in doubt they can clear it has given up. The event right now is self-seleccting. You either get a near 100% complete or near a 100% fail since few other than premade squads even attempts it these days. The relevant question is "how come it is this way?" And objectively, as described in occupational therapy and with elements here (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001691811001053). Random events does serve as dividing attention as people will focus on the random elements they have no control over and think that they should have control over it.

Translation: how dare you point out what I do instead of lending my point implicit validity by making it seems like it's worth arguing. And I'll admit that I used the word "wrong" in emotional affect. I should have used the word "limited definition." You called my definition "wrong." When I showed that it was included in the definition what what as case study was, you expressed that your version was still correct and nothing about my version also being correct and instead pivoting to pushing that you're still technically correct.

Claw of Jormag in DC - Has no timer. - Often does shockwave attacks. - Has insanely dangerous hits - Has a breakbar I've yet to see anyone expressing that there is an issue with that fight. Objective reality disproves your subjective sentiment. Something else must be the problem since almost all of those elements are also present in other fights. The only major difference is the heavy presence of RNG things the players have no control over. Something that objectively subjectively feels extremely frustrating for people, so frustrating that they just quit.

No, that's actually how it should evolve naturally. There shoulds never be a natural standstill until much later. The 60% should be 60% at currently instead of a stable 60/40. How long has it been since you've failed at something that had been in the game for a long time? Tripple Trouble excepted. The last time I failed was because too few people showed up to do something. Even if people are unable to adapt to new situations they'll eventually learn by rote. As such the success rate on somethingshould stabilize somewhere around 90. 60/40 is unnatural unless it's cased by a performance benchmark. However, even from observing DE one can observe how one group with a barely successfull performance benchmark can fail the next one if it has the exact same internal circumstances.

It was technically correct, and technically correct is always contextually wrong. Yup, that's the reason a lot of people are expressing that everything is fine in design and there's no RNG in DE. Did you even read anything or are you just spewing warm air in order to look good? Okay, proving that random events can vastly affect the a outcome of the activity is "not really important"? I find it incredibly telling that you say "not really important" instead of "unimportant." The former is negative communication and the latter is positive communication. It signals that subconsciously you know that what you say is wrong. since it's spoken out of emotion and phrased in away that the recipient has to replace "not" with a word that has meaning as "not " has none. For a word to have meaning it has to have an opposite that it can be contrasted again. "Not" has none. The opposite to "any" is "none." Yes, sometimes things goes wrong. This argument in context makes no sense as it's an implicit admission that sometimes RNG is just against people. Which goes against what you said about the RNG being unimportant. If it was unimportant then it would never be able to impact the outcome in the regard that you implied. Unless there's a mass DC or a mass brain-fart then the only thingthat should be able to make people fail is their own performaance and ability to adapt. Which goes against what you expressed above. Your argumentation seems solid until one goes into depths with it or knows what to look for then it's just vapid in nature. I'm unable to take anything of what you say seriously sincer post is full of expressed congnitive dissonance.

I'm surprised that you answered and gave a clear definition. I'm glad you did though as now I can use a source. Your definition of what a case study is wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_study). In this case the case is whether the RNG has any effect on the outcome. I then extrapolated it to occupational science instead of mathematical science and created an equation based on the conditions of the fight. I based that on a lot of observations (N=X). You then ignored it, and that says a lot about what bias you have. In this specific case the observations of "this is terrible" are more valid than "this is fine." Since you can find more observational data on what went wrong than what went right. In this case, you can set the P-value in the equation to whatever you want and if you repeat the equation and only changing the numbers oif the RNG, which does chance from attempt to attempt, you get a different benchmark number I've polished the formula. (P + ((A)+25%)(ad) + ((Q)+50%)(ad)) + (E(X)*W) - (Ta*Y) - (Bi*Z) = B = A(success) P = performce in DPS. AN et has this data. (A) =Alacrity (Q) = Quickness' (ad) = Additive E(Y) = Exposed (time it can be used) W = the amount of Exposed in the fight. Ta = Tail Y = the amount of tails on the fight Bi = Bite Z = the amount of bites in the fight B = Benchmark A(success) = Activity (success)

I've already defined what a case study is, I think it was to you even. A case study is when you take a real case and then makes it ideal for what the case study is meant to show. I'll repeat it since you seem to have missed it. I'll also elaborate on it. A squad with the exact same composition and performance that repeats the activity ten times will most likely never happen. So, you make a case out of one and then extrapolate on that and make an ideal situation where the squad maintains the exact same composition over ten tries and have the exact same performance. And as my later equation shows If they have the exact same composition and performance over ten attempts they can succesd some and fail some. This is something that statistically makes no sense since if they have the performance to beat their success rate sould be as close to 100% as possible. Now you tell what you think a case study is.

If you tried to have aconversation about it you would define what you think a case study is. Until then you just make statements intended to make me go away. Deliver an actual argument. If you know what a case study is then define it so it can be seen in what you think I'm mistaken about the nature of case studies. I would be surprised if you do though as that would force you to be clear instead of making vague statements that can mean whatever you want them to mean.

People are fine with content that they have to engage in as content is an activity. This is explained in the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development. What they have an issue with are activities that have events that are outside of their control since they find that frustrating. And I've shown in the below that there are a lot of factors in DE that the player has no control over. Eventually DE will stabilize and you'll only have players attempting it who feel they can succeed despite the mechanics pulling a fast one on them.

No, the idea of DE is good, the actual execution is way too random in nature with several events that the player has no control over. .

The statement, "I'm passionate about math." And having no idea of what a 'case study' are two different things. I'm passionate about space travel and I've know only the rudimentary about astro physics, unlike you I never make statements to someone educated in astro physics what astro physics are. And you're the one saying that I implied confusion in what I said. I implied ignorance on what a 'case study' is.

All of that effort will feel useless by most people due to this The unfortunate fact is that even when doing all that you can still fail if the RNG factor is utterly against you. All of the above you suggest only help mitigating the RNG factor, however, you can still fail. Due to this people are unwilling to even do that because "why does it even matter?" If the amount of tails, bites, and break bars was locked in and only the sequence of them was random then people would feel much more encouraged to all the things you mention as the real meat of the meta would be how fast they could react to the shifting circumstances instead of the shigting circumstance potentially stopping them even if they do that effort. The design of DE makes DE unfair as the exact same group with the exact same performance can have different RNGs and the result is that is a vastly different outcome.

By that standard Dragon's Stand and Drizzlewood Coast are bad as well since they also require a large time investment. The fail rate also have nothing to do with the squad's performance (P) value, it has to do with that the event is utterly random. One squad can get three excellently timed Expose and another can get two really badly timed Expose. In that case, if the P-value is the same for both the fomer group will have a higher benchmark than the latter. If Soo-Won was designed in a way so that she used an ability every 10% health and the distribution of them were always two Exposed, four Bites, and two Tails then the order of which they came in could be RNG, however, when one option had been exhaused it would be removed from the RNG pool and only the other(s) would remain. The the P-value needed to complete the encounter could be properly adjusted as necesary. People will continue to do something if they feel that them failing is fair and they have a chance of succeeding. They'll only quit if they feel the failure was unfair and outside of their scope of control.