All effects that provide a percentage reduction to incoming damage have been standardized to stack multiplicatively.

[Obtena.7952]

11 minutes ago, lodjur.1284 said:

I forgot that Anet can't overlook things 

I can assure you Anet didn't go out of their way to change something they didn't intend to change. That makes no sense. I mean, what EXACTLY do you think they overlooked here? Somehow they didn't understand this change would affect damage reduction values when stacked? What do you think their intend here was if not to make percent damage reduction work consistently to prevent situations of extreme reduction values? I'm pretty sure they are more than aware of the effect of the change. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[lodjur.1284]

20 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I can assure you Anet didn't go out of their way to change something they didn't intend to change. That makes no sense. I mean, what EXACTLY do you think they overlooked here? Somehow they didn't understand this change would affect damage reduction values when stacked? What do you think their intend here was if not to make percent damage reduction work consistently to prevent situations of extreme reduction values? I'm pretty sure they are more than aware of the effect of the change. 

I think they overlooked how certain traitlines have multiple sources already and are now notably weaker than pre patch even when used without sources (notably Earth) especially given no such traitline was in a dominant position

 

[lodjur.1284]

27 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

And where in this thread have I said that?  Not once. What you are consistently missing is that the various sources of additive modifiers exacerbated the effects of the multiplicative ones since they resulted in higher amounts of damage reduction than should have been able to attain.

 

I called out Shroud and Rampage because they are multiplicative 50% damage reductions and was indicative of your oversight in not pointing out major sources of damage reduction.
 

You mean my list of (until recently) additive sources didn't include multiplicative ones, that's a real shocker.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

30 minutes ago, lodjur.1284 said:

You mean my list of (until recently) additive sources didn't include multiplicative ones, that's a real shocker.

Even then your list was lacking and incomplete. Go read through that link I posted earlier in the thread for the full scope of what you missed.

[lodjur.1284]

11 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Even then your list was lacking and incomplete. Go read through that link I posted earlier in the thread for the full scope of what you missed.

Only really dwarf herald specific one, which I did miss writing out. 

This doesn't really change the fact that this mostly impacts earth ele and to a lesser degree jalis revenant.

Other builds have a smaller number of modifiers and already tended to not take them

Nor does it change that you're simply wrong about that this would impact roaming notably outside of a couple builds going from semi- good to bad. 

 

A few strong builds will take between 5% and 8% more damage in that context, bit more during short periods (like Dolyak stance) but those aren't exactly when one wants to be bursting anyway are they?

[Obtena.7952]

1 hour ago, lodjur.1284 said:

I think they overlooked how certain traitlines have multiple sources already and are now notably weaker than pre patch even when used without sources (notably Earth) especially given no such traitline was in a dominant position

 

If thatr's true, it will be reflected in how people play the class and if that level of play doesn't meet their threshold of acceptable. At that point, it will hit their radar. 

So what's the problem here, other than you don't like the change and you want Anet to reconsider some things based on speculation instead of actual player data?

Edited October 6, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

14 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

If thatr's true, it will be reflected in how people play the class and if that level of play doesn't meet their threshold of acceptable. At that point, it will hit their radar. 

So what's the problem here, other than you don't like the change and you want Anet to reconsider some things based on speculation instead of actual player data?

The problem seems that they do not want to be taking more damage and will have to use their dodge key more strategically rather than relying on broken damage reduction to stay alive.

[lodjur.1284]

2 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

If thatr's true, it will be reflected in how people play the class and if that level of play doesn't meet their threshold of acceptable. At that point, it will hit their radar. 

So what's the problem here, other than you don't like the change and you want Anet to reconsider some things based on speculation instead of actual player data?

I mean tempest getting it's 1 good build (across all gamemodes) heavily nerfed without dominating isn't exactly good. 

Anet has a history of leaving things weak. 

2 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

The problem seems that they do not want to be taking more damage and will have to use their dodge key more strategically rather than relying on broken damage reduction to stay alive.

I mean the irony of this coming from you isn't lost on me. 

[Obtena.7952]

4 minutes ago, lodjur.1284 said:

I mean tempest getting it's 1 good build (across all gamemodes) heavily nerfed without dominating isn't exactly good. 

Like I already explained .. if the change has enough of a negative impact that the number of people palying don't meet Anet's threshold, they will look at it. We see this in how they describe the changes in theiir patch notes. Frankly, I think you are making too big a deal of this. Do you actually KNOW how much reduction you lost from the change on a specific build ... or is this just ranting because any lost amount isn't acceptable to you?

Again, somehow you convinced yourself Anet doesn't know the impact of the change to make your case... that doesn't make much sense. Seems to me it's pretty obvious. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

48 minutes ago, lodjur.1284 said:

I mean the irony of this coming from you isn't lost on me. 

I have no idea what you mean. I don't have problems with how often I get to dodge, not do I have any general complaints about the incoming damage I have to deal with outside of the plethora of condi vomit, but that is more of a WvW zerg problem.

There still exists a dichotomy in that certain classes got their damage over nerfed in Feb2020, while others just got wrist slaps, and that is something that the community overall has well documented. The same goes with sustain. Some classes got over nerfed, but some did not, especially those that relied heavily on damage reduction for their sustain. This update just curbs some of the excessive sustain that some specs ended up with after Feb2020.

[lodjur.1284]

45 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Like I already explained .. if the change has enough of a negative impact that the number of people palying don't meet Anet's threshold, they will look at it. We see this in how they describe the changes in theiir patch notes. Frankly, I think you are making too big a deal of this. Do you actually KNOW how much reduction you lost from the change on a specific build ... or is this just ranting because any lost amount isn't acceptable to you?

I did the math and had done testing of what sources on tempest specifically worked additively.

I know exactly how much damage reducing was lost in various situations. 

Roughly 37% in the situation where it has the biggest impact (technically more counting frost aura but uptime is low anyway), around 20% in the most average situations. Around 10% more in the best case scenario. 

20% more damage taken in the average situation is a lot. That is by any standard a big nerf warranted or not.

45 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, somehow you convinced yourself Anet doesn't know the impact of the change to make your case... that doesn't make much sense. Seems to me it's pretty obvious. 

Out of curiosity have you ever in your life disagreed with a single decision made by Anet? Do you believe Anet are capable of making mistakes?

[lodjur.1284]

10 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

I have no idea what you mean. I don't have problems with how often I get to dodge, not do I have any general complaints about the incoming damage I have to deal with outside of the plethora of condi vomit, but that is more of a WvW zerg problem.

Whines about condi, yep, 1/5, BONUS talking about condi in situations where it is actually really really weak

Quote

There still exists a dichotomy in that certain classes got their damage over nerfed in Feb2020

Whine about February patch 2/5

Quote

, while others just got wrist slaps, and that is something that the community overall has well documented. The same goes with sustain. Some classes got over nerfed, but some did not, especially those that relied heavily on damage reduction for their sustain.

Whine about sutain without understanding where it comes from, 3/5

Quote

This update just curbs some of the excessive sustain that some specs ended up with after Feb2020.

More whine about sustain and February patch 4/5

It's all really about how sad they're that warrior is only strong and not broken beyond belief, 5/5

You managed to get 5/5!

 

Also earth tempest was so broken dominating WvW. It's why saw so many same with all those really broken pure tank heralds that didn't achieve anything. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by lodjur.1284

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

6 minutes ago, lodjur.1284 said:

Whines about condi, yep, 1/5, BONUS talking about condi in situations where it is actually really really weak

Whine about February patch 2/5

Whine about sutain without understanding where it comes from, 3/5

More whine about sustain and February patch 4/5

It's all really about how sad they're that warrior is only strong and not broken beyond belief, 5/5

You managed to get 5/5!

 

Also earth tempest was so broken dominating WvW. It's why saw so many same with all those really broken pure tank heralds that didn't achieve anything. 

Salty downmentalist main 1/1 great for you.

[lodjur.1284]

1 minute ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Salty downmentalist main 1/1 great for you.

I mean the funny thing is I don't even play ele 

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Just now, lodjur.1284 said:

I mean the funny thing is I don't even play ele 

You whine like one.

[lodjur.1284]

Just now, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

You whine like one.

I am sure warrior is just weak tho it's not a l2p issue, ye, for sure mate

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

2 minutes ago, lodjur.1284 said:

I am sure warrior is just weak tho it's not a l2p issue, ye, for sure mate

Sorry, can't hear you over the lack of warrior representation in the MATs.

[lodjur.1284]

6 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Sorry, can't hear you over the lack of warrior representation in the MATs.

Today I learnt MATs are extremely relevant for WvW

Edited October 6, 2021 by lodjur.1284

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

1 minute ago, lodjur.1284 said:

Today I learned MATs are extremely relevant for WvW

Today you learned about the poor balance decision to do blanket competitive balance that affects both modes and affected performance negatively in both cases.

[lodjur.1284]

2 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Today you learned about the poor balance decision to do blanket competitive balance that affects both modes and affected performance negatively in both cases.

Feb patch was good tho for WvW, may 11 even better. 

 

sPvP has always been terrible, nothing new there, a gamemode where soldiers/magi/a bunch of terrible stat combos and force sigil are considered too strong is kinda hilarious tho.

Fact remains that warrior has multiple strong builds for any group size (including solo and dueling) in WvW  and anyone claiming otherwise is disingenuous and/or needs to l2p.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

6 minutes ago, lodjur.1284 said:

Feb patch was good tho for WvW, may 11 even better. 

 

sPvP has always been terrible, nothing new there, a gamemode where soldiers/magi/a bunch of terrible stat combos and force sigil are considered too strong is kinda hilarious tho.

Fact remains that warrior has multiple strong builds for any group size (including solo and dueling) in WvW  and anyone claiming otherwise is disingenuous and/or needs to l2p.

It's a good thing I never claimed otherwise huh?

 

Now do you want to continue derailing your own thread with your own whining or shall we stop here?

[lodjur.1284]

4 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

It's a good thing I never claimed otherwise huh?

 

Now do you want to continue derailing your own thread with your own whining or shall we stop here?

Then why bring it up?

 

Also listening to warriors talk about feb 28th makes me all happy, almost happy enough to forget the bad change

[Obtena.7952]

1 hour ago, lodjur.1284 said:

I did the math and had done testing of what sources on tempest specifically worked additively.

I know exactly how much damage reducing was lost in various situations. 

Roughly 37% in the situation where it has the biggest impact (technically more counting frost aura but uptime is low anyway), around 20% in the most average situations. Around 10% more in the best case scenario. 

20% more damage taken in the average situation is a lot. That is by any standard a big nerf warranted or not.

Great ... then you can see why even if the change was reasonably done because of cosistent application of reducers, it's also a benefit from the POV that unreasonable reductions were happening because of additive methods. 

Quote

Out of curiosity have you ever in your life disagreed with a single decision made by Anet? Do you believe Anet are capable of making mistakes?

Yes I have and yes I do believe they are capable of mistakes ... but in this case, I don't see a mistake in the change. In fact the mistake was not fixing it sooner. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[lodjur.1284]

5 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Great ... then you can see why even if the change was reasonably done because of cosistent application of reducers, it's also a benefit from the POV that unreasonable reductions were happening because of additive methods. 

I mention this multiple times

5 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Yes I have and yes I do believe they are capable of mistakes ... but in this case, I don't see a mistake. In fact the mistake was not fixing it sooner. 

Agreed on the last part, problem is as I have said not what they're doing but what they're not doing

[Obtena.7952]

Just now, lodjur.1284 said:

I mention this multiple times

Great, so what is your issue then? I don't really get your outrage over the change if you 'mention multiple times' the amount of reduction with additive methods is unreasonable 

Just now, lodjur.1284 said:

Agreed on the last part, problem is as I have said not what they're doing but what they're not doing

That doesn't make sense to me ... what are you finding that Anet are 'not doing'? that causes you to make a few threads about the same issue? Did I misinterpret your complaint here?