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

[Astralporing.1957]

On 10/13/2021 at 6:00 PM, Obtena.7952 said:

It's like you don't think Anet should make any changes as long as they have no negative impact on players.

No. It's me saying that when introducing changes for the sake of fixing a certain issue, yoy should stop for a moment to consider if there might be other consequences those changes might cause, that would go beyond the scope of that original issue. And, if you found out that there indeed might be some, trying to minimize those as much as possible.

And you saying that it's a rubbish idea, and devs should not bother. And if something blows up because they didn't check beforehand? Well, they can always fix that somewhere in the following years.

Frankly, i shudder to think how you might go about building a building.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Obtena.7952]

3 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No. It's me saying that when introducing changes for the sake of fixing a certain issue, yoy should stop for a moment to consider if there might be other consequences those changes might cause, that would go beyond the scope of that original issue. And, if you found out that there indeed might be some, trying to minimize those as much as possible.

I don't know what makes you think they didn't do that though. What OTHER consequences do you think Anet should be considering that they aren't? Again, their isn't a reason to believe they are not following their process and paying attention to the criteria they have to monitor classes performance and useage, which requires TIME to see how the changes affect those criteria. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Astralporing.1957]

6 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't know what makes you think they didn't do that though. 

Years of past experience. And the fact that some of the consequences of the changes they introduced do not make sense, could have been easily predicted, and could have been addressed beforehand - yet they weren't.

I mean, even you agreed with that in this very thread, and your only defence was "well, maybe noone will care". Sure, maybe noone will care. But maybe someone will. Waiting which one will happen when you could not have had that issue in the first place at all is not a sign of good approach to balancing.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Obtena.7952]

3 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Years of past experience. And the fact that some of the consequences of the changes they introduced do not make sense, could have been easily predicted, and could have been addressed beforehand - yet they weren't.

Well, you can believe what you like but there simply is not a reason for Anet to anticipate minimizing some other consequence ...  unless that consequence actually happens. That requires the change in the game for some period of time.  Again, do not assume that the results of f change are not INLINE with how Anet wants the game to evolve, EVEN if that result is a decline in the number of people playing a class. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Astralporing.1957]

8 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, you can believe what you like but there simply is not a reason for Anet to anticipate minimizing some other consequence ...  unless that consequence actually happens.

That consequence already happened. Regardless of the potential backlash from players that might get affected by it directly.

You think that if a building falls down due to bad design, but luckily it was empty and noone got hurt it's fine. I say that even if noone was hurt it was still bad design - and if it could have been avoided by someone just looking at the plans, then not doing that is a sign of negligence.

Quote

Again, do not assume that the results of f change are not INLINE with how Anet wants the game to evolve, EVEN if that result is a decline in the number of people playing a class. 

Well, if you want to tell me they might want to intentionally cause balancing issues just for kittens and giggles, then you're not going a good job trying to persuade me everything is fine. Quite the opposite.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Obtena.7952]

6 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

That consequence already happened. Regardless of the potential backlash from players that might get affected by it directly.

Hey, if the consequence you are talking about here is a decrease in damage reduction ... that was obviously the intent and nothing really to discuss. If that change results in class use or performance that Anet finds unacceptable, they will do something about it. That takes time.

Not really sure what your point is at the moment. Pretty clear Anet intended for damage reducers to be multiplied. Yes there are situations that render some stacked reducers almost useless. If that affects performance/class use in a way Anet dislikes, they will change it. I think the problem I have with the way you are thinking is that you want Anet to take action based on player feedback. The issue with that is player feedback is biased and not really indicative of how the game evolves. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Astralporing.1957]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Hey, if the consequence you are talking about here is a decrease in damage reduction ... that was obviously the intent and nothing really to discuss.

For revenant, sure. Restricting damage reduction potential in general? Also intended. Crippling ele damage reduction traits and breaking their synergy? I sincerely hope that one was not. I prefer to think they just didn't think of that one to option that they did think and just didn't care, or (even worse), that they wanted that to happen.

[Obtena.7952]

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

For revenant, sure. Restricting damage reduction potential in general? Also intended. Crippling ele damage reduction traits and breaking their synergy? I sincerely hope that one was not. I prefer to think they just didn't think of that one to option that they did think and just didn't care, or (even worse), that they wanted that to happen.

Well, it's not worth assuming one way or the other to plead a case to 'fix' it. Again, you don't know if the consequences are in a direction Anet wants or not, so you can't assuming it needs to be fixed in the first place. 

You hope Anet didn't intend to 'cripple' ele damage reduction and breaking synergy? OK, I doubt very highly what you hope for is part of Anet's decision making process here. It's just worth repeating ... Anet most likely knew people would not like this change, yet they made it anyways. Again ... if the change results in something Anet doesn't like in player behaviour (which motivated the change in the FIRST place mind you), we see they do something about it. 

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Obtena.7952