Comparing 100blades to other damage-first channel skills using Coefficient/Cast Time

[oscuro.9720]

Hey everyone! my last post was about 100 blades compared to its auto attack chain. This time, I will share the bit of data I've built for comparing 100 blades Coefficient/Cast Time to other channeled skills. First, I will walk you through the basic calculations used to determine the ratio, then provide the data, followed by some key comparison points, and we will finish off with a concrete recommendation on how 100blades should be addressed. Don't worry, the math in this post is super simple, all numbers are the wvw/pvp numbers from the wiki 🙂 

 

The Calculations:

Hundred Blades:

In order to calculate the coefficient/cast time ratio, hence forth to be referred to as the Ratio, we need two variables; the coefficient and the cast time. 

Hundred Blades Coefficient: 2.8 + .8 = 3.6

The Hundred Blades is separated into two damage packets; the first 8 strikes with a total coefficient of 2.8, and the final strike with a coefficient of .8. These are added together to give the total coefficient. 

Hundred Blades Cast Time: 3.5

Quite simply, the cast time. 'nuff said.

Hundred Blades Ratio: 3.6 / 3.5 = 1.029

This is the ratio. It, alone, doesn't mean much. We want to put this into context. Without building a full cost-benefit model (which I am actually planning on doing, but that is labor intensive and requires much more math), we want to restrict the comparisons to damage-focused skills. Therefore, we are removing skills that have damaging condition stacks. This is also focused on skills that apply damage over the continuous course of the channel, not channels with a payoff at the end or a payoff predicated on additional action (such as full counter). Ideally, we would also remove ranged skills and utility based skills, but I decided to include them, since they are damage focused and the subjective nature of range vs melee is not properly quantified, so I figured I would let you all decide that for yourself. We are also removing underwater skills. 

 

The Data: 

Below is the data for the skills compared:

Hundred Blades: 1.029

Whirling Axe: 1.599

Volley: 1.00

Whirling Wrath: 3.733

Zealot's Defense: 3.520

Rapid Fire: 1.1

Whirling Defense: 1.625

Unload: 1.440

Pistol Whip: 3.200

Electro Whirl: 1.360

Shock Shield: .286

Blurred Frenzy: 1.024

Ghastly Claw: 1.522

Life Siphon: 1.286

Life Transfer: .771

Meteor Shower: 2.144

Plasma Beam: 1.760

 

Key Data Points:

Its worth noting that this analysis is not perfect. Skills with a cast below 1 second are going to have inflated values. However, in competitive modes, where seconds are the appropriate metric of analysis for damage that can be applied, I view that as acceptable. If this were a pve-focused comparison, a cooldown-based approach would make more sense. Additionally, the differences of external costs and benefits (outside of just cast time and damage) are factors in the variability of the ratios. I would not recommend just blindly looking at this chart and calling some skills too strong or too weak, as there are a lot of other metrics across which to weigh skills other than damage and cast time. However, we can look at a few examples I find interesting;

 

Hundred Blades: 

With one of the highest costs of use (long cast time, average cooldown, movement locked), only 4 of the analyzed skills are weaker. 100blades is dramatically underpowered. Lets look at some skills that are good analogs to Hundred Blade's current state;

 

Whirling Wrath: 

One of the two very similar comparisons. It is movement restricted (not locked), pbAoE (a benefit), faster cast, similar damage, and this is not taking into account the projectiles. The damage difference between these two skills is dramatic. This is a good example of a high-output, damage positive melee skill. Why it does >3x the damage/cast time of 100blades I do not know. Obviously with a shorter cast time, that's somewhat inflated, but the difference is still stark. 

 

Whirling Defense:

Another movement-locked skill, pbAOE, longer cooldown, projectile reflect, resolution, 12 vulnerability, and about 60% more damage. Yes, the cooldown is 1.5x that of 100blades, a respectable tradeoff, but, imo, the damage difference is still remarkably drastic for the added benefits Whirling Axes has. 

 

Blurred Frenzy:

Finally, the skill with the closest Ratio at a .005 difference. Despite being an evade frame and tracking, it does similar damage. This is, imo, a good case for why 100blades' current damage is unacceptable, while the others skills are good examples of where 100 blades' damage should be. Again, the cost-benefit tradeoff with this skill and 100blades is uneven imo. 

 

The Recommendation:

Based on the numbers I've run, it seems a good place to get 100blades would be to have a ratio between Whirling Defense and 2.0. This should be done with a combination of coefficient increases and cast time decreases. There's problems with warrior having all of Hundred Blades packed into a sub 2 second cast time, just as theres problems with having excessive multipliers over a 3.5 second cast time, A balance of the two is the best route imo. Using round numbers, this would look like;

 

New Hundred Blades Coefficient: 3.6 + 1.0 = 4.6

The new hundred blades coefficient would add .8 to the original 8 strikes, for a coefficient of .45 per strike. There would be an additional .2 added to the final strike, keeping the skill still end loaded. The total percentage of damage on the final strike moves from 22% to 21%, resulting in a similar distribution, with a total coefficient increase of 1.0. 

 

New Hundred Blades Cast Time: 2.5

This would still be a long cast, butting up against the duration of longer stuns. Yes, warrior has some 3 second stuns, but overall would guarantee Warrior is capable of getting in large damage against opponents who eat large telegraph stuns and fail to break them, as should be the case imo (though i am, admittedly, biased). 

 

New Hundred Blades Ratio: 4.6 / 2.5 = 1.89

The new ratio is at a reasonable position, putting it above other skills, but understandably so with larger costs and only damage as its payoff. At 2.5s cast, under the effects of quickness it is not overloading, yet allows warrior to get in good combos of damage over a full stun duration. This also makes 100blades a damage positive skill by a reasonable amount compared to the auto attack. For more information on that, see my older post comparing channel skills to auto attacks.

 

thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

 

 

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

I am Lan Deathrider and I approve this message.

[adammantium.8031]

Great breakdown. Think we all feel 100 blades is underpowered, but great to see it quantified like this.

Not sure I agree with the recommendation - think the skill could use a more interesting rework than reopening the old 'bulls charge > frenzy > 100b' combo, but that's just my preference.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

5 minutes ago, adammantium.8031 said:

Great breakdown. Think we all feel 100 blades is underpowered, but great to see it quantified like this.

Not sure I agree with the recommendation - think the skill could use a more interesting rework than reopening the old 'bulls charge > frenzy > 100b' combo, but that's just my preference.

That would require an animation change, which I don't think will happen. Making it faster and harder would itself be enough. Even just faster to 2.5s would be enough.

[oscuro.9720]

5 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

That would require an animation change, which I don't think will happen. Making it faster and harder would itself be enough. Even just faster to 2.5s would be enough.

I agree. After further analysis and thought, I don’t think going below 2.25s is a good idea for warrior with our heavy CC access, and, instead, equalizing that difference with added multipliers is a better effect. It would give a very nice balance between being able to access quickness and pull off a very heavy burst, as well as being able to land a respectable amount of damage without quickness by using 100blades as a damage-positive skill (unlike currently, where I literally think that auto attack is more useful, since there’s less damage loss if you cancel to use arcing slice based on the numbers I ran, at least).