what's the point of bleeding?

[Zebulous.2934]

 Destroyers die fairy quickly to a bleed build from other classes.  I did enjoy the Firebrand story though.

Hmm.  It turns out both guardian and berserker have a weapon skill to cause burning on both of their aquatic weapons.  Elementalist gets a single burning skill.  So if you get a group of guardians, berserkers, and Elementalists together they may actually boil a fish.  If they swap weapons regularly.

Interestingly Revenant is the only class who has aquatic weapon skills that cause torment.  

One condition that spears, trident, and harpoon guns do commonly inflict across most classes is bleeding.  Once again, the revnant is the exeption.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Zebulous.2934

[Doggie.3184]

If you wanna be realistic, if bleeding is on you for too long it should cause daze as you become dizzy. 😏

Sounds annoying though.

[Ashantara.8731]

6 hours ago, Teknomancer.4895 said:

Another thing to consider is that in GW1 condition use was more strategic

The whole GW1 combat was slower paced for most part and therefore more strategic (and more fun). Perfect positioning was unforgivingly vital and all encounters were designed for strategic approaches. It was a lot more situational.

GW2 combat is all about fast reaction time, and encounters always play 100% the same, with little to no variation, allowing you to learn and focus on a DPS routine once you know the encounter mechanics by heart.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Ashantara.8731

[Teknomancer.4895]

Well yes obviously, but my post was actually more to the thread's title than any of that. Bleeding was originally a low-cost cover condition that was layered on top of another more important one, so that the important one would be less likely to get cleansed. It was quick and easy to reapply if needed, so it was more of a pressure thing than raw DPS like it is now.

Providing a cleanse buffer as cover for a more powerful/costly/long-cd condition was originally "the point of bleeding."

It's just that was how they were already used to thinking of bleeding when they created GW2 so it does still kind of have that afterthought/throwaway feel to it, even though the "cover condi" concept is effectively defunct at this point (if it ever existed as such).

[Qys.5937]

Bleeding works on destroyers burning doesn't. 

[Zebulous.2934]

I wouldn't mind if bleeding caused daze for every five stacks, ten?, if there is a cooldown for the daze effect.  Then there might be builds around applying just enough bleed.

[Darklord Roy.2514]

On 12/1/2023 at 4:21 PM, Stalima.5490 said:

 

well if it makes you happier, they could always make it do more damage to low health enemies.

That'd be fun, it could even just be some mostly arbitrary number like each stack does 10% more damage to targets under 25% health.

I thought something cool would be increasing the speed that bleeding ticks happen the lower the targets health got, but that would be insanely broken unless they absolutely gutted bleeding's current damage.

[kharmin.7683]

I would think that if a target is under 25% health, then a player ought to be able to finish it off rather quickly without needing an increase in damage in the bleed stacks to do it. 

[Trejgon.9367]

On 12/1/2023 at 10:01 PM, ZephidelGRS.9520 said:

Back when the game was still in dark age, where stacking by intensity wasn't implemented yet, Bleeding was distinctive to Burning in that it was small damage over long duration, as opposed to Burning with high damage but short duration. 

Granted with the change to intensity stacking they're not very different anymore, but I just wanna throw that out to explain why they exist.

That is incorrect - since the beginning of the game we had boons and conditions that would stack in intensity, and boons and conditions that stacked in duration.

The change you are refering to made all damaging conditions stack in intensity.

In vanilla design, bleed was dealing less base damage than burning, but would stack in intensity, while burning had higher damage, but would only stack in duration. Bleed was also much more common in sources than burning.

[Lucius.2140]

On 12/1/2023 at 2:18 PM, BestiA.4319 said:

Bleeding

 

Maybe burninig didnt stack at the start of the game and later on passed to be the "better" bleeding.

[Zebulous.2934]

8 hours ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

That is incorrect - since the beginning of the game we had boons and conditions that would stack in intensity, and boons and conditions that stacked in duration.

The change you are refering to made all damaging conditions stack in intensity.

In vanilla design, bleed was dealing less base damage than burning, but would stack in intensity, while burning had higher damage, but would only stack in duration. Bleed was also much more common in sources than burning.

Sounds like "streamlining" design.  Where everything is simplified.  The problem is that developers often over-simplify mechanics and distinct abilities lose the differences that made them stand out.

It could be that bleed and burn have lost their identities from a game mechanics point of view.  Asthetically bleed an burn are still visually distinct.

[ugrakarma.9416]

the discussion is pointless.

Bleeding does not compete with other conditions in the same build.

Normally condi builds have bleeding+something(condi rev, condi scourge), they dont force u choose one or another, so the discussion is meaningless.

[jason.1083]

Also we have traits and skills that interact with bleeding, either by buffing it or by triggering some effect when it's present.

And if for none of that, we could say it serves as cannon fodder for Condition Cleanses.

So it's definitely not "pointless" 

[Trejgon.9367]

10 hours ago, Zebulous.2934 said:

Sounds like "streamlining" design.  Where everything is simplified.  The problem is that developers often over-simplify mechanics and distinct abilities lose the differences that made them stand out.

It could be that bleed and burn have lost their identities from a game mechanics point of view.  Asthetically bleed an burn are still visually distinct.

That is not exactly the case - the change to stacking of damage conditions was to alleviate the issues original design had with multiple condi builds trying to fight same world boss. Essentially if you build depended on burning or poison condis, at launch, your damage could be easilly nullified if any other player happened to apply their burning/poison before you, regardless if their burning/poison had stats was actually higher than yours.

The first attempt at fixing that issue, was to have player with highest condition damage take priority in those overlaps, (so at any given time, highest damaging stack was active first) but it would still have an issue if you had multiple condi-build players hammering same world boss. The same issue persisted for bleeds, since they back then shared the cap with normal enemies, so at world bosses you'd have those permacapped on bleeds as well.

So after couple years of this issue persisting AN decided, that the best way to permanently resolve that issue was introducing intensity stacking to all damaging condition, with highly increased stacking caps for World Bosses. If memory serves, burning still has lower cap of stacks than bleeding, tho it hardly matters, because the caps on bosses was set so that no single player can saturate it, and on rest of the game, stuff dies long before you'd think of hitting the cap on burning stacks.

[Arewn.2368]

Having multiple conditions act as a balancing tool. Even if burning and bleeding do the same thing, they can fine-tune a build's balance by targetting one condition or the other. For example, through a trait that increases bleed damage.

Also, it is an MMORPG, so some there will inevitably be some elements of the game that are just there for flavor/theme.