weakness

[Sigmoid.7082]

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades

(cant dodge a condi tick once its on you)

, blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. Your agument is null n void.......

Sorry to say but evades, in-vulnerabilities, and blocks work just as well against conditions. Yes you cant avoid damage that has already been dealt but that's not their purpose. They are supposed to prevent new sources of incoming damage, which they do equally well against both damage types. This has always been a fallacious argument.

Some invulns dont stop condi application so 1/3 of ur statement is false. And the other 2 dont do equally well.... theres not any power feild that i know of that sits out on the battlefield for 8 seconds like the scourge marks do n apply pulsing power damage like those marks do with conditions. Pulsing aoe condi marks for 5+ secobds wait they can lay down 3 with no cool down after one another so thats 24 seconds of almost continuous condi application if the player knows is rotations.

But lets get back to the post title weakness shuts down any power build while condi have no mitigation. Not talking counters like clearing. I mean mitigation like protection/weakness is to power builds.

100% power damage reduction =/= invulnerability. 100% damage reduction also doesn't prevent life from being siphoned from you because you can still be struck. All true invulnerabilities in this game prevent new sources of incoming damage ,e.g mist form, elixir s, renewed focus etc, because your character literally cannot be hit.

Condi also lacks mitigation because that's one of the clear distinctions between condition damage and power damage. You mitigate power damage but you negate condition damage. There are very few abilities that give you 100% damage reduction but the number of effects that reduce it by x% are numerous. On the other hand with conditions the number of effects that reduce it by x% can almost be counted on two hands but negation is far more available.

The more you are able to mitigate condition damage the less negation there would need to be lest the damage type become completely ineffective and negligible.

[Genesis.5169]

@Kyon.9735 said:

@"Genesis.5169" said:

This is the last time im going to post this anyone who says frost aura doesn't mitigation condition damage w/o proof to the contrary you can consider there opinion of the matter of condition damage invalid and mainly fueled my salt mined from the crystal desert.

Frost Armor:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Damage_Reduction

Most effects that only state

10% Damage Reduction

are direct damage only. Runes/consumables that reduce condition damage state it specifically.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bowl_of_Curry_Mussel_Soup

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Rune_of_the_Stars

I see your point but within the wiki article it also says.Condition Damage is not reduced by armor or most percentage reductions, but can be completely negated using the Resistance boon. The total damage received by conditions over time can be reduced by Condition Duration reducing bonuses, or by Condition removal skills and traits.

I get your on the food and runes, how ever they are usually pretty specific on what they do, but your points are valid I'm actually not sure i wonder if anet could chime in.

[Sigmoid.7082]

@Genesis.5169 said:

@Kyon.9735 said:

@Genesis.5169 said:

This is the last time im going to post this anyone who says frost aura doesn't mitigation condition damage w/o proof to the contrary you can consider there opinion of the matter of condition damage invalid and mainly fueled my salt mined from the crystal desert.

Frost Armor:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Damage_Reduction

Most effects that only state

10% Damage Reduction

are direct damage only. Runes/consumables that reduce condition damage state it specifically.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bowl_of_Curry_Mussel_Soup

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Rune_of_the_Stars

I see your point but within the wiki article it also says.

Condition Damage is not reduced by armor or most percentage reductions, but can be completely negated using the Resistance boon. The total damage received by conditions over time can be reduced by Condition Duration reducing bonuses, or by Condition removal skills and traits.

I get your on the food and runes, how ever they are usually pretty specific on what they do, but your points are valid I'm actually not sure i wonder if anet could chime in.

Frost Armour doesn't effect condition damage at all. Its incredibly easy to test as a Reaper. Self inflict conditions and RS #5 and #2 to grant Frost Aura. The ticks don't change.

[Eddbopkins.2630]

Can we please go back to the main topic...weakness....not invuls block or dodges or frost aura or mitigation....please stay on topic when you post here. This thread is about weakness only and how it shuts down power builds, while it leaves condi players unaffected when applied to them.

Most condi builds (IN PVP all i care about) dont use percision as far as i know but thats only 1/3 of what weakness does. The fact that 1 condition does 3 things and only to power build is unbalanced...reduces damage, reduces crit chance, and reduces endurance regen. 2/3 of weakness shuts down power builds 100%.

And as far as resistance goes only a very few classes have it n its super corruptable

Love all the input though its really fun hearing what you all have to say.

[Genesis.5169]

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:Can we please go back to the main topic...weakness....not invuls block or dodges or frost aura or mitigation....please stay on topic when you post here. This thread is about weakness only and how it shuts down power builds, while it leaves condi players unaffected when applied to them.

Love all the input though its really fun hearing what you all have to say.

But weakness isn't in a vacuum, people need context to why weakness is the way it is, it also reduces endurance regen which condition rely more apon dodging then power, the only two condition classes in the meta are Necros and Mirages who both heavily rely on dodging to mitigate as necros have no blocks and mirages ambush and condtion cleanse is behind it.

Please do me a favor and look at things from multiple class perspectives not just your own.

[Eddbopkins.2630]

Yeah i guess i could maybe be byis..i am looking at it from my main core fa ele

[Eddbopkins.2630]

Idk to much about mesmer but im pretty sure they have no problems with access to evades invulns and teleports to keep distance and avoid damage. With there 12 second sword evade, 10 second staff teleport and probably more they got no problems avoiding power.Scourge these days if there anygood will keep weakness on the enemys as well as plunty of cover condis as well.

[Genesis.5169]

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:Idk to much about mesmer but im pretty sure they have no problems with access to evades invulns and teleports to keep distance and avoid damage. With there 12 second sword evade, 10 second staff teleport and probably more they got no problems avoiding power.Scourge these days if there anygood will keep weakness on the enemys as well as plunty of cover condis as well.

Its good that you said you know nothing about mesmers. because i was going to say you know nothing about mesmers please stop. But given that you've explain that before hand and saved me the time i just wanted to to say thanks.

[Swagg.9236]

Flavor decision and flavor tradition in-line with GW1 designs. Conditions were never intended to be damage; might and vuln also used to only affect direct damage (power). Conditions never had a true function in GW2 to begin with, and the stacking mechanic is GW2's most innovative mistake. Weakness being out of place is only further proof of this.

[Genesis.5169]

@Swagg.9236 said:Flavor decision and flavor tradition in-line with GW1 designs. Conditions were never intended to be damage; might and vuln also used to only affect direct damage (power). Conditions never had a true function in GW2 to begin with, and the stacking mechanic is GW2's most innovative mistake. Weakness being out of place is only further proof of this.

Yep so all those sigil/runes that explicitly increases condition damage, and all of the dire/carrion/sinsiter/rampers gear was in the game for show.

Rune of the kriat for bleeding damage was because bleed damage was never meant to be a main source of damage they just put it in the game to confuse people, Anet and there sneaky sneaky ways.

[Swagg.9236]

@Genesis.5169 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:Flavor decision and flavor tradition in-line with GW1 designs. Conditions were never intended to be damage; might and vuln also used to only affect direct damage (power). Conditions never had a true function in GW2 to begin with, and the stacking mechanic is GW2's most innovative mistake. Weakness being out of place is only further proof of this.

Yep so all those sigil/runes that explicitly increases condition damage, and all of the dire/carrion/sinsiter/rampers gear was in the game for show.

Rune of the kriat for bleeding damage was because bleed damage was never meant to be a main source of damage they just put it in the game to confuse people, Anet and there sneaky sneaky ways.

Zerk meta was fine, yet it also proved GW2's limited gameplay designs. GW2 launched with a viable and acceptable way of calculating outgoing damage onto targets. Conditions never had a role; they only became relevant when anet decided to listen to flavor-centric vocal minorities who felt that conditions should also compete with zerk stats for optimal PvE DPS. There was never any argument to justify this feeling, it was just a thing that people felt should exist. So, yes, all those sigils were trash and the only armor set was Berserker. Everything else was for show.

[Eddbopkins.2630]

Devs looking to balance weakness with condi mitigation yet?

[AliamRationem.5172]

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

@Swagg.9236 said:

@Genesis.5169 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:Flavor decision and flavor tradition in-line with GW1 designs. Conditions were never intended to be damage; might and vuln also used to only affect direct damage (power). Conditions never had a true function in GW2 to begin with, and the stacking mechanic is GW2's most innovative mistake. Weakness being out of place is only further proof of this.

Yep so all those sigil/runes that explicitly increases condition damage, and all of the dire/carrion/sinsiter/rampers gear was in the game for show.

Rune of the kriat for bleeding damage was because bleed damage was never meant to be a main source of damage they just put it in the game to confuse people, Anet and there sneaky sneaky ways.

Zerk meta was fine, yet it also proved GW2's limited gameplay designs. GW2 launched with a viable and acceptable way of calculating outgoing damage onto targets. Conditions never had a role; they only became relevant when anet decided to listen to flavor-centric vocal minorities who

felt

that conditions should also compete with zerk stats for optimal PvE DPS. There was never any argument to justify this

feeling

, it was just a thing that people

felt

should exist. So, yes, all those sigils were trash and the only armor set was Berserker. Everything else was for show.

Devs said before launch that condition damage was supposed to be an alternative to Power, so sorry Swagg, you are completely wrong on this one.

[Jace al Thor.6745]

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

[Eddbopkins.2630]

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

Why shouldnt it negate it 100%? You have so many invuls for different toons for power...why should condi get a free pass to do damage?

[AliamRationem.5172]

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

Why shouldnt it negate it 100%? You have so many invuls for different toons for power...why should condi get a free pass to do damage?

I agree. I look at resistance as pretty similar to invuln (although invuln also prevents new conditions from being applied). As long as it's extremely limited the way invuln is, I don't see a problem. However, the fact that it's a boon that is subject to concentration, with enough sources it has more potential to become problematic than invuln.

[Jace al Thor.6745]

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

Why shouldnt it negate it 100%? You have so many invuls for different toons for power...why should condi get a free pass to do damage?

Other than it complete shuts down a play style? The thing is the same invulns that negate power damage also negate condi damage. If you dodge, evade, blur, immune whatever when a condi attack is coming in you just negated it all. Not to mention you have condi clear which completely removes conditions. You don’t have an option to take back power damage, so should we remove condi clears?

[Jace al Thor.6745]

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

Why shouldnt it negate it 100%? You have so many invuls for different toons for power...why should condi get a free pass to do damage?

I agree. I look at resistance as pretty similar to invuln (although invuln also prevents new conditions from being applied). As long as it's extremely limited the way invuln is, I don't see a problem. However, the fact that it's a boon that is subject to concentration, with enough sources it has more potential to become problematic than invuln.

In my opinion concentration and expertise should be removed. Since those stats were introduced and become widely spread power creep has been tremendous. Not to mention you can’t properly balance condi with expertise being a give me like it is.While it doesn’t prevent conditions from being applied it does prevent them from doing damage which is plenty of time to use a condi clear and boom no damage.

[Eddbopkins.2630]

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

Why shouldnt it negate it 100%? You have so many invuls for different toons for power...why should condi get a free pass to do damage?

Other than it complete shuts down a play style? The thing is the same invulns that negate power damage also negate condi damage. If you dodge, evade, blur, immune whatever when a condi attack is coming in you just negated it all. Not to mention you have condi clear which completely removes conditions. You don’t have an option to take back power damage, so should we remove condi clears?

In what universe do u play in that endure pain negates condi damage? And any condis on you already have affect when u use any other invuln with condis already on you.....they still tick once applied....the only counter to condis is clearing them...reaistance doeant really count b.c only what 2 classea get that?

[AliamRationem.5172]

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@"KrHome.1920" said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

Why shouldnt it negate it 100%? You have so many invuls for different toons for power...why should condi get a free pass to do damage?

Other than it complete shuts down a play style? The thing is the same invulns that negate power damage also negate condi damage. If you dodge, evade, blur, immune whatever when a condi attack is coming in you just negated it all. Not to mention you have condi clear which completely removes conditions. You don’t have an option to take back power damage, so should we remove condi clears?

Condi is based more on constant pressure than burst. It's true that we have ways to prevent conditions from being applied and a means of removing them. However, the important function of invuln vs. power builds is that it more or less completely negates their ability to apply pressure for a brief period of time. The trouble with condi is that nothing stops it once applied, so if you want to buy a quick window free from pressure there is no way of doing it against condi short of avoiding the damage in the first place or removing it - neither of which are of much use when you need an "Emergency Button" which invuln is to power.

[Jace al Thor.6745]

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

Why shouldnt it negate it 100%? You have so many invuls for different toons for power...why should condi get a free pass to do damage?

Other than it complete shuts down a play style? The thing is the same invulns that negate power damage also negate condi damage. If you dodge, evade, blur, immune whatever when a condi attack is coming in you just negated it all. Not to mention you have condi clear which completely removes conditions. You don’t have an option to take back power damage, so should we remove condi clears?

In what universe do u play in that endure pain negates condi damage? And any condis on you already have affect when u use any other invuln with condis already on you.....they still tick once applied....the only counter to condis is clearing them...reaistance doeant really count b.c only what 2 classea get that?

It doesn’t. Berserker stance does and warrior can clear on weapon swap, use Shake it off(both skill and trait), cleansing ire, etc.The counters to condi are avoiding them to begin with which you should be doing and clearing them. Which most classes have decent amount of clears some better than others.

Now, the issue isn’t conditions in and of itself. It’s condition duration. This problem is exasperated with expertise. We should have two types of conditions- a high intensity/low duration and a low intensity/high duration. So for instance confusion, burn and torment should hit hard but not last long vs having bleed, poison, and chill should be weak but long lasting. The problem is with expertise we are getting heavy hitting/long lasting conditions. We have the same issue with concentration letting all classes have long lasting boons which wasn’t the purpose of boons.So if we balanced everything like I explained above resistance wouldn’t need to completely negate damage only reduce it. Granted, it should reduce more than 33% like protection because there’s less stats involved in getting condition damage( a separate matter I’d be willing to discuss) so it would make sense to be 50-60% damage reduction.

Again, this is only my opinion and I’m not advocating it being changed just stating my thoughts.

[Swagg.9236]

@Drarnor Kunoram.5180 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:

@Genesis.5169 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:Flavor decision and flavor tradition in-line with GW1 designs. Conditions were never intended to be damage; might and vuln also used to only affect direct damage (power). Conditions never had a true function in GW2 to begin with, and the stacking mechanic is GW2's most innovative mistake. Weakness being out of place is only further proof of this.

Yep so all those sigil/runes that explicitly increases condition damage, and all of the dire/carrion/sinsiter/rampers gear was in the game for show.

Rune of the kriat for bleeding damage was because bleed damage was never meant to be a main source of damage they just put it in the game to confuse people, Anet and there sneaky sneaky ways.

Zerk meta was fine, yet it also proved GW2's limited gameplay designs. GW2 launched with a viable and acceptable way of calculating outgoing damage onto targets. Conditions never had a role; they only became relevant when anet decided to listen to flavor-centric vocal minorities who

felt

that conditions should also compete with zerk stats for optimal PvE DPS. There was never any argument to justify this

feeling

, it was just a thing that people

felt

should exist. So, yes, all those sigils were trash and the only armor set was Berserker. Everything else was for show.

Devs said before launch that condition damage was supposed to be an alternative to Power, so sorry Swagg, you are completely wrong on this one.

Devs can say whatever they want, but if the game's own mechanics say otherwise, then their words are pretty meaningless. GW2 only had 1, clear-cut, most-viable, "why wouldn't you use this" gear option and rune/sigil set for years, and everything worked just fine. The fact that that meta only featured 4 mainstay classes only means that this game only needed 4 classes max. Everything else is just bloat.

[Crinn.7864]

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@Jace al Thor.6745 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Eddbopkins.2630 said:

@KrHome.1920 said:Conditions are meant to work different as direct damage. I guess ANet has no intention to equalize these two damage types too much (would not make sense). Vulnerability is such a weak condition that it is quite safe to apply the damage increase to all kinds of damage.

But Weakness would destroy conditions completely now where ANet is about to nerf the burst potential (the latter is good). An additional damage reduction would be too much. They would have to increase the burst potential again to compensate for a third counter in addition to cleanses and Resistance that Weakness would be.

Your worried about a third counter to condis? How many counters are there to power...lets see...invulnerables, evades (cant dodge a condi tick once its on you), blocks, protection, traited damage mitigation, and probably more. But for now i thought up 4-5 in the span of a few seconds. Your agument is null n void.......

Out of the abilities you list, only %damage reduction like protection don't work against condi. You're being disingenuous suggesting that condi has some sort of advantage with regard to invuln/evade/block. Yes, it ticks through those, but that's because that damage has already been applied. If it worked the way you want it to, targets would have multiple chances to avoid condition damage once it's applied.

To be fair resistance shouldn’t completely negate condi damage. It should reduce it like protection does for power damage but that’s my $0.02 so take it as you will

Why shouldnt it negate it 100%? You have so many invuls for different toons for power...why should condi get a free pass to do damage?

Other than it complete shuts down a play style? The thing is the same invulns that negate power damage also negate condi damage. If you dodge, evade, blur, immune whatever when a condi attack is coming in you just negated it all. Not to mention you have condi clear which completely removes conditions. You don’t have an option to take back power damage, so should we remove condi clears?

In what universe do u play in that endure pain negates condi damage? And any condis on you already have affect when u use any other invuln with condis already on you.....they still tick once applied....the only counter to condis is clearing them...reaistance doeant really count b.c only what 2 classea get that?

What? He only mentioned invulns, blocks, and evades in his post. Endure Pain is none of those.

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

@Swagg.9236 said:

@Drarnor Kunoram.5180 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:

@Genesis.5169 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:Flavor decision and flavor tradition in-line with GW1 designs. Conditions were never intended to be damage; might and vuln also used to only affect direct damage (power). Conditions never had a true function in GW2 to begin with, and the stacking mechanic is GW2's most innovative mistake. Weakness being out of place is only further proof of this.

Yep so all those sigil/runes that explicitly increases condition damage, and all of the dire/carrion/sinsiter/rampers gear was in the game for show.

Rune of the kriat for bleeding damage was because bleed damage was never meant to be a main source of damage they just put it in the game to confuse people, Anet and there sneaky sneaky ways.

Zerk meta was fine, yet it also proved GW2's limited gameplay designs. GW2 launched with a viable and acceptable way of calculating outgoing damage onto targets. Conditions never had a role; they only became relevant when anet decided to listen to flavor-centric vocal minorities who

felt

that conditions should also compete with zerk stats for optimal PvE DPS. There was never any argument to justify this

feeling

, it was just a thing that people

felt

should exist. So, yes, all those sigils were trash and the only armor set was Berserker. Everything else was for show.

Devs said before launch that condition damage was supposed to be an alternative to Power, so sorry Swagg, you are completely wrong on this one.

Devs can say whatever they want, but if the game's own mechanics say otherwise, then their words are pretty meaningless. GW2 only had 1, clear-cut, most-viable, "why wouldn't you use this" gear option and rune/sigil set for years, and everything worked just fine. The fact that that meta only featured 4 mainstay classes only means that this game only needed 4 classes max. Everything else is just bloat.

Dev's words tell you their intent. Since you were saying that "conditions were never intended to be damage," well, you're just wrong. The intent was clearly that they were intended to be such. From that single fact, the rest of your argument falls apart.