Jump to content
  • Sign Up

cOnDitIoN BUiLDs onLy NeeD TwO sTAts


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This is why Toughness and Vitality should be considered necessary stats for Condition builds. You're not going to wear anyone down when Condition Damage reduction foods, Traits, Utilities, Cleansing Sigil, Generosity Sigil, and now Resolution exist, and when with 3.4k armor as seen in the picture below, you can still get hit for 11k.

Context for the forum detectives;
I typically play glassy and don't really enjoy full tank or brusier builds, but I do have a few prepared for times when I need the extra cushion. Tonight being one of those nights I thought I'd be able to handle a little more of a beating, but then this little gem happened and left me questioning the point of even investing in armor. 

Image here

Edited by Shroud.2307
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 7
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being shot down pre damage nerf by guildies when I told them that I'd been one shot on full trailblazer by shatter mesmers, nobody seemed to believe it was possible lol. As for true shot, I've been hit for 17-18k post damage nerf on marauder thief, so that damage is definitely possible. You probably got caught without protection, you kinda need protection access to make the armor investment worth it atm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shroud.2307 said:

This is why Toughness and Vitality should be considered necessary stats for Condition builds. You're not going to wear anyone down when Condition Damage reduction foods, Traits, Utilities, Cleansing Sigil, Generosity Sigil, and now Resolution exist, and when with 3.4k armor as seen in the picture below, you can still get hit for 11k.

Context for the forum detectives;
I typically play glassy and don't really enjoy full tank or brusier builds, but I do have a few prepared for times when I need the extra cushion. Tonight being one of those nights I thought I'd be able to handle a little more of a beating, but then this little gem happened and left me questioning the point of even investing in armor. 

Image here

 

I figured something out recently, mostly because I was completely unaware prior, and was informed by someone, that the majority of most damage mechanics in the game are actually additive. As counterintuitive as this seems, there is a good reason why it's setup like this, and you can then understand why so many design decisions are based on these additive principles. If damage modifiers weren't additive, things would actually never ever die.

 

Here's an example. you have some guy who does 1000 damage. and you have armor that equates to -50% damage reduction in the form of armor. When this player attacks you he is hitting you for 500 damage.

 

But if this player had a modifier of +50%, then he is essentially negating your -50%, and he does 1000 damage. If the damage was instead not a modifier but just additional power, then it would look like this :

 

(additive) 1000 damage +50/-50 modifiers, He deals 1000 damage

(multiplicative) 1500 damage, -50 damage reduction, He deals 750 damage.

 

So the reason why people with tons of armor take crazy damage still is because of how damage modifiers just straight up cancel damage reduction modifiers. The reason most people don't know this is because the equation on the wiki is worded in such a way that it confuses additive and multiplicative sources.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Combat feels worse far worse somehow, having loads of FB and scrappers  its better lol... the smaller group wich has less condi bunkers and resolutions/cleanse feels weaker now., this kinda makes the larger group having better performance.

 

The lag is too much, and getting 80ish fps  to 1 fps drops.... 

 

Condition builds and CC builds feel far stronger now somehow.. maybe because theres only 2 types of builds mostly in large gameplay condibunkers and minstrells.

 

NOTE: Theres are some classes now that can perma cc and burst 25k+ on bunkers and its aoe damage,while also being sturdier to bunkerish builds, this means no trade off to very low  risk high reward build.

 

Sorry the bad english.

 

 

(EDIT: TDLR build compositions are now  more important)

Edited by Aeolus.3615
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

I figured something out recently, mostly because I was completely unaware prior, and was informed by someone, that the majority of most damage mechanics in the game are actually additive. As counterintuitive as this seems, there is a good reason why it's setup like this, and you can then understand why so many design decisions are based on these additive principles. If damage modifiers weren't additive, things would actually never ever die.

 

Here's an example. you have some guy who does 1000 damage. and you have armor that equates to -50% damage reduction in the form of armor. When this player attacks you he is hitting you for 500 damage.

 

But if this player had a modifier of +50%, then he is essentially negating your -50%, and he does 1000 damage. If the damage was instead not a modifier but just additional power, then it would look like this :

 

(additive) 1000 damage +50/-50 modifiers, He deals 1000 damage

(multiplicative) 1500 damage, -50 damage reduction, He deals 750 damage.

 

So the reason why people with tons of armor take crazy damage still is because of how damage modifiers just straight up cancel damage reduction modifiers. The reason most people don't know this is because the equation on the wiki is worded in such a way that it confuses additive and multiplicative sources.

 

 

It's actually kind of funny because you could argue that power only need two stat's to counter bunkers - power and precision. Why? Because the mere fact you are critting with 0 ferocity still cancel out 3000 armor.

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

It's actually kind of funny because you could argue that power only need two stat's to counter bunkers - power and precision. Why? Because the mere fact you are critting with 0 ferocity still cancel out 3000 armor.

 

One thing that I found confusing about the wiki, is that the equation says you should take investment into ferocity and treat it as if it were "effective power," and that if one does this, means that ferocity is by proxy effected by armor, meaning ferocity isn't an additive damage modifier but a multiplicative one. The conclusion here is that this is just not a correct way to describe this equation...that in reality Ferocity should technically be additive, and that it is the armor that is multiplicative, and really what we have is not effective damage, but "effective damage reduction".

 

So when someone who does damage has ferocity investment against an opponent that has no armor, the ferocity shouldn't be treated as "effective power" it is treated as an additive damage modifier that cancels out other additive damage reduction modifiers. Frankly the wording on the wiki is so confusing and it's hard to really understand any of the damage calculations without going in and testing every specific scenario to see exactly how each thing functions.

 

Just an example:

 

You have 1000 power, and 300% investment into Ferocity, meaning your critical strikes do 3000 damage to an opponent. According to the wording of the wiki, If the opponent has say, 50% damage reduction in the form of multiplicative armor, that damage is reduced by 50%, totaling for 1500 damage.

 

If ferocity is additive, then If the opponent has 50% damage reduction in the form of additive damage reduction modifiers with no armor, then you should  do 2,500 damage.

 

So the question is...what is really the deal with ferocity? There's no reason to believe it integrates with power at all or be multiplicative...That even puts into question the role of power. Even though it's not a damage multiplier, the equation takes into account armor which makes POWER by proxy multiplicative too according to that formula, when there is no reason to believe that it is not additive either...So I think the equation on the wiki is not exactly telling the whole truth with the interaction of these mechanics. It's either that or i am missing information about what is really going on here with the order of operations on some of these skills. 

Edited by JusticeRetroHunter.7684
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So just to be clear, this is what the wiki states :

 

The Armor attribute (a combination of the Toughness and Defense attributes) is the primary source of damage reduction. All received strike damage is divided by this value.

 

If this statement is true, that armor is the very last thing in the equation means that damage modifiers and damage reduction modifiers are all divided by armor before damage is applied, meaning the equation is supposed to look something like this :

 

https://i.imgur.com/a4T5EOl.png

 

This equation makes a lot more sense with behavior seen in the game, and the many exemptions and entries listed on the wiki is unnecessary fluff. The above equation means, all additive damage modifiers and damage reduction modifiers are added and subtracted appropriately, AND THEN everything is divided by armor. The only cases in which one can receive 0 damage, is if someone had 100% additive damage reduction, and the opposition has no additive damage modifiers. 0 get's divided by some finite number and you get 0. This agrees with observation.

 

When the equation is set up this way, then this line on the wiki, where things are treated as "effective power" actually makes sense, since you are just adding the sums of all damage modifiers into a single number...the language of the wiki makes contradictory statements that make it seem like damage modifiers are applied after the division of armor...which leads to contradiction and confusion about the nature of additive multipliers.

 

In conclusion, most damage multipliers and damage reduction multipliers are ADDITIVE, but they are divided by a value that makes them MULTIPLICATIVE.

 

 

To the OP : With 3500 armor, in order to do 11,000 damage, means that the enemy must have had parameters close to this :

1000*4700*2.44*350%/3500 ≈ 11,000

 

The 350% could very well be much higher, since it's the total sum of damage multipliers, meaning 300% could be ferocity, and they might have an extra 100% in damage modifiers (including vulnerability). That way one needs only 4000 power to reach the same numbers.

Edited by JusticeRetroHunter.7684
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aeolus.3615 said:

Combat feels worse far worse somehow, having loads of FB and scrappers  its better lol... the smaller group wich has less condi bunkers and resolutions/cleanse feels weaker now., this kinda makes the larger group having better performance.

 

The lag is too much, and getting 80ish fps  to 1 fps drops.... 

 

Condition builds and CC builds feel far stronger now somehow.. maybe because theres only 2 types of builds mostly in large gameplay condibunkers and minstrells.

 

NOTE: Theres are some classes now that can perma cc and burst 25k+ on bunkers and its aoe damage,while also being sturdier to bunkerish builds, this means no trade off to very low  risk high reward build.

 

Sorry the bad english.

 

 

(EDIT: TDLR build compositions are now  more important)

As a minstrel myself frantically trying to cleanse conditions and escape red circles of death, can confirm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

One thing that I found confusing about the wiki, is that the equation says you should take investment into ferocity and treat it as if it were "effective power," and that if one does this, means that ferocity is by proxy effected by armor, meaning ferocity isn't an additive damage modifier but a multiplicative one. The conclusion here is that this is just not a correct way to describe this equation...that in reality Ferocity should technically be additive, and that it is the armor that is multiplicative, and really what we have is not effective damage, but "effective damage reduction".

 

So when someone who does damage has ferocity investment against an opponent that has no armor, the ferocity shouldn't be treated as "effective power" it is treated as an additive damage modifier that cancels out other additive damage reduction modifiers. Frankly the wording on the wiki is so confusing and it's hard to really understand any of the damage calculations without going in and testing every specific scenario to see exactly how each thing functions.

 

Just an example:

 

You have 1000 power, and 300% investment into Ferocity, meaning your critical strikes do 3000 damage to an opponent. According to the wording of the wiki, If the opponent has say, 50% damage reduction in the form of multiplicative armor, that damage is reduced by 50%, totaling for 1500 damage.

 

If ferocity is additive, then If the opponent has 50% damage reduction in the form of additive damage reduction modifiers with no armor, then you should  do 2,500 damage.

 

So the question is...what is really the deal with ferocity? There's no reason to believe it integrates with power at all or be multiplicative...That even puts into question the role of power. Even though it's not a damage multiplier, the equation takes into account armor which makes POWER by proxy multiplicative too according to that formula, when there is no reason to believe that it is not additive either...So I think the equation on the wiki is not exactly telling the whole truth with the interaction of these mechanics. It's either that or i am missing information about what is really going on here with the order of operations on some of these skills. 

 

If the damage formula is too complicated for you (no offense! you are not alone), you just need to know that 3000 armor is roughly a 50% damage reduction (a bit more for light armor classes and a bit less for medium and heavy armor classes).

 

And the base critical hit multiplier is 150%, which means a non-ferocity critical hit equals 3000 armor.

 

That's what Dawdler was talking about.

 

Edited by KrHome.1920
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, KrHome.1920 said:

 

If the damage formula is too complicated for you (no offense! you are not alone), you just need to know that 3000 armor is roughly a 50% damage reduction (a bit more for light armor classes and a bit less for medium and heavy armor classes).

 

And the base critical hit multiplier is 150%, which means a non-ferocitiy critical hit equals 3000 armor.

 

That's what Dawdler was talking about.

 

 

That has nothing to do with what im talking about. The formula is easy to understand...but the wiki is just basically wrong, and they don't properly explain things the way they should.

 

also, 3000 armor is not 50% damage reduction. It's based on how much damage, and the damage modifiers of both parties, that determine how much damage the other person is actually doing to you. That information, as well as most modifiers being additive is not in any way clearly explained on the Wikipedia.

 

I've always just read the wikipedia equation and took it as gospel, it wasn't only till recently where someone on another thread mentioned that damage reduction multipliers are additive...and when I examined this, it brought up a host of contradictions...but it is indeed true. 

Edited by JusticeRetroHunter.7684
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

That has nothing to do with what im talking about. The formula is easy to understand...but the wiki is just basically wrong, and they don't properly explain things the way they should.

 

also, 3000 armor is not 50% damage reduction. It's based on how much damage, and the damage modifiers of both parties, that determine how much damage the other person is actually doing to you.

 

You didn't really want to understand my posting, did you? (It was obvious that I was talking about base attributes.)

 

And please tell me what's wrong with the wiki. (In a few sentences, but not a wall of text! People have real lifes.)

 

Edited by KrHome.1920
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KrHome.1920 said:

 

You didn't really want to understand my posting, did you? (It was obvious that I was talking about base attributes.)

 

And please tell me what's wrong with the wiki. (In a few sentences, but not a wall of text! People have real lifes.)

 

 

There's rather a lot. It's not that the wiki it's completely  "wrong" it's just that many things are poorly phrased, and the equation is incomplete, since the equation doesn't have a component for damage modifiers. Instead it treats power as "effective power" but when doing this kind of operation you are IGNORING additive enemy damage reduction,...and that's really the issue here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about the math. The point I'm making is that innate defenses are necessary for Condition builds to be effective.

People always argue that Condition builds only need two stats, and I don't think that's true.
With Power builds you don't often need to give up weapon, utility, or trait defenses, but you do need to give up armor defenses. It is the opposite with Condition builds in that most will require multiple trait and utility selections to maintain enough Condition pressure to kill, foregoing most options for more active defenses and instead relying the durability their armor provides.

Let's use Condition Ranger as an example.
You take: Axe/Torch + Shortbow and Wildnerness Survival. No one's going to take Poison Master in Wilderness Survival because Wilderness Knowledge is too valuable, yet Poison Master favors a Condition build.
With that weapon set up you have no blocks, no mobility, and a very short range evade. Assuming you're taking what's necessary to improve your Condition damage in traits, you're also giving up things like extra Cleanse or defensive utility.

Power builds are about active defenses and instant damage. Condition builds are about innate defenses and damage over time. Power builds give up innate defenses for instant damage and often (but not always) active defenses, while Condition builds give up active defenses and often times defensive utility (eg. Super Speed, cleanse, damage reductions, etc.).

If you cannot face tank damage as a Condition build you're pretty much useless because you're likely to have less active defenses and defensive utility in exchange for improving your damage. And because your damage isn't instant it means you'll have no time to apply any of it.
So yes, Armor and Health are necessary stats for Condition builds despite what people often argue.

 

11 hours ago, Widmo.3186 said:

Oh no, poor condi boi got hit by 11k, that should be illegal!
Now if only we would think of how it would hit normal human being playing power build...hmmm....
 

And in response to this genius,
Was a paragraph too long for you to read? I don't usually play these types of builds, I don't enjoy them. I also think the majority of Condition builds are terrible for reasons stated above. It's too easy to deal with them and only a very small handful are actually strong.
I often have only one or two Cleanses on any given build I play, and I usually play full or mostly zerk, yet that's plenty enough to deal with any Condition build I encounter. Why? Because damage is so frigging high, like what I shared in the OP, that no one's going to have the time to wear you down with Conditions when you're still smacking them for 10k+ even when they have 3k+ armor and 20k+ health.

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

If this statement is true, that armor is the very last thing in the equation means that damage modifiers and damage reduction modifiers are all divided by armor before damage is applied, meaning the equation is supposed to look something like this :

 

https://i.imgur.com/a4T5EOl.png

 

Isn't the calculation is like this?

 

X = (Weapon Strength * Skill Coefficient * Power * (∏ (1 + Damage Modifiers)) * (1 + Sigils + Rune))/Armor

Total damage done = X * (∏ (1 - Defense Modifiers))

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shroud.2307 said:

And in response to this genius,
Was a paragraph too long for you to read? I don't usually play these types of builds, I don't enjoy them.

And in response to this genius,
you got hit on power build that you usually play? No, you linked stats of condi build. If you feel so insulted by calling you 'condi boi', then dont play such build, simple as that. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tayga.3192 said:

 

Isn't the calculation is like this?

 

X = (Weapon Strength * Skill Coefficient * Power * (∏ (1 + Damage Modifiers)) * (1 + Sigils + Rune))/Armor

Total damage done = X * (∏ (1 - Defense Modifiers))

This is what i thought for the past week, and in the back of my mind, it could be this equation, as it also makes sense....again on the wiki the order of operations is not clearly defined at all whatsoever so it's hard to say whether the additive operations happen all up top before armor division, or if there are two equations, where X after armor division goes through another calculation with defense modifiers. It needs to be tested and then the wiki needs to be changed to reflect more accurate information.

 

Right now, the only source of information for the equation I put up is based on this line here from the wiki: 

The Armor attribute (a combination of the Toughness and Defense attributes) is the primary source of damage reduction. All received strike damage is divided by this value.

 

My guess is that this phrasing means, that after all calculations are said and done, the damage is then divided by armor, which means it would take the form of the equation I linked above.

 

Something to point out about our equations is that, in your equation, if someone is attacking someone who has -100% damage reduction modifiers, then that person should in theory take 0 damage. Likewise in my equation the same thing would happen. Someone with -100% damage reduction modifiers should take 0 damage. The only difference between these two equations is that, in my equation, if a player has +100% damage modifiers, they can do damage to that person, while in your equation, a player needs an infinite amount of damage modifiers to do more than 0 damage. 

 

This is why this stuff can't be tested in PVE because the enemies there don't have damage modifiers like players do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Widmo.3186 said:

And in response to this genius,
you got hit on power build that you usually play? No, you linked stats of condi build. If you feel so insulted by calling you 'condi boi', then dont play such build, simple as that. 

I don't know how you get out of bed in the morning with a head that thick.

I linked the stats of a Condi build because that's what I was playing when I was hit.
I stated at the bottom that I don't often play said Condi build, or Condi builds general, because I don't like them. I said this to be clear that I'm not being bias toward something I main, because it's not something I often play. I feel the majority of Condition builds are underperforming despite how many people often cite the opposite.
And with your mockery, I can only assume you're one of those many. 

  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...