User talk:Raine Valen/Musings/Positioning Strategy

Fire is only really a problem in tombs, and it's only really a problem in tombs because of bad map design. Your change wouldn't really do much to help that. - Auron 07:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does make sense though, I like it. Dark Morphon  (contribs)  16:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't solve any problems. Thus, it's a waste of time on ANet's part. - Auron 02:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It might fix other issues, or it might be a waste of time, but I do agree with DM that it makes sense, and I also like the idea. It might be too late to implement in this GW, but maybe a nice suggestion for GW2? 145.94.74.23 12:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about math.
 * A circle with twice the radius of another circle has four times the area; "adjacent" is a half the radius of (and therefore, a quarter the size of) "nearby". "Nearby" is 3 times the radius of "adjacent", and therefore nine times as large.
 * Let's give "adjacent" an area of one unit. The area of "nearby" that is not adjacent is three units, the area of "in the area" that is not "nearby" is 5 units.
 * Currently, fire magic deals 1x damage throughout. So, it's dealing 1 unit of damage (whatever size that unit may be) over a total of 9 units of area for a 9/9 damage/area ratio.  If fire magic did 1.5x damage at "adjacent" range, 1x damage at "nearby", and .5x at "in the area", the damage potential would be 1.5 x1 + 1 x3 + .5 x5, for a 7/9 damage/area ratio.
 * Of course, that's just geometrically, assuming that people are evenly distributed throughout the AoE.
 * With probability taken into consideration, AoE as it is now would be 1 x 1 x 1 + 1 x 3 x 3 + 1 x 5 x 5; the probability-adjusted value of expected damage units throughout the AoE is 35. This is assuming that we're not at all considering the space entirely out of the AoE.  With damage scaling by position, probability says that we can assume the number of people actually standing in the adjacent range would be a further 1/9, those nearby would be 3/9, and those in the area would be the remaining 5/9; 1.5 x 1 x 1 + 1 x 3 x 3 + .5 x 5 x 5 (the same total damage potential, with probability taken into consideration) would give 23.
 * 23 of the current 35 is less than two-thirds of the current expected damage of any AoE spell, and isn't at all considering peoples' tendency to move out of the AoE (meaning that they'd be, on average, closer to the edges the edges than the above model would suggest), which would further cut fire magic's damage.
 * Reducing fire magic's damage by 33% wouldn't be a step in the right direction? [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps giving cap points (AB,HA,...) A small AOE defense against fire damage would help. Lilondra [[Image:User_Lilondra_Disrupting Dagger.jpg|21x21px]] *Poke*  15:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty brilliant. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  08:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had the same idea about certain aoe spells and some wards, and Shard felt like Auron does above. However, in many games the AOE does hit everyone, and must be used correctly. Example FFIV the spell "Quake" hurts all players and enemies in the area unless they are smart and use the spell "Float". Makes sense. NWN is similar with "Chain Lightening", "Meteor Storm" (on hardcore), "Darkness" and so on, they do or can effect everyone. I feel that in PVE we can be more lax on this issue, but then again...why dumb anything down?
 * SHARD: "If you do that meteorshower will hurt your warrior."
 * YASMIN: "WTS Prots and Aura of Stability."
 * I know...such crazy, out of the box thinking gets you in trouble. And, for the record, Shard and I disagree on lots of things.-- *Yasmin Parvaneh* [[Image:User_yasmin_parvaneh_sig.png]] 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)