Feedback talk:User/Armond/General mechanics changes

Armond is WTB edit section button

The damage is multiplied by root 2- or 1.414, armor is not reduced, easy to test this by getting and having him use armor of earth, personally I think they should do something like the first idea except not even use the upper half

for players its max * 1.4 for pets and minions - its normal range * 1.4

if they already have things in pvp that use normal range * 1.4, it shouldnt be hard to change it for players too, yea this will change the game heavily for all weapons, but I think it must be done... scythes and axes would be getting the hardest nerfs with this change, since they can no longer ride the higher upper damage... spears, swords and hammer will also be weakened but not by nearly as much... daggers probably wont care too much even tho they are the ones that specialize in crits, they are also the one least affected by it

as far as your other suggestions go

• 2. I disagree - Ill end it at that
• 3. They are already doing that... mostly...

critical, and Damage calculation..... Talamare 05:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked both those pages before I wrote this, but they mentioned nothing about what I've heard off-wiki from reasonably reliable sources, so I went with the ambiguity on the page. Normal range * 1.4 would work, but then you'd get "low crits" which would suck balls.

Hammers have a higher damage range than axes - I don't see why you think axes would be hit harder by the crit change. Daggers, however, can simply have their attacks do bonus damage if they land a critical hit.

As for attributes, without telling me why you disagree, I can't really get anything out of your post. As for AI, they're sort of doing it, yes, but not really to any extent (depending, of course, on what skill bars are chosen - but I still don't see why you should be able to do srs bsns PvP without even trying to pug a group).

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Scythe has 32 range, Axe has 22, Hammer has 16, Spear/Bow has 13, Dagger has 10, Sword has 7

Yes, you would get low crits which would suck for damage, you might not even realize you just did a low crit, it would probably look like a normal hit amount of damage, but that is the price you pay for using weapons more susceptible to low crits... if you really hate low crits, just use a sword... if youre willing to take the risk of high crits and low crits, then take a scythe or axe..... also daggers wont care about low crits, or high crits... their auto damage is so low it wont make too much difference Talamare 05:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As for 2, Im a type of person that strongly agrees that synergy between classes and different class skills is what makes GW what it is, so Ill essentially always be against that, and I usually disagree with the suggestions to make primary attributes work only on their main class as well Talamare 05:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I was thinking hammers would be affected more because their max damage is so much larger. I have to say, I'm strongly against the idea of a crit not being important - that, to me as a gamer, goes against everything a crit stands for. However, you taught me something, which I approve of.

GW has, historically, had major problems with primary and secondary classes being too... fluid. N/Rt healers, fast cast air spike, and thumpers come immediately to mind when I think of secondary profession abuse. The way I saw the game originally was that the secondary profession was designed to be something you could use to specialize a few of your tools, not something you could min/max your entire character around. And, quite honestly, when it comes to game balance, there's absolutely no reason for you to be able to base your entire character around your secondary profession. However, I thank you for your opinion.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticals actually just add +20 to your attack rating, but there's no mention of what that's called in the game. It's easier to say -20 armor, which has the same outcome. ~Shard 06:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No it isnt, its easier to say what it actually is - 1.4x damage... show source before making statement Talamare 12:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but most of this is a load of claptrap. Melee attacks should be the case of most of the damage in the game because it takes a lot more skill to be a "good" warrior/derv/sin than it does to be a caster just spamming buttons. Melee has the greatest number of counters to it, most of which are total defenses against it, so it should be causing the most damage. Limiting secondary atts to 8 is a terrible idea just because a build uses weapons from another class does not make it gimmicky, it makes it different. Diversity being the whole reason we even have secondary professions. Let the rangers have their daggers, let the assassins cause knockdowns with a hammer. Don't ask the devs to kill a fun part of the game just because you have a problem with people multi-classing. --Ckal Ktak 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

lol.

It doesn't take a whole lot of skill to be a "good" derv/sin, and even good warriors - who actually do require skill - deal too much damage in this game. That said, the number of melee counters is way too high and most of them are way too effective, which is something I'll address when my PvP pages get to the elementalist/monk/necromancer area. Yes, melee should be causing the most damage; no, that doesn't mean melee is entitled to continue doing entirely too much damage.

Rangers with daggers/scythes, Assassins with hammers/scythes, Mesmers using Elementalist skills (air or kappa spike), Necromancers using Ritualist healing skills - all of these are the results of a poorly designed secondary profession system. Part of the fix is to make primary attributes make sense (being a bonus instead of a requirement); the other part is to simply make it impossible for gimmicks to occur.

"Diversity" is not a reason to allow overpowered builds in the game, btw. Ever. Also, overpowered builds are only fun for those running them - not for everyone facing them who has to deal with entirely too spammable knockdowns, spirits that make it impossible for you to heal while having no effect on the enemy, hexes stacked everywhere on everyone, snares that deal spike damage at range, etc. etc. etc.

Conclusion: I'm not asking the devs to "kill a fun part of the game just because I have a problem with people multi-classing"; I'm asking the devs to kill an overpowered part of the game because the secondary profession system is completely out of hand. Hopefully it was the dev's idea from the start to have secondary professions act as a bonus instead of a way to abuse your primary profession's attributes, but either way, that's what the game needs to move back towards.

If you really can't see why I'm suggesting these things, try doing some research. Start with the B button.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Armond please,warrior's have actually received nerf after the nerf with very little buffs.I'm not saying they got nuked at all I'm saying they didn't receive any major buffs buf whirling axe and primal rage.I don't know but if their damage wasn't ok people wouldn't have run 500 health EVER Lilondra *poke* 05:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So, wait, getting people to run 500 hp again would be bad? As it stands, if one thing dies, there's so much damage going around that you have to retreat furiously so nothing else dies. I'm perfectly fine with getting rid of that - and let's be honest, if there were any chance at all of getting ANet to accept my suggestions, they'd have me ragging at them to do huge amounts of testing before anything went live. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No,I would *love* to get back to the point where you can run 500-550 health,Where you can take a few kills and still push them back,where you can wipe and still have a shot (shure it would still be a great disadvantage but you get the point).I'm just saying that to accomplish this warrior's don't need alot of changes.TBH most of the changes I did in my balance were buffs or small tweaks.I don't think I nuked stuff.Lilondra *poke* 05:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(R.I) Ow,And your warrior balance would proly even *feed* the powercreep Lilondra *poke* 05:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My source for knowing crits sub 20 armor is as follows: COMMON SENSE. Do you really think Izzy and James P had the following conversation:

Izzy: James, I think crits should do * 1.4 damage

James: No Izzy, let's make it 1.42!

Izzy: You're so bad, at least bring it down to 1.41

James: Make it 1.41421356 or you're fired.

Or do you think it went like this:

Izzy: I think crits should take away 20 of the target's armor. Other skills already do this, so we (anet) would not have to do any work, and our servers would not have to multiply as many floats.

James: When did you learn so much about computers?

Or, in case you're going to be cynical, -20 armor applying the same amount of damage is not coincidental. ~Shard 06:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said on another thread, "what the hell kind of arbitrary decision was that?" when someone brought up the possibility it was the square root of 2 or some shit. All that does is make the processor do assloads more work for a result that, because of the health levels in Guild Wars will not in the entire course of the game running make 1 single point of damage's worth of difference. —Jette 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how attributes can be so limited for secondary as you suggested. I just don't see that happening. It's not quiet that fair either. I just don't see much possibility in this. Ariyen 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Attribute limitations do three things. Firstly, you can't effectively use the secondary's weapons. That eliminates stupid shit like scythe assassins, scythe warriors, scythe dervishes, scythe necromancers, and scythe paragons. Secondly, other skills could then be rigged to fail at less than 9 points. Lastly, you would only be able to use secondary skills for utility, because 8 points isn't enough for most skills to do a significant amount of damage or healing. This would remove from the metagame mesmers who don't use mesmer skills, eles who don't use ele skills, necros who don't use necro skills, rangers who don't use ranger skills, etc. There's really no reason to call it a "primary profession" if you're going 90% secondary anyway. ~Shard 02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

shard isnt it easier for you to just suggest that youre only allowed 1 skill from a different class or some crap like that (btw im FOR the scythe "list every class" and "class" who use other "class" skills) Talamare 03:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

@Shard: How the fuck did you put in scythe necromancers and paragons and completely forget scythe rangers?

@Talamare: It's basically the same thing - since you can't completely abuse the most overpowered shit in the game (the most overpowered primary attributes + the most overpowered spells, or the most overpowered weapon + the most overpowered primary attribute and its melee attacks), there's no point in bringing two (maybe three, usually for a hard res) skills from your secondary profession.

I really don't see why anyone could oppose the "let's not make secondary professions break primary professions or vice versa" thing unless they don't understand the basics of game balance. :/

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

True, Secondary shouldn't break primary professions, etc. But the thing is, It's not EASY nor would it BE EASY to manage that. Because people are going to use their primaries and secondaries the way they want. On themselves, heroes, etc. Only reason I'd oppose at the moment, is because I don't see HOW it could be done to Manage it. Else I would be ALL FOR it. So if the How could be explained, which I think would really be nice. Instead of going cap , etc. Explain the how it could be done or how You'd think it should be done, etc. (what not) > I would like to see the Effects of this (outcome, etc), The results of what this could do to the skills, etc. (which I'm sure isn't that hard to image, just use secondaries and try to do 'pretend' caps, etc.) And other information that programmers, etc. might face when they do things similar, etc.

The main thing is, It should be at least a benefit to the game, not just certain players or what not, but would this change benefit a build for the game. As attribute points, etc. change the effects of skills. Skills changes the effects of what it deals to enemies. etc. . So even if some may understand the balance of the game, they may not understand reasoning or may want to be clarified of the changes - if it'd help the game instead of harming it, etc. I hope this can define from what I've learned (from asking Anet questions on a few skills in email to playing the game, to making websites, etc.) to show my reasonings, etc. Ariyen 08:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you PvP on a serious level? Or at all?

How many non-bullshit-gimmick builds use more than 8 points in a secondary attribute? An earth ele may occasionally run 9 resto for Resilient or Warding, a fire ele might run 9 command. Sometimes monks ran 9 tactics to meet their shield req. But necro/ritualists and ele/ritualists and endurance daggers and escape daggers and lyssa daggers and EDA Spear and all that other wtflame crap? All of that would be killed with this change, in one fell swoop.

I think that qualifies as "good for the game". is for Raine, etc. 07:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

TBH its just a good fix,There isn't more to say of it.(I suggested changing primary atts myself but this is atleast as good if not better) Lilondra *poke* 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you guys have considered PvE into this either. Amusing. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 09:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So tell me again how did you miss the fact that Armond only cares about PvP and therefor all he's changes are aimed at pvp and how is it rly relevant to PvE ? like in does it rly matter ? Lilondra *poke* 10:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My articles are titled "<profession> PvP" for a reason. I could care less about PvE - it needs a more major workover than I'm willing to give it at this point. (Specifically, almost every monster in the game would need a new skillset or I'd have to accept the fact that, short changes that major to certain [and/or new] areas, every part of PvE would be super easy. Plus a nuke to basically every PvE-only skill in existence, which feels bad after people "invest" in them, even if that investiture is, by some interpretations, hero skill points [which are lol to get] and fast-and-easy titles.)

Regardless, how many good PvE builds use more than 8 in a secondary attribute? Oh, wait. Loads of them, because it's so fucking easy to get 12 soul/12 resto, or 12 strength/12 scythe. Yeah, fuck PvE.

What do you mean, "manage it"? It manages itself - the entire reason for the suggestion is to manage secondary professions, or did you miss that part?

Want me to explain how to code it? Here we go: Find the block of code that prevents you from putting 13 or more into an attribute and add a check for "is this a secondary profession attribute?". (May involve as much work as defining a few variables, such as fromProfession, a string which would return "warrior" for Strength, Axe Mastery, Hammer Mastery, Swordsmanship, and Tactics, and similar for other attributes. This variable would then be checked against the variable that holds the player's class as a string.) If the strings match (in C, you'd use strcmp(); in ruby, you'd use something like "if fromProfession == primaryProfession"), alter the cap from 13 to 9.

And yeah, idiots aren't going to realize how this benefits the game. How is this different from any other change in the history of guild wars? I suspect the main reason you bring it up is because the GW playerbase is more retarded than average and thus QQs about necessary nerfs more than average.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you forget about the PvE/PvP split already? I think it's amusing how you haven't even considered the game when making your comments. King Neoterikos 01:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, splitting skills into PvE and PvP versions is significantly different from splitting attribute limits into PvE and PvP versions. I'm bad, I forgot that ANet is fine with buffing shit to insane levels to make PvE way easier than it should be, but not with nerfing insane shit to reasonable levels to balance PvP. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This one isn't listed, except for number 3, as for being for pvp or pve. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 02:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

...but PvE-versions of skills can make up for the lost power? To counter reduced critical damage in PvE (not that it's necessary...), just make all attack skills do extra damage. That said, I'm fairly confident that if I went on record and said that these would be good changes for PvE, I wouldn't be too disappointed later. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"That eliminates stupid shit like scythe assassins, scythe warriors, scythe dervishes, scythe necromancers, and scythe paragons." I lol'ed so hard on this :), also the Izzy conversation xD - Wuhy 09:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Conditions

→ moved from Feedback talk:User/Armond/Warrior PvP

Bleeding foes suffer -3 health degeneration and -1 energy degeneration.

• Bleeding is a cover condition currently. It's not really useful for anything on its own.

Poisoned foes suffer -4 health degeneration. Reapplied whenever a poisoned foe uses a skill or attacks.

• Most poisons are relatively weak, lasting for only a few seconds. Increased activity by a poisoned target, however, causes the poison to spread faster, remaining in the body longer.

Burning foes suffer -7 health degeneration and are easily interrupted.

• Typically characterized by very short durations. Being on fire makes it difficult to concentrate.

Deafened foes are unaffected by shots, chants, and echoes.

• This just needed to happen.

Blind foes have a 50% chance to miss with attacks. Skills that blind foes attempt to use on others may hit adjacent targets instead.

• How do casters target people without being able to see? Really?

Crippled foes move 50% slower and their stances expire 50% sooner OR
Crippled foes move 50% slower and they are knocked down if they are critically struck in melee.

• How easy is it to keep your footing with a severe limp?

Diseased foes suffer -4 health degeneration. Disease spreads to similar nearby creatures.

• Disease is annoying and perfect.

Dazed foes take twice as long to activate skills and are easily interrupted.

• Yes, even attack skills. Daze is difficult to inflict.

Weakened foes deal 66% less damage with attacks and their attributes are reduced by 3.

• 1 att reduction might make you miss a breakpoint or something, but when is that really threatening?

Foes suffering from a Deep Wound have their maximum health reduced by 20% and receive 20% less benefit from healing.

• Deep Wound is a good condition.

Gogo ImbaCondition Wars. is for Raine, etc. 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Crippled foes move 50% slower and they are knocked down if they are critically struck in melee. lol. that+sin's=lotta KD. personn5 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll seriously consider these. I agree some conditions should probably be tweaked (blind and bleeding, mostly), but cripple is fine imo - changing it to affect stances might happen if stances become super-prevalent, but mostly it seems a thematic change instead of a balance change. (Also, sins are indeed liable to lolcrits after my changes, since daggers do shit for damage and I've suggested nuking crit bonus damage already.) Furthermore, I'm balancing most of my changes around the current condition effects - I don't think swords being able to spam -1 energy regen is a good idea (and with hundred blades doing bleeding, cripple, and weakness, plus these changes, zomfg). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Raine every single on of those changes would be imba Lilondra *poke* 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Potentially not if the entire rest of the game were redesigned around them, but that'd take an assload of work. (That said, weakness could maybe use the -3 attributes and bleeding could probably use a little more oomph.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bleeding would be imba and is ok in condition pressure or as cover it just needs more spammability on warriors,Weakness would proly be imba with -3 attributes.You don't want every condition to be MUST REMOVE NAO.Also there are 2 ways to balance you either take the current point of power and balance around it or you take a other point of power and balance around it.You are taking a higher one then the current one.Remember to also balance health,armor and maps appropriatly Lilondra *poke* 17:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, every condition shouldn't be "remove nao plz", but then again weakness currently is basically ignored on non-melee. So's blind, but weakness was designed to affect attributes, which everyone has. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bleeding is ignored by everyone tbh. is for Raine, etc. 06:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Its more when you spam bleeding and poison and perhaps throw in disease that your glad you have bleeding.I don't like the idea of changing a condition since if a condition gets imba its not jus one build or one set but almost every build that relies on or inflicts that condition Lilondra *poke* 07:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No cap on DW? Fail. Vili 点 08:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol your worried about DW in those condition suggestions ? Not about cripple being bull's charge ? Lilondra *poke* 08:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Think of what it will do to pve! DW on Rotscale = like 4,000 domages! Vili 点 08:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I rly hope that was sarcasm,Because right now I'm conflicted between crying or laughing Lilondra *poke* 08:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

omfg.. conditions are perfect by design, do not fuck with something that is perfect just to have something new and shiny.... one thing that annoys me is the high PERCENTAGE chance on blind... pure luck and ur fucked over mostly.. - Wuhy 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

...you just said it's perfect but it has flaws. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

pretty much, yeah, opposed to raine who is suggesting an entire revamp and overpowering the conditions then having to change ALL condition removal and inflicting skills to match this change.. i only suggest to change that retarded percentage factor from blind, since it is really random... either shorter durations and 100% miss or you can hit adjacent foes while under it instead and less chance to miss than now(percentage should be removed entirely tho) or idk rly, its just frustrating now... also, rofl at 12 range :3 (no i dont fail at maths, only at terms) - Wuhy 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is the percentage bad? I'm wondering why it should be reworked at such a fundamental level (and what it would be reworked to). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

every kind of percentage chance to do something(keen arrow, % blocks, blind, 40/40 sets) while offering diversity, are based on luck, if you are lucky, your guardian will block a dshot trying to rupt your woh, if you are not, well.. you are fucked over for the next 20 seconds. - Wuhy 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The flip side of that coin is, if you're not putting something between yourself and their ranger, you deserve to be dshotted. Yes, you can get a string of luck/unluck, but in the case of e.g. blind, it's not super likely, and in the case of anything else, it's not really necessary. (It's nice to block three dshots, sure, but your skill as a player is more important than that.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

true, i dont really have problem with that, but blind's 10% chance of hit feels really random.. - Wuhy 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They really should lower it to 75 or 50, 90% is just a slap in the face Talamare 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm playing devil's advocate today. 90% really is a slap in the face, but in fairness, it's the single best way to stop a non-gimmick spike and non-gimmick pressure. With all the melee power going around, melee pressure reduction is always good (and it should be, but not to the point where slacking on blind/blurred/snares results in a death as soon as the other guy gets a few crits). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(R;I) Look you either lower the percentage and make it easier to inflict or you keep the percentage and nuke how easy it is to inflict now (EDA and Bsurge being the main skills that need revamp/nuke).I think the second option is better since otherwise it will stay as hard to keep someone clean even if its just during spikes Lilondra *poke* 10:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Steam nerf itt. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Steam is not that OP tbh.Bsurge and EDA are defo the main problems when it comes to blind.Lilondra *poke* 15:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)