Talk:Effect stacking

Should there be links on this page to these two Anet generated articles that give numbers for different stacking effects? Running the Numbers and More Mechanics and Stacking

I found these linked on the old wiki's Stack page, but since the articles themselves are not generated from the old wiki, I assume it would be fine to put them here.BladeDVD 16:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added blocking to the table. I did not compare info in the rest of the linked articles to what is already on the page for completeness or accuracy.BladeDVD 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Activation time increase cap

In the summary for this edit, Monte Mac Manannan states the following:

changed activation modification cap from 50% to 150% [test:: (Migraine 100% + Arcane Conundrum 100%) causes the same casting times as (Migraine 100% + Frustration 50%)]

The test methodology may be flawed. For example, if the cap is 50% or 100%, Migraine + Arcane Conundrum and Migraine + Frustration would both result in the same casting time. In order to verify the cap is 150%, the skill activations would need to be timed or compared to a single 100% effect. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

He's correct, I just confirmed it in Augury Rock, Meteor Shower takes 12~13 seconds to cast while hexed with Arcane Conundrum and Migraine. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

None

IMO we should replace all instances of "none" in the table, as it is not clear whether it refers to "no stacking" or "uncapped stacking". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats odd

I read somewhere that enchant lengthening only stacked to 50% such as of enchanting, and blessed aura would stack to 50% even if you had say 30 in div fav (only an example). But theres nothing in the table that shows this. Did I read just a load of jibberish on this?--Sam6555 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how to make a new category but this seems to fit. When listing the maximum effects for negative and positive stacking for effects, the max negative effect to maximum health is stated as 1. Unless i miss understand the chart this must be impossible seeing as runes of abilites (ie. necromancers major rune of blood magic) give negative health effects such as -35hp. Wich would of cource be a pointless effect. Seraphist 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

positive/negative vs. increase/reduction

These words were chosen for a reason. Increase/reduction implies that something can change an existing value, which is not true for things like attribute levels (there's a max and a min, not a stacking limit). Positive and negative not only make this distinction, but they also make the chart more clear numerically. ~Shard 04:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Spirit stacking.

Am I the only one who thinks it should change? Whenever a spirit is summoned with a Binding Ritual (or Anguished Was Lingwah), it will kill any allied spirit of the same type --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.222.107.125 (talk • contribs) at 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Yes you are the only one who thinks it should change. ^_^ --Falconeye 17:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Miss chance, critical hit chance, and other percentiles.

They stack multiplicatively, and don't seem to have a cap, so why aren't they on the cap and no cap list? Necromas 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they would be copies of the "blocking" line. ~Shard 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Recharge time?

-50% recharge time is negative??? Why would that be negative when recharge time is educed...?Also Recharge time can be increased but only by set amount that is noted in the skill ( Auspicious Incantation, Power Lock ) 95.180.76.188 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Heal effect stacking

The Heal article says the effect stack multiplicatively, so...

• if I get rank 20 prot prayers with life attunement and aura of faith, it should heal for (1.62)(2.17) = 3.5154 (times)
• if it is reduced by every skill and condition I would then get Mark of Pain(0.67), Deep wound (0.8), Predatory Season (0.8), Defile Flesh (0.67), Lingering curse (0.8) and Malign Intervention(0.8) which is ~ 0.18387 for the reduction
• The reduction counters the +healing to a net effect of ~ 0.64637

is that correct? K61824 01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent

The -25% on activation time and note 6 on recharge time disagree with the QCT and 40/40 pages. Can someone please determine which are right? -- Kirbman 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Arrows

What is the maximum movement speed for arrows?--91.79.97.64 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Armor stacking cap bug

Unless this bug is fixed, the armor stacking cap needs a little rewrite. Not only skills are included in the 25 armor cap, but in fact all weapon mods that are not inscriptions. Armor ratings are calculated from 6 main sources:

• Base armor (what you're wearing)
• Insignia
• Mysticism (if applicable)
• Base shield armor (the requirement part)
• Inscriptions (real inscriptions, not inherent mods that can be replicated with inscriptions)
• Rest (skills, weapons mods, consumables)

The 'rest' category is capped at 25 armor (unless a single effect goes higher). This means, for example, if you use Stand Your Ground! with a Sword Pommel of Defense, you only get +25 armor, not +29. udas 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying the formula is:

• AR = Clothes + Shield + Off/forehand inscriptions + AoS + 0-25 (skills, weapon, mods, other consumables, inherent mods) ← if single-skill effects provide <=25 AR.
• AR = Clothes + Shield + Off/forehand inscriptions + AoS + x (single skill effect) ← if x >=25.

And are we sure that's a bug rather than intended by the developers? — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mysticism is missing in the long line of addends (it does not count into the 25 limit but stacks, as to be expected). Your summary is correct however. – 01:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's the formula I believe. Ah yes, Mysticism Arty, thanks :). The 6 (7 with Mysticism) parts are added together, with only the 'rest' category having a specific cap with a possibility of single effects breaching that cap. As to your stricken part, it's easy to see how it's a bug when a shield with an inherent +10 vs fire mod works differently than an inscribable shield with "Sleep Now in the Fire". udas 01:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edited the list to move Armor of Salvation to the rest category, because it is affected by the 25 armor cap. udas 18:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Stacking + Non-stacking results in what?

If you have a +50 non-stacking health and 2x +10 stacking health, is the net amount +50 or +70? 76.253.0.17 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Health and energy bonuses on armor stack, except for Runes of Vigor (which are non-stacking)." — Effect stacking, i.e. +70 based on your description. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For some people, formula is better than a text description, for some others not. I think that having both formula (like it was here some time before) and description can prevent such questions. However, formula should be written clearly... --Slavic 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That would help clarify, but the main point of confusion is that Stacking and Non-Stacking are semantically opposed, but one has to override the other when both are present. The original question is basically which one takes precedence. In other words, a non-stacking bonus does, in fact, stack with "stacking" bonuses. It's the idiosyncratic use of these terms that leads to confusion. It would be just as easy to assume that "non-stacking" means nothing stacks with it. The quotation from the article merely begs the question. In actuality, what GW means by "non-stacking" is the concept of a singleton -- only one (the largest) "non-stacking" effect stacks. 65.118.124.124 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

same hex fromdifferent casters - does each caster gets the benefit?

Let's say you have several necros casting life siphon on the same enemy. Do each caster gets the health regen, or will that remove the life regen of the other casters? K61824 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This question was asked on the Life Siphon talk page and answered with 'yes', so I'd say they stack. Haven't personally tested it though. udas 19:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Column width

→ moved from User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford#Column width

So, I'm guessing you're using firefox, b/c in IE and Chrome it's only as wide as the biggest first word. --JonTheMon 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmn. There are multiple issues, mostly that the table isn't respecting the stated width. 180em/25% is far too wide (it really is 3x as wide as the longest phrase, which is about 38em, depending on the font). Let's see if we can find another mechanism that allows the last column to be as wide as possible (widening the first scrunches the last; I think that's a bigger problem than taller rows in the first column). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing what you're seeing. I'm running somewhere around 1000px, for a reference. The first three columns altogether share 25% of the width. I was going for a width that would allow the first column to not have stacked words. --JonTheMon 17:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense to me...but that leaves huge amounts of unused white space in the first column...and thereby forces the last column to be smaller. So... I dunno. I tried some kludges, but basically, the rendering isn't respecting the request width. In short: bleh.

I'm going to try a couple more things (and I'll test in IE and/or Chrome this time). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Complete ugly kludge, which works for IE, too and at smaller screens. Can you take a look and see if that's better or worse? Thanks! — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

looks fine in IE7 at whatever dumb resolution this is (1024x864 or whatever) 24.130.140.36 18:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I was at one point considering nbsp, and didn't really like it, but it ends up looking right. --JonTheMon 18:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a horrible tool, but nothing else seems to work (including manually setting widths on rows, unbundling {{STDT}}, etc...). It's some weird conflict between mediawiki + browser rendering of HTML. I hope that someone who is more knowledgeable about both can find a more sensible way to adjust it. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to say: thank you both for double-checking so quickly. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)