Curse

Magikarp · Nov 15, 2007, 06:48 AM // 06:48

what if strength said:

for every point in str, you gain 1% armor pen, and while in PvE, your aggro raidius draws creatures towards you up to (x) depending on str...

idk.. like i cant word it.. but for every point in str while in pve, monsters will attack you and be drawn to you more, then maybe it could be like.. you gain 2 armor for each monster drawn this way.

that way warriors can tank... ? lol.. honestly.. its late.. im just being silly now lmao

Elrien Silentfoot · Nov 15, 2007, 06:50 AM // 06:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malaguard

To my knowledge, this only affects base weapon damage. The game mechanics for damage can be looked up at any of the wiki sites - but it goes like this:
Long calculation applied to base weapon damage and then add skill damage on top.

Net result?
WARNING - IF YOU ARE A PERFECTIONIST - PLEASE REPOST THE ACTUAL NUMBERS - THIS IS GENERALIZED DAMAGE CALC:
Sword warrior versus a level 60 target on his hardest hit (critical) does 22*sqrt(2) (about 1.44)... let's just say it's 30 (don't want to pull up calculator). 30 damage, and he has 10% armor penetration - so MAYBE his hit gets boosted up to 32 or maybe as much as 34 damage. Add weapon skill damage on top of that (+flat amount based on skill points). Versus a warrior, with 100 armor level, the sword damage is cut in half right? Boom - Base sword damage on a critical is now 15 or so. Armor penetration? 2 or 3 points more? Maybe? Point being - there's no point in taking Strength besides meeting insignia reqs or for a specific skillset.

According to the GWGuru article :

"Armor Penetration is incredibly straightforward - it simply allows you to ignore the listed percentage of the target's total defense. If a given attack has 10% armor penetration and the target has an armor level of 100, he will only have an armor rating of 90 for the purposes of defending against this attack. Thus the armor penetration equation:..."

CHunterX · Nov 15, 2007, 10:37 AM // 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealthc

So every single Warrior creature in PvE then gets 10-14% block chance?

Not all Warrior creatures even have Strength. Did you even know that mobs have attribute points as well? Do you actually know anything about PvE Guild Wars?

BlackSephir · Nov 15, 2007, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Adding random block = fail

Malaguard · Nov 15, 2007, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

Adding random block = fail

So a lot of people don't like Random Block...

Others have suggested a slight damage soak for warriors, based on strength. It's all still in role also - warriors are TOUGH, and can take the damage.

Something like 1/4 of Strength = damage soak that is stacking (rounded down).

4 stre = 1 damage soak.
8 stre = 2
12 = 3
etc

Red Sonya · Nov 16, 2007, 09:48 AM // 09:48

The Strength Line has awesome damage potential and thus more than makes up for the silliness of 1% armor penetration per point of strength. Thus /unsigned /not signed /yo mama even said she wouldn't sign it.

A11Eur0 · Nov 16, 2007, 10:36 AM // 10:36

I suggest for DF this:

For every 3 ranks in DF, each time a party member is healed by a spell cast by that monk, each party member is healed for 2 health. So, a single spike heal will give 10 health (@15/16 DF) to each party member, but a wide party heal such as LoD or Heal Party will give 10xparty size = 80 to each player, stacked on top of the party heal skill. Then you can cut the healing for those two spells down by 20...50(or so) to compensate for the way overpowered comment that I know this comment will bring. This will keep those party heal skills useful to only the monk, would prevent Ele heal party spammers with their insane energy reserves, and would breathe real life back into these skills. This would balance out the nerf to LoD but not make single target direct power heals imbalanced.

Oblivious Moose · Nov 16, 2007, 11:46 AM // 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malaguard

Paragon, Leadership -
Returns energy on shouts.
Would be nice to have:
Shouts return energy + Make the leadership attribute a passive "aura". When you are in the aggro bubble of a party paragon, damage reduction of 1/5 the points in leadership rounded down, and damage increase of 1/5 the points in leadership, rounded down. (Based on the highest leadership paragon in area - would not stack with other paragon auras). Also, all paragons would be immune to this effect (paragons get no benefits from it, ever, the idea is that the paragon is a leader... too many chiefs, not enough indians... you get the idea).
Example:
Leadership 10 Paragon with Aura - All party members (excluding paragon), have 2 damage soak, and +2 damage on every hit.

this would do nothing but buff the paras primary atb to be unbelieveably imba. the energy gain from leadership is too much as it is, making it the most energy efficient class.

ide suggest that the skills are "aura" like instead, so there wont be massive energy management, no high cost skills. keep the adrenalice, as its a good start.

the aura idea makes the paragon a LEADER, only auras from ONE paragon can be active at a time(only within earshout). im getting sick of these people grouping 2+ paragons on a team, stacking skills so they get nerfed to death.

change the leadership to not give energy, and to affect the skills he uses directly. this would force a change in the skills cost, as it be changed to adrenaline, or less energy, or even like a signet.

but w/e anet will never buff/nerf the paragon as long as its actually used, and isnt being over-used because of it being imba. at this point... the paragon is /fail as a class idea... i would have really enjoyed the class alot more if it was more of a leader, and not a shouting drunk that makes every1 i nthe party godly imba.

summary: change leadership, no e-management. change shouts/chants to be auras, keep most skills as is.

new skill type: aura, every1 in earshot gets xXxXx benefits.
x-cost. no recjharge. no cast. -1 energy upkeep. (as to have more than 2 gives constant energy degen)

leadership: when skill is used on ally, give X energy, and/or X adrenaline.(note, not gained for every party member/ally within earshot, singular target)

this new leadership, and skilltype will prove the paragon to be a LEADER, as using skills on ONE ally, to help them, defensively/offensively. as if they are being led by someone. not all party members are affected by these skills, except auras, if they are within earshot. which cause less energy regen.

the paragon should lead the party, but not all at the same time. the aura's give benefits because they have a "leader" near them. (same idea as warhammer, and their squad leaders.)the individual skilsl shouldnt be imba, just benefitial, something like weapon of warding. as how these benifits cant be stripped, like weapon spells, they should come at a cost, yet still be very effective.

ok.. ive completely lost wtf im saying.. so im going to stop now. need sleep...

theres just some random, noncoherent thought for you to ponder, it will NEVER happen, as said by the op.. so no worried.. ill stick to trying to have fun and not incourage balance, as its always a /fail in the communities eyes.

Malaguard · Nov 16, 2007, 07:21 PM // 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

The Strength Line has awesome damage potential and thus more than makes up for the silliness of 1% armor penetration per point of strength. Thus /unsigned /not signed /yo mama even said she wouldn't sign it.

We agree that 1% armor penetration is silly.

Can we please agree that MOST of the strength line skills can be replaced by skills in other attribute lines?

Warrior damage is primarily buffed by the weapon skills used and weapon attribute points.

The idea of a primary attribute is that it gives a really unique ability to the primary class. Warrior does not get this. And ritualist doesn't get this either, tbh.

And - just so that I'm not spewing my opinion - let's make an objective comparison:

ASSASSIN CRITICAL STRIKES VERSUS WARRIOR STRENGTH.

Critical strikes 16 vs Strength 16 - Wielding an Axe at Axe attribute 12 versus 100 AL target & a 60 AL target.
Assassin has a 16% greater chance to critical, and regain 3 energy.
Warrior has a 16% armor penetration, on the base weapon damage only.

Axe Average Damage for Assassin: (12%+16% critical rate, 6-28 axe, 100 AL Target)= 11.67 + .84 energy regain
Axe Average Damage for Warrior: (12%+critical rate, 6-28 axe, 100 AL Target, 16% armor penetration) = 13

Axe Average Damage for Assassin: (12%+16% critical rate, 6-28 axe, 60 AL Target)= 23.33 + .84 energy regain
Axe Average Damage for Warrior: (12%+critical rate, 6-28 axe, 60 AL Target, 16% armor penetration) = 23.28

So every swing an assassin makes does roughly 1.5 damage less than a warrior, and nets .84 energy back (versus 100 AL target). An assassin actually does slightly more damage and nets an average of .84 energy back on every swing versus an 60 AL target. Also, the assassin has 4 pips energy regen. I admit the warrior has better armor rating, but armor rating can be overcome by MANY other factors that are in the assassins favor.

That doesn't factor in the obvious skills under strength or critical strikes. I would argue that critical strikes has better skills (maintainable 75% enchant block, 100% critical ability, and others).

So you see from my comparison, that Strength as a Primary attribute for a weapon-holding warrior is NOT that good, from a damage perspective.

Note: the only factor I was unable to look up was the critical percentage of the weapon based on the weapon attribute score. I assumed a 1%:1 attribute point rating. 12 axe = 12% inherent critical ability. The actual number may be different.

One final note: Have you ever seen a Ritualist in GvG? 8-p Doesn't that tell you something about the "balance" of that class? I'm talking about a Rit primary - of course.

Painbringer · Nov 16, 2007, 08:44 PM // 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malaguard

Note: the only factor I was unable to look up was the critical percentage of the weapon based on the weapon attribute score. I assumed a 1%:1 attribute point rating. 12 axe = 12% inherent critical ability. The actual number may be different.

Old Wiki has a table

Not sure on the validity but http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Critical_hit

Malaguard · Nov 16, 2007, 09:18 PM // 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Painbringer

Old Wiki has a table

Not sure on the validity but http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Critical_hit

My work firewall blocks the GW wiki QQ
But it doesn't block guru!! *CHEER*

Oh, and for the record, I am officially trolling my own thread.

Kanyatta · Nov 22, 2007, 05:05 AM // 05:05

So, basically, buff everything evenly, so the community goes "OMG! (insert class here) is really powerful now!" and then they'll realize that all the other classes got buffed to about the same effectiveness, and then someone will exploit one of the classes (I don't know how, but it will happen) and then the community will cry nerf.

Basically, Anet shouldn't buff anything to the extreme, because the last thing they want is players to get upset over something overpowered, rage at Anet and not buy GW2.

The Lurch · Nov 22, 2007, 05:33 AM // 05:33

Finally! Some one else is doing math and such on the assassin! The assassin is INCREDIBLY good,-its all i play. But people are still so biased against them for some gay ass reason. SO any buff to assassins im gonna /sign, because part of em hopes that that buff will allow me to join a human party outside of my guild.

Warrior strength attb does suck. We have stated this. hHow about raising armor penetration to 2%? That doesnt look like much, but at 10 str thats 20% armor penetration-which is a huge difference.

Ranger,. IMO dont need any buffs. Expertise effects pretty much any non spell skill.

Paragons also need some love. They got so nerfed that people no longer play them. I think they are acctually rarer then mesmers. How about make leadership just extend the duration of shouts?

Id like to see Df effect smiting monks somehow as well. I dont know how this could be implemented, but I'd like to see it happen.

lutz · Nov 22, 2007, 06:34 AM // 06:34

You are bad. Balance, not IMBA.

Learn to play.