User talk:Raine Valen/Musings/Health and Armor

Hi Michelle

This test is four years late. Also, there are so many other variables that you cannot account for and so many different situations that it essentially comes down to personal preference. Armor may look great on paper, but so do a lot of things that fail miserably in practice. And this really isn't all of the information. For example, what is the rate of encountering high armor-ignoring damage as compared to high armor-respecting damage? Or which is easier or more likely to be pre-protted or protted quickly? Etc. For several years, you'd have been retarded to run armor over health, because of how many armor-ignoring spikes and hexes there were. And because of Aegis (or blockway in general), armor-respecting damage was so easily avoided for a while. I know it's not like that anymore, but I don't know what it IS like.

Either way, I will run Survivor's on my fow for the remainder of my uninstallation.

P.S. I like [arguing with] you.

I reflected the current (balanced) meta with the test, and I skewed it very, very much in the favor of armor-ignoring damage.

The rate of encountering each form of damage is largely the statistic that I was trying to account for here, but, of course, the number isn't precise (the actual number would only be accurately calculated with usage data, and that isn't publicly available). However, given that, it's very, very safe to say that the amount of armor-ignoring damage here is much higher than one would experience in normal play, with the exception of some things like Mesmer Spike.

Armor-affected is easier to prot, generally, because it's generally inflicted by physicals - elementalists don't do much damage off of spikes, with the exception of fire eles. However, this is designed to reflect GvG; in HA, the ratio of armor-respecting to -ignoring damage is notably higher because (1) warriors are much harder to prot (due to the small map sizes) and (2) fire eles are a good 25% (or more) of the damage on a balanced spike.

Of course, there are some exceptions in either format, like rspike (which is largely armor-ignoring) and Mesmer Spike (which is entirely armor-ignoring). Conversely, though, there are builds like IWAY, Ele spikes, and Sway (this shit always comes back), which are mostly or entirely armor-mitigated. For example, wearing Disciple's insignae and taking Searing Flames for 40-odd damage is much better than taking 80-odd per hit and having 40 more Health.

In past metas, there were bigger sources of armor-ignoring damage (turret rangers, kappaspike, bspike, nightmare spike, etc). Those aren't around anymore, for the most part - this is actually one of the best metas for armor over health that I've seen in a while.

Finally, who are you, why are you using my name on t3h wikis, and will you buy me a set and a half of obby? is for Raine, etc. 02:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know if I'm doing this right, so I'm copying you.

I figured all this was the case; I was just arguing for the sake of arguing with you (and because I wanted you to confirm that you did take these things into account). Towards the end of my playing I was using Survivor's with armor weapons. I distinctly remember one of the first times I bothered to make a shield for each different damage type, and I encountered SF. I put resilient weapon on myself with the right shield on and I just kind of giggled at the small numbers. I dunno why I didn't just start using armor insignias then; I guess I never really felt comfortable with less than 500 health (even though I monked for a while top 100 in a spike meta with nobody on the team having over 400 health).

Finally, I have given you plenty of hints (though given your efamy, I suppose there are a number of people you know who I could be). I'm using your name because your front page says I can (unless you're a liarpants). And I've given you AT LEAST half a set of obby. I was going to give you more, but due to an unfortunate event, I was unable. I also gave you some shields that I went through a lot of hassle to put together, as well as an axe that I made just for you. And I'm not saying who I am and neither are you because nobody who reads your stuff likes me, and it isn't important because all I wanted to do was argue with you.

In other news, I've heard (from ANet) that there for sure won't be a dedicated healer in GW2. I think the removal of the secondary class was necessary, but the monk (and how it worked with the game) was part of what made the PvP in this game so much better than every other mmo I've played. I've contemplated not buying GW2 because of this, but I most likely still will depending on how the beta goes. What do you think? Or am I not allowed to discuss that here? I suppose a question more related to the topic here, is: do you think an armor-favoring or a health-favoring meta is better? Personally, I enjoyed 321, and I don't think non-spike builds did badly in that meta (thanks to tournaments and buildwars).

Marry me?

unblock me you nigger -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not who you think it is. is for Raine, etc. 04:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That axe is still my vamp. All of my other axes have swapped in and out (my Zealous is an Eaglecrest now, finally, and my ele is an Icy Destroyer Axe because lolirony), but that one's always going to be my vamp.  :>

And my ele still uses those shields because I love them!

You missed an argument in AC yesterday (two days ago?) about quantum physics; you would've enjoyed that, I think. I still don't believe that the uncertainty principle is based on any property of the universe so much as it's based on a constant source of experimental error (this source being the limit of humans' ability to perceive the universe around them as it actually is). I really do wish you'd been there. :\

The lack of a dedicated healer bothers me. A lot. If you remember Aether, a lot of my design work was done in such a way that the game would function without healers - I did this by basically giving everyone the ability to flawless anyone else, with a good deal of skill and a proper spec. On the surface, that sounds like what they're trying to do with GW2. Unfortunately, this is ArenaNet. I wouldn't say "they're flailing around in the dark with a chainsaw", but... well, I would, actually. I have very little faith in them, at this point.

But let's assume that they do implement it in a way that delivers what they say it will: will it still be Guild Wars? I'd firmly say no (monks MAKE Guild Wars), but that's not really a bad thing in and of itself. I read I Am Legend and, subsequently, saw the movie; I was hugely disappointed. I wasn't disappointed because the movie was terrible (it wasn't great, either), but because it was so far off of the book. They could've given it another title and it would've been fine, but they called it something that it wasn't and that made me dislike it. I think GW2's going to be sort of the same deal, and that is a bad thing. :\

Finally, I think an armor-favoring meta is definitely better than a Health-favoring meta. There's a reason that each profession has its armor rating, and armor-ignoring skills and metas completely disregard that, which makes the game inherently imbalanced. Remember SB/RI spike? Or have you seen current Mesmer spike? It's just gay. There's no other way to say it. It is faggotry of the highest order. I'm not saying that other metas can't be (*cough* Sway *cough*), but every armor-ignoring spike ever has been. is for Raine, etc. 04:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

=3

I'm not intelligent enough to understand quantum physics, so I'm glad I wasn't there. The highest level class I've taken is Calculus 3 and/or Differential Equations, the latter of which I solidly failed by my calculations (but didn't according to my transcript). I'm really not nearly as smart as you seem to think I am.

I have no words to express my disgust towards ANet for this decision and towards PvEers for essentially being the main factor in this decision. I wouldn't mind so much if ANet simply wanted to swing a chainsaw around in the dark, but this seems like a very lazy yet calculated decision to simply appeal to the masses more (which I really can't blame them for wanting to do). There are no monks because not many people played monk in PvE, making it difficult to form pugs. Personally, I think that there were plenty of monks in PvE, they just didn't play with random groups because they were filled with morons, which made it a nightmare to monk. If that is the case, how the hell will these morons do any better when they're able to heal themselves, especially if it is as prot-oriented as it seems? They'll have the means to stay alive, but not the skill. Maybe I'm wrong, though. And let it be known that I beat Prophecies and Factions with henchmen.

A better solution to this would be to include monks, but make it so they're not necessary in PvE. With the advent of all these PvE and PvP skills in GW, I was kind of thinking that PvE and PvP would be quite separate in GW2, but it appears that this is not the case.

It seems this is just going to be the way it is, though, so we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe it'll be amazingly great, but my instinct tells me that it only will be for the more simple-minded players, and that this is going to majorly suck for anyone who was planning on being competitive (or hoping for a game similar to pre-NF GW).

As for armor vs ignoring, I guess I would prefer armor. It's getting rid of spikes entirely that I'm opposed to. There's a reason splitting is possible; it's when you take away VoD that splitting becomes obnoxious. You could literally win the game by killing some NPCS and wanding the Guild Lord. With VoD, though, you have to actually face the other team at some point. I think honor 8v8 is great, but neither splits nor spikes should be removed or unbalanced.

Another point: if there are going to be 8 classes, and one of them isn't Monk, and one of them isn't Ritualist...I'm worried. Warrior, Ranger, and Elementalist are for sure. Mesmer seems likely, Necromancer seems likely. That leaves Assassin, Paragon, and Dervish, or some entirely new class(es). Whether it's one of the familiar three or a new one, I'm worried, because (aside from pre-NF assassin) they have only done bad things with those classes, and have not experienced the potential new class. I suppose Ritualist could still be a class, but it seems kind of bare with no healing abilities.

Fucking ANet.

Quantum physics is surprisingly simple, once you get the base problem out of the way, which is that you're expecting to go in and for everything to make sense. Once you get rid of the notion that there's any meaningful sense of law and order at the smallest levels of the universe (individual pixels), it becomes much easier to understand. This is usually referred to as the "Lovecraft point," as insanity quickly follows a complete understanding of the mechanics. –Jette 06:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I knew just about nothing about quantum physics before that conversation; you're at least as smart as me, I think, so I think you'd've been able to pick up at least as much as I did.

I agree that they should've included monks, but made them non-required. The thing about that, though, is that that would be difficult from a design standpoint, and I don't think that they've the competence required for something like that. I like playing monk. :\

There is no doubt in my mind that Assassins are coming back. They're way too popular to drop out. Plus, daggers exist. There is no spear or scythe, so I don't believe we'll be seeing dervs or paragons.

They also said that there were some new professions, so there's that. is for Raine, etc. 06:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how much it scared me to see what I said on your front page? I honestly freaked the fuck out for like 10 seconds because I thought I had accidentally somehow edited your page and totally fucked everything. ._.

And no, you're much smarter than I am. But that shall be the end of that conversation.

What would be the problems with unnecessary monks in PvE? Obviously, rewards would be scaled so that teams with monks would have a much easier time, unless they found some brilliant way of doing it. However, I think teams with monks would be the ones that are more serious about the game and thus care about high-end rewards, whereas teams without monks or pugs would be comprised of more casual players, who wouldn't care so much about high-end rewards. Basically, the teams without access to the high-end rewards would be the teams that didn't care about it.

Also, it's important to take into account subscription when talking about casual gamers. Will there be a subscription, and will casual gamers pay for it? It doesn't seem like they would, so I'm not sure what that would do to my above statements.

Blah, all this theorycrafting is not like me. I'd much rather look at something, determine whether I can change it, and, upon determining that I cannot, simply say "meh" and brace myself accordingly.

Let's look on the bright side, though; how many times have you been playing some non-backline role in HA, seen a spike incoming, and been completely unable to stop it? I know I have loads of times, even on Ritualist ("ok, he's got Resilient, he'll be fine. Well, as long as this guy infuses. Infuse...infuse...please infuse...oh come on I just dropped Kaolai and everything...FUCKING INFUSE *dead* FFFFFFFFFUUUUU"). I think that as long as the prots and heals that are given to each class are strong enough (enough to rival or even outdo a real monk's similar-effect spell), it could be ok. The only thing I still wouldn't like is how it's a sort of de-specialization. Specialization in GW is another part of what made it so great; each slot generally had a very specific role to play, and it was making all the slots work together that really made the game. Monks are what enabled the fighting to go on long enough to where the team with the (usually) definitively better control over this was able to win. I suppose this can still be possible, but...it seems like it'll either be really difficult and succeed or really simple and fail.

We shall see.