[GW2] PAX Chats on Mechanics and Crafting

Jon Peters (“Pepperjack”) and Jonathan Sharp (“Chaplan”) gave me so much information, my simple sheet of paper with a few questions looks like five different people wrote across the page as fast as possible. There are arrows, sideways sentences, boxed off areas, and I’m not sure it will even all be able to be translated here. Whereas other developers at the NCSoft Meet and Greet at PAX East represented the content, lore, or art departments. These guys represented all things mechanics. With that there was one dominant theme in my talks with Peters and Sharp, they are still iterating on nearly every mechanical feature in Guild Wars 2. It is important to keep in mind that even things fans “know” now because of the demo, interviews, or official articles might be obsolete on launch.

I’ll give an example, at the outset, with the vitality attribute. With a blog article on the newly condensed attributes, many fans were unhappy with vitality. Toughness seemed like the cool attribute reducing the damage per hit, but vitality simply gave more health. Peters said that a necromancer, for instance, is still going to love vitality because it synergizes so well with their skills and Death Shroud. Yet, they understand that vitality might need a twist, similar to how the precision attribute garners crit effects. If toughness is the straightforward “reduce damage,” and vitality gets that twist, then the pair will more closely mirror power vs. precision. This is not to say that vitality will definitely change, but it is important to note that even the most basic mechanics are still being viewed with a careful eye.

Going off of attributes, I asked a few crit questions. Peters said there was a [non-finalized] crit cap, but it was unlikely many would hit it. I saw during my level 27 necromancer demo that my crit rate was a little over 25%. They were still in discussion about raising the crit rate temporarily with skills, but I felt for MMOs that a one-in-four hits crit chance was pretty high. I still had to ask the community question where if in a string of bad dice rolls, the player doesn’t crit and then loses. Peters said it wasn’t an issue. Crit is not a replacement for damage, rather crits are used to change the field of play. An example he gave me was when a player had a trait that applied the chilled condition on a crit. All of the sudden, things changed because the chilled enemy was slowed in movement and could not dodge. This is what crit-heavy players are going to want to look for because the best way to use it is to follow the crit with a change up. The better the change up, the more devastating that crit will have been.

I had one enemy-related question ready to go, but I was going through questions so fast (and Peters was spooking me by looking at my cheat sheet) that I needed to follow up after the convention. I asked: Are individual player activities and contributions persistent with regard to both individual enemies and events? In other words, will a monster immediately reset on aggro loss, as in many other MMOs, or regenerate naturally, like in the original Guild Wars? Also, will a player’s contribution erode over time in an unplayed, unfinished event, such as the raven shrine event in the Wayfarer Foothills?

Jon: How monsters reset is something we are still working on. It is a fine line between keeping players from gaming them by resetting aggro and not frustrating players who reset them unintentionally. It is our goal to find the best middle ground.

As for events, participation does not decay. Once you have participated in an event you are rewarded for it regardless of when it completes.

Back at the NCSoft Meet and Greet, I asked both Peters and Sharp about how iteration played on profession niches. The warrior’s greatsword build was just released for the demo, for example; had that pushed some of the niche boundaries? Sharp did not seem to be concerned with any type of niche protection. Guild Wars had a splash mechanic where, for instance, they added a shadow-stepping assassin profession, and then everybody could shadow-step because of the secondary profession. The wanted to carry that degree of customization over to Guild Wars 2 (without the secondary profession). The thief was designed as a master of mobility, but that did not mean no other professions could have teleports. However, the other professions teleports would have to be balanced within the profession. Still, Peters said, that niche protection was important when a player was asking “how do I want to play?” Thieves and guardians both have ways to teleport, but they will play very differently.

Turning to the balance side of things, I asked how hard it was to balance skills and stats at each level tier. Peters said that it actually wasn’t that hard. He said that Izzy Cartwright was the spreadsheet king, and Cartwright had all the stats worked out for every tier. One thing they noticed was that at the cap for each tier game play was the most balanced. There was also the fact that so much of the balancing relied on more than simply numbers vs. numbers, such as dodging, positioning, use of barriers, etc. This non-numerical activity makes balancing a little fuzzier.

Keeping with the skill questions, I asked about complementary skills. Were they just ground effects plus action? Peters said that specific skill types, such as “fields” would react with other skill types, such as “whirl.” So players would know that if they see one skill type being used, they can use a complementary skill type to combo. I showed Peters my made-up skill combo, the elementalist’s Meteor Shower and the thief’s Leaping Death Blossom, which I actually thought up to try and throw them away from the “thing on the ground” plus “action” type combos. Peters really surprised me when he asked me what that combo would do instead of laughing it away and providing one of his own examples. I stuttered… makes… more… meteors? Regardless of my armchair example, Peters said that all this information will definitely be in the tool tips. There won’t be a hidden formula because they want players to know that certain skill types will combo.

Following up after the convention, I wanted to make sure I knew what information would be in the tool tips and UI because Peters ran off a list, which in my hieroglyphic notes could be easily misinterpreted by yours truly. I asked: At the NCsoft Meet and Greet, you mentioned ArenaNet wanted to show significant amounts of information in the UI that were currently not implemented, such as showing damage in the tooltips or bleeding damage per second. I wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, and to understand the extent of information provided. For example, will we see enemy skill usage or enemy hit points? Will the tooltips update to take in to account attributes?

Jon: Here’s what I know we will show: Skill damage, conditions applied and their effects, boons applied, thief effects, and status effects applied such as stun and knockback. We will also show the effects of active traits and will display some information about cross-profession combos. These tooltips will update based on new weapons and assigning/re-assigning attributes.

On the enemy side, this issue is less discussed. I suspect we will show enemy health more clearly, even if only as an option. Showing enemy skills is far less likely as we intend to use animations and effects to telegraph enemy skills in order to keep players focused in the worlds.

Finally, on the skills side I asked whether there could be a rock, paper, scissors type gameplay if players equipped weapons and traits to extremes (especially in PvP). For example, a “balanced” warrior could use a dual axe and longbow combo to switch from a melee damage role to a ranged area damage role easily, but what if the warrior went full-on aggressive with a dual axe in one weapon set and the greatsword in the other. Sharp said they were not seeing that as an issue. He likened the build balance issue to Guild Wars Random Arena. If we take away monks (read: healers) in that arena, Sharp said, it gets a lot closer to how Guild Wars 2 PvP will play. One build, like a Domination mesmer, can certainly crush another, such as a slow spell-casting elementalist, but it takes significant skill for the same Domination mesmer to be able to react to all the melee enemies running the arena. In Guild Wars 2, a super-aggressive warrior is not auto-stomped in rock, paper, scissors style, but that warrior will still have to be more careful of enemies able to readily manhandle a melee foe.

We turned our attention to the newly discussed crafting. With all the focus on getting rid of conventional MMO profligation, I asked why they still wanted people to craft at crafting stations. Peters said it was much the same reason that people wouldn’t have infinite inventory space. They wanted people to gather during a down time, and having the crafting stations moved Guild Wars 2 away from it’s socially-insulated predecessor.

There were two mechanical points Peters wanted to make with regard to crafting. First, the recipes would have a cyclical nature according to the level tier. At the start of each tier the crafted items are going to be very powerful, and then they will lower to the balance found at the cap of each tier. Therefore, being able to craft as a player levels is going to help immensely with progression. Furthermore, crafting items allows players to really tailor their build. For instance if a warrior likes to amp up with poison conditions he could make a sword hilt that gives poison on crit and then combine that with a sword blade with a heavy crit modifier. The crafting system is going to allow for a lot of this flexibility.

Turning to the materials side of crafting, I asked if the recipes are going to be random or if they will make sense. Peters said that like materials will make like products. The developers were fans of Minecraft’s crafting system, and they wanted to make the Guild Wars 2 crafting system similarly intuitive. Finding the materials to make the specific item is going to be a very big part of the crafting system rather than grinding out 30 copper sword hilts from one raw material. Peters said they were still working on the flexibility of low-level materials when I asked whether the low-level materials would retain worth as a raw material for high-level products. Those ideas are still on the table.

Peters and Sharp wanted me to pass on that they are big fans of the active Guild Wars 2 communities, and that they are listening to all the feedback they can. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, many, many things are still in iteration mode; fan-written constructive criticism can still go a long way in shaping Guild Wars 2. I want to thank Peters and Sharp again for talking with me extensively at PAX East, and I can’t wait to see what they have in store for us with two remaining, supposedly craziest, professions.


37 thoughts on “[GW2] PAX Chats on Mechanics and Crafting”

  1. Thanks for writing all that up – lots of nice info stuffed in there! It will be interesting to see how the criticals play out in combat, and whether acheiving a crit will become the ultimate goal of combat or whether it will turn out to be more balanced.

    Unfortunately, its difficult to predict the flow of how the playerbase will manipulate the game. Sure, you can run simulations and ANet keep saying that they spend all day playing the game. But there is nothing like the playtest that 500 000 players can give – and it won’t be until those 500 000 players play the game that we will truly know “what Guild Wars 2 is like”.

  2. So… knowing how addictive Minecraft is… and that the GW2 devs play it… I think we can now blame Minecraft for delaying GW2!!! Curse you Notch, for your fun game that is stalling humanity’s technological advancement (at least MMO gaming-wise) as we all dig… wait, is that some diamond down by the lava? Just a sec, let me go get that and… oh no, a Creeper…. BOOM!!!

  3. For great justice!
    Thanks, Ravious – as fine an interview piece as has ever graced a gaming blog. ^_^

    I suspect I shall love their crafting system monumentally, for it sounds exactly to my tastes.

  4. “One build, like a Domination mesmer”… What? Did he explicitly talk about domination mesmers in GW2 PvP?

    1. No, it was Sharp’s comparison of how GW2 works using the GW1 example. He brought up a bunch of different profession builds (sans monk), and Dom mesmer (or maybe it was Ill mesmer) was the one I remembered.

      Neither dev gave any hint at all about the remaining two professions.

    2. Nope; he was talking about GW1 random arena, and saying how rock-paper-scissory Domination mesmer would be without monks around (presumably because random arena monk trumps everything in GW1).

  5. Amazing Q&A as always, Ravious! Great questions, detailed follow up, good stuff.

    Unfortunately, none of the answers have done much to cure my recent worries about GW2. I think I’m starting to remember all the things that went wrong in GW1 a bit more clearly.

    Consider the following quote from the OP, in response to the concern that “[after] a string of bad dice rolls, the player doesn’t crit and then loses” (edited for space):

    “Peters said it wasn’t an issue. Crit is not a replacement for damage… An example he gave me was when a player had a trait that applied the chilled condition on a crit. All of the sudden, …the chilled enemy …could not dodge.”

    With all respect to Mr. Peters, this is *exactly why it’s an issue*! Personally I’m even more concerned by this model than one where crit just adds damage, and I think it’s incredibly short sighted to think that skills randomly applying or not applying conditions won’t be an issue.

    Look at a trait like the Necro’s Otherworldly grasp, which causes their spammable staff skill to apply cripple on a crit. Is it better that I win a match because I randomly proc cripple while spamming at a fleeing enemy flag carrier, than if I randomly crit and kill them outright due to slightly more damage? Or if I lose because I stand there spamming my #1 staff skill at the escaping flag carrier hoping to cripple him, but it never crits? Whether I cripple my target or not should be a matter of choice and skill, not random luck!

    I understand the theory behind these sorts of random procs – RPG combat is always in danger of being “solved” due to its predictability, so add randomness for people to react to. But this is *really* not the way to solve that problem…

    Obviously this is all in flux and could change at any time, but it’s still worrying to hear them say such things. I hate to be so harsh towards them. I really do respect ANet and think GW2 will be an amazing game. I’m just afraid I might be seeing some of the same patterns that ruined GW1 PvP showing up again, and that makes me very anxious.

    1. I don’t think you understand, maybe. If you get to the point where you are going to win or lose on a single crit, then really you’ve already lost.

      I don’t think it’s fair to judge crits conditionally. Judge them based on a whole match.

      1. A close match (ie: a good match) might come down to 1-2 moves, and if slowing a flag carrier is the make or break move (which it often is), and that move comes down to a 1/4 chance vs knowing when to use your skills or being in the right position to use them, that’s not really a great player-skill environment.

        Shooters don’t have crits for this reason, and DF not having random crits is excellent. Even ‘known’ crits like spell surging is something many would like to see removed. On the other extreme, a game like BloodBowl is basically 80% ‘crits’, 20% skill, and hence is a casual, laughable game vs being a serious test of skill.

        A 25% crit rate, and crits that effect gameplay heavily, makes the game sound like it will be similar to Poker-level for skill (long term ‘grind it out’ style, where any one match is more luck than skill).

        1. Syncaine basically makes my point for me. Though rare, there are going to be scenarios which are balanced, but a few seconds of cripple or daze chilled on an enemy or ally will change the result. In fact, I argue that these dramatic moments are going to be the most memorable and important in a game, and should be balanced with commensurate care.

          Say I’m the last one alive out of my party at the end of a long boss fight. The boss is at 5%, I’m nearly dead, and I don’t have time to resurrect my allies, nor will I be able to do enough damage to kill him myself.

          The boss is approaching me, and I need to create some space to res an ally. Say my only skill that could cripple him relies on a crit to work. We didn’t already lose the fight, we’re both nearly dead and about even – and more importantly, for the players to make a comeback and win would be a dramatic coup.

          If I get that crit, I might feel lucky, but not especially accomplished. (maybe someone else would feel really excited?) If I desperately spam at the boss, but fail to get a random cripple to happen before it kills me, that’s a huge letdown.

          The same could happen at the end of a close CTF game, where both teams have the flag, and it’s a race to see who caps first.

          It just seems much better in my mind to not be stuck rolling the dice in these situations, and to know that I can rely on my skill to do what I want, when I want.

          To be fair to ANet, I did want to point out that there are a ton of well designed skills that don’t rely on randomness – i.e. the ranger’s concussion shot, and the guardian’s teleport that blinds enemies in your path. These seem to be amazingly designed skills that reward choices and good execution, and I don’t understand why we can’t have more skills like this, rather than ones that have random, uncontrollable effects.

          1. I don’t know. Play a different game maybe? I don’t think this is a design flaw. This is just preference. I enjoy TF2, a shooter with crits. Crits are fun in that game.

            Some people like chess. Some people like magic the gathering more than chess. I don’t agree with SynCaine that games with crits are automatically less skillful. They just require different skills.

            All of your examples are so situational, and like I said I don’t think that’s the correct view to take when examining a system that works throughout a whole fight/match/etc.

            1. I think a big factor here is also what kind of RNG they’re using. If it’s a dice-roll type of system, where there’s a set chance for each hit, then Sync/Brise’s points have some weight to them. That is, choosing to spec for crit is ostensibly a strategic decision: “I can safely assume I will incur special effect X roughly one in four hits.” However, it can ultimately be an extremely luck-based factor: “Dammit, it didn’t activate a single time despite the fact that I used the skill ten times in a row.” (This is about a 5.6% possibility for 10 hits from a 25%-crit attack; not common, but certainly not something that wouldn’t happen every once a while.)

              On the other hand, things might work out a lot better if the process involved a pseudo-random number generator. That is, instead of generating a hundred independent numbers, they could take the numbers 0-99, mix them up, and use that as their set. (I’m assuming here that crits would be decided by comparing crit% to a generated number; for a crit% of X, generating a number below X would lead to a critical.)As a result, critting would become a great deal more strategic: you’re *guaranteed* to have X hits of every 100 be critical, so bad-luck streaks are a lot less likely to happen.

            2. IIRC, I did ask this specific question, and if I did the answer was straight % because I think I brought up the TF2 weighted example and the you have X% chance not to crit every 1/Y hits. Don’t quote me on that though because it’s not in my notes.

            3. Whoa, you really do think of everything! XD
              And if so, I guess that’s a bit unfortunate (from my point of view, at least) but hopefully it won’t be a huge deal. If crit chance already reaches 25% without a huge level of modification, and can presumably reach higher as one progresses, then long “dry spells” are still statistically unlikely, while “lucky chances” are more a result of strategic choices. From my perspective, if someone’s specced for a 40% crit rate at the expense of damage or defense, them hitting me with a bunch of crits feels unfortunate, but not necessarily unfair.

            4. I don’t really think Crit is going to be all that of a problem, take GW1 for example. before they “nerfed” (from my perspective) the derv prof, you could with a VoS high crit build (with a 20%weapon crit) range from damage between 70-290 and the occasional 300-360 damage. but even so the build was still effective when not hitting the crits, the same with assassins in gw1, they can have what I think is almost 50-70% (perhaps more?) and still be effective when they don’t hit the crits.
              my personal crit favourite would probably be 10-15 though

            5. EDIT: Just to be clear, this is in reply to Ravious’s post above Jamocha’s. :)

              Yeah, it’s true that my view is heavily influenced by my subjective experience of “fun”. For example, I go out of my way to play on NoCrit TF2 servers; I’m the sort of person who doesn’t enjoy lucky random crits even when they cause me to win. *They* cause it, not me, so I don’t care. That said, I understand I’m in the minority in this.

              On the other hand, I do believe randomness has its place. I like random mechanics in something like Warhammer tabletop, because it’s so deeply wrapped up in the game and the flavor. I appreciate random elements in games that feed off that sense of chaos and unpredictability, such as Magic: the Gathering, Mario Kart, or Left 4 Dead. I even dislike CCGs that try to mimic M:tG while trying to remove the randomness; for that style of game, I think it needs to be there.

              I guess from my perspective it feels like the randomness is out of place in GW2, which has abandoned so many traditionally random RPG elements in favor of more predictable mechanics.

              That said, I would say that there are probably more people who will enjoy the randomness than people like me who dislike it, so this is probably the correct path for ANet to take.

              In fact, perhaps they should push it further; look into other mechanics that reinforce this sort of luck-of-the-draw attitude: Random super rare item drops in dungeons (akin to rare hats in TF2), PvP matches with randomized powerups that appear around the map, etc.

              I think the best objective statement I can make is, “as I see it now, these random effects and mechanics seem out of place in GW2”. I might go further and also say, “the risk of a negative experiences seems higher than acceptable, while the potential benefit seems possible to achieve through a less problematic system”.

              Obviously having not played the game, however, all I can do is theorycraft. Is your experience with the demo that these mechanics do add to the fun and improve the experience? That they feel well integrated and? If so, I bow to that first-hand experience until I get a chance to play myself. :)

            6. I was way too overwhelmed with information. The only time I noticed crits was when I shot a chicken.

              It is all relative. A crit in GW is only 40% more damage, and they happen what 10-20%? I guess that’s where I’m coming from. :)

              I don’t expect the magnitude of crit rockets. I expect mini-crits with some flavor. And, I definitely don’t think that crits are going to overshadow any skill modifications.

            7. if you think about it logically, crits/randomness is quite normal if in a real fight/battle. the weather conditions, are your shoes slippery/loose. did you hit your opponent wrong, and hurt yourself more than him, did a random sound draw your attention for just that one important moment? and so on. truth be told, not having crits seems far more illogical, from a fighting/battle point of view

              and I hope that they removed the “crit hit” text from showing when you crit, recall it being in the demo summer 2010, and there were a lot of complaints because gw just applies more damage depending on how powerful a crit, without needing to tell you that you just critted.

            8. The thing is, randomness affects the game throughout its entirety, even in GW1, but perceptual bias causes us to place disproportionate importance on the occurrences that seemed to “make or break” the match. The tendency is to focus on the crit that killed the boss, rather than the crit at the start of the battle, even though both contributed equally to killing it.

              Even weapons in GW1 have a damage range, with the actual damage being randomly determined, but you don’t see people complaining about bad luck because it took 6 hits to take down a mob instead of 5.

              Speccing for crits isn’t about spike damage, its about altering the playing field in a direction that you control, but you have to be capable of capitalising on crit effects for it to work. It’s like counting cards at blackjack; probability is still a major factor, but it makes a huge difference over time if you know what you’re doing.

          2. I think depending on a crit to win a match is a really bad playstyle choice on the part of the player. This is mainly because (you guessed it) crits are not guaranteed. I personally think the build should be functional on its own without the crits and crits should be an addition on top of that. This seems to be the way the developers are thinking and I don’t think it is a bad design choice.

            1. Agreed here. Consider professions have control skills already that you should be relying on to catch your flag runner instead of hoping a damage skills randomly pops one and the crit worries seem misplaced. Don’t forget you have control skills! Using THEM wisely will help determine the match… if you’re depending on a crit added effect, you lost before you started.

          3. The scenario you create destroys your argument. The boss battle annihilation has nearly resulted in a draw, so any outcome at all at this point is by the slimmest of margins anyway, and therefore any random element at all leading up to this moment could be said to be ‘the difference’, yet you want the final moments to be entirely deterministic. That’s absurd.

    2. There will be lots of random elements in game play, damage per hit being center stage. Doing a little more or a little less damage could also be the difference in a close match. What is key is how this is balanced. If one of four attacks does five times the normal damage, the random element would dominate. But, if one of five attacks crits and this applies cripple for two seconds, then crit rate and crit effects have their value in cumulative effects. Balanced well, no match is going to result in a ‘zomg! you got your random crit and I didn’t!’. Critical rate should essentially become ‘effect density’, and trade off with pure damage.

      I think the bigger danger is applying strong conditions with spammable attacks, like cripple, chill and stun. If your basic attack is such a big threat, then its hard to for the opponent to make good choices about dodging, blocking and defense in general. I don’t forsee a lot of condition removal, so spammable control conditions (as opposed to degen) might always be broken, even if they have short durations.

      Crits are a great tool to moderate between a skill with a long cripple effect and a long recharge, and a short recharging skill that consistently applies a short duration condition. Crit rate instead creates a ‘condition density’ across time; the attacker can’t keep reapplying the condition for 100% coverage, nor can the defender just remove a long recharging condition whenever it’s applied and thus avoid its effects. Crits, balanced correctly, can be a clever tool to make game play more interesting, even more fair, really.

  6. I like how they’ve made crits in GW2 more than just occasionally spikes in damage. By making some conditions conditional upon a critical strike, it adds to the flavor of the game. You can boost damage and kick butt, but if you emphasize crits, not only do you occasionally deal a spike of damage, but you can apply additional conditions. I like that a lot. I also like how it can disrupt the flow of combat and lead to lots of on-your-feet thinking.

    As for crafting, well, I’m just too excited for words. It sounds like the way they are approaching crafting is right up my alley. I can’t wait for the opportunity to try it out firsthand.

    1. Two words dampen my enthusiasm for crafting: limited storage. As a habitual packrat, this will be a problem. Hopefully there will be some extra storage available or an expanded materials storage system, even if it is on a micro transaction basis. I don’t have a problem paying a reasonable price for my bad habits and storage does cost Anet something even if it is only pennies, so it is fair at some level.

  7. I would rather have these combat turning events such as cripple being applied on crits.

    I have been playing rift lately and it is far more annoying that upon immediately grabbing the flag you get cc’d (slowed, stunnned etc..) and subsequently railroaded.

    It makes games more fun as well as engaging to have such effects as relatively random

  8. While I understand why some people are frustrated by the ‘randomness’ factor, it feels much more natural to me.

    Take sport. There is no such thing as certainty. You can practice a given move, technique or strategy until you think you’ve perfected it. But you’ll *never* be perfect at it.

    There will always be those moments where things just don’t line up. I think you need the lows to appreciate those magical moments where the stars align and you pull victory from defeat.

  9. “The developers were fans of Minecraft’s crafting system…”

    THIS is exactly the point of argument I take most for the discovery system. A lot of people are raging about the discovery system and yet this system worked perfectly fine for Minecraft. Even the wikipedia is full of recipes and it was really fun to experiment finding recipes. Granted I did look on the website after a while but I still had discovered a lot of recipes before that. A discovery system won’t ruin the crafting system in my honest opinion.

    The combat mechanics in this game should be unbelievably unique. With different factors other then just numbers and the best gear there is a new twist to it. You can actually position yourself and make smart decisions to keep yourself alive. No more do you just stand around mashing buttons there is actual strategic value that is so needed in MMORPG’s. ArenaNet has really thought of everything to go into this game to make it all that it can be. I could really not think of anything else that could add to this game. It seems just as I don’t like something they have fixed it already and its pre-alpha for gods sakes! If so much promise is shown from this early demo type of the game then the actual release game is going to be mind-blowing. The wait is sooooo going to be worth it.

    Thanks again Ravious, your posts always awe me *_*

    Also, Minecraft and Guild Wars 2 are currently my favorite games atm. If only I could play Guild Wars 2 and my life would be complete, hehe.

    1. I wish we had a demo of crafting at work, some sense of the discovery process. But I will just assume its a fun process (and the little tidbits I’ve seen make it look so). My only issue is there is no real value to a player making discoveries. That’s a shame. When you do other parts of the game, like dungeons and events, you get tangible rewards, but discovery has no reward, since wiki will have the recipes. Not sure how you fix that, or if it matters enough to fix. But its a shame.

  10. I would like to add my 2 cents to the whole Crit=Condition debate going on…First of all, i will remind everyone (myself included) that at this point in the game getting worked up over possible game mechanics that could very well change drastically is an exercise in futility…having said that i will agree that Crit=Condition as is being understood by Brise and Syncaine and other detractors could evolve into a type of gameplay that rewards the lucky and punishes us RNG challenged…BUT give Anet some credit here guys, if they see this becoming an issue, what makes us think they wont take action…for example, the chilled on crit trait, ONE trait out of i dont know how many, will apply chilled on crits on ONE skill…this skill could have say 80% crit chance, or 15% crit chance, Anet will surely balance the game around it…could be that the skill is supposed to apply chill most of the time with the RNG factor punishing you every once in a while when you DONT crit (this being the case of 80% chance)…or maybe this one skill that randomly applies chill on crits (15% being definitely less reliable) is simply given a perk by the trait, and you have other skills at your disposal that ALWAYS apply chill conditions….I dont know if im making any sense here, but my point is its silly to worry over this now…wait at least till your in the beta before you cry foul over something which we honestly know VERY LITTLE about.

    1. For the people worried about relying on crits, for that very specific time they want a condition. Don’t put points into perception. If you do not want to have chance, don’t use the traits that add a condition on crit. It is taking the place of a trait you can use for something else. This should all be balanced. Have faith, my peeps and peepettes, the turtle moves.

Comments are closed.