Talk:Vulnerability

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm guessing this will be something like Cracked Armor. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could also be 'weak towards'-type of condition. This creature is 'weak to fire', or 'weak to daggers'. And so on. I don't think it's anything similar to cracked armor. This would go well into their whole philosophy of persistent world, skills+attacks that can be combined and the strategics of it all. Though it wouldn't really be a condition then. ge4ce 19:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) But if there are tons of different sorts of 'Vulnerability', doesn't that counter their philosophy of simplifying stuff? I'm going with Manifold's guess. --Naoroji User Naoroji Golem - Green.jpg 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Wouldn't it be obvious that plants are weak towards fire? It is their vulnerability? ge4ce 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a condition, most likely inflictable, like other conditions. You cant afflict someone with being a plant. Vald [Citation Needed] User Valdimir newsigicon.png 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it could maybe possibly be dazed, seems kinda unfair that warrior killing blind got in and dazed didn't. --hexalMy 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless blind now affects ALL skills/attacks...--Corsair@Yarrr 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Blind will likely still affect all projectiles. We know that (at least some) spells can critical now, why not miss? -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк) 20:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fear[edit]

I just imagine this to be similar to the above, used by -cough- Mesmers or Necros -cough-... --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 21:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Vulnerability=Cracked Armor without the dumb name[edit]

Vulnerability-GuildWars2Guru This information also comes from my source who I can not reveal. He is an Arenanet developer who browses the forums. He won't reveal himself publicly, so he isn't obligated to post on the forums, which would take away from his work time. I don't know to what extent Vulnerability may be the equivalent of Cracked Armor. The title I have listed above is all he told me. --Malchior Devenholm 22:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I alter the phrasing in a way to leave out the gw1 linking? I was planning on something along the lines of: "Vulnerability is a condition[1] that causes the target to take more damage. The exact systematics to this increased damage are currently unknown." Feel free to do with it as you like, I just believe we should not use GW1W linking to avoid confusion altogether. - Infinite - talk 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The source must be official. We may be able to document that effect due to an official release that basically said that conditions' effects should be obvious, however. Sounds obvious enough to me. –~=Ϛρѧякγ AHHH! (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Vulnerability is a condition which makes the target take more damage. Hope this helps. -- Jon Peters
Works for me. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Percent Based or Set Value?[edit]

Anyone know if the effect per stack on armor is based on a percent or a set numeric value? -- Blue Phoenix User Blue Phoenix Phoenix inverted.jpg 06:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Stacking[edit]

Apparently it can stack over 20 times, at least against bosses or such, and this seems like a good way to take them down: [1] It's probably more limited in PvP. Mediggo 12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

From Effect stacking: "Bosses encountered in the various demos are not capped in terms of maximum stacks. It is unknown at this time whether it is intended to stay this way for the official release or simply in effect to compensate for the demo timer." Alfa-R User Alfa-R sig.png 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cap[edit]

Does anyone else think this should have a limit to how much armor it can reduce to? When there is around a 150 armor level difference between professions the effect this has on lower armor professions is much more noticeable. It seems like it shouldn't take your armor lower than 1800 at max level, or maybe it should scale to 12 and 14 for medium and heavy armor users. Considering it can stack up to 25 times (first BWE showed that to be cap), but in most pvp situations it will probably only get to 5-10. --68.226.52.217 01:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Value and Application timing[edit]

I've calculated the amount of armor reduction at level 80 at 15, as opposed to the 10 listed on the main page. Also, for the skills I've looked at which apply Vulnerability, they seem to apply the condition and reduce the armor before they calculate their own damage. Can anyone else confirm that this is universal behavior of Vulnerability application? Capric 14:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For my Thief, all of his say -28 at the moment (at level 13). My friend says his do -47... I'll edit to reflect these. ~ Bow User Bow Sig.png | 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Inverse mechanics[edit]

The equation for armor reduction is listed as -.3125 * Level + 5. Does this mean that before level 16, vulnerability *increases* armor? Torrenal 05:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess it should be -0.3125 * (Level + 5) instead? Mediggo 06:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it's -5 at level 1. It'll be easier to just leave the negative sign out altogether, which I've just done. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
:"The limits are –5 Defense at level 1 and –30 Defense at level 80."
this seems awefully misleading. This way it seems to be the maximum defense removed at all. Since Vuln. stacks in intensity, this "tooltip" should be removed.--DIVA 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. Couldn't this be solved with: "The limits per stack are –5 Defense at level 1 and –30 Defense at level 80."? - Yandere Talk to me... 17:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The formula just above there should make it obvious enough that these limits are per stack. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings ;) Well since vuln. got cahnged anyway into a percentage based condition, this is hardly relevant now ;)--DIVA 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)