Talk:Attribute

Not Sure

I'm not sure what I think of this...that was one thing that I liked about GW1 and that set it apart from other RPGs was not having the attributes like Inteligence and not having to invest in those...any one profession could essentially become a "caster" even if a warrior might suck at it. I'll just keep an open mind and see how it plays out, but I'm initially sceptical. (Usaf1a8xx 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

Warriors don't seem to have anything that would be effected by int, so they wouldn't "suck at it" as much as not have spent their attribute points. Manifold 15:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But that's my point...no more shock warriors? I realize no dual professions but does that mean that warriors don't have access to magic? (Usaf1a8xx 02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

We had shock warriors for five years. Shaking things up is one of the main reasons for making a new game. Arshay Duskbrow 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

true...but i'm a bit ocd and have a hard time with change. Plus i want GW2 to not be so different that it is but a shadow of GW1. But i'll try to withhold judgement until i get hands on. (Usaf1a8xx 03:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure certain professions can only invest in attributes relating to what they can do. The necro for example couldn't put any points into strength or agility while the warrior couldn't invest in willpower or intelligence, pretty much stopping them from being casters unless someone gets creative. Ptarmigan 03:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Or it could have a different effect depending upon profession, like for instance if you have a warrior with high Willpower, then they will gain adrenaline faster, or a Necro with higher strength gains more (what was it called, life force?) It might not, but that's how I could see each profession not becoming 3 attribute dependent. Eive 04:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I just hope that they follow the GW1 model and make these attributes fully refundable without much difficulty. Otherwise, I can see there being specific attribute builds (ie. low energy intelligence spike ele / high crit perception warrior) with custom or hybrid builds being undesired or underpowered - much like how GW1 has a meta. This will lead to elitism and a lot of re-making characters and the like. In some MMOs they make you purchase attribute resets with real money! I'm sure Anet wouldn't do that, but I hope they allow us to change the values of these attributes freely outside of battle, even if lorewise, it makes no sense. ColdEden 20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Table of "usefulness"

I was going to give this a crack, but I don't think I'm up for it before I go to bed. How about a table showing the relationship between professions and attributes? In this thread it's detailed that Str or Agi is "of little use" for the Necro, Int and Vit are "important", and Prc and Wil are "useful". I know Int and Vit are "of little use" to the Warrior, not sure about the rest. Manifold 05:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. -- Aspectacle  05:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing it atm. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 06:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hope you like it, might change the colors if you wish. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 06:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, although I would think that Strength Vitality and Perception would be useful to a War. Manifold, out of curiosity, why would you think that Vitality which increases max HP would not be useful to a war? (Usaf1a8xx 16:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. Well, we're taking the description from game so we aren't choosing it on our own.

@Manifold: I could make a green one easily but this looks better imo. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Usaf-I guess I got confused last night. Manifold 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The table seems incredibly subjective...we dont want subjectivity, its just a level above speculation...If there was someway to make it more objective I would be fine with it. But if it is subjective (as it seems to be right now) it has no place on the official page (meaning that it could be on a Guide to Playing...but not here) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Aquadrizzt. It's especially subjective because we haven't even played the game yet -_- ~ Bow | 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

May I ask when listing an attribute description from in-game starter being subjective? So you mean A-net is subjective here or what eh? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 20:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We are saying the "usefulness" of the attributes is subjective. ~ Bow | 20:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I see it you mean the "Attribute is important to this profession." etc. which is actual in-game description. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No...what I am referring to is the fact that there is absolutely no source...and that it based on opinoins of playersAquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no opinions involved. The game literally says "This attribute is not useful to you" when you mouse-over an attribute, and will not let you spec in it. Look at the image on the page, these are in gray. The "useful" are white, and the "important" have a triangle pointing at them. Edit to add: Not so sure about the triangle part, but there's certainly a difference between gray and white. Manifold 01:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks...just wanted to make sure it wasn't something subjective (the triangles line up nicely...so I guess your right about that too)... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 05:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. ~ Bow | 00:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This being the case, should we word it differently? For example, saying that "irrelevant" attributes can't be specced rather than saying it's "not important" which does sound very subjective. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perception=critical hit? Why is this important to elementalist? Ramei Arashi 05:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Magic can critical now I think.--Yozuk 07:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, spells and magic can crit. Venom20 12:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They are also probably aiming for diversity: I would expect elementalists, necromancers and mesmers to have different "main attributes" despite how in reality all caster based attributes are equally useful to all of them. Erasculio 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What point does this table serve? How do you guys know for example that adding strength to an elementalist is useless? Strength is clearly defined as 'melee power' not 'melee attacks'. Eles have an array of melee skills that may be influenced by strength, or am I way off the bat? (Xu Davella 03:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Cuz it's direct quote from the game...read above. That is the in game description for why you can't use Strenght for example on Ele. It's grayed out as unusable and the game says "not useful" and doesn't let u put points in. It's not speculation, conjecture...but fact. (Usaf1a8xx 04:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Why would eles have melee skills, they aren't melee types? They use daggers to cast spells not melee with them, for example. Ramei Arashi 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Why would eles have melee skills", generally to play as battle mages, but not that this comment has anything to do with the discussion. Venom20 15:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Why would eles have melee skills": Probably for the same reason they can use melee weapons, ie. daggers. Teddy Dan, yo. 18:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot

Hasn't anyone been able of finding a screenshot showing the attribute window in English? I'm looking too, but it would be easier as a group effort. Erasculio 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Three options for you: [1] [2] [3] -- Aspectacle  23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice, that was really fast : D The first one has the highest quality, but it's small, and difficult to read... The second and the third have lower quality, but I think they are easier to read. The third has less attributes highligted, which IMO makes it easier to read as well. I would like to implement that one, if you people think it's better than the current image and the best among those three options. Erasculio 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything, I'd also be inclined toward the third. --Kyoshi (Talk) 00:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd go with the second one. It has one extra highlighted one compared to the third, but the highlighted ones on that one aren't as bad as the third one, plus the second one includes swappable weapon sets. - Tanetris 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If I was to vote on theses, I would also pick the second one. There seems to be a bit of glare on the third one that does make it hard to read some words with that background Venom20 00:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The clearer Voltaa one is from a video - this one I *think* [4] so you might be able to get a larger version. I'd do it for you but I'm not really able to download something that size atm. Otherwise #2 has the crisper text IMO. -- Aspectacle  00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there no licensing or copyright issues with taking images from people's recordings of the demo? Manifold 01:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it's ArenaNet-owned content, which can be freely distributed on the wiki. --Kyoshi (Talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a larger version of the first image. File:User_Aspectacle_Attributes.jpg. The clearest of the three english versions found. The german version trumps them all. -- Aspectacle  08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Josh Petrie has uploaded some screenshots from the game. One option would be asking him to give us one screenshot of the attribute windom, but I'm not exactly fond of the idea of asking him to do stuff just because he took some of his time in order to do us a favor. So far, I like Aspectacle's latest image the most. Erasculio 11:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed...Aspectacles is nice. (Usaf1a8xx 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks to the Attributes

Thanks to the Attribute system using Skills will be more effective then using the old GW attribute system. Granted I loved the old system. But it just doesn't seem to work for the new game. But thanks to this System the Mesmer will be able to steal Skills and use them more effectively then in GW1. How Awesome is that going to be? And maybe the assassin will be able to Copy melee and some ranged skills as well. Personally I would find that to be exciting.--Yozuk 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

About attribute points gain per level...

I got stuck on an univers virtuels article saying that you always gain 6 attribute points per level increase: U.V. on the interface. Suppose this was based on the Gamescom demo but they didn t give any screen to prove this.... Anyone got more info on points gain per level maybe? CaiusTheBig 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to gather anymore info about points per level with the recent press beta? BlakDoxa 17:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the press Beta weekend I have not seen any evidence of assignable attribute point gain per level, has this feature been removed or locked for the Beta?

Description

I think we should have a short description of each of the attributes next to the link, so people know what each one does without having to go to each of the links. Victor6267 17:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we don't it's useless :S --The Holy Dragons 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Victor. We shouldn't have to make someone hunt through 12 links to figure out what Intelligence does. Eive 17:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

encouraged/allowed

The video linked does indeed show illuminated + signs, but this does not necessarily mean they can be invested in. Several people who played the demo said they were not allowed to invest in the attributes with grayed out text. Manifold 01:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But if you can't invest points into them, then those attributes must level automatically since they have values tied to them. Unless there's another reason for the numbers?(58.7.140.85 02:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

This is the thread I based my edits on, and where I found the link to that video. RazoR39999 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edited attribute pages accordingly. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, looks like some people from GW2G are saying that attribue are split into 3 groups instead of recommended and not recommended. You can see the elementalist have 3 white attributes with arrow next to it while the warrior have 4 white attribute but only 2 of them with an arrow next to the attributes. Chanw4 03:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the arrows indicate which are appropriate for the weapon being wielded. Manifold 04:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right about that.

EDIT: The arrow changed if Longbow is equiped in the main hand. Chanw4 04:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

EDIT2: Anyone got a screenshot of the same warrior with the arrow changed? Found a page that talk about warrior but used a ranger screenshot... And thought the arrow changed since they can both duel wield Axes and use Longbow Chanw4 05:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Video around 8:00 he change its equipped weapon to a Longbow but the arrow stay at Str and Vit. Chanw4 13:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Guardian

I would like to inquire as to where the guardian "encouraged/beneficial/useless" attributes came from. It seems to be un-sourced. Aqua (T|C) 01:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, no official source and confirmation from ANet. All we have is a screencap from the retrospective video which some people beleive is the guardians attribute (a screencap of a character wearing something that looks like heavy armour with a tint of blue skill bar). Chanw4 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Believe is key there. 'Tis speculation, but in this case it seems relatively appropriately sourced. I accept that as suitable proof, though others might not. (and a link would never hurt). Aqua (T|C) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1) We can't be sure it was the guardian. 2) We cant be sure it wasn't changed since a video made who-know-when. And didn't we conclude there's no "useful/not useful", that the arrows depend on the weapon? Manifold 03:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The video I posted above have Axe/Axe as weapon set 1 and Longbow as weapon set 2. You can see the use change the weapon to weapon set 2 with the character screen open around 8:00. The arrow remained at Str and Vit. If the arrow depends on the weapon, either it include all 4 attribute since Axe and Longbow is in the weapon set or the arrow will change according to the weapon equipped. Chanw4 14:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering the guardian can used ranged weapons (staff & scepter), I don't know why agility isn't even marked as useful.-- Shew 15:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Because staff, scepter and focus probably use Int as the main attribute. 210.0.229.224 01:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: That was my IP at work Chanw4 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So there's no reference for the Guardian's attributes? – 93.217.39.152 16:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

changeable?

havnt really looked too far into talk about it but will the attributes be like in gw1 where you will be able to change them when ever you want, be stuck into what ever you choose, or have some item or other thing that lets you change them. i understand if its not known yet, just figured that from the demos someone would have an ideaAurenXneruA 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The link in the references section on the page states we should be able to respec, however we've heard nothing about the process and if it was in the demo there wasn't a video of someone doing it.

While the reference suggests all attribute points might be respec'ed I speculate that not all points will become available to respec. Some attribute points are apparently distributed automatically depending on your profession so if you can respec you'd probably only be able to redistribute those points which you could distribute manually in the first place. -- aspectacle  04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What we know, currently, is that "despeccing" like in GW1 was not available on the attribute panel during the Gamescon demo. PAX East may reveal things, though until then we have no clue how (and possibly where) we can redistribute the points. - Infinite - talk 16:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The GDC 11 hero panel

I believe all attributes are merely renamed. That might also mean the traits of the same names were renamed as well, by the way. - Infinite - talk 13:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As seen here, now we have only four attributes: Power, Precision, Thoughness and Vitality. No attribute appears to be grayed out for the guardian, and all appear to be at the same level. We have less derived stats, too. I'm wondering how to keep the information currently on this article, for the sake of historical documentation, while replacing the outdated information. Erasculio 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was under the impression only vital attributes are listed, up to 4. I guess I was wrong. - Infinite - talk 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Random question: do we know that Power, Precision, Toughness and Vitality relate to Attack, Crit chance, Armor and Health respevtively? If we do, then I can proceed to make the stub pages. Aqua (T|C) 18:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

only based on that screenshot that was taken from the video. I think the relationship between attack and power was discovered when someone actually applied their points to power. Not sure.(Xu Davella 18:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Well the mouse over for Power says "increases Attack". I'm fairly sure there is a one attribute to one stat mapping for the rest of them too, but I've got no proof. I think the sentence about the relationship holds though, we don't know whether one point in power gives you one point in attack, whether you get extra points each level depending on profession which you can't change, whether you get a fixed amount of base health each level even if you don't put points in. There is nothing stopping you creating the individual attribute and statistic pages but for figuring out how to disambiguate the different stats terms from existing ones. -- aspectacle  20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

So now ranged and CC attacks are linked to the same attribute. Cool, I though it wasn't fair to say that every profession could excel with all their weapons and then give warrior more power on melee than at range. Now I can really make an Asura warrior with a rifle/shotgun :D Probably it's done to not merge traits line like agility or strenght with the attributes, leading to confusion. EDIT: Interesting, the warrior trait line was originally named power and the character atribute strenght. Now that the character attribute is power (wich can be read as physical or magical depending on your class) I guess that the trait line is going to be called strenght like the warriors old primary attribute. Lokheit 19:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Stats

Is 'Stats' enough of a staple term to have it redirect to this page? For me that's my own term (and the first one I could think of to toss into search) but I thought i'd make a query. Also, for the scrapped attributes like perception, would it similarly be worthwhile to have them redirect to this page and to mention that 'these were old attributes that were removed in iteration'? I ask because even newer interviews seem to be recycling old footage of the sta--er, attributes visible in the hero...character... panel thing. Sheesh. So much terminology. Redshift 07:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think, at the moment, the way that this is swinging is that the attributes are the 4 power/precision/toughness/vitality things, and they affect some of the player stats, which are the health/attack/armor/mp etc. of the char. No-ones written a seperate stats page yet mostly, i think, because the system has been in flux and they haven't got around to it yet Thering 23:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't distribute attributes in Beta event

Why can't you distribute any Attribute points in this weekend's Beta event? Isn't it implemented yet? 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Secondary attributes

As of now names of secondary attributes (Prowess, Malice, Expertise, Concentration, Compassion, and profession-specific ones) are not used in game anywhere. The stats are Critical Damage, Healing, Boon Duration etc. Shouldn't we move the respective pages? Alfa-R 18:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I've found Prowess used, so may be ANet are indeed intending to implement this terminology. Alfa-R 22:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering, but honestly didn't look too closely when I was playing. I'm definitely for documenting what is in the game, but am in no hurry to do so if they're in the process of changing what they've implemented (again). I suggest we tag with an out of date and wait until the next BWE and to confirm what they're up to. -- aspectacle  13:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(BWE2 bump) It definitely appears like Anet has completely de-emphasized "secondary attributes" - the names are not used anymore that I noticed, and they are only shown as components of character statistics (e.g. "Condition damage" is only shown in the tooltip for Attack, "Healing power" in the tooltip for Health, etc.). The icons are still used on the traits window, but no names anywhere. They're simply additional statistics now. —Dr Ishmael 16:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

They are seen in item stats though, and are called there Critical Damage, Healing, Boon Duration etc. instead of Prowess, Compassion, whatever. I still think some article moves / merges are needed. Alfa-R 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant - the proper names of Prowess, Malice, etc. are no longer used anywhere, just the descriptive terms "condition damage" or "boon duration" etc. —Dr Ishmael 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Question: do we want to keep the existing articles and rename them with the descriptive term - e.g. Malice → Condition damage; Expertise → Condition duration? Or, since they no longer hold the standing of a primary statistic, should we roll them into the main articles - e.g. Malice and Expertise into Condition? —Dr Ishmael 17:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they are still considered attributes, taking into account the way they are used on the same level as primary attributes (both appear interchangeably in weapon / armor / food bonuses, and - more important - in trait system bonuses), and deserve separate articles as such. In theory, merging will also make articles like Condition huge, as things like trait lines / food / whatever that increases attribute x will tend to get added. Alfa-R 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I take back my statement above - the warrior banner skills still refer to Compassion, Concentration, Prowess, and Malice in the base descriptions - but the effect lists instead refer to Healing, Boon Duration, Critical Damage, and Condition Damage, respectively. —Dr Ishmael 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I finally went ahead and moved the secondary attribute pages. Since these are game-mechanic terms, I used the titlecase forms for the article names, but that can of course be changed. —Dr Ishmael 16:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Table of primary/secondary attribute combinations

Each profession combines primary and secondary attributes differently. Is it worth creating a trait table like this to document how they are combined? I realise the practical applications of this are probably limited but it might be helpful in explaining how trait lines and attributes interact. --Eerie Moss 15:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Level 80 attributes calculated correctly?

I get the number 932 instead of 916 when calculating attribute values at level 80. Is this number taken from in-game? Or could whoever did the calculation show it to me? My calculation:

Attribute_at_level_80 = base + [lvls 2-9] + [lvls_10-19 +lvl_11_bonus] + [lvls_20-29 +lvl_21_bonus] + ... + [lvl_70-79 +lvl_71_bonus] + [lvl_80 +lvl_80_bonus]
                      = 24 + 4*8 + (6*10 +2) + (8*10 +2) + (10*10 +2) + (12*10 +2) + (14*10 +2) + (16*10 +2) + (18*10 +2) + (20 +2)
                      = 932

Chad 19:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got your level boundaries off by 1.

Attribute_at_level_80 = base + [lvls 2-10] + [lvls_11-20 +lvl_11_bonus] + [lvls_21-30 +lvl_21_bonus] + ... + [lvl_71-80 +lvl_71_bonus] + lvl_80_bonus
                      = 24 + 4*9 + (6*10 +2) + (8*10 +2) + (10*10 +2) + (12*10 +2) + (14*10 +2) + (16*10 +2) + (18*10 +2) + 2
                      = 916

—Dr Ishmael 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

But then the text description doesn't make sense. It says "Upon leveling up, every primary attribute gains 4 points for reaching levels 2-9..." and not "leveling up from levels 2-9." Chad 20:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, then I'd have to guess that the wording in the article is incorrect. I know that in the PvP lobby during the stress test, my characters had 916 in their attributes with no traits or equipment. In any case, we can verify it tomorrow. —Dr Ishmael 20:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

916 is probably correct then, which means that the description is wrong. My guess is that either the boundaries are off by one as you said, or the bonus points at 11, 21 etc. do not exist (since either of these would explain the 16 point difference). Anyhow I'll be able to check it for levels below 8 and for level 80, but won't otherwise have much time for playing. Chad 20:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

916 is definitely the base attribute value at level 80, but I completely forgot to check on this in PvE. It could also be that they removed the "bonus" points:

Attribute_at_level_80 = base + [lvls 2-9] + [lvls_10-19] + [lvls_20-29] + ... + [lvl_70-79] + [lvl_80]
                      = 24 + 4*8 + 6*10 + 8*10 + 10*10 + 12*10 + 14*10 + 16*10 + 18*10 + 20
                      = 916

—Dr Ishmael 16:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

profession-specific attributes

These "attributes" no longer have any names. In the trait interface, the tooltips simply call them e.g. "Virtue Recharge Rate" instead of "Willpower". I don't know the best way to reword this section to get rid of the names, however. The attribute navbox also needs to be updated. —Dr Ishmael 12:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't a bug or something? Anyway I would simply rename Willpower to Virtue Recharge Rate etc. That is pretty straight forward and probably an edit that a bot can perform. - Yandere 13:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated the nav - Yandere 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do they really need their own articles anymore? Without a specific name to identify them, all they are is a simple mechanical calculation. They don't seem like they even count as attributes. —Dr Ishmael 14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean... The Problem is without such a page I would be probably a bit lost.

After a thinking for a while about this topic, I think it would be best to create a page called "Profession attributes".

The term is probably well known until now and people will try to find it. On the site we would put basiclly the same information as found here: Attribute#Profession_attributes

In the Primary Attribute entry I would add something like Profession, which would link to the Profession attribute page, since the Profession attributes basiclly act like Primary Attribute. Which would make - by the way - the trait bonus explanation easy. Every trait line boosts one Primary and one Secondary Attribute.

The Profession-specific part of the nav would be obsolete and could be deleted. - Yandere 14:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reasen why we are not simply doing this like Condition Duration, also known as Expertise?

This is basiclly how all the Secondary Attributes work, and I seriously had no clue that Condition duration is also known as Expertice.

So why not simply Burst Damage, also known as Brawn? - Yandere 23:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We're only keeping the "special" names for the secondary attributes because they are still referenced in a few places (e.g. banner skills). If it weren't for that, we wouldn't mention Malice/Prowess/etc. as alternate names for the secondary attributes. Brawn/Ingenuity/etc., on the other hand, are not referenced anywhere in the game, so IMO those names should not be used on the wiki. —Dr Ishmael 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Understand, and agreed. It was just a tought. - Yandere 07:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Next idea, basiclly an update of the last one: Burst Damage, also historically known as Brawn

Again just a thought. - Yandere 00:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If anything, it would go under Trivia: In early betas, this was known as Brawn. (no link) —Dr Ishmael 00:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good. - Yandere 09:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Caps?

So on the power article, it mentions that there's a cap for that attribute that raises with clvl. Is this true for the other attributes, and do we know (approximately) what that cap is at, say, lvl 80? The reason I ask (besides this being just useful general knowledge) is that my necro loves her condition damage, and I'm wondering if there's a point at which slapping on another +condition damage rune would be ineffectual. Conversely, is there any way I can test this? 69.249.211.251 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the current version of the power article about a cap. Maybe that was just some confusion regarding the dynamic level adjustment system?

In any case, testing for a cap on condition damage should be pretty easy; condition damage is listed in your hero panel when you mouse-over "attack", and if you don't trust that you can go to a level 80 zone, inflict a condition on a monster, and see how much damage it does; the formulas for condition damage are known and the math's not complicated. --Felbryn 01:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I enter WvWvW with low level character (around 2-5 lvl) and was near our server tower which was claimed by guild with tons of +40 stat bonuses. All my stats was capped at 2500 (or 2600). I did not look how much +healing, etc was provided. 178.120.139.227 12:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What counts as an attribute?

Should Agony Resistance be listed as an attribute? (It doesn't have a page, currently.) How about Magic Find? The Magic Find page says it's an attribute, but it's not listed on this page or in the attributes nav.

Magic Find and Agony Resistance show up on items in the same way as bonuses to (other) attributes. They're not displayed in the hero panel, AFAIK—but neither are Boon Duration or Condition Duration, and they're listed.

There's also some more obscure things that could arguably count as attributes, like reduced-condition-duration-on-self from the Rune of Melandru or 6 Superior Rune of the Mad King, or increased movement speed from various traits or 6 Superior Rune of the Traveler, or even passive health recovery from 6 Superior Rune of the Dolyak or foods like Mango Pie.

It looks like the current de facto rule is "anything that is increased by a trait line counts as an attribute," but is that a good rule? And if it's not, where do we draw the line between an attribute and a special ability? --Felbryn 01:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agony Resistance is in the new attribute display as of 2013-01-28. I wish Magic Find was in there, and it really should be, because it gets modified by all equipment just like any of the others. There's even a blank space just crying out for it. —Dr Ishmael 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you could list all statistics somewhere, up until to a point when it gets silly close to programming. :P From reduced/increased stun duration to individual condition and boon increase/decrease, there's a lot of stats granted by certain gear, runes and sigils, and not all of them are worth listing imho. Mediggo 19:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Anything listed under Attributes is an Attribut. I am always for in-game categorisation... Magic Find is an odd ball. I just put it in the attribute category because it behaves as one for the most part, but it isn't listed as one. Acually I am with the Doc on this topic. They should just put Magic Find on the empty spot. - Yandere 20:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you'd posted that just a few days earlier, it would have been an argument for radically altering our current attributes list. But it seems that the game designers have adjusted the attributes panel to basically match the list that we already had. Huh. --Felbryn 18:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. The 4 primary attributs and the 5 secondary attibuts as well as the 8 profession-specific attributs were there since beta. The profession-specific articles even have a reference that they had diffrent names during beta.

Now we have the 4 derived attibuts in addition, which were listed under game mechanics before the update.

Agony Resistance was there since fractals started, but had an odd status like magic find until they added it to the attibute panel and then it was added to the attribute article.

And magic find... has still an odd status. Since there is a pile of equipment and food which alters magic find. People are aware that this thing exists. Most people don't know how it works just that it has something to do with loot drops and magic items. I just categorised it under attibuts because I didn't really no were to put it. And it behaves like a secondary attibute it just isn't listed there in game which is why the attribute article doesn't talk about magic find and it doesn't appear in the nav.

So basiclly they did the changes and the wiki was just fast to adapt. - Yandere 19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, they may have existed since beta, but boon duration, condition duration, and the profession-specific attributes weren't listed in the attributes section of the hero panel until 3 days before you posted that we should define "attributes" by what's listed there. If you'd made that same reply back when I originally started this discussion in November, you would have been arguing that all of those attributes should be removed from our list on the wiki. --Felbryn 20:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We classified them all as attributes because that's how ArenaNet introduced them to us. We just accepted that the in-game display was focused on the primary attributes and didn't have a way to display all of the secondary/profession attributes. Now that the in-game display has been reformatted, it displays all of the prevously-known primary/secondary/profession attributes, as well as derived attributes (that we just called statistics before) and Agony Resistance. Thus we were forced to re-think how we define an attribute, coming to the obvious conclusion of "everything that's listed in the Attributes box".

It's not that we are contradicting ourselves, we're just adapting to the changes in the game. —Dr Ishmael 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Direct Damage

Direct damage was not part of the derived attributes. I have added the values below.

 Damage

Increases outgoing direct damage. Sum of Power and the Weapon Strength of the character's equipped weapon.

Please confirm this as the 5th attribute. --Rodnix (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You're describing what they used to call Attack, and it actually has nothing to do with the damage formula (it uses Power times Weapon Strength, not plus). That "attribute" was removed from the Hero panel with the April 2014 Feature Pack. —Dr Ishmael 11:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Effective attributes

The formula when downscaling is:

A_{eff lvl} =

A_{base eff lvl} / A_{base orig lvl}

A_{orig lvl}

Although I didn't test when upscaling because I don't have any low lvl. Can someone test? In a fractal for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raljeor (talk • contribs) at 11:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

Profession mechanic attributes are gone?

I was updating each profession-specific attributes when ran into Pet Attribute Bonus, if you look at the traits which increase a pet's effectiveness it's all spread out. I think there isn't profession mechanic attributes anymore. – Valento ^msg 18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback 2016/02/27

Revenant information is missing --Lady Namko

All stats

→ moved from All stats

Agree, if for no other reason than avoiding "stats" over "attributes". To be perfectly honest, when does this even apply over Celestial? -Azure Fang (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. When it comes to runes like Rune of Leadership, it's good to have a reference to the actual ingame meaning. If this information is added to the attribute page, it will become lost in all the clutter. 77.173.94.155 10:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Confused about Levels at Which (Primary) Attributes Increase

The article seems to give conflicting statements as to when a character receives increases in their attributes. Specifically, in the Primary Attributes section, it states that primary attributes "...rising every level until character level 10 and every even level thereafter", leading one to believe that every other level after level 10 will see an increase in (primary) attributes.

But then in the Trivia section, it is declared that "a player would [before 2014 update] receive a small increase of attribute values with each level up, instead of a larger increase every 6 levels".

These two statements are contradictory and don't include information that is relevant. Namely, the first only describes the increase in primary attributes, while the second fails to mention whether the increase in attributes applies to only primary attributes or possibly other categories as well.

It's a small discrepancy and probably not worthy of too much attention, but may be confusing to new players (such as myself--I'm a total newb). xP

Kholdfyre (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)