Obtena.7952

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > > I am all for letting just core ele free swap with no gobble cd and tempest / weaver have a 3 sec delay in-between swaps (tempest would get overloade at 3 sec). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hold on here ... your whole position is that ele needs it's own unique mechanic because it _lags_ the especs in performance. Now you're all in to things that widen that gap because suggesting there is no CD on ele swaps is massively broken. This is why I'm riding you so hard in this thread, because in the truth is that you simply want buffs and using untrue statements to justify it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That would be an unique mechanic if they make it a 3 sec cd swap for tempest and weaver but not for ele. > > > > > > > > Sure, but that has NOTHING to do with my point, so I will just repeat it. > > > > > > > > Your whole position is that ele needs it's own unique mechanic because it _lags_ the especs in performance but your suggestion here doesn't close that gap between ele and it's especs ... it makes that gap _larger_. That's why I'm saying you are being dishonest. You give a reason to make a change, then you make a suggestion for change that would result in the exact OPPOSITE of the reason you gave to make it. That's absurd. > > > > > > Dishonest about what? How would making the cd between swaps not the swaps them self longer for tempest much like weaver (with out the cdr of the swap them self) make the gap between ele core and tempest bigger? How would letting core ele get full benefit from all of its atument trait lines all of the time and not just during the given atument make the gap bigger? > > > > > > Maybe your confused with my suggestion? > > > > There is no confusion. > > > > > > Core ele needs its own unique mechanic and fast swaps would be a good start > > > > Hold on ... you said ele needs a unique mechanic for balance ... now you are proposing a unique mechanic that is the OPPOSITE of balancing ele. You can't honestly think no CD on attunement swaps on ele is in any possible way balanced EVEN to it's especs. If you believe that's balanced, then clearly you don't know what you are talking about. > > > > So you AREN'T interested in balance, even though you say you are. That's dishonest. This just get worse and worse. Not only are you comfortable using untrue statements to justify your reason for change, now you are comfortable with ideas that go against the very reason you stand by those untrue reasons. > > > > > > I am saying core ele keeps the swap the way they are and tempest mostly has a gobble cd of 3 sec in-between swaps like weaver but normal cd when swaping out of an atument. How is that not balancing the classes? How is that dishonest? So this whole thread you are complaining about balance between core and especs and saying ele needs a unique class mechanic ... and now you are saying ele keeps swap the way it is? THAT is what is dishonest here ... is that you are just looking for changes that aren't even related to why you say they need to happen. At this point, no one can take anything you are saying seriously.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > So you're whole goal here is to prevent power creep (because I'm not going to argue core isn't viable enough) by giving ele a unique mechanic? That's suspect considering I JUST quoted you as saying core ele can't be buffed without affecting it's especs ... > > > > See how you are contradicting yourself there? You want to PREVENT power creep with this unique mechanic ... to BUFF core ele. I'm just going to let that simmer. > > Dude, are you ok? I'm fine. I just don't think it's reasonable to claim you want a change class mechanic just for ele to prevent power creep and to buff it. That doesn't make sense. I get your argument is that profession mechanics are a nice powerful add on to classes that bring something extra to the table on top of the rest of the class. Swapping attunements does that. They _always_ did that. The complaint here is contingent on the existence of ele especs, not the lack of 'bringing something extra' to the class.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > I am all for letting just core ele free swap with no gobble cd and tempest / weaver have a 3 sec delay in-between swaps (tempest would get overloade at 3 sec). > > > > > > > > > > > > Hold on here ... your whole position is that ele needs it's own unique mechanic because it _lags_ the especs in performance. Now you're all in to things that widen that gap because suggesting there is no CD on ele swaps is massively broken. This is why I'm riding you so hard in this thread, because in the truth is that you simply want buffs and using untrue statements to justify it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That would be an unique mechanic if they make it a 3 sec cd swap for tempest and weaver but not for ele. > > > > Sure, but that has NOTHING to do with my point, so I will just repeat it. > > > > Your whole position is that ele needs it's own unique mechanic because it _lags_ the especs in performance but your suggestion here doesn't close that gap between ele and it's especs ... it makes that gap _larger_. That's why I'm saying you are being dishonest. You give a reason to make a change, then you make a suggestion for change that would result in the exact OPPOSITE of the reason you gave to make it. That's absurd. > > Dishonest about what? How would making the cd between swaps not the swaps them self longer for tempest much like weaver (with out the cdr of the swap them self) make the gap between ele core and tempest bigger? How would letting core ele get full benefit from all of its atument trait lines all of the time and not just during the given atument make the gap bigger? > > Maybe your confused with my suggestion? There is no confusion. > > Core ele needs its own unique mechanic and fast swaps would be a good start Hold on ... you said ele needs a unique mechanic for balance ... now you are proposing a unique mechanic that is the OPPOSITE of balancing ele. You can't honestly think no CD on attunement swaps on ele is in any possible way balanced EVEN to it's especs. If you believe that's balanced, then clearly you don't know what you are talking about. So you AREN'T interested in balance, even though you say you are. That's dishonest. This just get worse and worse. Not only are you comfortable using untrue statements to justify your reason for change, now you are comfortable with ideas that go against the very reason you stand by those untrue reasons.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > I am all for letting just core ele free swap with no gobble cd and tempest / weaver have a 3 sec delay in-between swaps (tempest would get overloade at 3 sec). > > > > > > Hold on here ... your whole position is that ele needs it's own unique mechanic because it _lags_ the especs in performance. Now you're all in to things that widen that gap because suggesting there is no CD on ele swaps is massively broken. This is why I'm riding you so hard in this thread, because in the truth is that you simply want buffs and using untrue statements to justify it. > > > > > > > > > > That would be an unique mechanic if they make it a 3 sec cd swap for tempest and weaver but not for ele. Sure, but that has NOTHING to do with my point, so I will just repeat it. Your whole position is that ele needs it's own unique mechanic because it _lags_ the especs in performance but your suggestion here doesn't close that gap between ele and it's especs ... it makes that gap _larger_. That's why I'm saying you are being dishonest. You give a reason to make a change, then you make a suggestion for change that would result in the exact OPPOSITE of the reason you gave to make it. That's absurd.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > > ok, fair. But the inability of buffing core ele without buffing it's elite specs is near impossible because there is no actual tradeoff in accessability to core ele's skills or abilities or what have you. > > > > That's true, but I don't see why that's a concern though. > > > > That statement also assumes Anet needs a way to buff ele without affecting especs at the same time. I don't think that's a good assumption either. I mean, we haven't seen much evidence from Anet in the history of game changes that suggests they won't make a change to core if it affects especs or vice versa ... so where does that assumption you are making come from? > > > > Because Anet has been making efforts for the past few years to make core specs more viable and to combat powercreep, as well as slightly cater to players who do not own the expansions. So you're whole goal here is to prevent power creep (because I'm not going to argue core isn't viable enough) by giving ele a unique mechanic? That's suspect considering I JUST quoted you as saying core ele can't be buffed without affecting it's especs ... See how you are contradicting yourself there? You want to PREVENT power creep with this unique mechanic ... to BUFF core ele. I'm just going to let that simmer.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > I saw obtenna arguing with jski on why eles are fine and nothing should c hange > > > > > > > > > > > > No you didn't. I didn't say it was fine EVER in that thread. What you saw was someone saying untrue things to justify why it should be changed, and I called them out on that. There should be NO tolerance for that kind of nonsense. If you're going to accuse me of something, you better get your kitten straight buddy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > "Benchmark numbers" do absolutely nothing to support their claims and what I wrote about, how is this even relevant? It *would* be relevant *if* I questioned existance of dps/class performance differences, but that's not what I'm doing. Seriously, don't you understand you're talking about one thing and then claim that "there's proof for it!" while *proving* something else (which, again, was never anything I argued against)? > > > > > > > I don't care what _you_ are talking or arguing about. This is a thread about **balance**! > > > > > > > Let me make it really simple: Balance in GW2 = BAD; Benchmarks, statistics = proof; gamedesign **101**/for dummies ≠ (is not) proof and has nothing to do with balance, it only has to do with if a game can simply exist or not! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Balance is this game does NOT mean equivalent DPS performance, so whatever statistics you want to bring from hitting a golem, etc ... aren't relevant. You are defining balance based on what? Not having high DPS? Not being Meta? Getting kicked from optimal PUG teams? Those aren't measures of balance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Game is designed around playing how you want; that means certain design choices that lead to the way the game is balanced. Sure, Anet COULD balance to equivalent DPS ... but it's not necessary for them to do so because for those of us that embrace how the game is designed, DPS differences don't affect how we can be successful. If balance around DPS is THAT important ... play a different game because there are lots that do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > The question of balance is related to playing how you want and what you can play to achieve success. In other games, that IS DPS equivalence ... but not here. > > > > > > > > > > Depends if the choices are meaningful. > > > > > > > > Yes, and this game the highest number of meaningful choices of any game I've every played. > > > > > > > > So basically ... _thank you Anet_ ... _mission accomplished_. I get to play how I WANT EVERY DAY and not worry about if my gear is good enough to beat a timer, outlast an encounter or force me into a META build to complete something. > > > > > > > > Again, don't be confused as this is me saying "_don't improve the game_" ... I got no problem with Anet improving the game or people discussing it ... but it MUST be done for reasons that are inline with how the game is intended to work. > > > > > > The reason i answered this post is because for these builds to matter and be meaningful there has to be risk reward. > > > > Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here ... but I CAN assure you that for the people that play these builds, they ARE meaningful, regardless of the risk/reward balance. > > > > > > It is also why i think jski was arguing in order to have meaningful changes to make playing core ele as meaningful as playing the elites and so should all classes. > > > > No, Jski was arguing because he was looking for a specific solution to a problem that doesn't exist and using untrue statements to justify it. I mean, playing core ele IS meaningful to people otherwise they wouldn't play it. > > A good example of risk reward is: Tempest with Daggerhorn risk: You are squishy Reward: good damage. > > I have a issue that tempest is a flat upgrade to core ele and in some ways weaver was a flat upgrade and it shouldn't be. I think anet is trying to fix this but run into issues that has to do with mechanics. Sure that's a good example, but again, balancing of risk/reward for all the different specs is not needed for how the game is designed and works; this risk/reward idea is JUST another way of saying 'we need performance balance' and that's just a requirement you are imposing on it to justify a change. > > Some elites were simply flat out upgrades and it should be tradeoffs that are meaningful and interesting to make the choices valuable. ... and there is, because if different specs were not meaningful and interesting choices to people, they wouldn't play them and we know Anet makes changes to specs they feel are underplayed.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > I am all for letting just core ele free swap with no gobble cd and tempest / weaver have a 3 sec delay in-between swaps (tempest would get overloade at 3 sec). Hold on here ... your whole position is that ele needs it's own unique mechanic because it _lags_ the especs in performance. Now you're all in to things that widen that gap because suggesting there is no CD on ele swaps is massively broken. This is why I'm riding you so hard in this thread, because in the truth is that you simply want buffs and using untrue statements to justify it.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > I saw obtenna arguing with jski on why eles are fine and nothing should c hange > > > > > > > > No you didn't. I didn't say it was fine EVER in that thread. What you saw was someone saying untrue things to justify why it should be changed, and I called them out on that. There should be NO tolerance for that kind of nonsense. If you're going to accuse me of something, you better get your kitten straight buddy. > > > > > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > "Benchmark numbers" do absolutely nothing to support their claims and what I wrote about, how is this even relevant? It *would* be relevant *if* I questioned existance of dps/class performance differences, but that's not what I'm doing. Seriously, don't you understand you're talking about one thing and then claim that "there's proof for it!" while *proving* something else (which, again, was never anything I argued against)? > > > > > I don't care what _you_ are talking or arguing about. This is a thread about **balance**! > > > > > Let me make it really simple: Balance in GW2 = BAD; Benchmarks, statistics = proof; gamedesign **101**/for dummies ≠ (is not) proof and has nothing to do with balance, it only has to do with if a game can simply exist or not! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Balance is this game does NOT mean equivalent DPS performance, so whatever statistics you want to bring from hitting a golem, etc ... aren't relevant. You are defining balance based on what? Not having high DPS? Not being Meta? Getting kicked from optimal PUG teams? Those aren't measures of balance. > > > > > > > > Game is designed around playing how you want; that means certain design choices that lead to the way the game is balanced. Sure, Anet COULD balance to equivalent DPS ... but it's not necessary for them to do so because for those of us that embrace how the game is designed, DPS differences don't affect how we can be successful. If balance around DPS is THAT important ... play a different game because there are lots that do that. > > > > > > > > The question of balance is related to playing how you want and what you can play to achieve success. In other games, that IS DPS equivalence ... but not here. > > > > > > Depends if the choices are meaningful. > > > > Yes, and this game the highest number of meaningful choices of any game I've every played. > > > > So basically ... _thank you Anet_ ... _mission accomplished_. I get to play how I WANT EVERY DAY and not worry about if my gear is good enough to beat a timer, outlast an encounter or force me into a META build to complete something. > > > > Again, don't be confused as this is me saying "_don't improve the game_" ... I got no problem with Anet improving the game or people discussing it ... but it MUST be done for reasons that are inline with how the game is intended to work. > > The reason i answered this post is because for these builds to matter and be meaningful there has to be risk reward. Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here ... but I CAN assure you that for the people that play these builds, they ARE meaningful, regardless of the risk/reward balance. > > It is also why i think jski was arguing in order to have meaningful changes to make playing core ele as meaningful as playing the elites and so should all classes. No, Jski was arguing because he was looking for a specific solution to a problem that doesn't exist and using untrue statements to justify it. I mean, playing core ele IS meaningful to people otherwise they wouldn't play it.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > > I'll say it again, the nature of a classses weapons skills does not make it a class mechanic. That's just the style of it's weapon skills. > > > > It seemed to be more than enough of a mechanic pre HoT for elementalist to stand at the top. > > > > All in all, more than asking whether the profession have a mechanic or not, this is a very long thread about whether or not core elementalist need to be powercrept in order to stand up to it's e-specs. > > - The thing with _tempest_ is that the devs were kind enough to give the players the choice to use overload or not, making some players confused about whether or not there is a drawback. Good grief there is since tempest traits tend to encourage the player to actually use it's overload and thus lengthen it's stay within an attunment, indirectly weakening quite a few core traits that rely on frequent attunment swaping. > > - Weaver also have obvious drawbacks; Having all attunments sharing a 4s cool down drastically change the mechanic compared to core elementalist. Not even talking about the reduced flexibility due to the fact that swaping attunment is delayed for your off-hand skillset. > > > > Considering those points, I think it's fair to say that core elementalist's mechanic is unique enough to not need additional effects piled up on top of it. Maybe core elementalist is lacking balance wise, but that's another topic alltogether. > > ok, fair. But the inability of buffing core ele without buffing it's elite specs is near impossible because there is no actual tradeoff in accessability to core ele's skills or abilities or what have you. That's true, but I don't see why that's a concern though. That statement also assumes Anet needs a way to buff ele without affecting especs at the same time. I don't think that's a good assumption either. I mean, we haven't seen much evidence from Anet in the history of game changes that suggests they won't make a change to core if it affects especs or vice versa ... so where does that assumption you are making come from?

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > I saw obtenna arguing with jski on why eles are fine and nothing should c hange > > > > > > > > No you didn't. I didn't say it was fine EVER in that thread. What you saw was someone saying untrue things to justify why it should be changed, and I called them out on that. There should be NO tolerance for that kind of nonsense. If you're going to accuse me of something, you better get your kitten straight buddy. > > > > > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > "Benchmark numbers" do absolutely nothing to support their claims and what I wrote about, how is this even relevant? It *would* be relevant *if* I questioned existance of dps/class performance differences, but that's not what I'm doing. Seriously, don't you understand you're talking about one thing and then claim that "there's proof for it!" while *proving* something else (which, again, was never anything I argued against)? > > > > > I don't care what _you_ are talking or arguing about. This is a thread about **balance**! > > > > > Let me make it really simple: Balance in GW2 = BAD; Benchmarks, statistics = proof; gamedesign **101**/for dummies ≠ (is not) proof and has nothing to do with balance, it only has to do with if a game can simply exist or not! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Balance is this game does NOT mean equivalent DPS performance, so whatever statistics you want to bring from hitting a golem, etc ... aren't relevant. You are defining balance based on what? Not having high DPS? Not being Meta? Getting kicked from optimal PUG teams? Those aren't measures of balance. > > > > > > > > Game is designed around playing how you want; that means certain design choices that lead to the way the game is balanced. Sure, Anet COULD balance to equivalent DPS ... but it's not necessary for them to do so because for those of us that embrace how the game is designed, DPS differences don't affect how we can be successful. If balance around DPS is THAT important ... play a different game because there are lots that do that. > > > > > > > > The question of balance is related to playing how you want and what you can play to achieve success. In other games, that IS DPS equivalence ... but not here. > > > > > > Depends if the choices are meaningful. > > > > Yes, and this game the highest number of meaningful choices of any game I've every played. > > I'm really happy for _you_! But like I said before: numbers show a different tendens. From declining sales (see NCSoft) to (near) empty LFG's . From mass lay-offs to veteran players leaving this game. > Again, I'm happy for _you_, that _you_ feel really great and peachy about the current state of this game, but now I really would like to see all those other people that don't like the direction ANet (and NCSoft) is going to be (more) happy. For that group of people is growing every single day. You're not being honest here. I'm saying that Anet is balancing in a way that is inline with how they intented to allow people to play how they want. That's one of the things about the game that I like. If you aren't happy with the balance approach this game has been on FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS and shows no sign of deviating from ... well, that's a pretty strong hint to you and everyone else that incessantly complain about lack of balance for how much the complaints register with Anet in the game design. I mean ... think about why there has been such a strong push for change on the competitive side of the game this year compared to the PVE side. > > I'm not saying there's a 100% correlation between the beforementioned decline and the abnormally low frequency of balance updates as of late, but I do think it is _somewhat_ of a factor. OK ... but I'm not arguing with you about frequency of balance updates. Yes, it's good you acknowledge that '_the numbers_' have an unknown correlation to balance ... which BTW, is a good reason to _lay off_ using _the numbers_ to continually justify changes for balancing the game different than the way Anet does it now. Anet could release a balance update EVERY DAY and you guys would still complain because it's not the balance that you think it should be. People need to get off this idea that the game needs to be what they want it to be or that it needs to conform to some sort of traditional MMO standard. It doesn't; it's existence for the last 8 years and more PROVES it doesn't. People also need to get off this idea that if we had DPS equivalence over all classes in PVE, everything would be amazing. That's not something you can say because there will ALWAYS be a meta and there will ALWAYS be people wanting to build teams based on optimal performance with it, kicking builds that aren't meta. DPS equivalence for balance is NOT the answer in this game, because this game is NOT designed around it.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > I saw obtenna arguing with jski on why eles are fine and nothing should c hange > > > > No you didn't. I didn't say it was fine EVER in that thread. What you saw was someone saying untrue things to justify why it should be changed, and I called them out on that. There should be NO tolerance for that kind of nonsense. If you're going to accuse me of something, you better get your kitten straight buddy. > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > "Benchmark numbers" do absolutely nothing to support their claims and what I wrote about, how is this even relevant? It *would* be relevant *if* I questioned existance of dps/class performance differences, but that's not what I'm doing. Seriously, don't you understand you're talking about one thing and then claim that "there's proof for it!" while *proving* something else (which, again, was never anything I argued against)? > > > I don't care what _you_ are talking or arguing about. This is a thread about **balance**! > > > Let me make it really simple: Balance in GW2 = BAD; Benchmarks, statistics = proof; gamedesign **101**/for dummies ≠ (is not) proof and has nothing to do with balance, it only has to do with if a game can simply exist or not! > > > > > > > > > > Balance is this game does NOT mean equivalent DPS performance, so whatever statistics you want to bring from hitting a golem, etc ... aren't relevant. You are defining balance based on what? Not having high DPS? Not being Meta? Getting kicked from optimal PUG teams? Those aren't measures of balance. > > > > Game is designed around playing how you want; that means certain design choices that lead to the way the game is balanced. Sure, Anet COULD balance to equivalent DPS ... but it's not necessary for them to do so because for those of us that embrace how the game is designed, DPS differences don't affect how we can be successful. If balance around DPS is THAT important ... play a different game because there are lots that do that. > > > > The question of balance is related to playing how you want and what you can play to achieve success. In other games, that IS DPS equivalence ... but not here. > > Depends if the choices are meaningful. Yes, and this game the highest number of meaningful choices of any game I've every played. So basically ... _thank you Anet_ ... _mission accomplished_. I get to play how I WANT EVERY DAY and not worry about if my gear is good enough to beat a timer, outlast an encounter or force me into a META build to complete something. Again, don't be confused as this is me saying "_don't improve the game_" ... I got no problem with Anet improving the game or people discussing it ... but it MUST be done for reasons that are inline with how the game is intended to work.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > I saw obtenna arguing with jski on why eles are fine and nothing should c hange No you didn't. I didn't say it was fine EVER in that thread. What you saw was someone saying untrue things to justify why it should be changed, and I called them out on that. There should be NO tolerance for that kind of nonsense. If you're going to accuse me of something, you better get your shit straight buddy. > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > "Benchmark numbers" do absolutely nothing to support their claims and what I wrote about, how is this even relevant? It *would* be relevant *if* I questioned existance of dps/class performance differences, but that's not what I'm doing. Seriously, don't you understand you're talking about one thing and then claim that "there's proof for it!" while *proving* something else (which, again, was never anything I argued against)? > I don't care what _you_ are talking or arguing about. This is a thread about **balance**! > Let me make it really simple: Balance in GW2 = BAD; Benchmarks, statistics = proof; gamedesign **101**/for dummies ≠ (is not) proof and has nothing to do with balance, it only has to do with if a game can simply exist or not! > > Balance is this game does NOT mean equivalent DPS performance, so whatever statistics you want to bring from hitting a golem, etc ... aren't relevant. You are defining balance based on what? Not having high DPS? Not being Meta? Getting kicked from optimal PUG teams? Those aren't measures of balance. Game is designed around playing how you want; that means certain design choices that lead to the way the game is balanced. Sure, Anet COULD balance to equivalent DPS ... but it's not necessary for them to do so because for those of us that embrace how the game is designed, DPS differences don't affect how we can be successful. If balance around DPS is THAT important ... play a different game because there are lots that do that. The question of balance is related to playing how you want and what you can play to achieve success. In other games, that IS DPS equivalence ... but not here.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > See, this is where you have to understand that what sets GW2 from it's peers is that relative to THOSE game, the threshold is low. > > > Except it isn't. Those other games with content tuned-up higher (relatively) than in gw2? Those are also games where balance of impact between skill and gear is shifted massively away from skill compared to gw2. > > > > OK ... I'm not debating how skill and gear interact here compared to other games. GW2 allows players to choose from a wide range of builds that they can be successful with. Many other MMO's don't. Success threshold is low and this is why you can take "_40% less DPS_" builds and win. If you did that in other games, you would be crushed. Some games are even gear-gated it's that obvious. GW2 doesn't do any of that to it's players. > > > > > > So, that "higher tuned" threshold in other games quite often can be passed with far less skill than the supposedly "easier" content from GW2. > > > > Yeah maybe .. but I'm not making an argument about player's skill here. > But it is very relevant. How big the threshold is depends on the game's mechanics. That "40% less dps" means something different in GW2, where the dps difference between average and top is 10x, and, say FF XIV where it's more around 3x. If you look at that, you will see that 40% leeway threshold in gw2 is more like 12% threshold in FF XIV. And that's usually less than the difference between you in the gear that's available when the content gets released, and you after you geared up in a better stuff (either from this very content, or from next patch in the cycle). Basically, wait 3 months and you have that much advantage even without the instance having any leeway at the start (and, obviously, they always do have some leeway). > > So, again, what is easier and what is harder? I don't know what's easier and harder. I know that GW2 allows players to choose from a wide range of builds that they can be successful with when other MMO's don't. Does that mean you need to be more skilled to play GW2 with low performance builds than MMO's that need players to play high threshold builds to be successful? I don't think you can conclude that for any case. I mean, maybe ... but I really think it doesn't matter because what other MMO's do isn't contingent on GW2 being successful or not. GW2 is successful because it DOESN'T do many of the things other MMO's do. I think any claim Anet needs to follow other MMO trends in content difficulty and design is an attempt to justify Anet ALSO balance classes like other MMO's for same content. The fact is that GW2 need NEITHER follow other MMO content design NOR class balancing philosophies. It has it's own and they work. The things that make players successful in this game are knowing the encounters and knowing how to play their build. Even when content does factor build/gear into success, it's NOT as significant a factor in knowledge of build and encounters.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > Any core ele needs its own class mechanic so it can be balanced with in its elite spec. That's _not true_. EVEN in the case where core ele should be balanced with it's elite specs (it doesn't), Core ele can be balanced with it's elite specs without having it's own unique class mechanics. >a better chose. That's simply a matter of whatever criteria you use to make that choice. You want everything to work so all options work in your criteria. Anet can't make the game for you that way. They don't need to .. that's why we have variety in the options we are given.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > I'll say it again, the nature of a classses weapons skills does not make it a class mechanic. That's just the style of it's weapon skills. OK. I won't argue your opinion and why you have it; I can respect your reasons even if I disagree. What's relevant here is how the game works and why it works that way, even if the result is the current game state. I really can't agree with the reasons you have provided for why this isn't a proper class mechanic. The concept of having 8 effective weapons that give you 4 meaningfully different play themes to swap between in real time ... that's a pretty great concept. You guys are just too hung up on the fact that it's implemented similarly to a weapon swap so you feel it's really easy dismiss as 'not real'.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > But it is and you do not want ppl to talk about it at all or realty any thing. > > > > > > > > OP was VERY clear what the topic of the thread is. This isn't up for debate that the topic is simply about OP claiming Ele not having a class mechanic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is though about core ele vs weaver vs tempest they even name this in there post about pve and doing dps. > > > > Ele not having some level of DPS isn't a problem and if it is, it's not necessarily fixed by 'giving' ele a class mechanic ... because they already have one. > > > > Again, your post is an example of the dishonesty here ... saying something not true to justify something you want. This whole thread is just a ruse to get more DPS on Ele. > > > > But it dose have a dps problem as core ele dose less dps then tempest and weaver That makes no sense. NO class in this game is balanced by DPS to it's especs or any other class so there isn't a reason to expect it for ele and it's especs. It's not a problem. At least we are starting to get some honesty here, even if it's wrong.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > But it is and you do not want ppl to talk about it at all or realty any thing. > > > > OP was VERY clear what the topic of the thread is. This isn't up for debate that the topic is simply about OP claiming Ele not having a class mechanic. > > > > > > It is though about core ele vs weaver vs tempest they even name this in there post about pve and doing dps. Ele not having some level of DPS isn't a problem and if it is, it's not necessarily fixed by 'giving' ele a class mechanic ... because they already have one. Again, your post is an example of the lack of truth in this thread ... saying something not true to justify something that is wanted. This whole thread is just a ruse to get more DPS, etc... on Ele.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > OK it's bad ... but swapping elements is STILL a class mechanic. This isn't up for debate. Any argument otherwise is absurd. > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's that bad and you don't like it ... hey, class choices, you got em. > > > > > > > > > > Well like i said earlier, what constitutes as a fully fledged out professon mechanic for EVERY other class is not present on ele. > > > > > > > > I mean, you can have that opinion. Clearly, it's not relevant to how the game works though. I mean, I'm just going to go back to my original point; if class mechanics are dissatisfying to you from a gameplay perspective, why aren't you choosing a different class? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's relevent enough for the developers to make the change for core revenant so I would disagree. > > > > See, this is the problem ... ele HAS a class mechanic so the premise it doesn't have a class mechanic to justify ANYTHING a person wants to suggest to change the class is just wrong. It's wrong. > > > > I get you think that the class mechanic is terrible ... but it exists. So if you want to make a thread that core ele class mechanic is garbage and needs to be fixed, that's awesome ... because it's not a lie. > > > > > > You are saying nothing every thing you are posting is to stop ppl from talking about things. I'm just asking people to base their class change suggestions on things that are true.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > OK it's bad ... but swapping elements is STILL a class mechanic. This isn't up for debate. Any argument otherwise is absurd. > > > > > > > > If it's that bad and you don't like it ... hey, class choices, you got em. > > > > > > Well like i said earlier, what constitutes as a fully fledged out professon mechanic for EVERY other class is not present on ele. > > > > I mean, you can have that opinion. Clearly, it's not relevant to how the game works though. I mean, I'm just going to go back to my original point; if class mechanics are dissatisfying to you from a gameplay perspective, why aren't you choosing a different class? > > > > > > It's relevent enough for the developers to make the change for core revenant so I would disagree. See, this is the problem ... ele HAS a class mechanic so the premise it doesn't have a class mechanic to justify ANYTHING a person wants to suggest to change the class is just wrong. It's wrong. I get you think that the class mechanic is terrible ... but it exists. So if you want to make a thread that core ele class mechanic is garbage and needs to be fixed, that's awesome ... because it's not a lie. This whole thread is based on something that is NOT TRUE. No amount of debate will change the fact that ele DOES HAVE a class mechanic, so you CAN'T argue a change based on it NOT having a class mechanic. That's nonsense.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > But it is and you do not want ppl to talk about it at all or realty any thing. OP was VERY clear what the topic of the thread is. This isn't up for debate that the topic is simply about OP claiming Ele not having a class mechanic.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > That is for sure what you did i am not sure how you see you self here. > > > > > > > > No, I did NOT tell someone to switch class because they suggested something. That is NOT the reason I said that. That's just your disaster of a misinterpretation of what I said. > > > > > > > > > That is balance for core ele if you buff ANY thing on core ele you buff tempest and weaver > > > > > > > > The complaint was NOT about balance. > > > > > > > > > > I am sry but WHAT did you think of there suggestion for adding to core ele then? > > > > I already answered that ... please try and follow the thread and read my posts if you want to have a discussion with me. > > > > You dont think its a balance issues and you seem not to want to talk about it at all. because the topic of the thread isn't balance. Unlike you, I don't stray from the topics of people's threads to rant about whatever I want. >Also its super hard to talk to more then one person at the same time on these forms i suggest not going full on with it. I don't need your suggestion ... I'm not the one struggling to maintain a discussion with you on the forum.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > > Hopefully some day they fix this necro issue, since its a specific issue to do with mechanics which nerf necromancers suffer efficiency wise compared to other classes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except this isn't an issue in PVE because the game isn't designed around needing the highest efficiency builds to be successful. Hopefully, Anet continue to ignore these constant requests to 'fix' issues that would result in the content dictating what builds are needed, resulting in fewer people being able to play the builds they want. > > > > > > > > > > > > It becomes a issue if that extra damage delays the death of a raid boss and gives it more time to use techs. > > > > > > > > > > Again, that's not an issue. You can be successful if that happens. In fact, the game is DESIGNED to allow that 'delay' so people can choose to play how they want. > > > > > > > > It is though because it gives a reason for folks to pass over necro. > > > > > > That just depends on how you play and who you play with. In otherwords ... it's an issue you encounter because of choices _you_ make. It's not an issue that requires Anet to solve with game changes because the game design already addresses that issue. The game is designed so that people can choose to play how they want and be successful. > > > > Lol, is there any game (especially MMORPG's) out there that doesnt give you that choice? I mean, I'd love to see an MMORPG that tells you on the "create your character screen", please don't pick this class, you wont be able to complete the game with it ... > > > > Really, your arguments are completely moot! They're all just givens and don't contribute to _any_ game discussion, really! > > This is why you need proper balance in pve. > > Even if you can do content with lower DPS, if you give foilks a reason to pass you on being brought to a group then there is a good chance they will becasue something is better. Playing with people that tell you how to play is not a reason to change a class in a game that is _designed and works_ to allow you to play how you want.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > That is for sure what you did i am not sure how you see you self here. > > > > No, I did NOT tell someone to switch class because they suggested something. That is NOT the reason I said that. That's just your disaster of a misinterpretation of what I said. > > > > > That is balance for core ele if you buff ANY thing on core ele you buff tempest and weaver > > > > The complaint was NOT about balance. > > > > I am sry but WHAT did you think of there suggestion for adding to core ele then? I already answered that ... please try and follow the thread and read my posts if you want to have a discussion with me.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > OK it's bad ... but swapping elements is STILL a class mechanic. This isn't up for debate. Any argument otherwise is absurd. > > > > If it's that bad and you don't like it ... hey, class choices, you got em. > > Well like i said earlier, what constitutes as a fully fledged out professon mechanic for EVERY other class is not present on ele. I mean, you can have that opinion but it's not inline to how the game works. I'm just going to go back to my original point; if class mechanics are dissatisfying to you from a gameplay perspective, why aren't you choosing a different class? What criteria are you using to choose a class that has dissatisfactory mechanics for you?

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > See, this is where you have to understand that what sets GW2 from it's peers is that relative to THOSE game, the threshold is low. > Except it isn't. Those other games with content tuned-up higher (relatively) than in gw2? Those are also games where balance of impact between skill and gear is shifted massively away from skill compared to gw2. OK ... I'm not debating how skill and gear interact here compared to other games. GW2 allows players to choose from a wide range of builds that they can be successful with. Many other MMO's don't. Success threshold is low and this is why you can take "_40% less DPS_" builds and win. If you did that in other games, you would be crushed. Some games are even gear-gated it's that obvious. GW2 doesn't do any of that to it's players. > > So, that "higher tuned" threshold in other games quite often can be passed with far less skill than the supposedly "easier" content from GW2. Yeah maybe .. but I'm not making an argument about player's skill here.