Kovu.7560

I sunk literal days of my life into pve, making Aurora so I would have one less trinket piece to have to worry about with regards to stat swapping.

Holy hell. I can't say I'll be doing that again.

~ Kovu

Gankers remind me of cheesers in RTS games. The bad cheesers know their cheese well but can't follow it up with quality transitional gameplay if things don't go their way. Good cheesers know their cheese well _and_ know when to transition into more standard gameplay.

Gankers are carried by their build in the first 5~10 seconds of the fight. That's what they're built to do. That's what their traits and utilities are for. But after those few seconds a good portion of their abilities are on cooldown and if their gank didn't land well they're forced to fight, ya know, properly. The bad players die and/or run away, the good players are able to make the most of the situation and continue the fight.

I wouldn't generalize gankers as good or bad inherently, its just one of many different chosen styles of gameplay.

~ Kovu

> @"Jazz.4639" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > @"Justine.6351" said:

> > > > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > > Yeah it's not a slight on your gameplay, we all run into scrubs.

> > > > I just don't see the logic. How do you pass on the six second invuln? ><

> > > > Maybe they like being in burst videos

> > >

> > > It's 3 seconds in WvW and I assume they cannot fit it on their glass cannon skill bar.

> >

> > There's also a passive which requires no utility slot

> > It's longer duration than the active which is lol

>

> the funny thing is, that the druids all had double stone signet (or at least one of them, the fights are just cut to the essentials so you cant see it) but it seems soulbeasts using something else for some reasons.

Because Dolyak Stance is a thing. People bitch about the very brief-3-second-immunity-to-raw-damage signet... I get much more mileage out of the stance that (traited):

• Has 3x the duration

• Breaks a stun

• Grants Stability (10 seconds or so coupled with Moa Stance and bounce-able with the pet)

• Completely prevents soft CC (this is a big one, kids. For 9 seconds rangers can pretend to be warriors!)

• Affects allies

• Lessens condition damage in addition to power damage (an absolute beast when coupled with the trait that has protection mitigate condition damage.)

Seriously, people don't appreciate how loaded that stance is.

~ Kovu

> @"Sleepwalker.1398" said:

> and not know the full potential of longbow 5.

Not to mention its the only decent way to tag for bags outside of the few you get for deleting targets one-at-a-time.

But yeah. 25 might + sic 'em = dead siege in 2-3 barrage volleys. And you don't even need LoS.

Stances are not nothing, too. Rangers have a bad rep.

~ Kovu

Welcome to schrodinger's profession, buddy.

The profession that's both overpowered and an absolute waste of a slot.

You had better get used to taking criticism. I certainly get called out whenever I bring my ranger into a group fight by the people who know I have a spec'd scourge.

~ Kovu

I'm speaking super generally here.

If a warrior or engineer closes the gap on a thief or ranger and the thief or ranger used all of their tools to create another gap, the thief or ranger fucked up their rotation. Lack of said tools was part of the reason rangers were the laughing stock pre HoT. Rangers and thieves can't tank on power builds like warriors and engineers can. That's why they have lots of tools to kite. Kiting is their defense.

~ Kovu

> @"EremiteAngel.9765" said:

> > @"Brujeria.7536" said:

> > Anet please fix the balance in your game. Things like this should not be possible under ANY circumstance. Getting critical hit for 10 k damage by an 1500 range AUTOATTACK is unaccaptable. Getting hit for 6 k damage by a 1200 RANGE CROWD CONTROL ABILITY is unacceptable.

> >

> > Regardless of the gamemode. Regardless of the cirumstance. Its a ranged weapon, requiring 0 skill or coordination, simple key spaming. Damage numbers like this might be acceptable if the base healthpool is 200k.

> >

> > This is just a isolated sample of the many cases of balance that are wrong in the game. Warriors critting for 6 k damage with a gapcloser and stun skill. Warriors critting for 6 k damage with a EVADE skill. Thief having a 4 SECOND EVADE THAT DEALS DAMAGE AND HAS NO COUNTERPLAY. Thiefs hitting you for 12 k damage out of stealth, with no counterplay. Engies with a 2 second CD gapcloser that crits for 5 k damage while spilling boons. Multiple, overlapping skilleffects and skills that are so overtuned, both in damage and effect. Your philosophy always where to not add mechanics that are unfun to play against. Why do these things exist? Why do they even get buffed? Why do classes like thief and mesmer exist in its current state? Its not fun to fight against a class that can disengage at will, or vs a class that has such a high evade / damage immunity uptime with NO counterplay.

> >

> > Balance like this is a disgrace to the entire game you built, it nullifies the great quick and very fluid combat system you crafted. It ruins all the combat mechanics you created and added. The powercreep simply devalues active play, it devalues strategy, tactics and timing in exchange for powercreep.

> >

> >

> > [https://imgur.com/a/Il3COBk](https://imgur.com/a/Il3COBk "https://imgur.com/a/Il3COBk")

> >

>

> It isn't just the high damage power creep that needs to be reviewed.

> There is also an issue with the mobility creep that has created an imbalance between long-range classes and melee classes.

> I posted this earlier for a discussion from a WvW perspective in mind but it was moved to the professions thread.

>

> In the past I used to think that mobility like leaps, dash, blinks etc. was mainly prioritized for melee builds/weapons.

> Hence we see many of the short-ranged melee weapons having mobility gap-closing skills (the only exception is Necro weapons having no mobility skills at all).

> Range weapons of 1200+ range and beyond generally had no mobility skill attached to it.

> Instead, Range weapons generally had a defensive mechanism to it that is not mobility related, like knockback, chill, push, immobilize etc.

>

> This allowed melee builds to close the gap on range builds.

> And it allowed Range builds to defend itself when the melee got close.

>

> Now, we have the longest range class with a Soulbeast spec that is also more mobile than every other classes' melee builds (except for thieves) due to the merge mechanics with Bird pets.

> And we have a long-range rifle wielding Deadeye with a spammable mobility skill on the weapon and also happens to already be one of the most mobile thief class.

>

> So I was wondering...like...

>

> * Why was Soulbeast given so much more mobility on like their 'Owl' pet when they also have the longest range attack? Shouldn't their mobility be kept at core-ranger levels because of their long-range attacks?

> * Why was Deadeye given a spammable mobility skill on a long-range weapon when they already are the most mobile class? Shouldn't there be no mobility skills attached to a long-range weapon?

>

> Do these classes not already have sufficient tools from their core skills/weapons to survive when a melee build gap-closes without being given even more mobility?

Kiting the enemy is what the thief and ranger do well, neither do especially well while sitting in melee with a melee-oriented profession pounding on them. Moreover, a lot of those control effects are hardly effective when the biggest melee bruisers (warrior and engineer) have plenty of their own mobility, stab uptime, stunbreaks, cleansing, healing and traits that mitigate the effectiveness of soft CC and improve inherent tankiness.

The coin has two sides.

~ Kovu

STOP PUSHING FAR

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> The community can't even handle match up conversations in the forums, without devolving into trolling, baiting, and hate-mongering. I can't imagine that ANet would think about this for longer than it takes to read the original post.

You should've seen the community wvw forum. The stuff around here is comparably tame and quite constructive.

That said, the negatives of cross-team chat outweigh the positives.

~ Kovu

Rangers and thieves explode each other. I can 100->0 a glass thief with the press of two buttons on my zerk SB (assuming they forget where their dodge key is) but I'm running a build that can be 2 shot by those same thieves if they happen to get the drop -- and they have a lot of tools to allow them to get the drop. The fight ends quickly, regardless. To say "ranger hardcounters thief" would be a lie, at best "ranger stalemates a thief" if they're playing tanky.

I have a modest 200~ hours or so on my melee daredevil and find the hardest matchups for me are warriors, engineers, druids and dragonhunters (I get so easily baited, and sometimes have difficulty landing that opening blow against their aegis). I'm not sure how, but I have an easier time dealing with mirages on my thief than my ranger. (For that matter I handle them better on my scourge, too. I think its all of the projectile hate mirage has in conjunction with their normal evades.)

As for the poll, this is my view.

Mesmer

Ranger

Thief

Warrior

Engineer

Revenant

Guardian

Necro

Elementalist

That's how I voted. Ranger and thief are interchangeable, as are warrior and engineer. I actually have difficulty with warriors and engineers on both my ranger and thief.

I honestly find roaming necros to be more of a threat than elementalists.

~ Kovu

> @"incisorr.9502" said:

> condi mirage cause its the most skill based spec in the game.

... and now I have to clean all of the water I was drinking off of my keyboard.

That aside, I've never been overly fond of fighting mesmers in group scenarios. Regardless of balance, the visual clutter has always been obnoxious.

Necro is 8.3 and not a flat 9 only because it defaults on top of the list and people can't be bothered to sort the irrelevant bottom four.

;>.>

edit- The result of these polls is an almost perfect representation of reverse utility in zergs, apart from the mesmer of course.

I click my utilities. Fear me!

(Seriously though, this game has too many fucking buttons to push and keying something like t/g/h just doesn't feel comfortable to me.)

~ Kovu

1. Mesmer

2. Mesmer

3. Mesmer

4. Mesmer

5. Mesmer

6. Ranger

7. Thief

8. Warrior

9. Engineer

The people in the guilds I run with, and a few others on the server I play on.

I've thrown thousands of hours at this game, and as good of a game that it is, at this point they're the ones that make me want to log in.

~ Kovu

> @"RisenHowl.2419" said:

> > @"Kovu.7560" said:

> > 30% Scourge,

> > 20% Firebrand,

> > 20% Rev,

> > 10% Ele,

> > 10% Chrono

> >

> > ... is roughly about what I'm used to seeing these days. Bubbles are surprisingly hard to come by.

>

> Bubble might as well not exist at this point. Long cast followed by a 1s activation time makes it very difficult to land.

>

> Chrono doesn't offer much either, just veil, pull, and grav well. Portal if you're running a small squad. Boon chrono adds nothing to double Rev comp except alacrity, and that unreliably. They're also really bad damage unless it's picking someone off who isn't near tag

I find tags I follow still try to utilize 1-2 chronos for the utilities you mentioned. An issue is not many people want to play mesmer, its much easier to contribute/tag in large fights with all of the other (listed) professions. Its certainly a turnaround from the small scale scene, where 40% of roamers are mesmers.

~ Kovu

30% Scourge,

20% Firebrand,

20% Rev,

10% Ele,

10% Chrono

... is roughly about what I'm used to seeing these days. Bubbles are surprisingly hard to come by.

I _do_ feel stealth is a tad more potent in wvw than in pvp due to the increased space for mobility-based professions to work with and the fact that you're not spending the majority of the game trying to camp a circle.

That said, I don't think stealth needs to be shot down in such a way. It already has plenty of counters, the biggest being the ability for attacks to track through stealth so long as they have been initiated before the target stealthed. (Actually I find that QUITE annoying while on my thief.)

Other aspects of mesmers in particular need to be looked at but I don't think its really the stealth that's pissing people off. (For instance I'd feel a lot more vulnerable on my thief if I lost my maneuverability, rather than my stealth.)

If we're going to buff mechanics that combat stealth, buff the revealing effects on all professions to not require active targeting. (i.e. into a radius AoE) That would actually be a decent change to Sic 'Em on ranger for instance -- nerf the damage bonus for soulbeast but make the reveal an AoE.

"The main issue here isn't the damage" -- the spike damage might _be_ the issue. Several professions have the ability to 100->0 even somewhat tankier characters and even if doing so requires full glass, traits and putting half of their bar on cooldown its still going to feel pretty lame and gimmicky to the player on the receiving end. I've said this before but I feel since the release of the expansions the bar between high damage fights and never ending sustain fights has grown on both ends. Its an unfortunate side effect of a game with more potent traitlines and lots of new stat combinations. Some argue those "one-shot builds" exist entirely to counter people who just want to tank all day.

I don't care if someone stealths around all day, but I do feel pretty salty when they two shot my marauder's gear. Mesmers, thieves, rangers and warriors are all in this particular boat.

~ Kovu

I always thought it would be an interesting idea for upgraded structures to be worth _fewer_ points and the paper/easy to cap stuff to be worth more. I know that's kind of skewed, but the paper stuff is easier to flip and harder to defend.

Alternatively, granting points for a successful defense based on the number of opposing attackers was also a thought that went through my head. Of course that would further favor more upgraded structures. Something like this would probably make the most sense in a system where objectives are all worth the same points regardless of tier.

I know its a pipedream, but I voted for each class having better representation in large group fights.

~ Kovu

Because the wvw community gave the designers such a optimistic response the _last_ time they introduced a new (and gorgeous) map.

That was sarcasm, they didn't. (Yes, I know some of the concerns were valid. But a whole lot of people were right pissed and pretty toxic about it.)

I'm not against moving objectives in general, but if the Arah dungeon taught me anything, its that this game's engine doesn't really handle moving (relative to the environment) but otherwise stationary surfaces especially well.

~ Kovu

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> The reward for playing a long time is being good at the game. No extra reward needed.

Fake news. I have over 7k hours in this gamemode and I'm terrible.

~ Kovu

This would be highly advantageous to small groups, roamers and attackers, disadvantageous to those new to the gamemode and of no benefit one way or the other to defenders (I guess indirectly disadvantageous due to the boost the attackers get). I do not think it is the right call. I do like the idea that @"Shagaliscious.6281" suggested, if implemented correctly.

But ultimately Anet's only tapped the potential of the world ability point tracks, they seem super hesitant to introduce anything new despite plenty of player ideas. Since the system's initial release in 2013 they've only added four new tracks -- one being gliding which was already present in pve. That's less than 1 new track per year.

~ Kovu

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> Shades are still an issue, Sic 'Em is an issue,

You've got to be careful with shades. Its only an "issue" because there are 30 Scourges spamming them. If you run into a single scourge, their well placed shade skills are potent, but hardly overperforming. Diminishing returns on overlapping AoEs isn't a thing that's in this game, but if it was, Scourges would be the main target of that. Or is it fair to continue nerfing an elite spec's complete overall potency because it overperforms in _specific_ situations?

Sic 'Em is definitely overturned, but like other 'more damage now, not later' skills I don't feel an increase to the cooldown without touching the effect is the correct solution. That won't stop people from getting angry whenever a soulbeast gets the better of them with Sic 'Em. Some of these abilities need their actual effects nerfed, even if that nerf also comes with a cooldown reduction. For example if Sic' Em only increased damage by 10% (on the soulbeast) but had a 20s cooldown, or an ammo mechanic that allowed them to use it _more_ fewer people would complain though rangers would still get use out of it. Before Soulbeast came along (and especially before smokescale was a thing) Sic 'Em was a pretty pants utility.

Perhaps there should be a blanket nerf to all traits on elite specs that say "Get +x% damage in y situation", or a limit of such a trait to 1 per profession because all of these 10k+ attacks that people whine about are coming from specific situations where the stars have aligned for [insert profession], usually involving traits that increase damage by a percent amount rather than boosting power or condition damage.

It may be an old story, but I'm still not fond of the potency of condi thieves and mirages simply due to their ability to reliably deliver the mail then disappear/evade spam whilst the ticks do their thing. I don't mind the burst potential of their power counterparts because they're more punishable when they screw up.

~ Kovu

> @"apharma.3741" said:

> We need everything scaling back several notches, it's not an FPS.

Sometimes I turn on action cam, hop on my ranger and pretend it is. =)

> @"XECOR.2814" said:

> > @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> > Some things are powerful on a large scale, some things are powerful on a small scale. Everything has a role or something it is better at than the rest. WvW is designed around large scale combat (15+) with small scale being a secondary concern. Meaning, anything that has an influence on large scale combat will be adjusted if it's over performing. Anything on the small scale will be left to it's devices until it either begins to effect the large scale, or it begins to break the game (such as by getting through objective walls or doing something unintended).

> >

> > The thing with the strong small scale classes like Ranger, Thief and Mesmer, is that their current design (mostly speaking about their PoF elite specs) allows them to be devastating _fringe fighters._ This means if they are co-ordinating with friends, or if they're skilled by themselves, they can be a serious threat to larger groups if they're ignored. They have mobility that allows them to escape if the group turns it's attention and they have skills that bypass or remove defenses to negate the _massive_ amount players will receive when in a large group (boons, heals, etc.). These are the things that make them such popular roamers and the things that become significantly more powerful in a 1v1. Without those things, they would have 0 chance to even approach a large group. With those things, they can put a dent in that group but are unlikely to completely dismantle it. Thus, their influence is not great enough to warrant nerfs but is both strong enough to participate in it on the fringe and to be oppressive in a 1v1.

> >

> > The issue is that large scale combat has become so tanky over the years that fringe fighters (pickers, roamers, floaters, what ever you want to call them) have needed massive buffs to compensate or they'd never be able to do anything to the blob. You could argue, "well, as long as they're strong as roamers they don't need to be able to hurt zergs!" but why should that be the case? It's nice to have a dynamic to WvW other than join the blob or die. Although we don't see it very often, there are players that form small pick squads to isolate and kill stragglers in zergs and can at times be very effective at this. It's an extremely fun way to play but is also incredibly unrewarding because of how much more difficult it is and how much less of an impact you have.

> >

> > It is absolutely true that many of the roaming classes have become OP, but so are the zerging classes. It's powercreep all around. The balance of it all is that everything is effective at something and some things are not as effective at others. You can fulfill any role with any profession but some may need additional support to realize their full potential. Targeting specific professions for significant nerfs is not the proper way to balance and diversify WvW. Adjustments across the board to allow for a more flexible meta is what should be done. Unfortunately, too many people have their noses buried in the numbers and all they see is "WOW THAT WAS LIKE HALF MY HEALTH, ANET PLS NERF."

>

> NO! There is a difference and ill tell you that. All classes that are roaming can also be part of a zerg on certain builds. Its not the mechanics, its the mentality of community that is stopping these classes. Majority of these classes already have a spec thats needed in current meta or have tools that if used in sync with correct comp can plough through enemies meta comp. Even thief and ranger can be used effectively to shave off people lagging behind and pin sniping. Its difficult but it can be done. You do not weigh these classes unviable for zerging based on difficulty.

>

> On the other hand we have some classes mainly necro that do not have roaming ability of any form in any spec, now you can argue about reaper or core, but you know any player of equal calibur on any class will kill them in seconds its not even funny. The class does not have mechanical tools to survive any form of roaming against decent enemies. Here the limitations is lack of tools and functionalities.

>

> Even if there was some way to play these classes on high difficulty to have upperhand on players of equal skill level. But no, you are still going to die as scourge by 10k autoattacks from ranger 2k units away no mattter if he joined wvw today and youre playing for 6yrs. This is not a counterplay, this is bad mechanics and discrimination.

Darn. Wow.

Those "10k 2k range" attacks are from optimally positioned full glass 25 might rangers against glassy often high vulnerability opponents whilst precisely 1k-1.5k (or whatever passes, with the buffer) range away, merged with their pet for the offensive buff, utilizing sic 'em, strength of the pack, possibly zephyr, several damage-oriented traits such as pet's prowess, quarry and/or (this is a big one) remorseless, some unblockable investment (for successfully shooting into that zerg), damage-oriented sigils, runes and offensive foods. Basically a one trick pony. These rangers that two shot you are one shot by thieves, chained down by mesmers and two shot by other rangers and warriors. Moreover, if you're running with a group and staying close to tag they're not as big of a threat to you and your group is a big threat to them and if they're running a complete offense they're likely short on the tools required to retreat when someone from your group with a decent amount of mobility so much as breathes in their general direction. Say what you will, that takes some skill, luck and investment to pull off once.

Yes, a thief or ranger could contribute.

But in a large group composition, if you got to pick and choose each of your professions for total control over your composition, would you ever have a reason to take a thief or ranger's glassy nature and single target damage over a necromancer or guardian for the purposes of contributing to a large scale _sustained_ fight? No. You'd only ever ask for them if you needed some effective scouting done or a keep retapped. Any anywho, I murder warriors on my scourge solo all of the time, yet have difficulty with warriors whilst playing my ranger due to their inherent tankiness against power damage and tools to keep the gap closed. If someone could name a hard counter more true than ranger > necromancer in this game I'd love to hear it, people continually bring up the most extreme examples while trying to make their points (as I illustrated above) instead of acknowledging the average situation. I wouldn't be against necromancers having more tools to deal with ranged spam in general but necro players shouldn't go crying about rangers under the impression they eat the other professions as easily as the meta necro. As for the topic at hand, @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" pretty much has the right of it.

~ Kovu