Dadnir.5038

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > _Snip!_ I get what You say, but the fact is that there is neither more or less builds diversity. What was called "flavor of the month" was simply replaced by what we call "meta build" now. Because players simply seek to be the most effective possible when they play and could care less about builds that are slightly less effectives. The only real difference in build diversity is that before players actually tried to pioneer new directions while now almost everybody simply follow the "meta". The number of options didn't go down, they've gone up in fact, what changed is the player's readiness to thread new paths. Players have lost the notion of viability, they have a misconception of the "meta" being synonimous to "viable". And the worst is that when a non-meta build start to show a bit of efficiency they rush in this very subforum to beg ANet to bring down this build. I'll be mean but in reality it's not that the build diversity has gone done, it's that players hate build diversity.

Number of threads and comments don't show that a gamemode is "unwanted", if anything, It show that this "gamemode" don't have to many issues. - _sPvP_ is a permanent brawl for balance arguments, lack of PvP diversity, shrinking player population and ever rising bot population. - _WvW_ is quite similar to _sPvP_, being thanksfully free from the bot issue. - _GW2 discusion_ is an extremly wide subject box. - _Fractal and donjon_ is all about bugs and arguments between players that want to get in and players that want to finish their run quickly. - _Player helping player_ is for random questions about the game. - _Lore_ is all about, well, LORE. - _Profession_ is the outlet for disappointed players in which each and everyone know that they can argue for hours about their professions there, in the end it's in the sPvP subforum that balance will be decided. Ultimately, the truth is that _sPvP, WvW, fractal and donjon_ subforums taken together express the concern of maybe 5% of GW2 population (yeah I'm extremly generous there). Ultimately, whether these 5% want the LW or not isn't important, what's important is that the other 95% are kept busy and satisfied.

> @"Grand Marshal.4098" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > @"Grand Marshal.4098" said: > > > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > > I'll be honest then: this isn't true. There wasn't more build diversity before they introduced the elite specs. > > > > You'd only have this feeling because players weren't as much reliant on Metabattle at this time than they are right now. Pre HoT, PvE basically had a single statset used, Berserker, and PvP wasn't faring much better. PvE meta was "rigid", WvW meta was the GWEN hammer train (until they changed stability) and sPvP was the flavor of the month meta. > > > > > > Does GWEN stand for Guardian, Warrior, Engineer, Necro or something? > > > > The "E" stood for Elementalist, but, otherwise, you got the gist of it. Pre HoT players were relying a lot on combo fields and elementalist with it's staff was the best pick for that. Engineer, while able to more or less substitute for an elementalist wasn't "dominant" due to it's water field being "subpar" compared to elementalist's waterfields. > > I see, so this was the meta beyond a single Guild. In any case, I have kind of a hard time thinking that water fields aren't used anymore and a support spellbreaker, I always use my blasts on water fields or light fields for sustain. I guess it's simply not effective? > If it can help you understand, at that time engi only had healing turret as water field. Elementalist had the highest damage, the best control, blasts and essential fields. Guardian and warrior were mainly there to "hammer" other zergs while necromancer was just doing a bit of area denial and boon corruption through marks and well of corruption. Engi wasn't an especially popular profession before HoT, it was more often used for roaming freely than zerging (and thus not part of the "meta"). They nerfed the healing from blasting waterfield and, well, conditions weren't really a concern pre-HoT (they were "limited"), I'm not even sure blasting light field worked the same way at the time, even engi's mortar was very different than the current mortar kit.

> @"Grand Marshal.4098" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > I'll be honest then: this isn't true. There wasn't more build diversity before they introduced the elite specs. > > You'd only have this feeling because players weren't as much reliant on Metabattle at this time than they are right now. Pre HoT, PvE basically had a single statset used, Berserker, and PvP wasn't faring much better. PvE meta was "rigid", WvW meta was the GWEN hammer train (until they changed stability) and sPvP was the flavor of the month meta. > > Does GWEN stand for Guardian, Warrior, Engineer, Necro or something? The "E" stood for Elementalist, but, otherwise, you got the gist of it. Pre HoT players were relying a lot on combo fields and elementalist with it's staff was the best pick for that. Engineer, while able to more or less substitute for an elementalist wasn't "dominant" due to it's water field being "subpar" compared to elementalist's waterfields.

> @"KrHome.1920" said: > Stability: design wise, reaper as the necro melee spec has 2 stability sources with a baseline duration of 16 seconds in PvE (quite a lot, and onslaught's cooldown reduction even greatly improves this), while core and scourge are meant to go range when in doubt. I am not saying that they are super effective at range. That's a different topic, because just having the option to go range is already an argument against stability in terms of game design. Oh, don't get me wrong, the only reason I'd rather get stability than stunbreak in PvE is to ease my way through some jumping puzzles (In metrica for example), and a single stack is kinda not enough for that.

Unfortunately, there are to many core traits revolving around shatters (and having different effects for each shatter) for ANet to be able to safely remove them. Those traits make the mesmer's main mechanism rigid to the point that the idea, while attractive, seem unreasonable.

> @"anduriell.6280" said: > _Snip!_ > Do you like Nemesis? Because i do like the Nemesis. > The core necromancer sorely lack active defense in it's kit. Your spec might work if it wasn't the case but as it is, it would be chore to even begin to make it work (I mean, you double shroud CD and remove weapon swap to give what? A 2 charge leap with evade frame gated behind a shroud on a 20s CD and some heal that only work with LB?).

> @"paShadoWn.5723" said: > I am arguing for PvE/PvP split here. We are supposed to defeat NPC, so the "intended counter" logic should be applied only for the PvP. I'd rather have some stability than another stunbreak in PvE. What's problematic in this gamemode isn't to be stuned (you can live with it) but to be pushed/pulled and stunbreak aren't really effective against that. The true issue is that ANet is against mechanical splits between gamemode and what you suggest is a mechanical split.

> @"Avatar.3568" said: > I am not sure how far cmc's plan goes and how many changes he will numericaly make but I believe that you can't make some proper balance with the elitespecs in this game, since they showed up the game went down in build diversity I'll be honest then: this isn't true. There wasn't more build diversity before they introduced the elite specs. You'd only have this feeling because players weren't as much reliant on Metabattle at this time than they are right now. Pre HoT, PvE basically had a single statset used, Berserker, and PvP wasn't faring much better. PvE meta was "rigid", WvW meta was the GWEN hammer train (until they changed stability) and sPvP was the flavor of the month meta.

Condi DH give you the illusion to be "strong" because it's only proficient at applying burn. It's both it's strength and weakness in the same package, you see the damage because burn is by design a low duration condition that "hurt". You forget to see that the spec lack other conditions with which they could deal damage and that the guardian isn't especially good at covering it's conditions. It's a one trick pony. Revenant is another beast alltogether but I wouldn't say that it's especially stronger than any other professions. It can be pretty suceptible to hard CC which is in flavor since feb 2019. Berserker issue isn't other professions being OP but it's special mechanism being horribly cluncky. You just can't ask other professions to be nerfed when you choose to take a crippling handicap like the berserker's mechanism. It's like being a necromancer, never using shroud in combat and then coming here to complain that other profession are unkillable and deal twice the amount of damage you can do.

> @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > Not even close to the same of what gurad has been update and added on. > > I note a distinct lack of examples as evidence to your case there. > > (I do note that I just realised that I'd forgotten the reworks to staff skills 1 and 2, but there's still everything I've just listed for the other professions, _and that was just off memory._ I'm pretty sure there's stuff I've forgotten there as well.) Rework/update on professions aren't necessarily a good thing. I mean, sure you can get a _ray on judgment_ on your focus giving you a skill that pack some punch, but you can also get a _soul grasp_ on your focus stripping you from both the ability to crit and to burst with focus. So fighting on the amount of rework can be, sometime, as a bit sily. NB.: The necromancer got a lot of work done (at least more than what you seem to remember) but it's starting point, performance wise, was also a lot worse than most other professions (As for DM, they just shuffled the numbers to make it look different, the necromancer even ended up getting QoL loss out of it since they replaced flat damage reduction by toughness. I'd rather not have "rework" if it's these kind of rework, it would be like changing honor to give you a stackable vitality buff for a maximum of 300 vitality while removing _force of will_ vitality buff).

> @"LucianTheAngelic.7054" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > It feel like the fact that chrono lose the ability to self-shatter (pre HoT trait _Illusory persona_) have been forgotten in it's "tradeoff". > > - Chrono: Lose _illusory persona_, slightly different shatter skills. (From my point of view it's a loss) > > this is incorrect and no longer the case, they gave illusionary persona back to chrono sometime this year > Oh? I missed this change, my mistake then.

@"Infusion.7149" The way you're looking at "tradeoff" in term of damage output is wrong from the start (For example, I could say druid is on the losing side of the tradeoff just because it's dps is low, yet it's not a tradeoff). "Performance" isn't a trade off, there is pro and cons to all traitlines. The difference to core mechanisms is where lie the tradeoffs, and for some e-spec there is clearly a net gain of mechanism from their e-spec (for example tempest getting overload for "free", going with the excuse that "core ele just need a F5 is just denying that tempest and weaver simply got "more" out of the trade).

It feel like the fact that chrono lose the ability to self-shatter (pre HoT trait _Illusory persona_) have been forgotten in it's "tradeoff". From my point of view: HoT: - Tempest: Gain strong overloads at almost no cost (Technically there is no increase to the attunment CD, wiki list the occasional increase as a bug) - Scrapper: Gain fonction gyro, lose toolbelt elite skill ("Ok"ish for PvP, not really worth it for PvE) - Dragonhunter: Modified virtue. (I'd say it's an "Ok" trade off. Could afford an increased CD on some of those virtues) - Chrono: Lose _illusory persona_, slightly different shatter skills. (From my point of view it's a loss) - Reaper: Change shroud skillkit (it's even, like moving from a shortbow to a hammer) - Druid: Gain avatar, pet lose a bit of power (it's a net gain) - Herald: trade it's F2 for another F2. (It's Ok) - Daredevil: Trade it's F1 for another. Gain an extra dodge. (You could say it's a net gain) - Berserker: Lose regular burst for primal burst gated behind a stance. (no opinion) PoF: - Weaver: Lose flexibility, gain dual attunment attack. (I'd say it's on the "gain" side) - Holosmith: replace elite toolbelt skill by a kit (it's a net "gain") - Firebrand: Replace virtue by tomes (no real loss here) - Mirage: lose a dodge, gain new attack after dodging (a bad tradeoff) - Scourge: Shades replace shroud (the way shades work make it a bad tradeoff) - Soulbeast: Lose the ability to swap pet in combat, gain the ability to merge with pet. (it's "Ok"ish) - Renegade: Lose F2, gain F2/F3/F4. - Deadeye: Stronger stealth attack, new bundles at the cost of less mobility. (no opinion) - Spellbreaker: Gain a defensive F2, lose potential damage on F1.

Shroud give already more to the necromancer than any other profession mechanism give to their own and, honestly, that's already problematic. Personally I'm against putting haphazardly more thing onto shroud.

> @"UNOwen.7132" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > So... It's screenshot reading time: > > Burn: 48690 damage; 32 hits > > Translated, it mean that you took 32 hits of burn which mean that the 48k were applied over 32 seconds for an average burn damage of 1521.5 damage per seconds. > > > > ... what? Ok apparently not everyone knows how condis work in death recap. When it says 32 hits, that doesnt mean 32 *ticks of damage*. Thats means he took damage from 32 stacks of burn in total. If you were to get 100 stacks of burning applied to you, downing you in one tick, and finishing you off in another tick, that wouldnt show as 2 hits. It would show as *200* hits. So no, its actually 15600 damage per second-ish. > > > It also mean that technically, over those 3 seconds you claim were enough to down you, you took an average of 4563.5 damage which may be close to half your total health pool if you are an thief, guardian or elementalist without any ressource investment into vitality. (Obviously those number are as unrealistic as your own because they do not take into account possible burn burst, like your's does not take into account the simple fact that you took those 48k over 32 hits but it does have the merit to put things into perspective). > > > > Same mistake as above. He took an average of 45635 instead. Thats more than the entire lifetotal of a full tank warrior. Significantly more, actually. > > > Cheer up, over the same time frame, you could have taken the same amount of power damage from any AA in game. > > Same mistake once more. In reality, no power build can maintain 15k dps over 3 seconds. Im not sure any can even reach 30k burst in 2 seconds. I think you might have to consider that you're wrong here. Why would the report even work like that? It doesn't make sense at all. The report never give you the number of stacks you had on you. It's called "hits" for a good reason. It doesn't either give you the duration of the fight. No report will give you the "potential damage" of a maximum number of condition stack. It would be like having the report give you the potential damage of power skills as if your opponent was in a light armor without any damage reduction: nonsense.

Core ele's issue isn't it's attunments CD, so the answer is no. To "fix" it in sPvP, you need to ponder on why it doesn't "work" there, like Jekkt did.

So... It's screenshot reading time: Burn: 48690 damage; 32 hits Translated, it mean that you took 32 hits of burn which mean that the 48k were applied over 32 seconds for an average burn damage of 1521.5 damage per seconds. It also mean that technically, over those 3 seconds you claim were enough to down you, you took an average of 4563.5 damage which may be close to half your total health pool if you are an thief, guardian or elementalist without any ressource investment into vitality. (Obviously those number are as unrealistic as your own because they do not take into account possible burn burst, like your's does not take into account the simple fact that you took those 48k over 32 hits but it does have the merit to put things into perspective). Cheer up, over the same time frame, you could have taken the same amount of power damage from any AA in game.

> @"Wuffy.9732" said: > I'm all for this. Particularly buffing /thief/necro/mesmer/ranger(druid) would be ideal. > > Or , maybe Anet should just rework every class. It's been 6 months since the last balance patch... I don't think "buff" are needed, QoL maybe but not "buff". Thief have strong support but it's to scattered, necromancer is a lost cause as long as PvE mechanisms (_defiance_) hard nerf it's tools, mesmer have been hurted mainly on it's QoL and druid isn't weak but the draw to "might gen" is to strong for players to focus on it's other strengths (the lack of proper stat set also hurt it's dynamic). There is no proper "support" stat set in the game, the actual "support" stat sets either favor tanking (minstrel/cleric/settler... etc.) or dealing damage, none offer you to just support (well, Harrier might be close to be a proper support set). Let ANet just introduce a healing power/concentration/expertise stat set and/or maybe a variant with vitality and remove the more tanky or damage one.

> @"Tseison.4659" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > I commend the effort, but I find none of those proposed e-spec attractive. > > Unless it’s the XX number of E-specs you’ve drafted. There are some e-spec from other that I like but this peculiar set does not appeal to me. The skyfire's automatic swap of "enchantment" feel incredibly cluncky, the trickster having specters pop up when it's clone are destroyed feel like dejà vu on chrono (and a thing that people wanted nerfed), the apothecary feel like yet another aoe e-spec for the necromancer, the dreadnough feel like holosmith all over again, the bulwark just use 2 pets (which I don't feel appaeling in any way and will be utterly useless yet again in WvW),... etc. I expect from the next e-spec to be a bit original, not the same thing all over again. What I see in this peculiar set is the opposite of what I expect so, no, I don't see them as attractive.

> @"Marko Welder.3547" said: > _Sinp!_ The issue with how you're thinking is that you actually think that defensive/sustain support is important while a group that min-max for dps don't. A meta group will assume that every player is able to put his own weight without having the need to have a nanny looking for it's health point. And thus, every little increase in damage matter. Quickness is a given whether you got FB healing of Druid and those 6-7% damage increase that you dismiss come on top of this quickness damage increase and affect 10 player not just 1. To put it simply if we assume that the average dps of your raid member is 10k dps, Your raid group will do 100K dps and the spirit will add 5k dps on top of that (which isn't negligible, there is no other unique skill/effect in game that can do that, making it enough to be one of the most effective tactic available). Renegade might seem attractive with it's life leeching but it only offer 50% uptime of damage that cannot crit and is not affected by any damage increase bonus to your party. You actually need your whole party/raid to actually land hits more than twice per second to catch up to the spirit buff (which is plenty possible but you also have to consider that a raid with 100k dps isn't even close to what min/maxer achieve (and that those min/maxer define the meta).

I commend the effort, but I find none of those proposed e-spec attractive.

> @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > I just can't believe someone is actually defending pure bunker bore-out gameplay, designd to make the fight go into overtime and winning theoretically without having to apply any damage... :astonished: > > > > Why not? Should DPS builds/strategies be the only ones that have the right to exist in the game? > > (...) > > You probably only read this comment, but I said above already, that neither one-shots nor eternal sustain should be viable strategies. So far, the games clearly tend more towards bunkers and overtime instead of finishing after 20 seconds, so this nerf of unfair sustain leading to unfun strategies is not only fine, but has been very necessary. Well, I believe that the issue of the OP is that a scourge without barrier is a scourge without defense while other professions can still shelter themselves behing things like dodge, evade skills, invuln, block... etc. What do you suggest to avoid players abusing those? Disabling these skills/boons/effects and put endurance bar at 0 on overtime? Removing things in itself is bound to lead to question if it's fair to remove those things and why some other things aren't removed as well. You say that the game clearly tend towards bunkers then, objectively, the act of removing barrier here, will push necromancer to bunker in shroud instead and there is high probability that it won't please players any more than scourge bunkering. What's the next step then? Removing LF gen when overtime? Wouldn't that just shut down necromancer's main damage mean because ANet put all the necromancer's eggs into the shroud? Would ANet have to give other profession a similar disadvantage like no more attunment change for elementalist, no more adrenaline gain for warrior, no clone/fantasm for mesmer... etc? We are discussing fairness, so how far can ANet go before things are unfair? Has ANet gone already to far, stripping the scourge from it's mean of defense but not other profession? Or do we consider that the scourge still have a fair amount of defense compared to other profession/specialization without it's barriers? The necromancer focusing on damage reduction instead of damage nullification like other professions is bound to make such change arguable. It's almost worth being a philosophy subject. You say that bunkering is unfun, but locking down players with hard CC isn't fun either, having someone with a lot of mobility reseting fight again and again to wear down your CDs isn't fun either... etc. The game is full of "unfun" strategies but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be valid strategies.

Why is there still amulets in the game?

> @"Leonidrex.5649" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > Why not? Should DPS builds/strategies be the only ones that have the right to exist in the game? > > > > That said, objectively the nerf does not touch only scourge but all profession/e-spec with access to barrier so I think it's totally fair. I mean, be it scrapper (engi), weaver (ele), warrior, ranger or revenant, all of them are hit by this change the same. The only point that might feel unfair is that the necromancer lack other mean of defense but that's a whole different issue. > > following that logic it shouldnt reveal, and we should see perma stealth thiefs wait to overtime and then try to burst/daggerstorm at the end. > I mean its the same kitten in the end I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Didn't I say that the nerf was fair? My logic is that people should have the same right to play builds that allow them to outlast their opponent than builds that aim to finish thing quickly. If a thief want to perma stealth until he is revealed at overtime I have no issue with that.