Aza.2105

FB will be hard to balance because how they designed it. The spec needs reworked, so that it forces the player to choose how they want to play FB (condi or heals but not everything).

> @"Methuselah.4376" said:

> I enjoy the new changes with one caveat....this is going to turn into the CC meta; whoever can stack the most CC, wins.

And people were saying CC was going to be useless because it does 0.01. They were wrong.

Because condi durations were significantly reduced this patch.

The game feels great now.

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> Name 1200 900 900

> **Berserker** Power Precision Ferocity

> **Valkyrie** Power Vitality Ferocity

> **Assassin** Precision Power Ferocity

> **Cavalier** Toughness Power Precision

> ~~**Harrier** Power Healing Concentration~~

> **Barbarian** Power Precison Vitality

> **Carrion** Condition Vitality Power

> **Sinister** Condition Power Precision

> **Rabid** Condition Toughness Precision

>

> 3 Stat amulets are more tradeoff in nature than 4 stats.

>

> Even with the nerf to 4, players will still generally choose 4 stat amulet.

>

> 4 stat amulets almost negate the risk and tradeoff in health tiers.

>

> If you do damage, you got less defense in the 3 stats, and if you got more sustain you do less damage.

>

> Carrion is the exception, and probably should be removed from pvp or change the vitality or power to something else.

>

>

>

This would be a lot more healthy for the game.

> @"MyPuppy.8970" said:

> They need that mobility since they have the lowest hp pool/armor and no block/evades.

Sarcasm?

They should just introduce more skills that have reveal debuff on them. And buff ones that are underwhelming like light's purification. A big change to that would be making the base duration higher and stack in duration. Currently its a 1 second duration and doesn't stack in duration. That would be a big change to have more stealth counter play.

> @"DoRi Silvia.4159" said:

> Been recently seeing alot of people in game talking about this. I might give this a go when I get home tonight... anything to gain another 10 or so fps !!!

I've been using it for awhile. Its very nice.

> @"SeikeNz.3526" said:

> pick chrono -> lose distortion -> lose self shatter

> pick mirage -> lose 1 dodge

>

> what other class have traits like that?

Berserker has a -300 toughness penalty if you pick it.

Soul Beast loses pet swap.

I think either holo or scrapper loses vitality.

Anet were adding trade offs for picking elite specs. But it seems they never got around to doing it to every elite specialization.

> @"viquing.8254" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > > @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> > > * Nothing seemed too outstanding to comment on, until I got to this: **Mirage Cloak: This trait now reduces the mirage's endurance by 50 in competitive modes** = Woah woah! Is that... necessary? I mean a lot of people with long time aggression vs. Mirage are probably thinking "YEAH IT DESERVES IT. SCREW MIRAGE" but really guys, without the ability to double dodge roll when needed, the Mirage is going to frequently be caught in the kinds of bursting that it cannot avoid. I think Arenanet needs to seriously reconsider this very heavy handed nerf.

> >

> > I think that is the trade off, they can dodge while CCed but they only have one dodge bar. It sounds a lot like something that would be in Guild Wars 1. This patch is awesome.

> >

>

> Yeah and during this time daredevil has 3 evade bar.

> Mean where is the trade off ? you think having only one evade justify to evade when you want ?

> Here will be the use case : hit the mirage, burn his scepter block, his evade then CC burst, GG you are done.

> They can dodge while CCed : have you ever try to lock burst other spec (particulary thieves.) ? Mean how did they manage CC ?

> Btw as long as we have clones perturbing people, mesmer will stay strong huh ?

Daredevil doesn't have clones. The entire thief class was created to be squishy without evasion. Mesmer was created to feel pressure after their clones were destroyed. They weren't suppose to have access to the same amount of evasion as thief nor access to the same amount of stealth as thief. They also have a higher health pool than Thief.

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > Yes but they are just theories. How about wait and see before jumping the gun?

>

> if you don't want to participate then don't participate. also the thing about tankfest inc is a theory but things like warrior hammer and other associated skills no one uses being an even worse choice isn't a theory.

Its still a theory, based upon how the game currently plays now. The reason why warrior hammer isn't being used is because you can't snowball a target. The current way the game plays is just stacking might, then melting a target with high damage skills. Hammer has never done that. But if their philosophy is to be believed:

**_"We want cooldowns to be felt. Longer cooldowns promote more calculated usage of skills; if skills are used poorly it should create an opportunity for the enemy to push their advantage. Shorter durations of high impact buffs have a similar effect. Skillful timing is going to be rewarded, and poor usage is going to be exploitable by enemies. In some cases, it’s still going to make sense to have a longer duration attached to a longer cooldown, but most of the time we’re looking at shorter durations for things like stability, protection, quickness, high might stacks, among others."_**

Cool downs are longer, which means interrupting a enemies attacks has become more important than it was before. In other words, a weapon like hammer becomes more rewarding. The focus is shifting from 100-0 a target in a few seconds into actually punishing your opponents movements. The design of hammer has always been a GROUP weapon, just like it was in the original game. Its not made for side noding, but for team fights. A hammer warriors job would be to disrupt the assigned target for the team to either focus down or disrupt a target so that the team bursts down another target.

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > Its complicated when you believe you know everything. And just so you know, most gw1 cc did not do damage. I'm sure you or someone else will say but this gw2. Yep, but it seems that they are drawing balance philosophy from gw1. Which was leagues better than what we have ever had here.

> >

> >

>

> nice way to end a conversation. I don't claim to know everything but I have an active imagination backed up by experience which leads me to plausible theories (I hope).

Yes but they are just theories. How about wait and see before jumping the gun?

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > Nah, I understand very well. I'm looking at the changes objectively based upon their revamped philosophy of how skills in pvp should work. Its not my opinion. A lot of your concern is imaginary, since you nor anyone else knows exactly how all of this will play out. Also consider, no one knows how valuable CC will be in the new GW2 pvp. So its hard to say exactly were hammer will be in terms of usefulness.

>

> theres nothing complicated in looking at hammer or other skills that weren't used at all, seeing their damage taken away with no other changes or very minor ones, and theorizing that they will be even more sub par. its basic math.

Its complicated when you believe you know everything. And just so you know, most gw1 cc did not do damage. I'm sure you or someone else will say but this gw2. Yep, but it seems that they are drawing balance philosophy from gw1. Which was leagues better than what we have ever had here.

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > snips

>

> you could've picked a better option for your argument, no one in their right mind is going to use hammer anymore if anyone even did. I get what you're saying but you're the one who doesn't understand. so op things get nerfed, some up things that didn't get nerfed become more attractive options. except too many of those options are still unusable because of how bad they are. they could follow up in the future with buffs to these useless things which I hope they will.

>

> > Hammer

> > - Autoattack Chain: Reduced power coefficients from 0.9/0.9/1.2 to 0.6/0.6/0.8

> > - Fierce Blow: Reduced base power coefficient from 1.8 to 0.77. Reduced power coefficient vs controlled foes from 2.16 to 1.82. Reduced weakness duration from 4 seconds to 2 seconds. Reduced cooldown from 6 seconds to 4 seconds

> > - Hammer Shock: Reduced power coefficient from 1.0 to 0.7

> > - Staggering Blow: Reduced power coefficient from 1.0 to 0.01

> > - Backbreaker: Reduced power coefficient from 1.5 to 0.01

> > - Earthshaker: Reduced power coefficient from 1.0 to 0.01

Nah, I understand very well. I'm looking at the changes objectively based upon their revamped philosophy of how skills in pvp should work. Its not my opinion. A lot of your concern is imaginary, since you nor anyone else knows exactly how all of this will play out. Also consider, no one knows how valuable CC will be in the new GW2 pvp. So its hard to say exactly were hammer will be in terms of usefulness.

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> sigh... the point is nerfing skills that no one uses is entirely counter productive. we could have a ton more choices if the right things get nerfed.

This seems very short sighted. Think about this...if they nerfed every thing except hammer. Then hammer would of became meta hands down, because it would of been the only weapon that used old damage formulas. It would of been very strong in post damage output nerf world. I don't think its hard to understand. How this will all work out is anyone's guess at this time. We honestly do not know. GW2 will be a very different game from what I seen from the patch notes.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> * Nothing seemed too outstanding to comment on, until I got to this: **Mirage Cloak: This trait now reduces the mirage's endurance by 50 in competitive modes** = Woah woah! Is that... necessary? I mean a lot of people with long time aggression vs. Mirage are probably thinking "YEAH IT DESERVES IT. SCREW MIRAGE" but really guys, without the ability to double dodge roll when needed, the Mirage is going to frequently be caught in the kinds of bursting that it cannot avoid. I think Arenanet needs to seriously reconsider this very heavy handed nerf.

I think that is the trade off, they can dodge while CCed but they only have one dodge bar. It sounds a lot like something that would be in Guild Wars 1. This patch is awesome.

Patch notes looks great!

> @"Alatar.7364" said:

> _"unfair advantage"_?! You must be s****ing me. The fact that Teamque was removed from this teambased mode is an unfair advantage for the randoms and causals who enforced this nonsense on a team based environment and now you wanna even further increase your advantage by removing Duo-Q?

> I say it one more time _"You are at an advantage ever since Team-Q was removed, so either you realize Coquest is purely team based mode or you should not PvP at all no matter how entitled you feel to twisting a purpose of a team-gamemode to your selfish solo ideals"_

True, thats why they should reserve conquest for ATs and make a different map type for randoms.

> @"Zexanima.7851" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > They have high ratings because of players like me that test off meta builds in ranked.

> >

> > That and after all these years I am still clueless about how conquest works.

> >

> > I still have to stutter step with another player who might (25 stacks) be getting home.

> >

> >

>

> Nerf Crab Fear, makes top players too stronk

Once I seen Crab Fear in game, true story.

> @"Shao.7236" said:

>The context is that evades have a counter and they can be part of their builds if they choose to. Reliability is defined by the players ability to make the compromises for it.

You know as well as I do, that all of those skills are ineffective against evade builds.

> @"Shao.7236" said:

> Wards and Shocking Aura's counter evades then again nobody uses them because "meta".

Both are too niche:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ward

There are a grand total of six ward skills, over half of which belong to guardian. What you are saying is to counter evade that a team needs to have a guardian to put down wards. Which btw have long cooldowns compared to the evade spam that is rampant in todays pvp. And what you are saying is if that doesn't work, then have a ele run shocking aura. I don't know about you homie, but that would be the worst suggestion ever. Because you know, none of that wouldn't work. The only way these suggestions would work is if Anet expands the amount of wards and access to shocking aura. Other wise it will never ever work.

> @"Ansau.7326" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > > @"Ansau.7326" said:

> > > > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > > > > @"KrHome.1920" said:

> > > > > > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Lucentfir.7430" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Don't buy amd.

> > > > > > > > > > This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

> > > > > That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

> > > > >

> > > > > Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.

> > > > > 2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.

> > > > > 3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

> > > > >

> > > > > Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > > Don't buy amd.

> > > > > > > This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

> > > > > That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

> > > > >

> > > > > And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

> > > >

> > > > No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

> > >

> > > No, you don't speak facts, only a partial fact. That 5% average is exclusively based on the same bunch of latest AAA or esport games, that have huge studios behind them, able to either develop well designed game engines or do good implementations of available ones.

> > >

> > > Once you move away from such trendy games, another reality shows up: Ryzen cpus are still quite behind Intel cpus, mostly because of much bigger latencies and not so big core frequencies.

> > > Hardware Unboxed, a quite relevant source, even spoiled it, testing up to 36 games instead of the same 4-10 games you see in most mainstream places. In 7 games the 3900x (12c/24t) is over 10% behind the 9900k (8c/16t).

> > > gamegpu.com is also a great place showing cpu comparisons of not so trendy games. It's very easy to find a pile of games where latest Ryzen are easily beaten by Intel cpus with quite a lot less cores.

> > >

> > > Just because you have 100 people saying they are neck to neck in 10 games, doesn't mean in other 200 games it's the same case.

> >

> > Oh you mean this hardware unboxed Ryzen 3900x vs i9 9900k?

> >

> >

> >

> > The 9900k is a average of 6% faster AT 1080p! Who is going to buy expensive hardware just to game at 1080p?

> >

> > 

> >

> > 

> >

>

> Of course when you have games where a 9900k beats a 3900x by over 15%, then the 3900x becomes an expensive hardware, because in such games a simple 4c/8t from Intel can match it.

>

> And then well, the majority of people are playing at 1080p and a lot throw 2070 or better gpus at it. So who is spending money on high end hardware? More people than what you think.

>

> Anyway, what people do with their money doesn't change that fact that even ryzen 3000 are easily beaten by intel CPUs in a wide range of games.

None of that matters, my point was that on average the 9900k is 5%-10% faster than the 3900x. You and other people here act like you can't read or just don't want to agree. I'm not saying Amd is faster that Intel in GW2, I'm not even saying that there aren't a few games that Intel beats Amd by over 10%. What I'm am saying is that when you factor in all of those games its around 5%-10%. That's nothing. Above 1080p you won't see much of a difference. Heck you won't see a difference now, its not like the majority of those games were running at sub 30fps. More than likely they were well over 90fps. So that means Amd runs at 90fps and Intel runs at 100fps.

> @"Ansau.7326" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > > @"KrHome.1920" said:

> > > > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > @"Lucentfir.7430" said:

> > > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > > @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > > > Don't buy amd.

> > > > > > > > This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

> > > >

> > > > Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

> > > That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

> > >

> > > Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

> > >

> > > 1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.

> > > 2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.

> > > 3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

> > >

> > > Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

> > >

> > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > Don't buy amd.

> > > > > This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

> > > >

> > > > You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

> > > That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

> > >

> > > And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

> >

> > No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

>

> No, you don't speak facts, only a partial fact. That 5% average is exclusively based on the same bunch of latest AAA or esport games, that have huge studios behind them, able to either develop well designed game engines or do good implementations of available ones.

>

> Once you move away from such trendy games, another reality shows up: Ryzen cpus are still quite behind Intel cpus, mostly because of much bigger latencies and not so big core frequencies.

> Hardware Unboxed, a quite relevant source, even spoiled it, testing up to 36 games instead of the same 4-10 games you see in most mainstream places. In 7 games the 3900x (12c/24t) is over 10% behind the 9900k (8c/16t).

> gamegpu.com is also a great place showing cpu comparisons of not so trendy games. It's very easy to find a pile of games where latest Ryzen are easily beaten by Intel cpus with quite a lot less cores.

>

> Just because you have 100 people saying they are neck to neck in 10 games, doesn't mean in other 200 games it's the same case.

Oh you mean this hardware unboxed Ryzen 3900x vs i9 9900k?

The 9900k is a average of 6% faster AT 1080p! Who is going to buy expensive hardware just to game at 1080p?



> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > @"MementoMortis.4258" said:

> > The only thing that's broken in this game IMO is the ability to **attack while evading**. It still seams crazy to me that this is even a thing.

> >

> > It defiles the very foundation of the combat mechanics this game was based on. It's been growing like a cancer for years along with power creep.

> >

> > Unrelenting Assault and Pistol Whip both have low/no cool-downs so they can be spammed throughout a fight. Not to mention that both classes have copious blinds as well. I know I don't have to tell you how broken Mirage is but, it's a fact that a good Mirage can effectively kite 2-3 attackers with only a few brief moments of vulnerability, all while dealing damage to multiple targets. Doesn't make sense. Endure Pain and Signet of Stone have long CDs which makes sense.

> >

> > Entering in to a group fight on point in P1-P3, it's not uncommon for me to only land 1-2 hits while holding point, before dying or running.

>

> Blind

> Block

> Invulnerability

>

> While attacking is bad too!

All of those generally have modest to long cds. There is nothing in the game that has a quick cooldown that allows you to go invul and block while spamming high powered attacks. In fact it can be argued that block shouldn't even be mentioned, there are many unblockable skills in the game to counter it. Evade has no counter, which is the problem.

I'd say a new game mode. I mean they tried before and kind of gave up on the idea. What they should do is keep conquests for ATs and add a new mode for casuals. I think stronghold could work if they change a few things.