Aza.2105

The only problem I have with mesmer is the excessive screen clutter. I really really wish Anet reduced the max number of clones/phantasms mesmer can have to 3 and just condense their power so they don't lose anything. Then they would be fine. The mesmer rework was the worst thing Anet has ever done and they just did not give a crap about the screen clutter issues it caused.

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> * Go after CI Mirage (time for a immobilize CD)

> * More toning down for HOLO (let's get the real trade-off out now)

> * Revert staff changes for Druid, increase damage on the weapon since you nerfed pets (like by 400% sounds about right)

> * Give Chrono IP back

> * Limit might gain in SPvP to 10 stacks max

>

> I don't know it all, but I think this will get us there for conquest.

They don't even need to limit might gain, what they need to do is simply tone down the amount of might a character can get by themselves. I'm fine with 25 stacks of might if it comes through combo fire fields and allies giving it to you in addition to the stacks you generate for yourself.

> @"otto.5684" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > > @"otto.5684" said:

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

> > > > I disagree, trade offs are a great change. Its how the game was designed originally. Each profession had trade offs. With the introduction of elite specs, what happened was the elite specs filled in the gaps each profession had. Effectively removing the weaknesses they were designed with. Its no coincidence that the massive power creep happened when elite specs were introduced.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Trade-offs do not exist if:

> > >

> > > 1) core is not viable.

> > > 2) the entire elite line is not sPvP viable.

> > >

> > > Examples: Chrono, Druid, berserker, renegade, need I keep going?

> > >

> > > If Anet is serious about trade-offs (they are not), they had to buff core lines and nerf elites. What Anet currently doing can only be called throwing darts on to a board with blind on. It has nothing to do with balance, trade-offs, quality of life improvements or overall game improvement.

> >

> > How can you say any of this when you know they aren't done doing their trade off rework. We have 3 or so elite specs with trade offs now? Out of how many. Lets talk what is viable and whats not when they are done.

>

> You think this is 3 year project? This is a kitten 7 year old game and now the devs to are working figure out what works and what does not?! It’s done. And whatever the devs are currently doing is not working and will only alienate the remaining players.

Its a mmo.

> @"otto.5684" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > I disagree, trade offs are a great change. Its how the game was designed originally. Each profession had trade offs. With the introduction of elite specs, what happened was the elite specs filled in the gaps each profession had. Effectively removing the weaknesses they were designed with. Its no coincidence that the massive power creep happened when elite specs were introduced.

> >

> >

>

> Trade-offs do not exist if:

>

> 1) core is not viable.

> 2) the entire elite line is not sPvP viable.

>

> Examples: Chrono, Druid, berserker, renegade, need I keep going?

>

> If Anet is serious about trade-offs (they are not), they had to buff core lines and nerf elites. What Anet currently doing can only be called throwing darts on to a board with blind on. It has nothing to do with balance, trade-offs, quality of life improvements or overall game improvement.

How can you say any of this when you know they aren't done doing their trade off rework. We have 3 or so elite specs with trade offs now? Out of how many. Lets talk what is viable and whats not when they are done.

Spellbreaker needs be brought in line, if Zerker sacrifices defense for damage. Then Spellbreaker shouldn't have damage any where close to Zerker. Otherwise, why play them? Something needs to go. Not sure what Anet will do though.

> @"judgebeo.3976" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > I disagree, trade offs are a great change. Its how the game was designed originally. Each profession had trade offs. With the introduction of elite specs, what happened was the elite specs filled in the gaps each profession had. Effectively removing the weaknesses they were designed with. Its no coincidence that the massive power creep happened when elite specs were introduced.

> >

> >

>

> Agree but, think the op says that "not all specs are being treated the same way". I mean, while chrono gets absolutelly destroyed, mirage is far from core and chrono specs.

> think same happen on other classes. If you want to have that backdraw, i kinda like the idea, it must be balanced, not for 1 spec, or 2... for all. And thats not happening.

Probably because they haven't gotten around to mirage yet. At the pace they are going, it might be years when ever elite spec has a trade off.

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > I disagree, trade offs are a great change. Its how the game was designed originally. Each profession had trade offs. With the introduction of elite specs, what happened was the elite specs filled in the gaps each profession had. Effectively removing the weaknesses they were designed with. Its no coincidence that the massive power creep happened when elite specs were introduced.

>

> Exactly, back at the start of this game I remember the devs who went through balance patches on Twitch (Jon Peters?) would talk about why they were not keen to buff / change certain things, because classes were designed to have weaknesses not just strengths. Like engy and warrior were originally designed to be weak to condies, some classes were designed to have various limitations on their mobility and so on. That all went when they added elites.

>

>

Yep I remember that too. I enjoyed those videos.

I disagree, trade offs are a great change. Its how the game was designed originally. Each profession had trade offs. With the introduction of elite specs, what happened was the elite specs filled in the gaps each profession had. Effectively removing the weaknesses they were designed with. Its no coincidence that the massive power creep happened when elite specs were introduced.

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> We have a game not designed for a trinity, yet one of the deities has been present since PoF release.

A full blown healer shouldn't of ever been in this game. It betrays GW2 founding principles. If they want it to continue in game then they should allow all the other stuff they were against having too i.e casting bars.

From a business perspective, are you making the game for the 90% or the 10%? The 10% tend to be the players who exploit the game mechanics...not hacking but finding the most "efficient" way to play. While the 90% plays the game as its presented.

> @"KrHome.1920" said:

> Toughness is effective. This does not mean that everything a target throws at you can be facetanked just by running paladin amulet. Dodges, evades, blocks (100% damage mitigation!) are key mechanics in this game.

>

> This is not a MOBA! The pacing is fast and fights are meant to end in 10 to 30 seconds. If you suck at the game or are outnumbered and run a squishy build you die fast. That's intended.

>

> Every single PvP oriented build can survive 10 or more seconds to pressure and toughness is just one of multiple defenses that sum up to a build's general sustain.

>

> 2,7k armor is a permanent 25 to 35% damage reduction (exact number depending on your armor class). That's like perma protection on your character.

No its not. I've tested it extensively. Its useless. It use to be good before the power creep though.

> @"Sovari.7246" said:

> I know a lot pf people who stopped playing pvp because they finished their backpack and don't have a goal anymore to lure them back. so.. I think if they added another backpack with achievements more casuals will probably return

Then they really didn't enjoy pvp if they were playing just to get a backpack.

I don't really wvw much, so I just got my warclaw the other day. I had no problem keeping up with the zerg on foot.

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> I'm of the opinion that no matter what, on the fastest scale of things the quickest a player should be getting rushed down by a single extremely offensive and bursty enemy is 5 seconds minimum.

Then this makes two players targeting one target less than five seconds....three players targeting one even shorter. In GW1 it took coordination to be able to burst a target like monk down. In gw2, one single player can do this with not even a fraction of the effort.

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > > @"Dave.6819" said:

> > > Sometimes i think us players are at fault why this game became what it is now. And Anet... should've never listened to us. But they did. And now we have what we have now. No balance. No decent PvP community. No build diversity. Classes/builds that are chopped down and crippled every now and then by balance devs. And like 70% of PvPers are gone... Yea.. keep on going with your "nerf that nerf that one too" threads you "experts".

> >

> > This is indeed true.

>

> Like I said before

>

> > Ever since Path of Fire I've felt that conquest's biggest weakness isn't the mechanics or balance or game mode. It's always been the community holding it back. The game poorly educating players on what to do in the game mode, top tier players (Who religiously play this game, I might add) telling curious potential buyers the game isn't worth playing on their streams several times a day. It's not the balance. It's not the game mode. It's not the systems in place for how to play PvP like Ranked and Automated Tournaments. It's us. It's always been us. We're the problem.

Its the game mode. The game mode was designed for tournaments. Tournaments that consisted of five players who can communicate in real time with voice. The game mode isn't designed for randoms.

I think class health tiers are a bit outdated, Anet should extend health tiers to elite specializations. For example, maybe Dragon Hunter would be in the 19k health tier while base guardian and fb wouldn't be.

> @"Twilight Tempest.7584" said:

> It would help if the currently power-crept stuff like Holo, SB, Rev, SLB, Scrapper, and maybe Scourge and FB were toned down. I would prefer reverse-power-creeping over more power-creeping as a means to level the playing field.

Anet's next power creep move is to just get rid of health bars all together. We don't need em, since everything dies in under a second.

> @"reddie.5861" said:

> > @"JayAction.9056" said:

> > Recently there have been a few complaints on Rev specifically Rev damage.

> >

> > First, I would like to point out that rev still has the LOWEST power damage and LOWEST power burst of ALL classes in a PVE environment. Yet, with that being the case rev still has pvp specific damage and CD nerfs to even further lower this damage.

> >

> > Second, there are very few Revs that are playing consistently at high skill rating. If you are going to call something out for being OP pertaining to Rev you might as well from now on just say “XXX out skilled me and I want him nerfed.”

> >

> > As we all know rev has the MOST EXPLOITABLE weaknesses of all classes. It’s quite easy to win against rev just by playing a certain way or a certain spec.

> >

> > So for the sake of keeping things short; maybe from now on don’t call out rev. Call out the specific rev that farmed you, and state why this specific person is OP. No need to cry against Rev *insert laughing emoji*.

>

> o man i didnt realize this was a bad kitten necro :o

lol I just noticed!

Rev can now out skill you, but about a year ago they could not: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/25118/give-revenant-stealth/p1

Which one is it? Is it skill or simply being over tuned by buffs? Why wasn't there a thread about out skilling a opponent before the rev buffs? They should exist since this is obviously not a issue with a class being over tuned. If you could win by skill alone then why even ask for buffs? There should be no need.

GW2 balance changes always make it so a class/es are over tuned for a brief period of time. During that time threads pop up telling other players that its THEM that is the problem. That all they need to do is: know how to play the game, don't be mad, get good, its all skill. Then when Anet finally decides to tune down the class then we get threads asking for buffs and how hard it is to win compared to xx class.

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> We have no current plans to make the monthly tournament gizmos available outside of winning the monthly AT.

>

> We do have a weapon set coming for PvP/WvW this summer, assuming nothing goes wrong. Additionally, there is a new pvp/wvw armor set planned for late fall/early winter. We have some other rewards planned as well, but I want to preserve some mystery. :)

Sounds great, looking forward to see what you guys will create!

> @"Khalisto.5780" said:

> they working on that I think, with the tradeoffs

I don't think it will work well. But I guess its worth a shot.

> @"Jack Redline.5379" said:

> > @"Aza.2105" said:

> > > @"bluri.2653" said:

> >

> > > "spellbreaker isnt rly top notch to be used as an example here even a berserker is more dangerous now"

> > >

> > > Man I swear do you guys actually believe all that you are saying? It is delusional at its finest

> >

> > Prove it wrong. The difference between the two is zerker does more damage, sb removes boons. Thats pretty much it.

> >

> >

>

> And spB has more stun oriented dmg output. And more stuns (deals dmg on interupts)

No they don't. There is nothing in the SB trait line or skills that stun. They only have daze through full counter (if you decide to hit them), and dagger 3. Thats it. Oh they also have pull from magebane. Everything else zerker has access to. The damage they also do when interrupting isn't that high to begin with and it can't crit which is ashame.

> @"bluri.2653" said:

> "spellbreaker isnt rly top notch to be used as an example here even a berserker is more dangerous now"

>

> Man I swear do you guys actually believe all that you are saying? It is delusional at its finest

Prove it wrong. The difference between the two is zerker does more damage, sb removes boons. Thats pretty much it.

> @"Gaberen.4325" said:

> > @"Jack Redline.5379" said:

> > > @"Erzian.5218" said:

> >

> > spellbreaker isnt rly top notch to be used as an example here even a berserker is more dangerous now

>

>

The general idea that I seen go around is that zerker is more squishy than spellbreaker. None of that is true however.

> @"Khalisto.5780" said:

> So, why don't you do it yourself, community would be glad if you could find something that beats scrapper with certain ease and still be viable in the other aspects , not something that beat scrapper and dies to everything else.

Thats because there is no point. The community isn't receptive to build crafting.