Belorn.2659

Lets bring in the values then. *Average* dps on raid and t4 cm encounters for the time between 28nov -> 12 dec. I have bolden those that have over 1k preference to one side, as anything below that line is just variance of two comparable numbers. I define those as balanced.

#Raid

boss Power Condi

VG __13307__ 10638

gor 14995 14919

sab 15074 14268

sloth 12157 11643

matt 10643 __13771__

kc __25314__ 13282

xera 10921 11223

cairn 14508 __20459__

mo 22662 __24576__

sam __11583__ 9344

deim __14226__ 11650

soul 17938 __19670__

dhuum __11005__ 9693

#Fractals:

99cmboss1 __14510__ 10740

boss 2 __21591__ 13968

boss 3 __22638__ 17621

100cmboss1 8554 8603

boss 2 9197 9110

boss 3 13628 14495

Conclusion: Raid was pretty balanced between condi and power, as was 100cm. 99cm strongly favor power.

(Would be nice if this forum supported some form of tables)

> @"apharma.3741" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"musu.9205" said:

> > > > @"Chris McSwag.4683" said:

> > > > > @"musu.9205" said:

> > > > > > @"Chris McSwag.4683" said:

> > > > > > > @"musu.9205" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Turkadactyl.5308" said:

> > > > > > > > "Even more behind" implies that condi was behind power on most things, which it wasn't. With the exception of bosses with lots of phases that remove conditions (e.g., Keep Construct), condi builds were in a very good place in raids and high-end fractals, and they still are. As others have noted, damage is essentially the same, just takes a little longer to apply, which isn't a problem on most bosses since you've got plenty of time for conditions to tick. Perhaps a few bosses will see shifts towards a power meta, but it's really not the end of the world if bosses are varied in what works.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > condi was behind if you consider all raid boss + fractal . the belief that condi was op before patch in pve was simply not true (decent maybe ).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In many cases, a mix of condi/power is preferred in raids. The amount of bosses that strictly benefit from power or condi arent vastly different, at least not pre-patch

> > > > >

> > > > > if the many cases you meant vg only maybe

> > > >

> > > > Sigh :)

> > > > In many cases you can take a condi or power class in order to buff others, or for other reasons. You probably won’t see this in pugs, but in speedruns it happens quite a bit.

> > > >

> > > > Pre patch:

> > > > VG: power preferred, can take a condi for red but cdruid, cwar and a holo will do fine.

> > > > Gorse: power is generally better, but renegades help with faster splits.

> > > > Sabetha: most fast kills use condi, but power holo is good as well

> > > > Sloth: power

> > > > Trio: who cares

> > > > Matthias: condi, holo works fine too as buffer and dps

> > > > Escort: power up, down doesn’t matter

> > > > Kc: power

> > > > Xera: power/condi. Weaver + renegade combo is great.

> > > > Cairn: condi + holo

> > > > MO: condi+holo

> > > > Samarog: power

> > > > Deimos: power

> > > > Desmina: condi

> > > > Soul River: power

> > > > Statues: power

> > > > Dhuum: mix

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > i know about those buffs . but that's hardly to do with dmg type . its really just condi buff is on engi and power buff is on rev .

> > > and anet gave those buff when they were trying to buff condi engi and power herald .

> > > i won't call that as mixed of condi and power is preferred .

> >

> > And you ignored the boss-by-boss list which made the actual point. It depends on the specifics of the fight. Power is preferable on some, condi is superior on others.

>

> We’ve had the same discussion in the mesmer forums, I even wrote out the average dps on boss from raidar for median runs which show power and condi were almost equal on most bosses with a few exceptions like KC and Sam for power, Cairn and Matthias for condi. If you take the 90th percentile it didn’t exactly change much either except weaver pulls ahead on more fights especially on cleave. 99th percentile is where things do indeed show as in the list above.

>

> I have yet to see anyone prove the trend that condition builds were significantly behind power builds before this patch.

This. We have data. Its there. Anyone can go and look at the data from last patch at https://www.gw2raidar.com/global_stats/5 and see for themselves. Condi was not "behind" power in raids on the average, and not even in the top 10% of runs. You have to go to the top 1% of the upload records to start to see a preference for power, and those groups follow a very different tactic and skip most raid mechanics.

For t4 fractals, just wait until reset and see what people advertise. There is plenty of "condi only" groups. I generally find that the groups that want to do all of cm 100/99 + t4 + rec tend to be power balance because they have a chrono, 25might druid, and condi ps with banners, which mean that the parasitic trait of necro is not very useful. Banners still favor power by a bit.

This change has a rather large impact on elementalists and rooting skills like meteor shower and ice bow 4. Those skill seems to have previously been balanced to disregard the rooting issue since the speed run guilds have ignored the downside of the skill through the use of distortion. Now that downside will be evidential in the logs.

But there is one aspect of the design choice that don't make sense and goes against the past design of raid encounters. In fights after fight we see mechanics where players need to trust each other to complete mechanics. Distortion played directly into this, where the players create their own trust reliance on the chrono to correctly execute the mechanic. For example, when KC jumps back at the team, trusting the distortion becomes a concept. Now instead each player will have to do the dodge on their own, removing a team based aspect. Dodging is naturally easier and safer, but it do not create team cohesion.

(This comment is free of any mesmer specific feedback. The thread belong in this forum because distortion as used in raids was not a mesmer ability that is interchangeable with other support class skill, but rather a team mechanic.)

Currently 4 different mechanics share the same ground marker color, two which are instant death. The wall, the platform collapse, the 4/8 attack, and the small circle attacks. Light yellow with some red in it. The two remaining game mechanics are thankfully a bit darker.

It is really a hard differentiate between the instant death markers from the non-instance death. When the screen is filled with the 8 attack markers, you are supposed to see (with a rather short notice) a square shape among it. I have by now seen several times how people die when those two mix, not because they miss played but rather because they didn't see the instant death marker. I do not believe this is what the game developer intended when designing the encounter.

I am hoping that taco will fix this problem, but even better would be if this actually was changed in the game.

> @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> > @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > > @Belorn.2659 said:

> > > > @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > > > The gem exchange works with there being a finite number of gems within it. Gems leave it when players buy them with gold and gems enter it when players purchase gold with them. Gems purchased with money are newly created. Gems spent on gem store items are removed.

> > >

> > > That part is correct. Gems on the trading post arrive there when a player buys them and then trade them in for gold, with a 15% tax cut.

> > >

> > > > When more gems are being bought with gold, the exchange rate increases. It costs more gold to purchase gems as well as more gold being received by exchanging gems. That’s a given since there’s usually a ~15% difference between them.

> > > >

> > > > Since the game launched, the exchange rates have been steadily increasing. This can only happen if more gems are being bought with gold than exchanged for gold.

> > >

> > > And that part is false. Anet has several times stated that there is a finite number of gems and all gems are first bought by other players. Every gem being sold on the TP has first been bought by a player. The exchange rate reflect a algorithm, where in theory the price would be infinitively large if the store had only a single gem left.

> > >

> > > In practice, the algorithm seems more complex. Remember that anet takes ~15% tax cut on both when a person sell gems to the store, and when a player buy gems for gold from the store. Those 15% tax on both side generates a lot of missing gems and gold that anet could use as they wish to establish a fair price, while at the same time maintain a maximum 1:1 ratio between bought gems and sold gems on the TP.

> > >

> > > > So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

> > >

> > > So no, a there is no loss in gem sales from a player buying gems for gold. In contrast, gold->gems is anets take on gold sellers, beating them in their own game. The 250g griffon showed everyone how a strong desire for gold will have a very strong impact on the gem<->gold price, cutting it down to almost 66% of the price before the expansion. Because of the 15% tax, this event generated anet a lot of gem sales that translate to quite a bit of revenue.

> > >

> > > Lets run the numbers: 250g is 1400 gems right now. Let say a player buys those with money to get the gold. Anet take as their cut of 210 gems by acting as a middle man and holding those gems until a buyer wants them, giving the seller his 250g instantly from a gold reserve. When a buyer want to buy those remaining 1190 gems, they have to pay 310G, where 250g goes to back to the bank reserve and 60g goes to anet as tax. In total player A got 250g and paid 1400 gems. Player B paid 310G and got 1190 gems. Anet got for free in this transaction 210 gems and 60 gold.

> > >

> > > Or to put it in other numbers. Every time a player buy gems to buy a griffon, Anet gets $2.5 and remove 60 gold from the economy. For free. I can easily make the bet that this part of micro-transaction is the single highest revenue source in the store. All Anet need to do is to encourage this trade by having items in the store that people want to buy and items in the game that people need gold to buy (such as legendaries/precursors on the TP). The economy will do the rest, and all Anet need to do is to act middle man and provide the market place. Just like the real world, this is where "the real money" is.

> >

> > How is what I said false? I never said that the supply of gems was infinite. Anet seeded the gem supply at launch and since then all new gems that enter it was due to players converting gems to gold. I stated this several times in the thread so I do not understand why you’re claiming I did not know this. The exchange rate changes when there is an imbalance in one side. Looking at the trends, it due to more players exchanging gold for gems.

> >

> > There’s only one 15% tax which is the difference between the exchange rates. That is all. Like the TP, this ensures currencies leave the system.

> >

> > There is a loss if players buy gems with gold. I stated this several times as well in this thread and in the very post you quoted. If Anet released a mount skin for a price that was low enough that I considered to farm the gold for instead of buying with money, they lost out on that sale. All gems have a real world value associated with them. If more players are buying gems with gold than exchanging them for gold, that difference is how much they’re losing.

> >

> > Your math ignore the exchange rate increasing since launch. You’d only be correct if the rate remained flat.

>

> A loss where?

> The exchange rate MEANS NOTHING, it's just padding for Arena Net.

> There's no cost to gold for Arena Net, nor any earnign, the only loss that exists is for the person SELLING the gems or the guy BUYING the gems.

> For Arena net, 800 gems is 10€ whether the other person sells them for 100 gold or 10. Nothing changes!

Technically, the tax that anet takes could either be on the gems or the gold, depending on how internal details of the exchange.

Assume someone buy 800 gems and sells them on the exchange. Anet takes around 15% tax (estimated for the price point between sell and buy), which either mean they destroy 15% of the gold output which the seller would get, or 15% of the 800 gems. Similarly the buyer of gems get equal 15% tax, where Anet either destroy 15% of the gold input or 15% of the gem output.

The statements of John Smith don't actually specify what the case is. it could be that any gems added to the store can also be bought, while its gold that get destroyed in every transaction. This would make gems a 1:1 from buyer to seller, while gold would loose about 30% of the value going from one players hand to an other. It could also be the opposite, where gold is 1:1 when entering and leaving the exchange, but 30% of the gems are lost between seller and buyer. Or it could be any mix between.

Personally I suspect that the tax do destroy some of the gems. Let assume player A want to $10 worth of gems, and player B want 150 gold. In old times this would mean that player A would be a illegal gold seller and there was no transaction fees involved. If both players tried today to insert the same numbers to the exchange at the same time, both player would end up short with about 15% of the intended goal. Player A would end up with $8.5 , and player B with 127 gold. In order for player A to end with $10, player B need to actually buy $12 worth of gems, and similarly player B need to raise around 180 gold. Anet, for holding the exchange and banning any other method gains $2 in the gold seller scenario. In additional, player B has caused $10 in revenue which player A might not have bought themselves, creating a win-win-win-win scenario. Anet get $2 dollar and a sale of $10, the gold seller can do their trade legit, and the gold buyer have a trusted market to buy gold for money.

John Smith is an economist, and the gold seller market in gw1 was untapped. It would make sense that such a person would integrate this in gw2 to be a profit center for the company.

I bring my holosmith for groups with a mesmer and druid in it. For other groups I bring a necro.

> @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> The gem exchange works with there being a finite number of gems within it. Gems leave it when players buy them with gold and gems enter it when players purchase gold with them. Gems purchased with money are newly created. Gems spent on gem store items are removed.

That part is correct. Gems on the trading post arrive there when a player buys them and then trade them in for gold, with a 15% tax cut.

> When more gems are being bought with gold, the exchange rate increases. It costs more gold to purchase gems as well as more gold being received by exchanging gems. That’s a given since there’s usually a ~15% difference between them.

>

> Since the game launched, the exchange rates have been steadily increasing. This can only happen if more gems are being bought with gold than exchanged for gold.

And that part is false. Anet has several times stated that there is a finite number of gems and all gems are first bought by other players. Every gem being sold on the TP has first been bought by a player. The exchange rate reflect a algorithm, where in theory the price would be infinitively large if the store had only a single gem left.

In practice, the algorithm seems more complex. Remember that anet takes ~15% tax cut on both when a person sell gems to the store, and when a player buy gems for gold from the store. Those 15% tax on both side generates a lot of missing gems and gold that anet could use as they wish to establish a fair price, while at the same time maintain a maximum 1:1 ratio between bought gems and sold gems on the TP.

> So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

So no, a there is no loss in gem sales from a player buying gems for gold. In contrast, gold->gems is anets take on gold sellers, beating them in their own game. The 250g griffon showed everyone how a strong desire for gold will have a very strong impact on the gem<->gold price, cutting it down to almost 66% of the price before the expansion. Because of the 15% tax, this event generated anet a lot of gem sales that translate to quite a bit of revenue.

Lets run the numbers: 250g is 1400 gems right now. Let say a player buys those with money to get the gold. Anet take as their cut of 210 gems by acting as a middle man and holding those gems until a buyer wants them, giving the seller his 250g instantly from a gold reserve. When a buyer want to buy those remaining 1190 gems, they have to pay 310G, where 250g goes to back to the bank reserve and 60g goes to anet as tax. In total player A got 250g and paid 1400 gems. Player B paid 310G and got 1190 gems. Anet got for free in this transaction 210 gems and 60 gold.

Or to put it in other numbers. Every time a player buy gems to buy a griffon, Anet gets $2.5 and remove 60 gold from the economy. For free. I can easily make the bet that this part of micro-transaction is the single highest revenue source in the store. All Anet need to do is to encourage this trade by having items in the store that people want to buy and items in the game that people need gold to buy (such as legendaries/precursors on the TP). The economy will do the rest, and all Anet need to do is to act middle man and provide the market place. Just like the real world, this is where "the real money" is.

As many people have already pointed out but is worth repeating, gems that is bought from gold has to first be bought by real cash by a player. It is even a better deal for anet since they take a 15% cut, so technically less stuff is being bought from the store if its first has been traded to an other player through gold.

Buying gems through gold is Anets take of gold sellers. They became the gold seller in gw2. The player who has money buy gems and trade them for gold. The player who has gold trade them for gems. All Anet does is to hold a buffer so they can be a middle man in the transaction, while taking a 15% cut. Its the best form of micro transaction, and likely one of the highest revenue source for anet on the store.

Maybe a cynical view, but I suspect that the high price is to anchor it so they can later have "HUGE" sales on a later date. The trend in micro transactions are not just loot boxes but also "limited" time offers to rush the consumer to spend without thinking. Come Christmas and the skin will be 1000 gems (ie 300 gems higher than most glider skins at launch) while also rush players to pay since its on limited 50% sale! Save 1000 gems today! Buy, buy, buy!

The new meta is great and exactly what the game needed. The rewards seems just in the right place by being above silerwaste but not crazy like 40+ rares that the old AB farm could achieve in one run. It will be very interesting to see if this becomes the new farm spot.

The difference in DPS can always be judged through DPS meters. If a non-meta build is viable and someone intend to do a DPS role, then the meter will validate the effort. I pug fractals regularly and as long the DPS roles are above 50% of top DPS in the party, and above DPS of the support, then they are fulfilling the role in my view.

Support is a bit of different story. Healing comes in two forms, burst and regen. Different encounters need different form of healing. Ele don't have burst healing and fractals generally have encounters that is designed to do large burst damage in short durations. To make matter worse in order to make a non-meta healer you also need to make 25 stacks of might to the whole party or bring traits that result in similar DPS increase. Non-meta healers are not "slightly worse", but rather not suitable for the same role for the wast majority of the content.

Which leaves us to non-meta builds that tries to do several roles at the same time, excusing bad performance in the name of being multi-role. The problem of the idea to have multi-roles is that you need several of them in order to fulfill any single role, and no single person can do that by themselves. Having roles spread out on multiple people also require more coordination and is as a group harder to do and thus less welcome if imposed.

> @needbeer.1687 said:

> > @Belorn.2659 said:

> > > @SkyShroud.2865 said:

> > > Do you accept a DPS that do the same damage as warrior on dps meter? If yes, then, why not?

> >

> > Yes, they are called necromancers and are useful for orbs in gor, slubs for sloth, shards for xera, and Jade Scouts for MO. They are technically a DPS role, but looking at boss damage it is a mix between support and DPS.

> >

> > For MO specifically, a necromancer will trivialize the raid mechanic while at the same time make decent boss DPS. Looking at raidar, they are top tier in cleave damage: https://www.gw2raidar.com/global_stats/4/area-17172

>

> but people that raid hates necros and questions us. see below for proof > @Zlater.6789 said:

> > yeah I would accept a warrior easily, a necro or thief however... I would be doing some questioning

It depend on context. Epidemic is only effective in specific situation. It similar to tempest defense and impact sigil for weaver, in that usefulness depend on boss.

As for thief, DD condi holds second place on highest average DPS on MO, and had the highest DPS before PoF. If mirage get nerfed in 2 days, it is very possible that DD condi will retake the first place for DPS on MO.

Naturally a random group can be unaware of what is effective for each boss, and site like https://gw2raidar.com/global_stats should be every raiders toolkit, along with a understanding of the boss mechanics . You don't bring a necro to KC, and you don't bring a power weaver to matt, unless you and the group want that extra challenge.

Selling raid is a very fringe part of the raiding community and one which isn't explicitly supported by Anet. Remember what happened to selling SAB tokens?

> @Kelly.7019 said:

> Let's face it they added Raiding because they are not the same group that designed vanilla GW2. Vanilla GW2 devs would never have introduced raiding. it goes against the positive community/ working together teamwork that is GW2. Raiding is the dark corner for the best of the best huge ego, elitist jerks and it remains that way to this day. The negativity from this is not what GW2 stood for but sadly is apart of Gw2 now.

That is false. Pre-made 5 man PvP teams that compete for tournaments have always been the height of elitism and exclusivity. PvP is vanilla GW2 mode. Then there is community made GvG of 5v5, 10v10, 20v20 and so on in WvW. Guilds have been created and drama has destroyed the same guilds over this vanilla GW2. After this on the elitism scale we have vanilla GW2 dungeon speed runs, the precursor for today's raid. A common practice back in vanilla GW2 days was to "prove your worth" by soling lupi, a practice which thankfully few players today are forced to do.

Why are you picking on players who enjoy raiding?

@Boogiepop Void.6473

Removing the title won't fix it. They could as easily kick you for "not performing good enough", "to low AP", "wrong class/build", or even "not in a confirmed fractal guild". There has always been and will always exist signals that people will use to estimate if a person is good or bad.

What would fix the problem is to eliminate the ability to kick members at the last part of an instance.

> @Crossaber.8934 said:

> GW2 loot box can be bought with gem which bought with in game gold, it is not limited to cash only. Also like the other said, game progression is not blocked by these rng, player also gain very limited and close to none advantage over the one who do not use the box.

>

> For me, mount skin is okay, but i would like blacklion chest to be reworked to the favor of players.

Technicalities like that is not very relevant to the law. If there is a law targeting gambling-like activity, gambling addiction, and gambling targeting children, then a judge has a rather free range to make the judgment call and declare it as equivalent to gambling.

A rather similar case is when employes are taxed for non-monetary benefits and payments. Traditionally only money based income got income taxed, but companies started to go around this and gave non-monetary payments to employes. The state caught up to by defining any payment from the employer to the employee as equivalent form of income.

> @Zenith.7301 said:

> A ranged weapon with the strongest aoe/cleave in the game should NEVER be outdpsing a melee weapon on boss damage.

The range of a class is dictate by the skill with the lowest range, not the weapon. The top 1% who make staff weaver into the strongest DPS do not range bosses from afar using only the subset of skills and traits that allow long range. Check out speed clears for for VG, sab, KC, xera, and a rather obvious aspect pops out. They don't do tactic that require long range.

A long range golem benchmark would be interesting to see from the community. It should also be said that the strongest aoe/cleave in the game will always be epidemic when used in the right situation. A good necro can single handed deal with shards for xera and removing that mechanic for the rest of the 10 man party, with minimal decrease to boss DPS. A staff ele can't do this.

> @Cyninja.2954 said:

> and once the bug with Mirage is fixed, where will it come in compared to weaver?

>

> Mirages main benefit right now is it has a very simple rotation and provides very high damage which is pushed even beyond normal thanks to a double hit bug with its axe projectiles. Does weaver suffer from bugs to its damage besides it being very high?

For the median numbers, if we take out mirage then multiple classes goes from second highest to top DPS. Weaver suffer from complicated rotation and high dependence on distorts from support mesmers to achieve their numbers, which is why weaver is not the best choice on a average successful run.

A way to look at it is what kind of group are we talking about. Is it a random selection of those players who done raiding since the last balance patch, or are we talking about the top 1% who focus on speed clears? Speed clears skips raid mechanics and is generally always in melee range and have less time to do burst damage, and this favor certain type of builds.

> @Veprovina.4876 said:

> What's the mechanics of this? How does this work?

When you are in a WvW map the game checks your participation every time the frame timer (big countdown at top of the screen) hits zero. If you are logged out you don't get any reward.

Participation have one odd rule. It ticks down in real time regardless where you are. If your personal participation timer is at 10m and you logout and take a shower, only to log in again after 8m, you will notice that your participation is now 2m. You did not get any rewards for those lost 8 minutes, but you are not at zero participation which is a rather neat feature.

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> > @Belorn.2659 said:

> > > @Cyninja.2954 said:

> > > > @Belorn.2659 said:

> > > > > @musu.9205 said:

> > > > > on the other hand , ele does do nearly 10k more dps than every other class on kc .

> > > >

> > > > Maybe Anet should create a raid boss which take double damage from confussion stacks and half damage from everything else. This would make mesmers the new super DPS class which would be massive overpowered, but limited for that single boss.

> > >

> > > We already have that: the boss is called Matthias and favors mesmers greatly. What problem are we exactly addressing with this change though?

> > >

> > > The issue isn't 1 boss, it's that ele is and has been superior on almost every raid boss and outclasses others by 10k on KC.

> >

> > Lets go through the bosses based on raidar for average boss DPS for the top 2 dps classes. I am using the 99th percentile.

> >

> > VG: Weaver: 20052, Mirage: 19521, Difference: 531

> > Gor: Weaver: 23152, Mirage: 22230, Difference: 922

> > Sab: Holosmith: 22415, Renegade: 21549, Difference: 866

> > Sloth: Mirage: 23922, Weaver: 20773, Difference: 3149

> > Matt: Mirage: 24789, Weaver: 23269, Difference: 1520

> > KC: Weaver: 35959, Holosmith: 30106, Difference: 5853

> > Xera: Mirage: 16742, Renegade: 16055, Difference: 687

> > Cairn: Weaver: 41289, Mirage: 40643, Difference: 646

> > Mo: Weaver: 35432, Mirage: 33997, Difference: 1435

> > Sam: Weaver: 16407, Mirage: 16067, Difference: 340

> > Deimos: Weaver: 23027, Holosmith: 22019, Difference: 1008

> >

> > Conclusion: Average difference between top 1 and top 2 is 1541. For the 7 bosses which weaver has top DPS, the average difference is 1533, and if we remove KC it is 813. For the 4 bosses which weaver is not top DPS the average difference is 1555. Weaver are not in top 2 for 2 bosses, while Mirage are not in top 2 in 3 bosses.

> >

> > If we remove the two out liners that is KC and sloth, the average DPS of top 2 is 3.6% less than top 1. This show that the problem is not on the class level but rather on the design of the bosses.

>

> TBH it would be more interesting if you used the median instead of the 99th percentile.

Very good suggestion, and doing it gives a very different view of the situation compared to popular opinion.

VG: Holosmith: 14202, Mirage: 12944, Difference: 1258

Gor: Mirage: 15657, Daredevil: 15087, Difference: 570

Sab: Mirage: 15800, Renegade: 14663, Difference: 1137

Sloth: Mirage: 14547, Weaver: 13078, Difference: 1469

Matt: Mirage: 14964, Soulbeast: 11163, Difference: 3801

KC: Weaver: 24189, Holosmith: 19283, Difference: 4906

Xera: Renegade: 11500, Holosmith: 11151, Difference: 349

Cairn: Mirage: 25006, Daredevil: 16236, Difference: 8770

MO: Mirage: 28070, Daredevil: 24058, Difference: 4012

Sam: Mirage: 11796, Weaver: 11412, Difference: 384

Deimos: Weaver: 13648, Mirage: 12351, Difference: 1297

Conclusion: Weaver is highest DPS for only 2 bosses when going by median. Mirage is highest DPS for 7. Weaver is in top 2 for 4 bosses, while Mirage is in top 2 for 9 bosses. The highest average difference is Cairn, where Mirage is 9k above anything else on average! KC comes in second place with a 5k difference. The average difference is 2541.

If anyone want to double check my work, the data is public on Raidar through https://www.gw2raidar.com/global_stats/4

> @Cyninja.2954 said:

> > @Belorn.2659 said:

> > > @musu.9205 said:

> > > on the other hand , ele does do nearly 10k more dps than every other class on kc .

> >

> > Maybe Anet should create a raid boss which take double damage from confussion stacks and half damage from everything else. This would make mesmers the new super DPS class which would be massive overpowered, but limited for that single boss.

>

> We already have that: the boss is called Matthias and favors mesmers greatly. What problem are we exactly addressing with this change though?

>

> The issue isn't 1 boss, it's that ele is and has been superior on almost every raid boss and outclasses others by 10k on KC.

Lets go through the bosses based on raidar for average boss DPS for the top 2 dps classes. I am using the 99th percentile.

VG: Weaver: 20052, Mirage: 19521, Difference: 531

Gor: Weaver: 23152, Mirage: 22230, Difference: 922

Sab: Holosmith: 22415, Renegade: 21549, Difference: 866

Sloth: Mirage: 23922, Weaver: 20773, Difference: 3149

Matt: Mirage: 24789, Weaver: 23269, Difference: 1520

KC: Weaver: 35959, Holosmith: 30106, Difference: 5853

Xera: Mirage: 16742, Renegade: 16055, Difference: 687

Cairn: Weaver: 41289, Mirage: 40643, Difference: 646

Mo: Weaver: 35432, Mirage: 33997, Difference: 1435

Sam: Weaver: 16407, Mirage: 16067, Difference: 340

Deimos: Weaver: 23027, Holosmith: 22019, Difference: 1008

Conclusion: Average difference between top 1 and top 2 is 1541. For the 7 bosses which weaver has top DPS, the average difference is 1533, and if we remove KC it is 813. For the 4 bosses which weaver is not top DPS the average difference is 1555. Weaver are not in top 2 for 2 bosses, while Mirage are not in top 2 in 3 bosses.

If we remove the two out liners that is KC and sloth, the average DPS of top 2 is 3.6% less than top 1. This show that the problem is not on the class level but rather on the design of the bosses.

This is exactly the kind of skins I hope anet will make. I am completely uninterested in different dyed versions of existing skins. A skin should make you feel like its a unique mount that just happen to have same game mechanic as the old ones.

For example, the meteor glider don't feel like a glider. It share every game aspect of gliders but the impact of landing is emphasized, which in wvw create a different feel compared to ordinary gliders.

> @SkyShroud.2865 said:

> Do you accept a DPS that do the same damage as warrior on dps meter? If yes, then, why not?

Yes, they are called necromancers and are useful for orbs in gor, slubs for sloth, shards for xera, and Jade Scouts for MO. They are technically a DPS role, but looking at boss damage it is a mix between support and DPS.

For MO specifically, a necromancer will trivialize the raid mechanic while at the same time make decent boss DPS. Looking at raidar, they are top tier in cleave damage: https://www.gw2raidar.com/global_stats/4/area-17172

> @musu.9205 said:

> on the other hand , ele does do nearly 10k more dps than every other class on kc .

Maybe Anet should create a raid boss which take double damage from confussion stacks and half damage from everything else. This would make mesmers the new super DPS class which would be massive overpowered, but limited for that single boss.

Very useful for several raid bosses. A good warrior can manage orbs in gor, take care of turrets in sab, and deals with shards in xera, and can be used on VG if you do green tactics and deimos when doing ranged tactic.

Usefulness goes down for the rest, but that is how raid work. Different bosses has different mechanics. The AOE range of Condi Berserker DPS makes it useful in fight that require long ranged DPS, is ok but not perfect for fights with a lot of CC, but is less then perfect for fights with none of that such as Cairn, MO, and KC. Cairn and MO is however two very easy bosses, so really, the only fight which a condi Berserker DPS is unwanted for is KC.