ZDragon.3046

I do think they should considering adding an option to mark preferred options for pvp and wvw that the system auto swaps to those marked layouts when you go into those modes. Doing that would be helpful.

Generally though it does not bother me too much

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > > > > > @"Jekkt.6045" said:

> > > > > > > @"foste.3098" said:

> > > > > > > @"Killthehealersffs.8940" @"Psycoprophet.8107"

> > > > > > > staff/staff daredevil is op in the sense that it warps the game around it since only particular builds can deal with it.

> > > > > > > But i am 100% against nerfing staff to the point of un-play ability, which seams like it will be the case, just because 1 degenerate build poped up and is abusing the on swap trait and sigils to bunker points. Daredevil was never meant to be a bunker but a bruiser, there is a big difference there.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i don't see the problem with a build being extremely defensive to keep a node. this is what conquest is about. as for thief, evades is just the only way you can do it, but people seem to hate everything they can't hit.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > as for the on swap stuff, you're wrong. caed (i think) once polarized a double s/d build back in the times of dhumfire necro and spirit ranger with the same ini on weapon swap trait. as usual, it got nerfed because people in the history of gw2 have always complained about evades.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > if thief evades and stealth keep getting nerfed, how about giving thief an actual build that doesn't rely on them?

> > > > >

> > > > > This^ its halarious to me that the community spouts op on any thief build that has a chance at 1v1'ing than turns around and complains about thieves always disengaging during fights and how it's unfair. So according to the community thief shouldn't be able to hold its ground because of the mobility it has but at the same time shouldn't be able to have the mobility to constantly disengage due to not being able to hold it's ground lol its beyond funny. The staff/staff build dps isnt near what most dps builds do like if DA or CS was opted for instead of acro. Most other high deeps builds on other classes do more to. So staff/staff is basically a stall build that uses timed evades to sustain due to EVADES being it's way of sustain and its OP? So a warrior or any classes using their multiple passive and active sustain options while having high bursts is ok but a thief that spams evades cuz it's how it lives is OP? Why is any thief build that can somewhat stand its ground op? And why is it OP if thief has mobility if it doesn't have the ability to hold its ground ie disengage? So is thief supposed to be weak 1v1 and have low sustain/hp with just ok disengage potential? Sounds like a viable class to me lol. I hope I'm wrong but I can see the thief class as a whole being basically erased by these new devs with the help of the vocal gw2 community that has little care to the long term health of the game and only want their preferred classes to be in great spots while being barely contested by others, been this way for a long time now.

> > > >

> > > > So you want to be necormancer with high mobility in a nutshell?

> > > > The issue is not that it can 1v1

> > > >

> > > > The issue is that while its 1v1'ing its not very subjective to any kind of retaliation other than on hit procs such as retaliation and auras both of which are extremely rare among the professions. Retaliations being limited to mostly guardian and auras like shocking aura being limited to only tempest and base ele for the most part.

> > > > People dont mind you having lots of evades or a modest amount of stealth what people do mind is not having enough common tools spread throughout the game to combat it. Literally nothing except shocking aura stops that style of play for any decent amount of time and only should the thief choose to strike the aura buffed target.

> > > > If a build does not allow for others to retaliate reasonably during a moment of down time then that build needs to be adjusted its simple.

> > > >

> > > > No one cares if you get the power to 1v1 people care if they don't ever have a proper turn to fight you back though.

> > >

> > > My issue is that when a thief build is buffed into a spot where its somewhat a viable 1v1 build without relying on one shot cheap mechanics its deemed OP because it constantly evades. How else would it sustain long enough in the fight if evades are its main defensive mechanic, of course it would have to evade enough to sustain itself in a fight to win it.

> > I wouldnt really say staff was buffed though that staff bug has been there for a long time and people just didnt abuse it very bluntly. Its not until it was heavily abused to chain evades for long periods did it become a problem.

> > I cant recall any buffs to staff or daredevil that made a super significant change to make it 1v1 viable. As far as i know its just as viable as its always been. Lastly its we have to remember the game is not only balanced around 1v1. I even forget this from time to time myself.

> >

> > Daredevil will still have plenty of evades to sustain itself for an extended period of time. Will you be able to do it for extremely long periods of time without the staff 3 jump fix? No. Will you have bigger gaps between your evades? Yes. Overall not that much is changing staff dodge will still be a viable build but it wont be as 1 sided as it is now.

> > Like i said if there were more tools that could counter such an evasive style of play across the game in general no one would likely minded it. But evasive play styles are a big topic right now considering

> >

> > > So if a thieves evades are to op because they can allow the thief to stay in the fight long enough(doesn't have passive sustain/hp or invulnerability) than how will a thief sustain itself in the fight long enough to win? They can't have a burst buff to shorten ttk so they wouldnt need sustain cuz the community will cry, they already cry about them disengaging all the time due to low sustain so.... and now being g able to evade long enough to sustain the fight is OP lmao it's seriously halarious. Like I said can't wait to see where thief's at in a yr. Not being g able to combat it is BS as I'm not a amazing player myself yet I've had zero issues taking down staff thieves in every rank game I've played. There was a few that took a while to down so I left them but they weren't a big threat to me yet I can face half the other classes that take a while to down as well but can burst u in secs with far more deeps like warrior,holo,slb etc and on top the DD has one burst rotation so it's easy to know what its gonna do,other classes have many but because it's a thief build when community gets all in arms.

> > > Good stuff!

> >

> > Why do you assume the evades should last you until **"you win"** that in itself is not a healthy way of thinking how the evades should be balanced.

> > The evades should last you long enough to give you a chance to win with the tools you have at hand (your weapon skills combined with your utilities and mind tactics). The evades should not last you in-defiantly until you do win just because if i fight you long enough i should win.

> >

> > Ranger gs auto had an evade tied to its final strike and people would intentionally try to strike nothing with it so to proc the evade multiple times (2-3 times in a row) which was surely not the intentional use of the skill originally, it was fixed to not reward abusive un intentional behavior. I dont see why fixing the jump +3 on dd staff should not get the same treatment obviously the skill was never intended to be used like that. and using it in such away makes it far more powerful of a tool than what it really was designed to be.

> >

> > I agree some of these other classes have too much damage and or too much defense to go along with that damage and hopefully they will be getting the shorter end of the stick than thief when the nerfs start hitting.

>

> But they don't. Pls don't come to me with the infinite dodge hyperbole. Might as well say thief has infinite ini and endurance which it most defenitly doesn't. They cannot evade for ever for one and second of all if evading is their only real sustain method why shouldn't they be able to long enough to have a chance at winning a fight?

You know what i mean. ITs not literally infinite but its enough to be considered such if you last for 2-3 minutes on dodges then no that should not be a thing lastly.

This should mostly be a bug fix if your build hinges on a bug or unintentional use of a skill then thats not a good thing for your class or for anyone else.

I wont go back and forth with you over and over again.

If you think the amount of evade access is across the dodges, endurance restoration traits and skills, and weapon skills then i dont know what to tell you. ive seen thieves and 1v1 people and win with far less than what the staff / dodge build offers so lets not even go there.

Once again its also about the fact that that build with that bug has very limited counter-play. To counter something you need to be able to combat it. You cant effectively combat someone who is just dodging for the majority of a fight. Similarly You cannot combat someone who is invisible for the majority of a fight. When i say majority of a fight i mean 75% or more of the fights total time. With evades (which also do damage) specifically, because there are no un-dodgeable damage mechanics in pvp expect people to call out something should it get out of hand.

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > > > @"Jekkt.6045" said:

> > > > > @"foste.3098" said:

> > > > > @"Killthehealersffs.8940" @"Psycoprophet.8107"

> > > > > staff/staff daredevil is op in the sense that it warps the game around it since only particular builds can deal with it.

> > > > > But i am 100% against nerfing staff to the point of un-play ability, which seams like it will be the case, just because 1 degenerate build poped up and is abusing the on swap trait and sigils to bunker points. Daredevil was never meant to be a bunker but a bruiser, there is a big difference there.

> > > >

> > > > i don't see the problem with a build being extremely defensive to keep a node. this is what conquest is about. as for thief, evades is just the only way you can do it, but people seem to hate everything they can't hit.

> > > >

> > > > as for the on swap stuff, you're wrong. caed (i think) once polarized a double s/d build back in the times of dhumfire necro and spirit ranger with the same ini on weapon swap trait. as usual, it got nerfed because people in the history of gw2 have always complained about evades.

> > > >

> > > > if thief evades and stealth keep getting nerfed, how about giving thief an actual build that doesn't rely on them?

> > >

> > > This^ its halarious to me that the community spouts op on any thief build that has a chance at 1v1'ing than turns around and complains about thieves always disengaging during fights and how it's unfair. So according to the community thief shouldn't be able to hold its ground because of the mobility it has but at the same time shouldn't be able to have the mobility to constantly disengage due to not being able to hold it's ground lol its beyond funny. The staff/staff build dps isnt near what most dps builds do like if DA or CS was opted for instead of acro. Most other high deeps builds on other classes do more to. So staff/staff is basically a stall build that uses timed evades to sustain due to EVADES being it's way of sustain and its OP? So a warrior or any classes using their multiple passive and active sustain options while having high bursts is ok but a thief that spams evades cuz it's how it lives is OP? Why is any thief build that can somewhat stand its ground op? And why is it OP if thief has mobility if it doesn't have the ability to hold its ground ie disengage? So is thief supposed to be weak 1v1 and have low sustain/hp with just ok disengage potential? Sounds like a viable class to me lol. I hope I'm wrong but I can see the thief class as a whole being basically erased by these new devs with the help of the vocal gw2 community that has little care to the long term health of the game and only want their preferred classes to be in great spots while being barely contested by others, been this way for a long time now.

> >

> > So you want to be necormancer with high mobility in a nutshell?

> > The issue is not that it can 1v1

> >

> > The issue is that while its 1v1'ing its not very subjective to any kind of retaliation other than on hit procs such as retaliation and auras both of which are extremely rare among the professions. Retaliations being limited to mostly guardian and auras like shocking aura being limited to only tempest and base ele for the most part.

> > People dont mind you having lots of evades or a modest amount of stealth what people do mind is not having enough common tools spread throughout the game to combat it. Literally nothing except shocking aura stops that style of play for any decent amount of time and only should the thief choose to strike the aura buffed target.

> > If a build does not allow for others to retaliate reasonably during a moment of down time then that build needs to be adjusted its simple.

> >

> > No one cares if you get the power to 1v1 people care if they don't ever have a proper turn to fight you back though.

>

> My issue is that when a thief build is buffed into a spot where its somewhat a viable 1v1 build without relying on one shot cheap mechanics its deemed OP because it constantly evades. How else would it sustain long enough in the fight if evades are its main defensive mechanic, of course it would have to evade enough to sustain itself in a fight to win it.

I wouldnt really say staff was buffed though that staff bug has been there for a long time and people just didnt abuse it very bluntly. Its not until it was heavily abused to chain evades for long periods did it become a problem.

I cant recall any buffs to staff or daredevil that made a super significant change to make it 1v1 viable. As far as i know its just as viable as its always been. Lastly its we have to remember the game is not only balanced around 1v1. I even forget this from time to time myself.

Daredevil will still have plenty of evades to sustain itself for an extended period of time. Will you be able to do it for extremely long periods of time without the staff 3 jump fix? No. Will you have bigger gaps between your evades? Yes. Overall not that much is changing staff dodge will still be a viable build but it wont be as 1 sided as it is now.

Like i said if there were more tools that could counter such an evasive style of play across the game in general no one would likely minded it. But evasive play styles are a big topic right now considering

> So if a thieves evades are to op because they can allow the thief to stay in the fight long enough(doesn't have passive sustain/hp or invulnerability) than how will a thief sustain itself in the fight long enough to win? They can't have a burst buff to shorten ttk so they wouldnt need sustain cuz the community will cry, they already cry about them disengaging all the time due to low sustain so.... and now being g able to evade long enough to sustain the fight is OP lmao it's seriously halarious. Like I said can't wait to see where thief's at in a yr. Not being g able to combat it is BS as I'm not a amazing player myself yet I've had zero issues taking down staff thieves in every rank game I've played. There was a few that took a while to down so I left them but they weren't a big threat to me yet I can face half the other classes that take a while to down as well but can burst u in secs with far more deeps like warrior,holo,slb etc and on top the DD has one burst rotation so it's easy to know what its gonna do,other classes have many but because it's a thief build when community gets all in arms.

> Good stuff!

Why do you assume the evades should last you until **"you win"** that in itself is not a healthy way of thinking how the evades should be balanced.

The evades should last you long enough to give you a chance to win with the tools you have at hand (your weapon skills combined with your utilities and mind tactics). The evades should not last you in-defiantly until you do win just because if i fight you long enough i should win.

Ranger gs auto had an evade tied to its final strike and people would intentionally try to strike nothing with it so to proc the evade multiple times (2-3 times in a row) which was surely not the intentional use of the skill originally, it was fixed to not reward abusive un intentional behavior. I dont see why fixing the jump +3 on dd staff should not get the same treatment obviously the skill was never intended to be used like that. and using it in such away makes it far more powerful of a tool than what it really was designed to be.

I agree some of these other classes have too much damage and or too much defense to go along with that damage and hopefully they will be getting the shorter end of the stick than thief when the nerfs start hitting.

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > @"Jekkt.6045" said:

> > > @"foste.3098" said:

> > > @"Killthehealersffs.8940" @"Psycoprophet.8107"

> > > staff/staff daredevil is op in the sense that it warps the game around it since only particular builds can deal with it.

> > > But i am 100% against nerfing staff to the point of un-play ability, which seams like it will be the case, just because 1 degenerate build poped up and is abusing the on swap trait and sigils to bunker points. Daredevil was never meant to be a bunker but a bruiser, there is a big difference there.

> >

> > i don't see the problem with a build being extremely defensive to keep a node. this is what conquest is about. as for thief, evades is just the only way you can do it, but people seem to hate everything they can't hit.

> >

> > as for the on swap stuff, you're wrong. caed (i think) once polarized a double s/d build back in the times of dhumfire necro and spirit ranger with the same ini on weapon swap trait. as usual, it got nerfed because people in the history of gw2 have always complained about evades.

> >

> > if thief evades and stealth keep getting nerfed, how about giving thief an actual build that doesn't rely on them?

>

> This^ its halarious to me that the community spouts op on any thief build that has a chance at 1v1'ing than turns around and complains about thieves always disengaging during fights and how it's unfair. So according to the community thief shouldn't be able to hold its ground because of the mobility it has but at the same time shouldn't be able to have the mobility to constantly disengage due to not being able to hold it's ground lol its beyond funny. The staff/staff build dps isnt near what most dps builds do like if DA or CS was opted for instead of acro. Most other high deeps builds on other classes do more to. So staff/staff is basically a stall build that uses timed evades to sustain due to EVADES being it's way of sustain and its OP? So a warrior or any classes using their multiple passive and active sustain options while having high bursts is ok but a thief that spams evades cuz it's how it lives is OP? Why is any thief build that can somewhat stand its ground op? And why is it OP if thief has mobility if it doesn't have the ability to hold its ground ie disengage? So is thief supposed to be weak 1v1 and have low sustain/hp with just ok disengage potential? Sounds like a viable class to me lol. I hope I'm wrong but I can see the thief class as a whole being basically erased by these new devs with the help of the vocal gw2 community that has little care to the long term health of the game and only want their preferred classes to be in great spots while being barely contested by others, been this way for a long time now.

So you want to be necormancer with high mobility in a nutshell?

The issue is not that it can 1v1

The issue is that while its 1v1'ing its not very subjective to any kind of retaliation other than on hit procs such as retaliation and auras both of which are extremely rare among the professions. Retaliations being limited to mostly guardian and auras like shocking aura being limited to only tempest and base ele for the most part.

People dont mind you having lots of evades or a modest amount of stealth what people do mind is not having enough common tools spread throughout the game to combat it. Literally nothing except shocking aura stops that style of play for any decent amount of time and only should the thief choose to strike the aura buffed target.

If a build does not allow for others to retaliate reasonably during a moment of down time then that build needs to be adjusted its simple.

No one cares if you get the power to 1v1 people care if they don't ever have a proper turn to fight you back though.

> @"EremiteAngel.9765" said:

> I think this has been brought up many times before but...I still hope something can be done.

>

> Relentless Pursuit and Speed of Shadows are very similar, being traits that deal with movement impairing conditions.

> I would like that Speed of Shadows remain as it is, giving this option to Core / Reaper / Scourge.

>

> Relentless Pursuit however, should be changed to something that fits a Reaper more.

>

> Personally I think 7 seconds shroud cooldown need to return on Reaper because it offers an extra depth and versatility to our play-style.

> I can choose to camp in shroud, or flash in and out of shroud with the 7 seconds CD.

> It reduces reliance on wurm/spectral walk as the main defensive measures we have to take for the current 10 secs shroud CD.

> This opens up more viable utility choices.

>

> And if anything helps a Reaper pursue a foe relentlessly, it would be the synergy a 7 seconds shroud CD will have with Reaper Shroud 2 Dash.

> Not to mention a possible traited FiTG for high stun-break access and stability up-time.

> Very crucial for a melee bruiser.

>

> It has been 2 years since we lost the 7 seconds Shroud.

> And Reaper has never been as fun without it.

No no no no no no NO no no NO no NO

Sorry but no

I use both these traits in combo with one another so im not hindered by chill and cripple. As necromancer really SUCKS when you are chilled or crippled more so than some of the other professions who have more skills that move you ignoring the chill/cripple effects allowing you to keep up or get away from people.

Do not change it

IF you want to contest 7 second shroud put it some where else.

Ask to roll it into the **shroud knight** Minor if you really feel reaper needs it that badly.

Or put it in death magic and erase one of those invalid (on death) traits that are practically useless till the fighting is done and over with.

Or put it on **Foot in the grave** which is already beyond outdated in comparison to the other grandmasters

Do not i repeat do NOT remove either of these 2 perfectly good traits that keep you from getting over crippled/ chilled which lead to certain death more so than having a shorter shroud cd.

Being someone who uses both speed of shadows and Relentless pursuit alot in a large majority of my builds i can contest that both traits have clear cut different purposes and are a blessing to reaper considering its already lacking in mobility and needs to get into melee range to slap people.

Even when using 1 without the other their effects are greatly noticeable

This is probably anets short term solution to help dull it down a bit.

There are probably more changes in the future, surely that immobilize trait will be included in the reduction of just how much damage can go out.

While i get that people are pointing at the immobilize proc being the problem you have to remember other sources of immobile have a bit more counter-play to them (projectile destruction/ reflect etc) and also removes and limits your own mobility to use them. Granted spamming immobilize should probably not be a thing in general.

I would like condi thief to be viable but not overly cheesy in any way.

I personally dont think the immobilize needs to be removed form sword 2

Perhaps there is just a cd before you can port back or you cant port back should you miss your target with the initial strike of sword 2 (if you see it coming its not impossible to dodge it sometimes). Thus spamming it to go in and out becomes EXTRA punishing as you become locked in melee range should you happen to use it and miss.

> @"Derm.4932" said:

> From Anet's perspective FB already has a tradeoff. Their definition of not having a tradeoff purely means they **retain all previous class mechanics and then gain some.** If class mechanics are replaced, even if the replacement is vastly superior in everyway, then it counts as a tradeoff from their perspective.

>

> Their example - from April patch notes

> >

> > To use the example of necromancer, by choosing an elite specialization, you lose access to your core Death Shroud abilities, but you gain different abilities. This is a clear trade-off. In the case of elite specializations like druid, herald, chronomancer, berserker, or scrapper, this type of trade-off isn't possible because the specialization adds a completely new ability.

>

> In that sense FB already has a tradeoff - you lose core virtues and gain different skills(tomes). This clearly fits their example with necro losing death shroud abilities but gaining other shroud abilities.

>

> I agree FB needs a nerf, but it's a question of power level, not tradeoff.

I agree with all of this

Firebrand already does indeed have a trade off

it loses insta cast skills (which are still great when you combo them)

For skills that have cast times and cant really be combo'ed as easily.

That said this post makes it easier to see classes that do not have a trade off still or the trade is not dominate enough.

Soulbeast

Holo

Scrapper

Mirage

Its a matter of how effective firebrand is right now not a matter of if it needs a trade off or not.

Personally i would start with

I say start with the mantras reduce the charges by 1 possibly increase the effect of the final charge a bit to compensate.

Tomes.... just bring those down across the board a lil bit.

Thats just my opinion though.

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > @"foste.3098" said:

> > @"Killthehealersffs.8940" @"Psycoprophet.8107"

> > staff/staff daredevil is op in the sense that it warps the game around it since only particular builds can deal with it.

> > But i am 100% against nerfing staff to the point of un-play ability, which seams like it will be the case, just because 1 degenerate build poped up and is abusing the on swap trait and sigils to bunker points. Daredevil was never meant to be a bunker but a bruiser, there is a big difference there.

>

> The ini increase will kill the skill full stop, why use it now? The cost of thief skills are universally to high as it is hence the reliance on preparedness. I could be wrong but be prepared for thief being once again stripped of all 1v1 viability not that it had a lot and be delegated back to only +1 and decap right where the community wants it to be. I guarantee any thief build that arises that's a decent 1v1 with get massive nerf cry's regardless of whether its OP and I bet will be continually nerfed into non viability. Also a build being effective especially thief builds will always be "un fun" for players fighting it do to a rogues design and rogues are always top or near top of any most favorite class polls in mmo's due to theme so of course ur gonna see alot of any of the viable builds they have in MAT's. So there op if their common in MAT's? Unlike the other mainstay classes unless their there just to decap? Anyway itl be fun watching what happens across the board lol

To be fair its not that the build is OP its not OP in anyway the damage is fairly minimal and easy to reduce in most cases the build does not kill you quickly.

How ever if you look at staff 3 normally there is a small period after the roll back where the thief is going to get hit no matter how hard you are smashing that dodge button (assuming the attacker times their attacks correctly) as its got a weird aftercast on the roll back.

Jumping removes this gap and still gives you the i frames which can be used to make the evades seem-less meaning you pretty much cannot get hit so long as you really know what you are doing.

Considering you can be in for extended periods of time while dealing damage while avoiding damage the counterplay is minimal. About the only thing that counters this style of play is shocking aura and that in itself is super limited to ele / tempest.

That said its not so much that its OP its more so that most people literally cannot fight it because you cant get hit for long periods of time. After about 20 seconds of evades and exchanging small bits of damage in most cases the person trying to attack you gets bored of you.

Insta kill meta feels bad but the "nothing dies meta" (HoT ideally) was far worse.

If the build had more counterplay options it would be fine. Its not that it does too much damage its that people just cant hit you. Your hold of the power role is too high in any given situation in this case.

That said i think they should have just given it the ranger gs fix which was abused for the same reason.

Simply doing one of the following would have probably been good enough. Cost increase is a bit much imo.

* Fix the jump bug

or

* Staff 3 instead of evading gives you a few points endurance back

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > @"Exedore.6320" said:

> > > > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > > It's why a wonder, why would a dev ask for subjective feedback instead of forming more non biased opinions through metrics,statistics, and knowledge of how the classes work.

> > > > > > Because metrics can't tell you whether it's fun to play.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Players are very good at identifying what frustrates them. They're not as good at identifying why and even less so at fixing it. But the devs first need to know what isn't fun so they can figure out where to start looking for changes.

> > > > >

> > > > > ........" Metrics, statistics, and **knowledge of how the classes work.**"

> > > > > Fun is subjective, and by asking players to identify what they like and dont you are creating an outlook that is mostly biased.

> > > > This is only true until a certain majority of people say that something is or is not fun at which point it starts to become less subjective and more factual. Fun is a part of the game. Some people play for fun for some people fun is winning or having a well fought match win or lose. Fun is indeed subjective and it can be a driving force of what keeps people playing the game.

> > >

> > > I stand by what I said then. Since you also acknowledge "fun" being subjective. That you can't use that feedback then as a starting point in balancing talks .

> > > > > That's not how you achieve balance, and I covered most of that in the first post I made in this thread.

> > > > Its not always how you achieve balance but some times its a good place to start. If some one says something is not fun and some one say something is super fun which do you believe? If a majority of people who main many different professions also start to say similar things do you think all of them are just subjective or does it mean that something is clearly an issue. Do you think that a large number of people would make false accusations on the subject of how fun something is? I would say its its very unlikely.

> > > >

> > > > Simply saying its subjective so your statement does not apply to the input of something is not a good way of really looking at it.

> > > > What happens if someone says you telling someone something is subjective is also subjective should we just void out your statement too?

> > > >

> > > > As i told some one else its half and half

> > > > When possible metrics and statistics should be part of it but the other half should consist of client feedback data. Thats why businesses and companies often ask you how a service was to you.

> > > > Say you order a package.

> > > > Looking at metrics data tells the sender that the box got from point A to B.

> > > > It might say how fast it got there and which route it took.

> > > >

> > > > But it does not tell them in the condition of how the box was when it got there or how pleased you were with how fast it got there. Maybe it got there at a bad time leaving your product to sit out all day exposed or maybe it got there quick but not quick enough to your liking.

> > > >

> > > > Subjective feedback is rather important one cannot simply dismiss it as it is a part of balance.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > And once again, I covered this in my first post, people seem to gloss over the bolded part of "Knowledge of how the game works"....Or from my first post in this thread

> > > "Devs should have an intimate understanding of what EVERY class is capable of.

> > > When I say intimate, I mean like this class shows up in your dreams intimate.

> > > Too often we have seen knee jerk fixes or changes to a class that don't make sense to the people playing, and sometimes these changes are contradictory to the way the class functions or even what the balancing "idea" for that patch tried to achieve.

> > > The Devs first and foremost need to play this game, and understand it to the level that people who have been playing since launch do."

> > >

> > > If you are relying on players to identify, **WITHOUT BIAS** the things that make a class over-perform you have set the ground for failure. Plain and simple. Even in this thread, you have evidence of that. No one want's to be nerfed further and everyone is pointing fingers at everything BUT what they have.

> > > This is why I said those 3 things are needed.

> > > Too many times player X throws out hyperbole to get player Y's class nerfed.

> > > It always goes like this " Bob plays a class (We'll call it class X) and wants to feel powerful, and be powerful, but bob gets killed by Tim on class Y. Bob could either, go into the game and make class Y and figure out what the strengths and weaknesses are, OR, he could complain about the class. Clearly Bob is a pro and class Y is just broken. So he makes a thread ( OR post in a thread with a dev asking what's fun or not) and decides to complain about everything he doesn't like. Citing that other people don't like it either. For added effect, Bob wiki's every skill and throws them all in, complaining about every effect Class Y has , then going through all the traits and doing the same. Bob creates a franken build that realistically CAN NOT EXIST. Then to put the final touches he creates scenarios in which no class could actually perform. Bob writes this as fact, and everyone that plays class X like bob agree's. This franken build to them exist in reality, and it does exactly what bob says.

> > > Tim and the other people playing class Y try and tell bob what actually happened but then it devolves into a shouting match where insults like " you main the class so you don't get a say" come in.

> > >

> > > This entire scenario, if we just stuck with player feedback. Would end up ( and has ended up) with a class being stripped of multiple tools it needs to function at a competitive level across multiple builds. It generates dead builds because they have been cried about repeatedly.

> > >

> > > This can not continue, and is unhealthy.

> > > The Devs MUST know how to pull apart fiction from fact.

> > > The devs need to play this game first, **The devs must understand this system and game first**, the devs need have to have every statistic, and metric first, before gathering feedback where players can't even be bothered to complain about specific aspects of a class and create these out of reality things and then complain about it.

> > >

> > > Edit: ALSO if they devs understood how this game worked, how classes worked, and how they fit in the grand picture of this game. We wouldn't have things like Launch day scourge, deadeye, mirage, spellbreaker, holosmith, weaver, renegade, etc. This is more than a numbers game, I acknowledge that. But changes like these tell me that in a grand picture for balance their was little or no vision. That needs to change like yesteryear.

> >

> > I could have not said it better...it's time to stop nerfing things based on forum outcry and use instead actual metrics like :

> >

> > -Percentage of players using a certain build/set up

> > -Representation in high tiered pvp matches and wvw gameplay

> >

> > To nerf something because "Bob" comes to the forum and complain about what killed him....**it's not valid feedback**

>

> Although mostly agree there has to be other metrics aside from builds that see alot of play as well. A viable build that's fun will see play often and by alot of players and doesnt necessarily mean its OP and needs changed or what kinda builds would be left in a few yrs lol

This ^

Also how would this keep the game balanced as many people flock to what wins this would mean 1 or 2 things always stay stronger than the others and every class just gets rotated out ever few months because the most played ones get nerfed. This in my opinion would be a bad way of performing balance. It just means a few picks are good every few months while everyone else is trash or meh. That makes pvp very dull.

As i also pointed out most devs probably dont take bob complains about x build so it should be nerfed comments too seriously.

IF its something like perma-stealth deadeye in its previous incarnation where all it had to do was mark you and follow you around for 2 minutes while building passive malice to get the 1 shot then yes thats a problem. Bob should complain about that and so should many other people. There are some exceptions when people are in the right to complain about something thats obviously not fair. IF a build is too oppressing or lacks counter-play or has super minimal counter-play it should be adjusted and people from across the board will complain about it. 5-10 people complaining about something is likely not an issue. A few hundred or thousand complains is probably an issue in some way shape or form.

Now bob should probably find a better way to write his complaint thats constructive in explaining why x build should be looked into other than "its op nerf it"

There are special cases to pretend that there are not and that these special cases are not exception worthy is just being ignorant to an obvious balance issue.

> @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > > > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Exedore.6320" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > It's why a wonder, why would a dev ask for subjective feedback instead of forming more non biased opinions through metrics,statistics, and knowledge of how the classes work.

> > > > > > > > > > Because metrics can't tell you whether it's fun to play.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Players are very good at identifying what frustrates them. They're not as good at identifying why and even less so at fixing it. But the devs first need to know what isn't fun so they can figure out where to start looking for changes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ........" Metrics, statistics, and **knowledge of how the classes work.**"

> > > > > > > > > Fun is subjective, and by asking players to identify what they like and dont you are creating an outlook that is mostly biased.

> > > > > > > > This is only true until a certain majority of people say that something is or is not fun at which point it starts to become less subjective and more factual. Fun is a part of the game. Some people play for fun for some people fun is winning or having a well fought match win or lose. Fun is indeed subjective and it can be a driving force of what keeps people playing the game.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I stand by what I said then. Since you also acknowledge "fun" being subjective. That you can't use that feedback then as a starting point in balancing talks .

> > > > > > > > > That's not how you achieve balance, and I covered most of that in the first post I made in this thread.

> > > > > > > > Its not always how you achieve balance but some times its a good place to start. If some one says something is not fun and some one say something is super fun which do you believe? If a majority of people who main many different professions also start to say similar things do you think all of them are just subjective or does it mean that something is clearly an issue. Do you think that a large number of people would make false accusations on the subject of how fun something is? I would say its its very unlikely.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Simply saying its subjective so your statement does not apply to the input of something is not a good way of really looking at it.

> > > > > > > > What happens if someone says you telling someone something is subjective is also subjective should we just void out your statement too?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As i told some one else its half and half

> > > > > > > > When possible metrics and statistics should be part of it but the other half should consist of client feedback data. Thats why businesses and companies often ask you how a service was to you.

> > > > > > > > Say you order a package.

> > > > > > > > Looking at metrics data tells the sender that the box got from point A to B.

> > > > > > > > It might say how fast it got there and which route it took.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But it does not tell them in the condition of how the box was when it got there or how pleased you were with how fast it got there. Maybe it got there at a bad time leaving your product to sit out all day exposed or maybe it got there quick but not quick enough to your liking.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Subjective feedback is rather important one cannot simply dismiss it as it is a part of balance.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And once again, I covered this in my first post, people seem to gloss over the bolded part of "Knowledge of how the game works"....Or from my first post in this thread

> > > > > > > "Devs should have an intimate understanding of what EVERY class is capable of.

> > > > > > > When I say intimate, I mean like this class shows up in your dreams intimate.

> > > > > > > Too often we have seen knee jerk fixes or changes to a class that don't make sense to the people playing, and sometimes these changes are contradictory to the way the class functions or even what the balancing "idea" for that patch tried to achieve.

> > > > > > > The Devs first and foremost need to play this game, and understand it to the level that people who have been playing since launch do."

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you are relying on players to identify, **WITHOUT BIAS** the things that make a class over-perform you have set the ground for failure. Plain and simple. Even in this thread, you have evidence of that. No one want's to be nerfed further and everyone is pointing fingers at everything BUT what they have.

> > > > > > > This is why I said those 3 things are needed.

> > > > > > > Too many times player X throws out hyperbole to get player Y's class nerfed.

> > > > > > > It always goes like this " Bob plays a class (We'll call it class X) and wants to feel powerful, and be powerful, but bob gets killed by Tim on class Y. Bob could either, go into the game and make class Y and figure out what the strengths and weaknesses are, OR, he could complain about the class. Clearly Bob is a pro and class Y is just broken. So he makes a thread ( OR post in a thread with a dev asking what's fun or not) and decides to complain about everything he doesn't like. Citing that other people don't like it either. For added effect, Bob wiki's every skill and throws them all in, complaining about every effect Class Y has , then going through all the traits and doing the same. Bob creates a franken build that realistically CAN NOT EXIST. Then to put the final touches he creates scenarios in which no class could actually perform. Bob writes this as fact, and everyone that plays class X like bob agree's. This franken build to them exist in reality, and it does exactly what bob says.

> > > > > > > Tim and the other people playing class Y try and tell bob what actually happened but then it devolves into a shouting match where insults like " you main the class so you don't get a say" come in.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This entire scenario, if we just stuck with player feedback. Would end up ( and has ended up) with a class being stripped of multiple tools it needs to function at a competitive level across multiple builds. It generates dead builds because they have been cried about repeatedly.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This can not continue, and is unhealthy.

> > > > > > > The Devs MUST know how to pull apart fiction from fact.

> > > > > > > The devs need to play this game first, **The devs must understand this system and game first**, the devs need have to have every statistic, and metric first, before gathering feedback where players can't even be bothered to complain about specific aspects of a class and create these out of reality things and then complain about it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Edit: ALSO if they devs understood how this game worked, how classes worked, and how they fit in the grand picture of this game. We wouldn't have things like Launch day scourge, deadeye, mirage, spellbreaker, holosmith, weaver, renegade, etc. This is more than a numbers game, I acknowledge that. But changes like these tell me that in a grand picture for balance their was little or no vision. That needs to change like yesteryear.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It goes without saying this is true but devs cant perdict what players will do once they get their hands on the content or how they will adapt to playin it after the fact. It is impossible for them to know every possible result because they are a group of a few hundred and we players are up in the thousands if not hundred thousands. We will try combos and playstyles that they would have never considered which may lead to unexpected or abusive mechanical tactics that will not be healthy for the game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > To say tha the devs must understand the system without fail is simply not plausible as new content is added.

> > > > > > The devs should not be doing balance on what they think is fun they how ever should mind how other players feel about that same content even more so in compeitive modes.

> > > > > > Im sorry but if something causes major frustration because its not balanced then its not ok i dont really care how subjective you think it is. Fact is a game should not cause frustration to a person or a majority of people and once that starts to happen it means there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

> > > > > > To ignore feedback and subjective feeling from the clients you provide a service too is very ignorant and what leads to the game gettin to the state its in right now.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Players time and time again have told anet things they liked and did not like only to have the opposite happen in terms of balance in one mode or another. Players often came up with very creative and possibly balanced solutions to frustrating issues only to have anet ignore them and the problems remain problems for 6 months at a time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Its not so much pulling apart from the fun factor. When i say the devs must consider feed back data from people because its important it means just that. I dont mean the devs should be biased and design or blanace things based on how the feel when they play the game themselves. IF you dont agree the devs should listen to the people who play the game at all then you cant expect the game to ever be balanced.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Im sorry i just wont agree with you no matter how you put it because when you say data is the only thing that should be looked at wont solve the problem. 1 patch you are on top because data said you were doing bad next patch you are trash because data said you were doing good. Data will be smothered by people who flock to what wins and works in the same way it is now by your above example of player x says player y's main class should be nerfed while player x's main class is still obviously broken but they defend it anyways.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regardless of how you "subjectively" think it should be done i don't agree. ITs a half and half situation for the best results. Devs are human beings and know how to read quality statement when they see it. Simply saying "nerf x class because y reason while im playing broken z profession" is not something they probably pay attention too.

> > > > >

> > > > > You said it yourself : "nerf x class because y reason while I am playing broken z profession" is not something the devs listen to. Players here tend to forget how frustrating it is to be at the receiving end of their own class ...while they complain about the frustration of being themselves at the receiving end of some other matchup...like "it's fun to hardcounter others...but I don't want to be hardcountered and what hardcounter me is clearly OP"

> > > > >

> > > > > I stand with what @"Solori.6025" said : " you cannot balance an effective balance process on player's feedback" , a feedback based on emotions and self-preservation is not something to be ever taken seriously.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Left out the part where i said devs should be able to filter through that and find the constructive feedback which tends to be a bit more well written from an un biased standpoint.

> > > > Sorry to say i dont agree metrics an data only get you so far and dont create a perfect balance you may stand where you like but ive played enough games to know how balance can fail based on only data and metrics alone which leads to periods of "balance and imbalance" if something is balanced for someone its likely not balanced for someone else and thats always going to be a thing. IF something becomes too imbalanced for a majority despite the data saying its doing fine and players decide to strike against it then it means something was over looked that the data alone could not reveal. Its happened in the past it will happen in the future.

> > > >

> > > > I dont discredit the use of metrics and data for balance i welcome its use. I just dont think it should be the main and only source for balance.

> > > >

> > > > As far as him referecing that the devs need to understand flawlessly the potential of what the professions can and cannot do ill go into detail why thats not possible in most cases.

> > > >

> > > > Even if the devs do play competitive when exploring design and balance work they can't expect how thousands of players will take that content and explore it and build onto it. The minds of a few dozen or hundred cant simulate the results of how thousands will explore it.

> > > > That's how obnoxious builds and skill abuse/tactics even pop up to start with it's because players come up with ideas that the devs never considered during balance and design.

> > > > When you design something it's very easy to get tunnel vision on finite limits that only you see through your eyes but when you give it to hundreds if not thousands of other people they may not see anything of what you see and take it in a completely different direction. In some cases the direction ends up being very unbalanced.

> > > > That's why I said it's impossible for devs who design and balance the game to fully understand the game it happens in every single game I've ever played. The only way you could make this happen is to cut a massive amount of content out of the game and make almost everything play the same way with the same rules and finite limits where it cant be changed.

> > > >

> > > > Guild wars 2's profession system is far too vast for that despite how much of a down scale is from the original guild wars. There are too many build options too many build stat factors and too many different mechanics for anyone to expect the devs to be able to predict every single possible build outcome, play style, and expect broken things not to pop out of the woodworks with each balance pass or new content addition.

> > > >

> > > > All of this also adds whole new level to metrics and data that would need to be analyzed when trying to balance the game off that alone that would possibly work against itself in some cases. For example some tools/traits/skills are not or rarely used right now but might not be used till something new is added in the future. But because the data in the past implies it either wont be used or wont make a factor how could you balance for it off that alone? Your data shows that its not a problem now but it becomes one when you add new content or change existing content in some way.

> > > >

> > > > Trust me going off data alone is simply not always the best way. Data is and can be a good source of information but so can the people who respectively play the content.

> > >

> > > After 6 years it doesn't seem to me they did a good job in filtering constructive feedback, they still tend to overnerf things because of uproar on the forum. The last example of what I am saying is **whey they disabled Chaotic Interruption** , they did not solve the problem with mirage **(mirage cloack applied to clones)**, they simply reduced the build options for mesmer mains.

> >

> > I would argue to say not all of it was constructive feedback so im not sure thats a fair assumption to make.

> > A large portion of poor balance choices were made because of all game modes being tied to one another or design changes being made blindly with what seems like no input at all or opposite imput from what people suggested.

> >

> > This is what ive mostly seen over the past 6 years. Not them following the general "nerf x thing cause its op"

> >

> > >

> > > -They go and nerf the most used pets on rangers...**but they do nothing to solve the problem with the other pets non hitting any moving target or having stupid CD and cast times**

> >

> > Maybe they thought the most used pets were too strong and wanted them to be leveled with the other pets. Not ever balance direction has to be up in some cases its down. Every profession catches this karma from time to time and we never understand why it happens. If only 2 pets out of the several dozen are the only ones being used what would the data then suggest? That those 2 pets are too strong or that all the others are just too weak? Which side to you pick now? If feed back was ignored from players how do you know the result would not have been the same based on the data alone?

> >

> > >

> > > -They nerf sustain of eles using healing amulet...but do nothing to solve the dependency of ele on healing power..and so on for every other profession.

> >

> > Most other professions dont play the same way that ele does. Ele has always been a bit of a different beast in itself. Once again some times the direction is down and not up. Do you nerf how healing stats work with ele or do you just buff how healing power works on everyone else and ignore the ele. Based on the data alone which direction do you take. Without player imput how do you know the result would have not been the same?

> >

> > >

> > > Up to this very moment, the devs have proved to be unable to discern constructive feedback from simple blubbering , they still nerf things for the sake of nerfing in order to please the angry mob on the forum, they never think why something is never used..they only care to "fix" what get overused for lack of other options and that tend to leave things in the gutter after they're done...only to come back later and overbuff something and bring the class back to relevance .

> >

> > I point to my first statement again. I highly doubt its been specifically 6 years of only following constructive feedback anything i would say its been more so 6 years of not following feedback with a few niche case exceptions from time to time. We wouldnt be in this problem now if devs had listened to players years ago who wanted balance, numbers, and mechanics to be split between game modes years ago. They chose not to follow that advice that landed us in the mess we are in now.

> >

> > > In an ideal world you'd be 100% correct but in this world maybe it's better for the devs to stick to metrics because it seems to land better balance decisions

> > There is no proof of this. But we can wait and see i guess. The fact that they are finally splitting pve from pvp and wvw means they are fianlly taking players advice now that they realize how much balancing 1 or 2 professions in 1 or 2 game modes can ruin it in some form or another in the other game modes. This is likely not a metrics decision alone.

> >

> > Like ive said ive seen games where devs have streams with the players and share the data that they look at when balancing something and have watched them creat imbalance based on those numbers with changes they think will help even the numbers for all players involved a good many times.

> >

> > In an ideal world the devs would allow players to beta test upcoming balance patches before they go live for a weekend or a week (they did this before HoT released twice and once or twice before PoF released)

> > Doing this would let them get both data and feedback that could help everyone in the long run but of course this is not something they do.

> >

> >

>

> Ok so if I understand what you're saying : balance decisions based on metrics alone tend to get rid of outliers but not explain why the outliers exist in the first place and here is when the player's feedback is required. Fair enough but again that feedback has been given in the past and openly ignored or partly acknowledged by the devs who simply got rid of the outliers as per request of the forum.

Some times yes in some cases balance choices made on metrics alone can get rid of some outliers but like a coin every tool has two sides. IF metrics show that something is not being used and a totally new mechanic or change enters the game that when combined with that skill/trait/perk which data says "is weak or underused" makes that same skill/trait/perk very over powered how could the data alone have prevented it from becoming such an outlier.

Outliers will always pop up over time because its not possible for devs to find them all during internal design and testing. There is no such thing as outliers not existing they will always exist and via popping up and vanishing as changes come in the future. I have yet to play a game where something if not multiple things were not inherently broken at any given time.

In some cases Outliers are so extreme that short term action is required to remove them or fix them. These would be the "niche" cases i spoke of. Now one thing i will say is that i dont always agree with anets methods of fixing a solution for the short term and then leaving it that way for a long period of time after which its seen as "fine or ok" be it something thats heavily used or not.

>

> In the end decisions based on metrics would fail eitherway , I stand corrected but my points mostly remain , the devs do tend to nerf things for the sake of nerfing while not fixing any problem, taking the ranger as an example here : they keep nerfing the most used pets but **the other pets simply can't reach the target because of bad coded AI and pathing issues on top of lack of raw stats**

Nerfs happen. To everyone i don't think they nerf something just for the sake of nerfing it i would like to think in most cases there is always a reason for it even if they don't communicate or properly communicate that reason. I agree with you that some ranger pets are bad but most pets with beast mastery will reach their targets just fine. Even if we go on on your idea thta the pets cant reach their targets would the data suggest that the pets or bad or that player mobility is just too good? Do you make the pets even faster to compensate this or do you just cut everyones mobility by perhaps increasing how conditions like cripple and chill work against mobility?

>

> In this instance the devs have listened only to the feedback on the forum asking for nerfs apparently confirmed by metrics...which funny enough on the other of the coin tell us what is not being used and the devs should ask themselves...why

In some case exceptions changes need to be made more harshly. Depending on the topic and whats involved yes nerfs are handed out after complaints are issued. In alot of these cases though there is something wrong that should be changed. How quick or how much that thing changed depended upon what game mode it was breaking and then there is the limitation of how much you can change it with all game modes being tied together. Which as i said landed us in this whole mess. Even if they had split pve completely from pvp and wvw years ago people would still complain about major issues that became imbalanced. The biggest difference would be the wider range of options anet would have had to tackle the issues which could have saved some professions from becoming dead in some game modes to this very day.

This is the first time im mostly looking forward to nerfs in pvp and wvw because as he said the general direction is down. IT was a nice refreshing reminder that not always is the case that the weak stuff needs to be moved up some times the top end things can be moved down to make the unused tools usable again. Everyone talks about power creep in this game and its nice to see that they might be trying to for once de-power creep the game for a change.

There will likely be more even more imbalance for some professions before reaching better balanced state for everyone unfortunately as only so much every goes into any balance patch.

> @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Exedore.6320" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > > > > It's why a wonder, why would a dev ask for subjective feedback instead of forming more non biased opinions through metrics,statistics, and knowledge of how the classes work.

> > > > > > > > Because metrics can't tell you whether it's fun to play.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Players are very good at identifying what frustrates them. They're not as good at identifying why and even less so at fixing it. But the devs first need to know what isn't fun so they can figure out where to start looking for changes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ........" Metrics, statistics, and **knowledge of how the classes work.**"

> > > > > > > Fun is subjective, and by asking players to identify what they like and dont you are creating an outlook that is mostly biased.

> > > > > > This is only true until a certain majority of people say that something is or is not fun at which point it starts to become less subjective and more factual. Fun is a part of the game. Some people play for fun for some people fun is winning or having a well fought match win or lose. Fun is indeed subjective and it can be a driving force of what keeps people playing the game.

> > > > >

> > > > > I stand by what I said then. Since you also acknowledge "fun" being subjective. That you can't use that feedback then as a starting point in balancing talks .

> > > > > > > That's not how you achieve balance, and I covered most of that in the first post I made in this thread.

> > > > > > Its not always how you achieve balance but some times its a good place to start. If some one says something is not fun and some one say something is super fun which do you believe? If a majority of people who main many different professions also start to say similar things do you think all of them are just subjective or does it mean that something is clearly an issue. Do you think that a large number of people would make false accusations on the subject of how fun something is? I would say its its very unlikely.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Simply saying its subjective so your statement does not apply to the input of something is not a good way of really looking at it.

> > > > > > What happens if someone says you telling someone something is subjective is also subjective should we just void out your statement too?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As i told some one else its half and half

> > > > > > When possible metrics and statistics should be part of it but the other half should consist of client feedback data. Thats why businesses and companies often ask you how a service was to you.

> > > > > > Say you order a package.

> > > > > > Looking at metrics data tells the sender that the box got from point A to B.

> > > > > > It might say how fast it got there and which route it took.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But it does not tell them in the condition of how the box was when it got there or how pleased you were with how fast it got there. Maybe it got there at a bad time leaving your product to sit out all day exposed or maybe it got there quick but not quick enough to your liking.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Subjective feedback is rather important one cannot simply dismiss it as it is a part of balance.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And once again, I covered this in my first post, people seem to gloss over the bolded part of "Knowledge of how the game works"....Or from my first post in this thread

> > > > > "Devs should have an intimate understanding of what EVERY class is capable of.

> > > > > When I say intimate, I mean like this class shows up in your dreams intimate.

> > > > > Too often we have seen knee jerk fixes or changes to a class that don't make sense to the people playing, and sometimes these changes are contradictory to the way the class functions or even what the balancing "idea" for that patch tried to achieve.

> > > > > The Devs first and foremost need to play this game, and understand it to the level that people who have been playing since launch do."

> > > > >

> > > > > If you are relying on players to identify, **WITHOUT BIAS** the things that make a class over-perform you have set the ground for failure. Plain and simple. Even in this thread, you have evidence of that. No one want's to be nerfed further and everyone is pointing fingers at everything BUT what they have.

> > > > > This is why I said those 3 things are needed.

> > > > > Too many times player X throws out hyperbole to get player Y's class nerfed.

> > > > > It always goes like this " Bob plays a class (We'll call it class X) and wants to feel powerful, and be powerful, but bob gets killed by Tim on class Y. Bob could either, go into the game and make class Y and figure out what the strengths and weaknesses are, OR, he could complain about the class. Clearly Bob is a pro and class Y is just broken. So he makes a thread ( OR post in a thread with a dev asking what's fun or not) and decides to complain about everything he doesn't like. Citing that other people don't like it either. For added effect, Bob wiki's every skill and throws them all in, complaining about every effect Class Y has , then going through all the traits and doing the same. Bob creates a franken build that realistically CAN NOT EXIST. Then to put the final touches he creates scenarios in which no class could actually perform. Bob writes this as fact, and everyone that plays class X like bob agree's. This franken build to them exist in reality, and it does exactly what bob says.

> > > > > Tim and the other people playing class Y try and tell bob what actually happened but then it devolves into a shouting match where insults like " you main the class so you don't get a say" come in.

> > > > >

> > > > > This entire scenario, if we just stuck with player feedback. Would end up ( and has ended up) with a class being stripped of multiple tools it needs to function at a competitive level across multiple builds. It generates dead builds because they have been cried about repeatedly.

> > > > >

> > > > > This can not continue, and is unhealthy.

> > > > > The Devs MUST know how to pull apart fiction from fact.

> > > > > The devs need to play this game first, **The devs must understand this system and game first**, the devs need have to have every statistic, and metric first, before gathering feedback where players can't even be bothered to complain about specific aspects of a class and create these out of reality things and then complain about it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Edit: ALSO if they devs understood how this game worked, how classes worked, and how they fit in the grand picture of this game. We wouldn't have things like Launch day scourge, deadeye, mirage, spellbreaker, holosmith, weaver, renegade, etc. This is more than a numbers game, I acknowledge that. But changes like these tell me that in a grand picture for balance their was little or no vision. That needs to change like yesteryear.

> > > >

> > > > It goes without saying this is true but devs cant perdict what players will do once they get their hands on the content or how they will adapt to playin it after the fact. It is impossible for them to know every possible result because they are a group of a few hundred and we players are up in the thousands if not hundred thousands. We will try combos and playstyles that they would have never considered which may lead to unexpected or abusive mechanical tactics that will not be healthy for the game.

> > > >

> > > > To say tha the devs must understand the system without fail is simply not plausible as new content is added.

> > > > The devs should not be doing balance on what they think is fun they how ever should mind how other players feel about that same content even more so in compeitive modes.

> > > > Im sorry but if something causes major frustration because its not balanced then its not ok i dont really care how subjective you think it is. Fact is a game should not cause frustration to a person or a majority of people and once that starts to happen it means there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

> > > > To ignore feedback and subjective feeling from the clients you provide a service too is very ignorant and what leads to the game gettin to the state its in right now.

> > > >

> > > > Players time and time again have told anet things they liked and did not like only to have the opposite happen in terms of balance in one mode or another. Players often came up with very creative and possibly balanced solutions to frustrating issues only to have anet ignore them and the problems remain problems for 6 months at a time.

> > > >

> > > > Its not so much pulling apart from the fun factor. When i say the devs must consider feed back data from people because its important it means just that. I dont mean the devs should be biased and design or blanace things based on how the feel when they play the game themselves. IF you dont agree the devs should listen to the people who play the game at all then you cant expect the game to ever be balanced.

> > > >

> > > > Im sorry i just wont agree with you no matter how you put it because when you say data is the only thing that should be looked at wont solve the problem. 1 patch you are on top because data said you were doing bad next patch you are trash because data said you were doing good. Data will be smothered by people who flock to what wins and works in the same way it is now by your above example of player x says player y's main class should be nerfed while player x's main class is still obviously broken but they defend it anyways.

> > > >

> > > > Regardless of how you "subjectively" think it should be done i don't agree. ITs a half and half situation for the best results. Devs are human beings and know how to read quality statement when they see it. Simply saying "nerf x class because y reason while im playing broken z profession" is not something they probably pay attention too.

> > >

> > > You said it yourself : "nerf x class because y reason while I am playing broken z profession" is not something the devs listen to. Players here tend to forget how frustrating it is to be at the receiving end of their own class ...while they complain about the frustration of being themselves at the receiving end of some other matchup...like "it's fun to hardcounter others...but I don't want to be hardcountered and what hardcounter me is clearly OP"

> > >

> > > I stand with what @"Solori.6025" said : " you cannot balance an effective balance process on player's feedback" , a feedback based on emotions and self-preservation is not something to be ever taken seriously.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Left out the part where i said devs should be able to filter through that and find the constructive feedback which tends to be a bit more well written from an un biased standpoint.

> > Sorry to say i dont agree metrics an data only get you so far and dont create a perfect balance you may stand where you like but ive played enough games to know how balance can fail based on only data and metrics alone which leads to periods of "balance and imbalance" if something is balanced for someone its likely not balanced for someone else and thats always going to be a thing. IF something becomes too imbalanced for a majority despite the data saying its doing fine and players decide to strike against it then it means something was over looked that the data alone could not reveal. Its happened in the past it will happen in the future.

> >

> > I dont discredit the use of metrics and data for balance i welcome its use. I just dont think it should be the main and only source for balance.

> >

> > As far as him referecing that the devs need to understand flawlessly the potential of what the professions can and cannot do ill go into detail why thats not possible in most cases.

> >

> > Even if the devs do play competitive when exploring design and balance work they can't expect how thousands of players will take that content and explore it and build onto it. The minds of a few dozen or hundred cant simulate the results of how thousands will explore it.

> > That's how obnoxious builds and skill abuse/tactics even pop up to start with it's because players come up with ideas that the devs never considered during balance and design.

> > When you design something it's very easy to get tunnel vision on finite limits that only you see through your eyes but when you give it to hundreds if not thousands of other people they may not see anything of what you see and take it in a completely different direction. In some cases the direction ends up being very unbalanced.

> > That's why I said it's impossible for devs who design and balance the game to fully understand the game it happens in every single game I've ever played. The only way you could make this happen is to cut a massive amount of content out of the game and make almost everything play the same way with the same rules and finite limits where it cant be changed.

> >

> > Guild wars 2's profession system is far too vast for that despite how much of a down scale is from the original guild wars. There are too many build options too many build stat factors and too many different mechanics for anyone to expect the devs to be able to predict every single possible build outcome, play style, and expect broken things not to pop out of the woodworks with each balance pass or new content addition.

> >

> > All of this also adds whole new level to metrics and data that would need to be analyzed when trying to balance the game off that alone that would possibly work against itself in some cases. For example some tools/traits/skills are not or rarely used right now but might not be used till something new is added in the future. But because the data in the past implies it either wont be used or wont make a factor how could you balance for it off that alone? Your data shows that its not a problem now but it becomes one when you add new content or change existing content in some way.

> >

> > Trust me going off data alone is simply not always the best way. Data is and can be a good source of information but so can the people who respectively play the content.

>

> After 6 years it doesn't seem to me they did a good job in filtering constructive feedback, they still tend to overnerf things because of uproar on the forum. The last example of what I am saying is **whey they disabled Chaotic Interruption** , they did not solve the problem with mirage **(mirage cloack applied to clones)**, they simply reduced the build options for mesmer mains.

I would argue to say not all of it was constructive feedback so im not sure thats a fair assumption to make.

A large portion of poor balance choices were made because of all game modes being tied to one another or design changes being made blindly with what seems like no input at all or opposite imput from what people suggested.

This is what ive mostly seen over the past 6 years. Not them following the general "nerf x thing cause its op"

>

> -They go and nerf the most used pets on rangers...**but they do nothing to solve the problem with the other pets non hitting any moving target or having stupid CD and cast times**

Maybe they thought the most used pets were too strong and wanted them to be leveled with the other pets. Not ever balance direction has to be up in some cases its down. Every profession catches this karma from time to time and we never understand why it happens. If only 2 pets out of the several dozen are the only ones being used what would the data then suggest? That those 2 pets are too strong or that all the others are just too weak? Which side to you pick now? If feed back was ignored from players how do you know the result would not have been the same based on the data alone?

>

> -They nerf sustain of eles using healing amulet...but do nothing to solve the dependency of ele on healing power..and so on for every other profession.

Most other professions dont play the same way that ele does. Ele has always been a bit of a different beast in itself. Once again some times the direction is down and not up. Do you nerf how healing stats work with ele or do you just buff how healing power works on everyone else and ignore the ele. Based on the data alone which direction do you take. Without player imput how do you know the result would have not been the same?

>

> Up to this very moment, the devs have proved to be unable to discern constructive feedback from simple blubbering , they still nerf things for the sake of nerfing in order to please the angry mob on the forum, they never think why something is never used..they only care to "fix" what get overused for lack of other options and that tend to leave things in the gutter after they're done...only to come back later and overbuff something and bring the class back to relevance .

I point to my first statement again. I highly doubt its been specifically 6 years of only following constructive feedback anything i would say its been more so 6 years of not following feedback with a few niche case exceptions from time to time. We wouldnt be in this problem now if devs had listened to players years ago who wanted balance, numbers, and mechanics to be split between game modes years ago. They chose not to follow that advice that landed us in the mess we are in now.

> In an ideal world you'd be 100% correct but in this world maybe it's better for the devs to stick to metrics because it seems to land better balance decisions

There is no proof of this. But we can wait and see i guess. The fact that they are finally splitting pve from pvp and wvw means they are fianlly taking players advice now that they realize how much balancing 1 or 2 professions in 1 or 2 game modes can ruin it in some form or another in the other game modes. This is likely not a metrics decision alone.

Like ive said ive seen games where devs have streams with the players and share the data that they look at when balancing something and have watched them creat imbalance based on those numbers with changes they think will help even the numbers for all players involved a good many times.

In an ideal world the devs would allow players to beta test upcoming balance patches before they go live for a weekend or a week (they did this before HoT released twice and once or twice before PoF released)

Doing this would let them get both data and feedback that could help everyone in the long run but of course this is not something they do.

> @"viquing.8254" said:

...k

> @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > @"Exedore.6320" said:

> > > > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > > > It's why a wonder, why would a dev ask for subjective feedback instead of forming more non biased opinions through metrics,statistics, and knowledge of how the classes work.

> > > > > > Because metrics can't tell you whether it's fun to play.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Players are very good at identifying what frustrates them. They're not as good at identifying why and even less so at fixing it. But the devs first need to know what isn't fun so they can figure out where to start looking for changes.

> > > > >

> > > > > ........" Metrics, statistics, and **knowledge of how the classes work.**"

> > > > > Fun is subjective, and by asking players to identify what they like and dont you are creating an outlook that is mostly biased.

> > > > This is only true until a certain majority of people say that something is or is not fun at which point it starts to become less subjective and more factual. Fun is a part of the game. Some people play for fun for some people fun is winning or having a well fought match win or lose. Fun is indeed subjective and it can be a driving force of what keeps people playing the game.

> > >

> > > I stand by what I said then. Since you also acknowledge "fun" being subjective. That you can't use that feedback then as a starting point in balancing talks .

> > > > > That's not how you achieve balance, and I covered most of that in the first post I made in this thread.

> > > > Its not always how you achieve balance but some times its a good place to start. If some one says something is not fun and some one say something is super fun which do you believe? If a majority of people who main many different professions also start to say similar things do you think all of them are just subjective or does it mean that something is clearly an issue. Do you think that a large number of people would make false accusations on the subject of how fun something is? I would say its its very unlikely.

> > > >

> > > > Simply saying its subjective so your statement does not apply to the input of something is not a good way of really looking at it.

> > > > What happens if someone says you telling someone something is subjective is also subjective should we just void out your statement too?

> > > >

> > > > As i told some one else its half and half

> > > > When possible metrics and statistics should be part of it but the other half should consist of client feedback data. Thats why businesses and companies often ask you how a service was to you.

> > > > Say you order a package.

> > > > Looking at metrics data tells the sender that the box got from point A to B.

> > > > It might say how fast it got there and which route it took.

> > > >

> > > > But it does not tell them in the condition of how the box was when it got there or how pleased you were with how fast it got there. Maybe it got there at a bad time leaving your product to sit out all day exposed or maybe it got there quick but not quick enough to your liking.

> > > >

> > > > Subjective feedback is rather important one cannot simply dismiss it as it is a part of balance.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > And once again, I covered this in my first post, people seem to gloss over the bolded part of "Knowledge of how the game works"....Or from my first post in this thread

> > > "Devs should have an intimate understanding of what EVERY class is capable of.

> > > When I say intimate, I mean like this class shows up in your dreams intimate.

> > > Too often we have seen knee jerk fixes or changes to a class that don't make sense to the people playing, and sometimes these changes are contradictory to the way the class functions or even what the balancing "idea" for that patch tried to achieve.

> > > The Devs first and foremost need to play this game, and understand it to the level that people who have been playing since launch do."

> > >

> > > If you are relying on players to identify, **WITHOUT BIAS** the things that make a class over-perform you have set the ground for failure. Plain and simple. Even in this thread, you have evidence of that. No one want's to be nerfed further and everyone is pointing fingers at everything BUT what they have.

> > > This is why I said those 3 things are needed.

> > > Too many times player X throws out hyperbole to get player Y's class nerfed.

> > > It always goes like this " Bob plays a class (We'll call it class X) and wants to feel powerful, and be powerful, but bob gets killed by Tim on class Y. Bob could either, go into the game and make class Y and figure out what the strengths and weaknesses are, OR, he could complain about the class. Clearly Bob is a pro and class Y is just broken. So he makes a thread ( OR post in a thread with a dev asking what's fun or not) and decides to complain about everything he doesn't like. Citing that other people don't like it either. For added effect, Bob wiki's every skill and throws them all in, complaining about every effect Class Y has , then going through all the traits and doing the same. Bob creates a franken build that realistically CAN NOT EXIST. Then to put the final touches he creates scenarios in which no class could actually perform. Bob writes this as fact, and everyone that plays class X like bob agree's. This franken build to them exist in reality, and it does exactly what bob says.

> > > Tim and the other people playing class Y try and tell bob what actually happened but then it devolves into a shouting match where insults like " you main the class so you don't get a say" come in.

> > >

> > > This entire scenario, if we just stuck with player feedback. Would end up ( and has ended up) with a class being stripped of multiple tools it needs to function at a competitive level across multiple builds. It generates dead builds because they have been cried about repeatedly.

> > >

> > > This can not continue, and is unhealthy.

> > > The Devs MUST know how to pull apart fiction from fact.

> > > The devs need to play this game first, **The devs must understand this system and game first**, the devs need have to have every statistic, and metric first, before gathering feedback where players can't even be bothered to complain about specific aspects of a class and create these out of reality things and then complain about it.

> > >

> > > Edit: ALSO if they devs understood how this game worked, how classes worked, and how they fit in the grand picture of this game. We wouldn't have things like Launch day scourge, deadeye, mirage, spellbreaker, holosmith, weaver, renegade, etc. This is more than a numbers game, I acknowledge that. But changes like these tell me that in a grand picture for balance their was little or no vision. That needs to change like yesteryear.

> >

> > It goes without saying this is true but devs cant perdict what players will do once they get their hands on the content or how they will adapt to playin it after the fact. It is impossible for them to know every possible result because they are a group of a few hundred and we players are up in the thousands if not hundred thousands. We will try combos and playstyles that they would have never considered which may lead to unexpected or abusive mechanical tactics that will not be healthy for the game.

> >

> > To say tha the devs must understand the system without fail is simply not plausible as new content is added.

> > The devs should not be doing balance on what they think is fun they how ever should mind how other players feel about that same content even more so in compeitive modes.

> > Im sorry but if something causes major frustration because its not balanced then its not ok i dont really care how subjective you think it is. Fact is a game should not cause frustration to a person or a majority of people and once that starts to happen it means there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

> > To ignore feedback and subjective feeling from the clients you provide a service too is very ignorant and what leads to the game gettin to the state its in right now.

> >

> > Players time and time again have told anet things they liked and did not like only to have the opposite happen in terms of balance in one mode or another. Players often came up with very creative and possibly balanced solutions to frustrating issues only to have anet ignore them and the problems remain problems for 6 months at a time.

> >

> > Its not so much pulling apart from the fun factor. When i say the devs must consider feed back data from people because its important it means just that. I dont mean the devs should be biased and design or blanace things based on how the feel when they play the game themselves. IF you dont agree the devs should listen to the people who play the game at all then you cant expect the game to ever be balanced.

> >

> > Im sorry i just wont agree with you no matter how you put it because when you say data is the only thing that should be looked at wont solve the problem. 1 patch you are on top because data said you were doing bad next patch you are trash because data said you were doing good. Data will be smothered by people who flock to what wins and works in the same way it is now by your above example of player x says player y's main class should be nerfed while player x's main class is still obviously broken but they defend it anyways.

> >

> > Regardless of how you "subjectively" think it should be done i don't agree. ITs a half and half situation for the best results. Devs are human beings and know how to read quality statement when they see it. Simply saying "nerf x class because y reason while im playing broken z profession" is not something they probably pay attention too.

>

> You said it yourself : "nerf x class because y reason while I am playing broken z profession" is not something the devs listen to. Players here tend to forget how frustrating it is to be at the receiving end of their own class ...while they complain about the frustration of being themselves at the receiving end of some other matchup...like "it's fun to hardcounter others...but I don't want to be hardcountered and what hardcounter me is clearly OP"

>

> I stand with what @"Solori.6025" said : " you cannot balance an effective balance process on player's feedback" , a feedback based on emotions and self-preservation is not something to be ever taken seriously.

>

>

Left out the part where i said devs should be able to filter through that and find the constructive feedback which tends to be a bit more well written from an un biased standpoint.

Sorry to say i dont agree metrics an data only get you so far and dont create a perfect balance you may stand where you like but ive played enough games to know how balance can fail based on only data and metrics alone which leads to periods of "balance and imbalance" if something is balanced for someone its likely not balanced for someone else and thats always going to be a thing. IF something becomes too imbalanced for a majority despite the data saying its doing fine and players decide to strike against it then it means something was over looked that the data alone could not reveal. Its happened in the past it will happen in the future.

I dont discredit the use of metrics and data for balance i welcome its use. I just dont think it should be the main and only source for balance.

As far as him referecing that the devs need to understand flawlessly the potential of what the professions can and cannot do ill go into detail why thats not possible in most cases.

Even if the devs do play competitive when exploring design and balance work they can't expect how thousands of players will take that content and explore it and build onto it. The minds of a few dozen or hundred cant simulate the results of how thousands will explore it.

That's how obnoxious builds and skill abuse/tactics even pop up to start with it's because players come up with ideas that the devs never considered during balance and design.

When you design something it's very easy to get tunnel vision on finite limits that only you see through your eyes but when you give it to hundreds if not thousands of other people they may not see anything of what you see and take it in a completely different direction. In some cases the direction ends up being very unbalanced.

That's why I said it's impossible for devs who design and balance the game to fully understand the game it happens in every single game I've ever played. The only way you could make this happen is to cut a massive amount of content out of the game and make almost everything play the same way with the same rules and finite limits where it cant be changed.

Guild wars 2's profession system is far too vast for that despite how much of a down scale is from the original guild wars. There are too many build options too many build stat factors and too many different mechanics for anyone to expect the devs to be able to predict every single possible build outcome, play style, and expect broken things not to pop out of the woodworks with each balance pass or new content addition.

All of this also adds whole new level to metrics and data that would need to be analyzed when trying to balance the game off that alone that would possibly work against itself in some cases. For example some tools/traits/skills are not or rarely used right now but might not be used till something new is added in the future. But because the data in the past implies it either wont be used or wont make a factor how could you balance for it off that alone? Your data shows that its not a problem now but it becomes one when you add new content or change existing content in some way.

Trust me going off data alone is simply not always the best way. Data is and can be a good source of information but so can the people who respectively play the content.

> @"Curunen.8729" said:

> Sure it's not directly comparable, but it can be related that a number of players don't find it fun to, in a broader sense, have their game plan disrupted and pushed to improvise. The key here is **"is it still possible to win"** - and that's where there is a difference between subjective "fun" and balance. Because while there are many vocal complaints about various aspects of the game - eg dying to condi - I guess there is a population who don't mind or even enjoy going up against some of the supposedly "not fun" factors that get highlighted on this forum.

Thats the thing i dont mind losing if i felt like i had a "possible" chance to win or make plays that could have gotten me the win. IF you make a read but someone else left themselves open knowing you would read them as bait... well played i say. Even if im using something thats technically the underdog in the match up. For me its not so much being killed by condi its the way the condi is applied and the pressure behind it. Its endless and fairly quick rmaping with higher burst while allowing the caster to play extremely safe it wont be fun or feel like a good match unless you have constant clears to counter it which not everyone has options for that. When Defensive tools can totally cover the small windows of exposure for the first few rotations making it feel like there is not a window of opportunity to actually take your turn to fight back.

Similar to condi thief right now. Its very safe when applying its conditions but generally once it performs its biggest burst there is a down time in which you have time to counter attack them before they can "add more" and if they over aggressively push to add too much via safe application then they are left defenseless "Lack of evades" due to burning their dodges and using all their initiative points. Its very frustrating to fight yes but I do feel like i often have a chance to beat it or combat it there is a pretty clear cut period in which you have to take action and win before you lose.

I just think the window in which you have to defeat a mirage before its damage kills most classes is way too small and those windows are covered by several defenses they often have in their kits. So you need to force out those defenses throughout the constant application of conditions which ramp moderately fast and burst which ramp insanely fast. For a wide range of classes this is certainly not easy and can often feel over pressuring. The windows for attack even more so on a point can feel so small that may seem like there are not any depending on the situation. There are probably several ways to open up the gap a bit more or cut back the pressure of its exposed down time where condis are less damaging without killing the spec as a whole.

> @"viquing.8254" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > Particularly on staff especially those smaller wind of chaos attacks

> On a side note, wind of chaos is the unique skill in this game that you can bait by walking on the opposite direction because the projectile move at the same speed as you. (with 5 shield maybe.)

This is not plausible while fighting a mirage if you actually want to fight the mirage lol. You pretty much just told me that i should run / move away from the mirage 's auto attack and while it is slow it aint that slow. Will catch a player running with swiftness while the are in combat the only time it does what you said is when you are near the projectile max range limit. Like this is not even a real......... plausible wait of baiting not if you want to fight and assuming the mirage does not chase you at all.

> > [...big block with nerf mirage evade...]

> There isn't viable core mesmer build without stealth atm, that mean if tomorrow you make mirage can't evade when he want, welcome to PU mesmer meta should it be burst or condi. Which is basically useless as a change because people will more whine about a "perma stealth mesmer who do damage from nowhere" than about a "I feel mirage can perma evade".

> If they nerf mirage cloak and PU, welcome to full out of point non-viable mesmer meta who will put burst condi or burst direct damage where people will still cry about how mesmer can do damage.

> If they nerf mirage cloak, PU and damage output condi and direct damage, welcome to a running gag, solo heal mesmer meta with superspeed who did nothing apart running on the map where people will still cry about how mesmer is "unkillable".

> And I can probably continue for next 5,6 nerfs if I want.

> It's fun how we can predict the next 6 months of whine based on current "game improvement suggestions" who will just make the class more or more unplayable while not reducing at all the whine % in this forum.

>

Im not sure where you are pointing at with all these nerf assumptions.

And lol really "big block with nerf mirage evade......" nice way of shoving words in someones mouth if someone else was to read this how would they even know what text you are referencing replying to while making such a blunt statement.

Cant deal with you anymore. I dont think you are someone i can have logical conversation with.

> @"Solori.6025" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > @"Exedore.6320" said:

> > > > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > > > It's why a wonder, why would a dev ask for subjective feedback instead of forming more non biased opinions through metrics,statistics, and knowledge of how the classes work.

> > > > Because metrics can't tell you whether it's fun to play.

> > > >

> > > > Players are very good at identifying what frustrates them. They're not as good at identifying why and even less so at fixing it. But the devs first need to know what isn't fun so they can figure out where to start looking for changes.

> > >

> > > ........" Metrics, statistics, and **knowledge of how the classes work.**"

> > > Fun is subjective, and by asking players to identify what they like and dont you are creating an outlook that is mostly biased.

> > This is only true until a certain majority of people say that something is or is not fun at which point it starts to become less subjective and more factual. Fun is a part of the game. Some people play for fun for some people fun is winning or having a well fought match win or lose. Fun is indeed subjective and it can be a driving force of what keeps people playing the game.

>

> I stand by what I said then. Since you also acknowledge "fun" being subjective. That you can't use that feedback then as a starting point in balancing talks .

> > > That's not how you achieve balance, and I covered most of that in the first post I made in this thread.

> > Its not always how you achieve balance but some times its a good place to start. If some one says something is not fun and some one say something is super fun which do you believe? If a majority of people who main many different professions also start to say similar things do you think all of them are just subjective or does it mean that something is clearly an issue. Do you think that a large number of people would make false accusations on the subject of how fun something is? I would say its its very unlikely.

> >

> > Simply saying its subjective so your statement does not apply to the input of something is not a good way of really looking at it.

> > What happens if someone says you telling someone something is subjective is also subjective should we just void out your statement too?

> >

> > As i told some one else its half and half

> > When possible metrics and statistics should be part of it but the other half should consist of client feedback data. Thats why businesses and companies often ask you how a service was to you.

> > Say you order a package.

> > Looking at metrics data tells the sender that the box got from point A to B.

> > It might say how fast it got there and which route it took.

> >

> > But it does not tell them in the condition of how the box was when it got there or how pleased you were with how fast it got there. Maybe it got there at a bad time leaving your product to sit out all day exposed or maybe it got there quick but not quick enough to your liking.

> >

> > Subjective feedback is rather important one cannot simply dismiss it as it is a part of balance.

> >

> >

>

> And once again, I covered this in my first post, people seem to gloss over the bolded part of "Knowledge of how the game works"....Or from my first post in this thread

> "Devs should have an intimate understanding of what EVERY class is capable of.

> When I say intimate, I mean like this class shows up in your dreams intimate.

> Too often we have seen knee jerk fixes or changes to a class that don't make sense to the people playing, and sometimes these changes are contradictory to the way the class functions or even what the balancing "idea" for that patch tried to achieve.

> The Devs first and foremost need to play this game, and understand it to the level that people who have been playing since launch do."

>

> If you are relying on players to identify, **WITHOUT BIAS** the things that make a class over-perform you have set the ground for failure. Plain and simple. Even in this thread, you have evidence of that. No one want's to be nerfed further and everyone is pointing fingers at everything BUT what they have.

> This is why I said those 3 things are needed.

> Too many times player X throws out hyperbole to get player Y's class nerfed.

> It always goes like this " Bob plays a class (We'll call it class X) and wants to feel powerful, and be powerful, but bob gets killed by Tim on class Y. Bob could either, go into the game and make class Y and figure out what the strengths and weaknesses are, OR, he could complain about the class. Clearly Bob is a pro and class Y is just broken. So he makes a thread ( OR post in a thread with a dev asking what's fun or not) and decides to complain about everything he doesn't like. Citing that other people don't like it either. For added effect, Bob wiki's every skill and throws them all in, complaining about every effect Class Y has , then going through all the traits and doing the same. Bob creates a franken build that realistically CAN NOT EXIST. Then to put the final touches he creates scenarios in which no class could actually perform. Bob writes this as fact, and everyone that plays class X like bob agree's. This franken build to them exist in reality, and it does exactly what bob says.

> Tim and the other people playing class Y try and tell bob what actually happened but then it devolves into a shouting match where insults like " you main the class so you don't get a say" come in.

>

> This entire scenario, if we just stuck with player feedback. Would end up ( and has ended up) with a class being stripped of multiple tools it needs to function at a competitive level across multiple builds. It generates dead builds because they have been cried about repeatedly.

>

> This can not continue, and is unhealthy.

> The Devs MUST know how to pull apart fiction from fact.

> The devs need to play this game first, **The devs must understand this system and game first**, the devs need have to have every statistic, and metric first, before gathering feedback where players can't even be bothered to complain about specific aspects of a class and create these out of reality things and then complain about it.

>

> Edit: ALSO if they devs understood how this game worked, how classes worked, and how they fit in the grand picture of this game. We wouldn't have things like Launch day scourge, deadeye, mirage, spellbreaker, holosmith, weaver, renegade, etc. This is more than a numbers game, I acknowledge that. But changes like these tell me that in a grand picture for balance their was little or no vision. That needs to change like yesteryear.

It goes without saying this is true but devs cant perdict what players will do once they get their hands on the content or how they will adapt to playin it after the fact. It is impossible for them to know every possible result because they are a group of a few hundred and we players are up in the thousands if not hundred thousands. We will try combos and playstyles that they would have never considered which may lead to unexpected or abusive mechanical tactics that will not be healthy for the game.

To say tha the devs must understand the system without fail is simply not plausible as new content is added.

The devs should not be doing balance on what they think is fun they how ever should mind how other players feel about that same content even more so in compeitive modes.

Im sorry but if something causes major frustration because its not balanced then its not ok i dont really care how subjective you think it is. Fact is a game should not cause frustration to a person or a majority of people and once that starts to happen it means there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

To ignore feedback and subjective feeling from the clients you provide a service too is very ignorant and what leads to the game gettin to the state its in right now.

Players time and time again have told anet things they liked and did not like only to have the opposite happen in terms of balance in one mode or another. Players often came up with very creative and possibly balanced solutions to frustrating issues only to have anet ignore them and the problems remain problems for 6 months at a time.

Its not so much pulling apart from the fun factor. When i say the devs must consider feed back data from people because its important it means just that. I dont mean the devs should be biased and design or blanace things based on how the feel when they play the game themselves. IF you dont agree the devs should listen to the people who play the game at all then you cant expect the game to ever be balanced.

Im sorry i just wont agree with you no matter how you put it because when you say data is the only thing that should be looked at wont solve the problem. 1 patch you are on top because data said you were doing bad next patch you are trash because data said you were doing good. Data will be smothered by people who flock to what wins and works in the same way it is now by your above example of player x says player y's main class should be nerfed while player x's main class is still obviously broken but they defend it anyways.

Regardless of how you "subjectively" think it should be done i don't agree. ITs a half and half situation for the best results. Devs are human beings and know how to read quality statement when they see it. Simply saying "nerf x class because y reason while im playing broken z profession" is not something they probably pay attention too.

> @"Clownmug.8357" said:

> ~~Sure. More stealth.~~ Magic must defeat magic!

OHHH MY GODDDDDDDDDD IM DEAD ???

My main concern is for reaper and its RO trait. While im not opposed to the quickness being removed i am opposed to it being done without properly fixing the base reaper attacking speed which in 2019 is beyond too slow.

While reaper does not need to be base level quickness fast it certainly needs to be faster than what its current base is.

Here they have a chance to fix it in all game modes for the better however if they just rip the quickness off it and dont do any tune ups to its base reaper is gonna go back to being pretty iffy.

Considering out side of a few key aspects necro is on the bottom end of the food chain its quite reasonable to say they might over nerf it and under nerf alot of the real problematic professions.

Im almost betting this is what will happen which leaves all forms of necro out in open water for 2-3 balance patches in pvp and wvw

As someone else pointed out they are looking at classes that can self stack 25 might. Without a doubt this means Necro, Warrior, Ranger/ soulbeast, And Holo/ Engi, and Herald Rev.

The only issue between these classes is that necormancer is pretty limited on its range of boons while others are not so if necro takes a hard nerf to its might more than the others thats going to be pretty problematic.

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > Not really sure how you arrived at your numbers...

> >

> > But if you have a 50cd ability with SOS, that’s 50 seconds - (4%x10 seconds) = 30 seconds plus the additional 10 seconds that passed which is 20.

> >

> > At 15 seconds in shroud, the CD reduces all the way to 5 seconds. That’s pretty strong if the ability itself resets shroud. You just need to stay in shroud for longer than 16 seconds each time and you’ll have constant shroud uptime (minus the time it actually takes to build life force)

> >

> >

>

> Well, even in the best case scenario, it only really benefit WvW. Having a short CD on shroud don't mean that you'll have the LF necessary to optimally make use of it.

>

> You guys try to hard. The skill can be very simple:

>

> **Spectral Venom:**

> Heal for: X amount. Your next 4 hits grant you Y% life force.

^ this is too bland

Didnt even include a negative effect for the foe that gets hit :U

They might try too hard you dont try hard enough imo.

> @"Solori.6025" said:

> > @"Exedore.6320" said:

> > > @"Solori.6025" said:

> > > It's why a wonder, why would a dev ask for subjective feedback instead of forming more non biased opinions through metrics,statistics, and knowledge of how the classes work.

> > Because metrics can't tell you whether it's fun to play.

> >

> > Players are very good at identifying what frustrates them. They're not as good at identifying why and even less so at fixing it. But the devs first need to know what isn't fun so they can figure out where to start looking for changes.

>

> ........" Metrics, statistics, and **knowledge of how the classes work.**"

> Fun is subjective, and by asking players to identify what they like and dont you are creating an outlook that is mostly biased.

This is only true until a certain majority of people say that something is or is not fun at which point it starts to become less subjective and more factual. Fun is a part of the game. Some people play for fun for some people fun is winning or having a well fought match win or lose. Fun is indeed subjective and it can be a driving force of what keeps people playing the game.

> That's not how you achieve balance, and I covered most of that in the first post I made in this thread.

Its not always how you achieve balance but some times its a good place to start. If some one says something is not fun and some one say something is super fun which do you believe? If a majority of people who main many different professions also start to say similar things do you think all of them are just subjective or does it mean that something is clearly an issue. Do you think that a large number of people would make false accusations on the subject of how fun something is? I would say its its very unlikely.

Simply saying its subjective so your statement does not apply to the input of something is not a good way of really looking at it.

What happens if someone says you telling someone something is subjective is also subjective should we just void out your statement too?

As i told some one else its half and half

When possible metrics and statistics should be part of it but the other half should consist of client feedback data. Thats why businesses and companies often ask you how a service was to you.

Say you order a package.

Looking at metrics data tells the sender that the box got from point A to B.

It might say how fast it got there and which route it took.

But it does not tell them in the condition of how the box was when it got there or how pleased you were with how fast it got there. Maybe it got there at a bad time leaving your product to sit out all day exposed or maybe it got there quick but not quick enough to your liking.

Subjective feedback is rather important one cannot simply dismiss it as it is a part of balance.

> @"Xstein.2187" said:

> @"mortrialus.3062", @"viquing.8254"

>

> Guys, I see it both ways.

> I actually think Mortrialus's thought experiment of two mirages fighting is of some pretty good use.

> My only argumentation against it is when you are fighting a mirage, you can't have the same expectations you would have when fighting other classes, and this is likely where a lot of the frustration other people have when fighting mirages come from.

>

> Normal

> Example: lets say that you are a new player that just switched over to gw2 from a simpler game. You may have god like reflexes and are able to dodge every single attack. However, the reality is that you DON'T want to dodge every single attack. If you even dodge the smaller attacks, you will loose all your dodges/cooldowns and not have them for the attacks that really matter. Therefore, this aspect may frustrate a new player that doesn't have a lot of experience with the game.

The only issue i see with this is that some smaller attacks end up doing alot of damage over time even more so for classes that dont have rapid condi cleanse. Lets say you only dodge the bigger attacks Magic bullet, duelest, staff ambush attacks etc. Its not exactly uncommon for mirage to not get the kill by just simply going into passive staff kite mode either where only the little attacks are dependent on doing all the damage.

Particularly on staff especially those smaller wind of chaos attacks start to add up fairly quickly even just have 2-3 conditions stacking on you really starts to eat your health away pretty quickly meanwhile the mirage has the chaos of its natural evasive and distracting play style to do as it pleases. Should the mirage find itself in danger it may proceed to block, blink, distort, or stealth which gives it plenty of enough time to reset essentially. IH really does not help in this case either where attacks (lets say an ambush attack) may come from different angles and distances (clone/player positions) making a single doge ineffective against them. A single player may dodge correctly for the main casters projectiles but not others which come form the clones which leads to him still taking damage in the end event though he technically correctly reacted.

> Mirage

> Example: In Mortrialus's thought experiment, the correct thing for the mirage to do after he stunned the other mirage was to try to bait out the other player's dodge if you knew he had one. In fact, after the stunned mirage was stunned, the other mirage was probably on guard to expect a large attack to dodge anyway. Therefore, if you baited it out with a smaller attack, you could immediately follow up with a larger attack after the dodge and the mirage could perhaps be left defenseless. Mirages are fairly strong against cc, which IMO isn't necessarily a bad thing if it is properly balanced around it. However, what this means is instead of focussing on cc'ing a class like you would most others, you instead need to change your focus to baiting out dodges as that takes away a large portion of their cc damage avoidance, damage, and general damage avoidance all at the same time. (AoE damage is also a mirage weakness)

Aoe damage is most professions weakness how ever i get what you are going for. Aoe damage can destroy the clones etc. As far as mirage's dodging during cc it might not be the problem if they couldnt do damage while doing it. Or possibly if some investment in the traits was required for them to take that action. So long as the current IH exists people will not accept dodging while cc'ed as an ok thing as it allows clones (should they be alive) to deal massive damage as they may not be stunned at the time. When the mirage dodges IH triggers which results in the person who just performed the stun and trying to follow up the stun taking tons of condi retaliation as a reward for attempting to follow up their stun = not very fun and very frustrating.

Either Fix IH or force mirages to take a trait apart from HI to evade while under cc. You really should be forced to choose between both options. All grandmaster traits should have extreme choices like this.

> In fact, like my 'normal' example stated earlier, it may actually be better for a mirage to eat a stun or magic bullet 1v1 in the exact same way a wise, experienced player would do to eat a weaker attack. Although this may seem counterintuitive to many players just like eating a weaker attack would seem counterintuitive to non-gw2 players, it is important to know how a class functions and what their strengths and weaknesses are. If class X and class Y have different strengths and weaknesses, you can't expect to fight against both classes the exact same way and get exactly the same results. I think this is where a lot of frustration comes from. It's not like mirages have infinite dodges, therefore, they don't have an infinite amount of ways to avoid cc. Mirages are very strong with dodges. However, a mirage without any dodges left is very arguably much weaker comparatively than any other class without dodges, as it should be.

The last bit of this i dont agree with being out of endurance is simply being out of endurance regardless of which class you are you are all in the same boat at that point i wouldnt say any class is particularly weaker than another once its out of endurance. I would say classes that dont have access to skill or trait tool to replenish endurance be it vigor or something of that nature are the ones are the weakest state when they run out of endurance. Now i dont want to be confused here when you say arguably much weaker do you mean in terms of offensive pressure or defensive sustain.

As mesmers still have other defensive tools they can depend on i dont think them being out of endurance makes them overly weaker than the other classes in the game. It can be a bit silly to say im weaker than you when i run out of dodges even if you are out of dodges along with me. Realistically no they both players would be in the same exposed position neither is weaker than the other at least I wouldnt judge it that way. Generally the class thats the disadvantage when it has no dodges is the one who has the least endurance restoration tools. I think we can all agree on which class that is and its certainly not mirage.

> Finally, if this was a group fight, that second mirage that got stunned would still be at a disadvantage if there was another class with AoE in the picture since dodging while stun is not exactly the same as blink or another form of stun break. Although you can dodge an attack while stunned, you are a prime candidate for an attack, and especially an AoE attack, as soon as that .75 sec dodge wears out, as you still did not move an inch during that dodge.

This is true but once again this applies to quite a few different classes and mirage is not the only one. Getting stunned in a group fight is generally bad for most professions in the game and a number of them its worse than it is for mirage. Even if you did not move for for thee quarters of a second you still avoided damage which could have been potentially focus fire damage. In this game alot of damage can hit you in three quarters of a second. This also allows a player with quick reaction to activate another defensive tool, a blink, a distortion, a jaunt, etc without taking any damage where as almost any other class would have continued to take that damage for that and what ever other aoe damage is around at the time. If some how for some reason clones magically through the chaos are still up and alive they now also fire off condi dps because you dodged while stunned.

I just think its common for people to say "dodging during cc" for such a short time frame is not that big of a deal and that its perfectly ok. When in truth it really can be a big deal even more so when it comes with potential passive retaliation attacks from other sources sometimes.

> Conclusion: the correct way to balance mirage is to use data and statistics. If it is over performing than it really needs to be looked at again asap. However, if it is not over performing than perhaps the bark of the wolf is worse than the bite. However, one thing I definitely would do with mirage is shift the condi damage from mirage cloak back to the player, just so IH isn't so powerful compared to the other traits.

This is half and half.

You cant always fix everything by looking at numbers from the profession alone further more who would even gather this data. Its not just about the data the profession puts out its also about the feedback data collected from the people who play as it and play against it. This part is important because without feedback data you can make a problem worse than what it already is which leads to greater retaliation. IF you think its not impossible for a class to get unfun to play against to the point people put strikes against it then you are wrong. Should that happen anet has to forgo data and do something to stop it. CI being disabled was a good example of this.

Chances are if people are saying something is wrong then something is wrong even if they cant point 100% in the right direction of where the problem might be or where you think it might be they know that something is wrong. I wont pretend like mirage is the **"only one"** because frankly its not but its certainly up there in maybe the top 3.

> @"totaloverride.3240" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > Thats not correct scourge was adjusted in wvw to try and make them more risky when using their shades but at the same time their shades got considerably more effective which is not a good thing overall for larger zerg fights.

>

> playing scourge in WvW is risky. no decent cleanse, no dmg sustain, our health is all we got (20k on full zerk).

Well you know scourge was not meant to be played on full zerk obviously you can do it but thats not what its geared and designed for.

Try playing reaper on full condi setup and you wont get good results either.

As for cleansing Consume conditions? Plague signet? Spectral walk? Well of power? Some of these are not the best but you certainly have options.

> but there is so many one-shot-kill-classes like dudus, DA, FB, or few-shots-kill, even mesmer is more survivable than necro.

Well yeah.... all that stuff needs to be dropped down too but this is going off topic

>

> as Scourge i was runing into a fight against 2-3 enemies, and survive until reinforcement arrive. and being victorious in scourge vs one or two enemies fights.

Well that shouldnt be a thing for any profession or elite to be able to do easily. You do understand this. Tempest could do 1v5 at one time and reaper could handle 1v3's at one time and both those got adjusted so that they couldnt easily sustain that kind of situation.

> now you see 2 - RUN, HIDE, PORT, DC

> now you see 1, you must check it's class, and then decide do you risk fight.

Well yeah any time a necromancer sees 2 foes he/she should always consider is risking the engagment worth it. 1v1 is already hard enough for necromancers why would you think you should easily 1v2 or 1v3?

> With this nerf, scourge is removed from WvW.

Scourge is not removed from large scale fights where the shades are on the front lines and they are not dont be mistaken. Roaming (which is what it sounds like you are doing) has never been a necro specialty, low mobility, sustain, limited boons, and evades what do you expect how ever in larger scaled fights which is where most of the balance comes into play scourge is still extremely strong.

> FB and Thief reign supreme.

Yeah and they are in the need of their own nerfs. Just because someone else is broken does not mean you should also be broken.

Lets get back ontopic.

> @"Ghos.1326" said:

> > @"Lilyanna.9361" said:

> > - Necro (What can I say? Again, with my limited knowledge, it relies on the team enough. It got slapped with nerfs since scourge was WAY out of hand for too long. Reaper is balanced imo. Core necro is also balanced but the fear chaining..EHHHH, I'm on the fence about it. Big time. I won't say nerf the tests, but keep an eye on their corrupting is all)

>

> Here is where I disagree. Reaper is not balanced. its chill uptime and its destructive power is way too high. Coupled with quickness and it's just a monster. Reaper needs nerfs, and part of those nerfs lies in Axe 2 on necro and the reaper skills themselves, as well as the AoE ranged skill that can chill and take like half of your health down in one proc. Definitely not balanced at all.

Chill uptime from Reaper is actually pretty low. Even more so with all the condi clear in the game. The only class that really should notice issues from reapers chill are other necormancers and elementalist. Everything else is hardly effected. I dont even depend on chill in pvp anymore because its so minimal. A scourges cripplel was far more effective than a reapers chill but if you think it needs nerfs by all means take it... i really dont hinge on it lol i dont think most reapers do anymore.

The destructive power is quite high? But on that note every other class hits equally as hard if not harder and faster. Some classses being able to do it with much more mobility at range and hard defenses and better sustain. But if you protest that Reapers power is too high then ill agree its too high so long as we can agree and understand that this means everyone else's destructive power is also too high if not even higher meaning everyone needs to have their power lowered by the same amount if not more.

Necromancers axe 2 does quite rather hard if you allow it to scratch you for its full duration that said its the only ranged power weapon if not the only main viable power weapon for necromancer. Considering the great sword is extremely slow and hits modestly hard but certainly not as hard as say a warriors greatsword or a rangers greatsword or has the defensive or mobile utility of either of those yeh... That said if you think the axe 2 is the issue then we must protest that all power weapons in the games need to have their main quick bursting skills reduced down quite a bit. Especially on the power weapons that offer alot more utility along side that damage.

In terms of the quickness i agree that needs to go that said base reaper shroud cannot stay as slow as it is at its base. Its pretty rough when you have limited mobility and have to walk into melee range only to not be able to complete even your basic auto attack in time to do damage before you take too much damage or the target retreats away. Thats not acceptable. I honestly believe the quickness was not meant to be a long term solution to fixing power reaper's shroud. The proper adjustment should have just been to sped up the shroud by a fair amount (just not to quickness levels)

Lastly.... I want to know what this ranged aoe skill is that applies chill and takes half of your hp in one proc so i can start using it. As some one who plays reaper alot could really use a skill like that till these changes came in.

If you are going to point out one of the lower end elites and or professions especially when it comes to terms of power damage and say its too strong when there are much more destructive power builds out there thats saying alot.

clearly its because you cant be intune with corruptive darkness and nature at the same time hue hue....

weird bug tho

> @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > @"totaloverride.3240" said:

> > > > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > > > Or you could play it as intended and put actual thought into where to place a Shade and how to move, instead of dumping them wherever and face-tanking everything.

> > > > >

> > > > > tried that, but 20sec is sooo long when "place shade" is on CD

> > > > >

> > > > > > @"Lexi.1398" said:

> > > > > > TBH all they need is a "remove shade/s" button and done.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> > > > > > Place shade on yourself. 10 targets. Youre welcome.

> > > > >

> > > > > scourge become close combat class instead of ranged condi

> > > > > kinda was able to manage huge crowds in PvE, (scare/fear shade was like a wall)

> > > > >

> > > > > > @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> > > > > > Its more than likely going to happen as a short term fix

> > > > > > I dont really like scourge as it is right now but i support the change of reverting this back in pve considering it killed me in raids last week.

> > > > > > Yea its not fun with how clunky it is right now.

> > > > >

> > > > > Scourge was heavely nerfed, imo...

> > > > > proof is that there is not so many Scourges in WvW for a long time.

> > > > > remember Scourge zergs fights in WvW in the begining?

> > > > >

> > > > > now i can't use shade to help friend in tough situation PvE or WvW

> > > > > the moment you put shade away from you, you become so fragile,

> > > > > i miss scaring ads in boss fights

> > > >

> > > > Thats not correct scourge was adjusted in wvw to try and make them more risky when using their shades but at the same time their shades got considerably more effective which is not a good thing overall for larger zerg fights. Effectively shades got a hard buff in wvw because not having the shade skills go off on you at the same time in wvw does not matter. You are not fighting on the front line so you dont need the effects on you.

> > > >

> > > > At the same time because the changes were tied to pve and pvp scourge changed in both modes

> > > > In pvp Scourge is now too risky to use and the reward is not high enough for the literally lack of soft and hard defense they have.

> > > > They now have no self protection from shade effects if they have a shade active and become sitting ducks. Or must thrown themselves into the middle of a fight with no defenses and not use shades to keep personal effects. Overall the playstyle is too unbalanced and the trade off is now too heavily balanced in the wrong direction

> > > >

> > > > In pve scourge still works its just a bit more clunky as now effects only trigger on the shades as in my example above transfusion for heal scourge will currently teleport you to the shade instead of scourge trying to rez you should you go down. And where is the shade most often located? Its on the boss or some other spot that you probably dont want to be should you go down.

> > > >

> > > > Overall scourge needs a total rework of its design at some point in the future. Less boon corruption more effectiveness in some other form thats not just aoe zone control.

> > > > With the split of pve and pvp now going into effect they can bring the shades back to the scourge in pve and maybe pvp only for a short time as a short term solution.

> > > >

> > > > In wvw they need to look at maybe reducing the max range that a shade can be placed. IF you want to defend the front line with your shades then it should-require some risk to place it in the first place.

> > >

> > > Scourge boon corruption is a non issue in pve. Powerscourge is a non issue in pve.

> > Actually boon corrupts in general are a problem in pve just not in the way of how most people think. They are useless in 90% of pve with the exception being some fractals when a instability is applied and some raids and a few bosses in the PoF areas that said even those things dont boon spam enough to warrant the gross amount of boon corrupt built into necormancer over the years. In pve the overwhelming amount of boon corrupt built into skill design lowers the potential qualities that many skills could have in terms of things like condition application, damage, cooldown, barrier application, and utility.

> >

> > IF you think boon corruption is a non issue in pve then you got it all wrong.

> >

> > > If you want to talk about wvw, sure. Nerf corrupts (which were already nerfed both via scepter 3 nerf and unending corruption was removed/changed to harbringer shroud, something noone uses). Less boonremoval means more boonspam. We already have enough boonspam...

> >

> > Clearly you have not seen the post from the dev talking about how from going forward pve balance and design will no longer be tied to pvp and wvw at all and how they pretty much plan to nerf everything across the board in pvp and wvw.

> > Which includes boons. As he put the general direction its down and that they are primarily looking at nerfs in the future patches. If its good or meta right now its considered to be too strong or stronger than they want it to be.

> >

> > It was also mentioned that as boon generation / spam is droped there will be a lesser need for boon corrupts which is a good thing as i think the key feature of boon corruption that was suppose to be a unique tool of necromancer has just become a gatekeeping balance tool for the other 8 professions which is just disgusting in general

>

> Wait a minute. First you say... "90% of pve needs no booncorrupts with exception of fractals/raids and an odd boss here and there" and then... "if you think boon corruption is a non issue in pve you got it all wrong". Well, which is it? Last i checked, necro corrupt is a core line and pve scourge never, ever even remotely uses traits and utilities that corrupt boons, instead they trait for max condi damage. I play a lot of pve and corrupts are extremely situational, condidps or that support tank barrier build are all that people use. Furthermore, with the addition of spellbreaker it was very clear to everyone that boons are in dire need of a counter (winda of disenchantment with traits that remove more boons), yet necro is somehow... Overcorrupting? We need an extra "non gatekeeping" corrupt class? Dunno what you mean by that statement, maybe more classes should mass booncorrupt and nec can get nerfed in this aspect? I mainly play wvw and i can tell you that most times, spellbreakers have the most corrupts in fights (with the abovementioned skills) and necros usually follow. Lastly, I have read all dev posts about incoming changes, but I also read previous dev quotes that said they can only split skills between modes so much. I am all for nerfs, PROPER nerfs, not the usual "oh just increase the cd on every f scourge skill" or the "rework" wvw chronomesmer got (which effectively killed the class), or the holo "nerf" which virtually left the class untouched.

Ok lets slow down here and go back through this again.

**First lets talk PVE! <<<< P.V.E**

Lets try to get one thing right, I didnt say necromancer "needs no boon corrupts" Please dont put words in my mouth that I didnt say. I am implying that necormancer could use less of them in pve because in pve in most cases there are no boons to corrupt. The enemies that generate boons in this mode are far and few. Yes boon corruption should continue to be a key feature unique to the necromancer without a doubt but unless the global scale of pve undergoes a massive design change where the majority of foes start generating boons there is no reason to have as many boon corrupts.

Optimal condi dps builds do not use boon corruption utilities and even if you do the boon corruption mechanic portion is wasted. For example corrupt boon. Even if you use this to inflict conditions on yourself to xfer to a target the boon corruption portion is still wasted. This is bad design. IF there was a secondary mechanic in pve only that caused boonless foes to be inflicted with conditions it would be fine but thats not the current case. With pve balance design now being split from pvp and wvw. It means either corrupt boon can now gain an additional feature or have some of their boon corruption mechanic replaced with another one in pve only to make it useful. This also applies to other skills that corrupt boons

In the case of scourge every single utility has boon corruption on it including the heal which is out right horrid. Especially for pve where once again you wont see boons heavily being applied in alot of the content. Perhaps the skills could inflict more conditions or provide more boons, have longer duration, or lower cooldowns in pve only but because design has always been tied to pvp and wvw the boon corruption must be considered as a part of how "loaded" any skill is. Perhaps the heal could have better barrier value if not for the boon corruption. Perhaps the elite could inflict more conditions if not for the boon corruption.

Remember here im talking about pve only and boon corruption in pve is a problem because its wasted in 90% of the content.

**Now lets talk PvP and WvW**

First of all covering spell breaker. ITs clear that this spec was aimed at the pvp wvw game mode more so than pve its geared toward fighting magical themed foes and fighting boons this is no surprise.

When it comes to necromancer as stated scourge was invited to the game with a massive i mean MASSIVE overhaul of boon corruption built into its skills, traits, and utilities. This was also to combat the increasing level of boons that would enter the game with the PoF elite specs. Even if you count spell breaker it not nearly as effective at removing boons like necromancer is. Necromancer has been having boon corruption added for a while now its still the main manager of boons which is fine and it should remain the strongest manager of boons as part of its profession theme and for the sake of having a unique mechanic however there is no reason why boons should have gotten as out of control as they are in wvw and pvp.

IF you go read the forums right now you will see that anet is planning to roll this stuff back quite a bit and if boon spam decreases in effectiveness obviously boon corruption will also need to decrease in effectiveness.

**Closing**

This is now about getting the "chronomancer" rework its about toning down all the features that have gotten out of hand that includes 1 shot dps, condi application, boon application, and yes boon corruption.

This is a good chance for anet to really rebalance wvw and pvp now that things wont be tied to pve this gives them alot more freedom to properly manage how effective a single player can be on any particular build.

Here ill refer you to the [answers](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1079782#Comment_1079782 "answers") i got back

That said this is now way off topic i wont continue the conversation with you past this.