Huskyboy.1053

> @"Tharan.9085" said: > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > @"Tharan.9085" said: > > > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > > > > To be clear, **this should only apply to the top-rated player on each team**. > > > > > So together with the enemy, others on the team can deliberately stack kills in order to get a specific player banned for 24h? > > > > > > > > > > Cant we just have a vote per match to ban players? It skips the unecessarily complex extra steps. > > > > > > > > This is pretty smart tbh. Better than my idea. Most people on here are just criticizing that I included damage in here, not actually discussing it substantively, so I appreciate the response. > > > > > > How is that smart, allowing players to vote who to ban is even more stupid > > > > How so? You are a very antagonistic person, yet don't actually have anything of substance to say. Unranked is a fine place for people to learn how to play. If we were going to use Dawdler's idea then it would simply keep people so bad their teammates hate them out of Ranked. Then when they get good enough that people aren't going to want to ban them from games, they can play Ranked, no problem. > > How do you not see how that could easily get abused at any level to ban better players? Because I'm assuming that there would be some safeguards against it. It's not reasonable to assume that, when a system is implemented, the developers will do literally nothing to prevent any problems. This is what I mean when I say you're being antagonistic, you hear a good idea and you think "How can I make this situation as negative as possible and have no faith in anybody?" It's not productive, and it's not nice.

> @"Tharan.9085" said: > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > > To be clear, **this should only apply to the top-rated player on each team**. > > > So together with the enemy, others on the team can deliberately stack kills in order to get a specific player banned for 24h? > > > > > > Cant we just have a vote per match to ban players? It skips the unecessarily complex extra steps. > > > > This is pretty smart tbh. Better than my idea. Most people on here are just criticizing that I included damage in here, not actually discussing it substantively, so I appreciate the response. > > How is that smart, allowing players to vote who to ban is even more stupid How so? You are a very antagonistic person, yet don't actually have anything of substance to say. Unranked is a fine place for people to learn how to play. If we were going to use Dawdler's idea then it would simply keep people so bad their teammates hate them out of Ranked. Then when they get good enough that people aren't going to want to ban them from games, they can play Ranked, no problem.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > To be clear, **this should only apply to the top-rated player on each team**. > So together with the enemy, others on the team can deliberately stack kills in order to get a specific player banned for 24h? > > Cant we just have a vote per match to ban players? It skips the unecessarily complex extra steps. This is pretty smart tbh. Better than my idea. Most people on here are just criticizing that I included damage in here, not actually discussing it substantively, so I appreciate the response.

I don't know if there are all that many bots, a lot of them are just PvE players. I always ask people if they are a bot before I report them no matter how bad they're playing, and I almost always get a sarcastic or sincere response. So frankly I think the issue might be more that PvP is pulling in a boatload of really bad players who are only there for the rewards. The nice thing would be for Anet to nerf rewards for people who lose.

> @"Dadnir.5038" said: > To be fair, every single weapon power damage is "bad" in sPvP if you don't heavily invest into power damage since the feb 2020 patch. It's not just necromancer's dagger. > > More accurately, dagger main hand never had "strong damage", ANet simply nerfed both damage and healing source by 30% like they did for every professions of the game. The loss of stunbreak+stability might be harsh but ANet specifically said that they wanted the necromancer to be weak against CC. > > The truth is that, within sPvP environment, the necromancer gained a lot of survivability thanks to this patch because ANet kept the LF pool at 67% of the necromancer's health pool instead of nerfing it to 46% and since LF is gained in %, it mean that the sustain through LF didn't get the 30% nerf that almost every other source of sustain in the game suffered. > > It might seem irrelevant but in truth the current necromancer is like a pre 2020 feb patch necromancer that would have it's LF pool to health rate at 100% instead of 67% with foes having a 30% decrease in damage. Basically, the shroud can take 60% to 70% more hits than it could pre patch. > > NB.: To be clear, I do not like the feb 2020 patch but, objectively, it wasn't a "loss" for the necromancer (whatever builds used). In any way, the necromancer gained more survivability out of this patch than any other profession ot the game. And it's true whether you play a glass build, a bruiser build or a support build. I appreciate the thoughtful response. I can't say I agree that getting around 4k extra shroud was a big win, as most bursts (ex. core Greataxe) burst for more than 4k per hit. Considering you're losing both a stunbreak and a stack of stab, you will eat far more than that 4k shroud as a result of not being able to avoid that damage. That being said, my point was that dagger used to be able to finish people very quickly, which is important to power necro given its bad sustain. But you might be correct that the overall decline in damage has been an advantage for core necro.