Multicolorhipster.9751

> @"TheQuickFox.3826" said: > Nerfing is an instrument and it should be kept in the toolbox for when it it appropriate. U rite. But where they go wrong there, is that it is _always_ appropriate now. At the end of the day deleting and nerfing things takes away from the game. If you aren't taking away some extreme example that actually makes the game less fun to play/watch, then you're just taking away from, and making an already pretty barren PvP even more boring to play.

> @"Lonami.2987" said: > Courtyard is [Murderball](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Murderball), not [Team Deathmatch](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Team_Deathmatch). The name of the game mode was changed a few years ago. I mean using the Courtyard map for 3v3/2v2 TDM. Unless its already like that, Idunno. I don't even play Ranked anymore.

2012, 2013, heck even Jan 2020. You could rewind back to pretty much any point in the game's lifespan and it would be way better than what it is now.

Nothing but dread when seeing it. The balance patches have been extremely boring since Feb 25th. Maybe some people get all hyped to see a bunch of nerfs and things removed, but not me. Not after suffering through it for nearly a year.

Keep the reveal cleanse I say. It's an elite skill so it should do elite skill things. Other than that its a pretty good suggestion. Don't know if revealed should be increased in general, but revealed applied by other skills like "On my Mark" and "Sic' em" could definitely.

Should. It would be a good step towards making PvP somewhat fun to play again. Can always tweak numbers on amulets if they feel problematic. Deletion should be the very last resort, but there's been an amulet or two removed with every major balance patch since feb 25th, and there wasn't all that many to choose from to begin with.

> @"The Fear.3865" said: > Randomly assign peeps on teams could be much more fair than the matchmaking actually. If _everyone_ got randomly assigned, sure. We already played this game back in Seasons 9-12 and it was the most fun you could have as a SoloQ.

> @"wilykcat.5864" said: > So ranked match making is better then? Kinda sorta not really. Unlike Unranked, it does at least try to match you against people at your effective rating. Like; it uses an average rating for both teams so its usually pretty close, despite what people say. Where it goes wrong is that there usually isn't many people playing, so it will reach really far for matchups fairly frequently. Especially if you play in the off-hours. It is also made infinitely worse that Solos/Duos have to play together. So as like a blanket statement, yes. It's better. But it isn't much better, and there's still a lot of room for improvement. I think that should be encouraged because if more people start playing, then the matchmaking will be even better.

Its Ranked so of course there's SBMM SBMM only works if there's anyone to matchmake against though. The price for not having to sit in queue for 30 minutes for 1 game is taking whatever is closest to your rating. Which is usually nothing even close. Maybe if PvP and Ranked were fun to play, there'd be more people playing it, and more competitive matches as a result.

To each their own, but nty. Removing more runes and amulets would just make PvP even more boring and samey. Removing launch and knockback would similarly take away more from the game, but honestly I wouldn't care as much if PvP hadn't been whittled down to such a slogfest. Like, if my 1v1 duel has the chance of lasting most of/all of a match I should at least have the option to knockback/launch decap.

Alright boys, we've got two tempests on the other team. One is a tanky support, the other is FA. Make sure you focus down the FA first so you don't get one shot. Now if only we knew which is which... HMMMM I mean as far as ideas go; this isn't really a bad one, just kind of pointless. Would rather see that dev time go into fixing actual problems

If you don't mind playing with a handicap, then you can SoloQ in all the Ranked gamemodes. (5v5, 2v2, 3v3) There isn't and I don't think there ever has been a Solo 1v1 gamemode. There is also no separate queue for Solos at the moment.

If you're looking for something **hot** try burn DH. ~~That's the second time i've made this joke too, i'll show myself out~~

> @"mixxed.5862" said: > I entirely agree, balance patches are not enough to keep things fresh and exciting. We need new content and new elite specs, even if they always mess up a lot. > > The way I'm seeing the whole sustain vs damage debate that sparked from the february patch is probably a bit simplistic. > 1) On the one side of the spectrum you have builds that 100 to 0 you in a second. > 2) On the other side of the spectrum there are the builds that can handily resustain every burst they eat. > Both are definitely unfun and need to be purged. > > While we hardly see the former category of builds anymore (which is great), we see too much of the latter. Therefore mostly sustain needs a nerf, although buffing up the damage on some of the CC skills that they made an especially poor job of back in february seems like a good idea. > Ideally we even find a good balance for the sidenode meta that way : Where every 1v1 on a side node finds a timely victor. I feel you. I guess its just a difference in philosophy really. Finding a balance there is actually really difficult, bordering on impossible whether nerfing or buffing. Personally i'd rather they changed things for the sake of changing things up like @"Dantheman.3589" said. Something fun. Maybe buffs, tradeoffs, or creative nerfs. I find nerfing builds in the dirt(or purging); even if its something I don't play, to be super boring. I don't think anyone actually enjoys that either. They might say they do, but they usually only beg for nerfs because they think their counters getting nerfed will make them mechanically better at the game.

I agree with your 3 major points, A, B, and slightly C. Fun should take priority over balance. Build diversity and experimentation should be encouraged. I think balance changes are good for keeping things sorta fresh, but actual content updates would do more I think. Balance updates usually only reengage interest for about a week(if at all) then its off to some other game. Honestly I think balance patches should be more hands-off than hands-on, and when they do require some hands-on attention, being done in more creative ways that make PvP more enjoyable and don't just shut down a way to play. That being said, I don't think sustain needs or needed big nerfs. Aside from the occasional outlier extreme example, it was perfectly fine when damage was still in the game. The real reason fights drag on forever now isn't because of bunkers have too much sustain, but because both types of damage took a pretty big dive. Toughness, Condi Cleanses, and Vitality all still function exactly the same in a world where damage and condi application is much lower. You could nerf sustain for every class into the dirt, it's not going to change much if damage is still so low. Or if you wanted to be even more unreasonable, you could remove even more sustainy amulets to cover up an inability to balance sustain in this low damage slogfest clown fiesta. I also agree on your ideas on fun design. Unless CMC's philosophy changes, I don't have the same faith. The Feb25th patch was their passion project. They were quoted saying: "Buffs in 2020 OMEGALUL" Unless that changes to: "Buffs in 2021 FeelsGoodMan" then I am terrified. Please hold me MonkaS

> @"Tycura.1982" said: > The actual CC durations are the durations in which you're actually CCd Amazing ? My mind is actually blown having read that. Science has gone too far.

> @"lightstalker.1498" said: > dont lower side node sustain, lower their damage Yes. Agreed. We may as well go all the way and remove damage entirely. PvP should be a battle of mental attrition. How long can you stare at your opponent until one of you gets bored or uneasy and disconnects? We'd also be able to spot the bots because they'd start winning every game. This is genius and couldn't possibly go wrong.

Conquest and TDM. Could count Courtyard in TDM really. They're the main modes and have the most maps and sport the only two Ranked gamemodes. New content would be neat, but being realistic I don't think there's much on the horizon before EoD.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > having a 300 sec cd because you can't think of a alternative UGH. > It's because the balance person can't interact with the skills team on top of being just one person, which on its own sounds very overwhelming. If those 300s are going to change fundamentally then that requires some effort from the skills team which is likely busy working on EoD. 300s CDs are here to stay for a while unfortunately. > @"charlag.6528" said: > I like the idea of TF2-like tradeoffs instead of upgrades. I think that analysis by OP is superficial but nonetheless. I won't be able to digest the whole thread but I think I would chip in my 50c here regarding engi, mostly for PvE. > > **Holo** is OP. It especially feels OP compared to the core which has no powerful third traitline to offer. This is well known. > The biggest _gain_ of holo is dps scaling based on heat. It is so powerful it overshines everything else. Even condi these days are holo which makes no sense for a "spiky" spec. I don't really play PvE so I can't comment there. Originally this post was in the PvP section, but it was moved. Apologies. Also, the point here isn't to call anything overpowered. Not really concerned with that. I'm actually trying to be superficial because I want to encourage discussion towards what tradeoffs already exist, and how to make them more impactful. > The biggest _drawback_ is not even F5 toolbelt skill which is always pretty situational and mostly for PvP honestly. It's that you cannot get out of the forge for 6 seconds. This might not seem like a big deal but please remember: engi is a profession with constant kit swapping with virtually no cd. So you are sacrificing your kit piano-like playing for forge. Yes, you need pay attention to the heat and so on so you need strong sense of when to heat up but it's a skill ceiling and can be learned, it's not something that's balanced when you learn it. Personally for PvP, I consider this to be another situational tradeoff(or not really a tradeoff at all) since it doesn't apply to anyone not using kits. Same thing applies to heat really, with overheating only existing as a consequence of player error rather than as a tradeoff to picking Holosmith. > Like many people I really like the _idea_ or _flavor_ of core engi but it's so weak that it has no place anywhere across the game. That's unfortunate really, and I wish that wasn't the case. I think the point in adding a tradeoff to an elite spec should be to make core a serious option. The nerfs(in PvP at least) to core, targeting elite specs are pretty easy to blame there. It usually just makes the entire profession weaker instead of introducing any sort of new option when playing that profession. > @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said: > > @"anduriell.6280" said: > > I think is ok for Holo to do much damage, but the trade off should be becoming more glass. The issue i see with Holo is it can take all defensive tools and still do a ton of damage + CC with holo skill set. > > > > In my opinion it would need some special treatment like -360 vitality (3600 HP points) when the specialization is picked, as such moving closer to how thief plays. It definitely has the mobility, stealth and invulnerabilities access to make up for the low HP. > I say let Laser's Edge increase the damage they do as well as increase the damage they receive 1 for 1. So, if they are at 100 heat they take 15% more damage, physical only though. Yes I'm giving them the Berserker treatment here. I think these are both pretty good ideas too. I think at its base Holosmith isn't all that different from Zerker, so it would make sense for them to have a similar tradeoff. ?

It's because they removed tons of things from the game. Either straight-up deleted or nerfed to being totally nonviable. If I recall, there was a handful of people telling them to remove certain amulets from the game like that would somehow make the game more fun. ? It helped out like -90%. Yeah, negative. It accelerated the decline by giving people less options. The reality is that PvP is just a few CTRL + Z 's short of being fun again. Maybe edit -> Undo actually. We have to go all the way back to February after all.

It's like playing with sock 'em boppers, only its way less fun than a pillow fight. :/ But hey, there's this quote by CMC that goes like: "Buffs in 2020 OMEGALUL" Since 2020 is ending, maybe this is no longer valid ?

Question: Is Windows Movie maker and copyright protected metal music allowed in the video?

> @"TheQuickFox.3826" said: > Hm, back to WvW then for me I guess. That's the usual reaction.

> @"draxynnic.3719" said: > I think it is valid to consider all of the minor specs when assessing an elite, but you _also_ need to do what a lot of people forget and _remember that one of the things you give up is a core traitline._ That's hard to directly analyze because you can't predict _which_ core traitline would have otherwise been taken in its place, but for some professions it is quite significant. > That makes sense. I think so long as its a real choice and giving up a core traitline isn't just a no-brainer, then that's a pretty good sign. > If one is trying to be objective, I'd make the following adjustments: > > > @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said: > > List of Currently Existing Tradeoffs: > > -------------------------------------------- > > **Tempest:** | **Gain:** Overloads **Loss:** Increased CD on attunement swaps for Overloads > > This isn't a tradeoff - or rather, it's not a tradeoff of taking Tempest. Nothing stops you from playing a Tempest exactly how you'd play a regular Elementalist. Overloads give you an additional option, and the increased CD is a tradeoff _for using that option_, but is not a tradeoff for taking Tempest. You can always choose not to overload and therefore not to suffer the increased CD. That's a really good point, and I actually thought about that a lot. Ultimately I decided that Overloads did seem like a proper tradeoff; at least to me, I could totally get why people wouldn't see it that way. What I reasoned was that you'd lose a core traitline by taking Tempest, and a lot of the Tempest traits either encourage or force you to overload to gain their effect/boon. Therefore you could play Tempest like a core Ele; never overload, but looking at these traits that seems like a bit of a handicap. I think with the way Tempest traits encourage overloading, overloading in itself becomes a pretty neat tradeoff. > > > **Firebrand:** | **Gain:** Tomes with lots of additional skills **Loss:** Tomes have increased CD's compared to core virtues. > > Also lose instant activation of virtues. How important that is is subjective, but it IS something you give up. > That's objectively correct, but i'm good yo. Not going to add that. If anyone really wants to be that technical, they can sue me. > > **Scrapper:** | **Gain:** Barrier on damage **Loss:** -180 Vitality > > Also lose having an F5 based on your elite skill in exchange for the function gyro. > > > > > **Holosmith:** | ~~You can overheat~~ Just kidding, no tradeoff. (1-0) > > Like Scrapper, you lose having an F5 based on your elite skill. > Like I mentioned in my follow up comment, you could include the lack of F5 skill to Scrapper/Holo if you wanted. I reasoned that with Scrapper, it's essentially just a separate tradeoff to the one that already exists. Same case with Holo, only there's no real tradeoff to forge itself. You basically lose an F5 skill, but gain the ability to enter forge. Forge itself, all the damage multipliers that come with and 5 new skills don't have any sort of tradeoff. > > **Harold:** | **Gain:** 10% Max health for being Harold. F2 skill for 5 Legends. **Loss:** Core rev's F2 skill for 4 legends.(2-0) > > Even using a simplistic points-based model, I'd call this 2-1 rather than 2-0. Any given build still only has two F2 skills available, and giving up a 25 energy boost skill is significant... although Ancient Echo is probably still a little weaker overall. > I suppose I could see that being the case, but like I told @"LucianTheAngelic.7054" in trying to be objective, you can't really count a skill out based on perceived effectiveness, and even if I were to do that, you still get 10% health just from being Harold. > > **Renegod:** | No tradeoff. (1-0) > > More that you give up one skill in order to gain three. In practice, you're giving up a skill that grants you energy that you could use for other skills, in exchange for three skills that cost energy. You get 3 skills that cost energy You lose 1 skill that gives energy On paper, it's not really a balanced trade, 3 for 1. Or I guess you could add in the granting energy as a bonus effect and say 3-2 In practice, i'm sure everyone will tell you that the Renegade skills are pretty garbage and that i'm objectively wrong for saying its an unbalanced tradeoff.

Happy holidays > @"LucianTheAngelic.7054" said: > Please google "Herald Traits" on the GW2 Wiki. Here. I'll do it for you: > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_revenant_traits > > Here, i'll put it in caps so you can read it better. DRACONIC FORTITUDE (AKA THE 10% Health trait) **IS A MINOR MASTER TRAIT.** IT'S NOT PART OF THE "TRADEOFF TRAIT" AKA THE MINOR ADEPT TRAIT. Draconic Fortitude is literally just a regular trait. If you take a traitline that isn't Herald, you get a different Minor Master trait instead. You don't just "get 10% health just cuz." I'll say it a 4th time, it's literally just a regular trait, not part of the "tradeoff trait." > > Please stop spreading misinformation Like @"Lan Deathrider.5910" pointed out, the first trait in every traitline isn't the tradeoff trait. In most cases its actually just the trait that gives access to new weapons + the elite spec mechanic. Most existing tradeoffs were just short of shoved into that first minor trait after the fact. It doesn't mean that's how every tradeoff exists. Again; look at classes like Zerker, Scrapper. They're proof that this isn't always the case. All i'm saying about Draconic Fortitude is that its a real missed opportunity to give a more meaningful trade to Harold. Like I said originally, it just gives you 10% health for being Harold. > You're objectively wrong because the things about Renegade that were/are an issue have literally nothing to do with F2/F3/F4 or Kalla's Fervor. It has everything to do with Kalla's Stance skills and the massive overbuffing of shortbow and then the overnerfing of everything else. The F2/F3/F4 aren't even really out of line with Ancient Echo, either, which is important when considering balance and tradeoffs. This isn't a case like Core Guardian vs. Firebrand where Firebrand has an additional 15 skills That's a subjective philosophical point of kitten view. How strong something is speaking balance-wise and balance is entirely subjective. I'm not out to call anything too op or too nerf. I'm just saying that tradeoffs are a pretty smart way to do balance whereas nerfing everything is pretty lame, and then I gave a list of existing tradeoffs in the game. My goal is help people figure out which tradeoffs have a reasonable impact on gameplay and which are pretty meaningless, while also trying to figure out which classes don't have tradeoffs to the detriment or betterment of that elite spec. > @"Infusion.7149" said: > Did the moderators move this thread? Yes. That being said I also don't agree with that decision because I don't know anything about PvE or WvW nor how either gamemode is balanced. I posted it in PvP because I was talking about PvP, which I know like 2% more about. My fault there for not including that in the OP. > @"Quadox.7834" said: > you know whats even more exciting than buffs? new content. > > reworking old deprecated traits (300 sec icd anyone), adding new skills/traits (in core we got new gm trait and new healskill on all classes). new classes. new especs. new usable weapons on core professions. new (non-djinn) maps. even additions to hotm. I agree, and I hope that's the case eventually. At the moment I believe their situation is really restricted and they can't do any kind of skill rework, only balance changes. That will probably change with EoD. > @"Obtena.7952" said: > I don't see this as better, just different. I think 'tradeoffs' is just a bad approach to design; you won't get better balance with it no more than just the regular attempts to balance by changing skills. That could just be my opinion. I think it takes a lot more creative effort to give a tradeoff to a class(no matter how dull) compared to just tuning down some number or increasing a CD. When applied to skills too I think a tradeoff is a lot more likely to change how a skill actually works compared to changing nothing but the damage or CD. That's how you end up with 300s CD passives and 1s cast-time skills doing 20 damage. > @"Hypnowulf.7403" said: > The only true balance is rock, paper, scissors. This is why Pokémon and 1v1 fighting games fare so well. Indeed, if there one has a powerful means, that powerful means has a weakness or can be nullified by something else. This is the only way that any kind of balance can be achieved because all it does, really, is place balance within the hands of the players. It's up to the players to ensure there are enough rocks, papers, and scissors present within the field. I'm sure this is why any game that isn't focused around this venerable approach is probably envious of those that are. I agree with pretty much every else you said that I understand besides this. I don't play Pokemon, but I play a lot of 1v1 fighting games and some them die off very quickly because audiences get bored. The reason for that being will usually differ for everyone, but ime its an overemphasis on balance. A way too 'hands-on' approach that tries to appeal to patch-culture. The end result is usually a boring game where characters are way too similar, combat is slow, and there isn't many high risk/reward plays. Tradeoffs are a way to stay committed to balance without making everyone depressed. A lot of the best changes to fighting games and competitive sports have been tradeoffs. Of course, that's just one way. You can agree/disagree.