Multicolorhipster.9751

> @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said: > > > @"LucianTheAngelic.7054" said: > > > Your revenant analysis is objectively wrong: > > > > > > Herald: > > > 1) Herald’s +10% health bonus is a regular minor trait, not part of the “trade off” trait > > > > Yeah, that's because it doesn't have a tradeoff. If you're named Harold they just give you 10% health just 'cus. > > > > > 2) Herald trades Ancient Echo for Facet of Nature. This is a direct trade off. Echo isn’t a bad skill, and certainly better than some of the FoN skills (looking at you Glint). By ditching core you trade higher energy access for FoN. > > > > > > Renegade: > > > 1) again Renegade trades Ancient Echo for Heroic Command, Citadel Bombardment, and Orders from Above and Kalla’s Fervor. None of these skills are particularly OP and Renegade would likely be better served with Ancient Echo instead of all 3 of them if it could choose to not give it up. Citadel Bombardment is useless in PvP most of the time. Heroic command is extra might which is relatively redundant on ren. Orders from above isn’t awful, but Rev already has low CDs anyway so alacrity is only somewhat good on it. > > > 2) Kalla’s Fervor is the most non-trade off aspect of Ren since it doesn’t replace anything and is only added > > > 3) yes Ren gets a lot for it’s tradeoff, but this isn’t inherently a bad thing or unbalanced. While the class is performing well now it wasn’t for years so clearly the extra bonuses you get for taking Ren over Herald or Core weren’t enough to justify using Ren. None of the trade offs are major reasons why Ren is being used now and they’re fairly well balanced already > > > > > > P.s. yes Ren objectively has a trade off even if you don’t think it does. And Herald’s trade off is near equivalent and not as unbalanced or nonexistent like you claim > > > > Ah, yes. I'm objectively wrong because they aren't OP. > > > >  > > > > ??? > > Well, I do agree herald and renegade do have trade offs. However, they have no major impact on the viability of the builds, for example, assassin gives life steal on herald and unblockable on core. On renegade, the utilities seem more team fight oriented. > I can't really label what you two are talking about as tradeoffs without injecting personal bias. Like... Even if i agree with you and say the profession skills are weaker than core's, both Ren and Herald still objectively have more. That being said... > That might give an idea how renegade skills - including shortbow - should be adjusted: Team fights. > > However, it also means revenant's issues lie not with their elite specs' trade offs. But instead, you have to analyze why core power rev is not really strong but power herald is? Why is renegod viable, is it only because of shortbow? How can you force it into a team fighting role? > > But I am not sure whether you can (or need to or should) tweak the profession/specialisation mechanics to do this. I think this is true, and I wouldn't agree with hard nerfing either. There surely has to be some type of tradeoff that makes Renegod and Harold more specialized specializations though. Even something as simple as stat adjustments like Zerker and Scrapper get. Here's what I threw together over a wee cuppa: **Harold:** **Gain:** New/More F2 skills, 10% Health **Loss:** Reduced attributes for each active upkeep skill, Reduced attributes to make up for the 10% health boost. As to which attribute/attributes would be targeted, i'm not entirely sure. I'm leaning towards toughness in my head, but I also don't play Harry and I don't want the tradeoff to betray how the spec is meant to be played. As to why: The F2 itself is an upkeep skill with Harry. A free multiplicative attribute increase, for an additive attribute decrease. Seems fair, doesn't it? I think that's probably the most reasonable approach to **Renegod** as well is just tacking on some reduction in some random stat to make the class more specialized. It's a hard case. They did it with Scrapper, and while it isn't the most exciting or impactful, I honestly can't think of much else that could be done without reworking the entire spec. I'm also not calling either class over or underpowered. These are just ideas. If you think of anything else, do say.

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said: > For starters, this is a cross game mode discussion and is probably better parked under the profession tab :wink: That said the relevant Devs are more likely to see it here... This might be true, but I also don't play WvW and PvE and I would be acting a charlatan to talk about them. This is only about PvP really. I probably should have mentioned that at the very least so I appreciate you reminding me yo > For those nitpicking over what is or is not a trade off, anything on the minor traits should get lumped into the discussion, as they are what comes with the e-spec as a baseline. These are not even across the specs and are a part of the e-spec's chassis and some of which impose penalties in addition to what they offer as boons. For example: Scrapper's vitality penalty and Berserker's toughness penalty. I think this is a pretty interesting idea as to what a tradeoff is, and I really wouldn't mind seeing some in those other minor traits as well. I didn't go through listing all of them for my hand's sake, and because while they are just built into the class, they usually either rely on the class mechanic to take effect, which is usually where the tradeoff comes in if an elite has one. > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > It also misses some of the most important benefits/drawbacks of some of the elites, as well as missing the access to additional weapons and utilities, which in same cases is minimal but in others is game-changing. > @"Armen.1483" said: > What are you talking about utility skills and traits is like 80% of the elite spec. Those skills/traits are what make the elite spec an elite spec. It is more important than f1-4 skills. You pick to be a class to just pick their skills/traitlines. It makes most difference only there and only there can be tradeoffs, not just in f1-f4. If we gonna make a separate post about the traits and skills and leave this one to just talk about f skills, we could just delete this all. You can't pick an elite traitline and leave traits unchecked. BTW the reason that elite specs change some mechanics of the class is defined by the 1st passive trait of the respective elite traitline. So if we are not talking about this, there is nothing left to talk about. Like I said before, I don't care enough to give myself carpal tunnel just to explore tradeoffs for every optional skill/trait. I'd literally be here all night, and i'm not **that** dedicated of a forum warrior main. I only chose to list off the gains and losses you get solely from picking an elite spec, while leaving it open for more discussion. If you have idea on what to add anywhere, I encourage you to share. Be constructive with a PMA =) Plus there's nothing I could really say about an _optional_ skill/trait without injecting personal opinion. What I put in the list is objectively either the gains/losses that come just by adding the elite spec to your build with nothing else on it, and even a lot of these are unfair as people have pointed out. Talk about it, don't talk about it. Its up to you. > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > And perhaps the most important one, which not many people talk about, is that by taking an elite you are locking yourself out of one of the core traitlines. **For some professions this isn't so bad, but for others this is a massive sacrifice.** I've highlighted the main issue for you there. That's how elite specs are meant to exist. As **options.** There should be some amount of sacrifice in picking them, and it shouldn't only be for specific professions. That's like, not fair. > @"Armen.1483" said: > I still don't get it though. I mean what is the difference in hard nerfs or hard buffs at this point ? Do you mean you'd rather see a rework than a tweak in numbers ? Totally agree if that's the case. But probably not gonna happen. Absolutely. Like I say, anyone can complain about a number and demand that it be tweaked. I'm looking for more creative changes personally. Changes that give players choices and open up new strats. I think that hard number tweaking hasn't really done much to help that at all. Aside from that(and with a lot of personal bias) I think that nerfs should be reserved for extreme cases. In general, prefer buffs to weaker/underplayed parts of every profession. When nerfs are necessary, do it in creative ways that make the game more enjoyable to play and watch(IE tradeoffs) i'm also more on the same wavelength as @"Kuma.1503" Specifically on option 2 as I don't think elite specs were intended to be upgrades... or at least maybe not this long after the expansions dropped. I get having to sell the expansions, but that could just as easily be done by making the elites interesting side-grades rather than upgrades, hard as that might be to pull off.

> @"LucianTheAngelic.7054" said: > Your revenant analysis is objectively wrong: > > Herald: > 1) Herald’s +10% health bonus is a regular minor trait, not part of the “trade off” trait Yeah, that's because it doesn't have a tradeoff. If you're named Harold they just give you 10% health just 'cus. > 2) Herald trades Ancient Echo for Facet of Nature. This is a direct trade off. Echo isn’t a bad skill, and certainly better than some of the FoN skills (looking at you Glint). By ditching core you trade higher energy access for FoN. > > Renegade: > 1) again Renegade trades Ancient Echo for Heroic Command, Citadel Bombardment, and Orders from Above and Kalla’s Fervor. None of these skills are particularly OP and Renegade would likely be better served with Ancient Echo instead of all 3 of them if it could choose to not give it up. Citadel Bombardment is useless in PvP most of the time. Heroic command is extra might which is relatively redundant on ren. Orders from above isn’t awful, but Rev already has low CDs anyway so alacrity is only somewhat good on it. > 2) Kalla’s Fervor is the most non-trade off aspect of Ren since it doesn’t replace anything and is only added > 3) yes Ren gets a lot for it’s tradeoff, but this isn’t inherently a bad thing or unbalanced. While the class is performing well now it wasn’t for years so clearly the extra bonuses you get for taking Ren over Herald or Core weren’t enough to justify using Ren. None of the trade offs are major reasons why Ren is being used now and they’re fairly well balanced already > > P.s. yes Ren objectively has a trade off even if you don’t think it does. And Herald’s trade off is near equivalent and not as unbalanced or nonexistent like you claim Ah, yes. I'm objectively wrong because they aren't OP.  ???

> @"Armen.1483" said: > Oh about nerfs. 1 class nerfed means other classes buffed. You've seen thief nerfed, now mesmers are coming back to game and so on. What is bad about nerfs is that it tones down the overall damage in the game and makes players play more bunker (example: that annoying zoo scourges). On the other hand buffing does the opposite and is usually considered more dangerous to do to balance any pvp game. Because by buffing 1 class you make all other classes weaker and can potentially make that class brokenly op and everyone will just pick that class and neglect others, however nerfing 1 class worst scenario will be: that nerfed class is just brokenly bad and won't be played until fixed. This is why pvp developpers usuaally take the nerf part. I hope that makes sense. That's what makes effective tradeoffs so great really. If not in this game, other games, or actual competitive sports. It's a nerf and a buff. It pleases both crowds and (if not executed poorly so as to be meaningless) opens up new creative strategy. I mostly disagree with the whole 'balanced' thing though. It's usually entirely subjective, and a hand-on, way too overcommitted to balance approach usually kills games. Like, if a game is balanced; that's great, really, but if the price for balance is fun then it doesn't pay . Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anything fun about hard nerfs. It just seems like a way to appease the whiners who really aren't going to be satisfied regardless of what happens. They just live patch-to-patch going on and on about balance long after anyone with any passion for the game(be it player or developer) has long since jumped ship. > Now I understand that from a point of view of a warrior player you might be frustrated that war is kinda weak right now, but if other classes got nerfed too war will be playable again. We are kinda stuck in necro, rev and engi meta right now, if those got nerfed, game will be more balanced overall. So I am for the nerfs if they are executed well. Oh honey. I'm not a warrior player. I'm a forum Warrior like I say. That's my profession. I might drop in for a daily ever other week, but i'm usually not paying attention when I do. The game is mad boring now. See, the real endgame is right here, endlessly complaining about PvP rather than playing it. I don't even care, i'll wear it on my sleeve. Forum Warrior mains unite! > @"Jekkt.6045" said: > i'll repeat what i said in a different thread. trade offs for elite specs aren't really trade offs they are just there because they suck at balance and design. > > an elite spec wouldn't need a trade off if it was actually an elite spec specialized in something. instead it's just core+. if an elite spec gets a completeley different mechanic that helps it, for example, being an offensive spec where core had a mechanic that made it defensive, then that's the tradeoff, only being able to be offensive. > That's actually a very good idea I think. Elite specializations being specialized(Holy kitten, my mind just went places repeating that back in my head) would be pretty good for the game in practice, so long as they remain as options. Still think they'd need some sort of drawback in a lot of cases as a lot of core classes can fill multiple rolls. Don't want to completely invalidate a way to play. > we basically just have core = i slap. elite spec = i slap harder. then they add some random arbitrary "trade off". > > a short example for a smart trade off would be: core ranger access to pets. druid avatar + only a sprite for a pet that can be sent to allies to heal. instead we have druid pets have 10% less stats... > Yeaaaah, it's safe to say a lot of those drawbacks are kind of meaningless. They're a blend of not enough and too much compared to others. Still the smartest changes imo. Any creature with some frontal lobe development can say "too op, pls nerf" but only the most Machiavellian of forum Warriors can come up with "Druid but the pet does less damage." You're right though, there is a lot of room for improvement there and I appreciate the suggestion. We just need one of those to the other 17 and we're golden.

> @"foste.3098" said: > Your view on what is and isn't a tradeoff is skewed somewhat, which is best exhibited by the specs above. > The elite spec tradeoff is only what the 1st minor trait in the elite line does, and nothing else, which means the tradeoffs are the following: > Burstzerker - gain berzerk & primal bursts but loses normal burst skills > Dogedevil - gain 3rd dodge but gets steal replaced with swipe > Yolosmith - gain photonforge but lose the toolbelt 5 skill (same for scraper, he gains function gyro and lose toolbelt 5) > Rangerwanabe - gains new f skills but lose the core revenant f ability > To be fair, if a tradeoff is going to exist in an elite spec the trait that does so is almost always the first. There's quite a few that have a 2nd or even 3rd built into their profession mechanics or one of the other automatic traits(like zerker for example) but I tried to list those all. If I missed any, please let me know for all our sakes. > To me it seems that this is how anet views tradeoffs, a button on your ui that replaces another button. Because of this not all tradeoffs are equal across the board, for example dragon hunter and firebrand elite replacements of f skills are way better than core; same could be said for holo, and both revenant elites, and daredevil with steal -> swipe, but let's be honest daredevil is carried almost exclusively by unhindered combatant. > > @"Armen.1483" said: > Mirage trade off is weird too. The mirage clock is way worse than a normal dodge. > What about chrono. Chrono gets a continum split and a big cc well which are strong skills but loses the distort and also chrono's f1 shatter is weaker than core mesmer's f1 in a pvp scenario. Good time to mention i'm also only going by what you get automatically just for taking the elite spec. Things like the gravity well and unhindered combat have to be taken manually, and that honestly probably warrants an entire separate post comparing elite spec skills/traits to individual skills/traits, but I have unfortunately suddenly come down with a serious case of carpal tunnel syndrome so for the sake of my weary and quickly deteriorating body and mind, i'm only listing what you get just by being one of these. Not what you pick as well. > @"Widmo.3186" said: > Tradeoff is a nice word, but tbh idk what should be its definition. Lets compare it to the cars, its a tradeoff if u change better engine for better gearbox, but is it a tradeoff if u change one good engine into another one, that was created just by different brand? I wouldnt say so. > > Imo from your list what is a real tradeoff are > - zerker (straight forward less toughness) > - scourge (different playstyle, two specs with shrouds, one with barriers) > - firebrand (not so sure about this one, but yeah, tomes grants so much to the table compared to core/DH that you can put it as a tradeoff) > - mirage (probably the best example, mirage cloak for one dodge) > - chrono (different shatters, no distortion for...idk, for something) > > Rest is pretty much just a straightforward boost from core with minimal, almost invisible disadvantage. Like cmon, DE? Its a different playstyle, by default should be played with rifle, thats why it has mark instead of steal. Soulbeast? Cmon, you cant swap pets, but beastmode grants so much that basically youre the second pet, same kitten. Spellbroken? FC is your other burst. Scrapper? Pff, compare to core. Tempest? Marginal longer cds but you get overload and compared to core, straight boost. Druid? By default should be a healer, ended as immob spam clown, not really any lose. I appreciate your feedback. I agree for the most part tbh, and I want to tell you how much I agree with you personally, but alas; just trying to be objective listing these. The hope is that together; as a community, we can reasonably come together and agree on what exists as an option and then what exists as a straight upgrade. From there, we can think of better tradeoffs to either add to a class, or how to edit existing ones to make them more meaningful trades. =) After all, a tradeoff is both a nerf and a buff at once. I'm sure we can all find a way to apply this to every class without anyone saying "too op, pls nerf" or trying to spit venom at eachother.

> @"Megametzler.5729" said: > Weaver has a major trade off. You cannot swap into another attunemend for 4s, making skills 3-5 inaccessible for quick reactions. Oh kitten, u rite... uhh.... You didn't see anything. That's actually very helpful though, thank you. I'll make some adjusterinos. > Chrono's trade off is weird indeed, but a pretty hefty one. Yeah, I still don't know where to put that thing.

**This is that comment.** The existing tradeoffs are pretty objective. The subjective part is whether the tradeoff placed on whatever elite spec actually holds some meaning or not. When people are picking an elite spec to play there should be some sort of decision to be made like: "Sure, this elite spec is strong, but the drawback is pretty risky..." Enough to make the choice between core, elite spec 1, and elite spec 2 an actual choice rather than: "Nah, this stronger. I'm just going to pick this one." Onto the 'No tradeoff side' Although I do want to preface this by saying this doesn't make any class 'op.' It's just pointing out that they lack an equal tradeoff. (**Weaver:** There's no sort of stat debuff ~~or penalty to taking weaver. Attunemnts swap faster,~~ you get two, and you get free attribute increases with it. Tempest at least has the increased CD's on overloads. ~~There really is no drawback on paper. Again, the actually effectiveness is out of my hands. I refuse to touch that.~~ Edit: Thank you to the lovely @"Megametzler.5729" for pointing out in factual correctness that Weaver does actually have a tradeoff. Sorry to believers who were betting on that .6% chance that I got everything right. **Weaver does actually have a pretty big penalty** with the whole 4s CD on 3 -5 after swapping. With that, i'm moving weaver to the unsure section as well. You get two attunements at once, you get free attribute bonuses just for doing so, but there is a very real takeaway to the attunements swapping quicker. Does that counter two at once? Is it 2-1, 3-1? I don't know. It exists between attunements, it can exist between arbitrary categories too. **Dragonhunter:** I actually didn't know that spear and wings have the same CD as core virtues until I looked this up. You learn something new everyday. But the Dragonhunter version of these skills just does _more._ Objectively. **Daredevil:** They tried by changing steal to swipe. It still does more than core though on paper. **Holosmith:** Overheating isn't really a tradeoff. A tradeoff is a drawback to picking an elite spec. They don't operate on the chance that something might happen if the player messes up playing that elite spec. As an added bonus, i'll talk about **Scrapper** and **Holo** losing core F5's because I hear the people who play them can be pretty _technical_ ;) Sure, they both lose out on those core engi F5 skills, but both gain profession mechanics in place; Gyro and forge. You'd essentially just be adding in another trade to count, bringing Scrapper to 2-2 and Holosmith to 2-1 because there is no other tradeoff to Holosmith if you even count that. **Harold:** Not saying that Harold is overpowered. Harold is a nice guy, but he does more than other Core Revs. **Renegod:** Gains and F3 and F4 skill compared to core rev. There's also no sort of takeaway to playing Renegod. Renegod simply is. **Reaper:** I think Reaper could potentially fall in either. I feel like an additional gain to being melee and shroud draining faster would be increased damage, but they also lost a lot of damage. Like wheeew. That's a real nice executioner skill they do. Yesterday it did a whopping 76ish damage on crit. I think that's a unique situation where the bad balance has sort of muddied the potentially good balance. I was leaning towards putting this on the unbalanced side(1-2) 1 gain for 2 takeaways. **Chrono:** Similar case to reaper. I think the constant nerfs have sort of taken away what's meant to make Chrono unique. I don't play it, but reading up on the shatter skills they're really very similar except for F4. I was tempted to put this in the unbalanced section(0-1.) 0 Gain, 1 takeaway.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > Sure some stuff gets broken in the wrong way by nerfing counters but what i am asking is, What is anet going to do about classes with elites that are mechanically broken to fix them? > @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said: > ...Unless it's a **creative nerf like a tradeoff**. Imo; the best nerfs, but bad news there. Lowering coefficients, removing things, and increasing cooldowns isn't very creative. That. Applying some sort of downside to picking an elite spec. Most elite specs already have some sort of tradeoff. There's a few that don't have any at all, or have one that isn't really much of a tradeoff at all due to class mechanics and/or traits that make the elite spec mechanic objectively better than anything core or the other elite spec counterpart could offer.

> @"Aesir.3192" said: > Lawl! :smiley: Had a suspected guard bot attacking me in PvP with only block and heals. Big moment when another one joined the next match on skyhammer. At around 200pts, they caught up for a healrace, with the rest of us spectating... :joy: Hmmm... You sure they were a bot? Sounds like me and my teammates.

I don't like DuoQ either, but they fixed DuoQs dcing and their partner not getting any penalty a long time ago. If their partner dc's they both lose rating. Wintrading is also very unnecessary these days because there's no point when you can DuoQ for free and win nearly every game that way.

Some of these sound pretty good to be honest ? I like the idea of 2 and 5. Don't enjoy looking away from what's happening to see active effects, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It sounds like a good QoL change.

Pretty much every other Warrior build besides Healbreaker. Believe it or not, when you play an alpha high-damage melee class for nearly 7 years and suddenly you're forced to play as a healer, it's very jarring.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > as much as nerfing dmg can go overboard it was necessary to nerf some of the powercreep classes like mes could 1 shot and getting ez oneshots on soulbeast was way too easy along with mobility. TTk shouldn't be that low in my opinion. > > Low ttk/ Spam of CCs with damage and insta stealth with no downsides as mobility is one of the reasons i dislike pvp in this game. Back during Hot when TTK wasn't so high, but you still had time to kill, it was good. > > Now we got pof classes still some classes defenses nerfed its a mess. Powercreep honestly happens with nerfs and buffs. People usually just beg for nerfs because they think if their hard counters get nerfed it will make them a mechanically better player. Whether you buff or nerf, the changes that come with balance patches can create all new powercreepin' outliers. Not saying this is the case now at all so don't kill me, but in the months following the Feb 25th patch Necro had a lot of skills that either weren't nerfed at all or on the same scale as a lot of the other classes and it became one of the strongest meta picks for months after. Same with some Ranger pets getting overlooked. Why build max zerker stats to do a combo for 6k damage and then die if I can just take a pet that deals 3k damage on autos to somebody with 3,367 armor rating and protection? Again, these were both fixed. Please don't hire a bitcoin stalker to come and get me. I just think these were good examples of how gamewide nerfs aren't the miracle solution to powercreep like people think they are. The potential for powercreep is there when buffing or nerfing. The only difference is a buff is usually an addition that adds more options to the game whereas a nerf is the exact opposite. ...Unless it's a creative nerf like a tradeoff. Imo; the best nerfs, but bad news there. Lowering coefficients, removing things, and increasing cooldowns isn't very creative. My younger brother screaming at Call of Duty in the other room right now could have thought of that.

In a podcast it was said that the skills team(the team incharge of changing/reworking skills/traits) doesn't interact with the PvP balance person right now. All they can really do is change numbers, increase/decrease CDs, and remove things from the PvP build panel. Reworking those 'placeholder' traits to do something else isn't possible if they can't work together, so they're probably going to be placeholders for a really long time . Really hope that changes at some point.

Don't delete. Put damage back in the game if 900 toughness is too annoying.

> @"Quadox.7834" said: > i dont disagree that the game isnt super fun after patch, all im arguing for is that the game had insane lvls of powercreep and the right solution was not to just buff core to compete with the overpowered elite spec, that sounds like some maplestory-esque balancing. to me, the problem is that they focused on nerfing damage numbers when the thing it is traits and certain skill designs that are the real problem - the real powercreep. to take mesmer as an example, nerfing blinding dissipation to only blind on f2 was a good change, as was removing stun on daze, however nerfing phantasmal berserker by like 30% was very unnecessary. and the worst part of the feb patch is that they hard nerfed lots of active skills like, say, mes gs2 and gs4, but didnt nerf lots of easy-to-use dumb stuff, like trait condi procs, downstate autos, retaliation damage, and so on. when it should logically be the opposite. > > > "if powercreeo was such a problem why dont they focus on buffibg core" welllll... because that would further increase powercreep. Right, that's why I think all the elite specs should have tradeoffs that most do and a handful don't. I mean there wouldn't be much point if they just buffed core because if elite specs were still decidedly stronger and if there was no downside to taking them that would just exacerbate the issue. Meaningful tradeoffs are the best changes imo. They're like Nerfs/Buffs in one that (usually) make a profession/character much more fun to play and watch. Do you play Ultimate as well? Joker main here, and I actually loved the Arsène nerf. It made Arsène deplete faster as Joker takes damage; which, sounds like a flat nerf on paper, but the way to deal with Arsène previously was typically just to abuse invincibility frames and wait the boy out, but with the tradeoff it opened up a quicker way to deal with Arsène, provided you actually challenged him. It's like a buff/nerf at once, it was great. If they just made Arsène deplete faster or nerfed his launch power/damage that would have been boring. We have a few already of those already; what with elite specs like Mirage getting 1 dodge, Reaper shroud depleting faster than normal and losing range, Zerker losing toughness in favor of power/condi, but not every elite spec has a tradeoff. That, or they have one and it isn't enough. Once those were in place, then I think it would be safe to buff weak and underplayed skills/traits across all classes. Nerfing a core skill to target elite specs doesn't really solve anything if the elite spec and its class mechanic make it better still. At most you've just removed that one elite spec from the meta, and made the core version of that class weaker as well through the nerf. On top of all those other bad consequences that come with nerfing everything. > even in this regard it isnt that bad or different from other games, it is more noticable in melee because the balance is persistent i.e. no patches. leffen defends this point at the start of this video Well that's what I said from the start. Melee is an unbalanced game, but it's also a fun game, and doesn't require balance patches. I think Gw2 balance should be way more hands-off than hands-on, like melee. Not to the extent of not touching it at all, but also not nerfing everything in the game and being too afraid to buff anything because 'powercreep.' Even though when they did the Feb 25th patch(you know the big nerf instead of buff thing) it created tons of new poster children for the forums to whine about because some skills were overlooked, bugged, or were less nerfed than others. Balance =/= Fun They're both subjective, but anyone who complains that an unbalanced game can't be fun is clowning both you and themselves. I also have to go now, I need to go chug a Red Bull so I can hopefully make it through 1 Unranked match for dailies. ✌️

> @"Quadox.7834" said: > thats what they did and the game got powercrept to kitten and it wasnt fun > Kinda subjective. I liked it better tbh, and I don't think that powercreep has gotten any better since. From my perspective all the new changes just created a meta about playing whatever got the nerfed the least. It also restricted what you can get away with playing and turned teamfights and 1v1s into slogfests compared to the old, but I might also be biased after playing at the old pace for so long. If elite specs powercreeping over core was such a problem like people say, I don't see why they wouldn't just focus on buffing core and giving more tradeoffs to elite specs to give people some real decision. Instead they just nerfed core; lowered coefficients, increased CDs to target the elite specs. ? > "melee is broken" is a fun buzzword-like thing people like to say but isnt actually that true, sure it has minor glitches that make the combat more fun and deep but most of the gamebreaking glitches (like game crashes) got fixed in the later game versions (check version change notes on the wiki), ofc with certain exceptions esp wobbling which is pretty broken I mean the imbalanced kind of broken.

> @"Dantheman.3589" said: > I really need to ask about the decap warrior build. I know before it was run with cele amulet, that was removed, which made sense as it had higher defense stats than paladins and likewise had toughness. Why, in this case, rabid amulet? I know there’s not a huge amount of healing on this but there is some so why not choose between paladins and menders? Maybe it’s cuz yolo toughness stats or at least I’m assuming, but in the ‘rare’ case that you actually do enough damage to get kill, which in my experience, happens every now and then wouldn’t paladins or menders be way better? Also thank you for your time if u do answer this Yooo no problem Rabid is usually the go-to for the toughness and that's it. The condition damage is also the only way to actually do damage since almost every skill you get is a CC with no damage. The condition copy trait for Spellbreaker is pretty much your only way. It barely ever actually works, but it is funny to kill a burn guard, condi mesmer, etc with their own conditions, ngl. It is absolutely worth all the death threats that follow in whispers. 10/10 I tried paladins for a while after nerfs and it was just bleh. So was Celestial too honestly. It doesn't pay to try and be a jack of all trades imo. Better to specialize in staying alive and being obnoxious because that's what the build do best. Can build in vitality + % health bonuses on runes for heavy condi comps.

Hi welcome back. Yes, Warrior was always viable it just took people like 8 months to figure out the best build for it after patch. Its an easy mistake because I don't think anyone was expecting it to go from alpha big hulky melee damage doer to beta healer/support/tank. Here's Healbreaker, the current metabuild for Warrior: [gw2skills.net/editor/?PKAFg0FbYZBsLGGTjRip1l/bF-z5AfKZKE6VEkxEojFgqGA](http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKAFg0FbYZBsLGGTjRip1l/bF-z5AfKZKE6VEkxEojFgqGA) -Boring and unfamiliar support build, but very effective. Although it has been nerfed to what i'd say is out of the meta, but still a viable pick. Here's a sidenode Bunker/decap build: [gw2skills.net/editor/?PKwAk6JlJwUYYsKGKeaX+PTA-zZwOlMFC9KB6WBkxIQHDA](http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKwAk6JlJwUYYsKGKeaX+PTA-zZwOlMFC9KB6WBkxIQHDA) -Very tanky build I use to slog through dailies. Even more boring to play than Healbreaker. -Lives forever, CCs forever. Laughs at people who build maximum squish zerker stats only to do a 2k burst on their epic combo. -Added warning: Don't play this in 1v1 duels with friends unless you don't want to be friends with that person anymore. Here's a more classic damage build: [gw2skills.net/editor/?PKgAIFlJwSYYMFGKO2X+PdA-zZIPlMFC9KCqYBkxEwEDA](http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKgAIFlJwSYYMFGKO2X+PdA-zZIPlMFC9KCqYBkxEwEDA) -Very familiar Warrior strength damage build. Heavy hitters are Hammer 2 and arcing slice. -Don't recommend for Ranked. You will probably lose and be accused of throwing. -Damage comparable to Demolisher's stats before the great nerfening, only its Zerkers and is incapable of sustain or any sort of long-term planning, much like myself. If you can't kill whatever you're trying to kill quick, you're probably going to lose. This is especially bad against builds like the aforementioned bunkers.

> @"Yasai.3549" said: > What? Sustain is an option? > 1. Hmmm I can rebalance the traits or rework them so they aren't that problematic and oppressive > or > 2. Remove amulets which give durability. > Where's your positivity?! It's not just the ones that give durability! Remember Viper's Amulet? Like my dear friend @"Ziggityzog.7389" was saying: > Either be immune to all damage by means of dodge, evade..... Or have conditions that can kill a enemy in 5 seconds. Not both. Truly Viper's Amulet which was meant to do only one of those instead of both was ludicrously overpowered and needed to be straight up deleted from the game. There was no patch that could have helped sate that absolute monster of an amulet. It had to go. And don't even get me started on Celestial. Celestial ammy had carried people to Legend for so many seasons ~~before ranked was a thing, but nevermind that.~~ It was the pinnacle of unbalanced..ness... Unbalancedness! > OH BOY I WONDER WHICH OPTION IS THE EASIER ONE THEY'LL GO FOR > So as a result, the cream of the crop meta builds which dominate the PvP scene are those which can use pure damage amulets while relying on innate build sustain to survive, because gee, Anet hates fun and toughness/vitality 4 stat amulets are definitely gonna get hit again anyway. Fun? Hahahaha! Look inside yourself and ask: "What makes a good video game? How fun it is or how balanced it is?" Now, don't answer all that. Instead, abandon common sense and go read some forum posts. Balance is all that truly matters according to the highly educated masses. I for one hope Anet- Well, not Anet actually. I think there's honestly like 1 person in charge of PvP balance stuff now and they can't even interact with the skills team, so they're actually very limited in what they can do, but I hope they continue down this righteous path of nerfing and removing as much as possible and as arbitrarily as possible. Keep it up ?

> @"Khalisto.5780" said: > I do think we'll see all 4 stats amulets gone or severely nerfed soon Oh boy, even less to play with! Man, this game sure is balanced and fun. I can't wait for more things to be nerfed and removed from the game, this is great. Continue to stay positive, fellows. And thank you for that amazing patch =) Also I agree OP, its taught me a lot. Not just about the game, but about myself. I've learned so much... ~~About other games~~

Moar buff, less nerf

> @"Quadox.7834" said: > Not what power creep means. Fair, but I don't really have a word for it. Like it or hate it, Feb 25th was a big patch that changed a lot within in the game. It was something new that invalidated a lot of ways to play through nerfing everything, and there were plenty of outliers for months after because certain things just weren't nerfed or weren't nerfed equally. Call it power creep, power dip, call it whatever you want really. > It's never going to be perfectly balanced so...? What are you proposing, that we stop trying, just stop implementing balance patches? It is obvious that a game as complex as this one will never be perfectly balanced, and there are two ways to deal with this: > 1. Occasionally change up the meta so people dont get bored. This is what most popular pvp games do. > 2. Make most char/build be very fun and deep so people keep enjoying it for a long time. Smash melee for example. One of the big problems with achieving this in gw2 is that builds that are a bit easy and shallow are often pretty effective, like minion necro, kalla ren, healbreaker and so on. No, I agree its good to shake up the meta and it would stagnate quick if they just stopped. I just think that nerfing everything to achieve that adds nothing to the game, and makes it progressively more boring to play. Why not instead of nerfing the meta to the point of unplayability every 3-6 months, they do the opposite and focus on buffing/reworking weak and underused skills/traitlines to rival the current meta for that time? Like I say, either way it's going to be imbalanced. It's really up to people on whether they want an imbalanced and boring game, or an imbalanced but fun game. If you actually play Melee, i'll figure you're a fan of the latter. Melee is incredibly broken, but that's part of what makes it fun.

> @"suialthor.7164" said: > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > More meaningful means a variety of things, but even that basically breaks down into doing reworks of the abilities and systems in the game to give everything more meaning...and in particular more meaningful interactions with other skills. > > > > How does reworking abilities not result in nerfs/buffs for classes? If all you do is give more complexity you are still buffing many builds. It's true, it is just another way to buff/nerf. The better way though. It's makes the game more interesting than just a straight coefficient nerf or CD increase would ever. Opens the door to tradeoffs; simultaneous buffs and nerfs at once, and it would increase variety among builds for classes. That's why the balance person should be able to interact with the skill's team and skills should continue to be split between modes. The best balance changes to competitive games and sports have been done this way whereas straight nerfs and takeaways have killed many more.

Power creeps both ways whether you're buffing, reworking, or adding something that's stronger than something else or nerfing and removing certain things that allow others to take their place in the meta. Either way; buffing or nerfing, the resulting meta just becomes the new thing for everyone to hate and complain about. It's never going to be perfectly balanced or even remotely balanced just like any game with more than 1 option probably won't be either. Arenanet is going to try, because 90% of the threads on here and map chat is just: "X too op, pls nerf. Or X too nerf, pls buff" give or take a few mentions of kittens. In the end they're probably going to try and please the masses too and if most people want things nerfed and/or removed, then we get what we ask for at the expense of content, fun, and build diversity. Actually no, forget all that. As I was typing this I just got killed by a burn guard.