ThomasC.1056

If players are too jaded, or bored, or afraid, or any reason that make them _not_ want to fight you, then the only thing you'll gain by coercing them to fights is they'll leave for good.

Players may come in GW2 for many reasons. Having their arms twisted surely isn't one of them.

Well.... In my case, I'd say boredom. Because yes ! That's how jaded I am.

> @"Shikaru.7618" said:

> > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> > Completely fill your skill bar with stun breakers and stability. Run out of stun breakers when the enemies stun spam you past all your dodges and skills. Get stun spammed to death AND have no skills to kill things is great.

> >

> > Older games that have done it better have a CC limit that stacks up to say 3 times before you are immune to it for a few seconds. Those kinds of developers found out quick that spending 15 seconds being unable to do anything until you are downed is the primary reason people quit games with CC. GW avoids that trap at least until mid game where it is out of nowhere without teaching you about enemies that spam and THEN players quit.

>

> What mobs specifically do people run into in open world that do this? I've literally never had a problem with stun lock against any groups of mobs.

In the most recent map, those red-glowing crow spirits things yell something that toss you backwards like the gust ele skill. When the portal event is up, many of these can pop, and toss you around like a flipper ball because they basically have a very low CD on that skill. I'm not saying it's a death threat (though I acknowledge it might be) but it surely is infuriating.

I'm more or less sure you can find more examples.

> @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > > > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > > > > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Coinhead.7591" said:

> > > > > > > > Is removing come stat combinations from gear a possibility? Personally I wouldn't mind to see minstrel gear gone :)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > To be honest, I think they should just put everyone in exotic celestial gear with superior divinity runes, for a 1 week to 1 month long trial. At first, I thought it as a joke, but I'm considering more and more seriously that it could be useful.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You could see whether the stat choice is that impactful or not, and above all, you could see what part of the issues come from the stat, and what part comes from the skills/traits.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Last but not least, you could also see whether a lower DPS/higher sustain actually increases the TTK, to what extent, and whether it's actually better/funnier.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Or we could just use PvP style stat selection in a PvP mode, and make it fair on everyone regardless of PvE incomes.

> > > > >

> > > > > Must be new here in the WvW section :p

> > > > >

> > > > > Ammy system would kill build diversity. PvP has its own problems and special toxicity. To bring that into a grander scale would cause more issues on top of killing diversity.

> > > >

> > > > I agree. My suggestion is only a week-test, and specifically with celestial to equalize the stats of everyone, and see what comes from the stats, and what comes from the rest (passive procs, etc.), in the scope of the big balance rework that's in progress.

> > >

> > > Just because you "equalize the stats" does in no way mean that you also equalized every class. Necro, ele and guard for example benefit from every single stat of celestial, to a point where it was actually played basically as meta build for some time. While warrior, ranger etc. wont make use of alot of those provided stats, making them alot less effective than those other classes that can use those stats.

> > > You would effectively have some classes play with less statpoints than others, how is that anywhere near balanced?

> > >

> > > Id take pvp amulets ANYTIME over your all celestial proposal.

> >

> > You should consider reading more carefully.

> >

> > I'm **not** telling everyone should be in celestial all the time. Not at all.

> >

> > I'm telling that it should be a temporary check, specifically because, as you're saying :

> >

> > > Necro, ele and guard for example benefit from every single stat of celestial, to a point where it was actually played basically as meta build for some time. While warrior, ranger etc. wont make use of alot of those provided stats, making them alot less effective than those other classes that can use those stats.

> >

> > So it's just a way to check what class is overperforming and by what mean. I'm not telling it's any kind of solution towards a more balanced game. Only it's an idea of a diagnostic among others.

>

> I understood that its temporary, but its not a "check". You wont see whos overperforming, you would only see who benefits the most from celestial gear, nothing more, nothing less.

> And we even know which classes are benefitting the most.

> This would only make sense if you wanted to balance classes around celestial gear.

>

> If you give them all celestial, then start balancing them, so that they all are equally good, and then go back to all armor stats open, what do you think would happpen?

>

> You gain absolutely nothing from your test. Ofc a warrior will perform worse on celestial than a guard, ele or necro...

> And there is no problem with that, it doesnt mean those classes are overperforming, just because they are able to make use of all those stats.

> What do you think you gain from your "diagnosis" ?

The first thing you gain is you get the knowledge of what lies behind the "of course" you stated in "Ofc a warrior will perform worse".

Now, to dig a bit deeper. Say "Ele is overperforming". If, indeed, Ele overperforms when every other class is put in celestial gear, it means that Ele can rely on _something else_ than stats to perform. It can be boons that provide an artificial stat increase (a temporary one, allegedly, but we all know...), or passive procs, or skills that are "more powerful", or traits more interesting, or a more versatile class (jack of all trades...). All of this is class design, and there're numbers here that could be toned down.

Likewise, if you say "Warrior is underperforming", it can imply its skills aren't powerful enough, or traits are uninteresting, or there're less passive etc. So numbers here could be toned up.

The purpose is to see where are the strengths and weaknesses of a class, when all other things are equal. I'm not saying things should be balanced for celestial. Ele's design is more suitable for celestial, while Warrior's design is more "put your eggs in the same basket" indeed, but it's only to have a check.

In the end of the day, I think what was initially a silly idea of mine I said as a semi-serious joke is going far too much into the migraine area :-)

I'm not sure @"Sylent.3165" is asking about the stability boon, or stunbreakers skills.

I think it's more an issue of constant CC application from specific mobs, especially when you're fighting a pack of them, and they all toss their CC at the same time (which works also with sPvP to a certain extent). You can quickly be overwhelmed. The word is _stunlock_ and that's not something brand new...

It's very much like boon stripping. Against some mobs (and players), you can litteraly play full boonrip, and toss all you have, just to see the boons pop instantly each time you rip/corrupt them.

The spam really is an issue.

> @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > > > > @"Coinhead.7591" said:

> > > > > > Is removing come stat combinations from gear a possibility? Personally I wouldn't mind to see minstrel gear gone :)

> > > > >

> > > > > To be honest, I think they should just put everyone in exotic celestial gear with superior divinity runes, for a 1 week to 1 month long trial. At first, I thought it as a joke, but I'm considering more and more seriously that it could be useful.

> > > > >

> > > > > You could see whether the stat choice is that impactful or not, and above all, you could see what part of the issues come from the stat, and what part comes from the skills/traits.

> > > > >

> > > > > Last but not least, you could also see whether a lower DPS/higher sustain actually increases the TTK, to what extent, and whether it's actually better/funnier.

> > > >

> > > > Or we could just use PvP style stat selection in a PvP mode, and make it fair on everyone regardless of PvE incomes.

> > >

> > > Must be new here in the WvW section :p

> > >

> > > Ammy system would kill build diversity. PvP has its own problems and special toxicity. To bring that into a grander scale would cause more issues on top of killing diversity.

> >

> > I agree. My suggestion is only a week-test, and specifically with celestial to equalize the stats of everyone, and see what comes from the stats, and what comes from the rest (passive procs, etc.), in the scope of the big balance rework that's in progress.

>

> Just because you "equalize the stats" does in no way mean that you also equalized every class. Necro, ele and guard for example benefit from every single stat of celestial, to a point where it was actually played basically as meta build for some time. While warrior, ranger etc. wont make use of alot of those provided stats, making them alot less effective than those other classes that can use those stats.

> You would effectively have some classes play with less statpoints than others, how is that anywhere near balanced?

>

> Id take pvp amulets ANYTIME over your all celestial proposal.

You should consider reading more carefully.

I'm **not** telling everyone should be in celestial all the time. Not at all.

I'm telling that it should be a temporary check, specifically because, as you're saying :

> Necro, ele and guard for example benefit from every single stat of celestial, to a point where it was actually played basically as meta build for some time. While warrior, ranger etc. wont make use of alot of those provided stats, making them alot less effective than those other classes that can use those stats.

So it's just a way to check what class is overperforming and by what mean. I'm not telling it's any kind of solution towards a more balanced game. Only it's an idea of a diagnostic among others.

Hello,

I digged a bit, and found the answer I gave last year to that issue. It's still relevant I think.

> @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> I'm a bit worried about this too.

>

> When I see all the new mounts which require some design, and animation, and sometimes sounds made, I understand that a part of the _limited and precious_ dev time is dedicated to these.

> Now, I understand money is necessary and that the gem store is a way to cash some dollars. Yet... cash some dollars for what ? Usually, the answer is : cash some dollars to create the content, which implies : cash some dollars to make _limited and precious_ dev time happen.

>

> I have now clue what part of dev time is dedicated to the gem store items vs. in-game content in all its implications (skills revamp and balance, map creation, coding, episodes creation etc etc etc), but there's one thing I'm sure : if the whole point of releasing gem store items is cash dollars to create more gem store items to release, then there's no more game.

>

> So, maybe it's just an illusion because it's easier to release things in the gem store, so it happens more frequently, but I must confess it overall worries me.

My answer was supposed to hit bullseye, but it went obstructed.

> @"Ben K.6238" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > SteelSeries Rival 500 is really fine because it has lots of buttons yet not too much. It comes handy because when you've got to deal with skills 1-0 + F-skills + the new special skill, your keyboard hand can become quite busy. It was game changing for me to use it.

>

> I tried one of those - it's the only mouse I've ever sent back within two weeks. The button placement just didn't fit under my thumb properly. Had it not been for that, it probably would have become one of my favourites.

Yeah, I understand. Picking a good mouse isn't only a matter of buttons, but feeling well with it. Thumb buttons are really fine with me, excerpt from the central one. I have to bend my thumb a lot to click it, so I assigned it to mount which isn't something as critical as the rest ;)

Hello,

I think a good answer to that question lies in most of the above answers. Not in what is explicitely written, but in what they (mostly) show.

A lot of answers are ironic and sarcastic about the game mode in general, the fights in general, player's behaviour as a whole. Through that causticity, it just points that lots of players are so sick, so jaded, so upset about everything related to WvW that they talk about it like that. Like WvW is some kind of ugly clunky thing that's taking itself seriously, while it's nothing worthier than a shameless joke. It feels like there's nothing more to save in the game mode, so it's better just laugh about how awful it is. Eventhough good memories make that laugh a bit painful.

Now, most of players logging in WvW are just doing so because that's what they're used to doing to spend some time. Do some achievements, flip some worthless things, run among the zerg with as a way to empty their minds... And maybe also look for that flame that used to shine, while it's now cold ashes ?

Good luck ANet. You'll have to work **really** hard and set the bar **really** hard to save the day.

SteelSeries Rival 500 is really fine because it has lots of buttons yet not too much. It comes handy because when you've got to deal with skills 1-0 + F-skills + the new special skill, your keyboard hand can become quite busy. It was game changing for me to use it.

Hello,

Thanks for the Elementalist weapon's swap. It's more a QoL feature than a real balance change, given it's now possible thanks to the equipement template system and a hotkey. But I like it.

Now, allow me to be respectfully dumbfounded by this :

> @"Fire Attunement.9835" said:

> # 12/03/2019—Skills and Balance Update

>

> ## Profession Skills

> ### Guardian

>

> Guardian is unique among the professions in how many revival traits it has. With this rework, we are updating Courageous Return into a new, more general trait that benefits the guardian in situations when reviving allies is not possible. Additionally, **we're changing the healing power bonus on Signet of Mercy to a concentration bonus as we feel it' generally a more useful stat for the profession given the amount of boons it outputs even when the guardian is not acting as a healer.**

I _naively_ thought firebrand's boon output was considered an _issue_ for competitive modes (which is what these changes are focused on). I understood the fix wouldn't be for this time, because you wanted to go deeper and broader into the changes which is fine.

So... Why actually _buff_ the issue ? I just can't seem to understand the logic here.

Or they just forgot everything about Laranthir because that guy was during HoT, and HoT is past from long ago, and not so many devs are still sticking around from that time. So, the few who could know about him have probably forgotten everything.

And Icebrood saga is supposed to be about Norns and Charrs, not Sylvaris, so why bother about that talking lettuce and self-consistency ?

Let's just hope I'm just being exceedingly sarcastic, and that I'll get a happy surprise seeing Laranthir again and prove me wrong.

Hello,

> @"LadyKitty.6120" said:

> > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > Is balance is decent across all builds and classes more builds would be viable allowing for more build deversity no? Also having reworking traitline's to have more useful traits would open up diversity within the builds themselves cuz as of now almost ha f seem to have 0 synergy with anything and arnt worth taking.

>

> ^This.

>

> And when it comes to roles, meta defines strict roles in squads in each gamemode. Trying anything else results in subpar comp if the roles are dominated by a few exact builds due to strong imbalance. If a gamemode had good balance among the builds, people could play around with various comps, roles and builds without severe roflstomp'd level disadvantage, just slight disadvantages for not playing the meta. In Kitty's opinion it's not the huge diversity of results that makes a huge build diversity but many builds with diverse playstyles (many of which work more or less efficiently) being valid alternatives for the same role creating a the real build diversity.

I agree with that, and I wanted to thank you for your very interesting insight.

I'd go farther though. It's not only a matter of builds. It's also a matter of what they have in front of them. If the game mode is exceedingly demanding, then it's logically less forgiving. Which is why, as you stated, subpar comp lead to severe roflstomp'd level disadvantage. If you raid boss is extremely demanding, then among all the options available, only a few of them will be good enough to face it effectively. So eventhough you have a theoretical diversity, it may not shine just because of that. Then, in regular PvE, you've got far more choices at a given role that will be enjoyable and fulfilling, because the game mode is far less demanding.

> @"LadyKitty.6120" said:

> Of course, in WvW and PvP due to their more dynamic nature, the imbalance causes way bigger issues due to performance differences between comps increasing the gap between them exponentially (while the gap is linear in PVE due to enemy always being equal strength regardless of squad comp unless it scales up according to number of players) and thus reducing the diversity in a way worse manner.

I'm not sure it's a matter of dynamics. Even if it probably plays a role, to me, the thing is : tools available are raid-like DPS specs, to use against enemies that don't have raid-like sustain, unless it's a zerg.

So, interestingly enough, DPS shines far more than sustain in small scale. Because as you can get raid-like DPS in front of you, it means that encounters can be really demanding in terms of efficiency, so among all the options, only the most forgiving builds remain if players want to survive. And this is how you get one-shot builds, high escape builds, TB Mirage, perma-stealth and whatever cheese is the current flavor, with a tactic consisting in dispatching the foe in the shortest amount of time.

In a larger scale, more roles appear, so in addition to raid-boss-like DPS, you can have raid-boss-like sustain in front of you, so you have to spec for sustain as well, but the reasoning follows : as it's extremely demanding, it's not forgiving, so only the best builds are kept.

To me, it's a pity, and I really hope that toning down everything across the board in WvW will help make the game-mode less demanding because of sheer figures, which would allow more build diversity to be viable, because the effectivity of a given build would shift towards more skill.

> @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > > @"Coinhead.7591" said:

> > > > Is removing come stat combinations from gear a possibility? Personally I wouldn't mind to see minstrel gear gone :)

> > >

> > > To be honest, I think they should just put everyone in exotic celestial gear with superior divinity runes, for a 1 week to 1 month long trial. At first, I thought it as a joke, but I'm considering more and more seriously that it could be useful.

> > >

> > > You could see whether the stat choice is that impactful or not, and above all, you could see what part of the issues come from the stat, and what part comes from the skills/traits.

> > >

> > > Last but not least, you could also see whether a lower DPS/higher sustain actually increases the TTK, to what extent, and whether it's actually better/funnier.

> >

> > Or we could just use PvP style stat selection in a PvP mode, and make it fair on everyone regardless of PvE incomes.

>

> Must be new here in the WvW section :p

>

> Ammy system would kill build diversity. PvP has its own problems and special toxicity. To bring that into a grander scale would cause more issues on top of killing diversity.

I agree. My suggestion is only a week-test, and specifically with celestial to equalize the stats of everyone, and see what comes from the stats, and what comes from the rest (passive procs, etc.), in the scope of the big balance rework that's in progress.

Hello,

Thanks for your kind reply.

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > Hello,

> >

> > > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > So after all that still another attempt that has failed to discover the reason that players come to wvw to avoid pvp :(

> >

> > Allow me to share a thought of mine. Some other day, I was playing PvE on ESO (yeah, another game, whatever), and this is what happenned. I was playing for story, so at a given moment, I had to go to some place, so I got onto my mount, and rode recklessly towards my quest marker, and perfectly ignored all the trash mobs that were on my path, eventhough they were trash mobs, and eventhough I don't mind fighting tons on them when I'm doing whatever quest I'm on.

> >

> > I realized : _"This is exactly the kind of behaviour GW2 players are complaining about."_

> >

> > So, why did I behave so badly, and didn't dismount at every mob that was here to just slay it down ? What could have taken me to do it ? It's not a matter of rewards. I wouldn't have wanted to do it, even for a huge pile of gold (well... Maybe for that). It's not a matter of enjoying fights. I usually do.

> >

> > It's a matter of actually being focused on something else. At that moment, I was focused on reaching my quest marker, following with the quest and the story, meet my favorite friends to play etc. Mobs on the path where a distraction, a delay, and in the end : a disturbance. So it's only a matter of context, and what a players wants to do. Don't forget it's a game, and a moment of leisure. Most people don't appreciate being cornered to do something they don't want in such moments.

> As mentioned above, avoiding a fight in order to reach another goal is perfectly valid and not the subject of my complaint. A good example would be a player running past enemy players in order to get back to their zerg. This behavior makes perfect sense and is a much closer parallel to your behavior that you describe in your example . . .

>

> My concern is the proliferation of players who see avoiding combat as a desirable goal unto itself. To compare it to your experience, you would have to say that you didn't have to go someplace and just chose to ride around aimlessly on your mount. There's certainly nothing wrong with that either, but if that's the most entertaining thing you could find to do in that game week after week, I'd say that's a pretty poor advertisement for the quality of that game . . .

I agree with you. It was a misunderstanding of mine that you were pointing towards players that purposedly dodge fights without any other objective than this. I don't know whether this is a frequent behaviour though. The only explanation I could see in that is some kind of trolling, or maybe some kind of game mechanics hijacks from bored jaded players. I agree with you : that's a pretty poor advertisement for the quality of the game, if the only thing left to do is this.

On another hand, fights are more and more getting a reputation of being boring, for themselves, and from unbalance, and the PPT part doesn't seem to interest many, while it's also been taken down.

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> Now if you would like to further the conversation and introduce your example into a pvp environment, you would need to understand that the mobs in your example are other players, and they all rely on one another for content. So if a player chooses to enter the mode and avoid combat, that's a problem. Not a problem for the player, but a problem for the mode. So again, I will hopelessly ask if you or anyone else could consider how we might improve the mode by introducing changes that would discourage that behavior, rather than find reasons to excuse or justify it :)

and

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> > So, if I understand, you want to find fights and PvP whomever crosses your path, which is fine.

> Just for the record and bc it's something ppl often lose sight of, what I or any other individual player wants isn't really important. As described above, when you create a pvp mode like wvw and discover that you have attracted a large number of players who see avoiding pvp as a primary goal, that should be a strong indicator that something has gone awry. Can you disagree . . ?

That's a tricky point for any multiplayer game, and even more for competitive modes. Players rely on each others to create content. If indeed most players are jaded and refuse to actively take part in the core mechanic (ie : combat), that's a problem. Now, finding reasons (more than excuses) is also the first step to find solutions.

You can't twist a player's arm so that he'd fight. Because they're players, they won't engage in something if they're too forced too. It needs to be a positive action. Then, you can't turn WvW into the old courtyard PvP game mode : a map with only fights. You can't do something such as a no-exit circle when combat has been engaged from one side...

My opinion is WvW should be made so that the objective, as in "what to do" and "what gets you rewards" should be something that's not fights, but that _may_ involve fights. That's the point of keeps, towers and such. You're more or less supposed to manage structures and prevent the opposite side from managing its, and as such, you're bringing fights, because you're supposed to protect your stuff, and go to enemy territory for that purpose. It's only my opinion, and I think other players might be looking for something else in the game mode.

Now, let's suppose that WvW is made for what I'm telling in my previous paragraph, just for reasoning purpose. If you think about it : zergs running in circles to PvD, gank squads, and other players fighting in the middle of nowhere for no other reason than the beauty of a duel aren't fitting in that definition of mine. Such playstyles are therefore _already_ hijacking the game mechanics, very much like players choosing to enter the mode to avoid combat, and that's indeed a problem.

So, one can wonder why players would end up using WvW for something that it's not made for (still supposing it's made for what I'm telling, just for the hypothesis). I can see two answers : there's no other place for that playstyle (eg : duelling, eventhough there _now_ are places for it), or the game mode doesn't work as intended. And with WvW, it's fairly obvious the latter is here. Time coverage and population imbalance make the whole objective management pointless, because everything built can be loss only because of these, which aren't "in game" mechanics, so are frustrating. The fact that walls are death traps, or the whole business around siege also goes that way. Also, the whole rewards system doesn't favor objectives management (what is called PPT, because that's the way it currently works). At the same time, zerging is made possible because of no stacking, or a great effectivity due to the linear scaling of skills.

Which brings me to...

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> > There're many ways to enjoy WvW, and not enough to my taste. That's what makes that game mode great, but that's the source of the issue you're raising. Some ways to have fun just aren't really compatible. I'm not really sure there's a solution for that.

> I would agree that a lack of definition and direction is at least a part of wvw's problems. Is it a pvp mode, or is it a pve mode that allows for pvp? Does it exist to service the large scale combat that spvp can't provide, or is it a solo experience that allows players to come together if they so choose? If you just want to say "It's all of these things and that's what makes it so super!" then we can all hold hands and skip along rainbows into the sunset. Pve works that way bc players can pick and choose for themselves what content they would like to enjoy. But if you want to improve a competitive mode you must first have some sort of definition of what the mode is, bc players aren't choosing the content, players are creating the content . . .

I agree on the fact that ANet should state clearly what WvW is made for, and where the cursor here between a RvR mode clearly oriented towards objective management and fights as a side effect, or a mode clearly oriented towards fights, and objective management as a sheer excuse for it. The first problem is they can't state it in a "take it or leave it" fashion, because the game mode isn't in such a good shape that it could afford players to leave from disagreement or resentment. The second problem is they may be torn what the game currently is, what the players have made it, and what they truly want it to be. And it'd also possible that the way to put it back in tracks can be frustrating (not to say painful) for veteran players because it's not what they're used to. You can't be too harsh when it's a game... But the more they'll wait and leave the ambiguity, the harder it'll be in the end. And most players here seem to agree that what the game mode has to offer is now old and boring.

Then, I don't fully agree with your idea of players creating the content. I'd rather say players create the action, but that action takes place in a specific frame that it's ANet job to define and provide. So, if I had to made some suggestion : **ANet should state what WvW is all about**. It doesn't forbid other playstyles in that frame, but a statement that development resources, balance and patches will be for that playstyle, and once said, develop it so that **game mechanics will be in accordance with previous statement** : it includes core mechanics, rewards scheme favoring the "official" gamestyle, and detering what'd be consider as side gamestyles, not to say undesirable.

I have derailed from the sole fight question, I apologize...

And on a side note :

> > This is what you're looking for, enjoy to do in your leisure time, and what you're focusing on when you're doing WvW. Nothing to blame you about. But you can't really blame others either when they're using the tools they're given to favor their own way of having fun.

> It's interesting to me that this is the second consecutive reply that has shown interest in assigning blame. How is that constructive? Why would it be important to blame someone in this situation? Why not just look for ways to create a better experience . . ?

Blame may be too harsh of a word. The thing is that conversation exists because something is putting a shade on your way to have fun, which is a pity. So, in some way, they'd be to blame. So, eventhough there's noone to blame in this situation, there're some situations where behaviours could be faulty. But it's more up to ANet to define it.

_(edit : typos)_

Hello,

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> So after all that still another attempt that has failed to discover the reason that players come to wvw to avoid pvp :(

Allow me to share a thought of mine. Some other day, I was playing PvE on ESO (yeah, another game, whatever), and this is what happenned. I was playing for story, so at a given moment, I had to go to some place, so I got onto my mount, and rode recklessly towards my quest marker, and perfectly ignored all the trash mobs that were on my path, eventhough they were trash mobs, and eventhough I don't mind fighting tons on them when I'm doing whatever quest I'm on.

I realized : _"This is exactly the kind of behaviour GW2 players are complaining about."_

So, why did I behave so badly, and didn't dismount at every mob that was here to just slay it down ? What could have taken me to do it ? It's not a matter of rewards. I wouldn't have wanted to do it, even for a huge pile of gold (well... Maybe for that). It's not a matter of enjoying fights. I usually do.

It's a matter of actually being focused on something else. At that moment, I was focused on reaching my quest marker, following with the quest and the story, meet my favorite friends to play etc. Mobs on the path where a distraction, a delay, and in the end : a disturbance. So it's only a matter of context, and what a players wants to do. Don't forget it's a game, and a moment of leisure. Most people don't appreciate being cornered to do something they don't want in such moments.

So, if I understand, you want to find fights and PvP whomever crosses your path, which is fine. This is what you're looking for, enjoy to do in your leisure time, and what you're focusing on when you're doing WvW. Nothing to blame you about. But you can't really blame others either when they're using the tools they're given to favor their own way of having fun.

There're many ways to enjoy WvW, and not enough to my taste. That's what makes that game mode great, but that's the source of the issue you're raising. Some ways to have fun just aren't really compatible. I'm not really sure there's a solution for that.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Opal.9324" said:

> > I don't think bravery is the only issue here. I miss when I could flip T3 camps without a mounted gank squad zooming over before I have a chance to finish. Now that only seems to work if I log in when most people are sleeping. Towers are even worse. Feels like trying to solo roam is slowly becoming pointless.

> But attackers have mounts and everyone claim they arrive at the camps too fast in order for defenders to defend T0.

>

> How does it ever reach T3?

Because taking camp is PvE and mounts are only used by zerglings to go back to their herd of course ! ;)

Hello,

To begin with, I'm not really sure that using zergs as an example is such a good idea. Not that zergs don't exist, but there're other issues that come under the "diversity vs. balance" topic, that concern small scale and even... the case of the absence of players !

Eventhough the question of diversity vs. balance is relevant, I'm not really sure what complexity has to do with it. For now, I think it's more a matter of semantics.

So, **what is balance ?**

> So where does Build Diversity come into play? Consider that every individual is running a build. If every individual ran the same build (Homogeneous group), and this build was considered to be the best way to follow the three rules above, then build diversity is essentially a flat-line...and the game is considered "Balanced." You can see that this type of game-play is not far from where we currently are in the state of the game...where two classes dominate the meta-game for builds in WvW (Firebrands, Scourge's).

I agree with that, but you're forgetting the part where _players fight each others_. So if you take two players with the same build, and you set them in a fight, that won't be a 100 years fight, and one of them should eventually win. It can be a matter of pure skill, which is fine, but there also are IG builds that one-shot you out of the blue, in a time shorter than the mean human reaction time, which is not. So even if the situation is _everyone runs the same build_ it can also come to unbalance, because of the intrinsic mechanic that allow a player to be helpless.

**From balance to diversity**

Another _balance_ question was mentioned in some ESO update where they were talking about balance and class design. Roughly, the points were :

* Each class should be able to do everything in its way, which covers both the class theme and the mechanics (AoE vs targeted, for example)

* Some class will be better than other at a given role.

I think these remarks are worth for every MMO. To me, it's a good target, because in that way, each player can find both a fulfilling and appealing playstyle.

That said, in GW2 situation, if you take a given role, let's say : AoE boon generation, some classes are really shining, while others are less effective, with a really strong discrepancy which dismisses some options. Then, even in the mechanics, some options are incredibly more effective than others.

To sum it up : if you define a given role (or rule, as you call it), eventhough some of the 27 specs will raise their hands telling "I can do that", which is diversity, the amount of choices is lower, because of discrepancies in effectiveness, which is balance.

**Deeper into diversity**

> Let's look at World verse World...a perfect example of complexity and chaos theory put into practice in a video game. Each individual player in a zerg is acting on a basic set of rules. These rules would probably look something like this;

> >! 1. Stay close to the commander

> >! 2. Survive

> >! 3. Kill others.

>

> now, with these simple rules, we can see that players will proactively shape the builds they create, and then act in way that will satisfy the above three rules.

You used these examples, and it's fair, eventhough the "survive" and "kill others" cover far more _rules_ than only that, but I can understand you summed it up for the sake of simplicity. Now, it also shows how ANet could work for more diversity, and through that, more balance. There need to be more _rules_, as you call them, or just more ways to play.

In the current situation, you roughly have zergs and small scale, which boil down to the ability to get boons quick (best sustain option ?), and to deal damage (stunlocks, dps or condis). As these choices are currently the best performing, the options are narrow because only a few specs are really effective as that : FB for AoE boon generation, Scourges for boon denial, SB for boon generation+DPS etc.

So the first lever to balance through diversity would be toning down the best mechanics, and raising the neglected ones, so that more playstyles can be valid choices. Balance would come from the _"don't put all your eggs in the same basket"_ philosophy, because as diversity would raise, more varied encounters would require a more polyvalent build, which is intrinsically toned down. Currently, as only a few mechanics are overperforming, you can roughly put all your eggs in the same basket and be fine, which leads to powercreep, because the one who can stack more in a specific style will win. That part concerns small scale more than zergs. Specifically for zerg, as others stated, splitting and distributing amongst more classes would be better for diversity in composition.

Another lever would be the game mechanics for themselves. If the only thing WvW has to provide is fights, then the options will be limited because players will look for the best options for that. It's the same for conquest PvP : area denial is very strong, because it's one the way the match works. In a "get the relic and bring it back" system, mobility and sustain can become more prevalent, and players protecting the holder won't necessarily spec like a zergling or a roamer. So one of the way ANet can bring more diversity is through the gamemode core mechanics.

**Conclusion**

The game mode should offer various objectives for players to fulfill. That said, for a specific purpose, the player has to make a choice amongst all the possibilities (classes...) and that choice will be a compromise between what they want to do (diversity here), how they like to play, and what works for that purpose. The latter needs both diversity (choices) and balance (no choice should be overperforming compared to others).

Yet, if the player community _only_ want fights, and despise any other game mechanic because _"it's PvE"_, what can honestly ANet do ?

Now, fights are a specific situation, because one of the players _will_ lose, yet everyone _should_ have fun. Which leads to a balance question : if some builds are able to let the opponent helpless (eg : stunlocks, extra-fast one-shot build), that's not desirable. Behind this is the TTK question, which has to be a compromise between : leaving enough time for everyside to do its best and feel like it, and not make things drag too long and be eventually boring.

And it leaves now large scale, where group composition becomes more prevalent, and as you're saying, the group behaviour and effectiveness isn't the sum of all it's components. To me, this is the only part where complexity matters.

Hello,

Thanks for the feedback.

It doesn't matter whether I got right or wrong the evade uptime question, or the "big pressure" one. I probably wasn't clear on the fact that it's not my opinion. The core thing is : the devs are aiming at "putting everything back in line", which means _"nerf everything"_, and Mirage Cloak has been especially quoted in the forecoming PvP balance changes topic. That means that, whether it's a lie or not, whether you like it or not, the devs _will_ do something about that.

Which leaves you two options : either you stick to what you're used to, and what you consider you're a specialist of (and you probably are), but you have to expect the nerf bat to come soon, and turn Mirage into a clunky useless elite because of insane nerfs on its core mechanics. Just think of what happened to scourge : the matter is not what it was (OP or whatever), the thing is what it has become, and I don't think it's an enviable situation. The other option is to accept your doom, and suggest something.

Being said that infinite horizon and mirage cloak will probably get something unpleasant in the near future, I just made that suggestion.

I'd like to remind that my suggestion involves _no_ change to mirage cloak beyond the rework of infinite horizon that'd become a command instead of a passive proc. As for the damage values, keep in mind that it's a context where every damage should be toned down for everyone.

That doesn't make my suggestion more relevant, but some critics really seem to be out of place under that light.

> @"Cal Cohen.2358" said:

> Hi again,

Hello.

Thanks for giving your insight.

> First off, really enjoying reading through all the feedback. While we don’t have time to respond to each individual post, we wanted to respond to a few of the points that have been brought up multiple times.

>

> * Nerfing only Scourge will result in boons and cleanses being too strong

>

> This is a real concern and definitely something we thought about when deciding on which changes to make for this update. What it really comes down to is the question of how long we want to chase our own tails right now. If we nerf Scourge, then maybe we need to nerf boons and cleanses, then maybe we need to nerf conditions and corrupts, and on and on we go. Now this is one of the goals of the future patch, but that is going to take longer than the time we have for this balance cycle.

> The alternative here is to just make no changes until the future update is ready, but we don’t think this is the right thing to do.

How long you want to chase your own tail is indeed a big issue, but allow me to consider you're not making the right decision. The thing is you're currently facing some kind of flood. You're positive you need to build a dam, but your solution is to dig a hole in the ground to raise the dam. It won't prevent the flood. Water will just flow in the hole, so you'll have to dig another hole to raise another dam, and the water will still flow in its own stream. Another way to put it is you're trying to shape a flabby blob into a specific shape by pushing it with one finger on one specific point. The odds it'll take the shape you're intending are extremely low.

This is the reason why I humbly think it'd be wiser to raise the dam all at once, or use all your fingers with both hands to shape your item. Which indeed means working on boons, strips, steals, corrupts, conditions and cleanses _all at once_ to bring _everything_ in line.

> We know Scourge is a problem, so we’re going to make an adjustment in the short-term.

I'm a bit dubious about it, because other _problems_ have been raised (boons, firebrands...) which you acknowledge, but still aren't adressed. So why scourge first and foremost, and only it, eventhough you're indeed afraid that it could have severe side-effects in the balance ? Once again, it'd be wiser to delay, and deal with all the issues you've identified.

>If it does end up that Scourge was keeping things in check and those things start to overperform, we do have opportunity to make slight adjustments out of the normal balance cadence, but ideally we want to spend as much time as possible working on the patch where we are trying to address everything at once.

My fear with it (I'm a bit of the pessimistic one) is that the incoming scourge "fix" will only be a bandaid, that'll raise other issues that you'll _slightly adjust_ with a stay that'll make another thing cluncky, so it'll need a _slight adjustement_ again, with a strand of twine and two knots and the main effect will be a big waste of time while you're working on the patch which will address everything at once.

Now, I've got no idea how advanced the decisions are concerning the Big Bang Patch or the _slight adjustement_ patchs, how much time it'd take, how much work it is, how deep you want to tweak or revamp professions and specializations, so maybe it'd _look_ better to do something now, and have a bigger thing come later. So I'll just say I'm very mixed feelings about this.

> * Why not do the proposed PvP splits in WvW as well, for the sake of roamers?

>

> (...) Certainly everything is extremely powerful, but that is the longer-term thing we’re trying to address. (...)

I'm glad you're stating that, wish you good luck to address this, and I'm really looking forward to what'll come out of this.

Hello everyone,

The infinite horizon trait is being controversial due to the high pressure it offers, especially with condi builds, and it's [currently being looked at](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/91447/potential-future-balance-changes-pvp/p1) in PvP, and in WvW. Namely :

> @"Cal Cohen.2358" said:

> **Condi Mirage**

> We understand that Mirage Cloak is a big point of contention and we’ve been having discussions internally, but it isn’t something that we’ll be ready to action for this update. As we get closer to our desired solution we’ll start to talk about it more with you all, but in the meantime we’re looking at some more general changes. Primarily toning down clone generation and reducing some damage potential of staff, pushing it more toward a utility kit.

Two things are to be considered here : mirage cloak offers a big evade uptime, and infinite horizon offers a big pressure potential. The aim of my suggestion is to put forward an idea on that topic. Mirage is a very thematic elite specialization with 3 specific mechanics : mirage cloak, ambushes, and mirage mirrors. In my opinion, mirage mirrors still haven't found their place in gamestyles, and I'd like to shed more light on them as well with that idea.

That said, the infinite horizon trait is problematic because it triggers ambushes for clones roughly each time there's an evade. Yet, the fact that mirage has a large evade access allows for a lot of pressure through infinite horizon. So the idea is simple : decorrelate the clone's access to ambushes and the mirage's evade.

The core idea is to replace all the _shatter_ skills by _command_ skills. Commands skills would be the F-skills. They wouldn't shatter clones, but deal no direct damage. The new F-skills would then be :

* F1 : Assign your clones a new target. No damage whatsoever, so a fairly low CD will do.

* F2 : Infinite horizon commands the clones to use their ambush skill on their current target. Inherits Mind Wrack's traits. _With Mind Wrack's 12s CD, it'd automatically lower the pressure._

* F3 : Randomly teleport your clones in a 600 radius around their target. Target enemy gets confusion stacks like Cry of Frustration. Inherits Cry of Frustration's traits.

* F4 : turns all your clones into mirage mirrors

Infinite horizon trait becomes a command, and so does desert distorsion. The last "top" trait is self deception, and I'd also like to see it replaced with these 3 suggestions :

* Instead of self-deception, a trait that'd generate a clone _when a mirage mirror is shattered_. The idea is to promote mirage mirrors, and lower a bit the clone generation.

* Instead of desert distorsion, a trait that'd trigger "minor arcane thievery".

* Instead of infinite horizon, a trait that'd be focused on deceptions, and I've no clear idea about it beyond the usual CD reduction. It'd be nice and thematic to have something with mirrors as well. Something around the idea of sadistic searing like : if you shatter a mirror, your next deception skill confuses enemies in a given radius.

## To sum it up :

Thematically, mirage would be more focused on evasion and deception through "images" which actually are clones. As a result Mirages don't shatter their clones. Instead of that, they command their clones with specific orders : get a new target (F1), use their ambush skill (F2), confuse their enemy (F3), turn into a mirage mirror (F4). Mirage lose the ability to daze, just like Chronomancer lost the ability to distort.

As part of these command skills are built from traits, they'd get traits more focused around mirage mirrors, to make that mechanic more appealing. Mirage mirrors could thus : provide clone generation, trigger arcane thievery, or give deceptions a boost.

Whatever happens, the mirage still gets mirage cloak as an evade just the way it is, and its own ambush skill would work all the same as actually.

Any thoughts ?

> @"Kanto.2485" said:

>(...) you get situations in which your stab gets chaincorrupted into fear and you just die. So the problem is that with a coordinated shade spike(and maybe rev spike on top of it) you can lockdown all enemy classes that don't have stuff like evades or skills that make you completely invulnerable to damage(and with low cast time too), corrupt their stab into fear, and then put CC on top of that. And with the amount of damage necroes and rev deal you can melt down even a firebrand in like 1-1.5 seconds sometimes.

Makes sense, but I feel like that stars need to be quite aligned for that to work.

That said, stunlocks have been an issue for ages...

Hello,

Thank you for the input. For what it's worth, I expect the main effect of reducing Sand savant's target cap will be to just get more scourges to get the work done... But I'm the pessimistic one, and zergs aren't so much of my playstyle.

I've read the [Potential Future Balance Changes - PvP](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/91447/potential-future-balance-changes-pvp) as well, and I was wondering whether some of the issues that are raised there are also valid for WvW (at least, in a near future). I'm especially thinking of the condi mirage question that'll be put on the table, and also :

> @"Cal Cohen.2358" said:

> we’re looking to address an underlying issue: hard CC skills also doing large amounts of damage.

I'm emphasizing that one because it's a question that I (amongst others) have raised in a previous post in the WvW section, and I'm thankful that you're considering it.

EDIT : Another question. Is the issue of the insane boon application and re-application (that led to the boon corrupt race) on the table for a later larger more "across the board" update ?

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

I like this question. Thanks for raising it.

Though I don't have any proper answer beyond the obvious : the reluctance doesn't come from the consequences of fights.

Then what ?