Einlanzer.1627

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > This doesn't really solve the issue of active defense being overpowered and requiring little to no player investment to be good.

> True, it requires no investment. Instead, it requires _skill_. That's what your proposals are all about - you'd rather the system rewarded investment than skill.

>

> While i agree that the difference between skill floor and ceiling effectiveness is probably too big, i don't really want this game to get dumbed down.

>

> Also, how are you going to solve the issue of _passive_ defence being overpowered?

Again, you're using fallacious reasoning.

a.) Investment vs skill is a false dichotomy. Rewarding player investment does not mean the game is not rewarding skill. Nearly everything in the game rewards both skill and investment, with the only real exception (preposterously) being active defense - which arguably rewards neither particularly well.

b.) Your assumption that "less dodging = less skill required" is the opposite of the way it would actually work. Nerfing active defense to be more in-line with passive defense would increase the benefit of skill by making the dodge mechanic less fire-and-forget. This would force players to make choices around how much dodge to build for and to think strategically about how much they might need to be able to dodge in various encounters. It would also force players to be more strategic with the actual dodges they make in combat, which would _increase_ the reward for skillful playing.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> The "solution" in making defensive gear more important is very simple and doesn't require any changes to the attributes of the game.

> Make mobs attack faster, also allow them to attack while moving, just like players do. Solved. In competitive modes, as said numerous times in this thread, defensive stats are very useful, and the difference between PVP and PVE is that players attack much faster and can attack "on the move". This could make the combat much better, if done well, because right now mobs are giant damage sponges that attack every full moon.

This doesn't really solve the issue of active defense being overpowered and requiring little to no player investment to be good. So, even if i was to generally concede this point (I do agree that adjusting encounter design to work more like PvP would go a long way, and have long been an advocate of this), I still think active defense needs to be given better symmetry with passive defense, which would more or less mean nerfing endurance regeneration and vigor and then changing vitality so that it improves endurance regeneration instead of health.

Doing this would mitigate the need to mess with offensive stats, because Berserker-based builds would end up with much less survivability than they have today, making both Vitality and Toughness attractive stats with different playstyles and benefits while also synergizing well if players wanted both to maximize their defense. IMO, this is and always was the right way to design it.

Players who really enjoy a more active-defense oriented playstyle can emphasize Vitality and dodging in their builds, while people who want to tank can go with Toughness. Both can still synergize to provide maximum attrition. Focusing purely on offensive stats would make you supremely glassy in this world, having trouble both absorbing and avoiding damage, which makes logical sense.

This would be good for the game for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that it would help to reign in power creep. The idea is not to "make combat passive", it's to fix defense in general so that being good at it in any form requires some investment and tradeoffs.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> I don’t mind either way. A living story season is pretty much the same as an expansion anyway except it’s just spread out over time. As long as the quality remains high then I can’t complain.

No, it isn't, or at least it hasn't been in the past. Not by a long shot. I'm sincerely hoping they change that for LW5.

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Makuragee.3058" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > It's really hard to say until we see what they do with LW5. I have always had a slight bias for expansions over the LW because they tend to accomplish a lot more, but that could change with the announcement they made a few months back about giving teams more control.

> > > >

> > > > My main issue is that they're focusing too much on the LW at the expense of everything else. At this point we need a renewed focus on new and revamped features/systems instead of story content. Not to say we should get none of the latter, but it really should take a back seat for a while. Maybe work on bringing back LW1 or adding new dungeon/raid content at a faster rate.

> > >

> > > Everything but raid please.

> >

> > I don't really raid personally, but I think the game benefits from having them by offering hardcore content for competitive players.

> >

> > That said, I really think we need a focus on more 5-man content as well as system/feature updates and less of a focus on new open world metas. They've arguably added too many different competing metas to the game at this point and they need to dial it back. New zones going forward should mostly be for exploration and story/collections.

>

> I disagree with the second part, not because i dont think they have sort of bloated metas but because they did just that woth the pof maps and they flopped hard. Imo lw should be this exploration meme thing and have expansions which take longer amd have more thought put into them bring new metas and world bosses.

I don't think PoF flopped at all. I think people loved the zones but then left them because there was no incentive to stay in them. But you don't have to use Metas for that. You can offer various collections; you can make the zones enjoyable for repeat casual farming like most of the LW maps are.

PoF zones offer none of those things, and to top it off they are punishing to explore because of mobs being overtuned given that they are fundamentally casual/exploration zones. It blows my mind they haven't gone back and adjusted that. If they would fix that I would pretty much guarantee they'd see a substantial population increase because they are environmentally so well done.

> @"Makuragee.3058" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > It's really hard to say until we see what they do with LW5. I have always had a slight bias for expansions over the LW because they tend to accomplish a lot more, but that could change with the announcement they made a few months back about giving teams more control.

> >

> > My main issue is that they're focusing too much on the LW at the expense of everything else. At this point we need a renewed focus on new and revamped features/systems instead of story content. Not to say we should get none of the latter, but it really should take a back seat for a while. Maybe work on bringing back LW1 or adding new dungeon/raid content at a faster rate.

>

> Everything but raid please.

I don't really raid personally, but I think the game benefits from having them by offering hardcore content for competitive players, and I think it's important to retain a community of competitive players for the overall health of the game, even if they are only a small % of the player base.

That said, I really think we need a focus on more 5-man content as well as system/feature updates and less of a focus on new open world metas. They've arguably added too many different competing metas to the game at this point and they need to dial it back. New zones going forward should mostly be for exploration and story/collections with only the occasional exception. Honestly, the game may be improved by removing some of the existing metas so that players aren't so over-distributed.

It's really hard to say until we see what they do with LW5. I have always had a slight bias for expansions over the LW because they tend to accomplish a lot more, but that could change with the announcement they made a few months back about giving teams more control.

My main issue is that they're focusing too much on the story at the expense of everything else. This would be dubious even if the story was amazing, and it isn't. At this point we need a renewed focus on new and revamped features/systems instead of story content. Not to say we should get none of the latter, but it really should take a back seat for a while. Maybe work on bringing back LW1 or adding new dungeon/raid content at a faster rate.

Really, nothing this structured or formal is necessary. They just need to freaking communicate. Their culture is so antiquated with stuff like this.

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system.

> > > > >

> > > > > I and many others, based on the other responses I've seen, agree it would be more boring. I could just as easily say that you're previous statement that current gameplay is shallow is a hollow statement. Passive defenses are currently fine.

> > > >

> > > > This is a classic case of status quo bias. The fact that about half the people in this thread agree with me despite me suggesting radical changes to the current state is a huge indicator that something is actually wrong.

> > >

> > > For the sake of argument, I went back and read most of the posts in the thread and I'd have to say...no, most people don't necessarily agree with you. Just cause you yourself have made a bunch of posts doesn't mean a ton of people agree with you. And most of the ones that you could argue a maybe with didn't necessarily agree with your solution, but rather offered a different one or didn't agree it was worth the overhaul.

> > > I'll concede that some active defenses are probably a little too overtuned, but that doesn't require an overhaul of the system...it just requires those skills/traits/whatever they are being tweaked. As for passive defensive stats currently being useless. They aren't. I see that as a fallacious statement. Plenty of builds use them to great effect in PvP modes as I've stated numerous times. Are there tons of available stat combos that are arguably useless? Yeah, but I feel like many of them are because the stat distrubutions are

> > > The only "status quo" I guess I'm biased toward is that...who gives a kitten about it in PvE. I'm perfectly fine with it not taking forever to kill trash mobs.

> >

> > Yes, they do, based upon the likes of my posts as well as posts stating similar things throughout the thread. They may not perfectly agree with every suggestion I've made, but more people than not recognize that there's a problem with the way things are tuned today, and opportunities for improvement.

> >

> > And, no, the primary issue with active defense is that it is good without requiring any player investment or tradeoffs. This renders passive defense mostly pointless and also pigeonholes the encounter design in bad ways. I.e. lots of one-hit kill- or dodge type attacks that make combat way too much of a chaotic spam fest with no real thought behind it.

> >

> > Also, your last sentence in this post shows a gross misunderstanding of what i'm suggesting.

>

> If people could dislike posts you would have a accurate picture what the people in this thread think about your posts since we cant do that trying to use likes as indication its a good idea is flawed.

Nice try, but I specifically didn't do that - I even explicitly stated that likes/dislikes have very little bearing on whether something is a good idea or not. What I'm doing is showing that a lot of people agree there's a problem, and that's just about the most you'll get on a video game forum.

> @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I and many others, based on the other responses I've seen, agree it would be more boring. I could just as easily say that you're previous statement that current gameplay is shallow is a hollow statement. Passive defenses are currently fine.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is a classic case of status quo bias. The fact that about half the people in this thread agree with me despite me suggesting radical changes to the current state is a huge indicator that something is actually wrong.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the sake of argument, I went back and read most of the posts in the thread and I'd have to say...no, most people don't necessarily agree with you. Just cause you yourself have made a bunch of posts doesn't mean a ton of people agree with you. And most of the ones that you could argue a maybe with didn't necessarily agree with your solution, but rather offered a different one or didn't agree it was worth the overhaul.

> > > > > > > I'll concede that some active defenses are probably a little too overtuned, but that doesn't require an overhaul of the system...it just requires those skills/traits/whatever they are being tweaked. As for passive defensive stats currently being useless. They aren't. I see that as a fallacious statement. Plenty of builds use them to great effect in PvP modes as I've stated numerous times. Are there tons of available stat combos that are arguably useless? Yeah, but I feel like many of them are because the stat distrubutions are

> > > > > > > The only "status quo" I guess I'm biased toward is that...who gives a kitten about it in PvE. I'm perfectly fine with it not taking forever to kill trash mobs.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes, they do, based upon the likes of my posts as well as posts stating similar things throughout the thread. They may not perfectly agree with every suggestion I've made, but more people than not recognize that there's a problem with the way things are tuned today.

> > > > >

> > > > > Go re-read the thread.

> > > >

> > > > I've read through it numerous times.

> > >

> > > Then you're the one suffering from a confirmation bias.

> >

> > Every single highly rated post in the thread is critical of the status quo. So, no, that isn't me.

>

> And not all of them necessarily agree with you.

You are being pedantic to try to cover the weakness of your argument. Virtually nobody has ideas on how to fix problems that are in perfect alignment with each other. The point is that players disproportionately see there's a problem with how things are balanced with the stats.

Ultimately, it doesn't even matter. The entire player base could be against my proposed changes and that wouldn't actually be telling at all regarding the quality of the ideas. This is something you see all the time out in the real world. New idea faces extreme criticism until they are implemented and everyone actually realizes it was a good idea. Just as common as the opposite.

Literally all the opposition I see in this thread is some variation of "no it's fine don't change it" or "you want to make combat boring" - arguments that hold no water whatsoever, especially in light of absolute dominance of berserker in the game.

> @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > > > > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I and many others, based on the other responses I've seen, agree it would be more boring. I could just as easily say that you're previous statement that current gameplay is shallow is a hollow statement. Passive defenses are currently fine.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is a classic case of status quo bias. The fact that about half the people in this thread agree with me despite me suggesting radical changes to the current state is a huge indicator that something is actually wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > For the sake of argument, I went back and read most of the posts in the thread and I'd have to say...no, most people don't necessarily agree with you. Just cause you yourself have made a bunch of posts doesn't mean a ton of people agree with you. And most of the ones that you could argue a maybe with didn't necessarily agree with your solution, but rather offered a different one or didn't agree it was worth the overhaul.

> > > > > I'll concede that some active defenses are probably a little too overtuned, but that doesn't require an overhaul of the system...it just requires those skills/traits/whatever they are being tweaked. As for passive defensive stats currently being useless. They aren't. I see that as a fallacious statement. Plenty of builds use them to great effect in PvP modes as I've stated numerous times. Are there tons of available stat combos that are arguably useless? Yeah, but I feel like many of them are because the stat distrubutions are

> > > > > The only "status quo" I guess I'm biased toward is that...who gives a kitten about it in PvE. I'm perfectly fine with it not taking forever to kill trash mobs.

> > > >

> > > > Yes, they do, based upon the likes of my posts as well as posts stating similar things throughout the thread. They may not perfectly agree with every suggestion I've made, but more people than not recognize that there's a problem with the way things are tuned today.

> > >

> > > Go re-read the thread.

> >

> > I've read through it numerous times.

>

> Then you're the one suffering from a confirmation bias.

Every single highly rated post in the thread is critical of the status quo. So, no, that isn't me. And if you look at individual posters, as opposed to individual posts, they are also disproportionately critical.

> @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system.

> > > > >

> > > > > I and many others, based on the other responses I've seen, agree it would be more boring. I could just as easily say that you're previous statement that current gameplay is shallow is a hollow statement. Passive defenses are currently fine.

> > > >

> > > > This is a classic case of status quo bias. The fact that about half the people in this thread agree with me despite me suggesting radical changes to the current state is a huge indicator that something is actually wrong.

> > >

> > > For the sake of argument, I went back and read most of the posts in the thread and I'd have to say...no, most people don't necessarily agree with you. Just cause you yourself have made a bunch of posts doesn't mean a ton of people agree with you. And most of the ones that you could argue a maybe with didn't necessarily agree with your solution, but rather offered a different one or didn't agree it was worth the overhaul.

> > > I'll concede that some active defenses are probably a little too overtuned, but that doesn't require an overhaul of the system...it just requires those skills/traits/whatever they are being tweaked. As for passive defensive stats currently being useless. They aren't. I see that as a fallacious statement. Plenty of builds use them to great effect in PvP modes as I've stated numerous times. Are there tons of available stat combos that are arguably useless? Yeah, but I feel like many of them are because the stat distrubutions are

> > > The only "status quo" I guess I'm biased toward is that...who gives a kitten about it in PvE. I'm perfectly fine with it not taking forever to kill trash mobs.

> >

> > Yes, they do, based upon the likes of my posts as well as posts stating similar things throughout the thread. They may not perfectly agree with every suggestion I've made, but more people than not recognize that there's a problem with the way things are tuned today.

>

> Go re-read the thread.

I've read through it numerous times.

> @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

> > > > >

> > > > > And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand.

> > > >

> > > > I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously.

> > > >

> > > > Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system.

> > >

> > > I and many others, based on the other responses I've seen, agree it would be more boring. I could just as easily say that you're previous statement that current gameplay is shallow is a hollow statement. Passive defenses are currently fine.

> >

> > This is a classic case of status quo bias. The fact that about half the people in this thread agree with me despite me suggesting radical changes to the current state is a huge indicator that something is actually wrong.

>

> For the sake of argument, I went back and read most of the posts in the thread and I'd have to say...no, most people don't necessarily agree with you. Just cause you yourself have made a bunch of posts doesn't mean a ton of people agree with you. And most of the ones that you could argue a maybe with didn't necessarily agree with your solution, but rather offered a different one or didn't agree it was worth the overhaul.

> I'll concede that some active defenses are probably a little too overtuned, but that doesn't require an overhaul of the system...it just requires those skills/traits/whatever they are being tweaked. As for passive defensive stats currently being useless. They aren't. I see that as a fallacious statement. Plenty of builds use them to great effect in PvP modes as I've stated numerous times. Are there tons of available stat combos that are arguably useless? Yeah, but I feel like many of them are because the stat distrubutions are

> The only "status quo" I guess I'm biased toward is that...who gives a kitten about it in PvE. I'm perfectly fine with it not taking forever to kill trash mobs.

Yes, they do, based upon the likes of my posts as well as posts stating similar things throughout the thread. They may not perfectly agree with every suggestion I've made, but more people than not recognize that there's a problem with the way things are tuned today, and opportunities for improvement.

And, no, the primary issue with active defense is that it is good without requiring any player investment or tradeoffs. This renders passive defense mostly pointless and also pigeonholes the encounter design in bad ways. I.e. lots of one-hit kill- or dodge type attacks that make combat way too much of a chaotic spam fest with no real thought behind it.

Also, your last sentence in this post shows a gross misunderstanding of what i'm suggesting.

> @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

> > > >

> > > > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

> > > >

> > > > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

> > >

> > > And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand.

> >

> > I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously.

> >

> > Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system.

>

> I and many others, based on the other responses I've seen, agree it would be more boring. I could just as easily say that you're previous statement that current gameplay is shallow is a hollow statement. Passive defenses are currently fine.

This is a classic case of status quo bias. The fact that more than half the people in this thread agree with the basic premise that "stats are mistuned" , and about half like my ideas despite suggesting radical changes to the current state, is a huge indicator that something is actually wrong.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

>

> They why do you suggest reducing the effectiveness of offensive stats? What does that have to do with making passive and active defense work better?

I'm suggesting a whole suite of changes to rebalance combat in the game. The details of getting the numbers exactly right would be up to Anet. Damage output and active defenses both need to be reigned in. I'm not actually suggesting buffing defensive stats in any particular way, just changing the mechanics so that active defense requires investment like anything else does.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

> >

> > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

> >

> > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

> So, in simpler words, making the combat _more passive_.

> Yes, that's definitely going to make the combat system deeper.[/sarcasm]

>

> By the way, since you keep avoiding the issue, i'm going to ask directly. How much do you think defense needs to become stronger, considering that you can already make builds able to facetank enemies?

Suggesting I'm "avoiding" any issue is preposterous. You conflate ideas a lot in virtually all of your posts and are evading my counterpoints.

Here's the thing - It isn't my job to balance the minutiae of the game. What I'm doing is communicating a vision for how the combat system should work. How about you, instead, convince me how better tuning active and passive defense so they work together and are both useful would make combat _less_ interesting. While you're at it, you can also try convincing me how defensive stats making your attrition worse in more situations than not by crippling your ability to kill mobs way more than offensive stats cripple your ability to survive attacks is "working as intended" or "healthy and balanced."

Numerous people in this thread have stated agreement that active defense is overpowered and that has negative repercussions across the game.

"The combination of active defenses and easy reviving in particular has been noxious. Its resulted in ArenaNet having to develop encounters where the only viable tactic is just "down the whole party with every attack" because there's no other way to be a serious threat, and even then there's alot of encounters in the game which don't end up being a threat to a decent party, even when poorly played.

By making the combat more "dynamic", you're making the encounters more "static". Despite being seen as a tool of strategy, you require less thought with active defenses since you can just click a button and become invulnerable."

> @"Ototo.3214" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

> >

> > Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

> >

> > What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

>

> And you completely ignore how that isn't necessary. There are already working passive defense stated builds that work just fine in PvP modes. Reducing the prominence of active defense so that you can be more of a meat shield makes the game boring because most people prefer trying to actively avoid the hit rather than be forced to take the hit. Idk how that is so hard to understand.

I don't "ignore that it isn't necessary". This is a game - literally nothing is "necessary." I am saying that revamping it the right way could benefit the game enormously.

Saying it would "make the game boring" is a hollow statement that is based on a shallow (and arguably authoritarian) analysis of both the current and hypothetical future state of the combat system.

Meh. It's definitely better than nothing, but I was honestly hoping for something more interesting than "swap out your effects between existing runes/sigils".

I honestly don't feel like being able to just swap stats is a good enough carrot for legendaries, which harms the game by disengaging players from long term goals. They should represent some sort of horizontal growth - like having unique runes/sigils that aren't necessarily power-creeped over exotic/ascended, but that have interesting and unique mechanics.

Still, at least this is a new system that introduces possibilities for expanding on it in the future.

Guys, look, it should be obvious, but:

Passive defense vs active defense is a false dichotomy. Literally no one is suggesting that active defense/dodge should be removed from the game so that combat can be fully passive. LITERALLY NOBODY. Stop using strawman arguments.

What's being suggested is that passive and active defense should work together to create a more satisfying, strategically deep build/combat system. Doing so would require adjusting mechanics to moderately decrease emphasis on dodging and increase emphasis on damage absorption.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> Just to point out that the defensive stats does serve one important feature in PVE, it allows for players that struggle with the action combat (still learning it, or not so fast reflexes etc) to compensate with defensive stats to find their own comfort level. This part is working as intended, it helps those that have difficulties using active defenses properly/perfectly.

>

> From this perspective defensive stats are working as intended, and the only reason we don't use them more for typical "End-game veterans" etc, are because once you're good enough, you don't need them (due to active defenses). This is a problem mainly with encounter-design.

>

> ---

>

> (A) I agree that there are too much of just about everything right now, the changes since 2015/HoT and elites have generally powercreeped, by adding both more damage (mainly damage modifiers) and more active defenses (to battle the higher damage).

>

> I think the best solution to that is a extensive balancing re-work, and go back to the balance/power-level before the 2015/HoT patch, where each class had much less of ... everything. Thus you couldn't stack kitten damage modifiers on top of each others, which made all pvp into "I hit you, you die" which forced more classes to have spammy defenses to compensate for that.

>

> I still do think that the entire stat system in this game is honestly horrible, and should never have been added in the first place. But removing it now would impact the game way too much, would almost be a new game in scope.

>

> (B) It is completely possible to create near undying bunker builds in WvW, primary by using defensive stats like Ministrel. While this naturally also uses all the active defenses as well, I can't quite agree to this. I also think that the "Damage modifiers" affect more than the actual stats in this case. Basically if you remove all the damage modifiers from traits/sigils, and all the might stacks, I don't think berserker gear really is that "over powered".

>

> © Hmm, no real opinions or thoughts. Should mention that with the pact mastery you get a hefty boost to rezzing people, which makes this even more trivial. Rez has always been an issue in the game, from how easy zergs could rez their own in zerg fights in wvw, to 50 people being dead around Tequatl demanding to be hard rezzed instead of porting and running back.

>

> (D) That would actually wreck the stat for PVP/WVW, as the main need for toughness is usually to resist a 1-hit so you can survive and heal up and engage in fight. Force the fight from a 1-hit contest to an actual battle of attrition. As such the stat works as intended in WvW/PvP.

>

> ---

>

> One suggestion I've done in the past, is to just accept that no one wants defensive stats, and work them differently.

>

> * Reduce the number of different stats you get to 1 per piece of gear.

> * Roll one offensive and one minor defensive bonus into each stat.

> * So taking Power, also gains you some toughness etc

>

> It wouldn't allow you to stack as many offensive stats as you got now, but every offensive stat would be paired with a defensive stat, so you kinda built for both at the same time.

>

> Examples:

> * 1000 power gives 500 toughness

> * 1000 condition damage gives 500 vitality

> * 1000 Critical (Precision+Ferocity) gives 500 Healing Power

>

> Not perfect, wouldn't actually "fix" the defensive stats, it just gives them out as freebies, while also limiting the offensive setup a bit more, so you have to make some choices for it.

To clarify on your response to D - i think it needs to be a hybrid of division and subtraction. It needs retain a moderate effect on big damage while gaining a more significant effect on minor damage. Your idea is interesting, though I see it as a bit of a band-aid that would still create a lot of work. If they're going to put in a lot of work - they really should just overhaul the mechanics so they work better.

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> Looks like an impasse. At least when your game comes out, then we'll have an example of "good" encounter design.

There's no need for this. I would call this an appeal to authority fallacy. Despite not actually working at Arenant, it's quite possible that I and many other players actually do have ideas that could benefit the game. In fact, there are several systems in the game now that were basically conceived by players and picked up by Anet designers.

> @"Scipion.7548" said:

> Suggestions of reworked stats :

>

> **Direct damage stats :**

> - Power : increases your direct damage and increases furthermore critical direct damage.

> - Precision : increases your chance of critical hit (direct damage only).

> **Condi stats :**

> - Malice : increases condi damage.

> - Expertise : increases condi duration.

> **Defensive stats :**

> - Stamina : increases endurance regeneration and health, also decreases the cooldown of your healing skill.*

> - Toughness : decreases taken damage, increases threat and also increases the heal you done to yourself with your healing skill.

> **Support stats :**

> - Concentration : increases boon duration.

> - Empathy : increases healing done, healing done to allies is even more increased.

>

> *base endurance regeneration must be lowered and base healing skill cooldown must be increased to balance that.

Heh. I was always an advocate for bringing back the flavor names for stats. I thought it was dumb that they dumped them way back before launch. We now only have two geared stats that don't have flavor names. Though I like Spirit more than Empathy since it reflects self-healing as well. Not bad ideas at all!

I kind of agree there's no reason to separate Ferocity from Power, since the effect of Power is already magnified by critical hits. The only complication is that Precision is often involved in condi builds also since a lot of condi procs are tied to critical hits. They'd probably need to do away with that or rework it in some way.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> Just to point out that the defensive stats does serve one important feature in PVE, it allows for players that struggle with the action combat (still learning it, or not so fast reflexes etc) to compensate with defensive stats to find their own comfort level. This part is working as intended, it helps those that have difficulties using active defenses properly/perfectly.

Literally everyone tries to point this out, but it's really not accurate. Using defensive stats actually makes your survivability worse because the longer a fight lasts, the harder it is for your active defense to keep up. And active defense matters a lot more than passive defense regardless of your Vitality and Toughness ratings. So focusing on killing mobs as fast as possible counter-intuitively _improves_ your attrition in general PvE rather than hindering it.

That's why it's broken, and why nobody who knows what they're doing uses defense stats in PvE. it's not only far less efficient for gaining rewards, it's also that slowing fights down actually makes it harder to survive them. **This would not be the case if the attributes and combat mechanics were tuned correctly.** Consequently, both combat itself and character building would have more depth and be more interesting - something that's highly important in this game.

It is very much a design flaw within the combat system and PvE encounters, and it really needs to stop having people defend it as if it's working well.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> As someone else mentioned, it's the "encounter design" that holds the defensive stats back in PvE. When HoT released, most people got slaughtered when they entered in Zerk gear, until they learn and got used to the mobs etc.

>

> Had the game had enemies with decent AI and skills more in line with players builds, they could have put enough pressure on players that they might want or even need defensive stats (unless they're just really good). But with the enemies we have in the game, no one is ever going to trade away any more damage output for anything else. The great majority of the players doesn't want to, and as long as ANet designs the enemies the way they do (predictable and following simple scripts) they won't need to.

>

> I mean, even with gutting everything I suggested in a earlier post in half, so half energy regen, half boons, and double incoming condi duration, I'm pretty sure the wast majority of players would still run full zerk, and just try to kill it harder anyways. And most wouldn't notice much of a difference, because things still dies easy enough that all those penalties wouldn't really do much of a difference.

>

> That's the reason why defensive stats are wanted/needed in wvw/pvp, and considered an utter waste in pve.

That's part of it, but it isn't just that. Moreover, the encounter design is actually a result of the badly tuned stats/mechanics, not the cause of them. By fixing the stats/combat system itself, they would have the opportunity to improve encounter design. The primary issues are:

a.) active defense is over-emphasized, with sources of major damage & dodges both being too numerous. This doesn't just harm the value of passive defense, it makes combat in general too frenetic and spammy. There should be more sources of minor damage that engage your Armor and Health values and put pressure on you outside of active defense. The fixes i propose are to significantly lower the baseline for endurance regeneration and make Vitality improve that instead of health.

b.) offensive stats are overpowered. There's too big a difference in the amount of damage you deal based on stats due to the synergistic scaling between power, precision, and ferocity, which condition damage and expertise have been tuned to match. Per-point scaling of those attributes need to be lowered so there isn't such a ridiculous gap between the floor and the ceiling of damage output, because damage will always matter more than anything else in PvE. There's nothing wrong with that, but the attributes need to be balanced around that reality so they contribute as close to equal value as possible.

c.) reviving is too easy. This was mentioned by an above poster about how "difficulty" in the game over-relies on having mobs that drop extremely heavy hits that down numerous characters simultaneously. My suggestion is twofold - further cap the # of players that can revive a single character at a time, and also to have instant defeat happen more often through various mechanics or "major damage" thresholds.

d.) toughness uses a simple "divide by" algorithm. This means its effect is more significant on big damage than on small damage, when it should be the opposite. It needs to be redone to reduce damage more through subtraction than through division so it doesn't compete directly with active defense, and instead complements it. Update: it would probably be necessary to hybridize it so it retains its value in PvP.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > > > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > > > > > > The longer the fight, the more mechanics you have to deal with. As a result, dps will always be king in these regards. And there is also dodging.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is strategically shallow and not good for the game. That's the argument being made.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am merely stating facts. You can't really argue without taking the game in context. And this is a huge point. If you don't understand why this issue happens, then how can you expect to coherently solve it? In pve we do not usually take defense stats because they don't help with damage. Even if defensive stats were equal or greater it wouldn't matter. On the other hand defensive stats are common in wvw because the alternatives are just rallybotting.

> > > > >

> > > > > Despite all this you still have healers and tanks in some content. Is this not a sign there is more variety than assumed?

> > > > >

> > > > > For something so shallow it seems really hard to grasp. ;)

> > > > >

> > > > > Also I don't see an argument, merely subjective statements about how things should be.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > It would actually matter if it was designed well. I'm not sure why this attitude of "it's broken but it can't be fixed so it's working" is so prominent here. I have also made a ton of arguments in this thread, including laying out exactly how I would change the attribute system.

> > >

> > > I think the main issue is this: **most people do not agree it's broken**.

> > >

> > > Not all stats need to hold equal value in every game mode. Spvp for example lacks access to certain stat combinations which are available in pve and wvw and those were removed specifically to balance that game mode. Pve and wvw lack access to certain stat combinations which are available in spvp (though this might be more due to not having them added yet). PvE and WvW see very different value in stats with more defensive stats being more sought after in WvW and offensive stats in PvE. Working as intended.

> > >

> > > As such: no, I personally do not believe the stat system is broken if certain stats are of less value in this games combat system. On the contrary, I find it refreshing that different game modes offer unique build challenges unlike many other MMOs where your final gear works everywhere.

> >

> > Right, and it's the shoulder-shrugging idea that it can't function well in PvE that's the problem. Just because that's the current design doesn't mean it's effective or that it shouldn't change.

>

> You missed my point: I think it works just fine in PvE.

Except it doesn't, because using passive defense makes your attrition worse due to the major hit your offense takes. I'm really unsure how anyone can argue that's "just fine". It's a very clear, very blatant mistuning of the combat/attribute system and encounter mechanics.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > > > > The longer the fight, the more mechanics you have to deal with. As a result, dps will always be king in these regards. And there is also dodging.

> > > >

> > > > This is strategically shallow and not good for the game. That's the argument being made.

> > >

> > > I am merely stating facts. You can't really argue without taking the game in context. And this is a huge point. If you don't understand why this issue happens, then how can you expect to coherently solve it? In pve we do not usually take defense stats because they don't help with damage. Even if defensive stats were equal or greater it wouldn't matter. On the other hand defensive stats are common in wvw because the alternatives are just rallybotting.

> > >

> > > Despite all this you still have healers and tanks in some content. Is this not a sign there is more variety than assumed?

> > >

> > > For something so shallow it seems really hard to grasp. ;)

> > >

> > > Also I don't see an argument, merely subjective statements about how things should be.

> > >

> >

> > It would actually matter if it was designed well. I'm not sure why this attitude of "it's broken but it can't be fixed so it's working" is so prominent here. I have also made a ton of arguments in this thread, including laying out exactly how I would change the attribute system.

>

> I think the main issue is this: **most people do not agree it's broken**.

>

> Not all stats need to hold equal value in every game mode. Spvp for example lacks access to certain stat combinations which are available in pve and wvw and those were removed specifically to balance that game mode. Pve and wvw lack access to certain stat combinations which are available in spvp (though this might be more due to not having them added yet). PvE and WvW see very different value in stats with more defensive stats being more sought after in WvW and offensive stats in PvE. Working as intended.

>

> As such: no, I personally do not believe the stat system is broken if certain stats are of less value in this games combat system. On the contrary, I find it refreshing that different game modes offer unique build challenges unlike many other MMOs where your final gear works everywhere.

Right, and it's the shoulder-shrugging idea that it can't function well in PvE that's the problem. Just because that's the current design doesn't mean it's effective or that it shouldn't change.