Jekkt.6045

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Jekkt.6045" said: > > It's often times not even that skills are useless but rather you can't take them because you need X skill/weapon just so you can stay alive. Weapons that used to be good are now essentially useless because they don't deliver the required numbers. For example, utility wise dagger offhand on ele is a great weapon. it has cc, mobility, healing, name it and you have it. but you can't take it because sustain damage is so ridiculously high you need an invul so you can have "room to breathe". Look at tempest right now, focus offhand, mist form and lightning flash are pretty much required just so you can stay alive. > > Here's the thing about this and i want you to follow the logic here so you can draw a different conclusion. I understand that the above is a valid observation, but in order to understand why the above observation happens, you have to be asking the right questions. > > The way you have to look at the game as a whole is as if it were a complex system...in which some parts have some interaction with other parts...like looking at a spider web. One thread in this spider web is a build that can be made that matches what you said in this quote. In this web there are other builds that will seek to either cooperate or compete with this build, and this is where player choice is introduced. > > If you were a super computer to determine which thread in this web is the most optimal decision, it would take you some period of time to figure that out. If you can calculate that the thread you have is not optimal, you will not use the build, or find some other configuration that is more optimal. These paths for finding optimality is what reduces the number of meaningful choices you have available to you. > > So the question here shouldn't be about what makes something good or bad to use...the question is about how to make this web more complex, so that finding out whether the build you are using has optimal choices becomes irrelevant rather than relevant. > > > > > How can you fix that? Not in a way that is feasible for arenanet. > > You either need to boost ele's core defense so you can take different utility skills, or buff all other weapons/skills to the same level. It's basically a horrible idea... > > ...So how can anet actually fix this without having to buff or rework most of the weapons? > > Now here's the other thing. This goes deeper into how understanding complexity theory can tell us how to approach these kinds of problems. I've discussed this in detail before, but essentially Buffs and nerfs do not work because in it's fundamentality it's a flawed procedure that doesn't make any real differences. I've explain why in this comment here https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1344346#Comment_1344346 . > > Once we understand that numerical balance changes are meaningless when considering the entirety of this "web" of balance, we can then move on to understanding that the only way to address these problems of diversity, and in turn it's balance (because turns out they are both basically the same thing) is by looking at mechanics and whether these mechanics create complexity. Alone Lava Font is a skill that features almost no complexity because it has very little interaction with any other skill or traits in the game...and the reason is not because of it's damage, or it's range, or it's speed... It's because of it's actual functions, and the function lacks synergy. > > So again this leads back to whether people are asking the right questions. By looking at the problem as "need to boost ele's core defense so you can take different utility skills" This will lead to other areas of the web, and just changing the optimal path from one path to another...and this doesn't solve the problem of diversity or balance, it just moves it around, which amounts to having no meaning based on what i linked above. > > > Nowadays too many skills are too bloated in what they do. Often times skills are just straight up utility+damage+healing which is horrible design. In that regard, removing damage from cc skills was kind of a good decision, just that no damage at all was a bit too much. > > Now yes over bloating is a bad design...this can also be explained, but I'm gonna try to keep it short and sweet. Essentially what the game lacks is actual tradeoffs. Now i want to explain that trade offs have a scientifically applicable definition, and that what Anet has implemented as "tradeoffs" are not real tradeoffs. > > In my previous comment i mentioned that Target Caps are part of the problem, that reduces the complexity of interactions in the game. This should have got you thinking a bit because it seems counter intuitive at first...how is it that target caps give us more diversity and better balance? What happens if we had skills like "Backstab" that could hit 100 enemies...wouldn't that be overpowered? > > The answer lye in what's called "Equilibrium mechanics" aka real tradeoffs. We see these tradeoffs in science all the time, and it's essentially just functions that stop divergent behavior from becoming more divergent. The Stock Market is a perfect example of a system that functions off of unbounded mechanics (where stock price could potentially diverge in either direction infinitely...without bound), that on their own create equilibriums when the behavior of the system becomes more divergent (Supply and Demand...Overbought and Oversold triggering reversals in stock prices). These equilibrium mechanics also existed in some ways in guild wars 1, and were abandoned in before launch of guild wars 2... Where skills and abilities that do something should come with a cost, and this cost isn't a linear "tradeoff" like -300 vitality...These costs should be functions that stop divergent behavior. > > So we could look at the example of Backstab without a target cap... This skill in it's current form only works in 1v1 fights, as the target cap is a maximum of 1. Increase the target cap to 5, and it now becomes useful in teamfights (5v5 bracket) and in all brackets below that...from 2v2,3v3,4v4 etc...So now imagine this ability without a target cap against 100 people. Landing a Backstab becomes VERY valuable if it were to hit 100 people. So this behavior is called divergent behavior, where in this case, something becomes exponentially more useful the higher number of people you are fighting against. An equilibrium mechanic...or a true tradeoff, would be a mechanic that presents a cost, such that the higher number of targets there are when using this ability, the more of the cost you will incur. My favorite example to use is that, every time you land a backstab you apply 1 poison to yourself. In a 1v1 situation, applying 1 poison is low impact, and interesting tradeoff...but now if that backstab was used against an 80man zerg, well now, you have to face the consequence that if you used a backstab, you could get 80 stacks of poison with a single use. This is a REAL tradeoff that prevents divergent mechanics from taking off...which to your point, is how one should approach balancing of bloated skills. > > There's a lot more to point out in this subject area, but that's just one aspect about the quote I'm responding to in your post. > > > i agree with your point about the backstab example and we did indeed have real tradeoffs at release of the game. aoes came at the cost of lower overall damage compared to single target. now basically everything is aoe at no cost. remember spirit ranger meta? (not that it was a meta defining build...) spirits back then didn't die all the time to aoe. imagine spirit ranger nowadays (if it was functionally the same build). i think one of the best examples are healer builds in regards to lazy uninspired design without complexity. you have an aoe heal skill with a target cap of 5? i think in pvp. you usually have a skill that cleanses all/ many conditions and one that does a bit of both. usually the heals are around 2-3k, a bit loeer for the cleansing ones. now imagine this. a healing skill that heals more the less people are in range. you can either stack people for a small aoe heal or you can actually position yourself in a way so you give one ally a big heal. or, a heal skill that heals a bit and cleanses conditions. but, if your target has no conditions you heal it for more. that way you can cleanse first with a different skill to get a bigger heal, or live with the smaller heal.

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > At a certain point, if every skill is useful and has a vast number of possible synergies and less limitations, it becomes more difficult to find optimal builds strategy, and you get more diversity. That is how this is done. It's often times not even that skills are useless but rather you can't take them because you need X skill/weapon just so you can stay alive. Weapons that used to be good are now essentially useless because they don't deliver the required numbers. For example, utility wise dagger offhand on ele is a great weapon. it has cc, mobility, healing, name it and you have it. but you can't take it because sustain damage is so ridiculously high you need an invul so you can have "room to breathe". Look at tempest right now, focus offhand, mist form and lightning flash are pretty much required just so you can stay alive. How can you fix that? Not in a way that is feasible for arenanet. You either need to boost ele's core defense so you can take different utility skills, or buff all other weapons/skills to the same level. It's basically a horrible idea. Nowadays too many skills are too bloated in what they do. Often times skills are just straight up utility+damage+healing which is horrible design. In that regard, removing damage from cc skills was kind of a good decision, just that no damage at all was a bit too much. Back in vanilla you had skills that you absolutely had to dodge or you would be dead (example: war hammer 5, f1), either completely dead or so low that it didn't matter anyway. Other skills that you could dodge because they provided good utility (war longbow 5). All other skills were pretty much just defensive skills or skills that forced you to use your own defensive and healing skills, basically sustain damage (warrior longbow 2, f1, hammer 3, 2, auto attacks). This lead to fights that were fun. You had to know what skills to use against enemy skills, plan and manage your cooldowns. You kept certain skills on cooldown on purpose just so you had them when you needed them. I sometimes delayed my rotation on earth just so i could catch the longbow burst skill with my earth 2 projectile block because it was actually worth more than just yolo damage. While we still do have those interactions somewhat nowadays, they're most of the time just less important than yolo damage... Every skill deals " a lot" of damage now. some more and some a bit less. It's too easy to deal damage. It's not burst damage that kills you now, it's sustain damage. If you happen to eat a burst you just die faster. Back when this game still took skill to play you actually had to set up your burst, count dodges, stow weapon to bait dodges and all that stuff that was fun and felt rewarding. So how can anet actually fix this without having to buff or rework most of the weapons? Lower sustain damage. Not lower damage in general. Skills that have utility need to have less damage. "Filler" skills need to have less damage. CC skills need some damage back, but they should not hit more than 1-2k. Buff burst damage so landing your important skills matters more than it does now. Burst damage has to be fair though, otherwise you get random dumb stuff like stealth oneshots which are not healthy for the game. And while we're at it, we need more skills that have a conditional effect. Skills that have a base effect and an upgraded or different effect under certain circumstances. That way you actually have to make a decision if you want to use a skill right now or hold it until those conditions are fulfilled. Skills that are currently too bloated could be reworked in such a way.

you can pretty much say all weapons that don't have any or not enough utility are unplayable garbage. others simply don't have enough damage. to name a few: warrior: offhand axe, offhand mace, offhand sword, longbow, offhand dagger, rifle, hammer ele: scepter, staff, offhand dagger, offhand warhorn mesmer: focus, offhand sword necro: mainhand dagger (auto attack hits like a noodle) ranger: mainhand dagger, shortbow (low damage), sword (low damage), torch engi: pistol guardian: longbow thief: staff, rifle rev: hammer try playing some of these, you will either lack damage or feel "naked" because they don't offer survivability. especially on ele. this happens when sustain damage is too high and burst too low. you need a weapon to mitigate sustain damage to stay alive.. or a ton of self sustain. it used to be different.

played a match of zerk scholar staff ele yesterday, it doesn't even deal that much damage anymore... would be great if staff ele could be the non condi counterpart to condi necro, but no matter the build/amulet, the damage and tankiness just isn't there.

how about we get vanilla meta back and call it a good game again?

> @"Vancho.8750" said: > > @"ArthurDent.9538" said: > > > @"ollbirtan.2915" said: > > > > @"Kuma.1503" said: > > > > ##Bomb + Mortar Kit Engi > > > > > > > > Bombs are a meme. Slow to activate, A over-telegraphed toolbelt skill with very little payoff. Damage that you can simply walk out of. But there are a few aspects to bomb kit that can be oppressive under the right circumstances. Namely: > > > > > > > > Smoke Bomb + Flash Shell + Explosive Entrance + Flashbang + Invigorating Speed. > > > > > > > > If running tools you can run Streamlined kits for easy access to swiftness, which will proc Vigor from Invorating Speed. You can also run Adrenal Implant for a total of +90% endurance regen when Vigor is up. What this means is more dodges, more flashbang procs, more dazes when the opponent is on high health, and most importantly, more blinds. > > > > > > > > If the sidenode meta ever shifts to be more melee heavy this build will frustrate players with its endless blind spam. > > > > > > > > ## Burn Staff Ele > > > > > > > > Very few people take staff ele seriously. It's an easy kill, but damage, as we've seen keeps creeping lower and lower. Hard hitters like Holo and Rev have slowly been receiving nerfs. Other builds that can bully it like thief have also been getting nerfed steadily. If damage continues to creep lower, this build will make a comeback. > > > > > > > > It's a very easy build to gain value on. Simply press Signet of Fire, then press Fire 3. Very little tell, very little cast time. If you have allies to provide cover condis, you can spike people down in no time at all. Afterwards, simpy cycle through defensive cooldowns for 12 seconds until your burst is up again. If allowed to freecast, you have a good amount of AoE pressure crowd control. What makes this build oppressive is it's ease of use. It has a 2 button burst rotation with very little tell that happens from range. It may not see much use in plat, but lower ranks will complain if this starts seeing play. > > > > > > > > ##Ventari Rev > > > > > > > > Supports are a dying breed in PvP. Scrapper, scourge, druid, and firebrand have all received heavy nerfs which have seen their removal from the meta. Should healbreaker and tempest also receive nerfs, this build may eventually rise to the top. > > > > > > > > Similar to staff ele, if damage also continues to creep lower, this build's weakness of being focused will become less of an issue. It can heal, cleanse, and even crowd control opponents while being locked down itself. If damage is lowered enough, this build will be able to keep itself alive even in the middle of a CC chain. No other support can do this. You will see complaints such as "make tablet destructable" or "add a cast time to ventari heals. It shouldn't be able to heal itself while locked down". > > > > > > > > > > > > Counterplay exists for each of these builds right now, but as options are removed, and more builds are nerfed, counterplay will also be reduced. PvPers of the past would have laughed if they saw a Renegade in their game, now it's the hot topic of the forums. Here's hoping I'm wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Didn't we have same complaints (make tablet destroyable owmagawd) back in the HoT ventari decap days? I wouldn't be surprised to see the wheel turn again. Déjà vu... > > > > That would have been an incredibly stupid suggestion as the whole point of that build was to destroy the tablet as fast and frequently as possible. Though the average forum poster here is incredibly stupid so it wouldn't be surprising. > Well it worked the same way decap engi worked but it was also a healer, so it could kitten up team fights and sidenodes, imagine if they didnt nerf it before and it stayed hidden till now, at least 3 to 4 months of perma cc, then again CMC can't touch functionality so a year of it maybe. instead of making the build useless they could have also just changed the knockback to a knockdown.

> @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"Jekkt.6045" said: > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > @"Mellow.7409" said: > > > > > @"Widmo.3186" said: > > > > > > @"Mellow.7409" said: > > > > > > > @"Widmo.3186" said: > > > > > > > The ele profession should become more of an ele and less of a support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ele is so disgustingly underpowered and even more so since you removed our beloved crowd control damage (besides LR, but it also got nerfed by 33% dmg), FGS isn't even close to being "Elite", Glyph of Elementals _(which should be equivalent to Flesh Golem)_ is a joke and doesn't even turn the tide of a battle in a 1 versus 1 situation. All that we have left of this profession is anti-fun support build which isn't very ele-like if you ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guess you haven't played Tempest nor Weaver. > > > > > > > > > > Guess you haven't played Berserker nor Spellbreaker. > > > > > > > > That's not a valid argument since both Tempest & Weaver are viable even in 1500+. > > > > > > Healbreaker is as good as (better than?) support tempest. > > > Core warrior is a gazillion times better than core ele. > > > Any weaver build is a meme and barely viable, just as any other warrior build. > > > > > > Both are in a sad spot indeed. That is @"Widmo.3186" 's point. Eles have been asking for build variety for years, but we are jumping between stupid side node bunkers and boring support builds since core FA times (NOT YOU D/D!!!). > > > > i mean, core FA was really bad back then. people tried to make it work after they killed off s/d and d/d side node ele. it got farmed by mesmer and thief. let's be honest here, ele never had a viable dps build even though core FA was fun. > > But it was far more playable than FA weaver today. Glass staff was kind of playable, now it gets farmed in silver. Yes, I am overexaggerating a litte. But the demand for more diversity has always been a major issue on ele. > > There are some other classes having this issue too, but even rev has had some more options recently. Can't disagree with that. 90% of my ele games have probably been on the same build lol.

> @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"Mellow.7409" said: > > > @"Widmo.3186" said: > > > > @"Mellow.7409" said: > > > > > @"Widmo.3186" said: > > > > > The ele profession should become more of an ele and less of a support > > > > > > > > > > Ele is so disgustingly underpowered and even more so since you removed our beloved crowd control damage (besides LR, but it also got nerfed by 33% dmg), FGS isn't even close to being "Elite", Glyph of Elementals _(which should be equivalent to Flesh Golem)_ is a joke and doesn't even turn the tide of a battle in a 1 versus 1 situation. All that we have left of this profession is anti-fun support build which isn't very ele-like if you ask me. > > > > > > > > Guess you haven't played Tempest nor Weaver. > > > > > > Guess you haven't played Berserker nor Spellbreaker. > > > > That's not a valid argument since both Tempest & Weaver are viable even in 1500+. > > Healbreaker is as good as (better than?) support tempest. > Core warrior is a gazillion times better than core ele. > Any weaver build is a meme and barely viable, just as any other warrior build. > > Both are in a sad spot indeed. That is @"Widmo.3186" 's point. Eles have been asking for build variety for years, but we are jumping between stupid side node bunkers and boring support builds since core FA times (NOT YOU D/D!!!). i mean, core FA was really bad back then. people tried to make it work after they killed off s/d and d/d side node ele. it got farmed by mesmer and thief. let's be honest here, ele never had a viable dps build even though core FA was fun.

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > the best warrior builds were always "supporty" in nature and only a few of them were full dps. > > argument destroyed nah, my argument stands firm.

i think you're misunderstanding something. the best warrior builds were always "supporty" in nature and only a few of them were full dps. not much has changed about that, and warrior, even healbreaker, are still very much an "in your face" class. the only thing that has changed is healbreaker traded damage for more healing. it's not even spellbreaker that makes it a healer but tactics. you could potentially play "healserker" even if it makes no sense and you would have close to the same healing output. spellbreaker is only picked because it has the best defensive tools (rip defense traitline). is it a good thing that a bruiser elite spec is picked for a support build? probably not. but there isn't anything else, no elite spec designed for support (like paragon). the only thing warrior really needs is some higher numbers. rampage should not be buffed, it should be reworked. maybe to a skill that keeps you on max adrenaline and, what do i know, pulsates stability retaliation, might, fury, swiftness for a couple of seconds.

> @"otto.5684" said: > > @"Jekkt.6045" said: > > they should for sure balance for mAT as it's the highest current level of play. doesn't mean they shouldn't balance for ladder too. > > > > honestly, the best example was and will probably always be dragon hunter. > > > > the build was strong but not overly so, it was just relatively easy to play to a certain extent. let's say everybody could play it to 80% effectiveness right off the bat. in high level play, the build was only good not broken. > > > > now take a build that is harder to play, and you might only achieve 40% effectiveness right off the start. compared to dragon hunter, this build will most pikely perform worse on ladder but might very well be much stronger than dragon hunter on 100%. > > > > what's the right thing to do here? nerf dragon hunter? nerf the fictional build that is harder to play? > > > > it's actually quite simple. > > > > is dragon hunter too strong at the top level? > > yes -> nerf > > no -> buff if needed > > > > is dragon hunter too strong at lower levels? > > yes -> don't nerf it, but increase the skill cap by making the skills more interesting. this could even become a buff because the build might become more flexible. > > no -> leave it > > > > if the fictional build i'm talking about is too strong st high level but weak at low level you have two pathes you can take. nerf it, or nerf it and up the skill floor a bit. > > > > something that anet often does and i really hate is the following: > > > > they see a build that does something that it's not supposed to do or a build that is very uninteractive to play against (minions, turrets, bunker thief). instead of changing the build or making it less obnoxious they just whack it so hard with the nerf hammer that people stop playing it, thus ruining build diversity. > > > > > > There is more that goes to it than that. You cannot only balance around the top 0.25%. You need to consider the top 10%. But even in the top 0.25%, how you measure top performing can be highly misleading. > > IMO (and I go this from another game devs) the best indicator is to aggregate results by winning composition. What this means you see what class/elite compositions have the highest win percentage in 1,500 and mAT. Then you look for how often you see a specific elite. If holo shows up 8 times in the top 10 compositions, clearly it is over performing. If mirage shows up 1 time, it clearly is under performing. > > You would then look for feedback from players and experience (if devs play the game, which at this point I am pretty certain rarely, if ever happens), and hone in on what is causing the class of over/under perform. > > Honestly though, this is not really going to work well now. sPvP as a whole has been fundamentally broken since Feb patch. This is what happens when you through away 8 years of balancing then do a half kitten-ed job trying to implement new values for everything. First step is to remove whoever is responsible for this fiasco. Second, get close or at, where we were before. Then do the steps above, while also keeping an eye on what happens in gold. i agree with what you say. you shouldn't balance only around top" 0.25%". honestly, i don't even know if the remaining players are a good enough standard nowadays but top "0.25%" should be where you can see what's the near absolute maximum output of a build. this is only one part of the equation. the other 99.75% show you how the build performs for the low to average to above average player. if you have one build that heavily outperforms everything else in those 0.25% it is probably too strong. doesn't mean it is too strong for the rest of the game, but if it's problematic for the top it needs to be changed in a way that nerfs it for the "0.25%" but keeps it the same for the rest, which quite frankly is really hard to achieve unless you just say, welp we nerf it for high level and the other players need to "git gud". i touch on that subject about team comp in a different post i made aswell. holo is a simple example because it is a side noder and it's quite clear it is overperforming. but sometimes it isn't necessarily a single build but rather a combination like for example support firebrand + scourge + blood scourge. that's more tricky. maybe none of the three are broken but the combination is, that's where you need to find a way to nerf something without making them unviable individually. the stuff i'm talking about is very simplified so don't take everything for bare value. there's much more to balance than just looking at numbers. sometimes it's just about the feeling of a build too. i mean, look at mirage. yes mirage is weaker now with only one dodge, but it feels incredibly bad to play and will feel bad even if it was (i'm not saying it is) numerically overtuned. on the other hand it's also wrong to nerf around stuff, something anet really loves to do with holo changes. just because you nerf other stuff doesn't mean what you should be nerfing gets less broken, the result might be the same in the end, the build will be weaker, but it will feel terrible to play.

> @"Dantheman.3589" said: > > @"Jekkt.6045" said: > > they should for sure balance for mAT as it's the highest current level of play. doesn't mean they shouldn't balance for ladder too. > > > > honestly, the best example was and will probably always be dragon hunter. > > > > the build was strong but not overly so, it was just relatively easy to play to a certain extent. let's say everybody could play it to 80% effectiveness right off the bat. in high level play, the build was only good not broken. > > > > now take a build that is harder to play, and you might only achieve 40% effectiveness right off the start. compared to dragon hunter, this build will most pikely perform worse on ladder but might very well be much stronger than dragon hunter on 100%. > > > > what's the right thing to do here? nerf dragon hunter? nerf the fictional build that is harder to play? > > > > it's actually quite simple. > > > > is dragon hunter too strong at the top level? > > yes -> nerf > > no -> buff if needed > > > > is dragon hunter too strong at lower levels? > > yes -> don't nerf it, but increase the skill cap by making the skills more interesting. this could even become a buff because the build might become more flexible. > > no -> leave it > > > > if the fictional build i'm talking about is too strong st high level but weak at low level you have two pathes you can take. nerf it, or nerf it and up the skill floor a bit. > > > > something that anet often does and i really hate is the following: > > > > they see a build that does something that it's not supposed to do or a build that is very uninteractive to play against (minions, turrets, bunker thief). instead of changing the build or making it less obnoxious they just whack it so hard with the nerf hammer that people stop playing it, thus ruining build diversity. > > > > > They shouldn’t balance based off of mats or ladders. For one saying this is the “highest level of play” is a huge meme considering basically anyone can do that. The problem is if you just watch a video of an auto tournament or take in info from a streamer who does ranked for your balance info- than your already balancing wrong as you are basing it off someone who doesn’t care about balance of the whole game. > Advocating for mat balancing and balancing based off rank is almost equivalent to asking for ignorant devs and blind balance- the result so has been terrible balance and non functional skills > > seems like i need to clarify my statement a bit further. i'm not talking about watching a mAT or a streamer. i'm talking about numbers, performance of builds in specific circumstances, and you need to look at all the circumstances as a whole or you will buff/nerf/change stuff that might not require it. the biggest problem with this in gw2 is probably the sample size. gotta work with what you have i guess. obviously, you need to filter your data, not everybody in the mAT is on the same level and there is a fine line between a build being too strong or a player who's too good. another indicator are team comps, let's say, all top4 teams run the exact same comp, or the side node class/build is the same, that might indicate that some stuff / combination is too strong or other stuff is too weak, depending on what power level you want to achieve as a balance dev. this is basically number crunching, and while i say balance should heavily factor in skill level (which ladder and placement in mAT is an indicator of) that's only where it starts. to balance something you first need to understand what needs balancing (data) and what the exact problem is. after that you need to look for possible changes and weigh the consequences of those changes to find the best possible one. you can't expect devs to play a class all day to figure out if something's strong or whatever, they just don't have the time for that. that's where the data comes in. also, forum posts should never be the deciding factor that leads to a balance change. forum posts are (often) a good indicator that something is wonky with a build and needs checking, if it isn't already evident from the data. but that doesn't mean that a change is required all the time somebody cries about something on the forums. forum posts are a good indicator if something is "unfun" though, which might also necessitate changes to a build. sometimes it's also smart to just balance for the sake of balancing, or to achieve a different meta that is less stale. if everything is the same all the time people get bored. what you seem to dislike are knee jerk nerfs to stuff that wins in mAT, and i completely agree that it's stupid and should be handled differently. i have to disagree with something else though. just because something has existed for a long time doesn't mean that it can't be too strong now, even if it wasn't before. different meta, different balance can indeed make something too strong that wasn't before. assuming it really is too strong, no knee jerk lol.

they should for sure balance for mAT as it's the highest current level of play. doesn't mean they shouldn't balance for ladder too. honestly, the best example was and will probably always be dragon hunter. the build was strong but not overly so, it was just relatively easy to play to a certain extent. let's say everybody could play it to 80% effectiveness right off the bat. in high level play, the build was only good not broken. now take a build that is harder to play, and you might only achieve 40% effectiveness right off the start. compared to dragon hunter, this build will most pikely perform worse on ladder but might very well be much stronger than dragon hunter on 100%. what's the right thing to do here? nerf dragon hunter? nerf the fictional build that is harder to play? it's actually quite simple. is dragon hunter too strong at the top level? yes -> nerf no -> buff if needed is dragon hunter too strong at lower levels? yes -> don't nerf it, but increase the skill cap by making the skills more interesting. this could even become a buff because the build might become more flexible. no -> leave it if the fictional build i'm talking about is too strong st high level but weak at low level you have two pathes you can take. nerf it, or nerf it and up the skill floor a bit. something that anet often does and i really hate is the following: they see a build that does something that it's not supposed to do or a build that is very uninteractive to play against (minions, turrets, bunker thief). instead of changing the build or making it less obnoxious they just whack it so hard with the nerf hammer that people stop playing it, thus ruining build diversity.

we used to have that. after release we had tournaments that needed a gem/ticket buy-in. then we had 1-5 man team queue (solo queue was really only solo queue) and in HoT we had 3-5 man team queue with a team ladder which i liked a lot. i would like it to come back as a test and see how it is. not because i'm concerned about matchmaking, i wasn't either in the past, but because it feels like most pvp players all hate each other, let alone have enough friends to actually play team queue.

> @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > You seem to be taking some real hard offense to these points I'm bringing up and I'm not sure its possible to actually have a constructive discussion with you on this if that is the case. I'm fine with having disagreements, but you seem to be almost literally putting words into my mouth and also seem to be completely misunderstanding or misconstruing things I've posted. I apologize if my point of view offends you, but its a bit unnecessary to have this kind of reaction to it where it seems as if you're assuming I'm being completely vitriolic in regards to the game because I share a different point of view. > > > > > > This from someone that got so offended by me saying that GW2 outlived most of its competition in my original comment that he had to misconstrue my whole argument by putting words into my mouth. Anet really has permanent residency in your head. > > > > > > I agree we can‘t have a constructive discussion. There‘s no point arguing when you fault Anet for things you personally believe are bad (when the same things literally happen in the same other games you play, yet for some reason it‘s fine there), but don‘t really matter for the game at all. Only a small fraction of the playerbase cares about the game director not being announced. I‘m not even sure if you can call them part of the playerbase, as they‘re not even playing anymore, just being doomers because they can‘t let go. Just face that you aren‘t the target audience, it‘s not that hard. Changing the whole game around to match your personal vision is not something Anet will do. They‘re here to earn money by creating a product that appeals to many, not a singular person. The game is still doing fine and has a future, even if you don‘t want to realize that. > > > > > > Edit: It‘s actually so funny to see you try to attribute different content to „casual“ play. Your horizontal progression = makes the game more casual argument is still so wrong. What would you call someone like Asmongold? He doesn‘t really play competitively, doesn‘t really speed through content etc., yet he‘s one of the people I‘d actually call „hardcore“, as he created his whole life and career around WoW. > > > Sorry, but I don‘t think consider min/maxxers or people speeding through content „hardcore“. Everyone can follow a guide. The people creating the guide? Those might be the actual hardcore people, the ones doing the number crunching. > > > Most self-proclaimed „hardcore“ players aren‘t hardcore at all. They‘re easy to spot, too. > > > > Alright, well if you can't seem to cease from being vitriolic and have a constructive conversation because you took some apparent extreme offense at me simply, and calmly, pointing out something you said that I felt wasn't entirely accurate. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day/night and that you continue to enjoy GW2. > > Call me vitriolic all you want, as unconstructive as that may be, doesn‘t change that GW2 outlived most of its competitors in the 8 years it has been alive ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > Don‘t worry about me, I‘ll enjoy todays update as well as future updates and the expansion next year. > Have a nice day. stating gw2 has outlived "most of its competitors" isn't really correct. i mean, sure, it outlived games like blade and soul or archeage.. but i would not call them real competitors because they weren't even meant to run for a long time. games like those have a lower budget and try to make as much money as possible on release and then are left to die while the studio/publisher rinse and repeat the same formula. out of all its "real" competitors, (WoW, FFXIV, ESO, Wildstar, Runescape? BDO) gw2 really only outlived wildstar which died because of blatant mismanagement and corrupted higher ups. So while yes, gw2 outlived some games, it only really outlived one of its direct competitors as of today.

> @"choovanski.5462" said: > > @"Khalisto.5780" said: > > > @"TeqkOneStylez.8047" said: > > > You guys would be lost without metabattle. > > > Or straight up copying lol. > > > > > > "Warrior is the weakest class in the game and has no builds" > > > > > > - February > > > > Funny how you ignoring all the rounds of nerfs tempest had until ppl even considering playing this build. > > that's the thing, and that's why this forum is pepega > > > FB was meta support > until forum QQd and got it nerfed > > > then Tempest was meta > until forum QQd and got it nerfed > > > now SB is meta > and forum is QQing to get it nerfed > > either forum is unable to learn, or they are actually on a quest to get all the support builds in PvP deleted. I swear to god, if spellbreaker is nerfed so hard people start playing Centaur Rev the forum will make a thread about that too. > > perhaps the answer is to buff Tempest and FB to be more competitive, so we have support variety in PvP and not just try to nuke the current support build, then make new threads complaining something else is now better and asking to get that nerfed too... > > but idk man, sometimes I really just think this forum hates all support and tanky builds and just want things that go downstate after one thief spike being played. smh that's because the community more often than not only looks at what's right in front of their feet, and nothing more. it doesn't even matter if it's tanky or supporty builds or dps builds. if something is "overperforming" it needs to be nerfed is the common hivemind mentality. it's really funny. the pvp playerbase is very good at identifying if something is "wrong" with a build/class but absolutely terrible at analyzing what or why it is different. i could give you numerous examples over the years how forum qq lead to worse situations even though the idea behind was to "fix" something that was "broken". but because of shortsightedness the fix was not actually a fix. one of the most recent examples would be condi thief and condi rev nerf. people were basically crying every day on the forums about those two builds until they got nerfed and are at most mediocre now. did it lead to the expected outcome? no, absolutely not. sure, the two builds were less of a problem now, but the nerf lead to even more problems. why? because usually builds don't exist in a vacuum and keep each other in check. condi rev nerf really didn't do anything in the side node meta. holo was king and a weaker condi rev would only cement its spot as the strongest side noder even further. from personal experience, ranger vs condi rev was about an equal matchup, so there really was no need to actually weaken condi rev. condi thief was good against classes that were weak to burst conditions (thief, engi, rev) and kept them in check somewhat. with the nerf to condi thief those other classes became much more problematic than condi thief actually was. so now the question is, what's the right thing to do with healbreaker? identify its strength and weaknesses. from the top of my head i'd say it's sustain healing and sustain condi cleansing and the weaknesses would be burst damage and burst condi application. so i would buff tempest and firebrand in a away that each can have their own niche. for example: tempest = offensive utility + average sustain heal firebrand = defensive utility + burst heal / burst removal healbreaker = low utility + good sustain heal & sustain condi removal ventari = low utility + sustain heal & good burst heal ventari needs some other changes to really become viable though, not only number changes.

> @"CutesySylveon.8290" said: > > @"LuRkEr.9462" said: > > Warriors are in a fairly good place in pvp compared to many other classes. There are just a few completely broken classes that make Warrior feel bad, but its generally in a good place. > > Not saying it doesn't need any tweeks, but its not needing anything extreme. > > Shoutbreaker being good doesn't make warrior good as a whole. It says a lot when your one viable build is a support spec with no viable damage builds. ele in a nutshell. and even tempest is losing ground because of healbreaker. burn weaver is bad, fresh air is unplayable and lightning rod is mediocre. ele is basically in the same spot as warrior, forced into the support role or a bad off meta build.

i would do it in wvw. more relaxing if you can deal with the snoozefest that is zerg vs zerg. if you want challenge and have the will to commit/improve, do it in pvp. if you want the legendary skins, do raids. wvw pro: easy - cons: boring pvp pro: you improve - cons: toxic, bad mood pve pro: skins+money - cons: toxic, boring

i remember when we had frequent dev streams for pvp where they showed balance updates, trait reworks and new skills (well, we only got new skills once in vanilla..). back then they at least tried to care. now everything is functionally bloated and feels cookie cutterish. as far as what the game was designed for.. who knows? who cares? but it turns out the combat system is way better for pvp than pve in this game. and that's what they should have gone for. it would have even been fine to seperate them into two games running on the same engine. if we talk pve, the combat just sucks and there's no need to sugarcoat anything. skill rotations are bland and there's no complexity to it, no proce just mindlessly pressing skill b after skill a and repeat. other games like wow and ffxiv do a much better job with pve. on the other hand, i firmly believe those two games' combat is worse for pvp. and just to say this, when i talk about the gw2 combat system i strictly talk about the system, not about how horrendeous the balance is since pre HoT.