I'm sorry but how is this acceptable?

[Nimon.7840]

People, just stop, arguing with obtena.

its pointless. and in my opinion babbling the whole time the same Thing is spamming.

 

Maybe someone wants to read this: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/317/how-to-give-good-feedback

 

"suggest improvements" its what most People do here. "because our satisfaction can help anet to steer them in the Right direction for the future"

 

[Kuulpb.5412]

With all of the - in my personal opinion - changes that were not thought through AT ALL, i just gave up on gw2, i pop in every now and then to see if they reverted anything; newest patch notes remove special effects on hit fir certain necro skills, now they look as bad as they are

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Methuselah.4376" said:

> > @"Shaogin.2679" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Shaogin.2679" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > @"Nimon.7840" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Maybe someone wants to read this: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/317/how-to-give-good-feedback

> > > > > > "suggest improvements" its what most People do here. "because our satisfaction can help anet to steer them in the Right direction for the future"

> > > > > >

> > > > > That's ironic because there isn't a SINGLE post in this thread that 'suggests improvements' except for one ... and no one even bothered to consider it because there is such a headstrong approach to MOAR DPS mentality that all thinking has gone into the ether. It's just a thread complaining about DPS.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes everyone, I also suggest you look at that link to see what good feedback is so we can stop convincing ourselves that this thread is good feedback.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Actually, my only point has been that there is no apparent reason for Necromancers to have such low dps. If the class had some other redeeming qualities that would justify rock bottom dps, then the dps would not be an issue. Also, it is nice to see that most people are able to stay on topic and provide good points despite your constant attempts to derail the thread. :smile:

> > >

> > > Right and even if that's not apparent to you, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. If you think my posts are derailing the thread, you have the option to report them but I'm pretty sure that I've been sticking to the topic in a pretty accurate manner.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Maybe there is a reason, maybe there isn't. Either way I would like to know, as would many others in the community. Therefore, I will continue to ask. There is no point in remaining silent about it. Also, your only contribution to this thread is basically just telling everyone that we should just accept the way things are just because. You offer no reason why the Necromancer should not receive any sort of balance, nor do you offer any details on how the Necromancer could be improved upon. Therefore, I can only assume you are a troll here to derail any thread criticizing Anet.

>

> I would honestly just give up at this point. @"Insidion the Insane.9752" presented excellent empirical proof of classes getting 8-14% dps buff ...

 

... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ... so it seems to me that whatever proof that was presented actually proves my point and he deserves my thanks for continually contributing to it over the years. We STILL have some seemingly random ranking of DPS benchmarks over the same wide range and the same DPS gap on necro we had 2 years ago ... Anet isn't balancing the game according to DPS meta performance, EVEN if evidence is shown they buff DPS. If they were, it would have been achieved AT LEAST for **some** classes or maybe even all classes at this point. That hasn't happened. If you want to believe we are 'on the path' to being DPS balanced according to some top end DPS threshold, OK ... but whatever evidence was presented doesn't show it ... it shows the OPPOSITE of that.

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed. Not everyone is a fatalist like you, with absolutely no hope that something _can_ change for the better. And that's what your arguments devolve to - that we should not be pointing out that something is broken, because Anet will never fix it anyway. I have a surprise news for you - even if Anet is not fixing something, it does _not_ mean it's not broken. And if something _is_ broken, we **should** keep mentioning it, instead of keeping silent about it.

 

> Anet isn't balancing the game according to DPS meta performance, EVEN if evidence is shown they buff DPS.

So? There's no reson why we should stop asking them to do their job better. In fact, the balance _is_ better than it was during the first years of the game, where it was really, really bad. Now at least only necros are left on the wayside, instead of sharing that spot with rangers (and mesmers being taken only for time warp and portal).

 

> If they were, it would have been achieved AT LEAST for **some** classes or maybe even all classes at this point.

Like i said, they did. At least rangers and mesmers are now part of that balance. Which is definitely an improvement.

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

 

I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense. I have no problem with people wanting Necro to be meta ... but giving them smatterings of DPS isn't going to do it ... that hasn't worked for 8 years. No one is going to take a Necro in a meta PUG team unless they become the TOP DPS spot. You think that's going happen ... If the last 8 years is an indication, it's not.

 

The sad part is that if Anet came in with a balance patch tomorrow that equalized everyone's damage ... you STILL wouldn't get a team with Meta PUG's because DPS isn't what is holding Necro back from being on those teams. Warrior has terrible damage too ... but they get teams. You aren't asking yourself why the game works like it does.

 

 

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> > So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

>

> I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense. I have no problem with people wanting Necro to be meta ... but giving them smatterings of DPS isn't going to do it ... that hasn't worked for 8 years. No one is going to take a Necro in a meta PUG team unless they become the TOP DPS spot. You think that's going happen ... If the last 8 years is an indication, it's not.

>

> The sad part is that if Anet came in with a balance patch tomorrow that equalized everyone's damage ... you STILL wouldn't get a team with Meta PUG's because DPS isn't what is holding Necro back from being on those teams. Warrior has terrible damage too ... but they get teams. You aren't asking yourself why the game works like it does.

>

>

 

I stand to correct you, Necromancer have had a few windows where he got meta dps and as a consequences was meta during those windows of opportunities. The first window was when you could maintain Lich's minions through healing them (which was nerfed due to "exploit" in PvP). The second window was when scourge could burn things to death (which was nerfed for WvW and PvP reasons). The 3rd window was when the necromancers fell back onto exploiting epidemic to it's maximum potential (Which received a huge backlash from the PvE and WvW community).

 

You drift at the limit of being right and wrong. You're wrong when saying that the necromancer having competitive dps number isn't going to improve it's situation. However, I agree with you when you say that DPS isn't what's holding back the necromancer. If the core necromancer wasn't putting all it's cards into the "shroud" which is it's main defense mechanism and thus had mechanism allowing to specialize a bit more, then there would more risk involved in dealing damage and other profession wouldn't be able to see the necromancer as a "noob/easy" profession which would allow room for an increase in DPS without backlash from other professions. The same way, if the tools of the necromancer were as potent in PvE than they are in PvP, then, maybe, there wouldn't be a need for a DPS increase. Lastly, if the necromancer paired as well with other professions in PvE than it pair with other necromancer, then the necromancer would have less walls to face in PvE.

 

Most of the issues are mainly due to the choices of developpement for the necromancer along the years. These choices mainly focused on making the necromancer into a tool to mitigate the boons and conditions overflow in PvP/WvW. A thankless and unbalanced task. Sure, ANet tried to adapt the environment to the necromancer but objectively they stopped trying this after releasing HoT.

[Anchoku.8142]

Maybe start a thread on under-performing, adequate, and over-performing general builds for Necro. People often pick one build and one role, then generalize it across the entire spectrum.

 

Start a thread that debates a matrix of builds and roles for each game mode. There are some things Necro does very well like PvE barrier support and WvW condi pressure, some things that are adequate like Reaper PvE power dps, and some it is utterly pathetic at like core power dps.

 

Really, all professions should have a simple matrix showing performance in various major builds, roles and game modes that estimate how far above or below average their performance is. Sites like Snowcrows focus on the best results but not so much on the better "bad" builds that highlight specialization deficiencies.

 

Specializations that are completely unacceptable for either exceptionally poor peak value in skilled hands, or exceptionally high value, are what we need Arenanet to focus on. Everyone focuses on over-performing corner-conditions while many core builds that suck are ignored and Arenanet does not think we care about the latter.

 

* Do a split in core shroud and weapon skills to buff them for PvE in group utility or dps. Maybe increase MH dagger cleave to 3.

* Split Reaper Shroud more between game modes and give it more options outside of power dps by sharing a good boon

* Fix Scourge equipment scaling so barriers can be good or corruption could be good or condi dps can be good but not two or three at a time.

 

Necro is much improved over what it was before HoT but core design philosophy still haunts it.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> > > So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

> >

> > I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense. I have no problem with people wanting Necro to be meta ... but giving them smatterings of DPS isn't going to do it ... that hasn't worked for 8 years. No one is going to take a Necro in a meta PUG team unless they become the TOP DPS spot. You think that's going happen ... If the last 8 years is an indication, it's not.

> >

> > The sad part is that if Anet came in with a balance patch tomorrow that equalized everyone's damage ... you STILL wouldn't get a team with Meta PUG's because DPS isn't what is holding Necro back from being on those teams. Warrior has terrible damage too ... but they get teams. You aren't asking yourself why the game works like it does.

> >

> >

>

> I stand to correct you, Necromancer have had a few windows where he got meta dps and as a consequences was meta during those windows of opportunities.

 

Admittedly, there is grey area where more damage will make Necro's more tolerable to people ... but as your examples illustrate ... giving Necro's DPS at the levels we have seen only puts them in this grey area where a few more encounters allowed Necro's to sneak in. I'm not sure that ever really qualified Necros as gerneally desirable team mates, especially to the PUG Meta community since those instances are basically exceptional.

 

The teams that are kicking people aren't interested in taking a necro that does 34 K instead of 31 K ... IMO, unless that DPS increase is SIGNIFICANT to the level of displacing other classes that are taken solely for DPS, it's an ineffective approach to making necros meta. That's about a flat 20% increase to the Power Reaper build.

 

Giving Necros DPS is the least effective fix to making them desirable in teams that currently do not want them. If there is a problem to be fixed here, it only makes sense to fix it right. IMO, that's some sort of team-desirable effect. It's not out of the question that this is something similar to what we have seen Anet do with Reworks on Scrapper, Herald, etc ... It is highly unlikely that it will be a DPS buff of the order of over 15%.

 

[Shaogin.2679]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> > > So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

> >

> > I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense. I have no problem with people wanting Necro to be meta ... but giving them smatterings of DPS isn't going to do it ... that hasn't worked for 8 years. No one is going to take a Necro in a meta PUG team unless they become the TOP DPS spot. You think that's going happen ... If the last 8 years is an indication, it's not.

> >

> > The sad part is that if Anet came in with a balance patch tomorrow that equalized everyone's damage ... you STILL wouldn't get a team with Meta PUG's because DPS isn't what is holding Necro back from being on those teams. Warrior has terrible damage too ... but they get teams. You aren't asking yourself why the game works like it does.

> >

> >

>

> I stand to correct you, Necromancer have had a few windows where he got meta dps and as a consequences was meta during those windows of opportunities. The first window was when you could maintain Lich's minions through healing them (which was nerfed due to "exploit" in PvP). The second window was when scourge could burn things to death (which was nerfed for WvW and PvP reasons). The 3rd window was when the necromancers fell back onto exploiting epidemic to it's maximum potential (Which received a huge backlash from the PvE and WvW community).

>

> You drift at the limit of being right and wrong. You're wrong when saying that the necromancer having competitive dps number isn't going to improve it's situation. However, I agree with you when you say that DPS isn't what's holding back the necromancer. If the core necromancer wasn't putting all it's cards into the "shroud" which is it's main defense mechanism and thus had mechanism allowing to specialize a bit more, then there would more risk involved in dealing damage and other profession wouldn't be able to see the necromancer as a "noob/easy" profession which would allow room for an increase in DPS without backlash from other professions. The same way, if the tools of the necromancer were as potent in PvE than they are in PvP, then, maybe, there wouldn't be a need for a DPS increase. Lastly, if the necromancer paired as well with other professions in PvE than it pair with other necromancer, then the necromancer would have less walls to face in PvE.

>

> Most of the issues are mainly due to the choices of developpement for the necromancer along the years. These choices mainly focused on making the necromancer into a tool to mitigate the boons and conditions overflow in PvP/WvW. A thankless and unbalanced task. Sure, ANet tried to adapt the environment to the necromancer but objectively they stopped trying this after releasing HoT.

 

Yeah, Necromancer in general feels like such a PvP oriented spec, and in the past that has held it back in PvE quite a bit. It is encouraging to see them openly embrace these PvE/PvP skill splits, but those seems limited to values such as damage, healing, duration, and cooldown. A complete Necromancer overhaul would be amazing, but I feel it is more likely they would simply buff the numbers on the PvE side as an easier fix. I would be highly disappointed though if we didn't see drastic changes to the Necromancer by the next expansion (which is still quite a ways off). Nevertheless, it would be nice to hear Anet's opinion on the Necromancer and its current state.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> > So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

>

> I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense.

The only other way would be to give reaper a ton of support. That would require Anet to change their vision of the necromancer by 180 degrees. That's not going to happen. Even the example you so like to give, of herald reworks, didn't really affect Anet's vision for that spec. It was just some changes to the _mechanic implementation_ of that vision, nothing more.

 

> I have no problem with people wanting Necro to be meta ... but giving them smatterings of DPS isn't going to do it ... that hasn't worked for 8 years.

It already worked to a degree. Massive increases of reaper dps already happened once. It brought them up from 24k to around 30k, which is why we even see individual cases of reapers at all. Before that power reaper was nothing more than a joke.

There was also a single case where for a while (until it has ben patched away as a bug) Scourges could bench around 38k. They were _very much_ wanted during that short while. And no, before you say anything about it, it _wasn't_ the top dps spec then.

 

> No one is going to take a Necro in a meta PUG team unless they become the TOP DPS spot. You think that's going happen ... If the last 8 years is an indication, it's not.

You do remember how condi core ranger ended up included in the raid meta the first time? You do remember how it was nowhere close to being top dps, when that happened? And how it wasn't offering anything to the party beyond that dps?

If you did, you would know that being top dps is not required. All is needed is to have enough dps to not be considered a liability. Nobody's expecting an average pugger to be doing benchmark level dps anyway.

 

>

> The sad part is that if Anet came in with a balance patch tomorrow that equalized everyone's damage ... you STILL wouldn't get a team with Meta PUG's because DPS isn't what is holding Necro back from being on those teams. Warrior has terrible damage too ... but they get teams.

Notice, how of the three currently mentioned on snowcrows banner berserker builds two are above power reaper. And that there are two other, purely dps berserker builds much higher on the benchmark list. And that's not unusual - it's been that way in the past as well. Reaper is just _that_ bad that even support builds are better.

 

> You aren't asking yourself why the game works like it does.

You should probably ask yourself why the way you think the game works is not the way it actually works. Because time and time again you give examples of how you think the things are that are easily counterable by just looking and checking the facts. It's like your arguments are not based on the actual game, but on some vision you have of it.

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Admittedly, there is grey area where more damage will make Necro's more tolerable to people ... but as your examples illustrate ... giving Necro's DPS at the levels we have seen only puts them in this grey area where a few more encounters allowed Necro's to sneak in.

That's only because the class was bad for so long that people expect them to be bad. But, again, i need to remind you about the core condi ranger case. It took some time for the idea of dps ranger being useful for anything to filter through to the pugs, but it did happen. And it wasn't all that great build dps-wise. Yes, it would take a bit longer for Necros now, probably, but that's only because they'd need to combat a lot more of history.

Notice also, that this problem grows with time. The longer Necros remain at the bottom, the greater the stigma they get, and the more effort needed to combat it. Basically, by not doing anything now, we're making the matter worse.

 

> I'm not sure that ever really qualified Necros as gerneally desirable team mates, especially to the PUG Meta community since those instances are basically exceptional.

Necro problem is that those exceptional players _would_ qualify (even on Necro), but nobody expects really qualified players of _any_ class in pugs, and only few players are willing to trust you when you say you're one (for good reasons, i might add). And, contrary to what some people believe, outside of Open World, Reaper is _not_ an easy class for less skilled players.

 

> The teams that are kicking people aren't interested in taking a necro that does 34 K instead of 31 K ... IMO

Most of the teams would be okay with any class with expected damage on boss around those that are already in a group (or better). Which is susally way below benchmarks. Thats all. Reapers currently are _not_ that class. They are in a very bad spot where taking _any_ other class for dps is better.

At least, due to efforts of a certain streamer, heal scourge _is_ recognized as an option.

 

> unless that DPS increase is SIGNIFICANT to the level of displacing other classes that are taken solely for DPS

Correct me if i'm wrong, but shortbow condi soulbeasts are still being taken, right? Not for being good, but due to having a reputation of being only decent, but still very stable choice.

 

> Giving Necros DPS is the least effective fix to making them desirable in teams that currently do not want them. If there is a problem to be fixed here, it only makes sense to fix it right. IMO, that's some sort of team-desirable effect. It's not out of the question that this is something similar to what we have seen Anet do with Reworks on Scrapper, Herald, etc ... It is highly unlikely that it will be a DPS buff of the order of over 15%.

>

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> You should probably ask yourself why the way you think the game works is not the way it actually works.

I don't get what you are implying here ... I'm not imagining things when I see people getting teams and being successful with necros ... pretty sure of that. That's not me THINKING it works, that's me SEEING it works.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> > > So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

> >

> > I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense.

> The only other way would be to give reaper a ton of support.

 

No it's not the only way ... Anet can decide to do whatever they want to any of the specs Necro has. Don't pretend there aren't paths forward on class changes to justify DPS as the best way to go. That's about as contrived as it gets.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > You should probably ask yourself why the way you think the game works is not the way it actually works.

> I don't get what you are implying here ... I'm not imagining things when I see people getting teams and being successful with necros ... pretty sure of that. That's not me THINKING it works, that's me SEEING it works.

You mean all the cases where you said something is impossible, is never gonna happen, or never happened, to be immediately countered with actual, easy to find, in-game examples (which you keep pretending not to notice) never happened. Right.

 

>

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> > > > So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

> > >

> > > I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense.

> > The only other way would be to give reaper a ton of support.

>

> No it's not the only way ... Anet can decide to do whatever they want to any of the specs Necro has. Don't pretend there aren't paths forward on class changes to justify DPS as the best way to go. That's about as contrived as it gets.

 

Necro DPS builds are currently lacking in both DPS and support. To bring them on a level where picking them over other classes will not be a liability requires either increasing their dps, giving them a lot of support, or a mix of both. Without giving at least one of those things, you won't fix the problem. No matter how many other changes you will make to the class. Notice also, that currently no thematic changes to the class are required to justify dps increase, but a complete change of its thematics is required to give it a lot of support.

It's as simple as that.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > You should probably ask yourself why the way you think the game works is not the way it actually works.

> > I don't get what you are implying here ... I'm not imagining things when I see people getting teams and being successful with necros ... pretty sure of that. That's not me THINKING it works, that's me SEEING it works.

> You mean all the cases where you said something is impossible, is never gonna happen, or never happened, to be immediately countered with actual, easy to find, in-game examples (which you keep pretending not to notice) never happened. Right.

 

Again ... if you have a point, just say it ... my beliefs are based on what ANYONE can observe happening in the game, not something I've contrived to justify something I want.

>

> >

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> > > > > So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

> > > >

> > > > I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense.

> > > The only other way would be to give reaper a ton of support.

> >

> > No it's not the only way ... Anet can decide to do whatever they want to any of the specs Necro has. Don't pretend there aren't paths forward on class changes to justify DPS as the best way to go. That's about as contrived as it gets.

>

> Necro DPS builds are currently lacking in both DPS and support.

 

I won't debate that because 'lacking' means there is something to compare it to and I'm doubtful we will agree with what that is.

 

What I do know is true is that DPS isn't not going to make Necro's meta unless they get top spot. Again ... why do people want a warrior in their team? You don't answer that question because you don't want that same kind of a solution for Necro's to be meta.

 

 

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"Shaogin.2679" said:

>

> Yeah, Necromancer in general feels like such a PvP oriented spec, and in the past that has held it back in PvE quite a bit. It is encouraging to see them openly embrace these PvE/PvP skill splits, but those seems limited to values such as damage, healing, duration, and cooldown. A complete Necromancer overhaul would be amazing, but I feel it is more likely they would simply buff the numbers on the PvE side as an easier fix. I would be highly disappointed though if we didn't see drastic changes to the Necromancer by the next expansion (which is still quite a ways off). Nevertheless, it would be nice to hear Anet's opinion on the Necromancer and its current state.

 

I don't think it would truly be difficult to put the necromancer on an healthier path (leading to potentially better performances in group setting). What I think would be difficult would be to have players accept the changes needed for it. The reaper's community is attached to the reaper's shroud being a strong damage dealing tool, often denying the reality that this same shroud stay their main defensive mechanism. The problem is that it's unhealthy to deal damage and shield your health at the same time, it justify low dps potential in itself. Just moving the stat buffs you have in shroud throught trait toward a out of shroud buff gained when leaving shroud would be help a lot to put the necromancer on the right path, tilting the damage balance toward "out of shroud" state instead of "in shroud" state. Just doing that would reduce the voices that argue that the necromancer don't have to take "risk" to deal damage (yet what's magic is that the necromancer would gain dps potential from such a change).

[Shaogin.2679]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > @"Shaogin.2679" said:

> >

> > Yeah, Necromancer in general feels like such a PvP oriented spec, and in the past that has held it back in PvE quite a bit. It is encouraging to see them openly embrace these PvE/PvP skill splits, but those seems limited to values such as damage, healing, duration, and cooldown. A complete Necromancer overhaul would be amazing, but I feel it is more likely they would simply buff the numbers on the PvE side as an easier fix. I would be highly disappointed though if we didn't see drastic changes to the Necromancer by the next expansion (which is still quite a ways off). Nevertheless, it would be nice to hear Anet's opinion on the Necromancer and its current state.

>

> I don't think it would truly be difficult to put the necromancer on an healthier path (leading to potentially better performances in group setting). What I think would be difficult would be to have players accept the changes needed for it. The reaper's community is attached to the reaper's shroud being a strong damage dealing tool, often denying the reality that this same shroud stay their main defensive mechanism. The problem is that it's unhealthy to deal damage and shield your health at the same time, it justify low dps potential in itself. Just moving the stat buffs you have in shroud throught trait toward a out of shroud buff gained when leaving shroud would be help a lot to put the necromancer on the right path, tilting the damage balance toward "out of shroud" state instead of "in shroud" state. Just doing that would reduce the voices that argue that the necromancer don't have to take "risk" to deal damage (yet what's magic is that the necromancer would gain dps potential from such a change).

 

Honestly I hate the whole concept of Shroud being a shield that temporarily replaces health, and I feel like many of the balance issues for Necromancers stem from this. ONe possible way to change it up would be to change the Shroud mechanic so that it no longer replaces health, it just changes your attacks while it is up. Then they could allow us maintain access to our heal, utilities, and ultimate while in shroud, and they could start reworking other skills to include more active defenses.

[KrHome.1920]

> @"Shaogin.2679" said:

> > @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > > @"Shaogin.2679" said:

> > >

> > > Yeah, Necromancer in general feels like such a PvP oriented spec, and in the past that has held it back in PvE quite a bit. It is encouraging to see them openly embrace these PvE/PvP skill splits, but those seems limited to values such as damage, healing, duration, and cooldown. A complete Necromancer overhaul would be amazing, but I feel it is more likely they would simply buff the numbers on the PvE side as an easier fix. I would be highly disappointed though if we didn't see drastic changes to the Necromancer by the next expansion (which is still quite a ways off). Nevertheless, it would be nice to hear Anet's opinion on the Necromancer and its current state.

> >

> > I don't think it would truly be difficult to put the necromancer on an healthier path (leading to potentially better performances in group setting). What I think would be difficult would be to have players accept the changes needed for it. The reaper's community is attached to the reaper's shroud being a strong damage dealing tool, often denying the reality that this same shroud stay their main defensive mechanism. The problem is that it's unhealthy to deal damage and shield your health at the same time, it justify low dps potential in itself. Just moving the stat buffs you have in shroud throught trait toward a out of shroud buff gained when leaving shroud would be help a lot to put the necromancer on the right path, tilting the damage balance toward "out of shroud" state instead of "in shroud" state. Just doing that would reduce the voices that argue that the necromancer don't have to take "risk" to deal damage (yet what's magic is that the necromancer would gain dps potential from such a change).

>

> Honestly I hate the whole concept of Shroud being a shield that temporarily replaces health, and I feel like many of the balance issues for Necromancers stem from this. ONe possible way to change it up would be to change the Shroud mechanic so that it no longer replaces health, it just changes your attacks while it is up. Then they could allow us maintain access to our heal, utilities, and ultimate while in shroud, and they could start reworking other skills to include more active defenses.

Shroud is perfectly fine for balancing. What ANet never did right, is create alternatives that matter like every compentent balance team would. Their trait system is a perfect basis for that and it's a shame they don't use its potential. It would be very easy to give necro a very low baseline shroud and then some options to either improve shroud defense or improve damage.

 

Shroud could have a much lower baseline life force pool of half the necromancer health (only 10k) and degenerate 5% per second.

 

Soul Reaping (a very simplyfied version !) could look like this:

 

Adept options

- increase life force by 5%

- reduce shroud cooldown by 5%

- increase damage in shroud by 5%

 

Master options

- increase life force by 10%

- reduce shroud cooldown by 10%

- increase damage in shroud by 10%

 

Grandmaster options

- increase life force by 15%

- reduce shroud cooldown by 15%

- increase damage in shroud by 15%

 

The SR minor traits could give only utility like swiftness on shroud entering, condi cleanse on shroud exiting or whatever. And every traitline could have a well defined theme of what it improves.

 

So you can never have good sustain and good damage at once. But you could min-max or just take a bit of everything. Soul Reaping is currently the traitline that is the best pick for damage (major traits) and sustain (minor traits) and that's a very bad design to say the least.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > You should probably ask yourself why the way you think the game works is not the way it actually works.

> > > I don't get what you are implying here ... I'm not imagining things when I see people getting teams and being successful with necros ... pretty sure of that. That's not me THINKING it works, that's me SEEING it works.

> > You mean all the cases where you said something is impossible, is never gonna happen, or never happened, to be immediately countered with actual, easy to find, in-game examples (which you keep pretending not to notice) never happened. Right.

>

> Again ... if you have a point, just say it ... my beliefs are based on what ANYONE can observe happening in the game, not something I've contrived to justify something I want.

And yet most of the "examples" you use are things anyone can check to not actually be true.

 

> What I do know is true is that DPS isn't not going to make Necro's meta unless they get top spot.

Here's an example of what i mentioned above. This is a claim you made in this thread several times already, which got debunked more than once with specific examples of when Necro did make meta _without_ being top dps. And yet this does not prevent you from claiming it again. It's something that seems to be based purely on your belief of how it should work, not on how things actually do work.

 

> Again ... why do people want a warrior in their team? You don't answer that question because you don't want that same kind of a solution for Necro's to be meta.

Banner warrior is obviously taken for support. DPS warriors however (that _are_ a thing) are taken for their dps and sometimes CC. Which is another thing i already mentioned in this very thread.

Also, again, as banner warriors have _better dps than power reaper_, they'd have been taken over power reaper even if they had no support whatsoever.

 

Another counterexample i have already given you, which you ignored before: why do you think exactly people have no problem with shortbow condi soulbeasts in their teams? Why they had no problem taking condi rangers back just after HoT, at the time when Rangers still had a stigma of being completely useless?

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> The reaper's community is attached to the reaper's shroud being a strong damage dealing tool, often denying the reality that this same shroud stay their main defensive mechanism. The problem is that it's unhealthy to deal damage and shield your health at the same time, it justify low dps potential in itself.

Actually, that misconception is far more damaging than the shroud mechanic. In reality, shroud is already perfectly balanced and there's no need to do additional balances that aren;t directly tied to it.

 

The balance mechanics of the shroud are twofold:

1. as you mentioned, it is a resource for both dps and survival - what you didn't mention is that this usage already is balanced by the fact that using the second hp bar for soaking damage, shortens shroud duration, causing a major dps loss.

2. The survivability alone is also balanced - you gain a second hp bar, but in exchange while in shroud you can't use any utility skills, and _you can't be healed_. Those two things are in itself a very serious balancing factors.

 

As such, there's no need to do additional balancing on top of that, like decreasing out-of-shroud damage, or reducing Necro's access to lifesaving utilities.

 

The idea of shroud being that great survival boost without any downsides is a myth that doesn't have much to do with reality. Not in PvE anyway (i don't really know or care how it is in PvP, although from what i remember when i still played those modes, even there, shroud was a shortterm boost to Necro's survivability, but with a heavy _longterm_ cost - meaning, as soon as your shroud ended, if the fight wasn't resolved yet, you were as good as dead)

[Methuselah.4376]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> What I do know is true is that DPS isn't not going to make Necro's meta unless they get top spot. Again ... why do people want a warrior in their team? You don't answer that question because you don't want that same kind of a solution for Necro's to be meta.

>

>

This argument just baffles me. Reaper is brought as a DPS but problem is that in a good group that dps falls far behind. Ergo increasing the DPS makes it more desirable as a DPS...like duh? The "meta" such as it is as far as dps is "bring whatever you do decent damage with". Time was when in raids you would look for specific DPS classes. Now no one really cares if you bring a power Soulbeast or a power Holo. A good group tend to raise an eyebrow with a power Reaper and they keep a close eye on your DPS, making sure that you at least reach as close to the benchmark as possible just to consider keeping you. All a DPS increase does is ensure that people treat a power Reaper joining with the same nonchalance that they have when a Holo joins.

Honestly, could you explain without resorting to your usual snobbery, why you think that increasing the DPS on a DPS spec which has a low damage ceiling doesn't solve the DPS issue? As far as raids and fractals are concerned, Reaper is brought for DPS, not for support, not for utility, but DPS, and that DPS is low. You keep insinuating that fixing other areas of necro will be a better avenue to fixing necro. Like what?

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > The reaper's community is attached to the reaper's shroud being a strong damage dealing tool, often denying the reality that this same shroud stay their main defensive mechanism. The problem is that it's unhealthy to deal damage and shield your health at the same time, it justify low dps potential in itself.

> Actually, that misconception is far more damaging than the shroud mechanic. In reality, shroud is already perfectly balanced and there's no need to do additional balances that aren;t directly tied to it.

>

> The balance mechanics of the shroud are twofold:

> 1. as you mentioned, it is a resource for both dps and survival - what you didn't mention is that this usage already is balanced by the fact that using the second hp bar for soaking damage, shortens shroud duration, causing a major dps loss.

> 2. The survivability alone is also balanced - you gain a second hp bar, but in exchange while in shroud you can't use any utility skills, and _you can't be healed_. Those two things are in itself a very serious balancing factors.

>

> As such, there's no need to do additional balancing on top of that, like decreasing out-of-shroud damage, or reducing Necro's access to lifesaving utilities.

>

> The idea of shroud being that great survival boost without any downsides is a myth that doesn't have much to do with reality. Not in PvE anyway (i don't really know or care how it is in PvP, although from what i remember when i still played those modes, even there, shroud was a shortterm boost to Necro's survivability, but with a heavy _longterm_ cost - meaning, as soon as your shroud ended, if the fight wasn't resolved yet, you were as good as dead)

 

The point is whether or not we like it, the shroud shield health. It is fondamentally defensive in design.

Don't get me wrong, the shroud is crap at surviving in PvE, it's always been and will most likely continue to. In the vanilla game part of the reason the necromancer was unpopular in dungeon and fractal was that a single extra dodge or evade skill gave more survivability in there than all the shroud defense could.

 

What I advocate for is a redistribution of the necromancer's "power". Since the shroud is defensive in design, concentrate on having it defensive, forget about having it being a damage tool. Since the out of shroud stance don't have much defense give it more offense. Redistributing the offensive ressource spent into the shroud into the out of shroud stance can only increase the necromancer's dps potential and reduce the feeling that the necromancer have an unfair advantage while dealing damage.

 

NB.: You say that the survivability and the offense of the shroud are both balanced. You're right, the problem isn't there. **The issue is that the profession reward you for not taking risks and punish you for taking risks.**

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> The point is whether or not we like it, the shroud shield health. It is fondamentally defensive in design.

So are F2 and F3 of guard/DH, yet I don't see this affecting other sources of guard's survivability, or its potential dps output. In fact, guard's F skills are better defense wise, because they can affect whole group, and using them is not tied to locking you out of your utilities, or being unhealable.

 

> Don't get me wrong, the shroud is kitten at surviving in PvE, it's always been and will most likely continue to. In the vanilla game part of the reason the necromancer was unpopular in dungeon and fractal was that a single extra dodge or evade skill gave more survivability in there than all the shroud defense could.

Precisely.

 

> What I advocate for is a redistribution of the necromancer's "power". Since the shroud is defensive in design, concentrate on having it defensive, forget about having it being a damage tool.

If it won't be a damage tool, then the curent balance factors it has now will go out of the window. Then people will be far more justified in claiming that this additional defence mechanic needs to be balanced with lower dps output. You'd have to do the exact opposite - get rid of defensive function of shroud, and turn it into damage boost mode (berserker style).

 

> NB.: You say that the survivability and the offense of the shroud are both balanced. You're right, the problem isn't there. **The issue is that the profession reward you for not taking risks and punish you for taking risks.**

Not quite. Everyone benefits from not getting hit. That benefit is called "staying alive". It's not that Necromancer benefits more from not getting damaged. It's that this profession is _punished_ more than other classes for getting hit. Other classes just lose some hps. Necros lose hps, and dps output.

 

Notice, by the way, that even when we factor in shroud, the sad truth is that most other professions have far more survival options than Necromancers. As you yourself have mentioned, soaking damage through hps is the _worst_ of all possible defensive options available.

 

Another sad truth is that the misperception of Necros having far more survivability is perpetrated by devs, that keep bringing that up from time to time and act, as if it was something much better than it actually is.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > The point is whether or not we like it, the shroud shield health. It is fondamentally defensive in design.

> So are F2 and F3 of guard/DH, yet I don't see this affecting other sources of guard's survivability, or its potential dps output. In fact, guard's F skills are better defense wise, because they can affect whole group, and using them is not tied to locking you out of your utilities, or being unhealable.

The difference between guard /mesmer/spellbreaker... etc. and the necromancer is that for the necromancer it's the **main** defensive tool. It make a huge difference.

>

> > Don't get me wrong, the shroud is kitten at surviving in PvE, it's always been and will most likely continue to. In the vanilla game part of the reason the necromancer was unpopular in dungeon and fractal was that a single extra dodge or evade skill gave more survivability in there than all the shroud defense could.

> Precisely.

>

> > What I advocate for is a redistribution of the necromancer's "power". Since the shroud is defensive in design, concentrate on having it defensive, forget about having it being a damage tool.

> If it won't be a damage tool, then the curent balance factors it has now will go out of the window. Then people will be far more justified in claiming that this additional defence mechanic needs to be balanced with lower dps output. You'd have to do the exact opposite - get rid of defensive function of shroud, and turn it into damage boost mode (berserker style).

The current balance factor focus on mediocrity and an inability to truly specialize in damage. You can't shake the statu quo without discarding this balance factor.

>

> > NB.: You say that the survivability and the offense of the shroud are both balanced. You're right, the problem isn't there. **The issue is that the profession reward you for not taking risks and punish you for taking risks.**

> Not quite. Everyone benefits from not getting hit. That benefit is called "staying alive". It's not that Necromancer benefits more from not getting damaged. It's that this profession is _punished_ more than other classes for getting hit. Other classes just lose some hps. Necros lose hps, and dps output.

Yet it's not because the difference of dps between in and out of shroud is almost inexistent. The shroud having been transform in merely another tool to extend it's ability to damage through the act of shielding itself.

>

> Notice, by the way, that even when we factor in shroud, the sad truth is that most other professions have far more survival options than Necromancers. As you yourself have mentioned, soaking damage through hps is the _worst_ of all possible defensive options available.

Oh, I know that and I'm aware that it's an issue, I don't and won't argue against this point.

>

> Another sad truth is that the misperception of Necros having far more survivability is perpetrated by devs, that keep bringing that up from time to time and act, as if it was something much better than it actually is.

Well that's because the devs look at it not from a PvE competitiveness point of view but a global point of view. The devs look at their game and see things like cleric or sentinel stats, conscient that in front of cleric stats the shroud is very strong and supported by sentinel stat the shroud is a lot more resilient. Whereas the players just see the shortcomings of a profession unable to reach a truly competitive state.

 

The necromancer could be much more, but it is held back by it's design.

- The necromancer could be a tank, it is litteraly designed to tank through health points. It's profession mechanism's design enforce this idea. However, outside of a PvP environment with low level of damage output, it just cannot tank. It doesn't have what it take to do it, it cannot fix a foe in place, it's inability to prevent hard CC a liability for this role.

- The necromancer could be a strong support through debuff. It is it's area of expertise or at least the one that ANet's devs will for him. However, it's ability to debuff is generic (so easy to replace that it's not a needed role) in PvE and heavily mitigated by the very nature of a PvE AI relying less on boons than it rely on it's defiance and large health pool.

- The necromancer could be a strong condi dps. Yet, it's condi dps potential is tied to mechanisms that don't work well with the nature of a PvE AI and the design of the encounters (Boon corruption and condition manipulation).

- The necromancer could be a strong power dps, yet most of the power ressource are spent into a defensive ability in order to allow him to keep up it's dps through being hit.

[Nimon.7840]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > You should probably ask yourself why the way you think the game works is not the way it actually works.

> > > I don't get what you are implying here ... I'm not imagining things when I see people getting teams and being successful with necros ... pretty sure of that. That's not me THINKING it works, that's me SEEING it works.

> > You mean all the cases where you said something is impossible, is never gonna happen, or never happened, to be immediately countered with actual, easy to find, in-game examples (which you keep pretending not to notice) never happened. Right.

>

> Again ... if you have a point, just say it ... my beliefs are based on what ANYONE can observe happening in the game, not something I've contrived to justify something I want.

> >

> > >

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > ... and we STILL don't have DPS meta balancing ...

> > > > > > So? that something has always been broken does not mean we should not strive to get it fixed.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm not arguing it shouldn't be fixed. I'm arguing that fixing with DPS doesn't make sense.

> > > > The only other way would be to give reaper a ton of support.

> > >

> > > No it's not the only way ... Anet can decide to do whatever they want to any of the specs Necro has. Don't pretend there aren't paths forward on class changes to justify DPS as the best way to go. That's about as contrived as it gets.

> >

> > Necro DPS builds are currently lacking in both DPS and support.

>

> I won't debate that because 'lacking' means there is something to compare it to and I'm doubtful we will agree with what that is.

>

> What I do know is true is that DPS isn't not going to make Necro's meta unless they get top spot. Again ... why do people want a warrior in their team? You don't answer that question because you don't want that same kind of a solution for Necro's to be meta.

>

>

 

Can you maybe stop making every thing bad that says buff necro? Your posts often sound like personally attacking the one you're referring to (maybe that's just me because English isn't my first language?).

Anet wants us to tell them, what we like and what we want to see to make the game more enjoyable.

If it's just minor qol changes or bigger changes affecting outgoing damage. Everything can make the game better.

While we only can make assumptions, what they might think, we can stick to what they told us do, which is suggesting things that would make the game more enjoyable for us.

 

The only thing you do is proving your points with wild guesses what you THINK how anet works.

And also never ever really try to make a real point like "I don't like that idea because of these reasons" or "I think this would be a lot better". Your only point is flavour. And I have to agree, they never said they are balancing based on performance, as well as they never said that they are balancing based on flavour. So please cut that flavour talk. We all know now that you think flavour is the one and all for necro, but you don't have to comment on every single post with that. It's annoying and might even be reportable as spam or trolling.

 

Oh and btw if they did balance on flavour, firebrand and Chrono would have to be pure Support Charakters. Yet things like dps Chrono and firebrand do exist. Even a condi druid.

In your opinion, why is necro the only class that shouldn't be balanced around performance as well?

Also balancing in pvp modes, is purely about balancing performance, balancing around flavour doesn't have a place in these gamemodes, If you really want to call them "competitive" gamemodes you have to do performance balance.

 

Most people here aren't asking for 20k dps increase. Just make them equally strong as all those other classes.

What is wrong about that?

 

I mean, what even would be wrong about it, if necro was top dps for three months?

And after these 3 months, thief or any other class. And after the next 3 months another class.

Just a little bit more shifting!?

 

And yes you can compare necro. What does it do different than a firebrand? Almost nothing! Except that firebrands dps is much higher.

Yes scourge gives barrier which will block 2487 dmg every 7 seconds if you have enough lifeforce to use that skill.

Firebrand can give aegis every 10 seconds, which can block even 10k boss autoattacks.

 

There has been so many suggestions of how to change necro, while still fitting you beloved theme. It's crazy.

From reaper loosing shroud as second healthbar (which would btw be a buff for engame pve, not a nerf) as well as scourge loosing barriers when selecting new suggested traits. But these traits would greatly improved necro's damage potential.

But yet nothing changes.

 

You know, there's people that enjoy playing necro. But they don't enjoy feeling carried if they do 5k less dps than the other people in their statics.

So these people suggest something, to make the game feel better for them. Which is exactly what anet wants.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Methuselah.4376" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > What I do know is true is that DPS isn't not going to make Necro's meta unless they get top spot. Again ... why do people want a warrior in their team? You don't answer that question because you don't want that same kind of a solution for Necro's to be meta.

> >

> >

> This argument just baffles me. Reaper is brought as a DPS but problem is that in a good group that dps falls far behind.

 

I don't get what you are confused about. If reapers fall behind in 'good groups' ... what kind of DPS do you think 'good groups' will want Reaper to have to be desirable? What do you mean by 'good groups'? If good groups don't take you at 31K ... do you think 'good groups' would take you at anything BUT top DPS ranking? Like I said ... top DPS classes are not hard to come by ... so if you want to compete for DPS spots with those classes, you need top DPS.

 

You define meta as _such as it is as far as dps is "bring whatever you do decent damage with_". That's not what meta means. Meta = optimal play, not whatever you want to define it to be. Seems to me much of the confusion is the vague terminology that you want to use to discuss because I can't reply to your post without some clarifications.