Balance with a Sledge Hammer

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

Balance is a very, if not the most important feature in good class design, imo!

[Carighan.6758]

Honestly the biggest issue IMO is that a spec billed as "hey, give up your personal shroud defense, in turn shield your allies" now ends up being nerfed/reworked for **DPS reasons**. How did it ever get to this point? Why is the support-aspect of something promoted as a shield-"healer" so weak that it's not even a factor in this?

 

Something went **very** wrong at a **very** basic level with this spec. Really.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @Carighan.6758 said:

> Honestly the biggest issue IMO is that a spec billed as "hey, give up your personal shroud defense, in turn shield your allies" now ends up being nerfed/reworked for **DPS reasons**. How did it ever get to this point? Why is the support-aspect of something promoted as a shield-"healer" so weak that it's not even a factor in this?

>

> Something went **very** wrong at a **very** basic level with this spec. Really.

 

In fact, the spec wasn't nerfed for "dps reason", it was nerfed because of each skill/trait could hit a target more than once per cast and those skills/trait were not meant to do that. Also, the support aspect do not promote it as a shield-"healer" but as a condition manager (the guy that help you survive through condition pressure and put condi pressure on it's foes).

 

The "fix" on the stacking effect ended up as a huge dps nerf while the bandaids to reduce the impact of the shroud skills in PvP/WvW only made the scourge manageable. We can say that for the moment they shut down the scourge until a more thorought "fix" in which shades will clearly show when they are doing something. They also intend "to give back some power" when the shade mechanic will be stabilized but the support aspect is probably where they want it to be at the moment.

[mygamingid.5816]

> @Maunzi.3764 said:

> > @mygamingid.5816 said:

> > Under this belief, only four classes should ever be welcome: Druid, Chrono, PS Warrior, and (insert top DPS for target boss here). Anyone even 1dps worse is *worse* and should be shunned. It’s a terrible proposition, but raids are terribly designed. Necro won’t ever be top DPS, so why bother?

>

> You don't videogame much, I see. Classes are taken if they are within 5-10% of whatever is currently top, because that's usually the acceptable range.

 

Eh, ~40 years, give or take a year. MMOs since 1990. Generally, +/-10% off median (not top) has been fine, given equivalent specs and attributes.

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > @DeceiverX.8361 said:

> > The necromancer as a whole is probably one of the better-designed professions in this game. The problem is that the popular PvE content and the optimized paths to completion of it do not require what the necromancer brings on the conceptual level.

>

> Like it has been said MANY times already, this thread is about PvE, not PvP or WvW. Although that's a complete different discussion where I would probably disagree with you as well (PvP has no consistent good builds, it's always been an FotM (Flavor of the Month) based game-mode, where all classes had their superior builds ones, and the Necro has been in there as well, just like any other class (can't we all remember the hammerbow, or the infamous trapper DH, or the unkillable auratank ...)) and the different game-modes can be balanced on their own as well! So for argument sake, please treat GW2 PvE as a complete different game then the other modes. It makes this discussion much more on-topic!

>

> Anyway, I completely disagree with your statement that the necro is well designed at least not in the balancing field (the lore, look and feel, etc. is actually really nice, probably one of the main reasons I still like to play it). Since 2012, it has never really been on top of ANY chart, save from the brief period of time when the Reaper and Scourge got introduced. That's ok if it's like a real general good at everything class on ALL points: say top 3 everywhere, but that not the case either! Let me back this statement up. We can make a really difficult diagram/list on what points you could balance your professions on, but to keep it simple, let's consider the 'holy trinity':

> 1) Support: I think we can all agree that at the very moment (and definitely in history) there are a lot of classes that if you spec them the right way, they're all better than the Necro (reaper and Scourge): we all know the Chrono is with it's boon/alacrity share, the might stacking PS Berserker, the Revenant and Druid for its healing potential. And then a few that are not seen that often but still have more potential than the Barrier Scourge: the Water Ele/Tempest/Weaver and reflection/prot Guardian (DH/FB). I wouldn't even be surprised if an engineer would be even have more potential than the Necro, but let's give the Necro that one: which makes him no. 7 (out of 9) in support!

> 2) DPS: Well, just look at the charts, it's quite simple: we're pretty much the lowest now (9 out of 9)! And always have been in a terrible spot for that matter. Even if you split DPS into Power and Condi DPS, we're bad at both ...

> 3) Crowd Control (CC): It's difficult to make a list here, I know we're definitely not the worst, cause we have quite some soft CC if we consider the Necro as a whole (PvE) in the form of Chills and Cripples, etc. But if you only consider the Scourge, we actually lost a lot of access to Chill which is not improving our CC potential. Anyway, you can definitely spec a Necro (Reaper) to do decent CC. But top: NO: that's for the Mesmer, Ranger, Thief and probably even Engi and Warrior will have more potential as well

>

> ......

 

Can't tell if you're trolling or just failing to see my argument about why balancing for PvE does nothing for the necromancer or the game as a whole.

[Newsin.1945]

Balancing for PvP, WvW and PvE... is impossible to really do well. I knew this from the very start, that later down the line, the Dev team would have to make difficult sometimes absolutely ridiculous changes in order to "balance" a class for PvP in any of its facets.

 

The only real way to balance PvP, WvW and PvE would be to have different abilities for PvP and WvW vs abilities in PvE. Whenever they adjust for WvW or PvP it affects PvE. Which is why so many in PvE dislike PvPers in some cases because they call for nerfs and don't think about how those nerfs trickle down to those who dont PvP and to be fair to PvPers, this goes the same when PvE players get angry and call for nerfs to a class. It just doesn't happen as often because people are benefiting from those OP classes and its helping with clears in fractles, dungeons or raids.

 

So yeah good luck balancing anything to make people happy who play all facets of the game... cause thats a loosing battle. Its more then likely they are going to keep doing these sorts of changes and appealing to one side vs the other.

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @Newsin.1945 said:

> Balancing for PvP, WvW and PvE... is impossible to really do well. I knew this from the very start, that later down the line, the Dev team would have to make difficult sometimes absolutely ridiculous changes in order to "balance" a class for PvP in any of its facets.

>

> The only real way to balance PvP, WvW and PvE would be to have different abilities for PvP and WvW vs abilities in PvE. Whenever they adjust for WvW or PvP it affects PvE. Which is why so many in PvE dislike PvPers in some cases because they call for nerfs and don't think about how those nerfs trickle down to those who dont PvP and to be fair to PvPers, this goes the same when PvE players get angry and call for nerfs to a class. It just doesn't happen as often because people are benefiting from those OP classes and its helping with clears in fractles, dungeons or raids.

>

> So yeah good luck balancing anything to make people happy who play all facets of the game... cause thats a loosing battle. Its more then likely they are going to keep doing these sorts of changes and appealing to one side vs the other.

 

Which is exactly my point: The numbers game cannot be won. The numbers and design choices are the only things which matter in PvP because there is no way to control variables outside of the professions themselves.

 

By adjusting encounters to account for different professions and builds, you end up with *gasp* the ability for the game company to find clever ways to manage discrepancies via third party agents (PvE mechanics, bosses, etc.) that are solely within the control of the designers and can override the numerical differences.

 

There are so many ways to handle this disparity. More skills and the likes just convolutes balance making everything a bigger nightmare; the scourge bug wasn't tested as it is. Now imagine making so many abilities and interactions in a fully-split balance such that the number of tests that needed to be run was multiplied by a factor of four, for every new spec and class which get released. These kinds of issues would just keep on popping up, and balancing would be harder and take more effort. That's a lose-lose for everyone.

 

And following the encounter-balance ideology then lets ANet remove anti-fun PvP design choices from abilities altogether without affecting DPS ratings and such nonsense.

[Murdock.6547]

> @mygamingid.5816 said:

> > @"Vlad Morbius.1759" said:

> > > @Junkpile.7439 said:

> > > I just don't understand why can't you just play class that makes lot's of DPS if being top in DPS means you so much?

> >

> > Because that isn't the issue, I don't think anyone who posts here regularly is asking to be the new meta all they want is to play the class they enjoy and have it function well enough in high end content to have a role.

>

> A lot of players in this thread and the others like it absolutely believe that they need to equal or exceed large-hitbox golem Staff Weaver DPS to be considered competitive. Some may accept a meager 38k, but they’ll have to hold their noses to do it. They wholly ignore the extra survivability, boon-to-condi, condi-to-boon, vulnerability, group healing, area blind, condi absorb/transfer, and other things that Necro can do. Why? Because raids don’t value it, it shouldn’t be perceived as having any value.

>

> This tiny slice of the game, played by so few, continues to dominate the discussion. Terrible design allows players to ignore everything except DPS. Those giant, immobile, unthinking, mechanically-neutered bosses are the worst mistake made by ArenaNet.

 

I agree with most of this.

Though I disagree respectfully with raids being a mistake. Some cool new things came from there. Perhaps most notably the special action key.

 

But personally I would be in bliss if I could break 30k on golems again.

[vicious.5683]

How can you people say Necromancers are well designed if the balance team can't balance the class?

 

All that a necro can bring to raids it's useless in that game mode. And they are not going to change everything about raids just to make room for necros. So, the only thing left to do is buff necromancer to fit into raid content. But again, balance team stinks. they don't have the will nor the capabilities to do so.

[DeceiverX.8361]

The balance team is bad for a lot of reasons, but fundamentally, the PvE problem is only truly fixable with encounter changes. Honestly, looking into most other professions, the necro really is well-done for most of what it is. "Balance" for the profession is poor as a consequence for most of the imbalance and poor design elsewhere. That's why I said it's well-designed; a lot of the math is good and concepts are relatively well-designed compared to others.

 

Again, I think you're mixing up 'weak' and 'bad design.' The necromancer can be weak and well-designed. Something can be strong and poorly-designed, like chronobunker at launch of HoT. This is usually what constitutes exploiting "cheese."

 

Not to say the necro doesn't need tweaking; it definitely does. But fact is, the profession will never be "viable" in competitive raiding (which is the standard others have mentioned above that is the only one people care about at all levels of raiding) until its downright overpowered or changed so heavily such it effectively becomes a completely different class altogether in the PvP modes. It's this way because of the encounter structure and what the necromancer is designed to do. What it's supposed to do well with, it excels at, which is why it's always been heavily used in the PvP formats. The class really is quite strong when taken advantage of. The problem is that what it's supposed to do is not cohesive with nearly every PvE encounter design in the game. In particular, raids.

 

You said it yourself: The necromancer isn't used because what it does bring isn't helpful for raids. Long-term, it's way more sustainable and a direct fix to the problem to change raids. Asking for balance for PvE is asking for symptoms of the problem to be fixed, and not the problem itself.

 

And the professions team doing a poor job is also why I'm saying what I'm saying. We know the professions team is doing a poor job from a number of other builds elsewhere and their relative power across modes. We know they're not going to fix these issues any time soon because they cannot balance PvP in a vacuum. So why ask them to make a change that makes their job harder and more work while also doesn't address the problem of necros in raids? The PvE encounter design team is productive, as we've found. Might have better luck asking for answers from them than just stating falsehoods about profession balance or asking for things which would otherwise break the game.

[Kaosuseki.2986]

> @DeceiverX.8361 said:

> The balance team is bad for a lot of reasons, but fundamentally, the PvE problem is only truly fixable with encounter changes. Honestly, looking into most other professions, the necro really is well-done for most of what it is. "Balance" for the profession is poor as a consequence for most of the imbalance and poor design elsewhere. That's why I said it's well-designed; a lot of the math is good and concepts are relatively well-designed compared to others.

 

This is the core issue and I completely agree. As much effort as I put into my own thread for what Scourge could have been, at the end of the day the encounters in PvE are not compelling enough nor are they designed well enough to integrate with the rest of the game's interactive mechanics, and Necromancer is one of the professions that suffers in PvE because of this. No amount of number changes is gonna fix that.

 

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

> @DeceiverX.8361 said:

> The balance team is bad for a lot of reasons, but fundamentally, the PvE problem is only truly fixable with encounter changes. Honestly, looking into most other professions, the necro really is well-done for most of what it is. "Balance" for the profession is poor as a consequence for most of the imbalance and poor design elsewhere. That's why I said it's well-designed; a lot of the math is good and concepts are relatively well-designed compared to others.

>

> Again, I think you're mixing up 'weak' and 'bad design.' The necromancer can be weak and well-designed. Something can be strong and poorly-designed, like chronobunker at launch of HoT. This is usually what constitutes exploiting "cheese."

>

> Not to say the necro doesn't need tweaking; it definitely does. But fact is, the profession will never be "viable" in competitive raiding (which is the standard others have mentioned above that is the only one people care about at all levels of raiding) until its downright overpowered or changed so heavily such it effectively becomes a completely different class altogether in the PvP modes. It's this way because of the encounter structure and what the necromancer is designed to do. What it's supposed to do well with, it excels at, which is why it's always been heavily used in the PvP formats. The class really is quite strong when taken advantage of. The problem is that what it's supposed to do is not cohesive with nearly every PvE encounter design in the game. In particular, raids.

>

> You said it yourself: The necromancer isn't used because what it does bring isn't helpful for raids. Long-term, it's way more sustainable and a direct fix to the problem to change raids. Asking for balance for PvE is asking for symptoms of the problem to be fixed, and not the problem itself.

>

> And the professions team doing a poor job is also why I'm saying what I'm saying. We know the professions team is doing a poor job from a number of other builds elsewhere and their relative power across modes. We know they're not going to fix these issues any time soon because they cannot balance PvP in a vacuum. So why ask them to make a change that makes their job harder and more work while also doesn't address the problem of necros in raids? The PvE encounter design team is productive, as we've found. Might have better luck asking for answers from them than just stating falsehoods about profession balance or asking for things which would otherwise break the game.

 

I might be completely wrong here, and maybe I just don't understand you (I'd like to look at myself first before pointing fingers at others). But I think design simply said mainly consists of 3 major areas: Lore (story, etc.); Look and feel (visuals, animations, audio, etc.); and everything else which can be influenced by balancing. Area 3 is a real big melting pot of 'stuff' including skills, traits, progression, AI behavior, environmental effects, etc., etc., etc. It can all be *balanced*. And again this is just my opinion, but that 3rd area (everything that can be balanced) is pretty much the most important part of design (and probably also the most complex part), definitely when it's not a new game anymore and the lore, look and feel is already *mostly* a given. So, if balancing is a very important part of design, and the Necro is unbalanced and always has been (even in your opinion), it's imo poorly designed!

I'm not saying that tweaking (buffing) numbers only on the Necro side is going to fix it. On the contrary, I actually think a lot need to change, maybe even with all classes, or maybe the reward system needs to be adjusted, maybe heavy balancing is needed within the playable content, maybe the raids need a complete overhaul (what about allowing only one profession twice, rest needs to be unique ... just brainstorming here, might actually not be that good of an idea :) ),

... As always the case with something that's poorly designed ... you don't fix it by *just* tweaking numbers ...

[Slayer.7318]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > @DeceiverX.8361 said:

> > The balance team is bad for a lot of reasons, but fundamentally, the PvE problem is only truly fixable with encounter changes. Honestly, looking into most other professions, the necro really is well-done for most of what it is. "Balance" for the profession is poor as a consequence for most of the imbalance and poor design elsewhere. That's why I said it's well-designed; a lot of the math is good and concepts are relatively well-designed compared to others.

> >

> > Again, I think you're mixing up 'weak' and 'bad design.' The necromancer can be weak and well-designed. Something can be strong and poorly-designed, like chronobunker at launch of HoT. This is usually what constitutes exploiting "cheese."

> >

> > Not to say the necro doesn't need tweaking; it definitely does. But fact is, the profession will never be "viable" in competitive raiding (which is the standard others have mentioned above that is the only one people care about at all levels of raiding) until its downright overpowered or changed so heavily such it effectively becomes a completely different class altogether in the PvP modes. It's this way because of the encounter structure and what the necromancer is designed to do. What it's supposed to do well with, it excels at, which is why it's always been heavily used in the PvP formats. The class really is quite strong when taken advantage of. The problem is that what it's supposed to do is not cohesive with nearly every PvE encounter design in the game. In particular, raids.

> >

> > You said it yourself: The necromancer isn't used because what it does bring isn't helpful for raids. Long-term, it's way more sustainable and a direct fix to the problem to change raids. Asking for balance for PvE is asking for symptoms of the problem to be fixed, and not the problem itself.

> >

> > And the professions team doing a poor job is also why I'm saying what I'm saying. We know the professions team is doing a poor job from a number of other builds elsewhere and their relative power across modes. We know they're not going to fix these issues any time soon because they cannot balance PvP in a vacuum. So why ask them to make a change that makes their job harder and more work while also doesn't address the problem of necros in raids? The PvE encounter design team is productive, as we've found. Might have better luck asking for answers from them than just stating falsehoods about profession balance or asking for things which would otherwise break the game.

>

> I might be completely wrong here, and maybe I just don't understand you (I'd like to look at myself first before pointing fingers at others). But I think design simply said mainly consists of 3 major areas: Lore (story, etc.); Look and feel (visuals, animations, audio, etc.); and everything else which can be influenced by balancing. Area 3 is a real big melting pot of 'stuff' including skills, traits, progression, AI behavior, environmental effects, etc., etc., etc. It can all be *balanced*. And again this is just my opinion, but that 3rd area (everything that can be balanced) is pretty much the most important part of design (and probably also the most complex part), definitely when it's not a new game anymore and the lore, look and feel is already *mostly* a given. So, if balancing is a very important part of design, and the Necro is unbalanced and always has been (even in your opinion), it's imo poorly designed!

> I'm not saying that tweaking (buffing) numbers only on the Necro side is going to fix it. On the contrary, I actually think a lot need to change, maybe even with all classes, or maybe the reward system needs to be adjusted, maybe heavy balancing is needed within the playable content, maybe the raids need a complete overhaul (what about allowing only one profession twice, rest needs to be unique ... just brainstorming here, might actually not be that good of an idea :) ),

> ... As always the case with something that's poorly designed ... you don't fix it by *just* tweaking numbers ...

 

That idea with raid using one of each profession is not a bad idea. . Maybe a raid that used all 9 professions get a bonus in the reward which if a big enough incentive would give a reason to pick everyone and allow everyone to participate

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

Well, I kinda liked it as well, and it will definitely adjust the meta (cause it just has to), but it will punish those group of friends that are not playing meta in the first place, barely have 10 available members, all come with their favorite profession and only have seconds to spare when they've finally defeated the Vale Guardian ... They can probably not play anymore or are punished in some sense, at least for some time until they adjust their group composition (gearing, practicing, etc.)

[Anchoku.8142]

Please change raid bosses (or all bosses) to act more like players by healing, boon stripping, boon corruptions, and clearing or transferring their own conditions.

 

You do not have to fuss with PvE/PvP balance as much if you make the bosses act more like the professions attacking them. Add a skill tree with more skills and some automatic trait-like defenses. Raid boss AI is one problem throwing balance off.

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > @DeceiverX.8361 said:

> > The balance team is bad for a lot of reasons, but fundamentally, the PvE problem is only truly fixable with encounter changes. Honestly, looking into most other professions, the necro really is well-done for most of what it is. "Balance" for the profession is poor as a consequence for most of the imbalance and poor design elsewhere. That's why I said it's well-designed; a lot of the math is good and concepts are relatively well-designed compared to others.

> >

> > Again, I think you're mixing up 'weak' and 'bad design.' The necromancer can be weak and well-designed. Something can be strong and poorly-designed, like chronobunker at launch of HoT. This is usually what constitutes exploiting "cheese."

> >

> > Not to say the necro doesn't need tweaking; it definitely does. But fact is, the profession will never be "viable" in competitive raiding (which is the standard others have mentioned above that is the only one people care about at all levels of raiding) until its downright overpowered or changed so heavily such it effectively becomes a completely different class altogether in the PvP modes. It's this way because of the encounter structure and what the necromancer is designed to do. What it's supposed to do well with, it excels at, which is why it's always been heavily used in the PvP formats. The class really is quite strong when taken advantage of. The problem is that what it's supposed to do is not cohesive with nearly every PvE encounter design in the game. In particular, raids.

> >

> > You said it yourself: The necromancer isn't used because what it does bring isn't helpful for raids. Long-term, it's way more sustainable and a direct fix to the problem to change raids. Asking for balance for PvE is asking for symptoms of the problem to be fixed, and not the problem itself.

> >

> > And the professions team doing a poor job is also why I'm saying what I'm saying. We know the professions team is doing a poor job from a number of other builds elsewhere and their relative power across modes. We know they're not going to fix these issues any time soon because they cannot balance PvP in a vacuum. So why ask them to make a change that makes their job harder and more work while also doesn't address the problem of necros in raids? The PvE encounter design team is productive, as we've found. Might have better luck asking for answers from them than just stating falsehoods about profession balance or asking for things which would otherwise break the game.

>

> I might be completely wrong here, and maybe I just don't understand you (I'd like to look at myself first before pointing fingers at others). But I think design simply said mainly consists of 3 major areas: Lore (story, etc.); Look and feel (visuals, animations, audio, etc.); and everything else which can be influenced by balancing. Area 3 is a real big melting pot of 'stuff' including skills, traits, progression, AI behavior, environmental effects, etc., etc., etc. It can all be *balanced*. And again this is just my opinion, but that 3rd area (everything that can be balanced) is pretty much the most important part of design (and probably also the most complex part), definitely when it's not a new game anymore and the lore, look and feel is already *mostly* a given. So, if balancing is a very important part of design, and the Necro is unbalanced and always has been (even in your opinion), it's imo poorly designed!

> I'm not saying that tweaking (buffing) numbers only on the Necro side is going to fix it. On the contrary, I actually think a lot need to change, maybe even with all classes, or maybe the reward system needs to be adjusted, maybe heavy balancing is needed within the playable content, maybe the raids need a complete overhaul (what about allowing only one profession twice, rest needs to be unique ... just brainstorming here, might actually not be that good of an idea :) ),

> ... As always the case with something that's poorly designed ... you don't fix it by *just* tweaking numbers ...

 

I'll go along with your model of design for your own sake. Really, design can be related to anything within the scope of the entire game and encompass as much or as little as the designer wishes it to.

Thing is, when evaluating design, you need to study it in both a vacuum and in context.

 

In a vacuum, the necromancer is fantastic. We can agree that It succeeds in portions 1 and 2. Not much to dispute here.

In context... it varies. It can work brilliantly. The PvE/PvP community divide is really the justification for this train of thought. In playing to its strengths, the necromancer is in a league of its own and always has been. Are there some areas it needs conceptual improvements in to widen its usage? Absolutely. But overall, the entire concept is much better and much wider in scope than people give it credit for.

 

As you mentioned, the third group is important, especially in this context of discussing raid viability and in PvP. But that's the thing. What constitutes raid viability? DPS and buff-support abilities, etc. Really, in the current game, there's just one approach to combat, and it's all a big formula. The design is extremely basic and not very fulfilling. PvP is a way more complex beast, and something simply just being instant-cast can break a profession/game mode. Weapon skill concepts make or break certain kits or even entire trait lines. When you realize the context behind why necro is weak, it becomes apparent it's got little to do with the necro's stats, or even the necromancer itself at all. We could rule that the necromancer is poorly-designed by fixing the source of raid exclusivity by just buffing numbers or making the necromancer fundamentally different in terms of function. But that makes no sense to do, since it's unnecessary, as necro does so well in other environments. The only other variable then is the encounters, which is most notably caused by their simplicity.

 

Extra rewards for unique professions doesn't really solve the root of the problem, either. It's definitely a substantial improvement, but it'll still lead to people being excluded from raids and not being able to play what they want within their profession. It just changes the meta is all, assuming adjusting to the change of the meta is worth it in terms of speed of completion of the content. But then you punish people for playing how they want to. They literally get less rewards per instance, rather than optimizing time, which is considered bad design on the very, very high level of what makes GW2 fun and a "good game."

 

Encounter changes are the best baseline to start at. They're also easier to change than worrying about managing hundreds of traits and skills in different versions of the game with all different balances and possibly changed designs between them, too, and swapping around skills and effects etc. can be more disruptive to the meta than a few numbers tweaks, as then we know the answer for basically all fights once the equation is inevitably figured out, rather than some small tweaks to timings on other boss mechanics to bump a few build concepts/professions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Maunzi.3764]

>Encounter changes are the best baseline to start at.

 

The exact opposite is true. Changing encounter design to favor specific classes is horrible design, as classic WoW raids taught us over and over and over and over and over again.

 

It has two effects:

- A class is stacked for a specific encounter

- A class is never used anywhere else.

 

This is the WORST possible solution for literally everybody, both players of a class (who are not brought to the majority of the encounters) and players that don't play the class (who have to now level up that class for the specific encounters that require it - Viscidus comes to mind). It is also MUCH, MUCH harder to design encounters with hundreds of different trait combinations in mind. In the real world, the easiest and most sustainable way is instead create a baseline for EVERY encounter, and then tweak the classes so all fit in.

 

Your suggestion isn't disruptive to the meta, it does the opposite in reality: It cements the meta. The only way to soften the meta is to ensure that there simply are no "best" choices that are miles ahead of everyone else. Again: Proven by every other successful MMO on the market.

[mygamingid.5816]

Encounter design is definitely the best fix. Have them act more like the legendary bounties in POF than the golem and you break the exploits that allow the current meta (stationary, stacking, multi-strike AOEs, lack of boons, minimal direct damage, etc.). A boring series of DPS checks becomes something more engaging.

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

> @Maunzi.3764 said:

> >Encounter changes are the best baseline to start at.

>

> The exact opposite is true. Changing encounter design to favor specific classes is horrible design, as classic WoW raids taught us over and over and over and over and over again.

>

> It has two effects:

> - A class is stacked for a specific encounter

> - A class is never used anywhere else.

>

> This is the WORST possible solution for literally everybody, both players of a class (who are not brought to the majority of the encounters) and players that don't play the class (who have to now level up that class for the specific encounters that require it - Viscidus comes to mind). It is also MUCH, MUCH harder to design encounters with hundreds of different trait combinations in mind. In the real world, the easiest and most sustainable way is instead create a baseline for EVERY encounter, and then tweak the classes so all fit in.

>

> Your suggestion isn't disruptive to the meta, it does the opposite in reality: It cements the meta. The only way to soften the meta is to ensure that there simply are no "best" choices that are miles ahead of everyone else. Again: Proven by every other successful MMO on the market.

 

There are still some changes that can be made to bring up the value of different classes. For example, making bosses affected by control conditions (not Blind, though, as that trivializes content) like Cripple and Weakness will up the value of bringing a Necromancer without requiring one in the slightest. The boss could probably use a damage buff in this case, and/or maybe shorten the cooldowns on some of its skills.

[Slayer.7318]

the other way you could do it is make the raid bosses have access to many boons. this would make necro with all its conversion skill and stealing boons skill a valueable assest. a foe using protect a ton or regen a ton surely even with lower DPS it would make having a necro speed up the process?

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @Maunzi.3764 said:

> >Encounter changes are the best baseline to start at.

>

> The exact opposite is true. Changing encounter design to favor specific classes is horrible design, as classic WoW raids taught us over and over and over and over and over again.

>

> It has two effects:

> - A class is stacked for a specific encounter

> - A class is never used anywhere else.

>

> This is the WORST possible solution for literally everybody, both players of a class (who are not brought to the majority of the encounters) and players that don't play the class (who have to now level up that class for the specific encounters that require it - Viscidus comes to mind). It is also MUCH, MUCH harder to design encounters with hundreds of different trait combinations in mind. In the real world, the easiest and most sustainable way is instead create a baseline for EVERY encounter, and then tweak the classes so all fit in.

>

> Your suggestion isn't disruptive to the meta, it does the opposite in reality: It cements the meta. The only way to soften the meta is to ensure that there simply are no "best" choices that are miles ahead of everyone else. Again: Proven by every other successful MMO on the market.

 

You realize that even slight tweaks to the very approach of how the boss even moves around can shatter metas without directly biasing the fight towards a given profession, right?

 

Anything to disrupt 'stack-'n-smack' would be huge. Boon corruption. Boon usage. Semi-random utilization of damage reduction/invuln effects to power/conditions on a cooldown. % healing outgoing damage. Stat-locking/swapping. There are so many options that can promote people just "showing up" with a huge array of builds to participate in encounters without depending on a strict set of professions or builds to beat content with.

 

 

[Exalted Quality.8534]

Necros have always been and are even more so now very strong for how easy they are to play. You got one of the two strongest PvP/WvW classes at PoF launch. Be happy and deal with the nerfs.

[Sigmoid.7082]

> @"Exalted Quality.8534" said:

> Necros have always been and are even more so now very strong for how easy they are to play. You got one of the two strongest PvP/WvW classes at PoF launch. Be happy and deal with the nerfs.

 

Downvote. PvP/WvW cool-down nerf may have been warranted though better communication could have been had but that's not what the issue people have from what I've read. Its instantly being knocked from being useful, from not being actively shunned/mocked/kicked for being able to play a class they enjoy a lot..the list goes on.. to **once again** being sub-par and in a majority of cases not worth the pick over better options. Unfortunately power necro has always lived this nightmare though.

 

Don't come in here and tell people to deal with it, expect them not to be upset , and frankly be condescending because the class does well in game modes that they themselves may not be concerned with. The fact that is even Anet acknowledge that the DPS has been lowered far to much. So **kindly** take your _deal with it_, put it back in your pocket, turn around, and leave the room.

[Aetatis.5418]

changing the counters to boon heavy enemies, wont change much.

chronos will remove boons on AA sword - warriors could be tweaked to do everything they do now and using the new e-spec with winds of disenchantment. (just an example and not entirely on a spread-sheet basis).

the idea however isn't as bad as mentioned.

i played aion for quite a while - and while the "spiritmaster" was all but best dmg (only in the top ranks when played exceptionally (!!) good). many encounters or single bosses in dungeons were adjusted to give space for that class anyway (that boon stripped aswell - one of two classes that could strip boons) by adding reflects or other annoying buffs such as 100% more dmg on the boss. either the grp waited and stopped dpsing or some super annoying mechanic got involved to negate the reflect (e.g. reflect had 2 states "blue" and "red" and the group had to manually pull the boss into a blue or red brazier in order to get a buff that negated most of the dmg - which still required a lot more healing).

for the dmg buff on the boss, the grp had two possibilities, either dps the boss down as fast as possible + throw every defensive buff available OR bring boon strips.

 

however i am not saying aion was some good grp-pve-game, but every class could go "raid" pve content. some could stack better (assassin, mage, cleric) and some were only needed once in a 12 man setting (templar/tank, spiritmaster/strips/dots(that dont stack), bard/12people dmg buff) -

tl;dr

every class in aion got something that was desirable for the given content. its "more" of bring the player, not the class. give it to gw2 too.

 

gw2 and its specializations is more complex, i know that.

but after so many posts popping up on the forums (necro-forums is eceptionally bloated with posts every day, compared to the other professions) some official guy MUST HAVE noticed and should have said something useful.

instead everything mentioned is shady, vague and keeps every possible speculation open - while the community rages onanet, each other and the world. yay!

why is it so hard for this company to talk to their players? (good) reasoning, explanation, communication.

conspiracy dude, i swear!

[Zenith.7301]

> @Kam.4092 said:

> I consider this a bug fix, and not balance. I don't really get the title of the thread. I'm surprised it's still going.

>

> I hated Shade stacking, and am glad it's gone. It was annoying. Knowing that it was a bug made me happy. Time to wait for the next balance patch. I wonder if people will still be upset then, hopefully not.

>

>

>

>

 

 

People have been upset about power reaper for the entirety of heart of thorns, and core necromancer/minions for all of 5 years.

 

Why do you think it will be any different this time?