HIgh tank, lower damage. No tank, higher damage. It really is that simple.

[Crab Fear.1624]

The greater the built in sustain, the lower the overall damage per second should be.

 

And vice versa.

 

Some classes you are doing the opposite.

 

This is where you should focus.

 

MAKE CLASSES COMMIT TO TANKINESS OR DAMAGE, STOP GIVING THEM A HIGH, HIGH MIDDLEGROUND

[Buran.3796]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> The greater the built in sustain, the lower the overall damage per second should be.

>

> And vice versa.

 

 

The problem is that stats weren't born equal in GW2. On one hand you have physical damage, which to be maximized requires to invest stat points in power, critical chance and ferocity. On the other hand, you have condition damage, which requieres to spent points in condition damage (expertise will also enhance damage in PvE, but in PvP and WvW doesn't work that well due your foes will actively cleanse the conditions, so having ways to re-aply conditions has more value than having conditions that stay for longer).

 

This means that you need to spent stat points in 3 stats to maximize physical damage, whereas for condition damage you only need to spent points in one or two stats, and due the max amount of points you can spent in a single stat is hard capped, condition builds can asign sparse stat points to vitality, thoughness, power healing or concentration, maximizing condition damage AND sustain at the same time.

 

This is why in the current meta of low physical damage condition tanks acts like bruisers, performing great in terms of dps and sustain. And the problem (if you think that this is a problem, which I don't think) is difficult to solve because are simple mathematics. Condition damage is less stat intensive, to compensate how is easier to counter due stacks damage at slower pace (and easier to counter) than direct damage. But the numbers are off, giving the edge to condi stats in the current meta.

[Arheundel.6451]

> @"Buran.3796" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > The greater the built in sustain, the lower the overall damage per second should be.

> >

> > And vice versa.

>

>

> The problem is that stats weren't born equal in GW2. On one hand you have physical damage, which to be maximized requires to invest stat points in power, critical chance and ferocity. On the other hand, you have condition damage, which requieres to spent points in condition damage (expertise will also enhance damage in PvE, but in PvP and WvW doesn't work that well due your foes will actively cleanse the conditions, so having ways to re-aply conditions has more value than having conditions that stay for longer).

>

> This means that you need to spent stat points in 3 stats to maximize physical damage, whereas for condition damage you only need to spent points in one or two stats, and due the max amount of points you can spent in a single stat is hard capped, condition builds can asign sparse stat points to vitality, thoughness, power healing or concentration, maximizing condition damage AND sustain at the same time.

>

> This is why in the current meta of low physical damage condition tanks acts like bruisers, performing great in terms of dps and sustain. And the problem (if you think that this is a problem, which I don't think) is difficult to solve because are simple mathematics. Condition damage is less stat intensive, to compensate how is easier to counter due stacks damage at slower pace (and easier to counter) than direct damage. But the numbers are off, giving the edge to condi stats in the current meta.

 

You forget to mention : Vitality which is a huge factor that contributes to the viability of a build, right now it's impossible for eles/guardians to have power builds comparable to the rest, a 15k HP base is good enough...eles and guardians first have to reach 15k HP before even thinking of creating a power build with enough sustain to challenge the rest. It's not wonders that up to this moment, the only builds ele ever had in meta were all condi based starting form cele fire d/d to sage weaver, ele never had a meta power build played in top tournaments since launch

 

A good starting point for balance would be to reduce the HP difference between professions, when one class starts at 11k and another at 15k-19kHP...there is really little room to spare

[Shiyo.3578]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> The greater the built in sustain, the lower the overall damage per second should be.

>

> And vice versa.

>

> Some classes you are doing the opposite.

>

> This is where you should focus.

>

> MAKE CLASSES COMMIT TO TANKINESS OR DAMAGE, STOP GIVING THEM A HIGH, HIGH MIDDLEGROUND

 

only ele lives by this rule for some unknown reason

[Vilin.8056]

There is a glitch with this logic:

Players in certain regions with low ping can completely omit the need to tank with high range, high mobility and high damage output.

That's exactly what's happening before the patch with one shot builds roaming around during US peak time.

 

Not saying the adjustment is a solution, but there's more complexity in the problem than it appears to be.

[Arheundel.6451]

> @"Shiyo.3578" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > The greater the built in sustain, the lower the overall damage per second should be.

> >

> > And vice versa.

> >

> > Some classes you are doing the opposite.

> >

> > This is where you should focus.

> >

> > MAKE CLASSES COMMIT TO TANKINESS OR DAMAGE, STOP GIVING THEM A HIGH, HIGH MIDDLEGROUND

>

> only ele lives by this rule for some unknown reason

 

This happens when somebody tries to reinvent the wheel...the GW1 version of elementalist was perfect in the every sense, you had one element for each role and you could balance them separately , now some **amazing genius** thought it'd be great to combine 4 elements into one gigantic mechanic from there logic dictates that several countermeasures must be implemented to avoid the class spiraling out of control.

 

**Innovation without factual knowledge is nothing more than wild imagination**

[Sleepwalker.1398]

Or just make endless complaints/threads till a dev would think oh yeah lets not just nerf condi variant but kill its glass variant too.

[Buran.3796]

> @"Arheundel.6451" said:

 

> You forget to mention : Vitality which is a huge factor that contributes to the viability of a build, right now it's impossible for eles/guardians to have power builds comparable to the rest, a 15k HP base is good enough...eles and guardians first have to reach 15k HP before even thinking of creating a power build with enough sustain to challenge the rest. It's not wonders that up to this moment, the only builds ele ever had in meta were all condi based starting form cele fire d/d to sage weaver, ele never had a meta power build played in top tournaments since launch

>

> A good starting point for balance would be to reduce the HP difference between professions, when one class starts at 11k and another at 15k-19kHP...there is really little room to spare

 

I agree with you in the vitality for both Guardians and Eles, Guardians have been always very stat intensive, on top of slow moving, which forced players to chose between optimized runes for the goal or traveller for the quality of life, and to use valkyrie and marauder stats to compensate the low HP. But I wouldn't touch the HP of classes which have access to stealth, because as I said many times, is the strongest damage preventing skill in the game, the strongest opening for any burst of damage and now the shared stealth is starting point at each match from each conformed team.

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Buran.3796" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > The greater the built in sustain, the lower the overall damage per second should be.

> >

> > And vice versa.

>

>

> The problem is that stats weren't born equal in GW2. On one hand you have physical damage, which to be maximized requires to invest stat points in power, critical chance and ferocity. On the other hand, you have condition damage, which requieres to spent points in condition damage (expertise will also enhance damage in PvE, but in PvP and WvW doesn't work that well due your foes will actively cleanse the conditions, so having ways to re-aply conditions has more value than having conditions that stay for longer).

>

> This means that you need to spent stat points in 3 stats to maximize physical damage, whereas for condition damage you only need to spent points in one or two stats, and due the max amount of points you can spent in a single stat is hard capped, condition builds can asign sparse stat points to vitality, thoughness, power healing or concentration, maximizing condition damage AND sustain at the same time.

>

> This is why in the current meta of low physical damage condition tanks acts like bruisers, performing great in terms of dps and sustain. And the problem (if you think that this is a problem, which I don't think) is difficult to solve because are simple mathematics. Condition damage is less stat intensive, to compensate how is easier to counter due stacks damage at slower pace (and easier to counter) than direct damage. But the numbers are off, giving the edge to condi stats in the current meta.

 

Scourge with a support and Mirage saw good use of Deadshot and Wanderer's Amulets (Defensively equivalent to Marauder's and Demolisher's respectively) at various points throughout Path of Fire. While you probably can't adjust conditions with a new third stat, you can probably rework conditions to make better use of Precision so that they feel that same three stat pull that power builds currently do. There's a number of traits that do things like give a33% chance to inflict Bleeding on crit. You can bump up traits like that to 100% chance to bleed/torment/burn and put them into dedicated damage trait lines and then prune some of the damage off skills themselves.

 

This would deincentivize amulets like Sages and Carrion that don't have precision and would push condition builds into needing to invest in 3 stats to really gain full effectiveness of their condition damage output even if a little bit indirectly, provided the expertise amulets were put back into the game.

[bravan.3876]

Yep it is that simple.

high risk- high reward

low risk - low reward

high skill requirement- high reward

low skill requirement - low reward

high sustain (mostly active , because mistake friendly facetank sustain should be reduce to a minimum anyway, what is also not the case in GW2)- low dmg

dot dmg -no burst and no double defensive ability (by needing that much less offensive stats for the same dmg than power)

 

simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

[Buran.3796]

> @"bravan.3876" said:

 

> simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

 

...And still way better than those 10 seconds stun chains that exists in that crap called WoW.

[bravan.3876]

> @"Buran.3796" said:

> > @"bravan.3876" said:

>

> > simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

>

> ...And still way better than those 10 seconds stun chains that exists in that kitten called WoW.

 

Warrior reaches 10 seconds stun chain easy if he wants to though^^

[LionZero.3479]

25 passive might and perma protection/resilliance says Hi!

[Buran.3796]

> @"bravan.3876" said:

 

> Warrior reaches 10 seconds stun chain easy if he wants to though^^

 

... With no damage, and you can cut any daze/stun effect in 25% just swaping your runes, plus evades and breakstuns. Is not even close.

 

[rng.1024]

For this we need lower base damage and **higher** power coefficients - not exactly what the devs were aiming for by indirectly buffing base damage and reducing coefficients across the board.

 

The relative power level remains, all the recent patch did was slightly increase ttk. One can dream though.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

it may be a mess now but power damage made pvp a meme before patch. seems like ppl prefer that meme tho so I guess i'll shut up.

 

I think they're close to balance tho. address condi + tanks and we should be golden minus the ever present few outliers.

[steki.1478]

> @"rng.1024" said:

> For this we need lower base damage and **higher** power coefficients - not exactly what the devs were aiming for by indirectly buffing base damage and reducing coefficients across the board.

>

> The relative power level remains, all the recent patch did was slightly increase ttk. One can dream though.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking. I have no idea why high base damage/heal/barrier are a thing. Last patch reduced only coefficients instead of reducing both, but focusing more on base values. Now it's not even worth running defensive stats because healing doesnt scale that well for self sustain, builds with barriers already have high base barriers and terrible scaling, classes with high health dont even need any investment in defensive gear and builds with evades can run full glass and still do fine because getting hit isn't as punishable as it used to be, but you heavily rely on full berserker to do power damage. Dire/trailblazer builds need to be checked though.

[Sigmoid.7082]

> @"rng.1024" said:

> For this we need lower base damage and **higher** power coefficients - not exactly what the devs were aiming for by indirectly buffing base damage and reducing coefficients across the board.

>

> The relative power level remains, all the recent patch did was slightly increase ttk. One can dream though.

 

Power damage has no "base" damage bar what the figure based on the coefficient is at 1000 power.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"bravan.3876" said:

> Yep it is that simple.

> high risk- high reward

> low risk - low reward

> high skill requirement- high reward

> low skill requirement - low reward

> high sustain (mostly active , because mistake friendly facetank sustain should be reduce to a minimum anyway, what is also not the case in GW2)- low dmg

> dot dmg -no burst and no double defensive ability (by needing that much less offensive stats for the same dmg than power)

>

> simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

 

LoL @ damage over time with no burst and low defense. Just say what you mean: I hate condi and I don't want to deal with it in my meta at all. We know how you feel. Just say it!

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"rng.1024" said:

> > For this we need lower base damage and **higher** power coefficients - not exactly what the devs were aiming for by indirectly buffing base damage and reducing coefficients across the board.

> >

> > The relative power level remains, all the recent patch did was slightly increase ttk. One can dream though.

>

> This is exactly what I was thinking. I have no idea why high base damage/heal/barrier are a thing. Last patch reduced only coefficients instead of reducing both, but focusing more on base values. Now it's not even worth running defensive stats because healing doesnt scale that well for self sustain, builds with barriers already have high base barriers and terrible scaling, classes with high health dont even need any investment in defensive gear and builds with evades can run full glass and still do fine because getting hit isn't as punishable as it used to be, but you heavily rely on full berserker to do power damage. Dire/trailblazer builds need to be checked though.

 

Dire/Trailblazer are definitely the problem, guys. They need to remove those amulets like a year ago or something! Totally destroying the meta!

[Arukayos.1798]

Last I checked, hybrid builds do deal less damage than pure glass cannon - so I'm not sure what this thread is on about. Dire/Trailblazer will statistically deal less damage than Viper for example, in any situation, more so if Rune of Earth is taken into the equation. Valkyrie will always deal less damage than zerker. Does that mean it shouldn't blast your full glasscannon zerk one shot meme deadeye after you eat every AoE to the face? Of course it should, that's what makes your build fall into the "glass cannon" category.

 

Seems like people here want to play high risk builds sans the high risk component. Which is kind of ironic, considering posts like these:

 

> @"bravan.3876" said:

> Yep it is that simple.

> high risk- high reward

> low risk - low reward

> high skill requirement- high reward

> low skill requirement - low reward

> high sustain (mostly active , because mistake friendly facetank sustain should be reduce to a minimum anyway, what is also not the case in GW2)- low dmg

> dot dmg -no burst and no double defensive ability (by needing that much less offensive stats for the same dmg than power)

>

> simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

 

Take two seconds to consider this post in a practical every-day scenario. A high risk build (let's say, power holo) meets an extremely low risk/low skill build (let's say condi rev). Who should be favored in this matchup if both players make a lot of mistakes? Obviously the low-risk build, that's the whole point of **high risk** - you're taking huge risks and get punished if things don't go your way. Which is why you'll see your average low-skilled power holos getting stomped on by your average low-skilled condi revs. However, when an insanely high-skilled power holo meets a condi rev, it's a whole different story and the holo can easily kite/kill the condi rev - in fact, it's a favored matchup for the holo. If anyone wants to take me up on this: I'll gladly fight their condi rev or any other "low-skill" class of their choice with a non-trailblazer, non-viper, non-condi, pure power based class which is supposedly underperforming (can do most power classes) - feel free to hit me up ingame.

 

Don't QQ about low risk when you play high-risk and get obliterated for making mistakes really. That's the point of your choice, and your build. Lots of people in the community suffer from severe dunning krugger where they believe they're mechanical gods, play the most mechanically intensive builds in the game, and then cry when they're unable to pull it off despite the fact that it's the literal definition of "high risk". Just play low-risk/low-skill like everyone else then, you'll probably get better results. Or play glass cannon and then keep crying about your class being squishy when it's supposed to be squishy to everything in the game, including tanks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[bravan.3876]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"bravan.3876" said:

> > Yep it is that simple.

> > high risk- high reward

> > low risk - low reward

> > high skill requirement- high reward

> > low skill requirement - low reward

> > high sustain (mostly active , because mistake friendly facetank sustain should be reduce to a minimum anyway, what is also not the case in GW2)- low dmg

> > dot dmg -no burst and no double defensive ability (by needing that much less offensive stats for the same dmg than power)

> >

> > simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

>

> LoL @ damage over time with no burst and low defense. Just say what you mean: I hate condi and I don't want to deal with it in my meta at all. We know how you feel. Just say it!

Ok so you think beign able to burst with condis+having the follow dot dmg from the insane stacks also last longer than the one second (what would be balanced for a burst condi spec) is balanced, my bad. And no i am not driven by any bias, i play all condi specs in the meta (Necro, Condirev etc.) i am just driven by simple logic.

 

 

> @"Arukayos.1798" said:

> Last I checked, hybrid builds do deal less damage than pure glass cannon - so I'm not sure what this thread is on about. Dire/Trailblazer will statistically deal less damage than Viper for example, in any situation, more so if Rune of Earth is taken into the equation. Valkyrie will always deal less damage than zerker. Does that mean it shouldn't blast your full glasscannon zerk one shot meme deadeye after you eat every AoE to the face? Of course it should, that's what makes your build fall into the "glass cannon" category.

>

> Seems like people here want to play high risk builds sans the high risk component. Which is kind of ironic, considering posts like these:

>

> > @"bravan.3876" said:

> > Yep it is that simple.

> > high risk- high reward

> > low risk - low reward

> > high skill requirement- high reward

> > low skill requirement - low reward

> > high sustain (mostly active , because mistake friendly facetank sustain should be reduce to a minimum anyway, what is also not the case in GW2)- low dmg

> > dot dmg -no burst and no double defensive ability (by needing that much less offensive stats for the same dmg than power)

> >

> > simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

>

> Take two seconds to consider this post in a practical every-day scenario. A high risk build (let's say, power holo) meets an extremely low risk/low skill build (let's say condi rev). Who should be favored in this matchup if both players make a lot of mistakes? Obviously the low-risk build, that's the whole point of **high risk** - you're taking huge risks and get punished if things don't go your way. Which is why you'll see your average low-skilled power holos getting stomped on by your average low-skilled condi revs. However, when an insanely high-skilled power holo meets a condi rev, it's a whole different story and the holo can easily kite/kill the condi rev - in fact, it's a favored matchup for the holo. If anyone wants to take me up on this: I'll gladly fight their condi rev or any other "low-skill" class of their choice with a non-trailblazer, non-viper, non-condi, pure power based class which is supposedly underperforming (can do most power classes) - feel free to hit me up ingame.

>

> Don't QQ about low risk when you play high-risk and get obliterated for making mistakes really. That's the point of your choice, and your build. Lots of people in the community suffer from severe dunning krugger where they believe they're mechanical gods, play the most mechanically intensive builds in the game, and then cry when they're unable to pull it off despite the fact that it's the literal definition of "high risk". Just play low-risk/low-skill like everyone else then, you'll probably get better results. Or play glass cannon and then keep crying about your class being squishy when it's supposed to be squishy to everything in the game, including tanks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Current Holo builds (like power explosive Holo) are far away from high risk builds, everything based on that assumption has a hard time to be right already. Holo is actually one of the prime examples for way too much dmg for the sustain/ resustain it has. Also you use risk and reward different to what i mean. What actually is true in GW2 is, that high risk builds have low reward even when played well. And even worse: Low skill requirement has too high reward even when played bad. For a high risk build it means when you make a mistake and you fail ofc you do not get the reward, that is part of the high risk and also you might die fast when doing mistakes in your defensive rotation, that is also part of the high risk but in GW2 it is like you hit everything perfect and also play with your defensive cds perfect and the low skill reqirement build/ low risk build simply can facetank 200 of its own player mistakes, still makes overall more dmg and still win the fight by doing 20 times more mistakes. That is the imbalance, i am not complaining that high risk builds have high risk lol. The whole meta is insanely noobfriendly also post patch, simply because the basic balance issues did not get solved at all. Sindrener and others will do a break for exactly those reasons. But i get that depending on the insane low average skill lvl we have in this game now ppl are happy with the facetank +still high spammable impact (dmg and cc) meta we have (actually since years) and arguing against that is like talking to a wall.

 

And no squishy high dmg targets and tanky low dmg targets (which we do not have in Gw2 in meta, we only have tanky but still high dmg) should have the same chance of killing each other, what is not the case in GW2. The squishy target will eat way more dmg from the "bunker" (better say bruiser becasue we have no real bunker with low dmg in GW2) while the "bunker" can literally facetank most stuff. That is exactly the point. Sure a bunker can kill a squishy when he tries to facetank on point and plays bad but the bunker also should be able to die to the squishy the same way when doing mistakes and eating the burst. And the second point is not given atm. The game barely distinguish between very good, good, average and bad player. And a good player on a high risk high skill requirement build needs not only to play 2 times but 50 times better to win.

[bravan.3876]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"bravan.3876" said:

> > Yep it is that simple.

> > high risk- high reward

> > low risk - low reward

> > high skill requirement- high reward

> > low skill requirement - low reward

> > high sustain (mostly active , because mistake friendly facetank sustain should be reduce to a minimum anyway, what is also not the case in GW2)- low dmg

> > dot dmg -no burst and no double defensive ability (by needing that much less offensive stats for the same dmg than power)

> >

> > simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

>

> LoL @ damage over time with no burst and low defense. Just say what you mean: I hate condi and I don't want to deal with it in my meta at all. We know how you feel. Just say it!

 

I didn't say low defense, i said double defense. Ofc on builds rly only have dot dmg and not condi burst + the usual balanced dot damage IN ADDITION you need a little bit (A LITTEL BIT) more defense than on power builds (but also not that much because with dot dmg you also can go defensive after applying your dots already and watch your target melt from distance or from a safe spot, during a power build needs to actively hit until the target is dead). Means yes ofc balanced condi builds (which we do not have in meta atm) could have a little bit more defensive than power builds, at least when the condis are designed the way that the condi build kills overall slower than a power build with same offensive stat investment AND when the condi build kills with the same amount of successful hits of skills than a power build (what BOTH is not the case in GW2 on most meta condi builds even aside from the condi-burst aspect).

[Arheundel.6451]

> @"bravan.3876" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > > @"bravan.3876" said:

> > > Yep it is that simple.

> > > high risk- high reward

> > > low risk - low reward

> > > high skill requirement- high reward

> > > low skill requirement - low reward

> > > high sustain (mostly active , because mistake friendly facetank sustain should be reduce to a minimum anyway, what is also not the case in GW2)- low dmg

> > > dot dmg -no burst and no double defensive ability (by needing that much less offensive stats for the same dmg than power)

> > >

> > > simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

> >

> > LoL @ damage over time with no burst and low defense. Just say what you mean: I hate condi and I don't want to deal with it in my meta at all. We know how you feel. Just say it!

> Ok so you think beign able to burst with condis+having the follow dot dmg from the insane stacks also last longer than the one second (what would be balanced for a burst condi spec) is balanced, my bad. And no i am not driven by any bias, i play all condi specs in the meta (Necro, Condirev etc.) i am just driven by simple logic.

>

>

> > @"Arukayos.1798" said:

> > Last I checked, hybrid builds do deal less damage than pure glass cannon - so I'm not sure what this thread is on about. Dire/Trailblazer will statistically deal less damage than Viper for example, in any situation, more so if Rune of Earth is taken into the equation. Valkyrie will always deal less damage than zerker. Does that mean it shouldn't blast your full glasscannon zerk one shot meme deadeye after you eat every AoE to the face? Of course it should, that's what makes your build fall into the "glass cannon" category.

> >

> > Seems like people here want to play high risk builds sans the high risk component. Which is kind of ironic, considering posts like these:

> >

> > > @"bravan.3876" said:

> > > Yep it is that simple.

> > > high risk- high reward

> > > low risk - low reward

> > > high skill requirement- high reward

> > > low skill requirement - low reward

> > > high sustain (mostly active , because mistake friendly facetank sustain should be reduce to a minimum anyway, what is also not the case in GW2)- low dmg

> > > dot dmg -no burst and no double defensive ability (by needing that much less offensive stats for the same dmg than power)

> > >

> > > simple basic rules not existing in GW2 for most classes/ builds atm.

> >

> > Take two seconds to consider this post in a practical every-day scenario. A high risk build (let's say, power holo) meets an extremely low risk/low skill build (let's say condi rev). Who should be favored in this matchup if both players make a lot of mistakes? Obviously the low-risk build, that's the whole point of **high risk** - you're taking huge risks and get punished if things don't go your way. Which is why you'll see your average low-skilled power holos getting stomped on by your average low-skilled condi revs. However, when an insanely high-skilled power holo meets a condi rev, it's a whole different story and the holo can easily kite/kill the condi rev - in fact, it's a favored matchup for the holo. If anyone wants to take me up on this: I'll gladly fight their condi rev or any other "low-skill" class of their choice with a non-trailblazer, non-viper, non-condi, pure power based class which is supposedly underperforming (can do most power classes) - feel free to hit me up ingame.

> >

> > Don't QQ about low risk when you play high-risk and get obliterated for making mistakes really. That's the point of your choice, and your build. Lots of people in the community suffer from severe dunning krugger where they believe they're mechanical gods, play the most mechanically intensive builds in the game, and then cry when they're unable to pull it off despite the fact that it's the literal definition of "high risk". Just play low-risk/low-skill like everyone else then, you'll probably get better results. Or play glass cannon and then keep crying about your class being squishy when it's supposed to be squishy to everything in the game, including tanks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>

> Current Holo builds (like power explosive Holo) are far away from high risk builds, everything based on that assumption has a hard time to be right already. Holo is actually one of the prime examples for way too much dmg for the sustain/ resustain it has. Also you use risk and reward different to what i mean. What actually is true in GW2 is, that high risk builds have low reward even when played well. And even worse: Low skill requirement has too high reward even when played bad. For a high risk build it means when you make a mistake and you fail ofc you do not get the reward, that is part of the high risk and also you might die fast when doing mistakes in your defensive rotation, that is also part of the high risk but in GW2 it is like you hit everything perfect and also play with your defensive cds perfect and the low skill reqirement build/ low risk build simply can facetank 200 of its own player mistakes, still makes overall more dmg and still win the fight by doing 20 times more mistakes. That is the imbalance, i am not complaining that high risk builds have high risk lol. The whole meta is insanely noobfriendly also post patch, simply because the basic balance issues did not get solved at all. Sindrener and others will do a break for exactly those reasons. But i get that depending on the insane low average skill lvl we have in this game now ppl are happy with the facetank +still high spammable impact (dmg and cc) meta we have (actually since years) and arguing against that is like talking to a wall.

>

> And no squishy high dmg targets and tanky low dmg targets (which we do not have in Gw2 in meta, we only have tanky but still high dmg) should have the same chance of killing each other, what is not the case in GW2. The squishy target will eat way more dmg from the "bunker" (better say bruiser becasue we have no real bunker with low dmg in GW2) while the "bunker" can literally facetank most stuff. That is exactly the point. Sure a bunker can kill a squishy when he tries to facetank on point and plays bad but the bunker also should be able to die to the squishy the same way when doing mistakes and eating the burst. And the second point is not given atm. The game barely distinguish between very good, good, average and bad player. And a good player on a high risk high skill requirement build needs not only to play 2 times but 50 times better to win.

 

I agree at 80% with this post because....**there are no squishy high dmg targets** in this game, sustain is not just heal burst, that's a convenient way to describe sustain in a MMO but the truth is that : blocks/evades/stealth/teleports/leaps offer the same opportunities to players as much as heal burst which is **to stay alive***

 

I know what you play so obviously you will disagree but the truth remains : you either are able to tank dmg or you get to avoid dmg altogether and in this case you get to try again and again till you succeed .

 

Realistically : Side A should not be able to tank as much dmg and likewise Side B should not be able to avoid dmg as much as now, try to look at things from a different perspective :

 

If I can't run away and can't eat as much dmg as now while you're free to avoid all my dmg while still able to run away ...where is the balance?

[steki.1478]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > @"rng.1024" said:

> > > For this we need lower base damage and **higher** power coefficients - not exactly what the devs were aiming for by indirectly buffing base damage and reducing coefficients across the board.

> > >

> > > The relative power level remains, all the recent patch did was slightly increase ttk. One can dream though.

> >

> > This is exactly what I was thinking. I have no idea why high base damage/heal/barrier are a thing. Last patch reduced only coefficients instead of reducing both, but focusing more on base values. Now it's not even worth running defensive stats because healing doesnt scale that well for self sustain, builds with barriers already have high base barriers and terrible scaling, classes with high health dont even need any investment in defensive gear and builds with evades can run full glass and still do fine because getting hit isn't as punishable as it used to be, but you heavily rely on full berserker to do power damage. Dire/trailblazer builds need to be checked though.

>

> Dire/Trailblazer are definitely the problem, guys. They need to remove those amulets like a year ago or something! Totally destroying the meta!

 

That part was more related to wvw, but the point is still the same.