bravan.3876 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > @"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? There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arukayos.1798 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 > @"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. Power holo was just an analogy - you can apply it to basically any high risk class. I strongly disagree that a high skilled player on a high risk build would be unable to kill a low-risk bunker/bruiser in any situation, the crux of your hypothesis - which I addressed in my opening post already. So we can either agree to disagree or I can prove it to you or anyone else in this thread by playing a matchup of their choice (if you think power holo is problematic then we can do power rev, power reaper, power mesmer or hell even warrior vs whatever "OP" build of choice) as I offered. I'll reiterate - many gw2 "pvpers" don't actively recognize their mistakes and chalk their inability to win a fight to balance issues while that's simply not the case, it's always "I played perfectly but X class has a huge inherent advantage over me, this is not fair" which is largely the gist of what you're saying and I disagree. I already stated all of this in my initial post so I'm not going to reiterate this point over and over - either agree to disagree or let me demonstrate in a matchup of your choice (given the build is actually viable). So yeah, in response to your post in a nutshell: >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. Strongly disagree. Can die, can prove. >What actually is true in GW2 is, that high risk builds have low reward even when played well. Also disagree. You sure this not a case of thinking you're playing well when in reality you're not? >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. Again, I'd like to see you or anyone else here on what they call a "low risk build" actually go up against me or any of my other multi-legend friends and facetank our burst. Invitation is open as I said in my previous post and this one. **What this whole thread seems like to me is a bunch of armchair developers thinking they're hot stuff and claiming an insane understanding in meta when in reality there's just a deficit in skill combined with denial and projection.** ___ **However, that wasn't even the crux of my argument - you missed my point entirely.** I was pointing out the intrinsic hypocrisy in claiming that you're playing a high risk build, then complaining about the damage output of other builds (lowrisk in this case) as **that is exactly what it means to play a high-risk build** - and if these builds had their damage output reduced, how on earth would the build they're going up against be high risk any more? There's intrinsic fallacy and hypocrisy in this argument. The post I quoted literally follows the logic of: "I'm playing a high risk build, and I died to some condi bunker build! Condi build is OP, nerf it!! Thus effectively making my high risk build less high risk but btw guys high risk builds should have high reward" Like ?????? If you nerf builds that kill high risk builds easily, they fail to be high risk any more, and all builds are then low risk. You can't claim a build is high risk and then also complain about the damage output that you receive on such a build in the same breath, the two claims contradict each other creating a paradox, resulting in delicious irony and nothing more. In other words, you can't have the cake and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycoprophet.8107 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"bravan.3876" said: > > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > > @"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? > > There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. This ^ unfortunately gw2 right now is literally going in the opposite direction than u described Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"steki.1478" said: > > @"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. The people who complain the loudest about condi will also be the people eating their words if they ever get what they want. You guys think my fire weaver runs sage because I can't survive without the healing power? It barely does anything! I survive just as well running wizard amulet, but it doesn't increase my damage in any appreciable way so why would I run it? Pretty please give me some meaningful damage output from precision and I'll burn your face off even harder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNOwen.7132 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"steki.1478" said: > > > @"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. > > The people who complain the loudest about condi will also be the people eating their words if they ever get what they want. You guys think my fire weaver runs sage because I can't survive without the healing power? It barely does anything! I survive just as well running wizard amulet, but it doesn't increase my damage in any appreciable way so why would I run it? Pretty please give me some meaningful damage output from precision and I'll burn your face off even harder! Well, yes, it does. Otherwise you would be running Carrion, like most condi builds are. Sage is played *specifically* for the healing power. Hence why fire Weaver and Druid are the only 2 builds to really use it, because they do both have plenty of healing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rng.1024 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"Sigmoid.7082" 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. > > Power damage has no "base" damage bar what the figure based on the coefficient is at 1000 power. That is the value I am talking about - it is the base value on which further expansion scales with the power coefficient instead of a direct conversion point for point. I get what you are saying though, in essence it would be saying something like "every 2 points in power increases your direct dmg by 1%" - however if you coupled that with say double coefficients (f.ex 0.91 to 1,82) it would even out, only at 1000 power you would do only 50% of todays direct dmg. You can even take it to the extreme and give all power damage lvl 1 dmg, only letting the coefficients decide how much use you get from added stats just like how healing power works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"UNOwen.7132" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"steki.1478" said: > > > > @"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. > > > > The people who complain the loudest about condi will also be the people eating their words if they ever get what they want. You guys think my fire weaver runs sage because I can't survive without the healing power? It barely does anything! I survive just as well running wizard amulet, but it doesn't increase my damage in any appreciable way so why would I run it? Pretty please give me some meaningful damage output from precision and I'll burn your face off even harder! > > Well, yes, it does. Otherwise you would be running Carrion, like most condi builds are. Sage is played *specifically* for the healing power. Hence why fire Weaver and Druid are the only 2 builds to really use it, because they do both have plenty of healing. Yes. My point was that healing power is not all that useful, but I take it anyway because power/precision are even less useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravan.3876 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 @"Arukayos.1798" we just agree to disagree then. If you think meta is skillful and balanced atm, when even most EU top player saying in their streams, that they do not have fun with current meta because of what i describted, than we both just live in different realities. If you enjoy the meta and think sustain-dmg relation is balanced i don't know what to say anymore. Enjoy the game with the other casuals left then. > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said: > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > > > @"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? > > > > There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. > > This ^ unfortunately gw2 right now is literally going in the opposite direction than u described Yes unfortunately, even though the overall big patch philosophy gave hope back then, but only until they released details rofl... But as you can see, ppl you never saw anywhere in PvP come to forum and claim that there are no big problems. Just a l2p issue overall. That i can facetank 2 ppl for ages with my Condirev and with my Necro, while i can pull out tons of condis with literally spamming one single skill (Rev) must be my l2p issue, oh wait no, it must be that i just face bad player (literally true because that is what is left in the game currently, 95% of the playerbase at least), most of the few good player left in the game will do a break because of the boring bunker meta where side noders can't kill each other etc. ATs/ plat 3/ legend even there you are not safe to meet bad player, at least that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arheundel.6451 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"bravan.3876" said: > > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > > @"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? > > There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. The active sustain of some professions is too high atm to try and take a more risky approach, doing that would lead to nothing but frustration , this is a **base design issue** and got nothing to do with balance. Some professions have been led down a specific path since launch and no matter the skill level of the player behind it...they all end up playing the same thing in the end because other options are simply not viable. You have/had ESL level players for the professions you may consider low risk and when it matters to win, they all end up playing those specs you may consider low risk, most times players want to play something else that what they end up being forced to play if they love the profession The professions you call "facetank sustain" don't have access to rollback stunbreaks , low CD evades/blocks, stealth and "get out of jail" insta movement utilities so in the end you need to extend that "active sustain" to all professions and reduce/remove any sort of "facetank sustain" only then you'd see a version of balanced MU I would call fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lare.5129 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"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. ?? why ?? So next target make one class? Because not reason that choose, they a same ?? I like that we have different classes, different styles, some hyped builds, and don't see any reason make one same class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravan.3876 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > > > @"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? > > > > There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. > > The active sustain of some professions is too high atm to try and take a more risky approach, doing that would lead to nothing but frustration , this is a **base design issue** and got nothing to do with balance. Some professions have been led down a specific path since launch and no matter the skill level of the player behind it...they all end up playing the same thing in the end because other options are simply not viable. > > You have/had ESL level players for the professions you may consider low risk and when it matters to win, they all end up playing those specs you may consider low risk, most times players want to play something else that what they end up being forced to play if they love the profession > > The professions you call "facetank sustain" don't have access to rollback stunbreaks , low CD evades/blocks, stealth and "get of jail" insta movement utilities so in the end you need to extend that "active sustain" to all professions and reduce/remove any sort of "facetank sustain" only then you'd see a version of balanced MU I would call fair > > Yes ofc, i do the same. Why should i handicap myself? I hate to lose to worse player only because they play a lame build. I just beat them with their own cancer. And i always have a good laugh when ppl who are playing lame stuff themself then cry about other lame stuff they die to. I would like to play more skillbased builds on all classes but i will not do it as long as it means i have build disadvantage (i mean aside from normal counters you always will face). And when you play for real money ofc you play the strongest/ lamest you can find, because the other team will do the same. In the end it is Anets job to make the best builds the highest skill ceiling/ floor builds. You cannot rly blame the player when they play carry stuff when the strongest builds are also the easiest and are also strong when played not rly that well or even badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernRedStar.3054 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"bravan.3876" said: > @"Arukayos.1798" we just agree to disagree then. If you think meta is skillful and balanced atm, when even most EU top player saying in their streams, that they do not have fun with current meta because of what i describted, than we both just live in different realities. If you enjoy the meta and think sustain-dmg relation is balanced i don't know what to say anymore. Enjoy the game with the other casuals left then. > > > > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said: > > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > > > > @"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? > > > > > > There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. > > > > This ^ unfortunately gw2 right now is literally going in the opposite direction than u described > > Yes unfortunately, even though the overall big patch philosophy gave hope back then, but only until they released details rofl... But as you can see, ppl you never saw anywhere in PvP come to forum and claim that there are no big problems. Just a l2p issue overall. That i can facetank 2 ppl for ages with my Condirev and with my Necro, while i can pull out tons of condis with literally spamming one single skill (Rev) must be my l2p issue, oh wait no, it must be that i just face bad player (literally true because that is what is left in the game currently, 95% of the playerbase at least), most of the few good player left in the game will do a break because of the boring bunker meta where side noders can't kill each other etc. ATs/ plat 3/ legend even there you are not safe to meet bad player, at least that is true. Pre-Feb patch: rollercoaster thrill ride. Post-Feb patch: chug-chug kiddo train. It'd ridiculous that you could kill 3 bad players in a 1v3 before, now it's essentially impossible. Anyone who claims this is better is _literally_ one of those players who couldn't make a dent before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravan.3876 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said: > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > @"Arukayos.1798" we just agree to disagree then. If you think meta is skillful and balanced atm, when even most EU top player saying in their streams, that they do not have fun with current meta because of what i describted, than we both just live in different realities. If you enjoy the meta and think sustain-dmg relation is balanced i don't know what to say anymore. Enjoy the game with the other casuals left then. > > > > > > > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said: > > > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > > > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > > > > > @"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? > > > > > > > > There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. > > > > > > This ^ unfortunately gw2 right now is literally going in the opposite direction than u described > > > > Yes unfortunately, even though the overall big patch philosophy gave hope back then, but only until they released details rofl... But as you can see, ppl you never saw anywhere in PvP come to forum and claim that there are no big problems. Just a l2p issue overall. That i can facetank 2 ppl for ages with my Condirev and with my Necro, while i can pull out tons of condis with literally spamming one single skill (Rev) must be my l2p issue, oh wait no, it must be that i just face bad player (literally true because that is what is left in the game currently, 95% of the playerbase at least), most of the few good player left in the game will do a break because of the boring bunker meta where side noders can't kill each other etc. ATs/ plat 3/ legend even there you are not safe to meet bad player, at least that is true. > > Anyone who claims this is better is _literally_ one of those players who couldn't make a dent before. Yes my thoughts when i saw his post exactly :joy: I mean before we had the same problems, too much dmg pared with too much sustain (in particular facetank sustain, often even added with too spammable active sustain and resustain, i mean Holo for example stealthing and heal back up to 100% after facetanking everyhting is not a passive form of resustain, it is absolutely active, it is just too much, too safe to do (low risk resustain) and makes the build a bit too forgiving because of that). In particular sad for Holo, who has the potential to be a high skill requirement spec by its basic mechanics. But yes before big patch the power creeped dmg at least were punishing mistakes harder than today. It was faster paced and with that clearly less noobfriendly than any bunker meta ever will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernRedStar.3054 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"bravan.3876" said: > > @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said: > > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > @"Arukayos.1798" we just agree to disagree then. If you think meta is skillful and balanced atm, when even most EU top player saying in their streams, that they do not have fun with current meta because of what i describted, than we both just live in different realities. If you enjoy the meta and think sustain-dmg relation is balanced i don't know what to say anymore. Enjoy the game with the other casuals left then. > > > > > > > > > > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said: > > > > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > > > > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > > > > > > @"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? > > > > > > > > > > There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. > > > > > > > > This ^ unfortunately gw2 right now is literally going in the opposite direction than u described > > > > > > Yes unfortunately, even though the overall big patch philosophy gave hope back then, but only until they released details rofl... But as you can see, ppl you never saw anywhere in PvP come to forum and claim that there are no big problems. Just a l2p issue overall. That i can facetank 2 ppl for ages with my Condirev and with my Necro, while i can pull out tons of condis with literally spamming one single skill (Rev) must be my l2p issue, oh wait no, it must be that i just face bad player (literally true because that is what is left in the game currently, 95% of the playerbase at least), most of the few good player left in the game will do a break because of the boring bunker meta where side noders can't kill each other etc. ATs/ plat 3/ legend even there you are not safe to meet bad player, at least that is true. > > > > Anyone who claims this is better is _literally_ one of those players who couldn't make a dent before. > > Yes my thoughts when i saw his post exactly :joy: > I mean before we had the same problems, too much dmg pared with too much sustain (in particular facetank sustain, often even added with too spammable active sustain and resustain, i mean Holo for example stealthing and heal back up to 100% after facetanking everyhting is not a passive form of resustain, it is absolutely active, it is just too much, too safe to do (low risk resustain) and makes the build a bit too forgiving because of that). In particular sad for Holo, who has the potential to be a high skill requirement spec by its basic mechanics. But yes before big patch the power creeped dmg at least were punishing mistakes harder than today. It was faster paced and with that clearly less noobfriendly than any bunker meta ever will be. Faster pace awards players who think quick on their feet. Whereas the slower ones will make mistakes and potentially die regardless of the amount of sustain they have access to. This opens up room for more creative plays and craftier use of terrain to block LoS among others. I was also not a fan of reducing CC-skills' damage to zero. That just makes gameplay more linear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravan.3876 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said: > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said: > > > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > > @"Arukayos.1798" we just agree to disagree then. If you think meta is skillful and balanced atm, when even most EU top player saying in their streams, that they do not have fun with current meta because of what i describted, than we both just live in different realities. If you enjoy the meta and think sustain-dmg relation is balanced i don't know what to say anymore. Enjoy the game with the other casuals left then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said: > > > > > > @"bravan.3876" said: > > > > > > > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > > > > > > > @"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? > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a difference between active sustain and mistake friendly facetank sustain. Second one is still too high while ofc also some classes have too low cd spammable active sustain. There are also big differences between skill requirements, where higher skill requirement do not lead into decent higher reward when played well. Those are gamewide balance issues and not linked to a specific class. And i am multiclass player btw, i have no main, i am not biased towards classes i try to get a game with all classes being skillful to play. A game where bad players die fast and good player do not die fast, also not to low counterplay non reactive and with that also low skill requirement gimmick oneshot builds out of stealth. > > > > > > > > > > This ^ unfortunately gw2 right now is literally going in the opposite direction than u described > > > > > > > > Yes unfortunately, even though the overall big patch philosophy gave hope back then, but only until they released details rofl... But as you can see, ppl you never saw anywhere in PvP come to forum and claim that there are no big problems. Just a l2p issue overall. That i can facetank 2 ppl for ages with my Condirev and with my Necro, while i can pull out tons of condis with literally spamming one single skill (Rev) must be my l2p issue, oh wait no, it must be that i just face bad player (literally true because that is what is left in the game currently, 95% of the playerbase at least), most of the few good player left in the game will do a break because of the boring bunker meta where side noders can't kill each other etc. ATs/ plat 3/ legend even there you are not safe to meet bad player, at least that is true. > > > > > > Anyone who claims this is better is _literally_ one of those players who couldn't make a dent before. > > > > Yes my thoughts when i saw his post exactly :joy: > > I mean before we had the same problems, too much dmg pared with too much sustain (in particular facetank sustain, often even added with too spammable active sustain and resustain, i mean Holo for example stealthing and heal back up to 100% after facetanking everyhting is not a passive form of resustain, it is absolutely active, it is just too much, too safe to do (low risk resustain) and makes the build a bit too forgiving because of that). In particular sad for Holo, who has the potential to be a high skill requirement spec by its basic mechanics. But yes before big patch the power creeped dmg at least were punishing mistakes harder than today. It was faster paced and with that clearly less noobfriendly than any bunker meta ever will be. > > Faster pace awards players who think quick on their feet. Whereas the slower ones will make mistakes and potentially die regardless of the amount of sustain they have access to. This opens up room for more creative plays and craftier use of terrain to block LoS among others. > > I was also not a fan of reducing CC-skills' damage to zero. That just makes gameplay more linear. Zero dmg on all skills was a bit overdone but i think that skills also should not be too overloaded with several different rewards or at least should have a trade off, if it has defensive reward and offensive reward there needs to be a choice need of for what purpose to use it (at least in average) and in particular longer hard cc often made way too much dmg in addition while it should be meant to lock down the player to hit follow ups. Who needs follow ups when your hard cc skills already hit for 5-7k (Warrior for example). But i think that some elite skills for example or very hard to hit cc skills can have some dmg in addition, maybe less than before patch but sure more than now. The problem is, when you slowly patch more dmg back into the game you will make some stuff that sure will not get silently increased by inflation again more and more underpowered. Like we can be sure that Mirage will not get a second dodge back to compensate the dmg inflation over time. While that is a change (giving Mirage 2 dodges back) that should happen anyway because that was not the right answer to the problems with Condimirage anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigmoid.7082 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"rng.1024" said: > > @"Sigmoid.7082" 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. > > > > Power damage has no "base" damage bar what the figure based on the coefficient is at 1000 power. > > That is the value I am talking about - it is the base value on which further expansion scales with the power coefficient instead of a direct conversion point for point. > > I get what you are saying though, in essence it would be saying something like "every 2 points in power increases your direct dmg by 1%" - however if you coupled that with say double coefficients (f.ex 0.91 to 1,82) it would even out, only at 1000 power you would do only 50% of todays direct dmg. > > You can even take it to the extreme and give all power damage lvl 1 dmg, only letting the coefficients decide how much use you get from added stats just like how healing power works. This makes no sense in the context of your post I quoted. There is no way to get lower base damage and a higher coefficient based on how power damage is calculated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rng.1024 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > @"rng.1024" said: > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" 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. > > > > > > Power damage has no "base" damage bar what the figure based on the coefficient is at 1000 power. > > > > That is the value I am talking about - it is the base value on which further expansion scales with the power coefficient instead of a direct conversion point for point. > > > > I get what you are saying though, in essence it would be saying something like "every 2 points in power increases your direct dmg by 1%" - however if you coupled that with say double coefficients (f.ex 0.91 to 1,82) it would even out, only at 1000 power you would do only 50% of todays direct dmg. > > > > You can even take it to the extreme and give all power damage lvl 1 dmg, only letting the coefficients decide how much use you get from added stats just like how healing power works. > > This makes no sense in the context of your post I quoted. There is no way to get lower base damage and a higher coefficient based on how power damage is calculated. I'll go simpler. Imagine at lvl 80 you peak on 500 power instead of 1k. Everything else remains as it currently is. What does this do for your base damage? That's right it is now half. Since coefficients determine how much value you get from added power **past** this peak, means a character with no added power will hit half as hard as they do today. In turn by increasing coefficients over 1.0 we can "give" more effective power than what you add, but at the cost of actually having to add it to gain the benefit. If this isn't obvious, feel free to explain how you think the calculations work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulvar.1239 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 > @"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. Shift some of the flat applied condition to be applied only on crit so condi build need Condition Damage + Precision ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rarnark.5623 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 > @"Crab Fear.1624" said: > HIgh tank, lower damage. No tank, higher damage. It really is that simple. > > The greater the built in sustain, the lower the overall damage per second should be. It really is not that simple.... There are so many factors to consider such as class mobility, condition/power resistance, and available counter play options. For an extreme example you could have a class that full heals every 8 seconds and hits for 10k every 6 seconds. If he has limited mobility options with a 3.5 second long cast time heal and all it's damage is compressed into one telegraphed ability it will get rolled by everything in the game. One more realistic example is burn guardian, which has some of the best on paper dps and half decent sustain. But because it's all compressed into one conditon and has limited mobility options its relegated to niche ranked spec at best. Do not over simplify asymmetric balance philosophy. There are a lot of factors at play, especially in a game mode like conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiyo.3578 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 I'm just really bored of rangers, holosmiths, and condi revs living forever at this point. If I wanted to play until 85% dampening games I'd go play WoW ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 > @"rng.1024" said: > Imagine at lvl 80 you peak on 500 power instead of 1k. Everything else remains as it currently is. What does this do for your base damage? That's right it is now half. so i'm guessing this would make it impossible to bunker and do power damage at the same time? every bunker build would have to roll condi with no exceptions. I don't see how this would help anything unless i'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rng.1024 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > @"rng.1024" said: > > Imagine at lvl 80 you peak on 500 power instead of 1k. Everything else remains as it currently is. What does this do for your base damage? That's right it is now half. > > so i'm guessing this would make it impossible to bunker and do power damage at the same time? every bunker build would have to roll condi with no exceptions. I don't see how this would help anything unless i'm missing something. Aye, it would reduce the hybrid output atleast after they removed condi-only amulets which people for some reason have a problem with. The reason I suggest this change was mostly because it would allow the devs to buff coefficients in return, giving more value to maximizing power rather than some profession doing okay at 1900 (holo) while others struggle with 2500 (warr) and make 25 might have less of an impact without touching the boon. But imo power dmg should come at the cost of toughness/vit combo, so I don't mind condi becoming a standard bunker - used to be like that pre-HoT. Now how to balance condi bunkers would be a whole new discussion in it's own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidrex.5649 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 > @"rng.1024" said: > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > @"rng.1024" said: > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" 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. > > > > > > > > Power damage has no "base" damage bar what the figure based on the coefficient is at 1000 power. > > > > > > That is the value I am talking about - it is the base value on which further expansion scales with the power coefficient instead of a direct conversion point for point. > > > > > > I get what you are saying though, in essence it would be saying something like "every 2 points in power increases your direct dmg by 1%" - however if you coupled that with say double coefficients (f.ex 0.91 to 1,82) it would even out, only at 1000 power you would do only 50% of todays direct dmg. > > > > > > You can even take it to the extreme and give all power damage lvl 1 dmg, only letting the coefficients decide how much use you get from added stats just like how healing power works. > > > > This makes no sense in the context of your post I quoted. There is no way to get lower base damage and a higher coefficient based on how power damage is calculated. > > I'll go simpler. > > Imagine at lvl 80 you peak on 500 power instead of 1k. Everything else remains as it currently is. What does this do for your base damage? That's right it is now half. > > Since coefficients determine how much value you get from added power **past** this peak, means a character with no added power will hit half as hard as they do today. In turn by increasing coefficients over 1.0 we can "give" more effective power than what you add, but at the cost of actually having to add it to gain the benefit. > > If this isn't obvious, feel free to explain how you think the calculations work. this right here would make classes with insane might stacking the ONLY viable options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 To actually engage with the topic as a whole it actually isn't that simple. For starters let's look at weapon kits. Is the kit primarily melee or is it ranged? If it's melee it logically deserves higher damage than ranged. Does it cleave? How many targets? If it's ranged does it only strike one target? Does it pierce? Does it bounce? How long is the range? Regardless of melee or ranged how much AoE potential does it have? What about defensive options? How fair is the weapon set, does it's biggest damage dealing attacks have clear tells? Does it have a lot of evades, blocks, or stealth? What about mobility? Does the weapon provide a lot of utility like boons or healing? What about profession mechanics as a whole? One of the things with thieves is that no matter what weapon set and stat set they have always been the hardest class to kill. What about necromancers who have a second health bar to absorb damage and a lot of their damage and killing potential comes from corruption skills? It's actually not that simple. All of these questions are things to consider when balancing any skill in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rng.1024 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 > @"Leonidrex.5649" said: > > @"rng.1024" said: > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > @"rng.1024" said: > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" 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. > > > > > > > > > > Power damage has no "base" damage bar what the figure based on the coefficient is at 1000 power. > > > > > > > > That is the value I am talking about - it is the base value on which further expansion scales with the power coefficient instead of a direct conversion point for point. > > > > > > > > I get what you are saying though, in essence it would be saying something like "every 2 points in power increases your direct dmg by 1%" - however if you coupled that with say double coefficients (f.ex 0.91 to 1,82) it would even out, only at 1000 power you would do only 50% of todays direct dmg. > > > > > > > > You can even take it to the extreme and give all power damage lvl 1 dmg, only letting the coefficients decide how much use you get from added stats just like how healing power works. > > > > > > This makes no sense in the context of your post I quoted. There is no way to get lower base damage and a higher coefficient based on how power damage is calculated. > > > > I'll go simpler. > > > > Imagine at lvl 80 you peak on 500 power instead of 1k. Everything else remains as it currently is. What does this do for your base damage? That's right it is now half. > > > > Since coefficients determine how much value you get from added power **past** this peak, means a character with no added power will hit half as hard as they do today. In turn by increasing coefficients over 1.0 we can "give" more effective power than what you add, but at the cost of actually having to add it to gain the benefit. > > > > If this isn't obvious, feel free to explain how you think the calculations work. > > this right here would make classes with insane might stacking the ONLY viable options. > Isn't that the case already after the big feb patch? :astonished: Well instead of having 2950 effective power with zerker amulet and 25 might stacks, they would have 2450 with lower base power - a reduction of 17%. Why wouldn't it be across the board? I'm not arguing we need to scale power with might stacks (even though it's an interesting discussion), but rather how we can give more value to builds investing in power while at the same time limit the direct damage of the builds who don't. And by increasing the coefficients, we can bypass these and nullify the 50% base power nerf completely so the power level of todays full on power builds remain. I'll still gladly answer though: In my opinion we need to first reduce power/condi from each might stack from 30 to 20, make sure the duration of all might sources (except combos) last tops 4 seconds base, it's supposed to be a **burst of damage** not a rampage of perma 30% extra for any spec. Then we would just need to tone down the professions with too much access to might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now