Suggested Changes to Increase Raid Meta Flexibility

[Rising Dusk.2408]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> Or we can not go the extreme and actually create cross-class synergies. IE right now we have what i'll refer to as Mirror Meta. Instead of outright copying this by giving us two classes that can do it we can quite literally open up other meta comps by enforcing what they do well and having them do it well together. I.E The old GW1 way where we had multiple meta comps be it RoJ, Frost, Manly etc... You could just as easily do the same by turning off the always on passive power of things like banners/spirts/GoTL/and unique class passives and have them play a more pivotal role in designing your composition. Some simple changes to instead of always on but conditional power would go a long way ex. Frost Spirit 10% damage bonus is only applied when your target has 3 or more seconds of chill. Yes it would take a lot to shift the current design to this but ultimately it solves the problems we currently have because as is we have too much always on effects and that's what's really hurting diversity more than any single skill/class you can point to.

Can you give an example of a set of changes that would result in actual diversity? I realize rose-tinted glasses are tough to see past, but even in GW1 there was a rigid meta for all content if you were speed clearing. There were definitely "pug" builds then that were slower with greater reliability for unfamiliar groups (DwG/Ursanway, for instance), but we have that now in GW2 raiding as well (magi Druid/minstrel Chrono) so there's really no difference. The kind of changes @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" is suggesting, for instance (although I'm assuming he means Ranger Spirits having 10 target cap) would "kind of" add diversity by removing mandatory roles and adding two DPS classes over a Warrior and a Ranger. If all DPS classes are created equally by ANet's balance, then technically you achieve greater diversity in making those changes, but then you would end up with mandatory Engineer (Pinpoint Precision) and mandatory Revenant (Assassin's Presence) slots. It doesn't create true diversity because people are still locked into stuff, just the stuff they're locked into has now shifted slightly. The only way to achieve "true" diversity is to allow a specific buff to come from multiple classes with similar DPS, thus allowing either class to be selected for a given role.

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Rising Dusk.2408" said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > Or we can not go the extreme and actually create cross-class synergies. IE right now we have what i'll refer to as Mirror Meta. Instead of outright copying this by giving us two classes that can do it we can quite literally open up other meta comps by enforcing what they do well and having them do it well together. I.E The old GW1 way where we had multiple meta comps be it RoJ, Frost, Manly etc... You could just as easily do the same by turning off the always on passive power of things like banners/spirts/GoTL/and unique class passives and have them play a more pivotal role in designing your composition. Some simple changes to instead of always on but conditional power would go a long way ex. Frost Spirit 10% damage bonus is only applied when your target has 3 or more seconds of chill. Yes it would take a lot to shift the current design to this but ultimately it solves the problems we currently have because as is we have too much always on effects and that's what's really hurting diversity more than any single skill/class you can point to.

> Can you give an example of a set of changes that would result in actual diversity? I realize rose-tinted glasses are tough to see past, but even in GW1 there was a rigid meta for all content if you were speed clearing. There were definitely "pug" builds then that were slower with greater reliability for unfamiliar groups (DwG/Ursanway, for instance), but we have that now in GW2 raiding as well (magi Druid/minstrel Chrono) so there's really no difference. The kind of changes @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" is suggesting, for instance (although I'm assuming he means Ranger Spirits having 10 target cap) would "kind of" add diversity by removing mandatory roles and adding two DPS classes over a Warrior and a Ranger. If all DPS classes are created equally by ANet's balance, then technically you achieve greater diversity in making those changes, but then you would end up with mandatory Engineer (Pinpoint Precision) and mandatory Revenant (Assassin's Presence) slots. It doesn't create true diversity because people are still locked into stuff, just the stuff they're locked into has now shifted slightly. The only way to achieve "true" diversity is to allow a specific buff to come from multiple classes with similar DPS, thus allowing either class to be selected for a given role.

 

I've given examples of how to achieve this.

 

You start by turning off the always on power that drives the meta as it currently stands. Yes part of that is shifting to allowing boons/buffs to effect 10 people. The other part is by turning off the always on part for specific points of power. I.E if i wanted to make a comp that was based around burning up time i might have a comp (for name sake lets call it firestarter) that uses Engi/Firebrand/Scourge/Druid. The synergy would come from changing PP & Sun Spirit to only apply extra stacks and damage when above a threshold lets say 15 burning stacks. Now you have to choose you comp based around what boons/uptime and group synergy you want. Not based upon what gives us the most always on power.

[xDudisx.5914]

Change the entire game balance because of raids? NO.

 

10 target instead of 5 would affect wvw.

[UnbentMars.9126]

> @xDudisx.5914 said:

> Change the entire game balance because of raids? NO.

>

> 10 target instead of 5 would affect wvw.

 

ANET has already proven that they can and will separate balance in PvE, WvW, and PvP. The most recent changes to scourge in WvW alone are plenty evidence of that. That argument holds no water.

[TexZero.7910]

> @xDudisx.5914 said:

> Change the entire game balance because of raids? NO.

>

> 10 target instead of 5 would affect wvw.

 

It would be better for WvW. Also lul boons in WvW. How you enjoying Pirateship 2.0 ?

[Feanor.2358]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @"Rising Dusk.2408" said:

> > > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > Or we can not go the extreme and actually create cross-class synergies. IE right now we have what i'll refer to as Mirror Meta. Instead of outright copying this by giving us two classes that can do it we can quite literally open up other meta comps by enforcing what they do well and having them do it well together. I.E The old GW1 way where we had multiple meta comps be it RoJ, Frost, Manly etc... You could just as easily do the same by turning off the always on passive power of things like banners/spirts/GoTL/and unique class passives and have them play a more pivotal role in designing your composition. Some simple changes to instead of always on but conditional power would go a long way ex. Frost Spirit 10% damage bonus is only applied when your target has 3 or more seconds of chill. Yes it would take a lot to shift the current design to this but ultimately it solves the problems we currently have because as is we have too much always on effects and that's what's really hurting diversity more than any single skill/class you can point to.

> > Can you give an example of a set of changes that would result in actual diversity? I realize rose-tinted glasses are tough to see past, but even in GW1 there was a rigid meta for all content if you were speed clearing. There were definitely "pug" builds then that were slower with greater reliability for unfamiliar groups (DwG/Ursanway, for instance), but we have that now in GW2 raiding as well (magi Druid/minstrel Chrono) so there's really no difference. The kind of changes @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" is suggesting, for instance (although I'm assuming he means Ranger Spirits having 10 target cap) would "kind of" add diversity by removing mandatory roles and adding two DPS classes over a Warrior and a Ranger. If all DPS classes are created equally by ANet's balance, then technically you achieve greater diversity in making those changes, but then you would end up with mandatory Engineer (Pinpoint Precision) and mandatory Revenant (Assassin's Presence) slots. It doesn't create true diversity because people are still locked into stuff, just the stuff they're locked into has now shifted slightly. The only way to achieve "true" diversity is to allow a specific buff to come from multiple classes with similar DPS, thus allowing either class to be selected for a given role.

>

> I've given examples of how to achieve this.

>

> You start by turning off the always on power that drives the meta as it currently stands. Yes part of that is shifting to allowing boons/buffs to effect 10 people. The other part is by turning off the always on part for specific points of power. I.E if i wanted to make a comp that was based around burning up time i might have a comp (for name sake lets call it firestarter) that uses Engi/Firebrand/Scourge/Druid. The synergy would come from changing PP & Sun Spirit to only apply extra stacks and damage when above a threshold lets say 15 burning stacks. Now you have to choose you comp based around what boons/uptime and group synergy you want. Not based upon what gives us the most always on power.

 

That's very impractical and even if we assume it increases diversity (which it doesn't necessarily), it makes the LFG even more tedious. And the meta will still be about what gives most effective power. It might be Power, Condi, Vuln, but it makes no difference. You'll still have a single most efficient comp and everyone will go for that, because it's the sensible and safe choice. Why risk not finding a group with your preferred snowflake comp when you can just build for what everyone else uses and find groups a lot easier and faster? So it's an exercise in futility. You want to increase diversity? Spread out the access to effective power. Make different classes overlap each other so that you can take the key component every one brings from a different source. That's the only practical way I see.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> That's very impractical and even if we assume it increases diversity (which it doesn't necessarily), it makes the LFG even more tedious. And the meta will still be about what gives most effective power. It might be Power, Condi, Vuln, but it makes no difference. You'll still have a single most efficient comp and everyone will go for that, because it's the sensible and safe choice. Why risk not finding a group with your preferred snowflake comp when you can just build for what everyone else uses and find groups a lot easier and faster? So it's an exercise in futility. You want to increase diversity? Spread out the access to effective power. Make different classes overlap each other so that you can take the key component every one brings from a different source. That's the only practical way I see.

 

You claim it's impractical but your idea is literally to homogenize every class, that doesn't change the meta nor does it increase diversity. If everyone can do everything everyone else can, then it simply becomes pick X best. At which point we're right back where we started, everyone picking the OP must have uptime things.

 

Literally ask yourself this....At the end of the day are you still taking the equivalent "bonuses", eg Spotter, Alacrity, Banners, EA, GoTL, Quickness, perma might ? If so then we've not increased any diversity as we are literally doing the exact same thing.

 

The only way to have real diversity is to turn off the always on power so that you can have comps that have similar baseline effectiveness due to having different moments of power. This is real diversity not some shallow clone of the mirror stuff you keep preaching.

[Feanor.2358]

Again, "turning it off" will not create diversity, it will create annoyance. It's about the optimal way of playing, and it will be still optimal to take all these. You'll simply need to line them up and create a pattern of "burst - wait - burst - ..." gameplay. As you'll need to synchronize skill uses across many players for that to happen, it won't be a very smooth experience, hence the "annoyance" part. You can't realistically make your gameplay worse than it is. It will piss the players off on epic proportions. And not gained anything for it.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

Why do people insist on thinking that Raids don't already offer flexibility? The fact that every encounter can be 'sold' to 1-4 customers means that there's a huge amount of wiggle room. QT's benchmarks give us the dream teams (and many of us find that incredibly helpful); they aren't, however, designed to show everything that's viable. More importantly, ANet's stats on raids show that encounters are completed successfully with all sorts of teams outside the meta.

 

And research by players shows, as we knew before DPS meter logging was available, that comp is less important than the group knowing their profession and the encounter.

 

Of course there's plenty of room for ANet to adjust relative balance of support|DPS|control across the profs & specs. But the problem isn't a non-diverse optimum comp; the problem is that some people insist that this optimum is the only option, when that's demonstrably untrue.

 

I'm not against seeing suggestions for changing/improving profs. But let's make them on the basis of making sure that each class offers something useful for each type of content, not to try to topple the meta (which will always be monotone, as long as there are people who insist it's the only option; there is always going to be an optimum comp).

[Horus.9685]

All decent Suggestion but, imo the fix to gotl is just deleting it from the Game.

It doesnt even matter that Most druids can’t even keep up 3 Stacks avg. That trait along with alacrity Come back to bitte their asses as Mann thought on hot launch.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Why do people insist on thinking that Raids don't already offer flexibility? The fact that every encounter can be 'sold' to 1-4 customers means that there's a huge amount of wiggle room. QT's benchmarks give us the dream teams (and many of us find that incredibly helpful); they aren't, however, designed to show everything that's viable. More importantly, ANet's stats on raids show that encounters are completed successfully with all sorts of teams outside the meta.

>

> And research by players shows, as we knew before DPS meter logging was available, that comp is less important than the group knowing their profession and the encounter.

>

> Of course there's plenty of room for ANet to adjust relative balance of support|DPS|control across the profs & specs. But the problem isn't a non-diverse optimum comp; the problem is that some people insist that this optimum is the only option, when that's demonstrably untrue.

>

> I'm not against seeing suggestions for changing/improving profs. But let's make them on the basis of making sure that each class offers something useful for each type of content, not to try to topple the meta (which will always be monotone, as long as there are people who insist it's the only option; there is always going to be an optimum comp).

 

The reason people go with optimum comp is insecurity. These comps are proven to work, and people are unwilling to risk with a comp they aren't sure is going to work. Raid sellers aren't really relevant when we're talking about general applicability. These are very skilled players who can afford to use a different comp. You're right that there's a lot of leeway in raids, however an average group will have noticeable increase of difficulty and failures using a sub-optimal comp. Which isn't always "what's recommended by qT", by the way. For instance, in my own guild group we run a third healer on Matthias and necros on MO and Xera for the Epidemic. Neither is optimal in the absolute sense of the word, but it's what works best for us because we're casuals. But good luck using these in a pug. People will tell you "you shouldn't need" them and they'll be technically correct.

[Sykper.6583]

I think the method forward is to look at these unique buffs and apply a similar but different unique buff to other unused professions, and tone ALL these unique buffs down, or bring them down in line to a level compared with another unique buff profession that does a different amount of DPS.

 

For example, hypothetical and likely inaccurate math let's say the Warrior with the banners was doing 10k on his own, and his banners raised the group DPS by like 5k.

Let's also say that Necromancer got their own unique buff and that while necromancers were balanced around 12k, meaning they did more than the Warrior (DO NOT TAKE THIS AS FACT), their unique buff to the raid added around 3k to the raid. Meaning both are comparable and flexible, and at least one IF not both could be used by the raid.

 

However at this juncture we start running into the issue of wanting to bring just these unique buff supports along for the raids, which is why I said tune them all down in favor of raising the Personal DPS of the profession. Make the warrior do 12k and raise the raid DPS by 3k (rather than 5k) and the necro does 14k and raises raid DPS by 1k. And again, this is just between DPS of a warrior and necro, I know the DPS numbers at the high level are literally 35k+ for raw DPS classes, that's something to take into consideration and I would like to touch on it more.

 

But ultimately I don't think Grace needs to go, I think Grace needs to stay, be cut down just a tad and other professions have access to DPS increasing buffs of varied impact that scale according to their DPS as a whole. That's how we could achieve some manner of flexibility.

 

I'll go into detail after work probably.

[Mikeskies.1536]

My initial idea was not to have one specialization completely take over the role of another specialization, but to increase diversity by allowing certain specializations to have overlapping and unique capabilities. In my mind, the goal should be to replace the 2nd set of Chronomancer, Berserker and Druid, by increasing the target count of current class-specific enhancements to 10 targets and allowing a combination of other specializations to take over the benefits those three bring. For example, you can either do 2x Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid, or Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid and Scourge, Firebrand, Renegade, balanced accordingly.

 

Whether or not this is the best solution, I don't know. WOW, for example, went from unique buffs for each class, to overlapping buffs between classes, to no buffs at all.

[Joxer.6024]

> @Mikeskies.1536 said:

> My initial idea was not to have one specialization completely take over the role of another specialization, but to increase diversity by allowing certain specializations to have overlapping and unique capabilities. In my mind, the goal should be to replace the 2nd set of Chronomancer, Berserker and Druid, by increasing the target count of current class-specific enhancements to 10 targets and allowing a combination of other specializations to take over the benefits those three bring. For example, you can either do 2x Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid, or Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid and Scourge, Firebrand, Renegade, balanced accordingly.

>

> Whether or not this is the best solution, I don't know. WOW, for example, went from unique buffs for each class, to overlapping buffs between classes, to no buffs at all.

 

Yea, we keep referencing WOW but I think its were many of us came from or still do raid there, and you are right. They did swap it up. It used to be only a Mage could sheep a mob and you needed that cc in many fights, but then Blizz changed it so that other classes could also sheep, thereby giving others a slot for a raid. Not sure what the norm is now as it has been many years for me raiding there but I agree in that it would be nice if other classes could do some of the same skills, so that people could bring them no worrys.

It all really goes back to what you want to run though as we have all said the raids can be done with any sort of combos of classes, as long as the key roles are covered. I reckon POF raids are going to bring something new to the table....just look at the mechanics of the bountys and such. Could be fun??!! ;)

[Mikeskies.1536]

> @Joxer.6024 said:

> > @Mikeskies.1536 said:

> > My initial idea was not to have one specialization completely take over the role of another specialization, but to increase diversity by allowing certain specializations to have overlapping and unique capabilities. In my mind, the goal should be to replace the 2nd set of Chronomancer, Berserker and Druid, by increasing the target count of current class-specific enhancements to 10 targets and allowing a combination of other specializations to take over the benefits those three bring. For example, you can either do 2x Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid, or Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid and Scourge, Firebrand, Renegade, balanced accordingly.

> >

> > Whether or not this is the best solution, I don't know. WOW, for example, went from unique buffs for each class, to overlapping buffs between classes, to no buffs at all.

>

> Yea, we keep referencing WOW but I think its were many of us came from or still do raid there, and you are right. They did swap it up. It used to be only a Mage could sheep a mob and you needed that cc in many fights, but then Blizz changed it so that other classes could also sheep, thereby giving others a slot for a raid. Not sure what the norm is now as it has been many years for me raiding there but I agree in that it would be nice if other classes could do some of the same skills, so that people could bring them no worrys.

> It all really goes back to what you want to run though as we have all said the raids can be done with any sort of combos of classes, as long as the key roles are covered. I reckon POF raids are going to bring something new to the table....just look at the mechanics of the bountys and such. Could be fun??!! ;)

 

I think the uniqueness of GW2 is that Specs provide active bonuses, in addition to passive stat boosts. It is that uniqueness and teamwork requirement that really brings PVE to a higher level. Everyone's performance is interdependent on the performance of your team members, both on a mechanics level and a rotational level.

[Rising Dusk.2408]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> I.E if i wanted to make a comp that was based around burning up time i might have a comp (for name sake lets call it firestarter) that uses Engi/Firebrand/Scourge/Druid. The synergy would come from changing PP & Sun Spirit to only apply extra stacks and damage when above a threshold lets say 15 burning stacks. Now you have to choose you comp based around what boons/uptime and group synergy you want. Not based upon what gives us the most always on power.

See, this wouldn't happen though. What would happen is that whatever does the most damage becomes meta, the classes that give those buffs becoming required (probably still Ranger, Warrior, and Chronomancer), and everything else just gets ignored in benchmarks and realistic scenarios. In your example, it would mean that Druids would just stop bringing Sun Spirit and bring another Glyph for more GotL (assuming the threshold were more restrictive, since 15 burning stacks is easily maintained by just 2 cPS Warriors). By making buffing effects less accessible, all you ultimately achieve is removing them from the meta entirely as other options (such as more direct damage) become better. None of this has any positive effect on diversity.

[Marthkus.4615]

Remove DPS checks

 

Add raidfinder auto groups

 

Taq the tank.

 

There. Meta exclusion shattered. Anyone can pug raid then.

[CptAurellian.9537]

Congratulations, you missed the point of the entire discussion with astonishing precision.

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Rising Dusk.2408" said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > I.E if i wanted to make a comp that was based around burning up time i might have a comp (for name sake lets call it firestarter) that uses Engi/Firebrand/Scourge/Druid. The synergy would come from changing PP & Sun Spirit to only apply extra stacks and damage when above a threshold lets say 15 burning stacks. Now you have to choose you comp based around what boons/uptime and group synergy you want. Not based upon what gives us the most always on power.

> See, this wouldn't happen though. What would happen is that whatever does the most damage becomes meta, the classes that give those buffs becoming required (probably still Ranger, Warrior, and Chronomancer), and everything else just gets ignored in benchmarks and realistic scenarios. In your example, it would mean that Druids would just stop bringing Sun Spirit and bring another Glyph for more GotL (assuming the threshold were more restrictive, since 15 burning stacks is easily maintained by just 2 cPS Warriors). By making buffing effects less accessible, all you ultimately achieve is removing them from the meta entirely as other options (such as more direct damage) become better. None of this has any positive effect on diversity.

 

Homogenization still doesn't add diversity either. All you end up doing is having the exact same comp because instead of having multiple viable meta-comps we've just shifted from one mirror comp to another. What you're arguing here is that you want your vanilla ice-cream served in a cone instead of a cup.

[Grimheart.2853]

Wow! That's a... low quality suggestion.

[nightwulf.1986]

I'm sure these question have come up before, but does anyone believe that Anet considers balance according to what is Raid (formerly dungeon) meta? And _should_ they balance professions around that? I remember Anet doing a Elementalist FGS nerf after months of people complaining about stacking in dungeons and the synergy with that skill in particular. But I've never really felt that they pay any lip service to what players find optimal. It seems to me that Anet aims for three things in balance: functional (does it work as intended), damage potential (they do often talk about how much damage, synergy certain skills have), and fun (is it interactive, does it feel fun to play with).

 

I rarely hear them go "These are the skills and synergies players have found in raids. We will tone this down, buff this up". But beyond all that, should Anet do some serious social engineering when it comes to how players form groups and participate in raids to increase player satisfaction? I personally feel that last question goes well beyond can we shift the meta, because somewhere in the process of social engineering, we'll find the answer to that part too.

[Sykper.6583]

Ahem, so back to what I was saying, hopefully a little more in-depth this time.

 

Currently we have a meta game that relies on achieving the highest group DPS possible, while still accounting for mandatory mechanics on a per fight basis. Mandatory mechanics I would define as mechanics a raid cannot actually ignore to progress effectively or at all. Vale Guardian Condition DPS Requirement could technically be one said mechanic if you wanted to go in with a group of all Power-based damage builds, though there are competitive condition DPS build so this is sort of moot. Matthias's shield to reflect projectiles is a better example, someone will have to bring reflect which can slightly impact performance, but that can't be helped. Provided all the mechanics are met, DPS matters next, and that DPS is reliant on Skill and Build.

 

For DPS, I will assume everyone can understand that Skill plays a major factor in how your build performs, but that's a different discussion that I don't believe has relevance on raid meta flexibility. I don't want to go into that field as we can talk about it all day. Instead let's talk builds and meta, sorry for the buildup to this I wanted to set the ground level here.

 

There are a couple kinds of buffs in the game, the degree of their application and who can apply them is staggeringly different. Warriors have a great potential for might generation and buffs like might are pretty abundant across builds, mainly because fire fields which are a common thing in raids can apply this as well. 'Boons' in this regard I believe have a great balance, but if Warriors were only brought for might they wouldn't be brought at all, we would get Tempests- Oh sorry, I mean Weavers now instead. Instead, what Warriors bring to the table is something else entirely, the unique class Banner buffs that can't be used by anyone else.

 

This unique buff reinforces the meta, which can be problematic for new raiders who might want to bring something else to raids but can't fill that slot.

 

**"But Sykper without that buff the Warrior would have a hard time getting into groups due to being completely undertuned in Power (Seriously why did they nerf it MORE?), and close but not quite competitive in DPS with other condition builds! Well I mean really just Thief but still! Plus, if we add that banner buff to other professions everyone starts feeling less unique."**

 

Let's excuse DPS balance for one second and consider that you have a point about homo-generalization. Alacrity was supposed to be the Chronomancer specific deal but it was suddenly, and I would say POORLY implemented, on Rev. It removes a bit of the theme from the profession having those unique buffs, but I would argue that the theme isn't necessarily tied to what they provide in terms of a buff and effect, it is the playstyle, the kind of damage they do, the rotation, the other effects that make a Chronomancer feel really good. Between their Area of control and support coupled with their insane capability to 'tank' through manipulation of these elements makes them excellent for support and CC. Quickness is a 'boon' that is a bit more difficult to keep uptime on COMPARED to might, and they push it out like hotcakes.

 

In fact, I did like their attempt to make Alacrity a thing for other professions, but again they did it so poorly I'm still paying for the hole in my wall after ramming my head through it in a vain attempt to get the thought out of my head. I think we could use this Unique Buff system to our advantage, and create the system going forward for adjusting DPS balance as well. Finally getting to the deal I've been thinking of...let's go:

 

_**Completely rework Alacrity, Grace of the Land, and Banners to unique buffs shared across 3 professions (and valid builds mind you) that can stack so that a single profession providing that one type cannot do it fully alone.**_

 

This is where we get really intense, brace yourselves or if you are already getting your pitchforks, too bad I got Endure Pain, the old one!

 

**Alacrity is now a unique effect where across the board it lasts longer. It does *NOTHING* for the first two stacks of it though, but it caps out at THREE stacks and applies the effect. ** This is balanced so that normal chronomancers could still technically pull off the original impact of their Alacrity (some skills might apply two stacks of Alacrity at a high duration at once), or maybe slightly nerfed. You will now see Revenant and another profession (undecided) can also apply long duration stacks of Alacrity.

 

What does this mean? Alacrity hasn't really been stripped from Chronomancer entirely and they are still a beast with how they handle bosses with tanking, CC, boons and so forth. However depending on balance the accessibility for other builds and professions can rely on the group attaining the alacrity, meaning for example we could still have our Chronotanks which are really solid in other aspects, but other comps could play with Alacrity relying on at least two other people in that group, meaning **4 people at least** would require some skillful gameplay to pull off the Alacrity. And naturally as you stack more revs and this other profession Alacrity becomes that much easier to attain 100% for.

 

**Grace of the Land no longer applies a unique buff called Grace of the Land but applies a unique buff called 'Fervor' which stacks just like GotL and HAS a different effect, it unique buff can be stacked by Druids, Scourges, Warrior Banner of Strength only, and someone else.**

 

Hold the phone as I get to it. Fervor is now a 5 stack buff that increases power and condition damage by 30 for each stack, up to 150. Druids can easily reach 5 stacks alone, Scourges have access to it, Warrior Banner of Strength can only passively apply **two stacks at 100%** and one other profession can have easy access to it. ...I don't know the math on whether or not 150 power and condition damage is better than 10% raw damage so you can throw those numbers at me all day if you want. All I know is that I just butchered Warriors and I think I can literally hear them coming over now, and my Endure Pain is gonna wear off. I should probably hurry up.

 

**Banners have been reworked. Banner of Strength passively applies Fervor at a consistently 2 stacks, Banner of Discipline applies a unique stacking buff called 'Keen' which increases Precision and Ferocity by 30 for each stack up to 5, Discipline can only reach 2 stacks again. Banner of Defense and Banner of Tactics I wasn't clever enough to give the same changes to (this is a DPS discussion but I imagine the rework would hit all the banners) and Battle Standard would double the duration of any Fervor or Keen applied to allies in its Range from all sources.**

 

Keen is also applied by Engineers and someone else. I've effectively made Warrior in a unique spot where they've lost roughly 60% of their effect from their banners. However, what you need to understand is that from a meta standpoint, Warrior banners already impacted 10 targets and they have access to TWO of the unique buffs that are technically at least accessible to half the professions in the game. Warriors are your icing on the cake to round off the last few stacks. You might not NEED warriors at all if you can make unique raid comps that can pull off losing out on two persistent Fervor and Keen elsewhere, or you just take the one to fill in the gap.

 

Also, with this change I also have another bit of news for Druids, because of these changes you lose 10 allied targets with Grace, back down to 5 with you!

 

I think that's it, I've not fully figured out which professions need which ones, maybe there needs to be more circumstances like the Warrior where a profession can do two unique buffs with a certain build. But provide some feedback, or kill me with more Homo-generalization complaints I don't quite think this is. I'm simply setting up a system where you could still bring Warrior, Ranger, Mesmer in to reach a similar effect like before, but depending on how balance goes we might see less of these around.

 

Plus-side, Druid, Warrior and Chronomancer get Personal DPS buffs! Haven't figured that one out yet.

 

Thank you for reading!

[Swiftwynd.1685]

Wait, some people think scourge support isnt already viable at healing? They are top tier in group survivability lol. They just lack any strong direct offensive support outside of might stacking.

 

I play all healers and support roles, and nothing, absolutely nothing, gets inexperienced players through hard content like a full minstrels with leadership runes support scourge.

 

Solid heal per second, high barrier per second, dastest rate of conditions cleansed per second.

 

But the true power is the aoe 12 sec recharge 600 radius revive and pull of transfusion plus the revive trait. Nothing in this game comes remotely close to the consistently availablr buttsaving of a support scourge.

 

Other than no updraft gorse or kc, its prefectly fine to run it for less experienced groups. Live players deal more damage than dead ones.

[Grimheart.2853]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> Ahem, so back to what I was saying, hopefully a little more in-depth this time.

>

> Currently we have a meta game that relies on achieving the highest group DPS possible, while still accounting for mandatory mechanics on a per fight basis. Mandatory mechanics I would define as mechanics a raid cannot actually ignore to progress effectively or at all. Vale Guardian Condition DPS Requirement could technically be one said mechanic if you wanted to go in with a group of all Power-based damage builds, though there are competitive condition DPS build so this is sort of moot. Matthias's shield to reflect projectiles is a better example, someone will have to bring reflect which can slightly impact performance, but that can't be helped. Provided all the mechanics are met, DPS matters next, and that DPS is reliant on Skill and Build.

>

> For DPS, I will assume everyone can understand that Skill plays a major factor in how your build performs, but that's a different discussion that I don't believe has relevance on raid meta flexibility. I don't want to go into that field as we can talk about it all day. Instead let's talk builds and meta, sorry for the buildup to this I wanted to set the ground level here.

>

> There are a couple kinds of buffs in the game, the degree of their application and who can apply them is staggeringly different. Warriors have a great potential for might generation and buffs like might are pretty abundant across builds, mainly because fire fields which are a common thing in raids can apply this as well. 'Boons' in this regard I believe have a great balance, but if Warriors were only brought for might they wouldn't be brought at all, we would get Tempests- Oh sorry, I mean Weavers now instead. Instead, what Warriors bring to the table is something else entirely, the unique class Banner buffs that can't be used by anyone else.

>

> This unique buff reinforces the meta, which can be problematic for new raiders who might want to bring something else to raids but can't fill that slot.

>

> **"But Sykper without that buff the Warrior would have a hard time getting into groups due to being completely undertuned in Power (Seriously why did they nerf it MORE?), and close but not quite competitive in DPS with other condition builds! Well I mean really just Thief but still! Plus, if we add that banner buff to other professions everyone starts feeling less unique."**

>

> Let's excuse DPS balance for one second and consider that you have a point about kitten-generalization. Alacrity was supposed to be the Chronomancer specific deal but it was suddenly, and I would say POORLY implemented, on Rev. It removes a bit of the theme from the profession having those unique buffs, but I would argue that the theme isn't necessarily tied to what they provide in terms of a buff and effect, it is the playstyle, the kind of damage they do, the rotation, the other effects that make a Chronomancer feel really good. Between their Area of control and support coupled with their insane capability to 'tank' through manipulation of these elements makes them excellent for support and CC. Quickness is a 'boon' that is a bit more difficult to keep uptime on COMPARED to might, and they push it out like hotcakes.

>

> In fact, I did like their attempt to make Alacrity a thing for other professions, but again they did it so poorly I'm still paying for the hole in my wall after ramming my head through it in a vain attempt to get the thought out of my head. I think we could use this Unique Buff system to our advantage, and create the system going forward for adjusting DPS balance as well. Finally getting to the deal I've been thinking of...let's go:

>

> _**Completely rework Alacrity, Grace of the Land, and Banners to unique buffs shared across 3 professions (and valid builds mind you) that can stack so that a single profession providing that one type cannot do it fully alone.**_

>

> This is where we get really intense, brace yourselves or if you are already getting your pitchforks, too bad I got Endure Pain, the old one!

>

> **Alacrity is now a unique effect where across the board it lasts longer. It does *NOTHING* for the first two stacks of it though, but it caps out at THREE stacks and applies the effect. ** This is balanced so that normal chronomancers could still technically pull off the original impact of their Alacrity (some skills might apply two stacks of Alacrity at a high duration at once), or maybe slightly nerfed. You will now see Revenant and another profession (undecided) can also apply long duration stacks of Alacrity.

>

> What does this mean? Alacrity hasn't really been stripped from Chronomancer entirely and they are still a beast with how they handle bosses with tanking, CC, boons and so forth. However depending on balance the accessibility for other builds and professions can rely on the group attaining the alacrity, meaning for example we could still have our Chronotanks which are really solid in other aspects, but other comps could play with Alacrity relying on at least two other people in that group, meaning **4 people at least** would require some skillful gameplay to pull off the Alacrity. And naturally as you stack more revs and this other profession Alacrity becomes that much easier to attain 100% for.

>

> **Grace of the Land no longer applies a unique buff called Grace of the Land but applies a unique buff called 'Fervor' which stacks just like GotL and HAS a different effect, it unique buff can be stacked by Druids, Scourges, Warrior Banner of Strength only, and someone else.**

>

> Hold the phone as I get to it. Fervor is now a 5 stack buff that increases power and condition damage by 30 for each stack, up to 150. Druids can easily reach 5 stacks alone, Scourges have access to it, Warrior Banner of Strength can only passively apply **two stacks at 100%** and one other profession can have easy access to it. ...I don't know the math on whether or not 150 power and condition damage is better than 10% raw damage so you can throw those numbers at me all day if you want. All I know is that I just butchered Warriors and I think I can literally hear them coming over now, and my Endure Pain is gonna wear off. I should probably hurry up.

>

> **Banners have been reworked. Banner of Strength passively applies Fervor at a consistently 2 stacks, Banner of Discipline applies a unique stacking buff called 'Keen' which increases Precision and Ferocity by 30 for each stack up to 5, Discipline can only reach 2 stacks again. Banner of Defense and Banner of Tactics I wasn't clever enough to give the same changes to (this is a DPS discussion but I imagine the rework would hit all the banners) and Battle Standard would double the duration of any Fervor or Keen applied to allies in its Range from all sources.**

>

> Keen is also applied by Engineers and someone else. I've effectively made Warrior in a unique spot where they've lost roughly 60% of their effect from their banners. However, what you need to understand is that from a meta standpoint, Warrior banners already impacted 10 targets and they have access to TWO of the unique buffs that are technically at least accessible to half the professions in the game. Warriors are your icing on the cake to round off the last few stacks. You might not NEED warriors at all if you can make unique raid comps that can pull off losing out on two persistent Fervor and Keen elsewhere, or you just take the one to fill in the gap.

>

> Also, with this change I also have another bit of news for Druids, because of these changes you lose 10 allied targets with Grace, back down to 5 with you!

>

> I think that's it, I've not fully figured out which professions need which ones, maybe there needs to be more circumstances like the Warrior where a profession can do two unique buffs with a certain build. But provide some feedback, or kill me with more kitten-generalization complaints I don't quite think this is. I'm simply setting up a system where you could still bring Warrior, Ranger, Mesmer in to reach a similar effect like before, but depending on how balance goes we might see less of these around.

>

> Plus-side, Druid, Warrior and Chronomancer get Personal DPS buffs! Haven't figured that one out yet.

>

> Thank you for reading!

 

So fervor is essentially another might. And why exactly do we need that?

 

Same goes to that "keen" thing.

 

We essentially go the alacrity route, just a little bit more inclusive, but still as narrow-minded as said route. There's already a set of boons that work across classes for flexibility in the first place, why make things more stiff by adding more excluding boons?

 

The ideas of balance and role/group flexibility should distance themselves from alacrity-style ideas (and try to reduce the fallout od those already inplemented), not expand them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cuon Alpinus.7645]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> This doesn't increase flexibility so much as it forces scourge, firebrand and renegade.

>

> Also, there's zero reason to be giving GoTL to everyone. Like please, let's not go the route of homogenization when the entire purpose of specializations is to carve out niche's. It's already bad enough that rev's have access to alacrity.

>

 

I hardly see how Renegade getting Alacrity is "already bad enough." I agree that other classes probably shouldn't get significant access to it, but 4 seconds of alacrity on a 13s cooldown that severely gimps your DPS rotation isn't anything worth complaining over.