Why Build diversity feels so bad

[Khalisto.5780]

Build diversity feels so bad cuz 90% of the players never read the traits and juat copy paste builds from metabattle and gods of pvp

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"wevh.2903" said:

> What i was refering with counter wars was that the guy wants to have a game with 2000 or 20 000 or even more viable builds , this is only possible if each build HARD COUNTER another build.

 

I just don't think you understand the mechanism at play here, as the above is not true, nor is it a valid conclusion.

 

I already said this, but the reason why having many of something suppresses outliers is because of Anthropic Reasoning. This is the same reasoning that allows us to find Earth-like planets in the galaxy. Due to the sheer number of stars, there should be at least some percentage of them that fit all the criteria for life to form, and look much like Earth. There's over 300 million stars in the galaxy, and so far we've discovered 6 million with earth like planets, which is 0.15% of stars having Earth like planets in their orbit.

 

If there were only 9 stars in the galaxy, and 0.15% of them have life, that's less than 1 (0) stars having an earth like planet.

 

So if there were 300 million viable build combinations, and 1 of them was some overpowered build, there should be 6 million other builds that exist that can counter that build.

 

In the same vein, this doesn't imply that it means JUST hard counter builds. The same Anthropic reasoning applies to softcounters, and neutral builds as well. So if 6 million builds exist to hardcounter a build among 300 million, there is some other percentage of those builds that ALSO softcounter it...and also some percentage of builds that are neutral, and also some percentage that ARE softcountered by the OP build, and some percentage that ARE Hardcountered by the OP build...

 

@"Kuma.1503" showed you with his example, the above mechanism in action using an in-game example with Runes of Speed, and why that mechanism acts as a balancing mechanism. Hardcounters are not introduced, they are infact sedated by the process of just having more builds simply existing...they don't even have to be designed in ways that counter other things...they just simply need to "exist" and anthropic reasoning/statistics take care of the rest of the process...ei: little to no developer intervention required.

 

Again you can see this mechanism at play in Nature and the real world. Tigers, Bears and Sharks don't hardcounter each other...they exist in consort along with a slew of other animals, each with tremendous variance in what they can and cannot do. The fact that many kinds of animals exist helps quell any other animal from completely taking over.

 

> What you are asking its nerf all reaper builds in order balance a rune wich has cero sense

 

no...i don't want anything nerfed at all actually. I don't want anything buffed either. Both operations are actually flawed and I prove that here in this comment.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1344346#Comment_1344346

 

What i really want, is what Kuma said before...options to be meaningful, so that there are more possibilities to have a larger pool of builds to play with. I don't want to play the one build on one of the three meta classes in order to be considered viable.

[wevh.2903]

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > > > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > > > > > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > > > > The team that made daredevil and all HoT spects where thinking forward esl pro league while PoF spects were made in order to do cool showy specializations .

> > > > >

> > > > > Even if this were true, which i wouldn't be surprised if it is, it still is a strawman to the point about how this has nothing to do with diversity. Your argument is about balance. Your solution to solving balance is to eliminate player choice, which means no diversity.

> > > > >

> > > > > You can balance a game with no diversity...that's what games like Chess, Minsweeper and Fortnite are designed towards...but in a game where things are not homogeneous like guild wars 2, what you are asking for is stick wars 2...or at best a Rock Paper Scissor game, where there are only 9 options rather than many options.

> > > >

> > > > Deleting players choince when it comes to stupid stuff that doenst make any kind of sense ? Ofc I want frequent balance patches and reworks that are pvp oriented , buffing right things that ends on builds based on skill .

> > > >

> > > > What you are asking for is counter warrs , my build counter yours so i win , then you swap build to counter my counter build so now i win . That makes cero sense , there isnt any fun or skill evolved.

> > >

> > > I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. "Just throw a broken build at the other broken build and the one who gets the counter matchup wins".

> > >

> > > Whether or not that happens comes down to how the devs design their game. Funny enough, if we keep going down this path of nerfing things with no end, we will eventually end up in counter wars. Take enough options away, and the game will devolve into counter wars, because options are what help give nuance to the situations we find ourselves in.

> > >

> > > To demonstrate this, imagine we go down the route you proposed earlier. You said:

> > >

> > > > The point is that weakness is what makes the class balanced , the rune is a completely bad design issue.

> > >

> > > You wanted rune of speed removed/nerfed because Necro is designed to be slow, have poor chase potential. It should be removed because a Necro that can mitigate or remove that weakness is imbalanced. Notice what happens if we continue to follow that logic.

> > >

> > > Reaper designed to be weak vs kiting >> Reaper is hard countered by classes that can kite it.

> > >

> > > Reaper runs speed rune >> Reaper no longer hard countered >> We remove/nerf speed rune >> Reaper hard countered again.

> > >

> > > We've gotten rid of an option that could've helped bring some nuance into the game.

> > >

> > > Lets say we keep speed rune.

> > >

> > > Reaper with speed rune has a chance to close the gap where it couldn't before, but the main way it gets swiftness is by entering shroud. You can exploit this to your advantage, saving your defensive cooldowns for that moment. They also do less damage in shroud than they would if they were running a dps rune, so not only are they using some of that shroud to close the gap, but they take more of that precious time to kill you once they're in range. The situation is still tough for them, but the reaper is at least in a position where they can kill you if they bait out your defenses.

> > >

> > > We've turned a hard counter into a soft counter.

> > >

> > > In summary, options like these are what help us **prevent** Counter Wars 2.

> > >

> >

> > "countered by kiting" , dude "chase potential" means you can kill after you already won a fight , you dont get countered by not having "chase potential" , kalla renegade has cero chase potential and do u see it getting countered by "kiting" XD .

> >

> > I think you mean with "countered by kiting" cuz reaper cant chase someone in a 1v1 so they reengage or kill reaper from range . PvP is based on nodes , nodes are close instances where you cant abuse range and all nodes have zones where you can kite and break line of sight , If you win the node you win the fight. This is not WvW where a pew pew ranger or a death eye can just kill you from range by kiting away from you.

> >

> > Reaper has its own value , it is strong af in team fight and it kills bunkers faster than any other build. You are not high movile but you are not a turtle , you have wurm and shroud 2 that you still can use to move around the map . The point is high movile classes can move around the map faster than necro and get a kill , thats the value of a high movile class over a necromancer . Youre not stronger than a necro at team fight but your value is on movility. , thats a trade off . Reaper even when it is a very stronng team fighter class can still take 1v1 , whats the point? if they kill your wurm necro cant rly escape a outnumber situation , so thats why you take sidenoders , cuz a sidenoders are bad at team fight but they can duel on a node and survive a plus easier than necro . This is a general explanation , reaper can kite outnumber situations , is not a you get outnumber you get killed . it is more like a reaper will be more likely to dye outnumber.

> >

> > thats why team comp matters , when you build a team you take in mind what playstyle are u gonna play with , if you want a strong teamfight comp then you pick necro/support , you want to have both ur necro and support playing together. If you play with a more roamer comp agaisnt this comp you will want to play three nodes cuz supports are weak in mirror fights , 2v2ing can take too long , you get hard countered ? no , they will play with the idea of taking a kill around the map and snowball and you will play with the idea of making team fights , match will a matter of rotations .

> >

> >

> > What i was refering with counter wars was that the guy wants to have a game with 2000 or 20 000 or even more viable builds , this is only possible if each build HARD COUNTER another build , So your build its viable cuz it counters not cuz it has a purpose in conquest .

> >

> >

> > What you are asking its nerf all reaper builds in order balance a rune wich has cero sense . And again , the damage u lose on necro running speed runes isnt rly a trade off for a 66 speed bost .

> >

> > Rune of speed is not that broken , but it is disguisting than a reaper outnuns someone using ever single kiting skil , reaper has chill/cripple to get kills on ppl who is kiting , a chill on someone who has no condi clease means almost a kill .

> >

> > Take this as an example . Reaper is a high risk high reward build , but necros has no evade frames or blocks . this means without wurm a necro getting focused is dead. this means bad positioning or bad rotation ends u getitg killled . Do you wan this or you want necro to have evade frames or blocks? Good necros will use kiting spots or non port spots so classes like thief and revs can one shot them while doing tons on dmg on team fight , reaper has the tools to survive if played well . You want to reward this playstyle or just give reaper evade frames so it wont dye even if it stands on the middle of the node face tanking every aoe possible?

>

> I kinda see where you're going, but perhaps using Kalla ren wasn't the best example. Kiting in video games typically refers to the act of staying at a distance while using ranged attacks to wear down your foe, but it can also refer to the act of simply staying out of your opponent's threat range.

>

> Reaper gets countered by kiting because they deal the bulk of their damage in shroud. If you remain out of a reaper's threat range while they are in shroud, they lose a lot of their threat. Any class which can effectively do this will have the advantage against reaper. Any class that can do this and then immediately put on the pressure once they drop shroud (ranger) can easily kill it.

>

> Speed rune is an option that helps the reaper "chase" the ranger while in shroud so that they do not leave the reaper's threat range. Important to accomplish because as soon as they drop shroud they're vulnerable to counter pressure.

>

> Kalla ren does not get countered in the same way because it does the bulk of it's damage from range. It also does not need to play around a cooldown/resource-gated melee form to deal the bulk of its damage. Due to the way conquest works, it's 900(1200 on Jallis Pull) radius threat bubble is usually sufficient to keep a node held, even if enemies kite off. if they wan't to hang out in narnia, let them. You've got great resustain, and so long as you're both in combat in combat, you're generating energy.

>

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>

> Addressing your other point. Viable does not necessarily have to mean meta. It simply means playable. It's definition translates to "Capable of working, feasable". Given the sheer number of ways you can mix and match your traits, runes, utilities amulets, ect It would not be in the realm of absurdity for there to be a total of 2000 "viable" builds across all 9 classes.

>

> Changes like the 300 sec CD change, or the removal of amulets/runes, or changes which smiters boon options (or entire weapons) out of existence are what quickly start to dwindle those options creating a more stagnant meta.

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Again , reaper has lot of tools to deal dmg pressure and land shroud, it is about skill , a bad reaper will be predictable af . Ranger is the worse counter of reaper .Ranger is useless at team fight . You dont want to put your reaper wich is a great class in team fight agaisnt a ranger . Thats a bad rotation and a missplay. You want your sidenodee to match ranger.

.

 

But even when ranger hardcounters reaper , on a game like gw2 reaper has still chances to win ranger for example forcing his cd and then nuking ranger with lich (this is what too reapers does). Alaso you dont need and dont dont want to duel a ranger , you will want your sidenoder to face ranger while you want are at team fight .

 

If ranger makes a situation where it pushes a reaper to stay 1v1with him then thats a good rotation for the ranger , now reaper take the fight or just let ranger the node and move to another fight.

 

And again , reaper has a decent pressure from range , spinal shivers and staff does tons of dmg at ranger , lich too . You have wurm wich you can combo wih shroud . It is a matter of skill . What you are asking is lets buff reaper cuz ranger hard counters it.

 

You put reaper worse counter at 1v1 to justify a reapers buff , when reapers value isnt in 1v1. And even when reaper isnt suposed to 1v1 , it has good matchuns against somd sidenoders like holos or druids for example.

 

Ranger doenst push reaper out of meta because reaper has a very different value from ranger in conquest. If there is anything ranger could push out of meta would be a sidenoder , kalla renegade pushes ranger out of meta. Why? Cuz a mediocre kalla renegade can win top1 ranger. Core ranger only value is sidenoding taking 1v1 if there is a build that esily wins ranger 1v1 then it is useless. A top reaper has chances to win a top ranger if playing a good duel .

 

Sulbesst for example , is a more roamer build , it gets countered by projectilf denial for example by a tempest in big fights . Means this slb is useless? No cuz u can play 3 nodes vs tempest and stuck it on a 2v2 or a 3v2 while you roam around the map. BY good rotatilns you win

[wevh.2903]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > What i was refering with counter wars was that the guy wants to have a game with 2000 or 20 000 or even more viable builds , this is only possible if each build HARD COUNTER another build.

>

> I just don't think you understand the mechanism at play here, as the above is not true, nor is it a valid conclusion.

>

> I already said this, but the reason why having many of something suppresses outliers is because of Anthropic Reasoning. This is the same reasoning that allows us to find Earth-like planets in the galaxy. Due to the sheer number of stars, there should be at least some percentage of them that fit all the criteria for life to form, and look much like Earth. There's over 300 million stars in the galaxy, and so far we've discovered 6 million with earth like planets, which is 0.15% of stars having Earth like planets in their orbit.

>

> If there were only 9 stars in the galaxy, and 0.15% of them have life, that's less than 1 (0) stars having an earth like planet.

>

> So if there were 300 million viable build combinations, and 1 of them was some overpowered build, there should be 6 million other builds that exist that can counter that build.

>

> In the same vein, this doesn't imply that it means JUST hard counter builds. The same Anthropic reasoning applies to softcounters, and neutral builds as well. So if 6 million builds exist to hardcounter a build among 300 million, there is some other percentage of those builds that ALSO softcounter it...and also some percentage of builds that are neutral, and also some percentage that ARE softcountered by the OP build, and some percentage that ARE Hardcountered by the OP build...

>

> @"Kuma.1503" showed you with his example, the above mechanism in action using an in-game example with Runes of Speed, and why that mechanism acts as a balancing mechanism. Hardcounters are not introduced, they are infact sedated by the process of just having more builds simply existing...they don't even have to be designed in ways that counter other things...they just simply need to "exist" and anthropic reasoning/statistics take care of the rest of the process...ei: little to no developer intervention required.

>

> Again you can see this mechanism at play in Nature and the real world. Tigers, Bears and Sharks don't hardcounter each other...they exist in consort along with a slew of other animals, each with tremendous variance in what they can and cannot do. The fact that many kinds of animals exist helps quell any other animal from completely taking over.

>

> > What you are asking its nerf all reaper builds in order balance a rune wich has cero sense

>

> no...i don't want anything nerfed at all actually. I don't want anything buffed either. Both operations are actually flawed and I prove that here in this comment.

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1344346#Comment_1344346

>

> What i really want, is what Kuma said before...options to be meaningful, so that there are more possibilities to have a larger pool of builds to play with. I don't want to play the one build on one of the three meta classes in order to be considered viable.

 

You dont need to play meta classes to play ranked , meta is only strictly required when it comes to full competitive enviroments like mothnly ats .

 

There is couple of builds considered out of meta that are viable . Ranger for example is considered to be a off meta class . But you have soulbeast aa a good roamer and core/druid as decent sidenoders . You can play them perfectly at ranked.

 

I get what you say , but again , having 3000 builds would make pvp unskilled and unfun. When you undertand how conquest works you need to undertand how all viable builds works .

 

You need to know what fights you can take and how to fight agaisnt those builds, how to rotate around them.Thats why roles are created , without it rotations and tean play doenst make any sense. For example as a 1v1 class like core ranger you need to know how nades holo or holo works in order to being able to 1v1 it . So holo in the other hand needs to know how ranger works in order to 1v1 it . By having 30 000 you cant know how all of them works so you will end taking fights you dont know why are u losing .

 

This ends up on a conquest without not more strategy than picking a build ,you cant read a game , there isnt any skill evolved when it comes to mechanical play and any sense when it comes to rotations or decision making.

 

Maybe you can call it "balance" but it is a twisted balance that has cero correlation with what a instanced competitive game is.

 

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"wevh.2903" said:

> You dont need to play meta classes to play ranked , meta is only strictly required when it comes to full competitive enviroments like mothnly ats .

 

Then I don't want to play the one build on one of the three meta classes in order to be considered viable in AT.

 

> I get what you say , but again , having 3000 builds would make pvp unskilled and unfun.

 

There is nothing that would say this to be the case. Gw1 is a perfect example of a system with more diversity, that is in fact more fun to play because there were many builds to play. It was also very skillful too, even if you didn't know what you were up against. The skill is in the theory-craft of the build rather than ones ability to play a single build. but those two things are not mutually exclusive. What ends up happening, is because of how skills and things are designed, powercurves, cielings and floors are just inherent in nearly any build you create...so the skillful play actually emerges from the process of learning how to play the build you created and we saw this in gw1.

 

> Maybe you can call it "balance" but it is a twisted balance that has cero correlation with what a instanced competitive game is.

 

No this is how balance works everywhere...in all systems including those outside of gw2. You, talking about roles is a watered down version of the process mentioned before...except it's with 9 builds instead of many builds.

 

Like I said earlier, balance lies on a spectrum of diversity....where one side is maximally homogenous and the other side is maximally heterogenous. Both ends of the spectrum there is complete balance, and on both sides of the spectrum it is impossible to find an optimal path to win the game. The difference between the two sides of the spectrum should be obvious...that one favors all things being equal, the other favors all things being different.

 

GW2 is a heterogenous game BECAUSE there are 9 distinctly different classes, and it's therefor impossible to balance it into homogeneity because that would mean making every class do exactly the same thing in order to be considered balanced. This is why the balance approach should be to go for heterogeneity, in which choices allowing for things to be more different, leads you to the other side of the spectrum, where balance is also found.

 

 

[wevh.2903]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > You dont need to play meta classes to play ranked , meta is only strictly required when it comes to full competitive enviroments like mothnly ats .

>

> Then I don't want to play the one build on one of the three meta classes in order to be considered viable in AT.

>

> > I get what you say , but again , having 3000 builds would make pvp unskilled and unfun.

>

> There is nothing that would say this to be the case. Gw1 is a perfect example of a system with more diversity, that is in fact more fun to play because there were many builds to play. It was also very skillful too, even if you didn't know what you were up against. The skill is in the theory-craft of the build rather than ones ability to play a single build.

>

> > Maybe you can call it "balance" but it is a twisted balance that has cero correlation with what a instanced competitive game is.

>

> No this is how balance works everywhere...in all systems including those outside of gw2. You, talking about roles is a watered down version of the process mentioned before...except it's with 9 builds instead of many builds.

>

> Like I said earlier, balance lies on a spectrum of diversity....where one side is maximally homogenous and the other side is maximally heterogenous. Both ends of the spectrum there is complete balance, and on both sides of the spectrum it is impossible to find an optimal path to win the game. The difference between the two sides of the spectrum should be obvious...that one favors all things being equal, the other favors all things being different.

>

> GW2 is a heterogenous game BECAUSE there are 9 distinctly different classes, and it's therefor impossible to balance it into homogeneity because that would mean making every class do exactly the same thing in order to be considered balanced. This is why the balance approach should be to go for heterogeneity, in which choices allowing for things to be more different, leads you to the other side of the spectrum, where balance is also found.

>

>

 

Again , wheneven i use the word roles you use it to tergiverse my argument . I gived you and entire explanation about how attributes works on conquest , and you didnt even reply to it until i say "roles" .

 

You are simply forgetting all conquest paraments that makes it a competitive game , this paramets are made by humans not a aleatory system of things that balance itself. Attributes put on necromances was made with a certain idea, thief steal was made with a certain idea . Devs filled certain attributed with steal that made thief on a certain position on conquest with its own value , it has a idea on it , isnt a ramdom generated thing . Making it balanced your own way doenst make it a competitive game . The fact a broken build gets counted cuz there is lot of builds doenst make pvp great or competitive game.

 

Compare life systems to a pvp game is just a delusional idea .You said my whole explanation was conjetures while you talking to compare a pvp game to a mathematical system , well , imagine taking a ability like steal balanced aroud a idea a dev had to introduce a class with a certain value in conquest and try to balance it on a therically system without any corelation to the reality of conquest .

 

 

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"wevh.2903" said:

> Again , wheneven i use the word roles you use it to tergiverse my argument . I gived you and entire explanation about how attributes works on conquest , and you didnt even reply to it until i say "roles" .

>

 

It's cause those attribution of roles are subjective. Kuma even called you out on one of them...that's the problem with using anything subjective or too specific like roles...which i already said earlier are delineations created by players to help organize information. it's obvious that roles exist, but in no way does that mean that roles create balance. Balance and diversity are part of science that games use to design them. Roles is just that result of a systems design (since what drives their creation is human behaviour)

 

edit: also not to mention that designing for roles falls into that trap i keep mentioning...except you completely ignore that fact constantly and i keep responding to constant strawmen. Me and Kuma have both illustrated with in-game examples how designing a game for classes that are inherently different to have specific roles is detrimental to diversity because it annihilates player choice. that is what this thread is about...diversity....and you can have both diversity and balance, my posts are meant to illustrate that concept, and nature (and complexity science) PROVES that is possible, that highly diverse systems are balanced.

 

 

 

[Kuma.1503]

> @"wevh.2903" said:

> > @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > > @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > > > > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > > > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > > > > > > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > > > > > The team that made daredevil and all HoT spects where thinking forward esl pro league while PoF spects were made in order to do cool showy specializations .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Even if this were true, which i wouldn't be surprised if it is, it still is a strawman to the point about how this has nothing to do with diversity. Your argument is about balance. Your solution to solving balance is to eliminate player choice, which means no diversity.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You can balance a game with no diversity...that's what games like Chess, Minsweeper and Fortnite are designed towards...but in a game where things are not homogeneous like guild wars 2, what you are asking for is stick wars 2...or at best a Rock Paper Scissor game, where there are only 9 options rather than many options.

> > > > >

> > > > > Deleting players choince when it comes to stupid stuff that doenst make any kind of sense ? Ofc I want frequent balance patches and reworks that are pvp oriented , buffing right things that ends on builds based on skill .

> > > > >

> > > > > What you are asking for is counter warrs , my build counter yours so i win , then you swap build to counter my counter build so now i win . That makes cero sense , there isnt any fun or skill evolved.

> > > >

> > > > I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. "Just throw a broken build at the other broken build and the one who gets the counter matchup wins".

> > > >

> > > > Whether or not that happens comes down to how the devs design their game. Funny enough, if we keep going down this path of nerfing things with no end, we will eventually end up in counter wars. Take enough options away, and the game will devolve into counter wars, because options are what help give nuance to the situations we find ourselves in.

> > > >

> > > > To demonstrate this, imagine we go down the route you proposed earlier. You said:

> > > >

> > > > > The point is that weakness is what makes the class balanced , the rune is a completely bad design issue.

> > > >

> > > > You wanted rune of speed removed/nerfed because Necro is designed to be slow, have poor chase potential. It should be removed because a Necro that can mitigate or remove that weakness is imbalanced. Notice what happens if we continue to follow that logic.

> > > >

> > > > Reaper designed to be weak vs kiting >> Reaper is hard countered by classes that can kite it.

> > > >

> > > > Reaper runs speed rune >> Reaper no longer hard countered >> We remove/nerf speed rune >> Reaper hard countered again.

> > > >

> > > > We've gotten rid of an option that could've helped bring some nuance into the game.

> > > >

> > > > Lets say we keep speed rune.

> > > >

> > > > Reaper with speed rune has a chance to close the gap where it couldn't before, but the main way it gets swiftness is by entering shroud. You can exploit this to your advantage, saving your defensive cooldowns for that moment. They also do less damage in shroud than they would if they were running a dps rune, so not only are they using some of that shroud to close the gap, but they take more of that precious time to kill you once they're in range. The situation is still tough for them, but the reaper is at least in a position where they can kill you if they bait out your defenses.

> > > >

> > > > We've turned a hard counter into a soft counter.

> > > >

> > > > In summary, options like these are what help us **prevent** Counter Wars 2.

> > > >

> > >

> > > "countered by kiting" , dude "chase potential" means you can kill after you already won a fight , you dont get countered by not having "chase potential" , kalla renegade has cero chase potential and do u see it getting countered by "kiting" XD .

> > >

> > > I think you mean with "countered by kiting" cuz reaper cant chase someone in a 1v1 so they reengage or kill reaper from range . PvP is based on nodes , nodes are close instances where you cant abuse range and all nodes have zones where you can kite and break line of sight , If you win the node you win the fight. This is not WvW where a pew pew ranger or a death eye can just kill you from range by kiting away from you.

> > >

> > > Reaper has its own value , it is strong af in team fight and it kills bunkers faster than any other build. You are not high movile but you are not a turtle , you have wurm and shroud 2 that you still can use to move around the map . The point is high movile classes can move around the map faster than necro and get a kill , thats the value of a high movile class over a necromancer . Youre not stronger than a necro at team fight but your value is on movility. , thats a trade off . Reaper even when it is a very stronng team fighter class can still take 1v1 , whats the point? if they kill your wurm necro cant rly escape a outnumber situation , so thats why you take sidenoders , cuz a sidenoders are bad at team fight but they can duel on a node and survive a plus easier than necro . This is a general explanation , reaper can kite outnumber situations , is not a you get outnumber you get killed . it is more like a reaper will be more likely to dye outnumber.

> > >

> > > thats why team comp matters , when you build a team you take in mind what playstyle are u gonna play with , if you want a strong teamfight comp then you pick necro/support , you want to have both ur necro and support playing together. If you play with a more roamer comp agaisnt this comp you will want to play three nodes cuz supports are weak in mirror fights , 2v2ing can take too long , you get hard countered ? no , they will play with the idea of taking a kill around the map and snowball and you will play with the idea of making team fights , match will a matter of rotations .

> > >

> > >

> > > What i was refering with counter wars was that the guy wants to have a game with 2000 or 20 000 or even more viable builds , this is only possible if each build HARD COUNTER another build , So your build its viable cuz it counters not cuz it has a purpose in conquest .

> > >

> > >

> > > What you are asking its nerf all reaper builds in order balance a rune wich has cero sense . And again , the damage u lose on necro running speed runes isnt rly a trade off for a 66 speed bost .

> > >

> > > Rune of speed is not that broken , but it is disguisting than a reaper outnuns someone using ever single kiting skil , reaper has chill/cripple to get kills on ppl who is kiting , a chill on someone who has no condi clease means almost a kill .

> > >

> > > Take this as an example . Reaper is a high risk high reward build , but necros has no evade frames or blocks . this means without wurm a necro getting focused is dead. this means bad positioning or bad rotation ends u getitg killled . Do you wan this or you want necro to have evade frames or blocks? Good necros will use kiting spots or non port spots so classes like thief and revs can one shot them while doing tons on dmg on team fight , reaper has the tools to survive if played well . You want to reward this playstyle or just give reaper evade frames so it wont dye even if it stands on the middle of the node face tanking every aoe possible?

> >

> > I kinda see where you're going, but perhaps using Kalla ren wasn't the best example. Kiting in video games typically refers to the act of staying at a distance while using ranged attacks to wear down your foe, but it can also refer to the act of simply staying out of your opponent's threat range.

> >

> > Reaper gets countered by kiting because they deal the bulk of their damage in shroud. If you remain out of a reaper's threat range while they are in shroud, they lose a lot of their threat. Any class which can effectively do this will have the advantage against reaper. Any class that can do this and then immediately put on the pressure once they drop shroud (ranger) can easily kill it.

> >

> > Speed rune is an option that helps the reaper "chase" the ranger while in shroud so that they do not leave the reaper's threat range. Important to accomplish because as soon as they drop shroud they're vulnerable to counter pressure.

> >

> > Kalla ren does not get countered in the same way because it does the bulk of it's damage from range. It also does not need to play around a cooldown/resource-gated melee form to deal the bulk of its damage. Due to the way conquest works, it's 900(1200 on Jallis Pull) radius threat bubble is usually sufficient to keep a node held, even if enemies kite off. if they wan't to hang out in narnia, let them. You've got great resustain, and so long as you're both in combat in combat, you're generating energy.

> >

> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> >

> > Addressing your other point. Viable does not necessarily have to mean meta. It simply means playable. It's definition translates to "Capable of working, feasable". Given the sheer number of ways you can mix and match your traits, runes, utilities amulets, ect It would not be in the realm of absurdity for there to be a total of 2000 "viable" builds across all 9 classes.

> >

> > Changes like the 300 sec CD change, or the removal of amulets/runes, or changes which smiters boon options (or entire weapons) out of existence are what quickly start to dwindle those options creating a more stagnant meta.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Again , reaper has lot of tools to deal dmg pressure and land shroud, it is about skill , a bad reaper will be predictable af . Ranger is the worse counter of reaper .Ranger is useless at team fight . You dont want to put your reaper wich is a great class in team fight agaisnt a ranger . Thats a bad rotation and a missplay. You want your sidenodee to match ranger.

> .

>

> But even when ranger hardcounters reaper , on a game like gw2 reaper has still chances to win ranger for example forcing his cd and then nuking ranger with lich (this is what too reapers does). Alaso you dont need and dont dont want to duel a ranger , you will want your sidenoder to face ranger while you want are at team fight .

>

 

And others could (and have) used similar reasoning to what you've stated before to make the case that Lich should be nerfed.

 

"Reaper is **supposed** to do the bulk of its damage in melee. It shouldn't be able to take one utility and suddenly do more damage than a Sic Em Soulbeast at 1200 range. It's unhealthy and should be toned down."

 

What we're doing here is trying to pidgeon-hole reaper into only being good at a few things (teamfighting, melee dps) any time an option exists that lets them adapt outside of that, we say "Reaper wasn't meant to do that" and we rally to nerf or remove it.

 

Mentioning Lich instead of Speed Rune just pushes the issue back a step, but the issue still remains.

 

 

> You put reaper worse counter at 1v1 to justify a reapers buff , when reapers value isnt in 1v1. And even when reaper isnt suposed to 1v1 , it has good matchuns against somd sidenoders like holos or druids for example.

 

Never, at any point in my post, did I ask for a Reaper buff. I used your logic to demonstrate how removing Speed rune would push us closer towards Counter Wars 2, not further away. Attempting to pidgeon-hole reaper into being good/bad at certain things in all situations is what would make the game more counter heavy. Options like Speed rune help Reaper break out of the mold and adapt to the situation at hand.

 

I then went on to demonstrate how this doesn't break Reaper because the matchup remains in the ranger's favor.

 

> Ranger doenst push reaper out of meta because reaper has a very different value from ranger in conquest. If there is anything ranger could push out of meta would be a sidenoder , kalla renegade pushes ranger out of meta. Why? Cuz a mediocre kalla renegade can win top1 ranger. Core ranger only value is sidenoding taking 1v1 if there is a build that esily wins ranger 1v1 then it is useless. A top reaper has chances to win a top ranger if playing a good duel .

>

Of course not. However if ranger becomes the defacto best/most popular side noder, and no options exist which allow a skilled reaper to punish a ranger who is at least decent at their class, we've pushed it entirely out of the side node meta. Some might argue that's a good thing. Reaper should be good at teamfight only. I'm arguing that if a combination of Niche options existed that allowed the reaper to win the 1v1 vs ranger (**Even if these options came at the cost of making their teamfight worse!**)

that would be acceptable.

 

You've made the argument that that would not be acceptable.

 

 

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> What we're doing here is trying to pidgeon-hole reaper into only being good at a few things (teamfighting, melee dps) any time an option exists that lets them adapt outside of that, we say "Reaper wasn't meant to do that" and we rally to nerf or remove it.

>

> Mentioning Lich instead of Speed Rune just pushes the issue back a step, but the issue still remains.

 

To quote Sam Harris, "The buck never stops."

 

If it's not Rune of Speed, It's Lich Form. If it's not Lich Form, it'll be Axe weapon skills... If not Axe skills, it will be staff...then Spectral Walk, then Spectral Wurm... Anything that does not fit a singlar build design will be removed, and then the complaints will be "Can't ever win against thief or ranger (or literally any class that can walk)....plez nerf"

 

The buck will never stop with the nerf this mentality until we arrive at stick wars 2 and the death of the game....which arguably it's on right now.

 

 

 

 

[wevh.2903]

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > > > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > > > @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > > > > > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > > > > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > > > > > > > @"wevh.2903" said:

> > > > > > > > The team that made daredevil and all HoT spects where thinking forward esl pro league while PoF spects were made in order to do cool showy specializations .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Even if this were true, which i wouldn't be surprised if it is, it still is a strawman to the point about how this has nothing to do with diversity. Your argument is about balance. Your solution to solving balance is to eliminate player choice, which means no diversity.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You can balance a game with no diversity...that's what games like Chess, Minsweeper and Fortnite are designed towards...but in a game where things are not homogeneous like guild wars 2, what you are asking for is stick wars 2...or at best a Rock Paper Scissor game, where there are only 9 options rather than many options.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Deleting players choince when it comes to stupid stuff that doenst make any kind of sense ? Ofc I want frequent balance patches and reworks that are pvp oriented , buffing right things that ends on builds based on skill .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What you are asking for is counter warrs , my build counter yours so i win , then you swap build to counter my counter build so now i win . That makes cero sense , there isnt any fun or skill evolved.

> > > > >

> > > > > I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. "Just throw a broken build at the other broken build and the one who gets the counter matchup wins".

> > > > >

> > > > > Whether or not that happens comes down to how the devs design their game. Funny enough, if we keep going down this path of nerfing things with no end, we will eventually end up in counter wars. Take enough options away, and the game will devolve into counter wars, because options are what help give nuance to the situations we find ourselves in.

> > > > >

> > > > > To demonstrate this, imagine we go down the route you proposed earlier. You said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > The point is that weakness is what makes the class balanced , the rune is a completely bad design issue.

> > > > >

> > > > > You wanted rune of speed removed/nerfed because Necro is designed to be slow, have poor chase potential. It should be removed because a Necro that can mitigate or remove that weakness is imbalanced. Notice what happens if we continue to follow that logic.

> > > > >

> > > > > Reaper designed to be weak vs kiting >> Reaper is hard countered by classes that can kite it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Reaper runs speed rune >> Reaper no longer hard countered >> We remove/nerf speed rune >> Reaper hard countered again.

> > > > >

> > > > > We've gotten rid of an option that could've helped bring some nuance into the game.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lets say we keep speed rune.

> > > > >

> > > > > Reaper with speed rune has a chance to close the gap where it couldn't before, but the main way it gets swiftness is by entering shroud. You can exploit this to your advantage, saving your defensive cooldowns for that moment. They also do less damage in shroud than they would if they were running a dps rune, so not only are they using some of that shroud to close the gap, but they take more of that precious time to kill you once they're in range. The situation is still tough for them, but the reaper is at least in a position where they can kill you if they bait out your defenses.

> > > > >

> > > > > We've turned a hard counter into a soft counter.

> > > > >

> > > > > In summary, options like these are what help us **prevent** Counter Wars 2.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > "countered by kiting" , dude "chase potential" means you can kill after you already won a fight , you dont get countered by not having "chase potential" , kalla renegade has cero chase potential and do u see it getting countered by "kiting" XD .

> > > >

> > > > I think you mean with "countered by kiting" cuz reaper cant chase someone in a 1v1 so they reengage or kill reaper from range . PvP is based on nodes , nodes are close instances where you cant abuse range and all nodes have zones where you can kite and break line of sight , If you win the node you win the fight. This is not WvW where a pew pew ranger or a death eye can just kill you from range by kiting away from you.

> > > >

> > > > Reaper has its own value , it is strong af in team fight and it kills bunkers faster than any other build. You are not high movile but you are not a turtle , you have wurm and shroud 2 that you still can use to move around the map . The point is high movile classes can move around the map faster than necro and get a kill , thats the value of a high movile class over a necromancer . Youre not stronger than a necro at team fight but your value is on movility. , thats a trade off . Reaper even when it is a very stronng team fighter class can still take 1v1 , whats the point? if they kill your wurm necro cant rly escape a outnumber situation , so thats why you take sidenoders , cuz a sidenoders are bad at team fight but they can duel on a node and survive a plus easier than necro . This is a general explanation , reaper can kite outnumber situations , is not a you get outnumber you get killed . it is more like a reaper will be more likely to dye outnumber.

> > > >

> > > > thats why team comp matters , when you build a team you take in mind what playstyle are u gonna play with , if you want a strong teamfight comp then you pick necro/support , you want to have both ur necro and support playing together. If you play with a more roamer comp agaisnt this comp you will want to play three nodes cuz supports are weak in mirror fights , 2v2ing can take too long , you get hard countered ? no , they will play with the idea of taking a kill around the map and snowball and you will play with the idea of making team fights , match will a matter of rotations .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > What i was refering with counter wars was that the guy wants to have a game with 2000 or 20 000 or even more viable builds , this is only possible if each build HARD COUNTER another build , So your build its viable cuz it counters not cuz it has a purpose in conquest .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > What you are asking its nerf all reaper builds in order balance a rune wich has cero sense . And again , the damage u lose on necro running speed runes isnt rly a trade off for a 66 speed bost .

> > > >

> > > > Rune of speed is not that broken , but it is disguisting than a reaper outnuns someone using ever single kiting skil , reaper has chill/cripple to get kills on ppl who is kiting , a chill on someone who has no condi clease means almost a kill .

> > > >

> > > > Take this as an example . Reaper is a high risk high reward build , but necros has no evade frames or blocks . this means without wurm a necro getting focused is dead. this means bad positioning or bad rotation ends u getitg killled . Do you wan this or you want necro to have evade frames or blocks? Good necros will use kiting spots or non port spots so classes like thief and revs can one shot them while doing tons on dmg on team fight , reaper has the tools to survive if played well . You want to reward this playstyle or just give reaper evade frames so it wont dye even if it stands on the middle of the node face tanking every aoe possible?

> > >

> > > I kinda see where you're going, but perhaps using Kalla ren wasn't the best example. Kiting in video games typically refers to the act of staying at a distance while using ranged attacks to wear down your foe, but it can also refer to the act of simply staying out of your opponent's threat range.

> > >

> > > Reaper gets countered by kiting because they deal the bulk of their damage in shroud. If you remain out of a reaper's threat range while they are in shroud, they lose a lot of their threat. Any class which can effectively do this will have the advantage against reaper. Any class that can do this and then immediately put on the pressure once they drop shroud (ranger) can easily kill it.

> > >

> > > Speed rune is an option that helps the reaper "chase" the ranger while in shroud so that they do not leave the reaper's threat range. Important to accomplish because as soon as they drop shroud they're vulnerable to counter pressure.

> > >

> > > Kalla ren does not get countered in the same way because it does the bulk of it's damage from range. It also does not need to play around a cooldown/resource-gated melee form to deal the bulk of its damage. Due to the way conquest works, it's 900(1200 on Jallis Pull) radius threat bubble is usually sufficient to keep a node held, even if enemies kite off. if they wan't to hang out in narnia, let them. You've got great resustain, and so long as you're both in combat in combat, you're generating energy.

> > >

> > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> > >

> > > Addressing your other point. Viable does not necessarily have to mean meta. It simply means playable. It's definition translates to "Capable of working, feasable". Given the sheer number of ways you can mix and match your traits, runes, utilities amulets, ect It would not be in the realm of absurdity for there to be a total of 2000 "viable" builds across all 9 classes.

> > >

> > > Changes like the 300 sec CD change, or the removal of amulets/runes, or changes which smiters boon options (or entire weapons) out of existence are what quickly start to dwindle those options creating a more stagnant meta.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Again , reaper has lot of tools to deal dmg pressure and land shroud, it is about skill , a bad reaper will be predictable af . Ranger is the worse counter of reaper .Ranger is useless at team fight . You dont want to put your reaper wich is a great class in team fight agaisnt a ranger . Thats a bad rotation and a missplay. You want your sidenodee to match ranger.

> > .

> >

> > But even when ranger hardcounters reaper , on a game like gw2 reaper has still chances to win ranger for example forcing his cd and then nuking ranger with lich (this is what too reapers does). Alaso you dont need and dont dont want to duel a ranger , you will want your sidenoder to face ranger while you want are at team fight .

> >

>

> And others could (and have) used similar reasoning to what you've stated before to make the case that Lich should be nerfed.

>

> "Reaper is **supposed** to do the bulk of its damage in melee. It shouldn't be able to take one utility and suddenly do more damage than a Sic Em Soulbeast at 1200 range. It's unhealthy and should be toned down."

>

> What we're doing here is trying to pidgeon-hole reaper into only being good at a few things (teamfighting, melee dps) any time an option exists that lets them adapt outside of that, we say "Reaper wasn't meant to do that" and we rally to nerf or remove it.

>

> Mentioning Lich instead of Speed Rune just pushes the issue back a step, but the issue still remains.

>

>

> > You put reaper worse counter at 1v1 to justify a reapers buff , when reapers value isnt in 1v1. And even when reaper isnt suposed to 1v1 , it has good matchuns against somd sidenoders like holos or druids for example.

>

> Never, at any point in my post, did I ask for a Reaper buff. I used your logic to demonstrate how removing Speed rune would push us closer towards Counter Wars 2, not further away. Attempting to pidgeon-hole reaper into being good/bad at certain things in all situations is what would make the game more counter heavy. Options like Speed rune help Reaper break out of the mold and adapt to the situation at hand.

>

> I then went on to demonstrate how this doesn't break Reaper because the matchup remains in the ranger's favor.

>

> > Ranger doenst push reaper out of meta because reaper has a very different value from ranger in conquest. If there is anything ranger could push out of meta would be a sidenoder , kalla renegade pushes ranger out of meta. Why? Cuz a mediocre kalla renegade can win top1 ranger. Core ranger only value is sidenoding taking 1v1 if there is a build that esily wins ranger 1v1 then it is useless. A top reaper has chances to win a top ranger if playing a good duel .

> >

> Of course not. However if ranger becomes the defacto best/most popular side noder, and no options exist which allow a skilled reaper to punish a ranger who is at least decent at their class, we've pushed it entirely out of the side node meta. Some might argue that's a good thing. Reaper should be good at teamfight only. I'm arguing that if a combination of Niche options existed that allowed the reaper to win the 1v1 vs ranger (**Even if these options came at the cost of making their teamfight worse!**)

> that would be acceptable.

>

> You've made the argument that that would not be acceptable.

>

>

>

Reaper being good and bad in certain things is healthy , if reaper can do everything why would you pick a ranger , what is a good or a bad rotation if necro is good in all scenarios?

 

This is why nades holo is that broken. Cuz it can do everything .

 

Ranger doenst counter reaper , ranger counter warr , because warr stats makes it a ideal class for sidenoding .

[wevh.2903]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > What we're doing here is trying to pidgeon-hole reaper into only being good at a few things (teamfighting, melee dps) any time an option exists that lets them adapt outside of that, we say "Reaper wasn't meant to do that" and we rally to nerf or remove it.

> >

> > Mentioning Lich instead of Speed Rune just pushes the issue back a step, but the issue still remains.

>

> To quote Sam Harris, "The buck never stops."

>

> If it's not Rune of Speed, It's Lich Form. If it's not Lich Form, it'll be Axe weapon skills... If not Axe skills, it will be staff...then Spectral Walk, then Spectral Wurm... Anything that does not fit a singlar build design will be removed, and then the complaints will be "Can't ever win against thief or ranger (or literally any class that can walk)....plez nerf"

>

> The buck will never stop with the nerf this mentality until we arrive at stick wars 2 and the death of the game....which arguably it's on right now.

>

>

>

>

 

I never asked for perma nerfs , i ask for buffs that makes sense on a pvp scenario , speed rune doenst , you can rework lot of necros utility/skills .