On one side:"PvP is dead"..on another side:"We need more nerfs"

[Supreme.3164]

There is no best way to describe the current situation than using a **famous quote**


 

The more you nerf...the more the game stagnate because people will always gravitate toward the "least effort=biggest reward" gameplay , which will always exist in a game with 9 different professions and will continue to do so unless you "virtuall" remove all but a single profession and a single build or...change all professions to a carbon copy of the same profession to give people the illusion of choice ( I tend to believe that this is what people really want in the end).

 

The idea itself that you should have always a "fair" fight in a MMO is what has brought us here, the idea itself that a MMO should be treated like a PvP game...it's again: insane. **MMO are all about collaboration between professions/jobs to reach a common goal not for you to have a glorius 1v1**.

 

I blame Anet for not curbing this wrong ideology , Anet should have never allowed for this way of thinking to proliferate ...........

 

Anyway the game itself is already **unsalvageable** for a good part, the mentality of the playerbase cannot be changed and people will keep asking for nerfs until everything is a "fair fight" in their mind but...there won't be a game to play by that time..truly a shame, this game could have been so much more...but it's far too late for anything now

[Khalisto.5780]

6 -8 month and we'll have 9 broken builds for at least 6 month. Everybody will forget about 300 icd traits and the playerbase will grow again due to expansion and steam release.

 

It's one giant fucking bandaid, but it'll work for a while. I'm not even sure the game will get paat 10 years with some significant updates, so i don't think they are that worried.

[Bazsi.2734]

I must have ascended to the quantum level because I'm on both sides at once.

 

[Megametzler.5729]

> @"Supreme.3164" said:

> (...) **MMO are all about collaboration between professions/jobs to reach a common goal not for you to have a glorius 1v1**.

> (...)

 

When a build can fight 90% of the situations (teamfights, duels, +1 situations) and gets countered by a build which only wins these duels, is this really stone-paper-scissors?

 

[Supreme.3164]

> @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > @"Supreme.3164" said:

> > (...) **MMO are all about collaboration between professions/jobs to reach a common goal not for you to have a glorius 1v1**.

> > (...)

>

> When a build can fight 90% of the situations (teamfights, duels, +1 situations) and gets countered by a build which only wins these duels, is this really stone-paper-scissors?

>

 

Would have not been better in that case to add something new to the "duel only" class to bring something to teamfight while lowering the teamfight potential of the other at the same time?

 

-Most players would call it "powercreep" but...for me adding a teamfight utility or trait to the "duel only" class , sounds like "increased build diversity"

-It has always been absurd that people would consider normal that in a game with 9 different professions, you watch a tournament being played by "mirror builds" teams in a 5vs5 gamemode

 

Powercreep happens when you take something that it's already strong in its role and you make it stronger....**increasing build diversity is not powercreep**, when you have only one way to play your class...and it gets nerfed...you can't play the class anymore, can that really be called improvement?

 

 

[Megametzler.5729]

> @"Supreme.3164" said:

> > @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > > @"Supreme.3164" said:

> > > (...) **MMO are all about collaboration between professions/jobs to reach a common goal not for you to have a glorius 1v1**.

> > > (...)

> >

> > When a build can fight 90% of the situations (teamfights, duels, +1 situations) and gets countered by a build which only wins these duels, is this really stone-paper-scissors?

> >

>

> Would have not been better in that case to add something new to the "duel only" class to bring something to teamfight while lowering the teamfight potential of the other at the same time?

>

> -Most players would call it "powercreep" but...for me adding a teamfight utility or trait to the "duel only" class , sounds like "increased build diversity"

> -It has always been absurd that people would consider normal that in a game with 9 different professions, you watch a tournament being played by "mirror builds" teams in a 5vs5 gamemode

>

> Powercreep happens when you take something that it's already strong in its role and you make it stronger....**increasing build diversity is not powercreep**, when you have only one way to play your class...and it gets nerfed...you can't play the class anymore, can that really be called improvement?

>

>

 

I don't get your point. What is it you are angry about? What changes do you not like, what philosophy?

 

Nobody expects do be able to duel anything. but when there are builds good in almost any situation, that is somethign that needs addressing.

[Supreme.3164]

> @"Bazsi.2734" said:

> I must have ascended to the quantum level because I'm on both sides at once.

>

 

All parties are to be blamed for this chaos and most of all **I agree with your idea of professions have their own identity** but for most part this community refuses to accept these identities : if any MMO if I fight say..a ranger I would be expecting to be ranged to death..but here people are angry about the idea? If I fight an elemental mage I am expecting to be torched/electrocuted/blinded etc etc....but here people say no to that......If I fight a thief/assassin...yeah it's gonna be a tough/annoying fight...but here people whine about it?

 

This community is the first do not accept the identity of each class...asking for nerfs when this identity goes against their idea of "fairness"

 

[Supreme.3164]

> @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > @"Supreme.3164" said:

> > > @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > > > @"Supreme.3164" said:

> > > > (...) **MMO are all about collaboration between professions/jobs to reach a common goal not for you to have a glorius 1v1**.

> > > > (...)

> > >

> > > When a build can fight 90% of the situations (teamfights, duels, +1 situations) and gets countered by a build which only wins these duels, is this really stone-paper-scissors?

> > >

> >

> > Would have not been better in that case to add something new to the "duel only" class to bring something to teamfight while lowering the teamfight potential of the other at the same time?

> >

> > -Most players would call it "powercreep" but...for me adding a teamfight utility or trait to the "duel only" class , sounds like "increased build diversity"

> > -It has always been absurd that people would consider normal that in a game with 9 different professions, you watch a tournament being played by "mirror builds" teams in a 5vs5 gamemode

> >

> > Powercreep happens when you take something that it's already strong in its role and you make it stronger....**increasing build diversity is not powercreep**, when you have only one way to play your class...and it gets nerfed...you can't play the class anymore, can that really be called improvement?

> >

> >

>

> I don't get your point. What is it you are angry about? What changes do you not like, what philosophy?

>

> Nobody expects do be able to duel anything. but when there are builds good in almost any situation, that is somethign that needs addressing.

 

I am not trying to make any point out of anger.....I am trying to show another point of view to the "eternal" nerf debate.

 

Say you have this build "good" at everything ...

-what its main source of dmg?

-how does it survive during teamfights?

 

The community and the devs should be answering those questions first...**instead than blanket nerf that build** add something that **soft-counter** that build ( the keyword here is : soft- counter ), blanket nerf that spec...only to be replaced by another spec on another class doing exactly the same thing...what did you accomplish in the end?....nothing, you only made the game worst because :

 

1)You removed one class from the scene

2) Less diverse team compositions

3) Reduced playerbase

 

Yes..you nerf side node ele..it get replaced with bunker mesmer then you nerf mesmer...it get replaced with engi then you nerf it.....it get replaced by ranger...then war...then revenant...then necro etc etc etc

 

All this nerfing and **the game never shapes the way you'd want** ....but let's remember that I am not against nerfing, it is necessary to the wellbeing of a game but you need **buffing** alongside it to keep the game alive and thriving .

 

Answer this question for me : Is it better to watch a team with 3 revenant win a tournament or...watching a tournament with teams using all 9 different professions with imaginative tactics ?...Constant nerfing will only results in the first case ofc...

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

Power creeps both ways whether you're buffing, reworking, or adding something that's stronger than something else or nerfing and removing certain things that allow others to take their place in the meta. Either way; buffing or nerfing, the resulting meta just becomes the new thing for everyone to hate and complain about.

 

It's never going to be perfectly balanced or even remotely balanced just like any game with more than 1 option probably won't be either. Arenanet is going to try, because 90% of the threads on here and map chat is just: "X too op, pls nerf. Or X too nerf, pls buff" give or take a few mentions of kittens.

 

In the end they're probably going to try and please the masses too and if most people want things nerfed and/or removed, then we get what we ask for at the expense of content, fun, and build diversity.

 

Actually no, forget all that. As I was typing this I just got killed by a burn guard.

 

 

[Megametzler.5729]

> @"Supreme.3164" said:

> > @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > > @"Supreme.3164" said:

> > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > > > > @"Supreme.3164" said:

> > > > > (...) **MMO are all about collaboration between professions/jobs to reach a common goal not for you to have a glorius 1v1**.

> > > > > (...)

> > > >

> > > > When a build can fight 90% of the situations (teamfights, duels, +1 situations) and gets countered by a build which only wins these duels, is this really stone-paper-scissors?

> > > >

> > >

> > > Would have not been better in that case to add something new to the "duel only" class to bring something to teamfight while lowering the teamfight potential of the other at the same time?

> > >

> > > -Most players would call it "powercreep" but...for me adding a teamfight utility or trait to the "duel only" class , sounds like "increased build diversity"

> > > -It has always been absurd that people would consider normal that in a game with 9 different professions, you watch a tournament being played by "mirror builds" teams in a 5vs5 gamemode

> > >

> > > Powercreep happens when you take something that it's already strong in its role and you make it stronger....**increasing build diversity is not powercreep**, when you have only one way to play your class...and it gets nerfed...you can't play the class anymore, can that really be called improvement?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I don't get your point. What is it you are angry about? What changes do you not like, what philosophy?

> >

> > Nobody expects do be able to duel anything. but when there are builds good in almost any situation, that is somethign that needs addressing.

> (...)

> 1)You removed one class from the scene

> 2) Less diverse team compositions

> (...)

 

But that is not what is happening.

 

a) You nerf a build that is overperforming. Not too harshly, you adjust it by adding weaknesses, for example removing condi cleanses, reduce weakness spam, change AoE access. What happens is not you "remove a class" (if you do it properly). You adjust it to perform _comparable to all the other builds out there_. This way you actually increase build diversity, improve theory crafting and enable creativity.

 

b) You add a specific counter to this build. This weakens the ovrperforming build too, but you only add one build to the "viable" spectrum. All the other underperforming builds still do not work, because they are still way weaker than the initial overperforming build and might actually be coutnered by the new counter build as well. You barely increase build diversity, but you indeed reduce the strength of the initial build.

 

Option a) requires significantly more knowledge of the classes and more investment into tweaking. As an ele main myself I absolutely agree with you that Anet does not seem to know what has been wrong with for example fire Weaver. They nerfed all the wrong spots and made any sword build significantly worse instead of adjusting the defensive capabilities of the fire traitline.

 

However, they seemed to do a better spot with thief (don't hate me), bringing down the mobility comparable to other classes. Was it too much or too little? Debatable, but the mobility was a major problem and they addressed it.

 

So in general: I absolutely prefer option a) for build diversity. Introducing counters only enables these specific builds and barely more. The problem is knowledge and time invested these days, not the philosophy of nerfing overperforming builds.

 

 

[Jekkt.6045]

there's nothing bad about nerfs. nerfs are a way to reduce the performance of an overperforming build (in our case). you don't always have to nerf, but more often than not it's better to nerf something instead of buffing everything else (unless that's the goal).

 

the problem in gw2 isn't about numbers, it's about design. certain classes and elite specs are absolute monstrosities design wise and no nerf will ever change that. what anet does is they nerf the numbers of those builds, but the design remains as problematic as before. people will keep complaining until the numbers have been nerfed so much the build becomes unplayable. every destroyed build is less build diversity. bad design doesn't always mean a build is annoying/too strong, it can also mean it's so bad it will never get played. both is just as bad.

 

some examples:

burst conditions

mirage

the entirety of thief

druid and other aspects of ranger

holo

necro to a degree

renegade and possibly revenant as a whole

etc.

 

so how can anet fix that?

first step: don't design specs/classes like that...

second step: redesign the spec/class, don't obliterate it numerically...

 

our balance dev can't redesign stuff so he can only juggle numbers. he will shave some stuff and hope it gets better, if not, after a certain threshold of nerfs the build will become unviable.

 

we need a pvp designer. we need a complete pvp split for everything, including skill effects and traits. i hate pve in this game but i'm sure there are many people who love it. it would be wrong destroying pve builds for the sake of pvp and vice versa, that's why we need a complete split.

 

furthermore, people wouldn't always flock to the "next best build" if builds were different enough. but in essence they all do the same. if side noder A gets nerfed, side noder B is the top dog. why? because they are interchangeable, only numbers matter. if side noder A had a unique strength and side noder B had its own you wouldn't have this problem. you would simply pick the one with the best synergy for your comp, even if the other one would be better in a vacuum.

[Ovark.2514]

I play for glorious 1v1s because that feels the most fair and fun to me. On a unrelated note, Albert Einstein never said what you are quoting him as saying. It's just popular misinformation because it SOUNDS like something intellectual.

[Kuma.1503]

Nerfs aren't always a bad thing. However, I dislike **how** Anet does nerfs.

 

Firsts there are nerfs that are done with no regard for the design for the thing they're trying to tone down. Anet does these to bring down the power of something, but the nerfs are completely counterproductive to what that thing is trying to accomplish.

 

Example:

 

Scrapper is a tanky bruiser spec. As a nerf ("tradeoff") they recieve -vitality. You can argue they make up for this with barrier, but this still leaves the spec squishier than it should be when it has nothing to hit. In spite of its barrier, scrapper still struggles to match the durability of holo, because **Holo can run shield** and it has Heat therapy.

 

Executioner's Scythe is an **execute**. It does more damage when the target is low on health. After the CC damage nerfs it now crits for a whipping 25 against a low health target. Nice "execute".

 

Mirage is meant to be an evasive specialization, utilizing ambushes to increase it's damage output. It's trade off... it has fewer evades than core. It also cannot afford to use it's only evade for ambushes because, after many nerfs to the ambushes themselves, it's simply not worth it. Mirage even gave up on running IH.

 

Next there are the infamous Smiter's Boon nerfs. When you obliterate something to the point of being unplayable.

 

Engineer turrets have been sitting in this realm for years. You get more value out of instantly detonating them then you get out placing them in strategic locations.

 

Acrobatics still has **multiple** 300 CD traits. Why haven't they done something about these yet?

 

Finally there are there are nerfs which serve no purpose other than to cycle the meta.

 

It's not entirely bad to balance like this, but you **must** levy out buffs to underperformers as well, otherwise, you will gradually fall into power dip. Anet has been dishing out almost exclusively nerfs to things that work while ignoring things that have been underperforming for ages.

 

Moral of the story, Anet does their nerfs very poorly in most cases. I'd rather we put an end to it rather than continue to encourage poor balance decisions.

 

 

[UNOwen.7132]

The issue is were already in major powerdip. Everything is too weak. We need buffs right now, not more nerfs.

 

[suialthor.7164]

> @"Supreme.3164" said:

>

> The more you nerf...the more the game stagnate because people will always gravitate toward the "least effort=biggest reward" gameplay , which will always exist in a game with 9 different professions and will continue to do so unless you "virtuall" remove all but a single profession and a single build or...change all professions to a carbon copy of the same profession to give people the illusion of choice ( I tend to believe that this is what people really want in the end).

>

> The idea itself that you should have always a "fair" fight in a MMO is what has brought us here, the idea itself that a MMO should be treated like a PvP game...it's again: insane. **MMO are all about collaboration between professions/jobs to reach a common goal not for you to have a glorius 1v1**.

>

> I blame Anet for not curbing this wrong ideology , Anet should have never allowed for this way of thinking to proliferate ...........

>

> Anyway the game itself is already **unsalvageable** for a good part, the mentality of the playerbase cannot be changed and people will keep asking for nerfs until everything is a "fair fight" in their mind but...there won't be a game to play by that time..truly a shame, this game could have been so much more...but it's far too late for anything now

 

People gravitate to a few builds because they are the most efficient. Then how do you encourage variety without using nerfs/buffs? The only other major factors is number of players and the map objectives.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gogdarth.6741]

It's simple, we need actual work put into balance patches - I'm talking full-on skill reworks and trait improvements, not number tweaking to see what sticks and what doesn't for years. Aim to bring diversity within classes, and you'll create diversity within the entire gamemode - you'll see more different builds if each class would have at least 2 viable PvP builds to run. Not to mention that we're still sitting on 300cd traits, outdated both visually and mechanically core skills (on some of those, being almost a decade old _shows_ compared to newer ones), bad weaponsets and entire specs being just bad.

 

I'm willing to accept that this nerf fiesta where everything got boring was "laying groundwork" if it is followed by mentioned above. If not, we'll never see the gamemode thriving - except maybe on EoD release for few months, if we're lucky.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"suialthor.7164" said:

> People gravitate to a few builds because they are the most efficient. Then how do you encourage variety without using nerfs/buffs? The only other major factors is number of players and the map objectives.

 

It's intuitive to think of it this way, but it's not true.

 

There is a way to increase variety and differentiation, without introducing nerfs and buffs, because the truth is that numerical nerfs and buffs in an attempt to make skills equal like the OP mentions, actually brings the game closer and closer to a homogenous game. I went and showed some proof that this is the case by just running through a logic experiment:

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

 

Aside from the above, you should read through Kuma's entire thread cause what I will say now is fully explained over there:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1376183#Comment_1376183

 

Basically, variety, or the level of differentiation is a consequence of how good things are able to accomplish goals, and how many ways a single goal is accomplished is the measure for how much variance there is.

 

So the question you should ask here, is then how do you make changes, so that players can accomplish the same goals, and have higher and higher number of different ways to achieve those goals? the answer is...and I think people are sick of hearing me say this...but it's from understanding how complexity theory can show us how to answer that question.

 

Long story short (because the story is indeed very long), the answer is to just make choices more meaningful. More meaningful means a variety of things, but even that basically breaks down into doing reworks of the abilities and systems in the game to give everything more meaning...and in particular more meaningful interactions with other skills.

 

[suialthor.7164]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> More meaningful means a variety of things, but even that basically breaks down into doing reworks of the abilities and systems in the game to give everything more meaning...and in particular more meaningful interactions with other skills.

>

 

How does reworking abilities not result in nerfs/buffs for classes? If all you do is give more complexity you are still buffing many builds.

[Jekkt.6045]

> @"suialthor.7164" said:

> > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > More meaningful means a variety of things, but even that basically breaks down into doing reworks of the abilities and systems in the game to give everything more meaning...and in particular more meaningful interactions with other skills.

> >

>

> How does reworking abilities not result in nerfs/buffs for classes? If all you do is give more complexity you are still buffing many builds.

 

reworking stuff does result in nerfs/buffs but not in the same way as if you would directly nerf or buff them. something different can be better or worse than what it used to be, that is undeniable.

 

more complexity is a buff too, even if the skill keeps the same power level. more complexity more often than not means more ways to use something, therefore you have more choices to make which automatically makes it better than a skill that is bland and has only one use.

 

but is that bad?

 

we have many bloated skills currently that do too much and don't require big brain plays to get maximum value. the goal should be skills that do multiple things under different circumstances, making them strong when used correctly instead of just... making them strong.

[Axl.8924]

> @"suialthor.7164" said:

> > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > More meaningful means a variety of things, but even that basically breaks down into doing reworks of the abilities and systems in the game to give everything more meaning...and in particular more meaningful interactions with other skills.

> >

>

> How does reworking abilities not result in nerfs/buffs for classes? If all you do is give more complexity you are still buffing many builds.

 

Some stuff needs reworked like scourge maybe mirage stealth for thieves maybe even some abilities that chronomancer since in the past shatters and clones were problematic. jekkt is right about that plus then they could hopefully buff the class/elite spec in question to that its functional with the new changes

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Jekkt.6045" said:

> > @"suialthor.7164" said:

> > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > > More meaningful means a variety of things, but even that basically breaks down into doing reworks of the abilities and systems in the game to give everything more meaning...and in particular more meaningful interactions with other skills.

> > >

> >

> > How does reworking abilities not result in nerfs/buffs for classes? If all you do is give more complexity you are still buffing many builds.

>

> reworking stuff does result in nerfs/buffs but not in the same way as if you would directly nerf or buff them. something different can be better or worse than what it used to be, that is undeniable.

>

> more complexity is a buff too, even if the skill keeps the same power level. more complexity more often than not means more ways to use something, therefore you have more choices to make which automatically makes it better than a skill that is bland and has only one use.

>

> but is that bad?

>

> we have many bloated skills currently that do too much and don't require big brain plays to get maximum value. the goal should be skills that do multiple things under different circumstances, making them strong when used correctly instead of just... making them strong.

 

right exactly. @"suialthor.7164" There's a lot of nuance to it all that it's almost akin to an artform...it's one of those things that requires tact in order to get right, because its the design of the thing that decides how meaningful it's going to be in the broader scope of the game. Looking at the binary option of a computer where it's just 0 and 1 creates a syntax, and this leads to endless...endless possible things and that designing that simplicity is itself the artform. You can have a skill that does something but the extent to which that skill can be used could be massively rich...it all depends on the design of it.

 

On the same end you could have an extremely bloated skill that does 20 non-consequential things and still be basically useless because it can't accomplish a certain goal.

 

This above is just one example of that nuance. The other like Jekkt mentions is that idea of trade-offs...or lack there of that leads to skill bloat. Trade-offs are also a delicate subject because the ones we have no in game currently aren't actual functioning or meaningful tradeoffs. Me and Jekkt speak about this in the thread linked there, but it should become apparent why the tradeoff's we have now don't serve a real purpose, since they either make classes completely irrelevant or have no consequence at all.

 

 

 

[ugrakarma.9416]

> @"Supreme.3164" said:

> The idea itself that you should have always a "fair" fight in a MMO is what has brought us here, the idea itself that a MMO should be treated like a PvP game...it's again: insane. **MMO are all about collaboration between professions/jobs to reach a common goal not for you to have a glorius 1v1**.

 

I warned you about this many years ago.

[suialthor.7164]

> @"Jekkt.6045" said:

>

> reworking stuff does result in nerfs/buffs but not in the same way as if you would directly nerf or buff them. something different can be better or worse than what it used to be, that is undeniable.

>

> more complexity is a buff too, even if the skill keeps the same power level. more complexity more often than not means more ways to use something, therefore you have more choices to make which automatically makes it better than a skill that is bland and has only one use.

>

> but is that bad?

>

> we have many bloated skills currently that do too much and don't require big brain plays to get maximum value. the goal should be skills that do multiple things under different circumstances, making them strong when used correctly instead of just... making them strong.

 

I think there might be a disconnect between what people mean when they say nerf/buff. Some view it as only tweaking existing numbers. Others view it as also including abilities/skills/complexity etc.. When talking about abilities/skills it will indirectly impacts other classes and builds. Sure it is complicated but the end result, as you mentioned, is still nerfs/buffs. I belong in the second group but don't see the point in calling it something else.

 

While talking about all this complexity and different circumstances then why is no one addressing map design? There is a reason builds in WvW and PvP are different. What works in one doesn't always work in the other due to different map objectives and team sizes.

[Jekkt.6045]

> @"suialthor.7164" said:

> While talking about all this complexity and different circumstances then why is no one addressing map design? There is a reason builds in WvW and PvP are different. What works in one doesn't always work in the other due to different map objectives and team sizes.

 

It's less about map design and more about game mode. The only map where customized builds were ever relevant was old skyhammer (and old spirit watch.. but eh..) where fear necro, hammer guard, focus mesmer and wire thief were played. You could argue about thief/mes in old times where they were almost mandatory on khylo and temple. Or sword for bunker guard on khylo. These days it really doesn't matter anymore. Djinn's is probably the worst thief map in the game but nobody cares anyway.

 

I'm not aware of what is meta in wvw, but don't forget, wvw balance is different and they have runes/foods/sigils/stats that are not available in pvp.

 

I've been playing stronghold for the past couple of days and i can confidently tell you stuff that's good in conquest isn't necessarily good in stronghold (and vice versa). Turns out, standing on a node 90% of the game is quite build limiting.

[MrForz.1953]

> @"Supreme.3164" said:

> There is no best way to describe the current situation than using a **famous quote**

 

First. Not only Einstein never said this, but the man probably was too smart to describe insanity in such a crude manner scope wise.

 

Second. There's a difference between repeating the same thing and missing the mark when adjusting, most of people requesting nerfs, legitimate or not, don't get what they were seeking most of the time and don't get to make conclusions from the results of their suggestions because those rarely, if never, take form. They request shovels to dig something, they're mostly given hammers like once a year, then you come out of the bush to point out how more shovels won't solve the situation while they still struggle to dig with their hammers.

 

Of course there will be stronger specs and best builds but if the performance difference between builds of roughly the same purpose with different specs/classes could be like 20% instead of 50% it will already be excellent.