Return old amulets

[Filip.7463]

Return amulets, runes and sigils that were removed in the past. This way we can make new builds...

[Virdo.1540]

Time for the Tormenting Rune!

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Virdo.1540" said:

> Time for the Tormenting Rune!

 

Yeah, remove it from wvw too. :D

[Shao.7236]

Variety isn't gonna change the lack of builds. Players are still gonna take the same traits with the same intends. Why pick anything else unless it makes the existing better?

 

Oh yeah, why bring back what has been proven to be broken on certain specs, but not others? Because we should nerf the certain specs? Forget that the others wouldn't even use it in the first place still if those specs were nerfed because "variety". Careful what you wish for.

 

The demand is useless, it's asking for useless features with the illusion of choice. We had tons of amulets before with tons of sigils and everything was still narrowed down regardless, better have it forcefully narrowed so that people explore options that can potentially work with most instead of having niches like the Busted Knight Ranger build, Trapper runes as of late have been another example of that. Niche uses that makes something particular broken in most cases rather than being a viable option "mostly" for everyone, those shouldn't even exist in PvP.

 

I can hear the elitists complaining at me that we might as well just have nothing at all and just classes themselves. I'll just repeat and you should look it up, illusion of choice. See what really matters in this game mode rather than thinking it's lackluster, you can have fun if you're not lacking the so call freewill you wish to have.

 

If you're not happy with PvP, you have WvW to do whatever you want. It's not like someone who hates not having the options to make builds would care to play conquest or XvX anyway.

[mes.4607]

Hell to the no

[ollbirtan.2915]

Yes, bring the runes back. But knowing anet, they will soon remove all runes and we will be left with sticks.

[Filip.7463]

If u check amu history, there was like one removed every patch...

[Avatar.3568]

I want my rock dog

[Falan.1839]

Current bunker builds with Cleric or Sentinel Amulet, now that would for sure be great content...

 

Please think before you post.

[Lucentfir.7430]

No remove more, we only need one rune and one amulet. There's enough variety with sigil choices and that's all you need :astonished:

[Filip.7463]

> @"Falan.1839" said:

> Current bunker builds with Cleric or Sentinel Amulet, now that would for sure be great content...

>

> Please think before you post.

 

Not all amus need to be returned, but barbarian and celestial were for sure not needed of removing from the game...

 

 

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

Should. It would be a good step towards making PvP somewhat fun to play again.

 

Can always tweak numbers on amulets if they feel problematic. Deletion should be the very last resort, but there's been an amulet or two removed with every major balance patch since feb 25th, and there wasn't all that many to choose from to begin with.

[RedAvenged.5217]

> @"Shao.7236" said:

> Variety isn't gonna change the lack of builds. Players are still gonna take the same traits with the same intends. Why pick anything else unless it makes the existing better?

>

> Oh yeah, why bring back what has been proven to be broken on certain specs, but not others? Because we should nerf the certain specs? Forget that the others wouldn't even use it in the first place still if those specs were nerfed because "variety". Careful what you wish for.

>

> The demand is useless, it's asking for useless features with the illusion of choice. We had tons of amulets before with tons of sigils and everything was still narrowed down regardless, better have it forcefully narrowed so that people explore options that can potentially work with most instead of having niches like the Busted Knight Ranger build, Trapper runes as of late have been another example of that. Niche uses that makes something particular broken in most cases rather than being a viable option "mostly" for everyone, those shouldn't even exist in PvP.

>

> I can hear the elitists complaining at me that we might as well just have nothing at all and just classes themselves. I'll just repeat and you should look it up, illusion of choice. See what really matters in this game mode rather than thinking it's lackluster, you can have fun if you're not lacking the so call freewill you wish to have.

>

> If you're not happy with PvP, you have WvW to do whatever you want. It's not like someone who hates not having the options to make builds would care to play conquest or XvX anyway.

 

Nothing that’s been patched out has ever been proven to be broken. Anet makes changes based on what direction they want the game to take and to claim otherwise is just silly. Saying it’s proof of anything is actually even worse than just silly, it’s a keen to some sort of socialist view to were anything that happens should be what keeps happening

[Shao.7236]

> @"RedAvenged.5217" said:

> > @"Shao.7236" said:

> > Variety isn't gonna change the lack of builds. Players are still gonna take the same traits with the same intends. Why pick anything else unless it makes the existing better?

> >

> > Oh yeah, why bring back what has been proven to be broken on certain specs, but not others? Because we should nerf the certain specs? Forget that the others wouldn't even use it in the first place still if those specs were nerfed because "variety". Careful what you wish for.

> >

> > The demand is useless, it's asking for useless features with the illusion of choice. We had tons of amulets before with tons of sigils and everything was still narrowed down regardless, better have it forcefully narrowed so that people explore options that can potentially work with most instead of having niches like the Busted Knight Ranger build, Trapper runes as of late have been another example of that. Niche uses that makes something particular broken in most cases rather than being a viable option "mostly" for everyone, those shouldn't even exist in PvP.

> >

> > I can hear the elitists complaining at me that we might as well just have nothing at all and just classes themselves. I'll just repeat and you should look it up, illusion of choice. See what really matters in this game mode rather than thinking it's lackluster, you can have fun if you're not lacking the so call freewill you wish to have.

> >

> > If you're not happy with PvP, you have WvW to do whatever you want. It's not like someone who hates not having the options to make builds would care to play conquest or XvX anyway.

>

> Nothing that’s been patched out has ever been proven to be broken. Anet makes changes based on what direction they want the game to take and to claim otherwise is just silly. Saying it’s proof of anything is actually even worse than just silly, it’s a keen to some sort of socialist view to were anything that happens should be what keeps happening

 

You can't be serious.

 

How is the problem not obvious to you? Or Anets vision for that matter.

 

Nobody used Knights and whatever would get factual benefits out of it was broken af, there's no reason to keep it around in that regard.

 

It would be extremely bad to nerf the class itself rather than removing the amulet that is niche and not used by anything else because breaking the class to garbage status entirely for one thing means everything else will also be garbage in the following for said class.

 

Comparably to your mention, you'll have to not only think with your vision of things but acquire the bigger scheme and make the better judgement out of it to improve your own, not that I know how "you" think but it's often not surprising that there is incredible bias around here. I will undoubtly agree that Anet doesn't always make the best decisions but they're not too often far off either.

[FrownyClown.8402]

They got rid of almost every amulet with toughness because support healing was too effective. The game would still work fine if support builds were heavily nerfed to uselessness

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @"FrownyClown.8402" said:

> They got rid of almost every amulet with toughness because support healing was too effective. The game would still work fine if **support builds were heavily nerfed to uselessness**

 

This, partially. Note the bold. "Support" in this game is often used as an interchange for "unkillable" rather than "This class/spec is only useful paired with a damage partner to keep it alive."

 

If a firebrand made, say, a warrior hard to kill and made both agents in that unit faster as long as they were close together, that would be much more fun to attempt to deal with than a firebrand setting up shop on a point and not downing unless three people are beating him up. The support needs to be either squishy, slow, or weak on its own with its survivability largely in the hands of the skill of the buffed player(s) for that dynamic to work properly though.

 

We approached that dynamic with some of the amulet removals and recent balancing, but it's still not there. Not to mention even if it was there I don't think that dynamic would be respected or understood. People usually just 1/2v1 a bunker on a point they control all day, then wonder why they lost the match. Supports as defined above would probably be treated similarly.

 

Nerfing bunkers through certain amulet removals was a good call, but there's still work to be done there.

[Megametzler.5729]

> @"RedAvenged.5217" said:

> (...) it’s a keen to some sort of socialist view to were anything that happens should be what keeps happening

 

Wait, how is that a socialist view in any way? Are you from the States? :lol:

[ollbirtan.2915]

> @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > @"FrownyClown.8402" said:

> > They got rid of almost every amulet with toughness because support healing was too effective. The game would still work fine if **support builds were heavily nerfed to uselessness**

>

> This, partially. Note the bold. "Support" in this game is often used as an interchange for "unkillable" rather than "This class/spec is only useful paired with a damage partner to keep it alive."

>

> If a firebrand made, say, a warrior hard to kill and made both agents in that unit faster as long as they were close together, that would be much more fun to attempt to deal with than a firebrand setting up shop on a point and not downing unless three people are beating him up. The support needs to be either squishy, slow, or weak on its own with its survivability largely in the hands of the skill of the buffed player(s) for that dynamic to work properly though.

>

> We approached that dynamic with some of the amulet removals and recent balancing, but it's still not there. Not to mention even if it was there I don't think that dynamic would be respected or understood. People usually just 1/2v1 a bunker on a point they control all day, then wonder why they lost the match. Supports as defined above would probably be treated similarly.

>

> Nerfing bunkers through certain amulet removals was a good call, but there's still work to be done there.

 

Firstly, FB has never been a bunker. And secondly, it was pretty much deleted from sPvP thanks to random nerfs. Your example is not doing any good to whatever argument you are trying to prove.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @"ollbirtan.2915" said:

> Firstly, FB has never been a bunker.

 

? This wasn't even a year ago.

 

https://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Firebrand_-_Mantra_Bunker

 

> And secondly, it was pretty much deleted from sPvP thanks to random nerfs.

 

Not random, but yes.

 

> Your example is not doing any good to whatever argument you are trying to prove.

 

My argument is "If amulets are causing builds that are geared to support of other players to be themselves unkillable. remove the amulets that enable those builds to be unkillable while you sort out what you want from your support spec. Also, there is a difference between support and bunker."

[Kuma.1503]

I'm not a fan of the amulet system to begin with. I'd much rather have a pool of stat points that I'm allowed to allocate however I wish

[Cynz.9437]

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> I'm not a fan of the amulet system to begin with. I'd much rather have a pool of stat points that I'm allowed to allocate however I wish

 

Then we would have condi meta because condis need really only 1 stat to work, rest can be invested into survival.

[Kuma.1503]

> @"Cynz.9437" said:

> > @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > I'm not a fan of the amulet system to begin with. I'd much rather have a pool of stat points that I'm allowed to allocate however I wish

>

> Then we would have condi meta because condis need really only 1 stat to work, rest can be invested into survival.

 

One way to help with that.

 

Sigil of cleansing cleanses 1 condition >>> reverted to 3 conditions

 

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > @"Cynz.9437" said:

> > > @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > > I'm not a fan of the amulet system to begin with. I'd much rather have a pool of stat points that I'm allowed to allocate however I wish

> >

> > Then we would have condi meta because condis need really only 1 stat to work, rest can be invested into survival.

>

> One way to help with that.

>

> Sigil of cleansing cleanses 1 condition >>> reverted to 3 conditions

>

 

I think this is just the beginning of a new cycle of "Condi is too effective" / "condi is less effective."

It is difficult enough to balance the game as it is because there are hundreds of build combinations with what we have now that allow people to occasionally perform well above what the class should be capable of. allowing people to divide up those builds even further with stat attribution so granular would make it impossible to have any structure.

 

Get the classes ironed out first. Examine how each of their traitlines allow them to perform when they are fully invested in, and make sure the upper limit of these traitlines is tolerable vs the majority of other classes. Then we can look into readding amulets and adding different amulet flavors.