PvP Fights Now Be Like:

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Since you like algebra, here you go:

> >

> > Guardian = Warrior + 1

> > ->

> > Guardian + 1 = Warrior + 2

> >

> > Adding +1 to both sides results in no change to the relative strength of guard and warrior.

> >

> > Guardian = Warrior + 1

> > ->

> > Guardian = Warrior

> >

> > To make guardian=warrior, we have to add +1 only to the right hand side, (or -1 to the left and shift if across). Which, of course, is not something you can do in an equation.

> >

> > However, GW2 is not an equation. It is perfectly within the devs power to +1 to warrior without also +1 to guardian.

>

> Idk if you are trolling or serious right now. But like I thought, I think you're just not ready to have a conversation about how diversity and balance in systems and games like gw2 actually work. I mean you don't even understand the significance of the equal sign or why you can't just willy nilly use it for everything because you think you can.

>

> Listen to what I'm bout to say very carefully. You have an apple, and an orange.**..just because you put an EQUAL SIGN between them does not make the apple and the orange the same.** Do you understand that concept? Go read up on chaos theory and understand why perfectly equal ordered systems don't exist in reality. Everything is different and nonlinear down to the very atoms or bits of data they are made of. This is true in all systems, even perfectly linear ones, in both reality and in computer games...it doesn't matter....why? Because it's a feature of mathematics...not science.

>

> In simple terms, your algebra is complete nonsense, because Warrior does not equal guardian...am I being clear enough?

 

The notation of "warrior" and "guardian" there is obviously representative of their strength.

 

Oranges and apples are bought and sold with currency. If both are valued at 1$ I can write an equation that states Apple = Orange, where those terms are representations of their values. It is obviously not meant to imply that an apple is actually the same thing as an orange. I thought you were smarter than this?

 

You're the one that invoked algebra. Now you're saying it's not possible to employ it in this scenario. Make up your mind.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> We aren't in a bunker meta. People will still get deleted in the blink of an eye if they're not paying attention. This whole thing you're arguing about is entirely in your imagination. Incase you didn't notice, it wasn't just damage which got nerfed, sustain did too in the form of healing-values, stunbreak CDs, block/evade CDs, boon durations, cleanses etc.

 

^ He's right on this you know.

 

Go play in some higher tiered environments like MAT or just even normal ATs. People still explode when +'d. There is plenty of damage.

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise must largely be playing only in ranked or unranked, where there is this skew of plat to gold to silver on each team. When you have skews like this, of course the bulk of the guys attacking you aren't understanding how to execute their damage correctly. However, pushing heals and dodge rolling around is a lot easier to do for those tiers. <- This is why people think things are bunkery right now. But I'm telling you, in higher tiered environments, people know how to bait defensive cycles before bursting and they know how to combo team bursting, and things explode still.

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> The notation of "warrior" and "guardian" there is obviously representative of their strength.

>

> Oranges and apples are bought and sold with currency. If both are valued at 1$ I can write an equation that states Apple = Orange, where those terms are representations of their values. It is obviously not meant to imply that an apple is actually the same thing as an orange. I thought you were smarter than this?

>

> You're the one that invoked algebra. Now you're saying it's not possible to employ it in this scenario. Make up your mind.

 

We are just getting started, don't worry.

 

You've taken your first step. In order to define one thing to be equal to another, you define that equality with a common metric, in the case of the apple and the orange, it's monetary value. But now, you know that the apple and the orange even though they have one metric that is equal, you know they still aren't the same right... Do they have the same weight? The same shape? The same color? The same composition? The same malleability? The same mass? The same Buoyancy?

 

To define the equality of two objects, you further and further evaluate it for an infinite number of metrics, which you will eventually find that the two objects are never and can never be equal. This is because if they were, the two objects would have to be in the same exact quantum states, which by no-cloning theorem is impossible to have. This is why the apple will NEVER be equal to the orange, because down to their very atoms they can never occupy the same quantum state. This is the hallmark of why chaos theory exists. Any small difference between elements in a system, even if it's a deterministic system, cause the system to become chaotic and unpredictable to due those said infinitesimally small differences between each element. In addition, even if many of those metrics are equal, their equality further determines that the two objects become closer and closer to being the same object. If they are both red, both made of carbon, with the same mass, have the same buoyancy, and shape...the description of the objects converge to being the same object.

 

Therefor, apples and oranges are never the same, and the equal sign is an approximation based on the number of metrics used to define that equality.

 

In the case of Warrior equals Guardian, this is the exact reason why the two classes aren't equal, and in fact are inherently different. You simply can not say that Warrior equals Guardian because it's simply not true, and when you do say Warrior equals Guardian, you are using in your case just a single metric to define that, which is like again saying that the apple is equal to the orange. If you wanted to say the two are the same, then you have to go down skill by skill, metric by metricto see if both are equal to make such a determination. If every metric is equal, then the guardian is infinitely non-different then the warrior, where the two are no longer considered to even be different classes...again because if all metrics define that they are equal, means they are descriptions of the same object.

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > The notation of "warrior" and "guardian" there is obviously representative of their strength.

> >

> > Oranges and apples are bought and sold with currency. If both are valued at 1$ I can write an equation that states Apple = Orange, where those terms are representations of their values. It is obviously not meant to imply that an apple is actually the same thing as an orange. I thought you were smarter than this?

> >

> > You're the one that invoked algebra. Now you're saying it's not possible to employ it in this scenario. Make up your mind.

>

> We are just getting started, don't worry.

>

> You've taken your first step. In order to define one thing to be equal to another, you define that equality with a common metric, in the case of the apple and the orange, it's monetary value. But now, you know that the apple and the orange even though they have one metric that is equal, you know they still aren't the same right... Do they have the same weight? The same shape? The same color? The same composition? The same malleability? The same mass? The same Buoyancy?

>

> To define the equality of two objects, you further and further evaluate it for an infinite number of metrics, which you will eventually find that the two objects are never and can never be equal. This is because if they were, the two objects would have to be in the same exact quantum states, which by no-cloning theorem is impossible to have. This is why the apple will NEVER be equal to the orange, because down to their very atoms they can never occupy the same quantum state. This is the hallmark of why chaos theory exists. Any small difference between elements in a system, even if it's a deterministic system, cause the system to become chaotic and unpredictable to due those said infinitesimally small differences between each element. In addition, even if many of those metrics are equal, their equality further determines that the two objects become closer and closer to being the same object. If they are both red, both made of carbon, with the same mass, have the same buoyancy, and shape...the description of the objects converge to being the same object.

>

> Therefor, apples and oranges are never the same, and the equal sign is an approximation based on the number of metrics used to define that equality.

>

> In the case of Warrior equals Guardian, this is the exact reason why the two classes aren't equal, and in fact are inherently different. You simply can not say that Warrior equals Guardian because it's simply not true, and when you do say Warrior equals Guardian, you are using in your case just a single metric to define that, which is like again saying that the apple is equal to the orange. If you wanted to say the two are the same, then you have to go down skill by skill, metric by metricto see if both are equal to make such a determination. If every metric is equal, then the guardian is infinitely non-different then the warrior, where the two are no longer considered to even be different classes...again because if all metrics define that they are equal, means they are descriptions of the same object.

 

By this logic, no 2 warrior builds are the same, since they're equipped at different times by different users in different locations etc etc. Even if they select the exact same traits, equipment, utilities, they're still not equal to each other.

 

Now, I ask, is it really useful to go to this level of detail, or can we grow up a bit and use a sensible approximation? Newtonian physics is a suitable approximation for day-to-day usage. I don't need to evaluate the exact quantum state of every particle in the universe to make a statement on GW2 PvP balance.

 

This whole conversation is like Einstein trying to get out of a speeding-ticket by arguing with the policeman that he wasn't reeeaaally going over the limit, it just looked like that because of frames of reference, time dilation, and are you even qualified to define speed? Do you know who I am?. Mate, you were speeding. Your doctorate and years of research aren't relevant.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> By this logic, no 2 warrior builds are the same, since they're equipped at different times by different users in different locations etc etc. Even if they select the exact same traits, equipment, utilities, they're still not equal to each other.

>

There you go! Now your catching on. Even in a perfectly balanced, completely deterministic game of stick wars 2, because agents exist in a world governed by real world physics, you can NEVER have a perfectly balanced game there will always be near infinite amount of variables and metrics that you can not evaluate, like player skill. This is why it is important to understand why you can't just insert an equal sign willy nilly into whatever equation you want to create, especially in complex systems and games like gw2.

 

> Now, I ask, is it really useful to go to this level of detail, or can we grow up a bit and use a sensible approximation? Newtonian physics is a suitable approximation for day-to-day usage. I don't need to define the exact quantum state of every particle in the universe to make a statement on GW2 PvP balance.

 

I mentioned this earlier but DPS Benchmarks is the metric Anet and other game companies use to determine balance between classes that are different to one another. It is merely an approximation based on repeated observation and experiment, much like the real world.

 

So now when you talk "sensible" you have to define your metric. You want Warrior to equal Guardian but by what metrics? By their DPS benchmark on a golem? By their performance in AT's? By their individual skills and their coefficients...There are an infinite number of metrics you can attempt to define the equality between the elements in a system, and it doesn't stop at the level of classes...it goes down to skills and their mechanics...

 

How do you evaluate the equality between Thief dagger autoattack and Elementalist staff autoattack? How do you evaluate the equality between Stability and Immobilize? The truth is that it is non-sensible to attempt to equalize things based on metrics at all. Such mechanics are so estranged that they can't be compared in any truly meaningful way, and therefor changes in the coefficients or whatever other numerical changes in an attempt to make them equal actually becomes non-sensible.

 

 

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > By this logic, no 2 warrior builds are the same, since they're equipped at different times by different users in different locations etc etc. Even if they select the exact same traits, equipment, utilities, they're still not equal to each other.

> >

> There you go! Now your catching on. Even in a perfectly balanced, completely deterministic game of stick wars 2, because agents exist in a world governed by real world physics, you can NEVER have a perfectly balanced game there will always be near infinite amount of variables and metrics that you can not evaluate, like player skill. This is why it is important to understand why you can't just insert an equal sign willy nilly into whatever equation you want to create, especially in complex systems and games like gw2.

>

> > Now, I ask, is it really useful to go to this level of detail, or can we grow up a bit and use a sensible approximation? Newtonian physics is a suitable approximation for day-to-day usage. I don't need to define the exact quantum state of every particle in the universe to make a statement on GW2 PvP balance.

>

> I mentioned this earlier but DPS Benchmarks is the metric Anet and other game companies use to determine balance between classes that are different to one another. It is merely an approximation based on repeated observation and experiment, much like the real world.

>

> So now when you talk "sensible" you have to define your metric. You want Warrior to equal Guardian but by what metrics? By their DPS benchmark on a golem? By their performance in AT's? By their individual skills and their coefficients...There are an infinite number of metrics you can attempt to define the equality between the elements in a system, and it doesn't stop at the level of classes...it goes down to skills and their mechanics...

>

> How do you evaluate the equality between Thief dagger autoattack and Elementalist staff autoattack? How do you evaluate the equality between Stability and Immobilize? The truth is that it is non-sensible to attempt to equalize things based on metrics at all. Such mechanics are so estranged that they can't be compared in any truly meaningful way, and therefor changes in the coefficients or whatever other numerical changes in an attempt to make them equal actually becomes non-sensible.

>

>

 

No, I can put an equals sign between guardian and warrior, if I'm defining my metrics and stating what is being approximated and what is not. Just as I can say that Apple = Orange, if I qualify that the metric is monetary value.

 

And no, we don't need to go to the level of each individual skills, down to every minute detail. We can take a black-box approach and simply observe the resultant performance in games, leaderboards, tournaments. This approach, incidentally, has the added bonus of also covering several other factors which are not directly part of the builds themselves, such as how players approach playing them, how they interact with maps, objectives, etc.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> No, I can put an equals sign between guardian and warrior, if I'm defining my metrics and stating what is being approximated and what is not. Just as I can say that Apple = Orange, if I qualify that the metric is monetary value.

 

And that's how approximate your evaluation will be...it's monetary value and nothing more, if you come to me selling me an apple when i ask for an orange, I'm gonna look at you funny. Say if you were to use DPS Benchmarks as your metric for equality in SPVP I wonder how far that will actually get you...well A-net kind of already did this once upon a time so we can "see" what the consequence of using such broad metrics actually do to the game.

 

>We can take a black-box approach and simply observe the resultant performance in games, leaderboards, tournaments. This approach, incidentally, has the added bonus of also covering several other factors which are not directly part of the builds themselves, such has how players approach playing them, how they interact with maps, objectives, etc.

 

CMC 'probably' uses performance in AT's as a metric for his balancing in SPVP...that's gotten us pretty far this past year hasn't it...If you think that this is the best balance in the history of every game ever because of his usage of this godlike metric then...okay whatever that's your opinion if you think this is remotely a healthy state of the game.

 

> And no, we don't need to go to the level of each individual skills, down to every minute detail.

 

This is what I basically said. It's non-sensible to try to balance every metric of every skill into equality because it leads to the inevitable conclusion I've said many time before now, that a perfectly balanced game is the heat death of player choice in a game like gw2 which survives at it's core, on player choice. Balancing using broad. mediocre metrics like AT performance is at best, throwing darts at a dart board, especially when the only changes that can be made are numerical ones, which are by proxy of the already mentioned concepts are meaningless to the balance of the system as a whole.

 

 

 

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > No, I can put an equals sign between guardian and warrior, if I'm defining my metrics and stating what is being approximated and what is not. Just as I can say that Apple = Orange, if I qualify that the metric is monetary value.

>

> And that's how approximate your evaluation will be...it's monetary value and nothing more, if you come to me selling me an apple when i ask for an orange, I'm gonna look at you funny. Say if you were to use DPS Benchmarks as your metric for equality in SPVP I wonder how far that will actually get you...well A-net kind of already did this once upon a time so we can "see" what the consequence of using such broad metrics actually do to the game.

>

> >We can take a black-box approach and simply observe the resultant performance in games, leaderboards, tournaments. This approach, incidentally, has the added bonus of also covering several other factors which are not directly part of the builds themselves, such has how players approach playing them, how they interact with maps, objectives, etc.

>

> CMC 'probably' uses performance in AT's as a metric for his balancing in SPVP...that's gotten us pretty far this past year hasn't it...If you think that this is the best balance in the history of every game ever because of his usage of this godlike metric then...okay whatever that's your opinion if you think this is remotely a healthy state of the game.

>

> > And no, we don't need to go to the level of each individual skills, down to every minute detail.

>

> This is what I basically said. It's non-sensible to try to balance every metric of every skill into equality because it leads to the inevitable conclusion I've said many time before now, that a perfectly balanced game is the heat death of player choice in a game like gw2 which survives at it's core, on player choice. Balancing using broad. mediocre metrics like AT performance is at best, throwing darts at a dart board, especially when the only changes that can be made are numerical ones, which are by proxy of the already mentioned concepts are meaningless to the balance of the system as a whole.

>

>

>

 

Yeah, and if you come to me for an apple, and I present you an apple, and you say "but it doesn't have the exact same quantum state as the apple I meant" I'm going to tell you to get lost.

 

And I never suggested that the current state of balance was perfect. Merely that it is possible to reach a state that is functionally balanced "enough" for us to be happy with.

 

Your contention is that if a given build is even 0.001% more efficient than the rest, then everyone will play that build, and thus balance is impossible. I disagree, and all the evidence I need is to point at the playerbase. I would suggest that if all builds are within ~5% strength of each other, then that is sufficient for practical purposes, and that the outstanding 5% difference will be negated by differences in player preference, skill, maps and objectives, team compositions, etc.

 

Let's say that revenant has a strength-rating of 100, and guardian has a strength rating of 90. So I should play revenant right? But that assumes that I can play both of them at maximum efficiency. If I personally can play guardian at 95% efficiency, and revenant only at 70% efficiency, then guardian is actually the better choice for me, and that may not be the same for someone else. Provided those initial strength-ratings are close enough that the deciding factor is my own skill, the balance is good enough.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> Yeah, and if you come to me for an apple, and I present you an apple, and you say "but it doesn't have the exact same quantum state as the apple I meant" I'm going to tell you to get lost.

 

Heh, and that would be a funny joke because I'd tell you that such an apple doesn't exist anyway.

>

> And I never suggested that the current state of balance was perfect. Merely that it is possible to reach a state that is functionally balanced "enough" for us to be happy with.

 

This is what I'm trying to say here...that balancing for equality kills player choice (aka build diversity), for the reason that as Anet tries to make the elements in the game equal, the description of differences between skills and classes are lost in the attempt to make them balanced via this equality. When applying nerfs and buffs in the attempt to balance the game, that is what happens...the heat death of player choice. Because like i mentioned before, numerical nerfs and buffs that are made, are made in the interest of trying to make the elements of the game equal, and the mechanisms I described from now pages ago is the reason why it happens.

 

But, there is more then one kind of "balance." Rather then balancing for equality, you instead balance for diversity, and this is where evolution and complexity science come into play. It's not like balancing for equality is the only kind of "balance." Real world systems in nature like evolution are balanced via a different mechanism...which is that the system is highly diverse... which is essentially the complete opposite of balancing for equality...it's a balance of differentiation. It's a completely different mechanism at play but it's the same mathematics we've been discussing that allow it to work, and it's the reason we see real world systems exhibit diversity rather than equality...because the mathematical mechanism is efficient, or rather that complex systems tend towards being highly diverse because they are more efficient. It's like swimming in a river. Swimming uphill is like balancing for equality, while swimming downhill is balancing for diversity.

 

Gw2 is a mimicry of evolutionary systems and we see it play out in real time. Builds are made, builds compete and cooperate, builds die and go extinct, builds exist in consort with other builds. It's the players that are the driving force of this adaptation, and Anet fights this by trying to homogenize the game with nerfs and buffs, when really the opposite of these actions should be taken, to spur on heterogeneity like every other complex system in the universe. I mean seriously when was the last time you saw a perfectly balanced homogeneous ecosystem? It doesn't exist, and there's a good reason why.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> Go play in some higher tiered environments like MAT or just even normal ATs. People still explode when +'d. There is plenty of damage.

>

> Anyone who thinks otherwise must largely be playing only in ranked or unranked, where there is this skew of plat to gold to silver on each team. When you have skews like this, of course the bulk of the guys attacking you aren't understanding how to execute their damage correctly. However, pushing heals and dodge rolling around is a lot easier to do for those tiers. <- This is why people think things are bunkery right now. But I'm telling you, in higher tiered environments, people know how to bait defensive cycles before bursting and they know how to combo team bursting, and things explode still.

>

 

Just throwing it out there since this whole thing kind of exploded and this post stands out...

 

Most people play Ranked/Unranked. ATs are super niche.

And the last MAT(Maybe? If not, the one before that) There was a game that ended with DCs, barely any deaths before then, and the streamer casting the whole thing even called it boring.

 

Only one where anyone actually quit mid-match I think, but that usually doesn't happen in MATs. There was quite a few that ended with relatively little deaths and of course, people picking on the thing the entire time

 

Also there was that MAT a little while after the Feb 25th patch went live where 2 people were just /dancing at tranq on Silent Storm. It was probably the most interesting thing to happen during that MAT tbh.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> > @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> > Go play in some higher tiered environments like MAT or just even normal ATs. People still explode when +'d. There is plenty of damage.

> >

> > Anyone who thinks otherwise must largely be playing only in ranked or unranked, where there is this skew of plat to gold to silver on each team. When you have skews like this, of course the bulk of the guys attacking you aren't understanding how to execute their damage correctly. However, pushing heals and dodge rolling around is a lot easier to do for those tiers. <- This is why people think things are bunkery right now. But I'm telling you, in higher tiered environments, people know how to bait defensive cycles before bursting and they know how to combo team bursting, and things explode still.

> >

>

> Just throwing it out there since this whole thing kind of exploded and this post stands out...

 

Don't take offense, but there are some things you are not seeing or understanding here.

 

>

> Most people play Ranked/Unranked. ATs are super niche.

 

Ranked/Unranked now is comprised of matches that largely look like:

 

RED - plat 1 / gold 3 / gold 2 / gold 1 / silver 3 vs. BLUE - plat 1 / gold 3 / gold 2 / gold 1 / silver 3

 

This is an enormous skew of skill variables and the game should never be balanced around how the game feels when this is happening. The more years that go on that some of you insist "we should balance for the majority and not for top tier" you are insisting that the game be balanced around going further and further down the spiral of player skill deprivation as the years go on and this match making in ranked keeps getting worse. Ironically enough, Arenanet has actually listened to that plee, and that is why the game's mechanics in 2021 have devolved.

 

As much as some people want to argue this, the game should largely be balanced as a first priority around what the best players in the game can pull with a given class or character. These are the players who are excavating the absolute limits & maximum potentials of what a class/character is actually capable of. After the game is been balanced for top tier, then we can go back an tweak to make sure that something isn't OP or UP for middle tier. But the game must be largely as a first priority, balanced around top tier play for obvious reasons. Balancing the game around players who "want things tailored to their inefficiency or reluctance to try harder and learn" is ridiculous for every possible reason that could be discussed.

 

If you don't understand what I'm saying, go watch some youtube videos that discuss the subject. I'm not going to write a thesis on game design here.

 

> And the last MAT(Maybe? If not, the one before that) There was a game that ended with DCs, barely any deaths before then, and the streamer casting the whole thing even called it boring.

>

> Only one where anyone actually quit mid-match I think, but that usually doesn't happen in MATs. There was quite a few that ended with relatively little deaths and of course, people picking on the thing the entire time

>

> Also there was that MAT a little while after the Feb 25th patch went live where 2 people were just /dancing at tranq on Silent Storm. It was probably the most interesting thing to happen during that MAT tbh.

 

What you're not understanding in these comments ^ is why that kind of stuff happens. Right now, with the way you are posting these responses, I can tell that you believe these statements are in support to the claim that "the meta is tanky right now" but that is an assumption that isn't true. You must not be playing in higher tiers or ATs or certainly not the MATs very often if you believe that. If you did often play in higher tiered environments, you'd understand why top tier players can have games won or lost while only having 2 or 3 deaths the entire game. **You aren't understanding that the very same thing happens whether it is a sustain meta or a glass cannon meta. The reason why higher tiered players will have games with few deaths regardless of if it is a sustain meta or a full dps meta, is because they know where to position and where not to position. They know when to stay and when to leave. Even in a full dps meta, getting downs and securing kills when two top tier teams go against each other, is never easy to do. But when it does happen, it happens like lightning and dudes get dropped fast, and it happens the moment someone is out of position, regardless of high dps or low dps high sustain metas.** The reason why 2 dudes are jumping around tranq instead of fighting, is the same reason why Vaans and I have done the exact same thing when meeting each other on nodes before. We've fought each other so frequently and consistently in ATs, that we already both know that the fight isn't going to go anywhere. Both of us are going to play so ridiculously defensive that the fight could go on for 10 or 15 minutes and neither of us would get a kill on the other. And you're talking a full dps sic em one wolf pack soulbeast and a spellbreaker here, we have a lot of damage. It's just that we don't suck and we don't take stupid risks that would get us killed. It has nothing to do with our classes being too sustainy. It has to do with two players who know each other's game style and the game in general so well, that we can't kill each other unless someone +s the fight.

 

I don't know what else to explain here to clear up this concept. Regardless of full sustain meta or full dps meta, the same thing happens in top tier games man. People have a hard time killing each other because great players know how to stay safe.

 

AT footage with good players demonstrating damage output:

 

 

As a final note, I'd like to say that if sustain were in question in this current patching, it would be revive power and instant revive skills, which were not adjusted to scale properly after the large nerf patch.

[Ghos.1326]

> @"KelyNeli.4516" said:

> > @"Shao.7236" said:

> > So the reasoning is, make everyone overpowered so nobody can be underpowered because tipping the balance in equal match ups is too difficult?

> >

> > **I've heard that one before and it's not doing so well in other games**. I remember when people were overpowered they were also untouchable and you had to spam low cooldown as the only way to win.

> >

> > I find it even more ironic that you look at duels from before feb patch on youtube, those that had high stakes and they'd take just as long to finish, except people could spam or do ridiculous damage with 1 effortless skill.

>

> In which games? Can you elaborate?

> BDO has this kind of balance and pvp is really fun, fast and exciting with few exceptions. Sure there is different combat style, but they dont nerf everything and everyone is happy to receive buffs, no class is completely useless in pvp. You wont tank damage, but you have a tons of way to avoid the said damage, believe it or not there is a way to make your character unkillable in this game too. And do you know best part about it? BDO has more players than it EVER had before, more and more plays it, despite it being a horribly pay2win game with excessive amount of grind. When GW2 is losing players, and i see lion arch getting empty and system asking me to change my town in the evening at 18 o clock on friday.

> WoW in BFa was in a pathetic state when it came to pvp for THE EXACT SAME REASON GW2 IS RIGHT NOW.

> Nerfing everything to the ground and making everyone a sponge for damage.

> The best pvp was in legion where you could deal hundred of thousands of damage to few people with right timing and right combo that was amazing stuff.

> FFXIV pvp is a joke also for the same reason GW2 is, takes forever to kill anyone, its still somehow worse because healers are overpowered there.

>

 

This is a lie. WoW during BFA had insanely bursty things. I know because I've kept in touch with it.

BDO is fun, sure, in its own way. But really the only way to "tank" or "avoid" damage in that game is to have better gear than the other player. that's not very fun and exciting, sorry to inform you.

Also, for WoW, lets consider HP pools as compared to Guild Wars 2. The lowest amount of health available in GW2 is 11k and some change. In WoW? If you equip all of the end game gear during your campaign, around 18k. Hence why WoW has more damage per skill (this is not to mention, also, the global cooldown of most, if not all, skills) than GW2.

You gotta factor in everything when you want to make a comparison. To go into discussion on BDO, everything is also highly mobile there, so literally everything can match everything else's speed. In GW2, you do SOMEWHAT see that issue, but not the degree of BDO. How do I know? I play BDO as well. (and yes I play WoW)

[georgessj.4198]

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> > @"georgessj.4198" said:

> > And i have photos of a 300 damage skill hiting me for14k (perhaps even more) that takes less than a second to hit my char. Obviously i died in 2 seconds after the other hits came so......where does this lead to? Does it lead to boosting ferocity or dmg overall so it can hit my 25khp char for 26k?

>

> I'm very sorry to hear that and I hope you find peace in the future.

> Was that before or after patch? What build/stats were you running?

>

> I play a Bunker build post patch and the only thing that can come remotely close to that kind of damage now is a Soulbeast that invests everything into maximum damage. Even then it doesn't come from 1 skill. It comes from multiple skills and it still only manages about half of 22k hp.(Albeit with 3,067 armor).

>

> Then I pop my healing skill and go from ~11k back to ~18k hp, and proceed to stunlock the Soulbeast for a solid 20 seconds(Give or take a few stunbreaks, but that doesn't really matter because they all take a good 5% of a match for the CD to reset now, longer in some cases) and if they even manage to escape the CC/Block spam by the time their burst is ready again, i've already completely reset back to full hp, and seen every mean word in the English language tossed my way in /say chat.

>

> If you're also investing everything into damage(like Zerks) then obviously you're going to die a lot quicker. It's probably not going to feel all too different to pre-patch.... Until you fight a bunker like me.

>

> Before, damage was there to stop people like me and provide some sort of consistent threat to people running similar builds.

> After, damage is only a threat to other people trying to do damage.

>

> I don't like it very much personally, but if people like it, I don't judge. But yes, I think the majority of the nerfs from 2/25/2020 onward have been pretty pointless. I don't think damage needs to be buffed, I think all the nerfs and removals since then need to be undone.

> I'm also a huge hypocrite because I will exploit it to no end so long as its there, and ruin many days and attention spans in the process. Don't hate the player though.

>

> Namaste ?

 

Well then 2 can play this game right?

I'm very sorry to hear for your bunker killing troubles and I hope you find peace in the future.

When you try to kill bunkers What build/stats were you running? (so i can ridicule it even if its good just like you would do to mine).

Namaste ?

Now if you wanna get serious everything you say is true IN A 1 VS 1 PVP ONLY !!!! perphaps it will also ruin 2 vs 2 games yes but in 5 vs 5 when the most usless by default and nerfed classes like the warrior for example uses axe skill 3 hits you for a 6-7k plus that theres probably 1 to 4 real damaging class enemies around to unleash some 10k bursts in a couple of nanoseconds what kind of reset back to full hp are you pretending to be doing? And ofc thats assuming a condi fiesta doesnt take place in a condi fiesta game.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" I get you, and I don't mean to insist anything. Just retelling things that historically happened there in monthlies since the patch.

Like I say; if people like it, I get why and that's all gravy. More power to them. I don't have any sort of philosophy towards balance, I just personally don't find this very fun to play or watch in its current state.

 

> @"georgessj.4198" said:

> Well then 2 can play this game right?

 

That's the hope, in the end.

 

> I'm very sorry to hear for your bunker killing troubles and I hope you find peace in the future.

> When you try to kill bunkers What build/stats were you running? (so i can ridicule it even if its good just like you would do to mine).

> Namaste ?

 

I think something got mixed here. I don't kill bunkers, I play a bunker. I don't kill anyone actually. Currently i'm peacefully protesting the lack of damage by doing none and preventing others from doing the same.

 

I would also never ridicule your build because I love you and everyone else. That is why I peacefully remove their ability to do damage, because the only one that truly takes damage in the end is the one dealing it.

Namaste ?

 

Here is my current build: [gw2skills.net/editor/?PKwAIl7lJwSYYMFGKeaX+vTA-zZwOlMFC9KCyYB0xEQHDA](http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKwAIl7lJwSYYMFGKeaX+vTA-zZwOlMFC9KCyYB0xEQHDA)

 

Do not be disillusioned by the 1200 condition damage. This build has no access to any conditions that actually do damage that are not first given unto it. ☮️

 

> Now if you wanna get serious everything you say is true IN A 1 VS 1 PVP ONLY !!!! perphaps it will also ruin 2 vs 2 games yes but in 5 vs 5 when the most usless by default and nerfed classes like the warrior for example uses axe skill 3 hits you for a 6-7k plus that theres probably 1 to 4 real damaging class enemies around to unleash some 10k bursts in a couple of nanoseconds what kind of reset back to full hp are you pretending to be doing? And ofc thats assuming a condi fiesta doesnt take place in a condi fiesta game.

 

All I play is 5v5. That's where I receive most of my insults.

Little do they know however; violence has karmic consequences, and to save them from retribution I take it upon myself to stall and CC multiple people at once. Lately, the maximum number of souls i've managed to save is 4 at once. For 200 points of an entire conquest match.

 

You are correct though. When dealing with only one; it is much easier to show the misguided the path of kindness, self-reflection, and morality.

 

Some might call this very boring, and to most it probably is. None can cross the gateway into the astral plane without discipline, and 'fun' is a mile marker on the road to destruction. ?