Well I'M happy

[Murdock.6547]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > @Murdock.6547 said:

> > And the idea of nerfing epidemic to the ground..? Why? It's the most unique skill necromancer has. Nothing else can do what it does even marginally. It's powerful in the correct situations, and terrible in others.

>

> And again, does that not scream broken from every angle ... we're only (so called) "viable" cause of pretty much one skill in niche situations and not even be the sheer best at that ... because if we put out REAL benchmarks on cleave dps ... and tune our full builds exactly to that, guess what class will top that .... AGAIN! Obviously shielded by that always dreadful comment of how volatile and difficult the rotations are.

> The Necro always performs very _nice_ in anecdotal comments on forums and such, but never in real numbers, statistics and analytics ... please cut the soft honey-words b*llcr*p, and let us be for once the best (or at least optimal) at something ... pretty much every other class had its decent run and some even a full run from the very launch of GW2 ... Now it's our turn!

>

> BIG disclaimer: I'm talking about (high-end) PvE here, and not sPvP and WvW (as we all know, ANet can balance them separately (and should), so IMO we can regard them as complete different games with their own balancing structure for that matter)

 

There were comments early in this thread from both me and another experienced necro player that show necromancer doing just fine in terms of actual raid dps.

Do I have to go and get them again?

I also have a recent one from MO where a necro hit 19k boss dps and he admits he had a weak rotation, but due to epidemic bouncing hit higher numbers than me despite my fairly reasonable rotation.

 

Necromancer is the condi cleave class. Or if you want to simplify it, the cleave class to end cleave classes. You take a necro when you struggle with or want to nullify adds reliably. (Also scourge has a higher than 5 target cap on multiple shades)

 

Who else can say that? Warrior and ele can try. Warrior does it without dps loss, but less damage to the cleave target than necro. Ele does it with huge to moderate dps loss and still less cleave damage than necro. In situations where you cannot rely on pulls to bring adds in, the necro blinks them out of existence. It's the price of personal on boss dps in exchange for area of effect eradication.

 

Nerfing epi would be the same as nerfing moa. So many encounters would be broken without it and require entire comp and strategy reworks.

We would lose literally years of perfecting strategies and compositions for certain bosses for what..? What would be gained? Necro doing an extra 2-3k dps? 5k if we're being greedy here?

 

Your idea to nerf epidemic is objectively awful and would only bring negatives to this game.

It's a skill that is unique, feels good to use, and provides strong team utility in a way only a necromancer can (through offense)

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

> @Murdock.6547 said:

> There were comments early in this thread from both me and another experienced necro player that show necromancer doing just fine in terms of actual raid dps.

> Do I have to go and get them again?

> I also have a recent one from MO where a necro hit 19k boss dps and he admits he had a weak rotation, but due to epidemic bouncing hit higher numbers than me despite my fairly reasonable rotation.

 

Still Anecdotal: A few necros that performed well compared to the group they were in. It might even say something about the group, not even the Necro him/her-self. Here: some overall REAL statistics:

https://gw2raidar.com/global_stats/4

(also have a good look at the cleave numbers ... again overall we're not even THAT great in cleave, just in some VERY niche situations: Sab)

 

And guilds that probably don't even come on these forums because they'd rather spend their time testing, benchmarking, analyzing rotations, speed clearing, full clears, CM's, etc.:

https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-11-07-17/

https://snowcrows.com/builds/#tab3

http://discretize.eu/#classes

As you can see, the state of the Necro in high-end PvE is not great at all (to put it mildly) ... sometimes the Necro is not even mentioned on their pages (probably to save them from even more embarrassment).

And in the end, I'd rather take _their_ words for it, cause they really try to prove their benchmarks with real numbers (trying over and over again) and statistics, compared to some people here on these forums that mostly (_if_ they even) come with prove in the form of beautiful stories like: this one day, I was in a group with a reeeeeeally good Necro in it ...

 

> Your idea to nerf epidemic is objectively awful and would only bring negatives to this game.

> It's a skill that is unique, feels good to use, and provides strong team utility in a way only a necromancer can (through offense)

Let me take everything back that would anyone here think of me wanting to nerf Epidemic. Cause I don't ... it's pretty much the only good thing we have left.

But that again proves my point ... how can anyone in their right mind, think it's a good idea that a whole profession is only optimal if it completely evolves around one skill only?! Let me put it differently: what do you think of the __banner slave__ at the moment??? At least it evolves around 2 skills ... (next to the fact that the Warrior profession as opposed to the Necro _does_ actually have more optimal builds: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/17045/would-you-accept-a-warrior-on-your-raid-team-as-dps)

 

[Murdock.6547]

I see.

So here's the thing.

 

Lets say a class does 1000 dps. (which is stupid, but lets just work with small simple numbers for now).

An add appears every 100 seconds, and it has 100 hp. Cleaving that add over the course of a fight that is 1000 seconds will add about 1 dps throughout the fight.

It doesn't matter if you kill it in a split second with epidemic which will do lets say 2000 dps, or over that 100 seconds with 1 dps.

This is because you cannot overkill an add. And it doesn't appear for another 100 seconds, so how on earth are you going to deal more than 1 cleave dps?

But if you don't want anecdotes, the point is you need graphs.

 

Necro spikes up hard but falls off again because the adds they epi blink out of existence from massive spike damage. Epi also

Unfortunately, I don't think I have any graphs of this that aren't "anecdotal" as you called them.

 

https://dps.report/Pheb-20171121-001449_mo

(let me direct you to the 10s dps section where we can accurately see spikes and troughs)

 

But according to this "anecdote" you can see the other necromancer spikes quite hard then petres off a bit. They spike harder than anyone else with the exception of the mirage thanks to epidemic, but if we'll go by the non-anecdotal evidence of QTFY and the other big cheeses, condi mirage is a massive outlier.

 

Also those benchmark comparisons you showed me make me pretty happy. This is probably the most even dps classes have been in the history of this game.

And yes, I do still firmly believe that necro is where it should be. Less dps than most true dps, but more dps than supports. If you're failing dps checks by 5k, outside of breaking fights such as at gorse or kc where you go for no updrafts / 3 burns respectively (aka speedrun strats) there's something wrong.

 

Edit: Apologies for the spite, but by god if I had no spite or didn't curse my opponents I wouldn't be a necromancer.

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

> @Murdock.6547 said:

> Necro spikes up hard but falls off again because the adds they epi blink out of existence from massive spike damage. Epi also

> Unfortunately, I don't think I have any graphs of this that aren't "anecdotal" as you called them.

>

> https://dps.report/Pheb-20171121-001449_mo

> (let me direct you to the 10s dps section where we can accurately see spikes and troughs)

>

> But according to this "anecdote" you can see the other necromancer spikes quite hard then petres off a bit. They spike harder than anyone else with the exception of the mirage thanks to epidemic, but if we'll go by the non-anecdotal evidence of QTFY and the other big cheeses, condi mirage is a massive outlier.

 

I don't really want to get into that discussion again, but anecdotal is just that: [anecdotal](https://dps.report/D9Ss-20171114-202940_mo).

Even if I take _your_ anecdotal proof and regard it as global (why not, for the hack of it). You still haven't said anything about the fact that we're one skill wonders only performing in niche situations (Mursaat Overseer, Sabetha)! Weavers have a whole spectrum of areas their important at. Difficult to play, I agree, but nonetheless, optimal in so many cases! ~~Condi Mirage~~ ... Mesmer (as a whole) ... they're not just the best of the best, they're optimal in multiple builds now as well in many different areas. Chronos are still needed EVERYWHERE (T4 Fractals CM, DOUBLE in _all_ raids, ...), condi mirage ......... well, let's not even start about that one. Warrior ... Ranger ... I don't even _have_ to elaborate on them! ... But the short version: you need them everywhere in high end PvE _and_ they're optimal everywhere. NOT just in niche cases because of one skill only. Again, does that sound balanced to you??? The Necro is holding on to a very thin thread (epi) in just very few cases (and is sometimes even outperformed there! But hey, I agree, that's anecdotal). Nice place we're at, right now (that's sarcasm btw)!

 

> @Murdock.6547 said:

> If you're failing dps checks by 5k

Edit: let me also quickly reply to this statement: absolute numbers like these (which are even false, but hey, let me go with it) don't say anything. It's relative that really counts ... and it's not even coming close to '5% behind' for that matter ... I think you can do the math yourself on that matter (hint: triple that number and you're getting close to what we're behind to the 2nd best dps out there right now!!! I don't even want to talk about the difference with the #1 DPSer, because that number just makes me want to cry right now...)!

[Obtena.7952]

> @Crinn.7864 said:

> The problem with Reaper is that Scourge does everything Reaper does, but Scourge does it better.

 

That's not a problem because the difference between elite specs is not intended to be performance-based. The difference is a conceptual one. You pick the spec you do best with ... regardless of situation ... if you are after performance. This is how a game designed like GW2 works. This is not a class design problem. It's a game design result.

[Scarran.9845]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> That's not a problem because the difference between elite specs is not intended to be performance-based.

 

How do you know this without actually being on the balance team?

 

Otherwise you are just speculating like the rest. It could be based on performance and the classes/specs could be performing within adequate parameters of each other according to the numbers that the balance team have.

 

But unless your on the balance team then there is no way of knowing what method they use for balancing. Just because something doesn't look like it is done a certain way does not mean that is not its intention.

[Aramus.8143]

Sorry about butting in but I have a quick question. I'm starting a necro but I would like some help on what weapons to start with. I saw one build that says use a sceptor and a torch but I can't use a torch til 80. Another said a staff and another one said dagger and focus. What are good starting weapons for a low level necro.

Forgot to mention, PvE solo

Thanks

[Anchoku.8142]

If you are leveling a new Necromancer, I recommend dagger-horn and staff.

 

Use as much power-stat gear as you can. Get Signet of the Locust and minions as soon as possible, too. They do, mostly, a fixed amount of damage according to the area level and so are not very gear-dependant. Death Magic has three minion traits and you will want the first two, Asap.

[Aramus.8143]

> @Anchoku.8142 said:

> If you are leveling a new Necromancer, I recommend dagger-horn and staff.

>

> Use as much power-stat gear as you can. Get Signet of the Locust and minions as soon as possible, too. They do, mostly, a fixed amount of damage according to the area level and so are not very gear-dependant. Death Magic has three minion traits and you will want the first two, Asap.

 

Great, thank you. Most appreciated.

[Murdock.6547]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > @Murdock.6547 said:

> > Necro spikes up hard but falls off again because the adds they epi blink out of existence from massive spike damage. Epi also

> > Unfortunately, I don't think I have any graphs of this that aren't "anecdotal" as you called them.

> >

> > https://dps.report/Pheb-20171121-001449_mo

> > (let me direct you to the 10s dps section where we can accurately see spikes and troughs)

> >

> > But according to this "anecdote" you can see the other necromancer spikes quite hard then petres off a bit. They spike harder than anyone else with the exception of the mirage thanks to epidemic, but if we'll go by the non-anecdotal evidence of QTFY and the other big cheeses, condi mirage is a massive outlier.

>

> I don't really want to get into that discussion again, but anecdotal is just that: [anecdotal](https://dps.report/D9Ss-20171114-202940_mo).

> Even if I take _your_ anecdotal proof and regard it as global (why not, for the hack of it). You still haven't said anything about the fact that we're one skill wonders only performing in niche situations (Mursaat Overseer, Sabetha)! Weavers have a whole spectrum of areas their important at. Difficult to play, I agree, but nonetheless, optimal in so many cases! ~~Condi Mirage~~ ... Mesmer (as a whole) ... they're not just the best of the best, they're optimal in multiple builds now as well in many different areas. Chronos are still needed EVERYWHERE (T4 Fractals CM, DOUBLE in _all_ raids, ...), condi mirage ......... well, let's not even start about that one. Warrior ... Ranger ... I don't even _have_ to elaborate on them! ... But the short version: you need them everywhere in high end PvE _and_ they're optimal everywhere. NOT just in niche cases because of one skill only. Again, does that sound balanced to you??? The Necro is holding on to a very thin thread (epi) in just very few cases (and is sometimes even outperformed there! But hey, I agree, that's anecdotal). Nice place we're at, right now (that's sarcasm btw)!

>

> > @Murdock.6547 said:

> > If you're failing dps checks by 5k

> Edit: let me also quickly reply to this statement: absolute numbers like these (which are even false, but hey, let me go with it) don't say anything. It's relative that really counts ... and it's not even coming close to '5% behind' for that matter ... I think you can do the math yourself on that matter (hint: triple that number and you're getting close to what we're behind to the 2nd best dps out there right now!!! I don't even want to talk about the difference with the #1 DPSer, because that number just makes me want to cry right now...)!

 

Youre moving from the point I made or youre trying to simply ignore it.

 

Nothing about necro is traditional. Not its support, not its defenses, not its condition clearing, and certainly not its dps.

 

Maybe I am misreading here, but it sounds like you want another straightforward dps but with the necrotic theme. Which is not what I want if it means losing any of necromancers sense of self.

 

Tell me.. Why bring a theif over an ele? Ele simply does more damage so there really isnt one.

 

Why bring a necro over an ele? Epi, condi cleave (10-12 targets) and reasonable group condi management plus a decent revivebot build that doesnt gut damage but has the fastest revive in the game.

All are fair reasons to sacrifice dps.

 

Necro is good, just not the best single target dps. But please understand that there is no content in the game that will fail off of necro dps aside from breaking fights and skipping phases.

[Ceit.7619]

For raid groups that are struggling to meet timers (I.E. The ones most likely to pug it) they are going to look at the top of the meta, not the bottom. It's easy to say perfectly played classes can down any boss, but it doesn't mean it bears out in the game itself.

[Obtena.7952]

> @Scarran.9845 said:

> > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > That's not a problem because the difference between elite specs is not intended to be performance-based.

>

> How do you know this without actually being on the balance team?

>

> Otherwise you are just speculating like the rest. It could be based on performance and the classes/specs could be performing within adequate parameters of each other according to the numbers that the balance team have.

>

> But unless your on the balance team then there is no way of knowing what method they use for balancing. Just because something doesn't look like it is done a certain way does not mean that is not its intention.

 

Because I can see it? There isn't any speculation .. it's IN the game this way. I don't have to guess. I've already went through the logic here for my position. If you believe Anet is balancing for performance ONLY then please enlighten us on why the current situation exists ... don't worry, that's a rhetorical question. I know you can't.

[Murdock.6547]

> @Ceit.7619 said:

> For raid groups that are struggling to meet timers (I.E. The ones most likely to pug it) they are going to look at the top of the meta, not the bottom. It's easy to say perfectly played classes can down any boss, but it doesn't mean it bears out in the game itself.

 

I have no sympathy for pugs, if we are to stop mincing words.

The median pug simply wants a clear. They have only the most basic understanding of fights, and half of the time they wont know who or what fucked up when they wipe.

They cling to dps because it is the only thing universal. Strats like no updraft gors and 3 burn kc are attempted with literally no backup plan if they fail.

 

Sorry to vent, but you struck a nerve.

 

Frankly (back on topic now) if a group is failing because they have two necros as dps.. It isnt the necros per se bringing the entire group down, but likely a much more integral role being messed up. Bad might or vuln uptime, poor quickness, or frankly the entire group sucks.

 

Thats my final answer. No more niceties or beating around the bush.

If a group is failing its because they suck, not because the class they picked is weaker at single target.

[Obtena.7952]

The way I see it is that if you knowingly pick a class that underperforms, you better play the hell out of that class if you want to be accepted where underperformance is not wanted. Most PUGs are not tolerant to that situation. People playing how they want needs to be respected as part of the central tenet of this game.

[Scarran.9845]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> > @Scarran.9845 said:

> > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > That's not a problem because the difference between elite specs is not intended to be performance-based.

> >

> > How do you know this without actually being on the balance team?

> >

> > Otherwise you are just speculating like the rest. It could be based on performance and the classes/specs could be performing within adequate parameters of each other according to the numbers that the balance team have.

> >

> > But unless your on the balance team then there is no way of knowing what method they use for balancing. Just because something doesn't look like it is done a certain way does not mean that is not its intention.

>

> Because I can see it? There isn't any speculation .. it's IN the game this way. I don't have to guess. I've already went through the logic here for my position. If you believe Anet is balancing for performance ONLY then please enlighten us on why the current situation exists ... don't worry, that's a rhetorical question. I know you can't.

 

Can I ask what your point is in coming to these forums? You seem intent on not having a discussion but dictating to others what they think or what they can or cannot do. It appears that everytime someone tries to have some form of discussion on the balance/state of the class you jump in with your self righteous im never wrong opinionated view in order to stifle any discussions.

 

Without knowing what the developers actually base their balance on, you cannot be that arrogant to assume you know their exact reasons or methodology on how they balance classes. Without taking a peek behind the curtain and having confirmation from the developers, everyone's theory is correct until proven otherwise. I could enlighten you on why the current situation exists but you cannot reason with the unreasonable.

 

If that is your opinion on balance then you are entitled to it. But at least do us a favor and lay out your logic before going around telling others they are wrong without any other evidence to back it up other than your logic.

[Obtena.7952]

I'm just answering a question you asked me ... so assuming you want an answer, I gave you one. I don't need to talk and be intimate with Anet's developers to know they aren't balancing according to only performance (which should be obvious to anyone at this point). That's not arrogance because the game has history to back up what I'm saying; it's evident from the kinds of changes we get on classes and how they affect class performance when we get them. Again, if you think you have evidence to suggest Anet is balancing ONLY to some idea of performance and nothing else, bring it. You would be the first. What amazes me is that people are in such massive denial about this, despite the history of the game, that they will not acknowledge that there is something in addition to performance that Anet is using to guide their changes. If performance was the only guidance, we would have equivalent performing builds and classes. We don't.

 

If my opinions stifle discussions, perhaps it's because other people's insights and opinions are not ready for scrutiny.

[Scarran.9845]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> I'm just answering a question you asked me ... so assuming you want an answer, I gave you one. I don't need to talk and be intimate with Anet's developers to know they aren't balancing according to only performance (which should be obvious to anyone at this point). That's not arrogance because the game has history to back up what I'm saying; it's evident from the kinds of changes we get on classes and how they affect class performance when we get them.

 

As I said previously there is no point reasoning with the unreasonable. But I do love how you keep moving the goal posts to suit your point of view....no where in the original response I quoted did you say "performance only". You said "That's not a problem because the difference between elite specs is not intended to be performance-based."

 

Definition of based is "use as a point from which (something) can develop." I am happy for you to prove me wrong that they do not use performance as a base for alot of their balance changes. But again without being part of the balance team this is all speculation which you are adamant in your instance it is not, despite not being able to show anyone any evidence to not assume you are just speculating.

 

 

[ilmau.9781]

he is just a troll, i stopped giving him attention few days ago, let him talk alone

[Obtena.7952]

The proof is simple ... we don't have equivalent performances between builds in a class or even between classes. That's about as good a proof that Anet isn't changing the game for performance balance as it can get. It's not speculation; people interested in best performance measure these things all the time. You don't need to take my word for it, they even have websites you can see the benchmarks.

 

I won't argue points of pedantry with you. Elite spec constructs are concepts to deliver playstyles and they aren't born out of any need for balance to begin with. Again, this is all very evident by how they are realized in the game. You keep asking for proof ... just play the game, observe the history, see the data that's been collected. These aren't speculations.

[Scarran.9845]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> I won't argue points of pedantry with you.

 

So when your insights and opinions are put under scrutiny it is pedantry. But when you do it to others then it's fine? Double standards don't you think.

 

If what you originally meant was only performance then you need to be more clearer with your statements and not assume that everyone is a mind reader. Otherwise I think we have exhausted this discussion as you are still not willing to show proof that your assessment of how they balance is 100% correct. Other than to tell people that they are wrong and to go and prove to themselves that they are wrong, which I do find amusing.

[Obtena.7952]

So you jump part way into a discussion and accuse me of moving the goalposts AFTER I clarified my position for you. That's awesome.

 

Let me continue to bring you back into the fold of the actual thread discussion .... I still don't see anyone bringing anything here that suggests Anet balances only by assessing performance. If they were balancing only by performance, we would have much wider spread performance equivalence between classes and builds. Since we don't have this, it's not hard to conclude they aren't. This isn't anecdotal 'feelings' evidence either ... qT benchmarks and tests this stuff like a religion on their site; you continually pretend like that doesn't exist or qualify; I can only assume you aren't knowledgeable enough to even question me about this topic if you aren't aware of their work that quantifies this lack of balance. /shrug

 

Now, IF you have something that suggests Anet does balance from a purely performance basis, we would all love to hear what it is so you can say you were the one that proved me wrong.

[Scarran.9845]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> So you jump part way into a discussion and accuse me of moving the goalposts AFTER I clarified my position for you. That's awesome.

 

Im starting to think you must have some form of amnesia or just blindly cannot see the truth. First off the very first time you responded on the way the game is balanced in this thread was the original comment that I responded to. That quote which I will again post here is "That's not a problem because the difference between elite specs is not intended to be performance-based".

 

This was what I was referring to, but instead the next time you responded you said "If you believe Anet is balancing for performance ONLY then please enlighten us". Can you tell the difference between based and only? Based - Is from a point that something can develop......Only - Is solely or exclusive. I then told you that you moved the goalposts because that was not what you originally commented on and rather than saying that is not what you originally meant and it should have been only. You said my response was being pedantry.

 

Pedantry again incase your using words you do not know the meaning of is - an excessive concern to minor details. But the difference between based and only is not minor as one takes other factors into consideration whilst using performance as a base and the word only does not take other factors into consideration. If your opinion is *only* then I agree with you that I do not imagine that balance is only done on performance but if your position is that it is not *based* on performance then I disagree with you as I think the original basis for any change is based on performance and then other factors are considered.

 

QT benchmarks have zero to do with them not basing stuff on performance. I had a road down the street from me that had a number of pot holes in it for a year before it eventually got fixed. Solely on that did that mean that they intended for that road to have pot holes for a year or that other factors where involved on why those pot holes existed and never got fixed? GW2 is like that, they have done various changes and introduced new stats which have caused various ripple effects, like removing the cap on conditions and adding viper and other stats to the game. I imagine if we took out the new stats and put a cap back on conditions then numbers would drastically change, but they will not do that as that would peeve people off and/or admitting they made a mistake, so they are stuck firefighting.

 

It could be a simple case of not enough people or the amount of time between each balance patch or it could be a simple case of they just aren't good enough. It wouldn't be the first time that someone is in a job way over their heads and instead of helping they cause more and more problems. But whatever the reason I still think they base changes on performance and they do not just randomly do changes just for the lol's.

[Obtena.7952]

QT benchmarks have zero to with demonstrating how the game is not balanced according to performance? I stand corrected ... that means you must know this secret thing that you think DOES show Anet are balancing to performance only. I can't wait to see what this secret thing is ... care to share it?

[Scarran.9845]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> QT benchmarks have zero to with demonstrating how the game is not balanced according to performance? I stand corrected ... that means you must know this secret thing that you think DOES show Anet are balancing to performance only. I can't wait to see what this secret thing is ... care to share it?

 

Ever heard of the word hypothesis. Unless you can prove to me that you are part of the development team and/or comments from developers confirming your theory, any data you provide is just a hypothesis.

 

Yet you keep trying to say that it is factually true when you and I know that without you being involved in the process it is all just guess work on your part. But again we are going around in circles here and going no-where fast and you love to skim over details and try and twist it to your reasoning. As I said its a waste of time trying to reason with the unreasonable who cannot even fathom that their logic could be based on a fallacy.

 

So I won't be responding again, as I can see we are getting no-where fast and people are probably sick and tired of seeing us going back and forth. But I do love the whole fact you skipped the entire stuff before the QT benchmark comment, its as if you don't even bother reading things properly otherwise you wouldn't have responded with performance only remark.

[Obtena.7952]

So you don't have data, evidence or this secret thing that suggests Anet are balancing according to performance only? Oh, well then ... seems to me that what I'm saying isn't all that unreasonable after all ... considering we do have data and evidence to suggest it's true. But I already explained that multiple times. Maybe if people weren't so caught up in wordsmithing ...

 

I guess I will stick to my 'hypothesis' (or whatever word of the day suits your fancy for it) that Anet isn't balancing according to performance only due to the disparity in damage between classes and builds that is evident from damage output data that anyone can collect from the game. Miraculous!