Raids question about class diversity

[Vulf.3098]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> The requirements are low enough so you can do it with virtually any dps. Again, my in static I'm the only Weaver and I play it not because it's the top dps, but because it's my preferred class. Same as the rest of my teammates. But if you care about min-maxing, then surprise!, there are more classes to play like Renegade and Holosmith. Just check the optimal comps on the SC site. It's only the inexperienced pugs which are stuck in some stupid "bring the top golem dps or gtfo" state, and it's because they are inexperienced.

 

I mean I have killed several bosses with 10 scourge comps but that doesn't suddenly make things 100% okay. I pug a lot and I also manage a static group so it is quite easy to see why pug groups require "meta" which is because it makes things a lot easier while allowing for a ton of room for error.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Vulf.3098" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > The requirements are low enough so you can do it with virtually any dps. Again, my in static I'm the only Weaver and I play it not because it's the top dps, but because it's my preferred class. Same as the rest of my teammates. But if you care about min-maxing, then surprise!, there are more classes to play like Renegade and Holosmith. Just check the optimal comps on the SC site. It's only the inexperienced pugs which are stuck in some stupid "bring the top golem dps or gtfo" state, and it's because they are inexperienced.

>

> I mean I have killed several bosses with 10 scourge comps but that doesn't suddenly make things 100% okay. I pug a lot and I also manage a static group so it is quite easy to see why pug groups require "meta" which is because it makes things a lot easier while allowing for a ton of room for error.

 

Of course. My point is, making gaps smaller wouldn't really change the attitude of the pugs. It would affect groups that are already fine with using different builds, so it doesn't really help build diversity.

[Vulf.3098]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Of course. My point is, making gaps smaller wouldn't really change the attitude of the pugs. It would affect groups that are already fine with using different builds, so it doesn't really help build diversity.

 

Not true since I have seen this happen in other games already. It actually does create diversity because more people will be willing to fill the group with a DH or a Holo if there is only going to be about a 1k dps difference while the super min max groups will still want and wait for weavers. Static groups will be the least affected by this.

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

The thing is, theoretical difference isn't what you get in actual play. Some players just play better a different class/build and some builds are just more susceptible to losing dps due to imperfect play or environment. Narrowing the gaps too much can end up in swinging the status quo into a new meta. We already kinda saw that with Mirage, prior to the axes bugfix. If Mirage was to produce a competitive dps to Weaver on all bosses, taking a Weaver over Mirage would become an unnecessary risk because of how much more reliable a Mirage dps is.

 

I think ANet had a different idea with the Firebrand and Renegade. Offering a different comp altogether, creating new, hybrid roles. I think it's better way to promote diversity, but it needs more work.

[Vulf.3098]

Mirage got buffed with the axe bug fix which took it from top tier dps to still top tier dps lol. Nothing changed.

 

There are so many fundamental design flaws with Chrono it makes me ask what the design team was smoking when they thought adding something like that to the game was ever a good idea. It took them over 2 years to remove the most broken mechanic from the spec which honestly I hope they continue the trend.

[Talindra.4958]

What is class diversity?

I only know chrono, druid, bs and dps.

Just kidding. :P

[Eramonster.2718]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> My question is genuinely about the motives behind raids and class diversity, and is therefore mostly directed to ArenaNet itself, but I'm also interested in what the players think.

>

> Is it really THAT complex to make raids the most optimal to encounter for team compositions consisting out of all 9 professions (and 1 dynamic as a bonus)? OR has this never been a motive for ArenaNet in the first place?

 

I think it's impossible or close to if not; to implement what you desire. Not everyone is into the idea of meta and this is similar to implementing one. With hundreds or thousands of possible builds and classes combination, to achieve "the perfect balance meta" requires the trouble of overhaul everything and fixed(force) builds. Not my idea of fun there. And for players with limited characters....eg. Play and main as druid, "Sorry, we already got a ranger" response is saddening. To put it simple, tho what you're trying to promote is "diversity", at the same time its "limiting" the play.(see the irony?:smile: )

[Henry.5713]

> @"Eramonster.2718" said:

> > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > My question is genuinely about the motives behind raids and class diversity, and is therefore mostly directed to ArenaNet itself, but I'm also interested in what the players think.

> >

> > Is it really THAT complex to make raids the most optimal to encounter for team compositions consisting out of all 9 professions (and 1 dynamic as a bonus)? OR has this never been a motive for ArenaNet in the first place?

>

> I think it's impossible or close to if not; to implement what you desire. Not everyone is into the idea of meta and this is similar to implementing one. With hundreds or thousands of possible builds and classes combination, to achieve "the perfect balance meta" requires the trouble of overhaul everything and fixed(force) builds. Not my idea of fun there. And for players with limited characters....eg. Play and main as druid, "Sorry, we already got a ranger" response is saddening. To put it simple, tho what you're trying to promote is "diversity", at the same time its "limiting" the play.(see the irony?:smile: )

 

They could certainly go so far as to implement "unique" mechanics for each class such as the need to pick locks during a fight to force us to bring a thief. I am sure they could come up with many ideas to give all of the classes their special task to perform. ArenaNet could even go so far as to change existing mechanics, allowing only engineers to to pick up and throw bombs during the Sebetha fight as an example.

But doesn't this sound like a terrible limitation on the overall class choices and even worse than anything we currently have? Not to mention how much this would screw with existing statics or anyone exclusively playing the more popular builds. Meaning that ArenaNet would most likely go with a compromise that might allow us to stilll perform said tasks without being forced to bring x class even if less efficiently than with the better choice. Basically, the way it is already. A lot of stuff works and almost all of the bosses can be done easily enough without the need to play META.

Those too closeminded to ever accept anything that is not supposed to be the absolutely best at any given task will never change their minds while outright forcing them to bring "one of each" would have way too many downsides to make it a good idea.

[NotOverlyCheesy.9427]

Class diversity is good when multiple classes are able to fulfill the same role in a unique manner.

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

> @"Eramonster.2718" said:

> > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > My question is genuinely about the motives behind raids and class diversity, and is therefore mostly directed to ArenaNet itself, but I'm also interested in what the players think.

> >

> > Is it really THAT complex to make raids the most optimal to encounter for team compositions consisting out of all 9 professions (and 1 dynamic as a bonus)? OR has this never been a motive for ArenaNet in the first place?

>

> I think it's impossible or close to if not; to implement what you desire. Not everyone is into the idea of meta and this is similar to implementing one. With hundreds or thousands of possible builds and classes combination, to achieve "the perfect balance meta" requires the trouble of overhaul everything and fixed(force) builds.

 

It's an assumption to say that you can only achieve optimal diversity by forcing it (your assumption) ... My scope is imo quite oversee-able: "Optimal composition for raids: 9 different professions". I'm not asking for full balance over the whole game on a specialization / weapon / even skills level. Just there are 9 professions, raiding has 10 spots, why can't it be the most _optimal_ solution to have all of them in your team? Very important disclaimer: not talking about viable here, just optimal.

And because my (IRL) background is one in analytics ... I'm wondering if an oversee-able (but still semi-complex) scope like such is at the moment not achieved because it's never been a motive for ANet or because it's seen as too complex by ANet. Because if it's the latter, I can tell you that hiring a full-time team of (data-)analysts (**not** an open application btw, I'm happy where I am right now :) ), might be your window to performing miracles there :). Just to put that in perspective, one FTE is probably not enough, cause the issue at hand is indeed still quite complex (all my opinion of course: _my_ assumptions!), but a whole team (or department) ...

 

Btw, I'm deliberately talking about optimal, not meta, cause meta is only a next step: getting the public to see that optimal solution ... and if that step takes too long or never happens, there are always different ways ... (infiltrate into qT or SnowCrows, tell them to take a look at this sheet of numbers with the _new_ optimal builds, and they will do the rest for you).

 

And everyone who claims that 9 professions meta would be even worse than the current meta, you should really have a close look at what's the meta right now. Currently asking _optimal_ dps for KC is asking for weavers ... anecdotal stories like, I've done it with me as being the only one weaver, will not change one bit once you have a 9 profession _optimal_ solution ... you'll probably still be able to do it with 6 weavers, it's just not the _optimal_ way!

[Eramonster.2718]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

 

I think you're missing the point or to fixate into the idea. I'm not sure if you noticed, what you're trying to introduce is a META (Most Effecient Tactic Avail) aka optimal. In the end its the players who decides how it will be played. Its the player community that got fixated. Your idea is no different than changing the META with a patch, that happens whenever theres a 'balancing patch'. It sounds more like an enforcement tbh and there will be players prefer to do it their way(eg.overlapping classes) and it will still encourage "play this and not how you want". It won't solve anything, only rearranging the problems. In the end, issues will arrise from it.

 

Ps: Putting suggestions to support an idea helps. (It's more productive to work on the "process" for the desired result, harder the otherway round).

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> Yea, because now it's much better, where the _optimal_ solution is "restricted" to just a few classes and builds ...

 

You have completely misunderstood what GW2 is about. The raids are optimized by a specific set of classes ... but you do NOT have to play that optimal solution to be successful in raids. This is the whole premise to Anet's "play how you want" philosophy behind GW2. The reason this idea succeeds is that the winning conditions are lax enough for other comps to succeed; unfortunately, players carry baggage from other MMOs. It's the players and not the game design, that imposes the restrictions you are complaining about.

 

The whole idea that Anet designs a raid to a different set of optimal conditions would make no sense because they aren't designing raids for a specific optimal condition in the first place. The optimal condition simply falls out of the combination of skills classes have; it's not by design this happens. I would say it would be almost impossible for Anet to actually make even ONE raid where the meta would consist of every class in the game unless it was (stupidly) hard coded for the raid to have that as a winning condition.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Also the boss dps requirements are so relaxed that you can easily do it missing even as much as 7-10k dps per dps slot in the squad. It's fine, really.

And that is the one of the only two real ways to achieve real build diversity: make the requirements so relaxed that running "that one setup" doesn't matter that much. (The other way is of course making the classes so homogenized, that, again, it doesn't matter which ones you run)

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Also the boss dps requirements are so relaxed that you can easily do it missing even as much as 7-10k dps per dps slot in the squad. It's fine, really.

> And that is the one of the only two real ways to achieve real build diversity: make the requirements so relaxed that running "that one setup" doesn't matter that much. (The other way is of course making the classes so homogenized, that, again, it doesn't matter which ones you run)

>

>

 

Yeah. But it's a give and take. The more relaxed the requirements, the lesser the challenge obviously. So as a game designer you'll need to find a fine balance between these two.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > Also the boss dps requirements are so relaxed that you can easily do it missing even as much as 7-10k dps per dps slot in the squad. It's fine, really.

> > And that is the one of the only two real ways to achieve real build diversity: make the requirements so relaxed that running "that one setup" doesn't matter that much. (The other way is of course making the classes so homogenized, that, again, it doesn't matter which ones you run)

> >

> >

>

> Yeah. But it's a give and take. The more relaxed the requirements, the lesser the challenge obviously. So as a game designer you'll need to find a fine balance between these two.

 

The 'fine balance' is an illusion, fraught with subjective analysis. Still, I feel Anet has actually already done this; the raid requirements are ALREADY relaxed enough so it's not necessary to play the optimized class comp solution for the raid to succeed AND the raids are still the most challenging content in the game.

[Feanor.2358]

Some level of subjectivity will always be there, if only because "challenging" is subjective. So you need to take into account your target audience and what is their "average" perception of it. But yeah, I agree, ANet are doing good job on that.

[Zok.4956]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > Yea, because now it's much better, where the _optimal_ solution is "restricted" to just a few classes and builds ...

>

> You have completely misunderstood what GW2 is about. The raids are optimized by a specific set of classes ... but you do NOT have to play that optimal solution to be successful in raids. This is the whole premise to Anet's "play how you want" philosophy behind GW2. The reason this idea succeeds is that the winning conditions are lax enough for other comps to succeed; unfortunately, players carry baggage from other MMOs. It's the players and not the game design, that imposes the restrictions you are complaining about.

 

Exactly this. An example: The Lucky Noobs [LN] killed Sabetha with only 5 players.

 

And they did their own thinking and optimizing and differed in their team composition from what other think is the "optimal" solution (META) and they were successful.

 

The raids are a (big) challenge. It is still "hard content" for most players. But how players want to beat this challenge is up to the players and is it not restricted by the game. Players can use the solutions that have worked for a lot of other players before (the "META") but they can also go succesfully their own way.

 

Raids are very challenging content (compared to open-world-PvE) and are maybe too challenging for some players, but they still allow the "play how you want" freedom.

 

 

[NikeEU.7690]

Class diversity in raids is at an all time high. Anyone who tells you differently is just displaying their ignorance.

[CptAurellian.9537]

An all time high doesn't mean it is great. But if they continue the path of the last balance patches, there's some hope it may finally become good.

[NikeEU.7690]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> An all time high doesn't mean it is great. But if they continue the path of the last balance patches, there's some hope it may finally become good.

 

Its already good. Every class is viable on every boss. What more do you want?

[CptAurellian.9537]

What I'd like to see? All classes being fully replaceable without substantially impacting your squad.

[zealex.9410]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> What I'd like to see? All classes being fully replaceable without substantially impacting your squad.

 

that would mean that all the classes are equally strong at everything. Ppl would be playing the same thing then with just a diff coat of paint.

[NotOverlyCheesy.9427]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > What I'd like to see? All classes being fully replaceable without substantially impacting your squad.

>

> that would mean that all the classes are equally strong at everything. Ppl would be playing the same thing then with just a diff coat of paint.

 

Classes being on a somewhat equal range of dmg output/ healing output/ boon application is very important for class diversity. The way you make the classes interesting is having them play differently. For example weaver is different from dragonhunter but they both fill the damage role. There should be another class that can do what chrono does currently or they have to take a serious look at unique buffs and remove most of them.

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > What I'd like to see? All classes being fully replaceable without substantially impacting your squad.

>

> that would mean that all the classes are equally strong at everything. Ppl would be playing the same thing then with just a diff coat of paint.

Nope. NotOverlyCheesy already mentioned many important things, unique buffs being the main offender. Don't have a warrior in your squad and you lose 10% of the total squad damage in a single hit, give or take a bit depending on condi vs power ratio. Go without a ranger and you'll lose quite a bit, too. Go without a thief/guard/ele/... and ... no one will give a fuck. Ironically, mesmer actually is replaceable, as LN showed us (although it's too early to draw far-reaching conclusions from their Sab kill). Stuff like spirits and banners may or may not be iconic to their respective class, but either changing the buffs they grant to something "normal" or copying the buff effects to some other class will not impact the playstyle of the class.

 

Apart from buffs, it is not necessary that everyone is equally good at everything. Variations can be there (and are unavoidable, anyway), although I'd definitely love to see gross outliers like weaver vs. big hitbox removed. There are enough examples out there which show you can have better balance without homogenising classes.

 

[zealex.9410]

> @"NotOverlyCheesy.9427" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > > What I'd like to see? All classes being fully replaceable without substantially impacting your squad.

> >

> > that would mean that all the classes are equally strong at everything. Ppl would be playing the same thing then with just a diff coat of paint.

>

> Classes being on a somewhat equal range of dmg output/ healing output/ boon application is very important for class diversity. The way you make the classes interesting is having them play differently. For example weaver is different from dragonhunter but they both fill the damage role. There should be another class that can do what chrono does currently or they have to take a serious look at unique buffs and remove most of them.

 

I dont argue with that classes sould be on the same range. But i dont think making every class be equally good at everything is possible outside of expansions. At this moment in the expansion the dps role can be shared by all classes. The healer role by the classes that right now have a healing class etc. There are issue with quickness stackers and druid currently but thats not because the other quickstackers or healers are weak and quickness and healing. Its because as you said chrono is overloaded and same with druid.

 

Bottom line is imo that if you want to play a dps rn which is the most required role then you can bring every class depending on the encounter. I personally find it more interesting having encounters determin what class is best at since some classes will get their dps off in diff methods.