Why the change to scourge condi?

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> That's OK ... I have a response that's I've used before.

>

> 1. Do you not think that if Anet had the intention for classes/specs/builds to be balanced with a focus on performance ... we wouldn't have something that resembles that balance after the 5+ years the game has been released? because we don't .....

> 2. Are you going to try to tell me that Anet haven't had enough time to create a balanced state to achieve their equivalent performance if that's their intended result? because they have .....

 

1. Again, that's a matter of intent vs result. The intent can be to have balance, but the result may not necessarily match the intent. We can see evidence of the intent, but the results are still not ideal, and again that can be chalked up to a number of possible reasons, perhaps even just poor design.

 

2. Achieving balance is a constant uphill battle in game development. Even if you do achieve some semblance of it at any given time in a game's lifespan, the moment you add new content, skills, classes, gear stats or traits, the balance can be thrown out again. Sometimes it's not even the classes themselves, but the nature of the content that they are up against that can alter the meta and make certain specs more effective than others (for example, at one stage enemy armor levels were to high in upper tier fractals, making power builds much less effective than condition builds at those tiers. ANet eventually amended it, once again showing their interest in balance). You're asking why the balance is still not 100% after 5 years, well the simple answer is because the game is constantly evolving, and so the pursuit of balance will be one that never ends.

 

Keep in mind we've just come out of an expansion launch, and a lot of new traits and skills with new synergies were introduced, so it's a given that there will be a lot of kinks to iron out. You could even say that ANet's introduction of elite specs and Raids, with their very stringent criteria, has created a lot of problems for them with regards to achieving balance, but that is something they have to contend with now.

 

>

> Think about that. I would believe your explanation ... if you would have told me that 6 months after the game was released, not 5+ years. You're thief example is not contradictory to anything I've said; just because Anet boosted the damage to a elite spec does not demonstrate they are ensuring classes have equivalent performance. I mean, if that IS true ... what's their excuse for EVERY OTHER class that doesn't do as much damage as Ele? Why didn't they buff Deadeye to anything CLOSE to the DPS Ele can do? The Deadeye damage buff simply tells me that Anet recognizes Deadeye damage is insufficient; compared to what? Well, not compared to other classes, that's for sure ... otherwise they would have buffed it to a more appropriate value. If you are reading any more into it that this, I'm just going to refer to you point 1 and 2 above ...

 

It is contradictory, because if they had no interest in balance, or in how classes performed at the highest level content, they wouldn't have, for example, given Thiefs the buff they did WITH an explanation of why they were doing it and how they wanted to increase its effectiveness in end game content. They also weren't just looking at the Thief on its own, because they specifically mentioned this line "so we added a selection of new stolen items that have effects tailored to the needs of a raid party." That quote on its own highlights that they are looking at the Thief's performance in a GROUP setting, specifically Raids.

 

Also, if you looked at the latest benchmarks after the patch, you'd notice that most of the top DPS specs are very close to each other against small hitboxes. There's only an 8,6% difference between the average DPS of a Deadeye power build and an Weaver Power/Staff build (which is currently top DPS). Daredevils are even closer, with just a 3,2% difference. Most of the top classes sit between 30 - 35k average DPS against smaller hit boxes, showing a trend that the devs are trying to get everything withing a similar range. Even Mesmers went from trash tier DPS in PvE to being brought up to the same playing field as the other classes (with Chrono averaging out at 33 330 dps and Mirage at 35k, the same average as Weaver).

 

Now, take a guess which is the only class not to rise above the 30k DPS threshold. Spoiler alert, it's the Necromancer.

 

I all honesty, you are contending with the request for Necro to be bought up to par with other classes in PvE, but you haven't actually given a good reason at all as to why it shouldn't be done. Your only excuse it "ANet doesn't care", in which case the answer would be, "they should start caring". But even despite what you say, DPS benchmarks actually show most classes are in a similar playing field with their top DPS builds. Trends show that with each patch, ANet is trying to get under-performing specs to be closer to the top performing specs. Necromancers, however, have been somewhat trodden on with PvP oriented nerfs causing collateral damage to their performance in PvE, but this might have been an unintended effect. Their's certainly no harm in players waving a flag to get ANet to notice some discrepancies when it comes to PvE balance, so I'm honestly not sure what your agenda is in trying to oppose it.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > That's OK ... I have a response that's I've used before.

> >

> > 1. Do you not think that if Anet had the intention for classes/specs/builds to be balanced with a focus on performance ... we wouldn't have something that resembles that balance after the 5+ years the game has been released? because we don't .....

> > 2. Are you going to try to tell me that Anet haven't had enough time to create a balanced state to achieve their equivalent performance if that's their intended result? because they have .....

>

> 1. Again, that's a matter of intent vs result. The intent can be to have balance, but the result may not necessarily match the intent. We can see evidence of the intent, but the results are still not ideal, and again that can be chalked up to a number of possible reasons, perhaps even just poor design.

>

> 2. Achieving balance is a constant uphill battle in game development. Even if you do achieve some semblance of it at any given time in a game's lifespan, the moment you add new content, skills, classes, gear stats or traits, the balance can be thrown out again. Sometimes it's not even the classes themselves, but the nature of the content that they are up against that can alter the meta and make certain specs more effective than others (for example, at one stage enemy armor levels were to high in upper tier fractals, making power builds much less effective than condition builds at those tiers. ANet eventually amended it, once again showing their interest in balance). You're asking why the balance is still not 100% after 5 years, well the simple answer is because the game is constantly evolving, and so the pursuit of balance will be one that never ends.

>

> Keep in mind we've just come out of an expansion launch, and a lot of new traits and skills with new synergies were introduced, so it's a given that there will be a lot of kinks to iron out. You could even say that ANet's introduction of elite specs and Raids, with their very stringent criteria, has created a lot of problems for them with regards to achieving balance, but that is something they have to contend with now.

>

> >

> > Think about that. I would believe your explanation ... if you would have told me that 6 months after the game was released, not 5+ years. You're thief example is not contradictory to anything I've said; just because Anet boosted the damage to a elite spec does not demonstrate they are ensuring classes have equivalent performance. I mean, if that IS true ... what's their excuse for EVERY OTHER class that doesn't do as much damage as Ele? Why didn't they buff Deadeye to anything CLOSE to the DPS Ele can do? The Deadeye damage buff simply tells me that Anet recognizes Deadeye damage is insufficient; compared to what? Well, not compared to other classes, that's for sure ... otherwise they would have buffed it to a more appropriate value. If you are reading any more into it that this, I'm just going to refer to you point 1 and 2 above ...

>

> It is contradictory, because if they had no interest in balance, or in how classes performed at the highest level content, they wouldn't have, for example, given Thiefs the buff they did WITH an explanation of why they were doing it and how they wanted to increase its effectiveness in end game content.

 

Except my argument isn't that Anet won't buff classes because of _reasons_. My argument is that Anet doesn't care what the meta is and therefore, any argument that says classes need to change because of 'meta' reasons makes no sense in the context of the game design. That includes statements like "necros need a buff because class X does this better" ... or "I can't get a PUG raid group because necro performance is trash". Those are meta justifications for necro buffs ... and they make no sense in a game that's DESIGNED so that you don't need to play optimized builds and comps to be successful. I don't need to do anything more than look at the game and how classes perform in it to conclude that, intentional or not, we don't have balance related to some kind of performance equivalence measure between classes. It's not a thing where we used to have it, then it got broken and we want it back .. it simply never existed ... and it's irrelevant if Anet intended to balance classes for equivalent performance or not because the reality IN GAME is that it has never and currently does not exist.

 

In addition to that, it's rather disingenuous to single out ONE change to class damage and claim that Anet balances for equivalent performance (which ironically, this particular change did NOT achieve) while ignoring the hundreds of others over the last 5 years that do the opposite or continue to fail at balancing for equivalent performance. If Anet was making changes like the one you claim is done on Deadeye because of 'meta' ... we would have achieved equivalent performance balance YEARS ago.

 

Are you aware that according to the latest benchmarks from the last patch on Snow Crow's website, the average DPS between the highest (Power Weaver) vs. the lowest (Condi Reaper) is a difference of 17% with approximately equally distributed DPS positions for other classes in between that? You are actually trying to tell me that after 5 years of this game in existence, Anet achieving is 17% range difference for equivalent performance between classes is somehow indicative of their _intent_ to balance classes in a narrow, reasonable range of DPS? If so, you're definition of equivalent performance must be something pretty broad ... and not representative of what the people complaining about it think it should be.

 

Look, I think necro having crap damage isn't great either ... and if I was playing WoW, I would be right there front and center complaining about it, because WoW is holy trinity and that means Blizzard has to care about what profs are ingame being played for a thriving raid environment. Why I don't complain it in GW2? It's not because I don't like it .. it's because GW2 doesn't need that same level of balance because a) they don't have holy trinity and b) the threshold for success allows people to play how they want.

 

Here is the best part though .. GW2 has never been a game where I need to care about my performance relative to others classes is to play it, ever. It's simply not a factor in how this game works or how Anet makes changes to it. THIS is actually it's appeal for many people over other MMO's ... so the bottom line is this: If you play how the game is intended to be played with people who also play how the game is intended to be played, this problem doesn't exist. If this problem exists for you, it's because you have bought into meta idealism.

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Except my argument isn't that Anet won't buff classes because of _reasons_. My argument is that Anet doesn't care what the meta is and therefore, any argument that says classes need to change because of 'meta' reasons makes no sense in the context of the game design.

 

> Those are meta justifications for necro buffs ... and they make no sense in a game that's DESIGNED so that you don't need to play optimized builds and comps to be successful.

 

The problem with these arguments is that the game's design has changed in the past 5 years. The original policy of "play how you want" may have rung true a few years ago, but since the introduction of raids, and the increased difficulty of T4 fractals, with the inclusion of mechanics like mistlock instabilities, meta compositions have become much more enforced among players.

 

There's also the very simple matter of players being kicked out of parties because of the class they play. Do you think that's something that should not be addressed? Even if you were right about the idea that ANet doesn't care about the meta, does that not mean they should start caring, especially when they introduced game modes that begin to enforce it, and subsequently that excludes players from that content based on their preferences?

 

> In addition to that, it's rather disingenuous to single out ONE change to class damage and claim that Anet balances for equivalent performance (which ironically, this particular change did NOT achieve) while ignoring the hundreds of others over the last 5 years that do the opposite or continue to fail at balancing for equivalent performance.

 

Again, I will reiterate the "Intent" vs "Result" part of the whole process.

 

> Are you aware that according to the latest benchmarks from the last patch on Snow Crow's website, the average DPS between the highest (Power Weaver) vs. the lowest (Condi Reaper) is a difference of 17% with approximately equally distributed DPS positions for other classes in between that? You are actually trying to tell me that after 5 years of this game in existence, Anet achieving is 17% range difference for equivalent performance between classes is somehow indicative of their _intent_ to balance classes in a narrow, reasonable range of DPS?

 

No, what you are highlighting is the result, not the intent. Only ANet can tell us what their intent is. I can hit a golf ball with the intent to get a hole in one, but there's a very good chance I will fail on almost every try. Does that change my intent? Or does the result simply not match my intent? Just because you are struggling to achieve something, it doesn't mean you don't intend to achieve it.

 

Also, keep in mind the disparity between the highest and lowest DPS classes used to be around 44% at one stage after PoF launched. So I think they are getting it a lot closer to being more balanced than it was before.

 

> Look, I think necro having crap damage isn't great either ... and if I was playing WoW, I would be right there front and center complaining about it, because WoW is holy trinity and that means Blizzard has to care about what profs are ingame being played for a thriving raid environment. Why I don't complain it in GW2? It's not because I don't like it .. it's because GW2 doesn't need that same level of balance because a) they don't have holy trinity and b) the threshold for success allows people to play how they want.

 

I agree with you in regards to most content in the game. But some content, like raids or T4 fractals, does have more stringent demands with regards to builds or party comps. As mentioned above, some players are being excluded outright just because of their class choice. That concerns me more than anything. I don't even main a necro and hardly ever play one, yet I feel bad for players who have to deal with such an ugly facet of the community. And yes, maybe it is more of a community issue than an ANet issue, but wishing on a star for people to be better than they were yesterday is a vain hope, whereas expecting ANet may make all classes more viable or competitive is at least a bit more realistic.

 

> Here is the best part though .. GW2 has never been a game where I need to care about my performance relative to others classes is to play it, ever. It's simply not a factor in how this game works or how Anet makes changes to it. THIS is actually it's appeal for many people over other MMO's ... so the bottom line is this: If you play how the game is intended to be played with people who also play how the game is intended to be played, this problem doesn't exist. If this problem exists for you, it's because you have bought into meta idealism.

 

I agree, that is the game's appeal, or it is in most cases. The issue, as mentioned above, is that some game modes go against that original design philosophy. It's a bit unfortunate, but it is true. And yes, the problem is largely created by the community, but I still believe if ANet wants to create a high-end game mode with an emphasis on difficulty and more stringent requirements for builds or group compositions, then they do need to balance all classes to be able to perform at adequate levels in that game mode. No, they don't all have to perform exactly the same in terms of damage, but if they are not good at damage, they need to at least bring something else worthwhile.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > Except my argument isn't that Anet won't buff classes because of _reasons_. My argument is that Anet doesn't care what the meta is and therefore, any argument that says classes need to change because of 'meta' reasons makes no sense in the context of the game design.

>

> > Those are meta justifications for necro buffs ... and they make no sense in a game that's DESIGNED so that you don't need to play optimized builds and comps to be successful.

>

> The problem with these arguments is that the game's design has changed in the past 5 years. The original policy of "play how you want" may have rung true a few years ago, but since the introduction of raids, and the increased difficulty of T4 fractals, with the inclusion of mechanics like mistlock instabilities, meta compositions have become much more enforced among players.

>

> There's also the very simple matter of players being kicked out of parties because of the class they play. Do you think that's something that should not be addressed? Even if you were right about the idea that ANet doesn't care about the meta, does that not mean they should start caring, especially when they introduced game modes that begin to enforce it, and subsequently that excludes players from that content based on their preferences?

 

The game design changes, but the lack of the holy trinity requirements still persists ... It's the lack of a trinity that removes the need for balancing performance because the game doesn't need a set number of its population to play certain classes since roles are not dictated by class. Even **with** raids, the roles are simply a matter of changing spec, it's not a fixed function of your class, so even then, the composition for raid teams do not prevent people from playing how they want. Anet took a good page from SWTOR on that (even if they didn't know it). It maintains the play how you want policy but enables Anet to provide a 'roles' aspects to the game in very SPECIFIC game situations. SMART!

 

Getting kicked from parties is not a result of Anet's design for the game; that's a consequence of players putting unnecessary restrictions on team compositions. If a player finds/creates teams that are inclusive, they don't encounter this problem ... the MORE players that do this, then the LESS players there are that will demand meta play. Anyone that complains they can't get teams because of their class is part of the problem with meta, not the solution to minimize it's impact.

[Axl.8924]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > Except my argument isn't that Anet won't buff classes because of _reasons_. My argument is that Anet doesn't care what the meta is and therefore, any argument that says classes need to change because of 'meta' reasons makes no sense in the context of the game design.

> >

> > > Those are meta justifications for necro buffs ... and they make no sense in a game that's DESIGNED so that you don't need to play optimized builds and comps to be successful.

> >

> > The problem with these arguments is that the game's design has changed in the past 5 years. The original policy of "play how you want" may have rung true a few years ago, but since the introduction of raids, and the increased difficulty of T4 fractals, with the inclusion of mechanics like mistlock instabilities, meta compositions have become much more enforced among players.

> >

> > There's also the very simple matter of players being kicked out of parties because of the class they play. Do you think that's something that should not be addressed? Even if you were right about the idea that ANet doesn't care about the meta, does that not mean they should start caring, especially when they introduced game modes that begin to enforce it, and subsequently that excludes players from that content based on their preferences?

>

> The game design changes, but the lack of the holy trinity still persists ... It's the lack of a trinity that removes the need for balancing performance because the game doesn't need a set number of its population to play certain classes since roles are not dictated by class. Even **with** raids, the roles are simply a matter of changing spec, it's not a fixed function of your class, so even then, the composition for raid teams do not prevent people from playing how they want. Anet took a good page from SWTOR on that (even if they didn't know it) because if your role is determined by setup and not class, you still can play how you want.

>

> Getting kicked from parties is not a result of Anet's design for the game; that's a consequence of players putting unnecessary restrictions on team compositions. If a player finds/creates teams that are inclusive, they don't encounter this problem ... the MORE players that do this, then the LESS players there are that will demand meta play.

 

It requires even more balancing, because there is no holy trinity.

 

Example:If eles Were terrible at dps, but great as healers and great buffers, they would be unhappy yes, but they could provide buffs and heal to a high degree, but if its terrible in all 3, then there is a problem.Its not the holy trinity but classes themselves are meshes of different roles,like healer/support, or support dps or support role with healer like druid can be,except they can also do good dps.

 

Why should necros be excluded? Thats bigotry towards one class in a game.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Axl.8924" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > Except my argument isn't that Anet won't buff classes because of _reasons_. My argument is that Anet doesn't care what the meta is and therefore, any argument that says classes need to change because of 'meta' reasons makes no sense in the context of the game design.

> > >

> > > > Those are meta justifications for necro buffs ... and they make no sense in a game that's DESIGNED so that you don't need to play optimized builds and comps to be successful.

> > >

> > > The problem with these arguments is that the game's design has changed in the past 5 years. The original policy of "play how you want" may have rung true a few years ago, but since the introduction of raids, and the increased difficulty of T4 fractals, with the inclusion of mechanics like mistlock instabilities, meta compositions have become much more enforced among players.

> > >

> > > There's also the very simple matter of players being kicked out of parties because of the class they play. Do you think that's something that should not be addressed? Even if you were right about the idea that ANet doesn't care about the meta, does that not mean they should start caring, especially when they introduced game modes that begin to enforce it, and subsequently that excludes players from that content based on their preferences?

> >

> > The game design changes, but the lack of the holy trinity still persists ... It's the lack of a trinity that removes the need for balancing performance because the game doesn't need a set number of its population to play certain classes since roles are not dictated by class. Even **with** raids, the roles are simply a matter of changing spec, it's not a fixed function of your class, so even then, the composition for raid teams do not prevent people from playing how they want. Anet took a good page from SWTOR on that (even if they didn't know it) because if your role is determined by setup and not class, you still can play how you want.

> >

> > Getting kicked from parties is not a result of Anet's design for the game; that's a consequence of players putting unnecessary restrictions on team compositions. If a player finds/creates teams that are inclusive, they don't encounter this problem ... the MORE players that do this, then the LESS players there are that will demand meta play.

>

> It requires even more balancing, because there is no holy trinity.

>

> Example:If eles Were terrible at dps, but great as healers and great buffers, they would be unhappy yes, but they could provide buffs and heal to a high degree, but if its terrible in all 3, then there is a problem.Its not the holy trinity but classes themselves are meshes of different roles,like healer/support, or support dps or support role with healer like druid can be,except they can also do good dps.

>

> Why should necros be excluded? Thats bigotry towards one class in a game.

 

That doesn't make sense ... you're assuming there is SOMETHING about the game that requires all classes to perform equivalently ... there isn't; there never has been. The idea of the need for performance balance is based on a player expectation, not a game mechanic. That doesn't establish a need, it simply creates a want.

 

Holy trinity requires it because holy trinity games **require** classes in their roles to play it properly, in the correct numbers to exist, otherwise players have problems finding people to raid with. This game doesn't.

[Axl.8924]

I still need to know:What class do you play? ranger? warrior? revenant?

 

You seemed biased against necros.

[Dadnir.5038]

I'd say that he/she is see the guardian and guardian's players in a brigther way than he/she does for the necromancer. If this can answer your question Axl.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Axl.8924" said:

> I still need to know:What class do you play? ranger? warrior? revenant?

>

> You seemed biased against necros.

 

I'm biased against people pushing meta. Class has no relevance here. You seem to not understand what **need** actually means.

[Axl.8924]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Axl.8924" said:

> > I still need to know:What class do you play? ranger? warrior? revenant?

> >

> > You seemed biased against necros.

>

> I'm biased against people pushing meta. Class has no relevance here. You seem to not understand what **need** actually means.

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Axl.8924" said:

> > I still need to know:What class do you play? ranger? warrior? revenant?

> >

> > You seemed biased against necros.

>

> I'm biased against people pushing meta. Class has no relevance here. You seem to not understand what **need** actually means.

 

I'm done with you.Either you are trolling or you are unable to see.I tried reasoning with you, but i just can't get you to see that its not reasonable to have one class under perform everyone.It wouldn't be so bad if scourge was performing as good as the best support classes and being good condi dps to a lesser degree, "IF" support was good enough to make him desired.Being niche is not something thats negociatable.Every other class would be up in arms rioting if their class was under performing this bad.

 

It wouldn't be so bad if the meta was around 28k and every other class was around that dps, but its not.Most classes can go over 30k dps, and give better support and or better heal.Thats just bad.

[Obtena.7952]

Clearly you view this game as an exercise in philanthropy if you think balancing PVE raid performance is a priority when it's not needed. I'm not trolling, you just misunderstand what a **need** is. What you feel is bad or good is irrelevant; if the game was built that way, you wouldn't have choices. Needs in the game aren't determined by what players' feeling are ... this is about running a business and doing what needs to be done, not making this a safe zone for player's who think what they want is needed.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Clearly you view this game as an exercise in philanthropy if you think balancing PVE raid performance is a priority when it's not needed. I'm not trolling, you just misunderstand what a **need** is. What you feel is bad or good is irrelevant; if the game was built that way, you wouldn't have choices. Needs in the game aren't determined by what players' feeling are ... this is about running a business and doing what needs to be done, not making this a safe zone for player's who think what they want is needed.

 

The issue is that if you were to run a business with your mentality Obtena, this buisness would soon rot and decay in immobilism.

 

In modern society, for a business to stay in an healthy state, you need to try and strive to constantly improve the area that are underperforming. And what's needed for a game is to try and strive constantly to reach a state of balance between each of their professions because the professions are the main interface between your users and your game. It's not just PvP or PvE, there is a real need to balance accross all game modes and this is a thing that all games need to do. I doubt that anet would be fool enough to shut down themself and just look at a single part of their game as the part which is needed to be balance and fuck everything else.

 

History proved that anet is trying to reach a balance state in all game modes. A good example for that is that anet make it's PvE more and more friendly for the necromancer. The issue is that there is a limit to such change to PvE and sooner or later they will have to address the design flaws that make the necromancer underperforming in PvE. Not because it need to be meta or whatever, just because there is a need for an healthy balance in the game.

 

The perfect state of a game is when there is no "meta" in this game. When one try to abolish the "trinity", such a goal is even more important. A meta exist in GW2 because some professions overperform while other underperform. Whatever you say, there is a need to reduce the inegality if anet want it's game to continue to be an "healthy" game and they will most likely continue to try.

 

The necromancer itself is in an awkward place due to the fact that all it's tools are designed to be potent in PvP/WvW but fait to find their place in PvE. This mean that in itself the necromancer lack in balance and that anet need to try to balance it. Not because some player want to use it in the PvE end game content but because such a state is harmfull for their game as a whole.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > Clearly you view this game as an exercise in philanthropy if you think balancing PVE raid performance is a priority when it's not needed. I'm not trolling, you just misunderstand what a **need** is. What you feel is bad or good is irrelevant; if the game was built that way, you wouldn't have choices. Needs in the game aren't determined by what players' feeling are ... this is about running a business and doing what needs to be done, not making this a safe zone for player's who think what they want is needed.

>

> The issue is that if you were to run a business with your mentality Obtena, this buisness would soon rot and decay in immobilism.

 

Maybe ... that doesn't change the fact we don't have balance in GW2 for 5 years now ... and a few more by the looks of it too. I understand that pleasing the customer is important ... but if the game is already serving a loyal market that makes it profitable, produces the desired ROI, in it's current state ... then the business case for 'balance' because of 'customer wants' and 'people will leave' becomes pretty weak ... especially if it's not a new game. We have 5 years of experience here that says balance isn't what makes this game persist ... The people that can't stomach the way balance is in this game have already left ... or if they haven't, they sure talk pretty big.

 

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

Well, if you really look from a business/marketing point of view it's indeed a _bit_ different compared to a genuine balancing point of view.

The Mesmer is their Unique Selling Point (USP), so I can understand they make that one a _bit_ more powerful than the rest (not as overperforming as they are now, though). Mage (Ele), Warrior and Hunter (Ranger) classes are always you're bread and butter classes in any MMO, so would be strange if they would make those underperforming (hence the sitting META), but normally you then have your Dark mage/Minion Master (Necro) type that normally does very well as well ... Why is (and has been for a while now) the Necro _the_ most underperforming class in the PvE Endgame! It's something I really don't understand firstly from a _balancing_ point of view, which ANet will always **say** will be their driving motive as well, but secondly not even from a _business_ point of view (which is understandably their **real** motive). I really can't grasp it!

[Lexan.5930]

I would honestly welcome them removing parasitic contagion and putting in something completely different just so that anet can't say we are too tanky with traits so we can do some damn damage in raids in pvp.