RAIDS LACK CLASS DIVERSITY- Possible Solutions.

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

I dont know how is that in high li groups but if i pug around 0-100 li noone cares about what dps build you play.

 

If you want more diversity in support classes anet needs to do what they did to warrior. 3 possible builds all good with some advantages over the other.

 

Also dobt know if all of you know that but there is not only one quickness/alacrity bot but 4 diferent top tier builds. It is more diverse then warrior.

I wouldnt mind if other class would be buffed that it is better on some encounters then chrono and nit that behind on others (like warrior builds). The easiest way to fo thet in my oppinion would be to add condition gear witb boon duration for firebrand/renegade

[Xantaria.8726]

> It's exactly that. None really tests any other than the main builds (or if they do, they don't publish the numbers 'cause "trash builds are trash", like one of the former benchmarkers used to say). If it isn't meta, it must be at least 50% worse.

> If some alternative build benchmarks 1k lower than meta, it's deemed trash by these lovely metasheep. For ex. sw+torch/gs DH is just a tiny bit behind meta sc+torch/gs. But how many sword dhs you guys have seen during last 2 years? For similar reasons, none's done a proper power soulbeast test. Yes, there's that 25,8k but that one had more than couple issues.

 

Dont know where all that hate comes from (on both sides) but the meta builds which are published after each balance patch are builds which where tested for several days on golem and encounters and the are optimal setup if you want to kill sth as quick as possible. However, where i agree is on the part with builds which are different from the most optimal builds (which i got to say though is only optimal if the player is used to the encounter and the class he is playing, otherwise he can be far off and actual can be the worst in regards of dmg). If you train a rotation and have a build which makes some sense (for examble not taking thoughness in a dps build) it doesnt matter what you are actual play, you can kill almost any boss with every class on any build, best exambles for that are low mans and the Raid tournament where the groups had to play off-meta builds since they could only use each profession once/encounter.. As long as DPS-players are ~15k dps in the boss-encounter (though it must be said that the higher the dps the easier are the mechanics for everyone) you can kill almost any boss.

 

 

> Kitty did try to provide some numbers average players should reach at least on alternative builds (to get some numbers to compare) but she didn't have the right to do that 'cause she's trash, way worse than average, skillclicker and didn't spend hours practising per build (or that's what many super-skilled metasheep liked to say as someone else than speedrunners publishing numbers is pure blasphemy). And after raiding on various builds and comparing the results to gw2raidar's averages, Kitty was actually noticeably higher than average players with max 30 minutes of golem practise. Currently in top 10%-top 20% on some of the metabuilds (having not practised outside raid situations and the few test tries for numbers).

>

> To be honest, Kitty's kinda given up about it. Unless devs balance it or some 1% players start testing out alternatives (they won't 'cause they speedrun and only care about very best alternative), nothing will change in that regard.

 

Not all think like that though. Its a shame if you got insulted for your work.

 

[Henry.5713]

There is a difference between even 'highly viable' and simply 'fully optimal'. This difference of 5% (or less) between 95% and 100% might be laughably minor to some but it is still a big deal to those trying to min-max. Actually, even 1% is a big deal if we are talking about 'optimal'.

Alternative builds can be quite viable, most would never deny that. Just do not try to sell those builds as completely 'equal' to more commonly played META builds.

There are cases where you (and most likely quite a few others you do not know about) have figured out something that has not become public knowledge yet. Something that might even outperform this META. Those cases are rare but they happen. Why else would the META ever change? It is nothing more than the combination of experiences and ideas of the entire community. People figure out new strategies and notice synergies almost on a daily basis.

 

And yes, I am fully aware that the widely acknowledged benchmarks are done in a sterile environment, done by players who easily outperform the major part of our community. There obviously are builds which will produce better results in an actual raid encounter, played by mediocre players. Do we really have to point this out? Something which should be obvious to anyone.

[LadyKitty.6120]

> @"Henry.5713" said:

> There is a difference between even 'highly viable' and simply 'fully optimal'. This difference of 5% (or less) between 95% and 100% might be laughably minor to some but it is still a big deal to those trying to min-max. Actually, even 1% is a big deal if we are talking about 'optimal'.

> Alternative builds can be quite viable, most would never deny that. Just do not try to sell those builds as completely 'equal' to more commonly played META builds.

> There are cases where you (and most likely quite a few others you do not know about) have figured out something that has not become public knowledge yet. Something that might even outperform this META. Those cases are rare but they happen. Why else would the META ever change? It is nothing more than the combination of experiences and ideas of the entire community. People figure out new strategies and notice synergies almost on a daily basis.

>

> And yes, I am fully aware that the widely acknowledged benchmarks are done in a sterile environment, done by players who easily outperform the major part of our community. There obviously are builds which will produce better results in an actual raid encounter, played by mediocre players. Do we really have to point this out? Something which should be obvious to anyone.

 

And here you fail to realize "damage potential / skill required"-factor in last 2 of your phrases, which would define the pug meta if people didn't think they can pull off stuff like top 0,1% does (they play the builds to max and aforementioned factor doesn't affect them, but it heavily affects 95% of raid community). Yes yes, benchmarkers define min-max meta in cases where kill on first try is guaranteed and they can shave off 15-20 mins on full clear by using that meta.

 

However, like most people probably know, in normal pugs (without ridiculous 300 LI requirement), kill is far from certain and average pug hasn't spent much time practising the build. In such case, it'd be smarter for pug meta to use builds with best "damage potential / skill needed"-ratio as well as perhaps bringing an extra healer for 50%+ better recovery from failed downer mechanics (as well as ~50% better squad survivability). For ex. we could set pistol/pistol deadeye as 1.0 skill needed as it's a build that requires pressing 2 buttons and is equally effective from melee and 900 range. It does a bit over 21k on golem, so it'd have 21000/1.0 = 21k potential/skill requirement ratio (let's shorten to dp/sr-ratio). Then we could have kitless simplier-than-Kek's power holosmith (one of Kitty's specials) which does 29,5k on golem and essentially requires pressing 2+1 skillbar keys, 2 utilities in a certain part of rotation and pressing a couple toolbar keys off-CD. It also doesn't really punish for messing up. However, it requires sticking in melee-range, and thus gets 10% extra sr for sloth, 25% at Matt and 40% at VG ('cause pugs are usually horrible chasers and easily mess up if target moves). So, it'd normally have 1.2 sr but 1.68 at VG. 29,5/1.2=24583. 29,5/1.68=17560.

Ofc such system would require estimating the skill requirements of various builds (with rotation and survivability and deerp factors) with melee, chase, lava font/trap positioning and other related multipliers.

For 3rd healer, it'd be heal+defensive boon output / skill required. At this point, even Kitty needs to admit that pugs can't help but double druid since 2 average pug druids very rarely equal to one decent derping solo druid boonwise (do they mainly press staff 1? 3 phrases are enough to teach how to keep up proper might and fury.) And if somebody wanted to go min-max about it, extra healer would add DPS by increasing survivability factor.

Ofc gw2 raidar helps a bit at estimating dp/sr ratio for metabuilds since it shows what kind of damage average metas actually do. (DH as saddest example)

 

And how to boon druid in 3 phrases?

1. Start the fight with staff and swap+quick draw wh5 CA 43 wh5 and swap to staff and swap between staff and axe+wh according to wh5's cooldown.

2. Use CA and wh5 off-CD to keep up that might, fury, swiftness and regen and delay CA for max 3 secs if squad is nuked soon.

3. If wh5 goes on long cd, camp staff 'til it's almost back and repeat 1.

Extra: If boss has low heal intensity, you can axe/wh to quickdraw wh5 every 9 seconds.

[Nephalem.8921]

> @"Henry.5713" said:

> There is a difference between even 'highly viable' and simply 'fully optimal'. This difference of 5% (or less) between 95% and 100% might be laughably minor to some but it is still a big deal to those trying to min-max. Actually, even 1% is a big deal if we are talking about 'optimal'.

> Alternative builds can be quite viable, most would never deny that. Just do not try to sell those builds as completely 'equal' to more commonly played META builds.

> There are cases where you (and most likely quite a few others you do not know about) have figured out something that has not become public knowledge yet. Something that might even outperform this META. Those cases are rare but they happen. Why else would the META ever change? It is nothing more than the combination of experiences and ideas of the entire community. People figure out new strategies and notice synergies almost on a daily basis.

>

> And yes, I am fully aware that the widely acknowledged benchmarks are done in a sterile environment, done by players who easily outperform the major part of our community. There obviously are builds which will produce better results in an actual raid encounter, played by mediocre players. Do we really have to point this out? Something which should be obvious to anyone.

 

But the difference is not 5% in some cases. Its 50% and more. Epi bounce at SH can reach 43k in the actual fight. Thats almost 7k dps ahead of Mirage's Golem benchmark.

But if they nerf Epi Scourge will be useless in raids except for maybe flak shot kiting at sab.

You can also add 10% dps to the Weaver benchmark because it was done with only 5 boons. Bountiful power was a strong but balanced trait before chaos chrono. Now it's just broken. Nerfing it to 1% per boon will make it bad without a chaos chrono. They could implement a cap at 6 or 7 boons for it.

Scourge only works well with discord or teamspeak and 3+ in a team. Tough spot to balance and needs major improvements in all other areas if they decide to nerf epi. But i don't really think they will do it but almost nobody exploits that right now anyways. Too much of a hassle to have 6 scourges for the 2min faster kill.

 

The last balance patch and alacrity nerf hit some profession just way too hard. Dh cooldowns don't align anymore at all. Holo was nerfed active on bombs, passive with Chrono perma slow removal and the alacrity nerf. Condi renegade and engi both had some confusion dmg and very cooldown dependant damage so they got hit the hardest.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"LadyKitty.6120" said:

> ...long wall of text...

 

The thing is groups are already searching for "dps" only in most cases if you look at groups in the LI range of 0 - 250. A lot of them don't care about weaver vs. holo vs. dh or anything else as long as you bring reasonable numbers. And that's a key point here lots of players in this LI range aren't able to pull numbers - even with very easy rotation classes - that are helping the team. Additionally many of them aren't very confident with boss mechanics either. I mean you can have about 80 LIs from Escort alone atm? Those two things together result in groups not being able to kill bosses. Some of them are, of course, but if you are a veteran raider you want to be sure to finish a boss within one try and not fix several problems in your group. That's why there are higher requirement groups as well as groups that want almost perfect weavers because they know if they bring their a game as druid/chrono/dps the others could and should do as well.

I'm with the crowd that says "mechanics first" but veteran raiders most often are beyond this point. When I'm pugging I really don't care about dps as long as we get the boss down but in my static I ask for something smoother than this plus saving time. The problem of the pugging community is that they are looking for the latter in a perfect world. I can't demonize them for that but we won't change them as well. The thing you can do is to stay open-minded and look for similar people. It helps me a lot when I'm pugging and not with my static.

 

> And how to boon druid in 3 phrases?

> 1. Start the fight with staff and swap+quick draw wh5 CA 43 wh5 and swap to staff and swap between staff and axe+wh according to wh5's cooldown.

> 2. Use CA and wh5 off-CD to keep up that might, fury, swiftness and regen and delay CA for max 3 secs if squad is nuked soon.

> 3. If wh5 goes on long cd, camp staff 'til it's almost back and repeat 1.

> Extra: If boss has low heal intensity, you can axe/wh to quickdraw wh5 every 9 seconds.

 

If two druids cannot maintain 25 might stacks in a raid squad there is definitely a tremendous lack of skill present or both druids are not geared properly. Even one single druid should be enough because you have (even random) blast finishers and other minor sources of might in a squad preventing from falling below 25 stacks. But yeah, I have seen that too in squads and that's a key point where you have to act as a commander. That also counts for the dps players in your squad with terrible numbers or chronos with horrible boon uptimes.

[Henry.5713]

> @"LadyKitty.6120" said:

> > @"Henry.5713" said:

> > There is a difference between even 'highly viable' and simply 'fully optimal'. This difference of 5% (or less) between 95% and 100% might be laughably minor to some but it is still a big deal to those trying to min-max. Actually, even 1% is a big deal if we are talking about 'optimal'.

> > Alternative builds can be quite viable, most would never deny that. Just do not try to sell those builds as completely 'equal' to more commonly played META builds.

> > There are cases where you (and most likely quite a few others you do not know about) have figured out something that has not become public knowledge yet. Something that might even outperform this META. Those cases are rare but they happen. Why else would the META ever change? It is nothing more than the combination of experiences and ideas of the entire community. People figure out new strategies and notice synergies almost on a daily basis.

> >

> > And yes, I am fully aware that the widely acknowledged benchmarks are done in a sterile environment, done by players who easily outperform the major part of our community. There obviously are builds which will produce better results in an actual raid encounter, played by mediocre players. Do we really have to point this out? Something which should be obvious to anyone.

>

> And here you fail to realize "damage potential / skill required"-factor in last 2 of your phrases, which would define the pug meta if people didn't think they can pull off stuff like top 0,1% does (they play the builds to max and aforementioned factor doesn't affect them, but it heavily affects 95% of raid community). Yes yes, benchmarkers define min-max meta in cases where kill on first try is guaranteed and they can shave off 15-20 mins on full clear by using that meta.

>

> However, like most people probably know, in normal pugs (without ridiculous 300 LI requirement), kill is far from certain and average pug hasn't spent much time practising the build. In such case, it'd be smarter for pug meta to use builds with best "damage potential / skill needed"-ratio as well as perhaps bringing an extra healer for 50%+ better recovery from failed downer mechanics (as well as ~50% better squad survivability). For ex. we could set pistol/pistol deadeye as 1.0 skill needed as it's a build that requires pressing 2 buttons and is equally effective from melee and 900 range. It does a bit over 21k on golem, so it'd have 21000/1.0 = 21k potential/skill requirement ratio (let's shorten to dp/sr-ratio). Then we could have kitless simplier-than-Kek's power holosmith (one of Kitty's specials) which does 29,5k on golem and essentially requires pressing 2+1 skillbar keys, 2 utilities in a certain part of rotation and pressing a couple toolbar keys off-CD. It also doesn't really punish for messing up. However, it requires sticking in melee-range, and thus gets 10% extra sr for sloth, 25% at Matt and 40% at VG ('cause pugs are usually horrible chasers and easily mess up if target moves). So, it'd normally have 1.2 sr but 1.68 at VG. 29,5/1.2=24583. 29,5/1.68=17560.

> Ofc such system would require estimating the skill requirements of various builds (with rotation and survivability and deerp factors) with melee, chase, lava font/trap positioning and other related multipliers.

> For 3rd healer, it'd be heal+defensive boon output / skill required. At this point, even Kitty needs to admit that pugs can't help but double druid since 2 average pug druids very rarely equal to one decent kitten solo druid boonwise (do they mainly press staff 1? 3 phrases are enough to teach how to keep up proper might and fury.) And if somebody wanted to go min-max about it, extra healer would add DPS by increasing survivability factor.

> Ofc gw2 raidar helps a bit at estimating dp/sr ratio for metabuilds since it shows what kind of damage average metas actually do. (DH as saddest example)

>

> And how to boon druid in 3 phrases?

> 1. Start the fight with staff and swap+quick draw wh5 CA 43 wh5 and swap to staff and swap between staff and axe+wh according to wh5's cooldown.

> 2. Use CA and wh5 off-CD to keep up that might, fury, swiftness and regen and delay CA for max 3 secs if squad is nuked soon.

> 3. If wh5 goes on long cd, camp staff 'til it's almost back and repeat 1.

> Extra: If boss has low heal intensity, you can axe/wh to quickdraw wh5 every 9 seconds.

 

How do I fail realize the fact about damage potial being bound to personal skill? This is exactly what I meant by this line: *"There obviously are builds which will produce better results in an actual raid encounter, played by mediocre players."*. Not everyone is born to be a SC weaver...

 

Jokes aside, I am quite aware of that fact as I am still leading training runs in one of my guilds. There is a major difference between how we seem to approach this, however. Unlike you, I do not intend to focus all of my energy on teaching players how to make the best out of being bad. I much rather help people improve slowly (or quite quickly in many cases) while I try to lead them towards a more fitting DPS build. Something which is still not 50% behind the so beloved weaver. There are quite a few builds less experienced players can handle in due time even in the META.

Neither am I someone to ever deny the use of two druids as long as there is a need for it. Even if I could probably replace multiple pug druids by myself if they play the way you discribed. There is more to min-maxing than just damage nor did I ever claim otherwise. Powerful regeneration is a major damage boost given the heavy reliance on Scholar Buff uptime nowadays. Something many seem to miss.

 

With all of that said, nobody stops you from continuing further work on your benchmarks and builds. You simply have to be able to deal with criticism and different opinions. People can be dicks sometimes, nothing new. It is not like SC and before that qT never had to deal with people bitching about them. The hatred they get on behalf of those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledgle anything not mentioned on those sites even if these guilds themselves talk about the fact that the builds are not the be-and-end-all of raiding quite frequently. It was said every single time they posted benchmarks on reddit.

[Henry.5713]

Double post due to server issues.

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

> @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > > And for me its much better if we dont have diferent meta every 3 months.

> > > 1) i love classes i play so i wouldnt probably swap if my classes were destroyed and instead i wouldnt probably play

> > > 2) players that want to start raiding/doing t4/cms and dont have acces to bank full of ascended chests would have to get gear and they would know that it will be obsolete in 3 months -> this looks like the thing gw is trying to avoid

> >

> > 1) Templates!

> > 2) Account unlocks!

> >

> > Solved!

> >

> >

>

> Nope. If one month condi mirage is op and next its power revenant i ned diferent armor type and weapons.

 

Well actually ... that's exactly what a good account unlock feature _would_ solve! I don't want to get too much into detail, but imo there should be some kind of "way" to say: unlock a certain stat combo that you can load on _all_ your characters armor pieces, weapons, trinkets, etc. No restrictions like grade, weight, race, whatever, just FULL account unlock! How exactly you would implement such a "way" is all up to ANet of course (I can help, have ideas there as well, think of some kind of achievement track or something).

Then the templates come in to play and would work wonders to make all your predefined setups/builds easily loadable in a few clicks!

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > > > And for me its much better if we dont have diferent meta every 3 months.

> > > > 1) i love classes i play so i wouldnt probably swap if my classes were destroyed and instead i wouldnt probably play

> > > > 2) players that want to start raiding/doing t4/cms and dont have acces to bank full of ascended chests would have to get gear and they would know that it will be obsolete in 3 months -> this looks like the thing gw is trying to avoid

> > >

> > > 1) Templates!

> > > 2) Account unlocks!

> > >

> > > Solved!

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Nope. If one month condi mirage is op and next its power revenant i ned diferent armor type and weapons.

>

> Well actually ... that's exactly what a good account unlock feature _would_ solve! I don't want to get too much into detail, but imo there should be some kind of "way" to say: unlock a certain stat combo that you can load on _all_ your characters armor pieces, weapons, trinkets, etc. No restrictions like grade, weight, race, whatever, just FULL account unlock! How exactly you would implement such a "way" is all up to ANet of course (I can help, have ideas there as well, think of some kind of achievement track or something).

> Then the templates come in to play and would work wonders to make all your predefined setups/builds easily loadable in a few clicks!

 

So once you unlock one ascended berzerker armour you have all 3? And you can swap stats too? Feals great to get that legendary armor then :D

[CptAurellian.9537]

Yeah, that kind of unlock feature is not gonna happen.

[Agrippa Oculus.3726]

> @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:

> > > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > > > > And for me its much better if we dont have diferent meta every 3 months.

> > > > > 1) i love classes i play so i wouldnt probably swap if my classes were destroyed and instead i wouldnt probably play

> > > > > 2) players that want to start raiding/doing t4/cms and dont have acces to bank full of ascended chests would have to get gear and they would know that it will be obsolete in 3 months -> this looks like the thing gw is trying to avoid

> > > >

> > > > 1) Templates!

> > > > 2) Account unlocks!

> > > >

> > > > Solved!

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nope. If one month condi mirage is op and next its power revenant i ned diferent armor type and weapons.

> >

> > Well actually ... that's exactly what a good account unlock feature _would_ solve! I don't want to get too much into detail, but imo there should be some kind of "way" to say: unlock a certain stat combo that you can load on _all_ your characters armor pieces, weapons, trinkets, etc. No restrictions like grade, weight, race, whatever, just FULL account unlock! How exactly you would implement such a "way" is all up to ANet of course (I can help, have ideas there as well, think of some kind of achievement track or something).

> > Then the templates come in to play and would work wonders to make all your predefined setups/builds easily loadable in a few clicks!

>

> So once you unlock one ascended berzerker armour you have all 3? And you can swap stats too? Feals great to get that legendary armor then :D

 

I was expecting this one :D.

Like I said, I don't want to get too much into detail, and it would definitely not be a small update, **but** if they _do_ implement such a feature, they would definitely have to come with some sort of compensation to current legendary armor (weapon/trinkets) owners. How exactly, I don't know. Maybe a (max.) 1% stat improvement if you own the legendary skin (for the real min-maxers out there, but definitely not a significant difference). Or a significant advantage when you start that unlocking process/track. Or extra achievement points. Or a free choice of (several) account-wide rune/sigil/infusion unlock(s). Etc. There are ways!

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Enigmoid.1264" said:

> Not to say that weaver isn't OP but that the logs likely quite overstated significantly. Weaver is pretty much trash in the hands of ~75% of the playerbase who are much better served on some different class. Nerfing weaver and ele in general when ele is trash in PvP and very weak in WvW is really just going to kill the class. Ele needs buffs in general and **more reliable damage at the cost of less damage**. The skill floor for an effective ele needs to be lowered as does the skill ceiling and top dps. In that sense weaver damage and damage only needs a shave.

 

While I agree with your point about Raidar biases, I'm going to disagree here. Giving ele more reliable, but lower damage, is homogenizing it with the other classes, which offer just that (like Holo). This isn't good for the game. The current situation offers a *choice*, a meaningful choice, between a reliable low-risk/lower-reward options and a high-risk/higher-reward alternative. I'm fully aware players tend to overestimate their own skill and are more likely to end up playing badly the supposedly optimal choice instead of playing decently a supposedly sub-optimal one for better results, but that's not a reason to eliminate said choice. Some players *do* take advantage of it. More so now, thanks to the availability of dps meter. I say it's better to encourage players to try different things and get a feel for what works for them, rather than making everything basically the same.

 

In general, the dps options in high-end PvE are pretty well at the moment, and honestly have been for some time. It's the support roles that are far and away more restrictive and could use some tweaks.

[Enigmoid.1264]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Enigmoid.1264" said:

> > Not to say that weaver isn't OP but that the logs likely quite overstated significantly. Weaver is pretty much trash in the hands of ~75% of the playerbase who are much better served on some different class. Nerfing weaver and ele in general when ele is trash in PvP and very weak in WvW is really just going to kill the class. Ele needs buffs in general and **more reliable damage at the cost of less damage**. The skill floor for an effective ele needs to be lowered as does the skill ceiling and top dps. In that sense weaver damage and damage only needs a shave.

>

> While I agree with your point about Raidar biases, I'm going to disagree here. Giving ele more reliable, but lower damage, is homogenizing it with the other classes, which offer just that (like Holo). This isn't good for the game. The current situation offers a *choice*, a meaningful choice, between a reliable low-risk/lower-reward options and a high-risk/higher-reward alternative. I'm fully aware players tend to overestimate their own skill and are more likely to end up playing badly the supposedly optimal choice instead of playing decently a supposedly sub-optimal one for better results, but that's not a reason to eliminate said choice. Some players *do* take advantage of it. More so now, thanks to the availability of dps meter. I say it's better to encourage players to try different things and get a feel for what works for them, rather than making everything basically the same.

>

> In general, the dps options in high-end PvE are pretty well at the moment, and honestly have been for some time. It's the support roles that are far and away more restrictive and could use some tweaks.

 

Sorry. My point was made somewhat in conjunction with the game as a whole (PvP and WvW) where elementalist is terrible because it cannot consistently apply damage and this sort of global change would also help in that regard. All in all elementalist dps is somewhat justified looking at the ele Pugs I encounter but I do think it is a little broken in the hands of very experienced players.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Enigmoid.1264" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Enigmoid.1264" said:

> > > Not to say that weaver isn't OP but that the logs likely quite overstated significantly. Weaver is pretty much trash in the hands of ~75% of the playerbase who are much better served on some different class. Nerfing weaver and ele in general when ele is trash in PvP and very weak in WvW is really just going to kill the class. Ele needs buffs in general and **more reliable damage at the cost of less damage**. The skill floor for an effective ele needs to be lowered as does the skill ceiling and top dps. In that sense weaver damage and damage only needs a shave.

> >

> > While I agree with your point about Raidar biases, I'm going to disagree here. Giving ele more reliable, but lower damage, is homogenizing it with the other classes, which offer just that (like Holo). This isn't good for the game. The current situation offers a *choice*, a meaningful choice, between a reliable low-risk/lower-reward options and a high-risk/higher-reward alternative. I'm fully aware players tend to overestimate their own skill and are more likely to end up playing badly the supposedly optimal choice instead of playing decently a supposedly sub-optimal one for better results, but that's not a reason to eliminate said choice. Some players *do* take advantage of it. More so now, thanks to the availability of dps meter. I say it's better to encourage players to try different things and get a feel for what works for them, rather than making everything basically the same.

> >

> > In general, the dps options in high-end PvE are pretty well at the moment, and honestly have been for some time. It's the support roles that are far and away more restrictive and could use some tweaks.

>

> Sorry. My point was made somewhat in conjunction with the game as a whole (PvP and WvW) where elementalist is terrible because it cannot consistently apply damage and this sort of global change would also help in that regard. All in all elementalist dps is somewhat justified looking at the ele Pugs I encounter but I do think it is a little broken in the hands of very experienced players.

 

Honestly if talking about pugs, ele is severely underpowered. I really feel its damage potential is justified for all it takes to get close to it. Also when talking about very experienced players, there are even more broken options. Epi bounce, anyone? It was heavily used in the ERP, and for good reasons.

 

In regards to the PvP modes, you're probably right, although I still wonder if its bursty, fragile nature can't be a valid choice. But it would probably help if you could build it to have more pressure. As an alternative, not as a replacement.

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Enigmoid.1264" said:

> > Not to say that weaver isn't OP but that the logs likely quite overstated significantly. Weaver is pretty much trash in the hands of ~75% of the playerbase who are much better served on some different class. Nerfing weaver and ele in general when ele is trash in PvP and very weak in WvW is really just going to kill the class. Ele needs buffs in general and **more reliable damage at the cost of less damage**. The skill floor for an effective ele needs to be lowered as does the skill ceiling and top dps. In that sense weaver damage and damage only needs a shave.

>

> While I agree with your point about Raidar biases, I'm going to disagree here. Giving ele more reliable, but lower damage, is homogenizing it with the other classes, which offer just that (like Holo). This isn't good for the game. The current situation offers a *choice*, a meaningful choice, between a reliable low-risk/lower-reward options and a high-risk/higher-reward alternative. I'm fully aware players tend to overestimate their own skill and are more likely to end up playing badly the supposedly optimal choice instead of playing decently a supposedly sub-optimal one for better results, but that's not a reason to eliminate said choice. Some players *do* take advantage of it. More so now, thanks to the availability of dps meter. I say it's better to encourage players to try different things and get a feel for what works for them, rather than making everything basically the same.

Choice is fine, the current advantage of a well-played weaver over anything else is not.

 

 

[Azoqu.8917]

Elementalist is broken compared to other DPS classes but overall DPS classes are in a fairly good spot against one another. I just think the people constantly bringing up Elementalist are people who want everyone to look away from Druids, Chronos, and Warriors so that we ignore the elephant in the room.

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

This statement is so false. Idk if you saw the raid tourney, but there was a lot of diversity in it. They even had a 5 necro dhumm cm run. Players are just stubborn and thick headed and feel what is posted on a website is law. Those sites are usually for speed clears.

[Nephalem.8921]

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> This statement is so false. Idk if you saw the raid tourney, but there was a lot of diversity in it. They even had a 5 necro dhumm cm run. Players are just stubborn and thick headed and feel what is posted on a website is law. Those sites are usually for speed clears.

 

If you call stacking scourges, weavers or mirages diversity then yeah. They had to ban 2-3 specialization after each boss to counter profession stacking. Without that you wouldn't have seen a lot of the specializations. Stacking scourges for dhuum cm is by far the easiest way.

Almost highest possible dps thanks to epi bounce and so forgiving on everything with 30k+ hp if you add barrier. It also has no dps rotation. Just hit epi bounce and you are fine if you manage to press every other skill off cooldown.

Who needs firebrand stability when you can spam every boon in the game with chaos chrono. That also boosts weavers to absurd dps levels.

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

Do you guys remember how much dps was the core ele doing on KC compared to weavers?

 

And i call this stacking diversity because clearly they have advantages over another in specific encounter

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"Azoqu.8917" said:

> I just think the people constantly bringing up Elementalist are people who want everyone to look away from Druids, Chronos, and Warriors so that we ignore the elephant in the room.

It's not as if competent devs couldn't do both at the same time _and_ balancing some dps numbers is slightly easier than changing half the mechanics of some classes.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

I used to be of the idea that they should give the same types of powers to multiple professions. However, now I changed that. Instead of focusing on the builds to increase diversity, focus on the encounters. If all Raid encounters require the same setup to be beaten then that's not a problem with diversity of builds, but a problem with diversity of content. If all Raid encounters are beaten the same way, with some different gimmicks here and there, then that's a problem with the encounter design and not with build diversity.

 

For example, when fighting Deimos a brand new "role" is added that is not used in any other encounter, the person that needs to kite the red hands which uses a mostly unique build and opens up build diversity. That's a way to add build diversity through encounter design, instead of skill balance. Other examples: Matthias requires projectile reflection, Vale Guardian requires boon stripping capabilities and so on.

 

Find out what other specializations, that are not used in Raids, are good at, and create encounters that focus on their own unique capabilities. A way to reliably heal players that are inside damage zones, either by pulling downed players to you (Ranger/Necromancer) or by sending an ally (Scrapper) is one such "mechanic" that can be used in future encounters, it was partly used at first when fighting VG, but when damage went too high it became meaningless. Another mechanic is portal, a Mesmer can portal and Scourges can portal too.

 

Arenanet said that they don't want to create encounters were players are forced to use specific builds and skills in order to succeed. This means that all encounters require lots of damage, with lots of damage buffs in order to work, and in the end does the exact opposite of what they stated. It DOES force players to use specific builds and skills.

[CptAurellian.9537]

I'm not convinced that this would help. Pretty much all the stuff you mention can be done as a side activity by changing one utility skill on an already present class. Furthermore, it just again brings us into territory where the utility monsters chrono and druid are much more likely to shine than anyone else.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Enigmoid.1264" said:

> > > Not to say that weaver isn't OP but that the logs likely quite overstated significantly. Weaver is pretty much trash in the hands of ~75% of the playerbase who are much better served on some different class. Nerfing weaver and ele in general when ele is trash in PvP and very weak in WvW is really just going to kill the class. Ele needs buffs in general and **more reliable damage at the cost of less damage**. The skill floor for an effective ele needs to be lowered as does the skill ceiling and top dps. In that sense weaver damage and damage only needs a shave.

> >

> > While I agree with your point about Raidar biases, I'm going to disagree here. Giving ele more reliable, but lower damage, is homogenizing it with the other classes, which offer just that (like Holo). This isn't good for the game. The current situation offers a *choice*, a meaningful choice, between a reliable low-risk/lower-reward options and a high-risk/higher-reward alternative. I'm fully aware players tend to overestimate their own skill and are more likely to end up playing badly the supposedly optimal choice instead of playing decently a supposedly sub-optimal one for better results, but that's not a reason to eliminate said choice. Some players *do* take advantage of it. More so now, thanks to the availability of dps meter. I say it's better to encourage players to try different things and get a feel for what works for them, rather than making everything basically the same.

> Choice is fine, the current advantage of a well-played weaver over anything else is not.

>

>

 

There *has* to be a reason to pick a weaver over something *far* more reliable. I'll say that again - the dps role is well balanced right now, with a lot of diversity and valid choices. The support ones aren't, although they're better than they used to be.

[LadyKitty.6120]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > @"Enigmoid.1264" said:

> > > > Not to say that weaver isn't OP but that the logs likely quite overstated significantly. Weaver is pretty much trash in the hands of ~75% of the playerbase who are much better served on some different class. Nerfing weaver and ele in general when ele is trash in PvP and very weak in WvW is really just going to kill the class. Ele needs buffs in general and **more reliable damage at the cost of less damage**. The skill floor for an effective ele needs to be lowered as does the skill ceiling and top dps. In that sense weaver damage and damage only needs a shave.

> > >

> > > While I agree with your point about Raidar biases, I'm going to disagree here. Giving ele more reliable, but lower damage, is homogenizing it with the other classes, which offer just that (like Holo). This isn't good for the game. The current situation offers a *choice*, a meaningful choice, between a reliable low-risk/lower-reward options and a high-risk/higher-reward alternative. I'm fully aware players tend to overestimate their own skill and are more likely to end up playing badly the supposedly optimal choice instead of playing decently a supposedly sub-optimal one for better results, but that's not a reason to eliminate said choice. Some players *do* take advantage of it. More so now, thanks to the availability of dps meter. I say it's better to encourage players to try different things and get a feel for what works for them, rather than making everything basically the same.

> > Choice is fine, the current advantage of a well-played weaver over anything else is not.

> >

> >

>

> There *has* to be a reason to pick a weaver over something *far* more reliable. I'll say that again - the dps role is well balanced right now, with a lot of diversity and valid choices. The support ones aren't, although they're better than they used to be.

 

Not balanced well enough yet. Of main builds, power reaper and power soulbeast still require boofing, as well as many alternative weapons.