Epidemic in raids needs to be nerfed

[steki.1478]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> > If you honestly feel that epidemic wasnt broken in wvw... Dunno what to say. Scourge is still broken as hell,despite the nerfs. That means that Anet clearly dont know what theyre doing, or they dont know how to balance stuff. Imagine what would happen if epidemic was in its prenerf stat, with scourge in existence.

> > Instead of bashing others, you could actually care about necro getting proper balance, instead of insisting that "epidemic is fine, you are all negative". I want necro to be fun to play, I want nec to be a useful class in all modes because it is properly balanced, not cause it has a ridiculously overpowered skill that defines the entire class.

>

> Did i ever once state Epi didn't have issues in WvW ? I'd love you to point out where that was said. I said the first set of skills necro's abused that got gutted for WvW were spectral and minions. If you cannot handle the truth it would be wise of you not to assume inappropriately that you are somehow more informed and know the mode better than others AS YOU DID with your snarky reply.

>

> I've given my 2cents on what Necro as a whole needs to be balanced and it's not changing Epidemic. Sorry you don't like that, but unlike you and vast majority of this thread who wants to balance on numbers alone, i don't. I do not see a problem with this iteration of Epidemic because as has been pointed out various times it's only OP when you start stacking past absurdity which can be done with literally any class. This ceased being Epi is OP and moved onto Class Stacking dumb and the Mechanical Depth of Raid design is Lacking at that point.

 

Show me how stacking revs supported by ventari rev can lead to absurdly fast raid clears. Guess what, not only dps scourges can use epidemic to share 25 condies and not only support ones can stack barriers.

 

There's difference in class stacking when the class is strong with whole kit and stacking because of additional 50k condi ticks every 12 seconds with one skill.

[TexZero.7910]

> @"steki.1478" said:

> Show me how stacking revs supported by ventari rev can lead to absurdly fast raid clears. Guess what, not only dps scourges can use epidemic to share 25 condies and not only support ones can stack barriers.

> There's difference in class stacking when the class is strong with whole kit and stacking because of additional 50k condi ticks every 12 seconds with one skill.

 

Would you like me to show you ele's being stacked and clearing bosses in 3-5 minutes which is the same complaint you guys have about necro, because it's much more common than you think.

[steki.1478]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > Show me how stacking revs supported by ventari rev can lead to absurdly fast raid clears. Guess what, not only dps scourges can use epidemic to share 25 condies and not only support ones can stack barriers.

> > There's difference in class stacking when the class is strong with whole kit and stacking because of additional 50k condi ticks every 12 seconds with one skill.

>

> Would you like me to show you ele's being stacked and clearing bosses in 3-5 minutes which is the same complaint you guys have about necro, because it's much more common than you think.

 

Equally as broken build, what about other classes? Also why compare fully focused dps spec with 10 dmg modifiers to a support one which doesnt even need a healer?

 

I already said, class which is strong with its full kit and weaver is one of those. Doesn't change the fact that scourge gets its dps with just 1 skill, and can be used on dps or support build with same effect.

 

Whether it's meteor/berserkers LB fire field on big hitbox or epi bouncing, there shouldn't be a skill with such huge impact. However, MS has 25 sec cd and almost 4 sec channel while other two are on about 1 sec cast with 13 or less cooldown.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > >

> > > About the Weaver-part of this discussion: I really think that Weaver is the worst spec ever in this game. It's the epitome of classical trinity-based gameplay and thus doesn't fit into the game at all on a conceptual level. It's even worse than the Chrono/Druid-Supremacy. No spec in the game should be only DPS, there should always - maybe albeit rudimentary - support-functions. A game that's more or less focused on movement also shouldn't have a spec that can only realize its full potential while (mostly) standing still. I'd welcome an overhaul of Weaver. Give it some support-capabilities, some reliable CC, lower the damage a bit, make Sword/X as single-target-build stronger than Staff and make the rotation somewhat easier. This game is dominantly focused on mechanics anyway and not on dps.

> > >

> > > Just my thoughts though. :D

> >

> > I actually think having no real trinity hurts the game more than anything. If everyone can do everything (or at least multiple things with the same build), then people play alongside each other (= alone in a group) instead of having to work together.

>

> I agree. But we already have that problem with the trinity-like playstyle the game currently offers. The overabundance of support of Chrono/Druid (alongside with their respective tank- and healer-roles) already negates true cooperative gameplay in most cases and allows pure "selfish" builds like Weaver in the first place. It's also a problem of general encounter-design, not just purely one of balancing though. I mean, I've played a lot of games in which vocal communication was mandatory even for semi-hardcore content, but in GW2, you don't even have to communicate all that much even for what is considered to be hardcore content here.

 

Allowing pure selfish builds is what true cooperative gameplay is about. What's the point of cooperation if you cannot delegate some of your functions to another member of the party? What's the point of having different builds, even? Find the one most efficient, stack it, win. Oh hey, where have I seen this? Oh right, in GW2.

 

That the current support meta needs attention is beyond question. It's far too restrictive, and the game needs at the very least different support comps that are close enough in performance. But it is a step in the right direction. Negating mechanics through teamplay is awesome. Having specialized combat roles is awesome. Being *able* to have a trinity in the game is a must, lest you end up with a boring and bland combat which has no meaningful player interaction whatsoever. And once you have that possibility, it becomes the natural way of playing.

[Nimon.7840]

> @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> > > Funny, because in wvw both epidemic AND shroud skills were among the first to get nerfed in necro.

> >

> > Actually, that honor goes to minions and spectral skills.

> >

> > But as you can see with the lovely trend of "balancing necro" it's always been net negative because a handful of players complain as you guys are doing now.

> >

> >

>

> You probably dont play wvw, its ok.

 

But nobody uses epidemic in wvw because it sux there. If enemy has resistance it will do 40 dmg and not transferring any conditions. I think u did miss this change

[Catchyfx.5768]

Once I was asking in some thread why in fractals stack weavers, other classes Are good too. Answer was "dont cry And make weaver too, this game Is alt friendly" So here Is my answer. Go And create necro as well, game Is alt friendly.

[Sephylon.4938]

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"Sephylon.4938"

> >

> > Ok, you're necro main so you know your class better than me.

> >

> > What do you suggest? Enlighten me.

>

> Hold on to that thought until about 5pm est when I get home to my computer and can give a more detailed response. Tldr version, change corruption skills to do what punishments do, change punishments to be group support via boon+barrier application, change how shroud works to be more like druid's ca, make sand shades pulse healing instead of condis

 

Bit late, sorry.

Changes to core

Corruption skills

Corrupt boon - remove 15 boons, apply 1 stack of torment+cripple. Apply additional stack of torment+cripple if > 5 boons were removed

Blood is power -> Tainted blood - convert 1 boon into torment+cripple, bleed target instead if they have no boons. Well of power to give might on cast to compensate for lost might on blood is power.

Epi -> Orb of corruption - Remove 2 boon on up to 5 foes in the target area 900 range

CPC->Corrupting Presence - 600 radius aoe boon conversion, remove an additional boon from foes in the range threshold (200)

Plague Lands - now does what ghastly breach does, minus the might application, now causes fear to boonless foes in the area.

 

Epi moved to spectral and now functions like [walking bomb with virulent](http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Walking_Bomb_(Inquisition) "walking bomb with virulent") from dragon age

Scepter 3 replaced with dagger 5, corrupt removed from scepter auto, scepter 3rd auto strike now inflicts bleeding+poison.

focus rework - 4 skill changed to pbaoe fear application, 5 skill changed to pbaoe bleed/torment application.

 

Scourge:

Shade

1. Manifest Sand Shade – Manifest a sand shade at the target area by using your life force. The shade will cast desert blessings to heal allies in the area every few seconds. (½) [3] {600}

a. Nefarious Favour – Your shade convert two conditions from nearby allies into boons. 5 {1500}

b. Sand Cascade – Sand rises up near your shades to shield nearby allies. 8 {2000}

c. Garish Pillar – Induce fear in enemies, while granting stability and breaking stuns for allies around your sand shades. 15 {3000}

d. Desert Shroud – Enter the desert shroud, becoming a sand shade. While in desert shroud, all your shade skills have increased costs and activate at your location pulse desert blessings every second. 10 {300/pulse}

i. Exit Desert Shroud – Exit the desert shroud.

 

Traits

1. Mantle of Sand – Gain the power to craft sand shadows and command them using your life force. Gain access to desert sand and shade skills.

a. Desert Empowerment – Barriers you apply grant might. Might you apply have increased duration.

b. Fell Beacon – Torch skills gain reduced recharge. Gain concentration based on your condition damage.

c. Corrupted Gift – Heal nearby allies when you corrupt or remove a boon. (1)

2. Sand Soul – Gain expertise and concentration for each of your active sand shade.

a. Buried Gift – Shade skills now apply regen to allies near you and your shades.

b. Sadistic Searing – Torment you inflict deals increased damage and causes your foes to burn. (1)

c. Abrasive Gift – Desert sand skills have reduced recharge. Nearby allies gain might when you use a desert sand skill.

3. Benevolent Sands – Out-going healing is increased while you have an active barrier.

a. Sand Savant – Manifest sand shade now grants allies a barrier and converts a condition on them into boons. Manifest sand shade has reduced recharge.

b. Dhuumfire – Desert blessings now burns foes. Burning you apply lasts longer.

c. Gift of the Departed – Copy your boons to allies near you and your shades when you exit desert shroud. Grant allies near you and your shades a barrier and heal them when you enter desert shroud.{2700}

 

New Skills

Desert Sands

a. Sand Flare – Raise cooling desert sands around you, healing yourself and nearby allies and granting them a barrier. If this skill is used on an area affected by a sand shade; convert two conditions on affected allies into boons. 25 (¾)

b. Shifting Sands – Shadowstep to the targeted area, allies in the target area are healed and receive a barrier. If this skill is used on an area affected by a sand shade; this skill’s recharge will be partially refunded. 40

c. Dessicate – Call the desert heat to surround you, burning nearby foes while granting fire aura to you and nearby allies. If this skill is used on an area affected by a sand shade; increase the duration of the burning and fire aura applied. 30 (1)

d. Sand Swell – Cause an eruption of sand around you, blinding nearby foes while granting a barrier to nearby allies. If this skill is used on an area affected by a sand shade; nearby foes are launched and affected allies gain stealth. 40

e. Curse of Sands – Curse all foes in the area, causing cooling sand to erupt from them when struck, healing allies and granting them a barrier. If this skill is used on an area affected by a sand shade; the duration of the curse will be increased. 30 (½)

f. Ghastly Breach – Breach into the realm of torment for a brief time, granting quickness and might to allies while tormenting and burning enemies. If this skill is used on an area affected by a sand shade; the duration of this skill is increased. 120 (¾)

 

Torch

4. Will-O’-Wisp – Launch an orb of spectral flames that burns foes and heals allies it passes through. You may detonate the orb to burn foes and remove conditions from nearby allies, healing them for each condition removed. 20 (½)

a. Lost Guide – Detonate the orb of spectral flames to burn foes while curing conditions from allies and healing them for each condition removed.

5. Funeral Light – Call the souls of the departed onto the target area by setting it aflame. Foes in the area are feared while allies are healed and gain might. 25 (¾)

 

 

[RaidsAreEasyAF.8652]

> @"Catchyfx.5768" said:

> Once I was asking in some thread why in fractals stack weavers, other classes Are good too. Answer was "dont cry And make weaver too, this game Is alt friendly" So here Is my answer. Go And create necro as well, game Is alt friendly.

 

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion. The game being alt friendly doesnt make epidemic less broken.

[Raizel.8175]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > It is not a niche if any raid encounter that makes use of adds benefits from epi bouncing. And adds will never go away since they have always been an integral part of raid encounters in any game.

>

> You know what else is integral to combat in this game that's woefully under-represented on AI. Condition Cleanse,Transfer, Projectile Destruction and Self Healing.

>

> It poor encounter and AI design for the sake of story telling. If the Raid team actually had a sit down and designed with conditions in mind (which they clearly havent as no boss does any of the above with the exception of transition phases..) then this would be less of a problem. Instead we have bosses with near permanant stacks due to encounters having omni-present adds and no condition cleanses. This is a case of the players doing whats right and using the design of the encounter against itself, not Epidemic being OP.

>

 

These are bad ideas altogether.

1. AI-driven or dynamic encounters don't fit all that well in MMORPGs where you already have to herd a large number of cats. What it often results to is a clownfiesta in which several mechanics bleed into each other leading to the encounter becoming unfair rather than difficult; often, it just doesn't work well anyway.

2. Encounters with condi-cleanse are also a bad idea. We already have a discrimination between cdps- and pdps-classes. If you were to add and/or redesign encounters with condi-cleanse in mind, you may as well go back to the times in which zerker-only was the meta. We don't need that.

3. Dynamic or AI-driven encounters would probably make raiding in GW2 even more niche than it currently is.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > > > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > >

> > > > About the Weaver-part of this discussion: I really think that Weaver is the worst spec ever in this game. It's the epitome of classical trinity-based gameplay and thus doesn't fit into the game at all on a conceptual level. It's even worse than the Chrono/Druid-Supremacy. No spec in the game should be only DPS, there should always - maybe albeit rudimentary - support-functions. A game that's more or less focused on movement also shouldn't have a spec that can only realize its full potential while (mostly) standing still. I'd welcome an overhaul of Weaver. Give it some support-capabilities, some reliable CC, lower the damage a bit, make Sword/X as single-target-build stronger than Staff and make the rotation somewhat easier. This game is dominantly focused on mechanics anyway and not on dps.

> > > >

> > > > Just my thoughts though. :D

> > >

> > > I actually think having no real trinity hurts the game more than anything. If everyone can do everything (or at least multiple things with the same build), then people play alongside each other (= alone in a group) instead of having to work together.

> >

> > I agree. But we already have that problem with the trinity-like playstyle the game currently offers. The overabundance of support of Chrono/Druid (alongside with their respective tank- and healer-roles) already negates true cooperative gameplay in most cases and allows pure "selfish" builds like Weaver in the first place. It's also a problem of general encounter-design, not just purely one of balancing though. I mean, I've played a lot of games in which vocal communication was mandatory even for semi-hardcore content, but in GW2, you don't even have to communicate all that much even for what is considered to be hardcore content here.

>

> Allowing pure selfish builds is what true cooperative gameplay is about. What's the point of cooperation if you cannot delegate some of your functions to another member of the party? What's the point of having different builds, even? Find the one most efficient, stack it, win. Oh hey, where have I seen this? Oh right, in GW2.

>

> That the current support meta needs attention is beyond question. It's far too restrictive, and the game needs at the very least different support comps that are close enough in performance. But it is a step in the right direction. Negating mechanics through teamplay is awesome. Having specialized combat roles is awesome. Being *able* to have a trinity in the game is a must, lest you end up with a boring and bland combat which has no meaningful player interaction whatsoever. And once you have that possibility, it becomes the natural way of playing.

 

I disagree. Pure selfish builds are almost always pure dps builds, pure dps build which often have the highest damage-potential because they only can do dps. In most MMORPGs I've played, that led to a real diversity-problem 'cause people always did stack these classes, which - in turn - often superseded other dps-classes altogether. In my opinion, that's not desirable, especially not in GW2 where you already have no sense of class-identity. And just like stacking Scourges, stacking Weavers is just as bad. GW2 in particular features a combat-system in which movement, CC and damage-avoidance matters a lot and was originally designed without a strict trinity in mind. That way, I still think that Weaver simply doesn't fit into the game on a conceptual basis.

 

Your second paragraph actually made me cringe a bit. People here are complaining that stacking Scourges cheeses mechanics to a degree which isn't funny anymore. The same applies to stacking Weavers - although to a lesser degree. Making fights easier due to good dps is one thing, but I really think that that shouldn't cheese the basic mechanics of an encounter.

 

I actually think that people overrate the "cooperative" aspect of GW2s PvE quite a bit. Having strictly predefined roles is - in my opinion - actually killing cooperative gameplay. Having some mechanics that randomly befall players leads to a deeper level of cooperative gameplay; stuff in GW2 is far too strict though. We don't even have a proper aggro-system in GW2 that the devs could play with. Plus, as sadly as it sounds, Epidemic-bouncing currently is the most sophisticated form of cooperative gameplay GW2 has to offer. I don't see a reason to kill that. It should only be brought down to a reasonable level.

 

It may suprise you, but games without a trinity can actually work quite well and require a deeper level of cooperative gameplay than GW2 does. Blade & Soul's 4-man-dungeons would be a good example, where everyone has to pull his weight and deal with mechanics accordingly and situational. Most of GW2s encounters boil down to classical tank 'n spank gameplay though, especially because support-specs are so vastly overpowered. The support-capabilities dps-classes contribute don't matter at all which leads to situations in which you can stack classes like Scourge or Weaver. That shouldn't be desirable. For diversitys sake, you would literally have to butcher support-specs, so the support-capabilities of dps-classes is needed, thus preventing the stacking of a single class. That certainly wouldn't be reasonable, so the better option would be to bring specs like Weaver more in line with the general gameplay GW2 has to offer.

 

You will certainly disagree, so I'm already looking forward to reading your reply.

 

> @"Catchyfx.5768" said:

> Once I was asking in some thread why in fractals stack weavers, other classes Are good too. Answer was "dont cry And make weaver too, this game Is alt friendly" So here Is my answer. Go And create necro as well, game Is alt friendly.

 

That's just stupid. While it is true that the missing gear-treadmill and the easy gear-aquisition is one of GW2s biggest strenghts, it also leads to one of GW2s biggest weaknesses: no class-identity. Apart from a few guilds, you barely have any form of theorycrafting here which makes the game quite dull for people who are into that kind of stuff. It also devalues classes as a whole. All in all, your "solution" is plain ridiculous.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > > > > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > About the Weaver-part of this discussion: I really think that Weaver is the worst spec ever in this game. It's the epitome of classical trinity-based gameplay and thus doesn't fit into the game at all on a conceptual level. It's even worse than the Chrono/Druid-Supremacy. No spec in the game should be only DPS, there should always - maybe albeit rudimentary - support-functions. A game that's more or less focused on movement also shouldn't have a spec that can only realize its full potential while (mostly) standing still. I'd welcome an overhaul of Weaver. Give it some support-capabilities, some reliable CC, lower the damage a bit, make Sword/X as single-target-build stronger than Staff and make the rotation somewhat easier. This game is dominantly focused on mechanics anyway and not on dps.

> > > > >

> > > > > Just my thoughts though. :D

> > > >

> > > > I actually think having no real trinity hurts the game more than anything. If everyone can do everything (or at least multiple things with the same build), then people play alongside each other (= alone in a group) instead of having to work together.

> > >

> > > I agree. But we already have that problem with the trinity-like playstyle the game currently offers. The overabundance of support of Chrono/Druid (alongside with their respective tank- and healer-roles) already negates true cooperative gameplay in most cases and allows pure "selfish" builds like Weaver in the first place. It's also a problem of general encounter-design, not just purely one of balancing though. I mean, I've played a lot of games in which vocal communication was mandatory even for semi-hardcore content, but in GW2, you don't even have to communicate all that much even for what is considered to be hardcore content here.

> >

> > Allowing pure selfish builds is what true cooperative gameplay is about. What's the point of cooperation if you cannot delegate some of your functions to another member of the party? What's the point of having different builds, even? Find the one most efficient, stack it, win. Oh hey, where have I seen this? Oh right, in GW2.

> >

> > That the current support meta needs attention is beyond question. It's far too restrictive, and the game needs at the very least different support comps that are close enough in performance. But it is a step in the right direction. Negating mechanics through teamplay is awesome. Having specialized combat roles is awesome. Being *able* to have a trinity in the game is a must, lest you end up with a boring and bland combat which has no meaningful player interaction whatsoever. And once you have that possibility, it becomes the natural way of playing.

>

> I disagree. Pure selfish builds are almost always pure dps builds, pure dps build which often have the highest damage-potential because they only can do dps. In most MMORPGs I've played, that led to a real diversity-problem 'cause people always did stack these classes, which - in turn - often superseded other dps-classes altogether. In my opinion, that's not desirable, especially not in GW2 where you already have no sense of class-identity. And just like stacking Scourges, stacking Weavers is just as bad. GW2 in particular features a combat-system in which movement, CC and damage-avoidance matters a lot and was originally designed without a strict trinity in mind. That way, I still think that Weaver simply doesn't fit into the game on a conceptual basis.

>

> Your second paragraph actually made me cringe a bit. People here are complaining that stacking Scourges cheeses mechanics to a degree which isn't funny anymore. The same applies to stacking Weavers - although to a lesser degree. Making fights easier due to good dps is one thing, but I really think that that shouldn't cheese the basic mechanics of an encounter.

>

> I actually think that people overrate the "cooperative" aspect of GW2s PvE quite a bit. Having strictly predefined roles is - in my opinion - actually killing cooperative gameplay. Having some mechanics that randomly befall players leads to a deeper level of cooperative gameplay; stuff in GW2 is far too strict though. We don't even have a proper aggro-system in GW2 that the devs could play with. Plus, as sadly as it sounds, Epidemic-bouncing currently is the most sophisticated form of cooperative gameplay GW2 has to offer. I don't see a reason to kill that. It should only be brought down to a reasonable level.

>

> It may suprise you, but games without a trinity can actually work quite well and require a deeper level of cooperative gameplay than GW2 does. Blade & Soul's 4-man-dungeons would be a good example, where everyone has to pull his weight and deal with mechanics accordingly and situational. Most of GW2s encounters boil down to classical tank 'n spank gameplay though, especially because support-specs are so vastly overpowered. The support-capabilities dps-classes contribute don't matter at all which leads to situations in which you can stack classes like Scourge or Weaver. That shouldn't be desirable. For diversitys sake, you would literally have to butcher support-specs, so the support-capabilities of dps-classes is needed, thus preventing the stacking of a single class. That certainly wouldn't be reasonable, so the better option would be to bring specs like Weaver more in line with the general gameplay GW2 has to offer.

>

> You will certainly disagree, so I'm already looking forward to reading your reply.

 

Let me put it this way - I've been on both sides. I used to be a casual player, valuing highly self-sufficient builds which can handle everything. When I transitioned to the trinity-oriented meta, I found it to feel much more like playing *with* others as opposed to playing *next* to others.

 

I agree diversity will inevitably take a hit from this. It is to be expected, but it is also a small price to pay for having a better teamplay experience. Also note that you don't really need to stack the same dps classes. Like, ever. The dps checks are relaxed enough so you can use pretty much whatever reasonable build you like, and as long as you perform on a reasonable level you'll be fine. I understand that people will still go for stacking, because that's what they do, but still the point remains.

 

There are also various ways to promote diversity via encounter design. Both ele's and epi's power has some strict requirements in order to shine. For eles, you want big, immobile targets. For epis, you want a reliable target to bounce it off. Remove that, and the build instantly becomes suboptimal and another shines. There's a reason why Mirages, Holos and DHs still exist in a meta where weavers and epi bounces do. And that was even before MS got crippled.

 

With all this in mind, I just cannot agree moving back to self-sufficient builds is any good for the game. The tools are there. The diversity exists. And by the way, moving back to self-sufficiency wouldn't do anything for the diversity. People will just figure out the best self-sufficient build and stack it. And then instead of chrono, druid, bs, 2x dps we'd have 4x or 5x build X, with perhaps one spot reserved for *some* sort of support. Be it might blasting, mesmer portals or whatever.

 

The solution isn't to make support builds useless. The solution is to make good alternatives, so we have the same variety in supports as we have in the dps roles. Obviously, we *could* have better diversity in dps as well. But we've had worse.

[Raizel.8175]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > > > > > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > About the Weaver-part of this discussion: I really think that Weaver is the worst spec ever in this game. It's the epitome of classical trinity-based gameplay and thus doesn't fit into the game at all on a conceptual level. It's even worse than the Chrono/Druid-Supremacy. No spec in the game should be only DPS, there should always - maybe albeit rudimentary - support-functions. A game that's more or less focused on movement also shouldn't have a spec that can only realize its full potential while (mostly) standing still. I'd welcome an overhaul of Weaver. Give it some support-capabilities, some reliable CC, lower the damage a bit, make Sword/X as single-target-build stronger than Staff and make the rotation somewhat easier. This game is dominantly focused on mechanics anyway and not on dps.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Just my thoughts though. :D

> > > > >

> > > > > I actually think having no real trinity hurts the game more than anything. If everyone can do everything (or at least multiple things with the same build), then people play alongside each other (= alone in a group) instead of having to work together.

> > > >

> > > > I agree. But we already have that problem with the trinity-like playstyle the game currently offers. The overabundance of support of Chrono/Druid (alongside with their respective tank- and healer-roles) already negates true cooperative gameplay in most cases and allows pure "selfish" builds like Weaver in the first place. It's also a problem of general encounter-design, not just purely one of balancing though. I mean, I've played a lot of games in which vocal communication was mandatory even for semi-hardcore content, but in GW2, you don't even have to communicate all that much even for what is considered to be hardcore content here.

> > >

> > > Allowing pure selfish builds is what true cooperative gameplay is about. What's the point of cooperation if you cannot delegate some of your functions to another member of the party? What's the point of having different builds, even? Find the one most efficient, stack it, win. Oh hey, where have I seen this? Oh right, in GW2.

> > >

> > > That the current support meta needs attention is beyond question. It's far too restrictive, and the game needs at the very least different support comps that are close enough in performance. But it is a step in the right direction. Negating mechanics through teamplay is awesome. Having specialized combat roles is awesome. Being *able* to have a trinity in the game is a must, lest you end up with a boring and bland combat which has no meaningful player interaction whatsoever. And once you have that possibility, it becomes the natural way of playing.

> >

> > I disagree. Pure selfish builds are almost always pure dps builds, pure dps build which often have the highest damage-potential because they only can do dps. In most MMORPGs I've played, that led to a real diversity-problem 'cause people always did stack these classes, which - in turn - often superseded other dps-classes altogether. In my opinion, that's not desirable, especially not in GW2 where you already have no sense of class-identity. And just like stacking Scourges, stacking Weavers is just as bad. GW2 in particular features a combat-system in which movement, CC and damage-avoidance matters a lot and was originally designed without a strict trinity in mind. That way, I still think that Weaver simply doesn't fit into the game on a conceptual basis.

> >

> > Your second paragraph actually made me cringe a bit. People here are complaining that stacking Scourges cheeses mechanics to a degree which isn't funny anymore. The same applies to stacking Weavers - although to a lesser degree. Making fights easier due to good dps is one thing, but I really think that that shouldn't cheese the basic mechanics of an encounter.

> >

> > I actually think that people overrate the "cooperative" aspect of GW2s PvE quite a bit. Having strictly predefined roles is - in my opinion - actually killing cooperative gameplay. Having some mechanics that randomly befall players leads to a deeper level of cooperative gameplay; stuff in GW2 is far too strict though. We don't even have a proper aggro-system in GW2 that the devs could play with. Plus, as sadly as it sounds, Epidemic-bouncing currently is the most sophisticated form of cooperative gameplay GW2 has to offer. I don't see a reason to kill that. It should only be brought down to a reasonable level.

> >

> > It may suprise you, but games without a trinity can actually work quite well and require a deeper level of cooperative gameplay than GW2 does. Blade & Soul's 4-man-dungeons would be a good example, where everyone has to pull his weight and deal with mechanics accordingly and situational. Most of GW2s encounters boil down to classical tank 'n spank gameplay though, especially because support-specs are so vastly overpowered. The support-capabilities dps-classes contribute don't matter at all which leads to situations in which you can stack classes like Scourge or Weaver. That shouldn't be desirable. For diversitys sake, you would literally have to butcher support-specs, so the support-capabilities of dps-classes is needed, thus preventing the stacking of a single class. That certainly wouldn't be reasonable, so the better option would be to bring specs like Weaver more in line with the general gameplay GW2 has to offer.

> >

> > You will certainly disagree, so I'm already looking forward to reading your reply.

>

> Let me put it this way - I've been on both sides. I used to be a casual player, valuing highly self-sufficient builds which can handle everything. When I transitioned to the trinity-oriented meta, I found it to feel much more like playing *with* others as opposed to playing *next* to others.

 

I'm not against a trinity per se, I'm just against a too strict trinity that makes the game feel like playing next to others. I agree that that a MMORPG should make you feel like you're playing together with other people rather than having some NPCs around you with a sometimes more and sometimes less useful AI.

 

> I agree diversity will inevitably take a hit from this. It is to be expected, but it is also a small price to pay for having a better teamplay experience. Also note that you don't really need to stack the same dps classes. Like, ever. The dps checks are relaxed enough so you can use pretty much whatever reasonable build you like, and as long as you perform on a reasonable level you'll be fine. I understand that people will still go for stacking, because that's what they do, but still the point remains.

 

I know. And I do like that raids in GW2 are mostly about mechanics and not dps. They wouldn't work in the first place if they were primarily about dps anyway. The problem is that meta-slaves are probably the majority of the raiding-community. Nonetheless, I think that the degree of teamplay is still insufficient because of the Chrono/Druid-supremacy. It's stupid to stack so many roles on such few specs. It would be healthier for the game if you split stuff up more, but that certainly won't happen anymore since that would destroy both Chrono and Druid. I do wish that there would be more encounters where mechanics aren't just handled by Chrono and Druid. This game is about mechanics anyway, so other classes should also deal with them.

 

> There are also various ways to promote diversity via encounter design. Both ele's and epi's power has some strict requirements in order to shine. For eles, you want big, immobile targets. For epis, you want a reliable target to bounce it off. Remove that, and the build instantly becomes suboptimal and another shines. There's a reason why Mirages, Holos and DHs still exist in a meta where weavers and epi bounces do. And that was even before MS got crippled.

 

I'd actually like that each reasonable dps-spec is viable at every boss. I don't really like stuff like KC, where you mostly want Eles or at least pdps-classes. In the same turn, I don't really like encounters where cdps-classes are awesome and pdps-classes just suck. It's not really diversity if you can't play the class you like to play at certain encounters.

 

> With all this in mind, I just cannot agree moving back to self-sufficient builds is any good for the game. The tools are there. The diversity exists. And by the way, moving back to self-sufficiency wouldn't do anything for the diversity. People will just figure out the best self-sufficient build and stack it. And then instead of chrono, druid, bs, 2x dps we'd have 4x or 5x build X, with perhaps one spot reserved for *some* sort of support. Be it might blasting, mesmer portals or whatever.

 

Like I already wrote, I don't want that either. Having a soft trinity is indeed a good thing. I'd just like to have more balancing that suits the games combat-system. In that regard - coming back to the discussion at hand -, Scourge is still far healthier than Weaver, even though Scourge is undeniably broken. That way, I still think that Weaver needs an overhaul. I agree that a complex rotation should be rewarded, but Weaver as dps-spec is quite broken at least at some raid-encounters and definitely in fractals. A lot of Weaver-players asked for a certain kind of compensation for dps-loss, so I do think that it would be reasonable to give the class some rudimentary support-functions like some sort of reliable CC, some party/squad-wide boons and maybe a simpler, not overly susceptible rotation. You can argue that that would destroy the feeling of the class of course, but I do think that such changes would be healthy.

 

> The solution isn't to make support builds useless. The solution is to make good alternatives, so we have the same variety in supports as we have in the dps roles. Obviously, we *could* have better diversity in dps as well. But we've had worse.

 

I don't want to make support-builds useless and true, there should be alternatives. I do think though that support- and tank/heal-roles should be split. I don't think it's very healthy that the games designated tank-class is also the only class that can keep up both quickness and alacrity permanently, spam a lot of boons with its Chaos-build and is by dimensions the strongest cc-class due to the combination of Moa and timewarp. I also think that it's not very healthy that a good healer-spec is also one of the most powerful might/fury-spam-class, has a lot of unique and powerful boons and some very useful utilities. Druid-Nerfs made at least stuff like Auramancer or Firebrand as second healer viable, but Chrono will probably always remain a problem. I do agree though that diversity in dps is quite good at the moment.

 

All in all, I guess that the stacking of various roles on Chrono and Druid, which makes the support-capabilities of other classes and dps-specs mostly redundant, is what annoys me most and makes me feel like I'm rather next to other people than truly together, especially since most encounters boil down to spank-'n-tank-gameplay. I'd like to have more encounters like Xera, where people more or less randomly have to deal with mechanics, where the encounter isn't just spank 'n tank, and where dealing with said mechanics doesn't strictly rely on certain classes. (Yeah, I know that stacking classes is still a problem at that example.)

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

I think we mean slightly different things by "playing next to others". I don't think the current meta does that. Remove the chrono, and you immediately feel the impact, as there's an obvious void there, usually filled by its combat role(s). Remove the dps, same thing. The team just doesn't work as good.

 

That being said, I do agree chronos and druids are too universal right now and it would be nice to see their function split across more builds. I would say the prime issue in both cases is the unmatched offensive support. It's not that other classes can't tank, they just can't provide the same boon coverage (and especially the vital quickness and alacrity) while doing it. It's not that the druid is the best healer - pretty much any other reasonable healing build is in fact better at healing - it's that the other healers do not provide Spotter, spirits and might/fury generation.

 

But there's a problem that way, too. Give everyone more or less the same capabilities, and they lose identity. This is why I don't like your notion about homogenizing dps roles either. I like it better when different builds excel in different scenarios.

[Raizel.8175]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> I think we mean slightly different things by "playing next to others". I don't think the current meta does that. Remove the chrono, and you immediately feel the impact, as there's an obvious void there, usually filled by its combat role(s). Remove the dps, same thing. The team just doesn't work as good.

>

> That being said, I do agree chronos and druids are too universal right now and it would be nice to see their function split across more builds. I would say the prime issue in both cases is the unmatched offensive support. It's not that other classes can't tank, they just can't provide the same boon coverage (and especially the vital quickness and alacrity) while doing it. It's not that the druid is the best healer - pretty much any other reasonable healing build is in fact better at healing - it's that the other healers do not provide Spotter, spirits and might/fury generation.

>

> But there's a problem that way, too. Give everyone more or less the same capabilities, and they lose identity. This is why I don't like your notion about homogenizing dps roles either. I like it better when different builds excel in different scenarios.

 

Well, we can agree on the Chrono/Druid-problem. For me, it does feel like I'm playing next to each other at certain bosses because both Chrono and druid - besides being tank and healer - also cover all boons and mostly deal with all mechanics due to a very powerful utility-kit, which makes it feel like I'm just doing damage in a game about mechanics where damage doesn't really matter. You're right that these classes are too universal.

 

You're wrong though about me wanting some kind of strict homogenization though. I do think that each class should have its own unique feel to it and I also think its good that certain classes excel in certain scenarios; that is if its by a reasonable degree. Weaver in that regard shouldn't be that broken on bosses like KC (or fractals) - just like Scourge also shouldn't be broken at certain bosses. It's good if there are bosses where Class X performs better than Class Y, but Class Y should still have a place at that boss even though Class X performs better. I'm all for reasonable class-identity.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > I think we mean slightly different things by "playing next to others". I don't think the current meta does that. Remove the chrono, and you immediately feel the impact, as there's an obvious void there, usually filled by its combat role(s). Remove the dps, same thing. The team just doesn't work as good.

> >

> > That being said, I do agree chronos and druids are too universal right now and it would be nice to see their function split across more builds. I would say the prime issue in both cases is the unmatched offensive support. It's not that other classes can't tank, they just can't provide the same boon coverage (and especially the vital quickness and alacrity) while doing it. It's not that the druid is the best healer - pretty much any other reasonable healing build is in fact better at healing - it's that the other healers do not provide Spotter, spirits and might/fury generation.

> >

> > But there's a problem that way, too. Give everyone more or less the same capabilities, and they lose identity. This is why I don't like your notion about homogenizing dps roles either. I like it better when different builds excel in different scenarios.

>

> Well, we can agree on the Chrono/Druid-problem. For me, it does feel like I'm playing next to each other at certain bosses because both Chrono and druid - besides being tank and healer - also cover all boons and mostly deal with all mechanics due to a very powerful utility-kit, which makes it feel like I'm just doing damage in a game about mechanics where damage doesn't really matter. You're right that these classes are too universal.

 

Chronos and druids don't just handle mechanics because they have the tools. Other classes can handle them just as well. The point is, however, that they'd lose dps. It's just a matter of efficiency to delegate the mechanics to the supports - provided they can still support properly. Which they can.

 

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> You're wrong though about me wanting some kind of strict homogenization though. I do think that each class should have its own unique feel to it and I also think its good that certain classes excel in certain scenarios; that is if its by a reasonable degree. Weaver in that regard shouldn't be that broken on bosses like KC (or fractals) - just like Scourge also shouldn't be broken at certain bosses. It's good if there are bosses where Class X performs better than Class Y, but Class Y should still have a place at that boss even though Class X performs better. I'm all for reasonable class-identity.

 

Weaver performance on KC is reasonable to be honest. Any further decrease would just make the class completely irrelevant everywhere else. Now it is (still) competitive on most other bosses and the king of KC. That's fine. Mirages are the kings of Cairn and Matthias for instance. In both cases you can still take other classes instead and do just fine. And actually many groups do. Which is reasonable really. Most pug eles perform worse than pug holos or dhs.

[Raizel.8175]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > I think we mean slightly different things by "playing next to others". I don't think the current meta does that. Remove the chrono, and you immediately feel the impact, as there's an obvious void there, usually filled by its combat role(s). Remove the dps, same thing. The team just doesn't work as good.

> > >

> > > That being said, I do agree chronos and druids are too universal right now and it would be nice to see their function split across more builds. I would say the prime issue in both cases is the unmatched offensive support. It's not that other classes can't tank, they just can't provide the same boon coverage (and especially the vital quickness and alacrity) while doing it. It's not that the druid is the best healer - pretty much any other reasonable healing build is in fact better at healing - it's that the other healers do not provide Spotter, spirits and might/fury generation.

> > >

> > > But there's a problem that way, too. Give everyone more or less the same capabilities, and they lose identity. This is why I don't like your notion about homogenizing dps roles either. I like it better when different builds excel in different scenarios.

> >

> > Well, we can agree on the Chrono/Druid-problem. For me, it does feel like I'm playing next to each other at certain bosses because both Chrono and druid - besides being tank and healer - also cover all boons and mostly deal with all mechanics due to a very powerful utility-kit, which makes it feel like I'm just doing damage in a game about mechanics where damage doesn't really matter. You're right that these classes are too universal.

>

> Chronos and druids don't just handle mechanics because they have the tools. Other classes can handle them just as well. The point is, however, that they'd lose dps. It's just a matter of efficiency to delegate the mechanics to the supports - provided they can still support properly. Which they can.

 

I can't fully agree. You're right of course that there are alternatives, but people still would stick to Chrono or Druid even if these alternatives wouldn't result in a dps-loss, because of the reliable and easy usage of certain utilities. Some examples: You can of course use some reflect-walls on Matthias, the feedback-dome (yes, we have Mirages...) is easier to use and more reliable though (yeah, I know professional groups just use focus 5, but these are a minority). You could also use alternatives to Entangle at Gorseval, but Entangle is just so very sweet and useful there that people don't really consider alternatives.

 

> > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > You're wrong though about me wanting some kind of strict homogenization though. I do think that each class should have its own unique feel to it and I also think its good that certain classes excel in certain scenarios; that is if its by a reasonable degree. Weaver in that regard shouldn't be that broken on bosses like KC (or fractals) - just like Scourge also shouldn't be broken at certain bosses. It's good if there are bosses where Class X performs better than Class Y, but Class Y should still have a place at that boss even though Class X performs better. I'm all for reasonable class-identity.

>

> Weaver performance on KC is reasonable to be honest. Any further decrease would just make the class completely irrelevant everywhere else. Now it is (still) competitive on most other bosses and the king of KC. That's fine. Mirages are the kings of Cairn and Matthias for instance. In both cases you can still take other classes instead and do just fine. And actually many groups do. Which is reasonable really. Most pug eles perform worse than pug holos or dhs.

 

Well, I mostly just don't like the discrimination between c- and p-dps-classes on several bosses. I'm playing the game for approx. 9 months by now and got into raiding approx. 2 months ago. Just like you, I had phases in which I played rather casually in my MMORPG-"career" and phases, in which I was part of the progress-hardcore/tryhard-community. I like that you can be both in GW2, but currently, I really just want to play the classes I enjoy playing and those are c-dps-classes at the moment. Out of that is born the frustration that I simply don't have a place at KC. I simply can't do that boss if I don't command a squad myself. I don't really mind Weaver or some other classes being king at certain encounters. I do mind though that at some encounters, some classes aren't welcome at all. That sucks. In both ways. c-dps-classes should still have a place at bosses where p-dps-classes shine and p-dps-classes should still have a place at bosses where c-dps-classes shine.

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > I think we mean slightly different things by "playing next to others". I don't think the current meta does that. Remove the chrono, and you immediately feel the impact, as there's an obvious void there, usually filled by its combat role(s). Remove the dps, same thing. The team just doesn't work as good.

> > > >

> > > > That being said, I do agree chronos and druids are too universal right now and it would be nice to see their function split across more builds. I would say the prime issue in both cases is the unmatched offensive support. It's not that other classes can't tank, they just can't provide the same boon coverage (and especially the vital quickness and alacrity) while doing it. It's not that the druid is the best healer - pretty much any other reasonable healing build is in fact better at healing - it's that the other healers do not provide Spotter, spirits and might/fury generation.

> > > >

> > > > But there's a problem that way, too. Give everyone more or less the same capabilities, and they lose identity. This is why I don't like your notion about homogenizing dps roles either. I like it better when different builds excel in different scenarios.

> > >

> > > Well, we can agree on the Chrono/Druid-problem. For me, it does feel like I'm playing next to each other at certain bosses because both Chrono and druid - besides being tank and healer - also cover all boons and mostly deal with all mechanics due to a very powerful utility-kit, which makes it feel like I'm just doing damage in a game about mechanics where damage doesn't really matter. You're right that these classes are too universal.

> >

> > Chronos and druids don't just handle mechanics because they have the tools. Other classes can handle them just as well. The point is, however, that they'd lose dps. It's just a matter of efficiency to delegate the mechanics to the supports - provided they can still support properly. Which they can.

>

> I can't fully agree. You're right of course that there are alternatives, but people still would stick to Chrono or Druid even if these alternatives wouldn't result in a dps-loss.

 

You misunderstood me it seems. I was talking about reasons for mechanics being handled by supports rather than dps. With Chronos and Druids being the current supports. You seem to have taken it as reason for letting chronos and druids handle these over other supports, which wasn't the intent.

 

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > You're wrong though about me wanting some kind of strict homogenization though. I do think that each class should have its own unique feel to it and I also think its good that certain classes excel in certain scenarios; that is if its by a reasonable degree. Weaver in that regard shouldn't be that broken on bosses like KC (or fractals) - just like Scourge also shouldn't be broken at certain bosses. It's good if there are bosses where Class X performs better than Class Y, but Class Y should still have a place at that boss even though Class X performs better. I'm all for reasonable class-identity.

> >

> > Weaver performance on KC is reasonable to be honest. Any further decrease would just make the class completely irrelevant everywhere else. Now it is (still) competitive on most other bosses and the king of KC. That's fine. Mirages are the kings of Cairn and Matthias for instance. In both cases you can still take other classes instead and do just fine. And actually many groups do. Which is reasonable really. Most pug eles perform worse than pug holos or dhs.

>

> Well, I mostly just don't like the discrimination between c- and p-dps-classes on several bosses. I'm playing the game for approx. 9 months by now and got into raiding approx. 2 months ago. Just like you, I had phases in which I played rather casually in my MMORPG-"career" and phases, in which I was part of the progress-hardcore/tryhard-community. I like that you can be both in GW2, but currently, I really just want to play the classes I enjoy playing and those are c-dps-classes at the moment. Out of that is born the frustration that I simply don't have a place at KC. I simply can't do that boss if I don't command a squad myself. I don't really mind Weaver or some other classes being king at certain encounters. I do mind though that at some encounters, some classes aren't welcome at all. That sucks. In both ways. c-dps-classes should still have a place at bosses where p-dps-classes shine and p-dps-classes should still have a place at bosses where c-dps-classes shine.

>

>

 

I see. That, however, is not as much an issue with balance that it is with pug mentality. Best advice I could offer you is "try finding a raiding guild". Really. Like I said, pretty much every dps can have a place in any encounter. When we do KC with my guild, I'm the only Weaver. And not because it's the king of KC, or because we need the extra dps. I play Weaver there because it's my main. Same reason the others play different classes there, really.

 

Now, before you say "yeah, but why don't we have pugs accept others too", consider this. Most of the pugs that insist on weavers now will insist on the top dps build there anyway. The rest won't care, just like they won't care now. So will it really make a difference? *Can* it?

 

P.S. Come to think about it, people stack weavers on KC for just one reason - be able to phase the boss with less stacks. So taking best dps class in order to deal less damage. And any time saved by less pushing will be offset for the most groups by the time lost for players to switch out and reorganize. So, for pugs... I'd say it's just an ego boost.

[Catchyfx.5768]

Core necro JUST need epi for cleave..scepter Is a singletarget Sc2 skill isnt enough, how you fix this? If remove epidemic? There Is little problem. Epi Is broken only if 6-7 scourges on few bosses, but JUST average And instapick if you are condi.?

[steki.1478]

> @"Catchyfx.5768" said:

> Core necro JUST need epi for cleave..scepter Is a singletarget Sc2 skill isnt enough, how you fix this? If remove epidemic? There Is little problem. Epi Is broken only if 6-7 scourges on few bosses, but JUST average And instapick if you are condi.?

 

No matter how epi gets nerfed it wont impact solo play at all, especially on core necro or reaper.

 

Your only damaging condition on those is bleeding and maybe a bit of poison and you dont get more than 10-15 stacks on target because it dies otherwise (unless it's a boss which you wont do alone so your cleave is irrelevant). Raid scourges use 25 stacks on burn, torment and bleed at least, something you can never reach in solo play where you would usually play core/reaper.

 

That's why I suggested SoI approach. It sets a limit on conditions (in duration or stacks, based on condition) so it has a lot smaller maximum potential damage, but majorly increases minimum damage since you'd only need 1 stack on enemy target. That way stacking epis isnt beneficial and solo play is improved because you can epi after just placing 1-2 condi skills with multiple different conditions.

 

And no this isnt butcher epi and leave necro in trash tier. Buffs on skills/traits would be necessary, as long as base barriers get reduced while increasing their scaling with healing.

 

Harder way to fix it would be transfering conditions that only you applied. That way epi scales with players ability to stack a lot of conditions and makes epidemic non-bounceable. Solo play remains the same.

[Funky.4861]

How about: Epi doesn't need to be nerfed, just be glad that necros finally have a slot in raids/ co-ordinated content? Most of us necro players are rightly dubious of how anet will buff necro damage if they nerf epi, considering that their previous buffs are still insufficient (vampiric trait, pretty much all of the axe buffs) and unused for that reason.

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"Funky.4861" said:

> How about: Epi doesn't need to be nerfed, just be glad that necros finally have a slot in raids/ co-ordinated content?

If the current state meant just that, it would be fine. Unfortunately, in the current state there is an unhealthy incentive to stack necros in many encounters, while a single one is as useful or useless as the class has been for a very long time.

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Funky.4861" said:

> How about: Epi doesn't need to be nerfed, just be glad that necros finally have a slot in raids/ co-ordinated content? Most of us necro players are rightly dubious of how anet will buff necro damage if they nerf epi, considering that their previous buffs are still insufficient (vampiric trait, pretty much all of the axe buffs) and unused for that reason.

 

Sure. And how about I get back my 46k dps?

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Funky.4861" said:

> > How about: Epi doesn't need to be nerfed, just be glad that necros finally have a slot in raids/ co-ordinated content? Most of us necro players are rightly dubious of how anet will buff necro damage if they nerf epi, considering that their previous buffs are still insufficient (vampiric trait, pretty much all of the axe buffs) and unused for that reason.

>

> Sure. And how about I get back my 46k dps?

Nope. The ele nerf was even more necessary than an epi nerf is.

[Belorn.2659]

> @"Funky.4861" said:

> How about: Epi doesn't need to be nerfed, just be glad that necros finally have a slot in raids/ co-ordinated content? Most of us necro players are rightly dubious of how anet will buff necro damage if they nerf epi, considering that their previous buffs are still insufficient (vampiric trait, pretty much all of the axe buffs) and unused for that reason.

 

It would be very surprising and out of character for Anet to buff anything in connection with a nerf. They almost never do that, and its usually up to the community to figure out the second best when the single highest DPS skill get nerfed. We can look what happened to nerfs like hundred blades, each of the elementalist elites, ice bow, overload, dhuum fire. The only exception I can recall was the nerf to confussion that affected mirage, which did get a buff to torment.

 

No, I doubt we will see a corresponding buff to necro after epi get nerfed. Maybe they throw in a few token buffs to underused skill with the expected community response being that small buffs to underused weapon sets won't make the class viable. A few fans of the class will still bring power or condi reaper, and do acceptable dps, while the community will react like it it usually do when a class falls down to the average/below average line.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Funky.4861" said:

> > > How about: Epi doesn't need to be nerfed, just be glad that necros finally have a slot in raids/ co-ordinated content? Most of us necro players are rightly dubious of how anet will buff necro damage if they nerf epi, considering that their previous buffs are still insufficient (vampiric trait, pretty much all of the axe buffs) and unused for that reason.

> >

> > Sure. And how about I get back my 46k dps?

> Nope. The ele nerf was even more necessary than an epi nerf is.

 

Seeing that epi bouncing was able to outperform weavers back when we did 46k, I beg to differ.

[Sephylon.4938]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > @"Funky.4861" said:

> > > > How about: Epi doesn't need to be nerfed, just be glad that necros finally have a slot in raids/ co-ordinated content? Most of us necro players are rightly dubious of how anet will buff necro damage if they nerf epi, considering that their previous buffs are still insufficient (vampiric trait, pretty much all of the axe buffs) and unused for that reason.

> > >

> > > Sure. And how about I get back my 46k dps?

> > Nope. The ele nerf was even more necessary than an epi nerf is.

>

> Seeing that epi bouncing was able to outperform weavers back when we did 46k, I beg to differ.

 

Out of curiosity, do you think that thieves and revs also be buffed to do 46k dps considering they're as squishy as ele? Heck throw in guardi in there as well for their low hp. What about nerfing war and mes to do no more than us?