3 more months at being at bottom of benchmark

[Ceit.7619]

I think comparing Necromancer to Elementalist is a little silly in terms of benchmarks and group composition. I think instead, they should be comparing them to warriors. Historically, everyone says Necromancer's dps suffers because they have a high hp pool, a higher base level of pve defense compared to an Ele or a Thief, who die instantly upon being sneezed on with the breeze blowing their way. I am personally a supporter of Thief and Elementalist being #1 and #2 dps respectively (Thief should be a better single target dps, ele is right behind them but has much better Aoe/Cleave).

 

As of current dps benchmarks right now, Necromancer is basically neck in neck with *support* warrior, while trying to be a full dps. Warrior has the same large HP pool and a higher armor tier and can have the same dps as a necromancer while also providing Bannerslave support and Empower Allies for group-wide dps buffs. They also have full dps specs that perform 4-5k dps better than anything Necromancer can provide. Is there really any justification as to why this makes sense? For the level of DPS necromancer provides currently, it should have amazing party-support, of which it has none. There's just no consistency when it comes to Necromancer in regards to their dps vs their usefulness.

[jbrother.1340]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> We aren't in agreement. You believe Anet is taking small steps to balance, which isn't unreasonable ... I just don't think it's a realistic goal given the amount of combinations of things we have. I don't think they are even attempting balance because it's not necessary in this game ... and for many other reasons.

 

You literally did it again and did not really read what I wrote. I never said they are taking small moves I am saying they should. They certainly don't do that. They really really should. Smaller movers more often watching more closely.

 

I am curious if you think it completely unnecessary to balance the game why bother even chatting about it?

 

I agree it is not a realistic goal with the staff they currently possess but it could be a lot better. It is all just choices. We have them to. Just not much in the way the game is designed and that is fine, it isn't my job or my art.

 

We actually are agreeing and you just cannot see through your need to be right that I actually am siding with you on most of what you are saying.

 

I do disagree that they should should attempt it. They really really should attempt it and even if it fails keep trying. I would also suggest they test more...

[Obtena.7952]

> @"jbrother.1340" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > We aren't in agreement. You believe Anet is taking small steps to balance, which isn't unreasonable ... I just don't think it's a realistic goal given the amount of combinations of things we have. I don't think they are even attempting balance because it's not necessary in this game ... and for many other reasons.

>

> You literally did it again and did not really read what I wrote. I never said they are taking small moves I am saying they should. They certainly don't do that. They really really should. Smaller movers more often watching more closely.

>

> I am curious if you think it completely unnecessary to balance the game why bother even chatting about it?

>

> I agree it is not a realistic goal with the staff they currently possess but it could be a lot better. It is all just choices. We have them to. Just not much in the way the game is designed and that is fine, it isn't my job or my art.

>

> We actually are agreeing and you just cannot see through your need to be right that I actually am siding with you on most of what you are saying.

>

> I do disagree that they should should attempt it. They really really should attempt it and even if it fails keep trying. I would also suggest they test more...

 

And I disagree with that. What's the point when it's not necessary? The game isn't designed so that every class needs to perform similar to each other.

[Dace.8173]

> @"jbrother.1340" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

>

>

> I agree it is not a realistic goal with the staff they currently possess but it could be a lot better. It is all just choices. We have them to. Just not much in the way the game is designed and that is fine, it isn't my job or my art.

>

> We actually are agreeing and you just cannot see through your need to be right that I actually am siding with you on most of what you are saying.

>

> I do disagree that they should should attempt it. They really really should attempt it and even if it fails keep trying. I would also suggest they test more...

 

I do not think it's a staff issue. They could have the best staff in the world and do all the test they could possibly do and they would still be balance issues and there would still be a bottom. As I've stated before, balance issues is not unique to Guild Wars 2 but is a fairly common thing in any gaming related activity of this nature whether it be tabletop rpgs, LCG/CCG/Minis, and other MMOs. It is just something that is inherent to the process of having a large number of factions that must be different. There is a point of diminishing returns on the issue. The more time you spend on balance testing the less time you have to develop other game elements. Every game will reach a desired level that they find acceptable in terms of game imbalance and try to keep things in that general ballpark but if they want to continue producing new content they have to give up testing at some point.

 

But as I said this is a common problem. The best any game can hope for is a level of imbalance that the fans find acceptable. The faction that is at the bottom will inevitably feel that the level to which the game is imbalanced is too much but there is simply no denying that this is a common thing to the gaming hobby. Nature of the beast and all of that.

 

 

[Nimon.7840]

> @"Dace.8173" said:

> > @"jbrother.1340" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> >

> >

> > I agree it is not a realistic goal with the staff they currently possess but it could be a lot better. It is all just choices. We have them to. Just not much in the way the game is designed and that is fine, it isn't my job or my art.

> >

> > We actually are agreeing and you just cannot see through your need to be right that I actually am siding with you on most of what you are saying.

> >

> > I do disagree that they should should attempt it. They really really should attempt it and even if it fails keep trying. I would also suggest they test more...

>

> I do not think it's a staff issue. They could have the best staff in the world and do all the test they could possibly do and they would still be balance issues and there would still be a bottom. As I've stated before, balance issues is not unique to Guild Wars 2 but is a fairly common thing in any gaming related activity of this nature whether it be tabletop rpgs, LCG/CCG/Minis, and other MMOs. It is just something that is inherent to the process of having a large number of factions that must be different. There is a point of diminishing returns on the issue. The more time you spend on balance testing the less time you have to develop other game elements. Every game will reach a desired level that they find acceptable in terms of game imbalance and try to keep things in that general ballpark but if they want to continue producing new content they have to give up testing at some point.

>

> But as I said this is a common problem. The best any game can hope for is a level of imbalance that the fans find acceptable. The faction that is at the bottom will inevitably feel that the level to which the game is imbalanced is too much but there is simply no denying that this is a common thing to the gaming hobby. Nature of the beast and all of that.

>

>

 

Not in all games. I played a bit of wow. Anthorus. There was literally noone saying, that you aren't allowed to raid with a certain class. Sure there were classes with more DPS than others, but they all were pretty close together.

 

Sure. I heard PvP was unbalanced. That DK was op. Well i can't say anything about it because i didn't PvP. But that's the reason, why anet introduced skillsplit

[Dace.8173]

> @"Nimon.7840" said:

> > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > @"jbrother.1340" said:

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

> > >

> > >

> > > I agree it is not a realistic goal with the staff they currently possess but it could be a lot better. It is all just choices. We have them to. Just not much in the way the game is designed and that is fine, it isn't my job or my art.

> > >

> > > We actually are agreeing and you just cannot see through your need to be right that I actually am siding with you on most of what you are saying.

> > >

> > > I do disagree that they should should attempt it. They really really should attempt it and even if it fails keep trying. I would also suggest they test more...

> >

> > I do not think it's a staff issue. They could have the best staff in the world and do all the test they could possibly do and they would still be balance issues and there would still be a bottom. As I've stated before, balance issues is not unique to Guild Wars 2 but is a fairly common thing in any gaming related activity of this nature whether it be tabletop rpgs, LCG/CCG/Minis, and other MMOs. It is just something that is inherent to the process of having a large number of factions that must be different. There is a point of diminishing returns on the issue. The more time you spend on balance testing the less time you have to develop other game elements. Every game will reach a desired level that they find acceptable in terms of game imbalance and try to keep things in that general ballpark but if they want to continue producing new content they have to give up testing at some point.

> >

> > But as I said this is a common problem. The best any game can hope for is a level of imbalance that the fans find acceptable. The faction that is at the bottom will inevitably feel that the level to which the game is imbalanced is too much but there is simply no denying that this is a common thing to the gaming hobby. Nature of the beast and all of that.

> >

> >

>

> Not in all games. I played a bit of wow. Anthorus. There was literally noone saying, that you aren't allowed to raid with a certain class. Sure there were classes with more DPS than others, but they all were pretty close together.

>

> Sure. I heard PvP was unbalanced. That DK was op. Well i can't say anything about it because i didn't PvP. But that's the reason, why anet introduced skillsplit

 

Except people who play WoW do in fact complain about the game not being fully balanced. I honestly have no clue what their raiding environment is like since I don't play WoW. What I do know is that people who play WoW have complained, and still do complain, about game balance issues. Now, even if there literally is no one saying that you aren't allowed to raid with a certain class ([though that statement is not true as I googled WoW and balance and the first link that popped up was a complaint about raid balance and people only accepting certain classes for raids](https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20761096217 "though that statement is not true as I googled WoW and balance and the first link that popped up was a complaint about raid balance and people only accepting certain classes for raids")) that still doesn't mean the game is balanced. It would just mean that one aspect of the game isn't suffering as badly from balance issues. Being as how the game has more than one mode of play my statement would still be true if say PvP was not properly balanced as I didn't make my point based on a particular mode of play but the fact that game imbalance is an inherent flaw that pretty much most games suffer from on some level.

 

Like I said, the best one can hope for is that the level of imbalance a game suffers is tolerable to the player base. And as I said, the tolerance level of that imbalance will be colored by where you rank on that scale with those who are at the bottom not finding the imbalance tolerable. Hiring more staff isn't going to fix the problem. Taking more time isn't going to solve the problem. Yeah, it sucks to be that faction at the bottom but that's the reality of a hobby like this. Given power creep, I imagine that this far into the life of the game it is unlikely that Necromancer would stop being the bottom if they haven't been able to get it fixed by now. Maybe there is an Elite that could lift it up but I suspect that an Elite good enough to lift Necromancer from the bottom would likely be deemed too powerful by the community and would likely get hit with a nerf down the road.

 

P.S. I did get a kick out of one poster in that thread making the observation that when people say balance all they really mean is DPS output. It seems that the split on whether or not DPS output is really a balance issue is as universal as the fact that you can't escape game imbalance :p

[Anchoku.8142]

> @"Dace.8173" said:

> P.S. I did get a kick out of one poster in that thread making the observation that when people say balance all they really mean is DPS output. It seems that the split on whether or not DPS output is really a balance issue is as universal as the fact that you can't escape game imbalance :p

 

True, people do tend to obsess over dps but that also indicates group utility with typical compositions is more than adequate. There is enough healing, alacrity, might, condi-cleanse, and AoE to handle add's for people to focus, instead, on dps.

[Dace.8173]

> @"Anchoku.8142" said:

> > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > P.S. I did get a kick out of one poster in that thread making the observation that when people say balance all they really mean is DPS output. It seems that the split on whether or not DPS output is really a balance issue is as universal as the fact that you can't escape game imbalance :p

>

> True, people do tend to obsess over dps but that also indicates group utility with typical compositions is more than adequate. There is enough healing, alacrity, might, condi-cleanse, and AoE to handle add's for people to focus, instead, on dps.

 

Indeed there is. Unrelated to your post but related to a question I asked earlier but ..... I'm still waiting to hear what the other professions do that is considered unique and thus makes them more relevant. I think that if the argument is going to be that Necromancer doesn't have a unique niche like the other professions then it should be fairly easy to list what the other professions do that makes them unique enough to be included on raids.

[Aetatis.5418]

i have been doing some theory crafting by listing "utility" on dps professions and reading the different profession forums ("my class is bad because").

 

while i still agree that consistent dps, together with the little utility necro/reaper has, is not enough - increasing it, to lets say holo benchmark dps, would hurt the game too.

i can see dps like holo or thief being thrown out of raids in favor for the necro (fotm). many of us underestimate the usefulness of the rez-trait (+ heal well) of necro, vampiric presence, the chill uptime and the additional protection necro can provide with wells, blinds, wurm-ports for skips, wurm for eating projectiles or the barrier on scourge.

 

again, if you compare it to holosmith - which brings cc and dps "only" - the necro utility really has some value already:

the cc is _almost_ as good (reaper with axe/wh x GS).

the additional protection (since it it not 100% uptime in most groups/raids)/barrier in groups saves a lot of ppl from dying.

the rez/rez-trait (reaper again, because it is part of the most effcient build) can be used without sacrificing much (if at all ... in realistic pve, because there WILL be someone miss-judging some mecchanics... always), it adds some very minor heal too.

the self sustain/fail-safe is among the best of all professions. (dont start with pvp reasons here. i know its a different matter in pvp).

the dps loss by going ranged (insert reason) isnt as punishing as e.g. thief/DH

 

if you want to have additional utility on other professions, you have to sacrifice a good chunk of dps (banner warrior being the only exception. brings huge utility and survivability and still has more dps than necro). necro usually does not sacrifice much and offers underappreciated things by default.

 

i start to think, that **maybe** only minor changes are needed instead of many crying for major reworks.

~~atleast one stack of stability on an actual used utility skill wouldnt hurt.~~

protection on wells _could_ be e.g. 6sec instead of 5sec.

vampiric presence icd _could_ be per target for a quality of life change.

GS AA3 3/4 sec.

the dps ~~could~~ should be around 30k(+ish) still, but not benchmark breaking.

minions/shouts _could_ use some (again minor) group buff/additional effect on their activation skill (like firebrands ashes of the just, thief venoms, renegades utility slot skills) that is a little stronger than currently, but not too much to make it a must have/full replacement of a different professions mechanic - neither in groups nor solo.

 

idk. some random brain farts once in a while, because i have been enjoying my reaper in t4/cm fractals and metas again lately. it just feels good playing it - it is the little things that make it fun and unique.

a tiny bit of increased efficiency wouldnt hurt tho... at all

 

 

 

[Shadowmoon.7986]

Necro ulitity is garage. Their group support does not a multipler effect on dps, it never replace druid. Their res support is like fractal vindicators, pointless if you hare good enough not to go down. Should an entire class be just a safety class, that once you learn the encounter you cast the entire class away. I can unstand a traitline, but and entire class?

What about the specs who doesnt do blood, and dps, why should they do 35% less damage. They offer no safety and still suffer dps.

[Dadnir.5038]

@"Aetatis.5418"

I understand your concern about holosmith, but the idea would most likely be that a necromancer's dps build reach holosmith level. So most likely a build that do not involve blood magic. And the issue is that core necromancer do not allow such thing. A reaper with rezzing skill is like an holosmith with the invention traitline, of course, you don't expect it to top the dps chart.

 

From the beginning, reaper's blood magic build isn't in a "bad spot", it could gain a bit of dps and reach 30k dps but that's all. The issue is and have always been that core necromancer don't have the tools necessary in pure selfish "dps traitlines" to compete with other professions in dps. Make it so spite/soul reaping/reaper reach holosmith dps and theoretically nobody would be able to complain.

 

At this point, anet can try anything they want with necromancer's e-specs, those specs will never be able to have a competitive power dps build just because the core traitlines don't allow it. And the worst part is that it's as bad for condi dps than it is for power dps. There is a need for some changes if we want to see the reaper reach a decent level of dps but those change need to be done either in soul reaping or death magic. I'd rather see the power changes done on soul reaping and the condi changes done on death magic but that's my personnal opinion.

 

As an example, they could change:

Soul reaping:

Dhummfire: Gain fire aura (3s) when you enter shroud. Deal 15% more damage on burning foes.

Strength of undeath: increase damage modifier to 10% (PvE only)

 

Death magic:

_Putrid defense_: add something like: Aura on you also poison (3s) foe that struck you.

_Soul comprehension_: change it to: aura on you grant you life force when you are struck.

_deadly strength_ replaced by _virulence_: Deal 10% more condition damage on poisoned foes.

 

Now you might say that _virulence_ would feel awkward in a defense traitline, but, after all, we got parasitic contagion (pure sustain trait) in the condition traitline. And all the aura stuff is a gift sent to elementalists so that they can spam their aura far and wide and stop complaining that they got no support. (I think there is a need for more traits giving value to aura support in all core professions. Auras aren't really difficult to gain with a bit of teamwork but they ain't necessarily usefull as they are atm.)

[Barnabus Stinson.1409]

The Joys of reading through these posts and having people say how you can play any class for any content and then remembering the last 10+ times you were kicked the instant you joined a group for what class you are..... People who play in a large group guild etc that lets you play whatever class you like please be aware not every has that luxury, some of us rely on LFG and those of us who rely on LFG would like a day where there isnt an active bias in finding your a group cause your favourite character isnt a good enough class empirically.

[Aetatis.5418]

> @"Shadowmoon.7986" said:

> Necro ulitity is garage. Their group support does not a multipler effect on dps, it never replace druid. Their res support is like fractal vindicators, pointless if you hare good enough not to go down. Should an entire class be just a safety class, that once you learn the encounter you cast the entire class away. I can unstand a traitline, but and entire class?

> What about the specs who doesnt do blood, and dps, why should they do 35% less damage. They offer no safety and still suffer dps.

 

but thats the point i am talking about. it shouldnt "replace" an entire profession/spec. a good alternative to another dps, without making people sweat because 4kdps on a golem benchmark are missing

 

the specs that doesnt run blood is a valid point tho. although blood technically is the best dps in a group atm (it adds 1500dps... soul reaping is less dps than blood in total. do the maths).

 

 

 

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> @"Aetatis.5418"

> I understand your concern about holosmith, but the idea would most likely be that a necromancer's dps build reach holosmith level. So most likely a build that do not involve blood magic. And the issue is that core necromancer do not allow such thing. A reaper with rezzing skill is like an holosmith with the invention traitline, of course, you don't expect it to top the dps chart.

>

> From the beginning, reaper's blood magic build isn't in a "bad spot", it could gain a bit of dps and reach 30k dps but that's all. The issue is and have always been that core necromancer don't have the tools necessary in pure selfish "dps traitlines" to compete with other professions in dps. Make it so spite/soul reaping/reaper reach holosmith dps and theoretically nobody would be able to complain.

>

> At this point, anet can try anything they want with necromancer's e-specs, those specs will never be able to have a competitive power dps build just because the core traitlines don't allow it. And the worst part is that it's as bad for condi dps than it is for power dps. There is a need for some changes if we want to see the reaper reach a decent level of dps but those change need to be done either in soul reaping or death magic. I'd rather see the power changes done on soul reaping and the condi changes done on death magic but that's my personnal opinion.

>

> As an example, they could change:

> Soul reaping:

> Dhummfire: Gain fire aura (3s) when you enter shroud. Deal 15% more damage on burning foes.

> Strength of undeath: increase damage modifier to 10% (PvE only)

>

> Death magic:

> _Putrid defense_: add something like: Aura on you also poison (3s) foe that struck you.

> _Soul comprehension_: change it to: aura on you grant you life force when you are struck.

> _deadly strength_ replaced by _virulence_: Deal 10% more condition damage on poisoned foes.

>

> Now you might say that _virulence_ would feel awkward in a defense traitline, but, after all, we got parasitic contagion (pure sustain trait) in the condition traitline. And all the aura stuff is a gift sent to elementalists so that they can spam their aura far and wide and stop complaining that they got no support. (I think there is a need for more traits giving value to aura support in all core professions. Auras aren't really difficult to gain with a bit of teamwork but they ain't necessarily usefull as they are atm.)

 

i never said core traitlines do not need any changes. but small ones should be sufficient to reach a comfortable level of dps/utility.

 

sure, why not make soul reaping add more dps - close to holo. it is a good point. havent been thinking that far obviously... my mind was stuck in the most efficient build available **at the moment** and changing as little as possible.

some number tweaking would do the job, without changing anything else and without affecting pvp/wvw by creating more omfg-crit-dead-oneshot-builds.

look at your example of dhuumfire. 15% more dmg on burning targets - a reaper wouldnt even have to use ferocity in its build to kill everything in range of soul spiral or GS 3. (core and scourge put aside).

 

love weekend discussions :3

[Aslakh.3072]

@Dadnir.5038

Soul Reaping should ideally not be only power or condition because it's the traitline that effects the class mechanic. If it was only power oriented scourge would suffer and if it was only condition oriented reaper would suffer. The easiest method would be to put strong condition and power traits on the same line so you had to choose, though i'm weary about that considering the unjust treatment dhuumfire always seems to get in balance.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Barnabus Stinson.1409" said:

> The Joys of reading through these posts and having people say how you can play any class for any content and then remembering the last 10+ times you were kicked the instant you joined a group for what class you are..... People who play in a large group guild etc that lets you play whatever class you like please be aware not every has that luxury, some of us rely on LFG and those of us who rely on LFG would like a day where there isnt an active bias in finding your a group cause your favourite character isnt a good enough class empirically.

 

This argument is old and tired. If you rely on joining LFG teams ... you let those teams decide to play how you play.

 

Solution: Make your own teams and advertise them open for people that want to play how THEY like on LFG.

[Barnabus Stinson.1409]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Barnabus Stinson.1409" said:

> > The Joys of reading through these posts and having people say how you can play any class for any content and then remembering the last 10+ times you were kicked the instant you joined a group for what class you are..... People who play in a large group guild etc that lets you play whatever class you like please be aware not every has that luxury, some of us rely on LFG and those of us who rely on LFG would like a day where there isnt an active bias in finding your a group cause your favourite character isnt a good enough class empirically.

>

> This argument is old and tired. If you rely on joining LFG teams ... you let those teams decide to play how you play.

>

> Solution: Make your own teams and advertise them open for people that want to play how THEY like on LFG.

 

I really struggle to see why people argue against balance. Actually I dont, I see why those who benefit from imbalance argue against change. The question then becomes if someone is argueing against balance, what is there motive. The most obvious of which is you dont actually play as a Necro but instead one of the, shall we say, always Meta 3. However we shouldn't assume malice when incompetence is just as good of an explanation.

 

Each class should feel useful, fun and thematically destinct. We have themeatically distinct, we have fun (atleast we do above 50% HP) however we dont have useful, not really. Necro falls into the DPS category as is doesnt have power unique buffs like a warrior, or great heals like a druid...It really only provides damage there is very little else it can actually achieve. So if you have no other utility you should be capable at your role. But Necro is not. Sure it can still achieve damage but its outclassed by almost everyone. You can play with absolutism all you want "It is useful it still does damage" but realitivly it is less useful. Please say if you think otherwise.

But how can a class that provides less damage and no team support be thought of as useful a different class. It cant! Again please state reasoning if you disagree.

So now that we have agreed the imbalance, we can talk about if we are okay with it. This again should be fairly simple. No it is detrimental. It pushes people to play a smaller group of classes. Not just because META dictates, but also it feels bad to be completely outclassed. It makes it less fun. If you are fighting an enemy and I am 20ft away from you fighting the same type of enemy and I kill mine 10 second before you. Your DPS is bad, but then I also provide more team support and have have greater QoL and Utility than you, your class is now worse than mine. And as much as you love the theme underperforming and lack of balance drives people away. So after years of being litterally unwanted, and worse than others. Change is necessary.

[Barnabus Stinson.1409]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

> Solution: Make your own teams and advertise them open for people that want to play how THEY like on LFG.

 

 

Additionally your solution is flawed, people should potentially wait a fairly long time extra to find their off meta group. How is this preferable to balance? Please tell me?!

I just made said group for a raid as a base necro... its been 17 minutes. anyone who has joing has left, the highest member count was 4. Seems completely reasonable?

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Barnabus Stinson.1409" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

>

> > Solution: Make your own teams and advertise them open for people that want to play how THEY like on LFG.

>

>

> Additionally your solution is flawed, people should potentially wait a fairly long time extra to find their off meta group. How is this preferable to balance? Please tell me?!

> I just made said group for a raid as a base necro... its been 17 minutes. anyone who has joing has left, the highest member count was 4. Seems completely reasonable?

>

 

That's just speculation on your part. The teams that look for the exact meta person to fill that last spot are also waiting for a 'long time'.

 

Maybe it's not preferable to balance, but in case you didn't notice, we don't have balance to begin with. So if you want to talk about 'waiting a long time', I can assure you that waiting for 10 people ot make a team to play how they want to play is MUCH shorter wait than balancing will be. In otherwords, my solution to make your own teams is WAY more reasonable than you telling me Anet is coming in with balancing just around the corner.

 

Whatever suits you I guess. If you have convinced yourself you can't create and play with non-meta teams from LFG, that's your loss.

[Barnabus Stinson.1409]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Barnabus Stinson.1409" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> >

> > > Solution: Make your own teams and advertise them open for people that want to play how THEY like on LFG.

> >

> >

> > Additionally your solution is flawed, people should potentially wait a fairly long time extra to find their off meta group. How is this preferable to balance? Please tell me?!

> > I just made said group for a raid as a base necro... its been 17 minutes. anyone who has joing has left, the highest member count was 4. Seems completely reasonable?

> >

>

> That's just speculation on your part. The teams that look for the exact meta person to fill that last spot are also waiting for a 'long time'.

>

> Maybe it's not preferable to balance, but in case you didn't notice, we don't have balance to begin with.

 

Its speculation that I am still waiting on a group? Its speculation? Its actually playing this class.

And of course to get the perfect group would take a long time. To get a group made of classes that offer at minimum a 10% damage bump as well as group support takes very little time. There are 22 specs that deal more damage, 18 that deal over 10% more. Most of which have some level of group support and team play. There is one lower that isnt a dedicated support.

 

I agree we dont have balance, I am glad you see it. Why dont you want it? Why dont you want to be closer to it?

[Obtena.7952]

It's not a question of what I want. This game doesn't have balance just because I will it to be that way.

 

The game doesn't have it because it doesn't need it. It's not necessary based on the concept of the game. Your single experience isn't proof of a general trend for LFG teams.

[Barnabus Stinson.1409]

I havent convinced myself I cant, I do. I just wish that there was a two tier system for classes, so if I want to do group content I dont have to do it on a less prefered class.

 

Yes it will take longer for Anet to balance it, but that doesnt mean they should. Your argument is litterally ridiculous.

 

Example crossing a river: Jim needs to cross the river, but there is no bridge. There could be a bridge, there is a great site for one. But there isnt ones yet. Pushing to get a bridge built would take months, which is longer than the 10 minutes it would take him to swim each day. So he never even tries to get a bridge made and just swims.

 

The clear logical solution: Is for him to swim while he has to, because he has to. But to also push for a bridge to be made. It may not help him right away, but in future it would be better.

 

Using this and applying it to our situation. Instead of obtusely opposing people who want balance, you could instead think logically. Support the push for balance and while also suggesting ways to mitigate in the short term.

 

Or continue to campaign for a lack of balance and say people should just be happy about it. Logical thinking, its valuable.

 

PS. Swapped to chrono, found a group in 2 min..... Woooo

[Obtena.7952]

It's got NOTHING to do with how long it will take Anet to balance the game. It's about IF their idea of balance matches that of the players that demand it; mainly the people that play according to meta. I'm of the opinion what Anet thinks is 'balance' is not even close to the DPS-meta version that people are so focused on ... and that's an opinion that ANY person who has watched this game evolve in the last 6 years would be able to understand.

 

This difference between Anet and meta-players balance definition is why you will never get the 'balancing' you are talking about. The reason that difference exists is because GW2 is a fundamentally unique game in its concept. It's not that I'm against 'balancing', it's that I recognize that Anet's version is not typical and DPS isn't the primary measure of what balance is.

 

Logical thinking ... indeed. Some should try it.

[Dace.8173]

> @"Barnabus Stinson.1409" said:

> The Joys of reading through these posts and having people say how you can play any class for any content and then remembering the last 10+ times you were kicked the instant you joined a group for what class you are..... People who play in a large group guild etc that lets you play whatever class you like please be aware not every has that luxury, some of us rely on LFG and those of us who rely on LFG would like a day where there isnt an active bias in finding your a group cause your favourite character isnt a good enough class empirically.

 

The people who say that you can play any profession you want aren't wrong. What other people decide to do doesn't make that statement untrue. There clearly is a break in mindset between focusing on max dps to the determinant of other peoples fun with people who want to play their preferred profession and the same content too. The solution would be to find like-minded people and form your own Raid teams. If you rely on strangers to do something then you are at the mercy of their whim. If you get together with like-minded people though then you very well can play what you want. The fact that not everyone has the luxury of playing with a large group guild does not suddenly make the statement about people being able to play any profession for all of the content untrue. Equal viability does not mean equal access to the people who would provide it.

[Barnabus Stinson.1409]

First, you litterally just said it wasnt worth wanting cause it will take time.

Second, as a person who has played since Beta I have seen the game evolve, and in that time things that started out incredibly unbalanced have been reviewed and changed. A very good example being Engi. Or even Necro itself. It has come on a long way since being perma banned from dungeons to being begrudgingly accepted but not desired. So Anet does see the need for balance, their implementation of which is a little cautious and has to reflect all levels of play, and game types. I completely understand the trepidation in giving necro access to the QoL of some other classes. You give it equal access to stab, you give it top tier dps and even with no team support it would cause issues as it is already a beast for Open world, and with the above changes would be amazing for pvp as well as true end pve. This is why really i dont think the solution is more damage, I think it would be better sorted in the form of team support. You have a class with access to 2 health bars, giving it top damage would make it a nightmare in many modes. You leave its damage at middle to low, but make it a real advantage to have because it helps its team, it gets the needed value for end pve, without becoming Op for other modes.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"Aetatis.5418" said:

> i never said core traitlines do not need any changes. but small ones should be sufficient to reach a comfortable level of dps/utility.

>

> sure, why not make soul reaping add more dps - close to holo. it is a good point. havent been thinking that far obviously... my mind was stuck in the most efficient build available **at the moment** and changing as little as possible.

> some number tweaking would do the job, without changing anything else and without affecting pvp/wvw by creating more kitten-crit-dead-oneshot-builds.

> look at your example of dhuumfire. 15% more dmg on burning targets - a reaper wouldnt even have to use ferocity in its build to kill everything in range of soul spiral or GS 3. (core and scourge put aside).

>

> love weekend discussions :3

 

Well, despite it's lethality, _soul spiral_ deal less damage than warrior's _whirling axe_. And I suggest that the 15% damage apply on burning target with necromancer losing it's ability to apply burn by himself. So, I don't see this as a "kitten-crit-dead-oneshot-builds". It's not like reaper's high damage skills aren't easily interruptible.

 

 

> @"Aslakh.3072" said:

> @Dadnir.5038

> Soul Reaping should ideally not be only power or condition because it's the traitline that effects the class mechanic. If it was only power oriented scourge would suffer and if it was only condition oriented reaper would suffer. The easiest method would be to put strong condition and power traits on the same line so you had to choose, though i'm weary about that considering the unjust treatment dhuumfire always seems to get in balance.

 

Even with this change on dhuumfire, soul reaping is still neither power nor condition. After all, crit chance is valuable for both power and condition builds (death perception), breaking stun and stability benefit both condi and power build (foot in the grave) and my suggestion on dhuumfire benefit both condition and power build since fire aura apply burn when you are hit and the damage modifier benefit both power and condition build (Yeah, It might baffle some players here but condition build actually deal some power damage especially when you use viper gear).

 

NB.: The introduction of dhuumfire on necromancer was a terrible mistake from Anet. You wouldn't believe how many core abilities were nerfed due to this trait. The trait was originally supposed to give a bit of condi burst to the necromancer but with the condi damage change he outlived it's purpose. There is honnestly no reason to keep it as he is right now, neither for reaper nor for core necromancer. Even for scourge, it would probably be a relief to see this trait totally reworked.