3 more months at being at bottom of benchmark

[Aetatis.5418]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> Question: why should a faceroll, easy peasy class like necro even do comparable damage output than other, harder to play classes?

>

> And if necro is bad, why does every wvw com want as many scourges as possible, but not eles or revs?

>

> Think about that for a moment.

>

> Necros are not underperforming at all. For such an easy, high health class, with a ridiculously easy rotation, tons of cleans, they are completely OP.

 

if you woulld have said anything else but rev and ele, i could maybe see your point.

good and strong zergs in wvw use both... commanders that refuse the two, maybe dont grasp what they are capable of.

 

anyway. it is about raid/fractal and not wvw, which has been mentioned many many times in this thread. everybody knows, that stacking necros in wvw is strong. probably the only mode in which there is a "demand" to run a necro (scourge... not even necro in general).

 

> @"Axl.8924" said:

 

> Most necros here are sencere about what they want, they just want to be competitive in dps, and have at the very least a 32k ish dps or around that number, so they can be competing rather than be outdpsed even by a warrior whos gone support.

 

THIS!!!!

 

 

[DeadlySynz.3471]

They shouldn't be balancing or even targeting any type of DPS target. Some classes just hit harder than others. Some classes are supposed to deal more condition damage than others. Some classes are supposed to provide some sort of support which should be superior to others. Even some that provide more combo field possibilities than others. Rope all those together and you have a good working group. But when we have people saying "My necro needs to hit 30K dps or I'm not wanted" or "32K dps" how do you even factor this benchmark? A stationary target dummy? A stationary raid boss? Dps benchmarks shouldn't even exist. All DPS meters should be outright banned and anyone caught using them should have their account terminated on the spot.

 

For the people that don't know (and I highly suspect there are many people that don't seem to know this), Raids did not exist at launch, nor did fractals. It was PvE (open world PvE), dungeons (which people are a bit miffed that they got shelved), PvP, and WvW. The end game focus was WvW and PvP for Anet at launch and remained that way for a good 3 years.

 

This made perfect sense, you don't need to balance anything around PvE; all the content in the game was easily cleared with pretty much any build, even though some builds performed better than others. This included dungeons. PvP and WvW need far more intricate in their balance changes because one false move can completely wipe out an entire build.. a build someone may have spent a lot of time and gold on. This is something I don't think people who are exclusively PvE only, realize. Then we have fractals... then we have raids, then we start seeing these oddball changes occurring directed at PvE content that are wreaking havoc in the competitive game modes. This wasn't really bad when fractals came out; however, when Raids cropped up, that's when the you know what hit the fan.

 

The game's balance would function far better if raids didn't exist.

[Sephylon.4938]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> They shouldn't be balancing or even targeting any type of DPS target. Some classes just hit harder than others. Some classes are supposed to deal more condition damage than others. Some classes are supposed to provide some sort of support which should be superior to others. Even some that provide more combo field possibilities than others. Rope all those together and you have a good working group. But when we have people saying "My necro needs to hit 30K dps or I'm not wanted" or "32K dps" how do you even factor this benchmark? A stationary target dummy? A stationary raid boss? Dps benchmarks shouldn't even exist. All DPS meters should be outright banned and anyone caught using them should have their account terminated on the spot.

>

> For the people that don't know (and I highly suspect there are many people that don't seem to know this), Raids did not exist at launch, nor did fractals. It was PvE (open world PvE), dungeons (which people are a bit miffed that they got shelved), PvP, and WvW. The end game focus was WvW and PvP for Anet at launch and remained that way for a good 3 years.

>

> This made perfect sense, you don't need to balance anything around PvE; all the content in the game was easily cleared with pretty much any build, even though some builds performed better than others. This included dungeons. PvP and WvW need far more intricate in their balance changes because one false move can completely wipe out an entire build.. a build someone may have spent a lot of time and gold on. This is something I don't think people who are exclusively PvE only, realize. Then we have fractals... then we have raids, then we start seeing these oddball changes occurring directed at PvE content that are wreaking havoc in the competitive game modes. This wasn't really bad when fractals came out; however, when Raids cropped up, that's when the you know what hit the fan.

>

> The game's balance would function far better if raids didn't exist.

 

This game would be at a very bad state then. PVP failed as an esport and became repetetive quickly, and the most common response you get from players about wvw was "what's that?". Additionally, us asking for more dps has been a thing since dungeons when necro/ranger=kick dungeon groups were a thing.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> Question: why should a faceroll, easy peasy class like necro even do comparable damage output than other, harder to play classes?

>

 

Except that necromancer isn't easier to play than any other profession. Or maybe you think that the gameplay of holosmith is very different from reaper's gameplay? Or that warriors, guardians, rangers and thiefs need very complexe rotation to do their jobs? The necromancer is not more faceroll than other professions.

 

> And if necro is bad, why does every wvw com want as many scourges as possible, but not eles or revs?

>

 

WvW commanders want scourges because they stack well and are designed to counter WvW. In other words, the more scourge you have the more barrier your teammates can keep up and the more forgivable it is for those teammates to make mistakes. At the same time, the more scourge you have, the more boons they can corrupt on the opposite zerg which then become less threatening.

 

Now, this thread is ultimately about PvE and PvE is not build around survivability or boons to corrupt. PvE is a DPS race and the necromancer is exceptionnally bad at this kind of race.

 

 

[Mahou.3924]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> They shouldn't be balancing or even targeting any type of DPS target. Some classes just hit harder than others. Some classes are supposed to deal more condition damage than others. Some classes are supposed to provide some sort of support which should be superior to others. Even some that provide more combo field possibilities than others. Rope all those together and you have a good working group. But when we have people saying "My necro needs to hit 30K dps or I'm not wanted" or "32K dps" how do you even factor this benchmark? A stationary target dummy? A stationary raid boss? Dps benchmarks shouldn't even exist. All DPS meters should be outright banned and anyone caught using them should have their account terminated on the spot.

>

> For the people that don't know (and I highly suspect there are many people that don't seem to know this), Raids did not exist at launch, nor did fractals. It was PvE (open world PvE), dungeons (which people are a bit miffed that they got shelved), PvP, and WvW. The end game focus was WvW and PvP for Anet at launch and remained that way for a good 3 years.

>

> This made perfect sense, you don't need to balance anything around PvE; all the content in the game was easily cleared with pretty much any build, even though some builds performed better than others. This included dungeons. PvP and WvW need far more intricate in their balance changes because one false move can completely wipe out an entire build.. a build someone may have spent a lot of time and gold on. This is something I don't think people who are exclusively PvE only, realize. Then we have fractals... then we have raids, then we start seeing these oddball changes occurring directed at PvE content that are wreaking havoc in the competitive game modes. This wasn't really bad when fractals came out; however, when Raids cropped up, that's when the you know what hit the fan.

>

> The game's balance would function far better if raids didn't exist.

 

Before split balance was a thing, PvP qqing ruined builds in other game modes, but that was apparently perfectly fine or irrelevant because "PvP iz serious buisiness lololol" right? However, nothing changed. The toxic part of PvPers keep crying for nerfs like loctuses, and if class A is nerfed enough to their liking, the QQ train moves on to class B. Once the train returns to class A, maybe they QQ about support/utility skills and the "fun" begins anew. Even if "PvE needs no balance", that's beyond the point. N o b o d y likes nerfs beyond what's "necessary".

[Insidion the Insane.9752]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Nerfs/Buffs does not necessarily mean Meta DPS balancing.

Present evidence for this claim. Is there any significant reason to adjust PvE DPS if not for "Meta DPS balancing"?

>If I was to think there was some concentrated effort for Anet to do that, we would see a much more significant convergence to some common level of DPS for all classes. That's not what we see with the balance patches.

Here are the DPS benchmarks from the past year, in chronological order:

1. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-august-balance-patch/

2. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-path-of-fire/

3. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-11-07-17/

4. https://web.archive.org/web/20180220115919/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

5. https://web.archive.org/web/20180708213346/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

6. https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

 

Here are some of my observations from those links:

1. Overall, power weavers went from 48k! to 34k on large hitbox.

2. The classes between 32-34k (holosmith, power DH, sword weaver, condi FB) remains mostly unchanged since PoF release to this day.

3. In the latest patch power spellbreakers, condi mirage and staff weaver went from 35k to 32.5k, 31.8k and 32.0k. I used 32k instead of 29k for staff weaver because I am positive that they were testing with bugged meteor damage when making the 1st round of balance changes.

4. Before the latest patch, deadeye were doing around 31k, which is still within 10% of the 32-34k DPS range (10% higher than power reaper).

6. Also in the latest patch, power herald and power soulbeast went from power reaper levels of obscurity to the 32-34k DPS range.

7. Power chrono was unheard of at PoF release before the phantasm rework, but now sits comfortably at 32k DPS.

 

>The Weaver Condi build is still higher than average

What? Really, what? In what world is 33k DPS higher than average, when half of the DPS builds (by this I mean every build on SC above power reaper) are within 10% of 33k, with half of them lying in the 32-34k range?

> and the Deadeye builds went from complete garbage to top of the class. That's not balancing to some Meta DPS standard at all ... it's almost like Anet are guessing to hit this target.

Did you ever consider that Deadeye went from "complete garbage" (not exactly, they were at 31k) to "the top of the class" exactly because they are balancing to "some Meta DPS standard"?

> There could be lots of reasons Reaper got buffed ... and it's REALLY hard for me to think it's because of Meta DPS

Why not? Is there any significant reason to buff reaper's PvE damage, especially when all of the damage buffs are PvE only?

>... because Reaper didn't get anywhere NEAR the average Meta DPS output with those buffs.

Even if it's far from enough, that did not in any way discount the fact that power reapers did get closer to the rest of the classes.

> This I can't believe either. It's hard to determine how much any particular build needs to hit some threshold in DPS and how to give it to a class? It's pretty basic level math if you ask me. The average Meta DPS output is around 32000 ... necro builds are 28006. They need 12.% more DPS on the Snowcrow build to get in the ballpark. That's not hard to do .... Anet has been adding percentage DPS increase to Axe skills for almost 3 years now ... They know how to do such a thing.

Yes, it doesn't take rocket science to give any class more DPS; even someone like me can do that (https://imgur.com/a/26X6O4K). The problem with necro DPS has always been about ANet being very hesitant in bringing necro DPS up to par with the other classes, most probably due to ANet putting too much value on necro's sustain (for example, deadeyes can take Invigorating Precision for sustain levels comparable to a scourge with Parasitic Contagion and still do more DPS than the latter). And that is why people are here to "express" their opinions on ANet's questionable balancing decisions.

> That's right ... it's not just necros. That's why I find it really hard to think Anet balances according to some Meta DPS standard.

Again, is there any significant reason to adjust PvE DPS if not for "some Meta DPS standard"?

>The direction and size of the DPS changes Anet makes just doesn't make sense if you believe they are targeting some Meta DPS standard.

See my observations on the DPS benchmarks above.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Insidion the Insane.9752" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > Nerfs/Buffs does not necessarily mean Meta DPS balancing.

> Present evidence for this claim. Is there any significant reason to adjust PvE DPS if not for "Meta DPS balancing"?

> >If I was to think there was some concentrated effort for Anet to do that, we would see a much more significant convergence to some common level of DPS for all classes. That's not what we see with the balance patches.

> Here are the DPS benchmarks from the past year, in chronological order:

> 1. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-august-balance-patch/

> 2. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-path-of-fire/

> 3. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-11-07-17/

> 4. https://web.archive.org/web/20180220115919/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

> 5. https://web.archive.org/web/20180708213346/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

> 6. https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

>

> Here are some of my observations from those links:

> 1. Overall, power weavers went from 48k! to 34k on large hitbox.

> 2. The classes between 32-34k (holosmith, power DH, sword weaver, condi FB) remains mostly unchanged since PoF release to this day.

> 3. In the latest patch power spellbreakers, condi mirage and staff weaver went from 35k to 32.5k, 31.8k and 32.0k. I used 32k instead of 29k for staff weaver because I am positive that they were testing with bugged meteor damage when making the 1st round of balance changes.

> 4. Before the latest patch, deadeye were doing around 31k, which is still within 10% of the 32-34k DPS range (10% higher than power reaper).

> 6. Also in the latest patch, power herald and power soulbeast went from power reaper levels of obscurity to the 32-34k DPS range.

> 7. Power chrono was unheard of at PoF release before the phantasm rework, but now sits comfortably at 32k DPS.

>

> >The Weaver Condi build is still higher than average

> What? Really, what? In what world is 33k DPS higher than average, when half of the DPS builds (by this I mean every build on SC above power reaper) are within 10% of 33k, with half of them lying in the 32-34k range?

> > and the Deadeye builds went from complete garbage to top of the class. That's not balancing to some Meta DPS standard at all ... it's almost like Anet are guessing to hit this target.

> Did you ever consider that Deadeye went from "complete garbage" (not exactly, they were at 31k) to "the top of the class" exactly because they are balancing to "some Meta DPS standard"?

> > There could be lots of reasons Reaper got buffed ... and it's REALLY hard for me to think it's because of Meta DPS

> Why not? Is there any significant reason to buff reaper's PvE damage, especially when all of the damage buffs are PvE only?

> >... because Reaper didn't get anywhere NEAR the average Meta DPS output with those buffs.

> Even if it's far from enough, that did not in any way discount the fact that power reapers did get closer to the rest of the classes.

> > This I can't believe either. It's hard to determine how much any particular build needs to hit some threshold in DPS and how to give it to a class? It's pretty basic level math if you ask me. The average Meta DPS output is around 32000 ... necro builds are 28006. They need 12.% more DPS on the Snowcrow build to get in the ballpark. That's not hard to do .... Anet has been adding percentage DPS increase to Axe skills for almost 3 years now ... They know how to do such a thing.

> Yes, it doesn't take rocket science to give any class more DPS; even someone like me can do that (https://imgur.com/a/26X6O4K). The problem with necro DPS has always been about ANet being very hesitant in bringing necro DPS up to par with the other classes, most probably due to ANet putting too much value on necro's sustain (for example, deadeyes can take Invigorating Precision for sustain levels comparable to a scourge with Parasitic Contagion and still do more DPS than the latter). And that is why people are here to "express" their opinions on ANet's questionable balancing decisions.

> > That's right ... it's not just necros. That's why I find it really hard to think Anet balances according to some Meta DPS standard.

> Again, is there any significant reason to adjust PvE DPS if not for "some Meta DPS standard"?

> >The direction and size of the DPS changes Anet makes just doesn't make sense if you believe they are targeting some Meta DPS standard.

> See my observations on the DPS benchmarks above.

 

Thanks for your feedback. Without going point for point with you, I disagree with much you have said.

 

I think the most interesting point is the first one .... you can't think of ANY reason Anet would make an adjustment to DPS except for the meta? That's a strange bit of thinking considering that for the whole life of this game Anet has made many changes to DPS, yet STILL not achieved Meta DPS balancing. If every DPS change is with the goal of targetting Meta DPS standard ... then how do you explain why we don't have it yet? We certainly have had way more changes than necessary to do it if that's indeed the only reason to adjust DPS.

 

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

> This game would be at a very bad state then. PVP failed as an esport and became repetetive quickly, and the most common response you get from players about wvw was "what's that?". Additionally, us asking for more dps has been a thing since dungeons when necro/ranger=kick dungeon groups were a thing.

 

What makes you think it is not in a poor state, PvE just hides it better because of megaservers .

 

Nor does balance matter much when most PvE players are casual and don't even do things like raids (which are far more repetitive than PvP), even for raids "balance" issues are largely down to player stupidity, this game isn't Wildstar you don't need to eek out every last percent to clear stuff, you can clear raids in this game with pretty much any vaguely sane comp even with the "worst" DPS classes.

 

[Taqe.1342]

Anet have to balance classes to DPS... How other way do they set raid Bosses health numbers? or timers? they just put random dev in a group with random classes, random builds and see how long it will take them with boss that have 5 mil health, then 10 mil, and so on? they NEED to know the DPS of classes and how fast they can kill and then make sure an average player can complete the content.

Again pls if ppl have problem with necro damage... lets just nerf necro damage to 15k dps on full dps build BUT let it have insane sustain OR insane support build avaiable, thats balance....

Anet if you listen to player sugesstions, nerf its damage I don't care, if thats what you want "necro to be" then fine, but then make him the tank of the game. oh wait you said you want to make every profession to be able to play any role, well except necro not being dps, cuz any other class does it better,. Whats the problem here? is it shroud? maybe its time to rework it? so all those pro players don't complain about necro SECOND life bar that is sooo OP?

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Taqe.1342" said:

> Anet have to balance classes to DPS... How other way do they set raid Bosses health numbers? or timers? they just put random dev in a group with random classes, random builds and see how long it will take them with boss that have 5 mil health, then 10 mil, and so on? they NEED to know the DPS of classes and how fast they can kill and then make sure an average player can complete the content.

> Again pls if ppl have problem with necro damage... lets just nerf necro damage to 15k dps on full dps build BUT let it have insane sustain OR insane support build avaiable, thats balance....

> Anet if you listen to player sugesstions, nerf its damage I don't care, if thats what you want "necro to be" then fine, but then make him the tank of the game. oh wait you said you want to make every profession to be able to play any role, well except necro not being dps, cuz any other class does it better,. Whats the problem here? is it shroud? maybe its time to rework it? so all those pro players don't complain about necro SECOND life bar that is sooo OP?

 

Anet can set raid Boss health numbers without any of that ... because they already did it and it works due to group damage being an aggregate of all the players in the group, not just one player. The threshold for success is low enough that all classes can participate and succeed in raids without playing meta. I believe that's the original intention of the game.

 

Giving Necro 'insane sustain' isn't going to make it meta because no group plays without a healer or even two. Meta groups won't view insane sustain as a benefit to optimal play unless Necro replaces Chrono as the optimal tank. Could happen maybe.

[Insidion the Insane.9752]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> I think the most interesting point is the first one .... you can't think of ANY reason Anet would make an adjustment to DPS except for the meta?

Yes. Please present evidence to support your claim.

> That's a strange bit of thinking considering that for the whole life of this game Anet has made many changes to DPS, yet STILL not achieved Meta DPS balancing. If every DPS change is with the goal of targetting Meta DPS standard ... then how do you explain why we don't have it yet?

No one can guess exactly what ANet's intent is, but I have provided you with some evidence to suggest that they do try to balance to a certain range, which I believe to be within 10% of 33k (look at each of the numbered points I made previously for said evidence). As usual, if you have evidence to the contrary you are welcome to post it here. Also, just because they cannot do it in one fell swoop (or even until the servers shut down) does not discount the possibility that they are trying. As an example, if I intended to kill Turai Ossa in Queen's Gauntlet with all the gambits on power reaper since day 1 and has failed miserably up to this point, it does not change my original intent in any way.

> We certainly have had way more changes than necessary to do it...

Absolutely. This DPS imbalance has been going on for far too long.

> ... if that's indeed the only reason to adjust DPS.

Again, please present evidence that suggest that they adjust DPS in PvE for any other reason than "the meta". If only one side is presenting evidence it wouldn't make a very interesting discussion, would it not? Also, I respectfully ask for reciprocal treatment since up to this point I have I addressed every single concern of yours. Especially the ones about power reaper since this is what the thread is about.

> @"Insidion the Insane.9752" said:

> Why not? Is there any significant reason to buff reaper's PvE damage, especially when all of the damage buffs are PvE only?

And...

> Even if it's far from enough, that did not in any way discount the fact that power reapers did get closer to the rest of the classes.

The ball is still on your court for those two.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Giving Necro 'insane sustain' isn't going to make it meta because no group plays without a healer or even two. Meta groups won't view insane sustain as a benefit to optimal play unless Necro replaces Chrono as the optimal tank. Could happen maybe.

 

Nope, this wouldn't happen because chrono's strength isn't tanking but support and there is nothing in the necromancer that can begin to compete with the specific and important support that chrono give. And even if the support that chrono grant could be sustained by another profession (obviously not the necromancer since adding so much support in an e-spec would be busted), most likely the necromancer wouldn't be the most effective tank choice.

 

Surviving is not an issue, every single profession in the game can survive with the proper build and gameplay, I'd even say that most other professions can do a better job at surviving than a necromancer if they chose to walk this path. The issue is how valuable these professions are outside of their ability to survive and that's where the necromancer is always lacking because necromancer's tools aren't as great in PvE end game than they are in PvP or WvW.

 

And if anet buff those tools to a point that they become almost "ok" in PvE, we've already seen that it break PvP and WvW. Thus to make those tools good in PvE, anet is forced to make changes to PvE but then realize that it give an unfair advantage to few professions (necromancer, mesmer and revenant). Then they are forced to share a bit of this advantage to other profession (Spell breaker). However by doing so, anet reduce the value of the necromancer's tools in front of other professions that already perform better.

 

And the logic result is that the necromancer will stay in mediocrity in PvE while other professions gaining access to necromancer's tools will start to step heavily on the necromancer's niche in PvP/WvW. Which is not necessarily a bad thing if we look at the big picture but it contribute heavily on the growing dissatisfaction of the necromancer's community.

 

The necromancer is riddle with design issue and the tools on which anet focus for the necromancer have an awfully high difference of efficiency between PvP and WvW. Which make the necromancer doomed to be seen as OP in PvP/WvW and bad at PvE. Anet will never find a balanced point by tweaking numbers for those kind of mechanisms.

[Nimon.7840]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> Question: why should a faceroll, easy peasy class like necro even do comparable damage output than other, harder to play classes?

>

> And if necro is bad, why does every wvw com want as many scourges as possible, but not eles or revs?

>

> Think about that for a moment.

>

> Necros are not underperforming at all. For such an easy, high health class, with a ridiculously easy rotation, tons of cleans, they are completely OP.

 

Did you ever play necro yourself? Ever tried to reach the benchmark of power reaper?

 

Man you don't know anything about this class.

 

Faceroll once in a PvP 1v1 situation and you are dead.

 

As for pve DPS. At least necro has to use all his skills and not just autoattack like thief does

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Insidion the Insane.9752" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > I think the most interesting point is the first one .... you can't think of ANY reason Anet would make an adjustment to DPS except for the meta?

> Yes. Please present evidence to support your claim.

 

That we don't have Meta DPS balancing after many patches. How many patches do **you** think is required to get it? What do you think Meta DPS balance looks like? Right now we got a spread of about 28 -36 K DPS not including tank/healer builds. That's a pretty big range ... unreasonably big if you ask most players that are used to other Meta balanced games. So there are two explanations ... either Anet's idea of Meta DPS balancing is not typical and it's what we have NOW or they are taking **years** to deliver it and people just need to calm down and be patient.

 

I've already explained this many times; you came late to the party ... the evidence is right in front of everyone. My claim isn't just come random conjecture based on what I think. It's based on looking at what the game is and how it's evolved over 6 years.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

> @"Nimon.7840" said:

> > @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> > Question: why should a faceroll, easy peasy class like necro even do comparable damage output than other, harder to play classes?

> >

> > And if necro is bad, why does every wvw com want as many scourges as possible, but not eles or revs?

> >

> > Think about that for a moment.

> >

> > Necros are not underperforming at all. For such an easy, high health class, with a ridiculously easy rotation, tons of cleans, they are completely OP.

>

> Did you ever play necro yourself? Ever tried to reach the benchmark of power reaper?

>

> Man you don't know anything about this class.

>

> Faceroll once in a PvP 1v1 situation and you are dead.

>

> As for pve DPS. At least necro has to use all his skills and not just autoattack like thief does

 

you can complain all the way you want, there is a reason why scourges swarm wvw: their damage, they mobility, their skills are all very good. Add in stupid high hp and you are done. Compared to weaver, necro is laughable easy. Seriously, necro, thieves and mesmers are the 3 classes that have no reason to complain.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> > @"Nimon.7840" said:

> > > @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> > > Question: why should a faceroll, easy peasy class like necro even do comparable damage output than other, harder to play classes?

> > >

> > > And if necro is bad, why does every wvw com want as many scourges as possible, but not eles or revs?

> > >

> > > Think about that for a moment.

> > >

> > > Necros are not underperforming at all. For such an easy, high health class, with a ridiculously easy rotation, tons of cleans, they are completely OP.

> >

> > Did you ever play necro yourself? Ever tried to reach the benchmark of power reaper?

> >

> > Man you don't know anything about this class.

> >

> > Faceroll once in a PvP 1v1 situation and you are dead.

> >

> > As for pve DPS. At least necro has to use all his skills and not just autoattack like thief does

>

> you can complain all the way you want, there is a reason why scourges swarm wvw: their damage, they mobility, their skills are all very good. Add in stupid high hp and you are done. Compared to weaver, necro is laughable easy. Seriously, necro, thieves and mesmers are the 3 classes that have no reason to complain.

 

The thread is all about PvE thought, maybe you have the misconception that WvW is part of PvE? If it's for the PvE elements that you find in WvW, there are also plenty of them in PvP. So please keep ideas about WvW out of this thread, the necromancer is virtually designed from toe to head for WvW zergling and this is the only area where he have had a real place since launch.

 

The issue of the necromancer is that he got unsatisfying result in PvE since launch and since there is a lot more players that only play PvE than players that are playing WvW and PvP, this is an issue that make "ink" flow.

[SidewayS.3789]

Atm if you guys still reply to Obtena, then i'm sorry but you are feeding the troll.This dude is an Open World PvE, he doesnt do fractals/raids so, his opinion should not counter in this thread, and no idea why he's still posting. Ignore him and then he will speak with himself.

[Insidion the Insane.9752]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

> That we don't have Meta DPS balancing after many patches.

So, according to you, the reason why "ANet would make adjustment to DPS except for the meta" is because "we don't have Meta DPS balancing after many patches". Forgive me, but I can't help to be a *little* disappointed, because you just hand-waved the evidence I provided... the one that shows that maybe they do balance around some "meta DPS standard". I will show it to you here again for your convenience.

> @Insidion the Insane.9752 said:

 

> Here are the DPS benchmarks from the past year, in chronological order:

> 1. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-august-balance-patch/

> 2. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-path-of-fire/

> 3. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-11-07-17/

> 4. https://web.archive.org/web/20180220115919/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

> 5. https://web.archive.org/web/20180708213346/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

> 6. https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

 

> Here are some of my observations from those links:

> 1. Overall, power weavers went from 48k! to 34k on large hitbox.

> 2. The classes between 32-34k (holosmith, power DH, sword weaver, condi FB) remains mostly unchanged since PoF release to this day.

> 3. In the latest patch power spellbreakers, condi mirage and staff weaver went from 35k to 32.5k, 31.8k and 32.0k. I used 32k instead of 29k for staff weaver because I am positive that they were testing with bugged meteor damage when making the 1st round of balance changes.

> 4. Before the latest patch, deadeye were doing around 31k, which is still within 10% of the 32-34k DPS range (10% higher than power reaper).

> 6. Also in the latest patch, power herald and power soulbeast went from power reaper levels of obscurity to the 32-34k DPS range.

> 7. Power chrono was unheard of at PoF release before the phantasm rework, but now sits comfortably at 32k DPS.

You can't just ignore evidence that contradict your claims; that is detrimental to a good discussion. So I ask you this again: please present evidence to support your claim that "we don't have Meta DPS balancing after many patches".

>How many patches do **you** think is required to get it?

As many as it takes.

>What do you think Meta DPS balance looks like?

I personally believe that the best Meta DPS balance (or in other words, most acceptable imbalance) is when every single class has a DPS build that whose DPS is at least 90% of the best DPS class that currently exist, excluding the obvious outliers. Another option that would work for me is for every class to have a DPS build that lies between 95% to 105% of the median of all DPS builds, again barring obvious outliers. I can't speak for everyone, but I believe either of those will please most of us.

> Right now we got a spread of about 28 -36 K DPS not including tank/healer builds. That's a pretty big range ...

Is it now? Allow me to show how that looks like using this little chart I put together: SC's DPS Benchmark, in pruned and sorted form https://imgur.com/a/cxuMUX5. For comparison purposes, here are WoW's http://www.noxxic.com/wow/dps-rankings/ and FF14's https://www.fflogs.com/zone/statistics/23/#bracket=4&dataset=100.

Now, let's see what we'll get according to my hopes and dreams of the most acceptable imbalance. We have Power DE and Invocation Renegade as high outliers and all 3 Necromancer builds as low outliers. With those out of the equation, we have Power DD at 34.3k as the highest non-outlier DPS class. According to my 1st option, all of the builds that is above 30.8k (90% of 34.3k) would be "viable" (using this term as loosely as possible). This leaves us everything but Condi SB and all 3 Necromancer builds as "viable" builds. If we follow the 2nd option, Condi DD is added to the pile of "unviable" builds. Pop quiz: which class does not have any "viable" build? Let me answer that for you: Necromancer. In fact, the low outliers all belong to the Necromancer; this is what most of people in this thread find unacceptable.

> unreasonably big if you ask most players that are used to other Meta balanced games.

Only if said player is a Necromancer... or recently destroyed Staff Weaver.

>So there are two explanations ... either Anet's idea of Meta DPS balancing is not typical and it's what we have NOW

Possibly, if by not typical you mean keeping one class' DPS in the gutter, with its few moments of significance quickly dismissed as "bugs" or "unintended" and switfly destroyed (Lich Form Condi Reaper, PoF Release Scourge, Epidemic Bouncing). Still, while we're not really there yet, I believe that currently we have the most balanced PvE DPS distribution in this game's history.

>or they are taking **years** to deliver it and *people just need to calm down and be patient*. [Emphasis added]

EDIT: I retract what I said here, because it suggested complacency with the current state of Necromancer PvE balance.

> I've already explained this many times; you came late to the party ... the evidence is right in front of everyone. My claim isn't just come random conjecture based on what I think. It's based on looking at what the game is and how it's evolved over 6 years.

If that evidence (the one that is "right in front of everyone") is the absence of "Meta DPS balancing after many patches", then I welcome you to refute the observations that I have raised up above since those directly disprove that claim of yours. Until then, I will say this again: please present evidence to support your claim that "we don't have Meta DPS balancing after many patches".

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Insidion the Insane.9752" said:

> If that evidence (the one that is "right in front of everyone") is the absence of "Meta DPS balancing after many patches", then I welcome you to refute the observations that I have raised up above since those directly disprove that claim of yours. Until then, I will say this again: please present evidence to support your claim that "we don't have Meta DPS balancing after many patches".

>

 

I don't see what there is to refute ... Do we have Meta DPS Balance? I would say not. Has Anet had enough time and patches to give it to us? I would say yes. That contrast leads to two possibilities.

 

Either THIS is Anet's version of Meta DPS Balance and it's not typical of what players are used to, or their timetable is around a decade to deliver it. Either way, the OP is complaining Necros are at the bottom for another 3 months .... he should change his title from months to years. Months is clearly a SHORT period of time for balancing timescale.

 

[Insidion the Insane.9752]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

> Um, no. Anet makes adjustments to the game for all kinds of reasons, not just (or at all) because of what is Meta.

Present evidence for this claim. By that I mean actual evidence, not just something from the top of your head. Also, care to address the rest of my points, and not just nitpick things that you can easily reply to? Of course, if you continue dodging that will mean that you have surrendered and conceded on those points... that I stood victorious and that my work here is done.

 

EDIT: It seems that I have somehow missed your first edit when my post when through. Very well, I shall address them accordingly.

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

>I don't see what there is to refute ...

Ah, finally a breath of fresh air. Here is what you need to refute: that ANet is balancing classes to a certain "Meta DPS standard", which seems to be the 32-34k DPS range. The evidence backing that statement can be found below... once more for your convenience.

 

> @Insidion the Insane.9752 said:

 

> Here are the DPS benchmarks from the past year, in chronological order:

> 1. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-august-balance-patch/

> 2. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-path-of-fire/

> 3. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-11-07-17/

> 4. https://web.archive.org/web/20180220115919/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

> 5. https://web.archive.org/web/20180708213346/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

> 6. https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

 

> Here are some of my observations from those links:

> 1. Overall, power weavers went from 48k! to 34k on large hitbox.

> 2. The classes between 32-34k (holosmith, power DH, sword weaver, condi FB) remains mostly unchanged since PoF release to this day.

> 3. In the latest patch power spellbreakers, condi mirage and staff weaver went from 35k to 32.5k, 31.8k and 32.0k. I used 32k instead of 29k for staff weaver because I > am positive that they were testing with bugged meteor damage when making the 1st round of balance changes.

> 4. Before the latest patch, deadeye were doing around 31k, which is still within 10% of the 32-34k DPS range (10% higher than power reaper).

> 6. Also in the latest patch, power herald and power soulbeast went from power reaper levels of obscurity to the 32-34k DPS range.

> 7. Power chrono was unheard of at PoF release before the phantasm rework, but now sits comfortably at 32k DPS.

 

You are very welcome.

 

> Do we have Meta DPS Balance? I would say not.

 

Of course, a perfect Meta DPS Balance would never happen. What we should aim for instead is the "most acceptable imbalance" situation, where the most number of people is content with the state of things. And currently Necromancer is the only class at the moment who does not have a single "acceptable imbalance" when it comes to a PvE DPS build, and by "acceptable imbalance" I mean a build that lies within the 32-34k DPS range.

 

> Either THIS is Anet's version of Meta DPS Balance and it's not typical of what players are used to,

 

I feel like I've seen this one before... no matter. Possibly, if by not typical you mean keeping one class' DPS in the gutter, with its few moments of significance quickly dismissed as "bugs" or "unintended" and switfly destroyed (Lich Form Condi Reaper, PoF Release Scourge, Epidemic Bouncing). Still, while we're not really there yet, I believe that currently we have the most balanced PvE DPS distribution in this game's history.

 

> or their timetable is around a decade to deliver it.

 

Even I won't dare suggest that ANet is so incompetent that it's going to take them 10+ more years to give Necromancer a "viable" DPS build. But if it's going take them that long, so be it. My fellow Necromancers, who want to see this class improve, will continue to make their voices heard until that fateful day; I hope at least.

 

> Either way, the OP is complaining Necros are at the bottom for another 3 months .... he should change his title from months to years.

 

Oh, believe me when I say I too do not expect Necromancers to have a DPS build that will reach the 32-34k DPS range until the next expansion, which should come out around this time next year. But I would love to be pleasantly surprised when it comes sooner than that.

 

> Months is clearly a SHORT period of time for balancing timescale.

Not necessarily. Remember how in just a single patch Power Chrono, Power Spellbreaker, Power Soulbeast and Power Herald went from Power Necro levels of obscurity to the 32-34k DPS range. Or how Power Staff Weavers on small hitboxes went from "viable" to Power Necro levels of obscurity (almost) in just a single hotfix. It has been done before, but of course it is extremely unlikely for Necromancers to get something like that considering past history. But that doesn't mean we should just bend over, accept it and shut up; that's not how positive change is achieved. Once again, my fellow Necromancers who want to see this class improve will continue to make their voices heard until that fateful day.

 

Again, if you still insist on dodging my concerns that will mean that you have once more surrendered and conceded on those points... that I stood victorious and that my work here is done.

[felincyriac.5981]

I can never understand why some of you still entertain the troll..

[Insidion the Insane.9752]

> @"felincyriac.5981" said:

> I can never understand why some of you still entertain the troll..

 

Oh, I found this exchange to be quite entertaining; if everyone is in lockstep with each other things would be so boring now wouldn't it? Also, I get to bring up points that I believe would be interesting to some people; that's also a win for me.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Insidion the Insane.9752" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

>

> > Um, no. Anet makes adjustments to the game for all kinds of reasons, not just (or at all) because of what is Meta.

> Present evidence for this claim. By that I mean actual evidence, not just something from the top of your head. Also, care to address the rest of my points, and not just nitpick things that you can easily reply to? Of course, if you continue dodging that will mean that you have surrendered and conceded on those points... that I stood victorious and that my work here is done.

>

 

OK you win then. I will have to pass on waxing academic on finer point with you. I just don't do that. I see what I see; we don't have Meta Balance after 6 years and lots of patches Anet had the opportunity to deliver it. If that means nothing to people who continuously ask why Necros are at the bottom of the ranking, they are just fooling themselves into what this game is and what Anet is delivering. Others choose to ignore what is done ingame vs. what they want to believe, they will surely be continuously disappointed with the game. Once you come to terms with how the game is designed and how to play it, your world changes significantly and you can team with people who think the same way and avoid this nonsense. The best part is that may points haven't changed for 5 years now ... I remember saying the same things back as far as dungeons. With each passing year, I just change the number of years; next year this time, it will be 7 years and we will still have classes that have a 20% difference in DPS from each other ... or MORE. It's always the same thing. If Anet fixes it by this time next year ... great, then I'm the troll that was correct about Meta DPS balancing for SIX years.

 

Maybe Anet is or isn't balancing to Meta DPS. That's not the point of the thread anyways. The fact is that if you embrace the concept of the game and play with others that do as well, you don't have problems with kicks.

[Taqe.1342]

What if anet "fix" life force on base necro and reaper? So it does not act like second life bar, you enter shroud, life force does not act as life, but is consumed when used by shroud skills? basicly acts like ammo? so lets say AA consumes 2% skill #2 consumes 5% life force etc.? so you use shroud but your life is still life, wouldn't that make necro easier to balance toward balance that other professions have and finnaly give anet ways to give it build diversity it deserves? sure some skills and traits would have to be reworked to compensate for the lose of "OP second health bar", adding some evades, blocks, invu, mobility? It would make life force to act same way as on scourge, anet can finnaly balance this class, I don't rly see any other solution to this profession... Many players and anet themselfs ( so it seems) are stuck as long as necro will have this "passive" defence :/

[Insidion the Insane.9752]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

> OK you win then.

 

Much obliged. I know that it is bad form to attack someone that just admitted defeat, but after reading your latest reply (and a lot of thinking) I'm starting to question your sincerity. And so, here I am.

 

> I will have to pass on waxing academic on finer point with you. I just don't do that.

 

I am saddened that my goodwill did not reach you. How unfortunate.

 

> I see what I see; we don't have Meta Balance after 6 years and lots of patches Anet had the opportunity to deliver it.

 

Well, technically it's only less than 3 years because I believe that the community only realized how bad things were only after DPS meters and the DPS golem were introduced; solid, verifiable evidence instead of gut feeling. The fact that they only started splitting PvE skills from PvP/WvW after raids were released suggests that this is the case. But I digress... just because ANet still haven't delivered it doesn't mean that ANet is not trying. Just look at the DPS benchmark trends from the past year, which I have linked to you for like 3 times already (that still remains unchallenged up to the time when this post is written). Here we go again, for your convenience.

 

>@Insidion the Insane.9752 said:

 

>Here are the DPS benchmarks from the past year, in chronological order:

>1. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-august-balance-patch/

>2. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-path-of-fire/

>3. https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-11-07-17/

>4. https://web.archive.org/web/20180220115919/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

>5. https://web.archive.org/web/20180708213346/https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

>6. https://snowcrows.com/benchmarks/

 

>Here are some of my observations from those links:

>1. Overall, power weavers went from 48k! to 34k on large hitbox.

>2. The classes between 32-34k (holosmith, power DH, sword weaver, condi FB) remains mostly unchanged since PoF release to this day.

>3. In the latest patch power spellbreakers, condi mirage and staff weaver went from 35k to 32.5k, 31.8k and 32.0k. I used 32k instead of 29k for staff weaver because I am positive that they were testing with bugged meteor damage when making the 1st round of balance changes.

>4. Before the latest patch, deadeye were doing around 31k, which is still within 10% of the 32-34k DPS range (10% higher than power reaper).

>6. Also in the latest patch, power herald and power soulbeast went from power reaper levels of obscurity to the 32-34k DPS range.

>7. Power chrono was unheard of at PoF release before the phantasm rework, but now sits comfortably at 32k DPS.

 

You're welcome.

 

> If that means nothing to people who continuously ask why Necros are at the bottom of the ranking, they are just fooling themselves into what this game is and what Anet is delivering. Others choose to ignore what is done ingame vs. what they want to believe, they will surely be continuously disappointed with the game.

 

All we do here is just pointing out the elephant in the room, to get ANet to see that this imbalance is unhealthy for the game and eventually have them fix it. Of course, whether all of this reached their ears or not is up for debate, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Just a bit of advice: people who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

 

> Once you come to terms with how the game is designed and how to play it, your world changes significantly and you can team with people who think the same way and avoid this nonsense.

 

That is not how positive change is made. All we ask is simple: give Necromancers at least one build (yes, just one) that is within the "acceptable imbalance" range. Is that so wrong?

 

> The best part is that my points haven't changed for 5 years now ... I remember saying the same things back as far as dungeons. With each passing year, I just change the number of years; next year this time, it will be 7 years and we will still have classes that have a 20% difference in DPS from each other ... or MORE.

 

At this point only Necromancer has a 20% difference in DPS with another class, which is even more reason to point out this imbalance and get ANet to fix this.

 

> I'm the troll that was correct about Meta DPS balancing for SIX years.

 

Please provide evidence for this claim; since you seem so confident about it should be easy to provide said evidence, no? Please explain to me how and why you are correct all along, especially after failing to address the concerns I raised that suggest otherwise.

 

> Maybe Anet is or isn't balancing to Meta DPS. That's not the point of the thread anyways.

 

I have to say, it is truly a breath of fresh air to see you not presume on ANet's intentions. But sadly you are incorrect again, because the point of this thread has always about how Necromancer is performing badly in this "Meta DPS" arms race.

 

> The fact is that if you embrace the concept of the game and play with others that do as well, you don't have problems with kicks.

 

Again, that is not how positive change is made. I prefer to not draw parallels to real life issues and risk cheapening said issues, but if you keep resorting to this I might be forced to do so.

 

The victory/defeat condition remains the same: provide rebuttals armed with solid, verifiable evidence or hand-wave and admit defeat in the process.