WvW and it's problems, a complete list

[DanAlcedo.3281]

"I main Necro"

 

And there goes your entire Post up in flames.

 

As a Tipp: NEVER mention what class you play/main or you loose your credibility.

 

At this point its looks more like a hidden "Necro is the worst class , nerf everthing else below the ground" thread.

 

Dont get me wrong.

All your points are correct.

 

But there are alot of people that will stop reading after the words "I main Necro".

 

 

[SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.70]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026"

> > 2.4 The exponential power growth of multiple players due to supportive non-supports

> > A lot of optimal single target "buffs" or "defensives" have an equally strong AoE part, for example, "Healing Turret", "Sand Cascade", "Leap of Resolve" just to name a few skills from various classes are all abilities you would use while playing their respective class solo, that makes them very difficult to tune correctly as they must be strong enough to use without any allies, but while doing 5x as much as "usual" they become overpowered. AoE healing and support builds are not at all in themselves a problem, I personally find that they are part of what makes WvW interesting, what is a problem is when every "offensive" build runs with several supportive skills by "accident", ie skills they would be using even if they only affected the caster.

> > **My Solution:** The lines between support builds and non-support builds should be clearer, for example a nerf targeted at "Healing Turret" might include removing the personal heal on it (reducing it's self healing by 50%) or making the second part of the healing self-exclusive, now I am not saying "Healing Turret" in particular does or doesn't needs nerfing, it is just a good example of that kind of skill.

> > **Main Offender(s):** Scourge, Firebrand, Guardian, Herald, Renegade, Scrapper

>

> This whole point revolves around using the healing turret as an example, which is a core engie skill (both skill and all associated traits) and probably becomes the strongest on the holo due to its blasts.

>

> Yet the scrapper spec is singled out as the main offender.

>

> Whats the reasoning behind that? Just wondering.

 

I could just aswell have used "Virute of Resolve" or "Sand Cascade" as the skill I described in depth, I didn't because healing turret was imo a better example, I have no personal animus against engineers, more or less every class has 1 or more of these skills. In hindsight I am not really sure why I wrote scrapper and not engineer, but tbh I am not sure if I should even have listed engineer as a main offender, I mainly did cause healing turret was a very clear example of that kind of skill and as such was freshly in my mind when I wrote the list. The point of the subsection remains no matter if one of the example classes are bad, they are also mainly there to illustrate a point.

> @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:

> "I main Necro"

>

> And there goes your entire Post up in flames.

>

> As a Tipp: NEVER mention what class you play/main or you loose your credibility.

>

> At this point its looks more like a hidden "Necro is the worst class , nerf everthing else below the ground" thread.

>

> Dont get me wrong.

> All your points are correct.

>

> But there are alot of people that will stop reading after the words "I main Necro".

>

>

 

I don't actually main necro, I used to but I see your point, however I just assumed people could easily figure that out if they really cared by looking at previous posts I have made so there's not really much point hiding it. I do even list necromancer (scourge mainly) as a main offender for multiple of these problems, just not any of the ones in section 1 (which should come as no surprise to anyone who reads the headlines and it'd be hard to fit any necro spec into either of those points), scourge is listed as a main offender for most if not all of the zerging points I make.

[steki.1478]

> @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > Even in small scale, there's not many classes that could stun lock or they have quite telegraphed animations. Most stun breaks also provide either stability, evade or stealth, which can prevent stun locking and there's even passive procs for those on every class.

> Telegraphed skills are well and good while you still have evades, and not all stuns are heavily telegraphed either, the problem with them is also that once you do get stunned, you can't evade the next one, or the one after that etc, CC in itself is not too strong or even that poorly designed. "Most stun breaks also provide either stability, evade or stealth" Make that most good stunbreaks provide stability, evade or stealth, which shows the problem with the CC system perfectly imo, if a stunbreak is just a stunbreak, it might aswell not be there when fighting multiple enemies. There's not passive procs for each class. Necromancer, Revenant and Mesmer just off the top of my head dont have proc that stunbreaks them.

> > When fighting outnumbered you either win with skills or lose to numbers, there's not much philosophy. Playing builds with no stun breaks or not having a designated support in that situation doesnt make CC skills any stronger, it just means that your composition/build lacks basic pvp tools, which are mobility, damage mitigation, stun breaks and cleanses.

> What's up with making statements that don't even have a meaning at all (your first statement)?

> Anyway, I do not play w/o a stunbreak or as much stab as my class allows, I do play with good support players, I do not have major issues dealing with stunlock more frequently than could be expected in each given situation. Yet when it does happen, it shows just how flawed the system is. Can you honestly think of any way in which the combat system would be worse if CC had diminishing returns?

 

When you're under focus fire on top of stun lock, you'll die in 3 seconds whether the CC lasts 3 seconds or 10 seconds. If less amount of players attack you it means that there's less CC thrown at you, which is easier to break and escape, but if there's more than 3-4 people on you, that means you're practically dead, stunned or not.

 

Now let's assume you play some tanky build like spellbreaker or support tempest/firebrand/scrapper. You get stunned for 5 seconds and you have no breaks available, but you manage to survive due to instant heal/block/cleanse or damage mitigation skills/passive procs (elixir s, defy/endure pain and similar). With DR on CC you'll be basically invincible since enemy wasted most of their burst while you were CC-ed, but you still survived, meaning that your group will wreck their since they dont have skills to fire back at you or you'll just keep your party at full hp since they have no ways to kill you anymore.

 

You have to have both extremes on mind: class with virtually no stun breaks/blocks/invulns/mobility whose main counter is stun locking and kiting (also knows as necro) as well as tanky builds with plenty of damage mitigation tools whose counter is waiting for them to waste all defense (warr for example)/cast some risky skill (like overload) so you can stun lock them and kill them, because you cant kill/counter them otherwise (running away isn't counter). DR on CC wont improve anything, it will just give tankier builds another advantage that they certainly **do not need**.

 

Do all those games you mentioned with DR have stability, blocks, invulns, evades, 2 dodge rolls, stun breaks (blinks and stealth) as well as passive procs including any of those? I honestly doubt it.

[Eleazar.9478]

Lol nerf movement skills are you annecro main? No they need to nerf aoes and make them skill shots (kind of like druids staff 4) and insta rez necros and gaurds. Positioning is a joke in team fights now. When they do that they won't have an excuse to not nerf passives. They literally said the reason they don't nerf passives a d imvulns and such is because there's too many aoes.

[steki.1478]

> @"Eleazar.9478" said:

> Lol nerf movement skills are you annecro main? No they need to nerf aoes and make them skill shots (kind of like druids staff 4) and insta rez necros and gaurds. Positioning is a joke in team fights now. When they do that they won't have an excuse to not nerf passives. They literally said the reason they don't nerf passives a d imvulns and such is because there's too many aoes.

 

Cant make all aoes skill shots because those are usually reflectable. Skillshots also have either 1 impact (fire/air staff on weaver; explodes on first impact) or they hit a lot more than 5 people (that druid skill pulses 7 times and hits 3 targets per pulse). Pulsing aoes like necro wells cant be reworked into skill shots because that would either make them useless or completely broken. Without aoes you dont have zone pressure and without zone pressure you have melee blobs with permanent boons, which is everything but skilled gameplay.

[Eleazar.9478]

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"Eleazar.9478" said:

> > Lol nerf movement skills are you annecro main? No they need to nerf aoes and make them skill shots (kind of like druids staff 4) and insta rez necros and gaurds. Positioning is a joke in team fights now. When they do that they won't have an excuse to not nerf passives. They literally said the reason they don't nerf passives a d imvulns and such is because there's too many aoes.

>

> Cant make all aoes skill shots because those are usually reflectable. Skillshots also have either 1 impact (fire/air staff on weaver; explodes on first impact) or they hit a lot more than 5 people (that druid skill pulses 7 times and hits 3 targets per pulse). Pulsing aoes like necro wells cant be reworked into skill shots because that would either make them useless or completely broken. Without aoes you dont have zone pressure and without zone pressure you have melee blobs with permanent boons, which is everything but skilled gameplay.

 

That is false druid staff 4 and rev hammer 3 can not be reflected and I didn't say for them to be weak, having them be lines instead of giant ass circles would make positioning useful again ya in huge numbers you would still have bloat but my God you've could actually use proper positioning. The boon melee meta was actually alot more skilled than blob here nuke run away. The pulsing aoes are another issue too not only do they add visual clutter out the wazzzoo they have no skill click and boom to win button. I'm way more of a fan of 1/2 hit effects with big tells, its what makes all other good PvP games great.

[SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.70]

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > Even in small scale, there's not many classes that could stun lock or they have quite telegraphed animations. Most stun breaks also provide either stability, evade or stealth, which can prevent stun locking and there's even passive procs for those on every class.

> > Telegraphed skills are well and good while you still have evades, and not all stuns are heavily telegraphed either, the problem with them is also that once you do get stunned, you can't evade the next one, or the one after that etc, CC in itself is not too strong or even that poorly designed. "Most stun breaks also provide either stability, evade or stealth" Make that most good stunbreaks provide stability, evade or stealth, which shows the problem with the CC system perfectly imo, if a stunbreak is just a stunbreak, it might aswell not be there when fighting multiple enemies. There's not passive procs for each class. Necromancer, Revenant and Mesmer just off the top of my head dont have proc that stunbreaks them.

> > > When fighting outnumbered you either win with skills or lose to numbers, there's not much philosophy. Playing builds with no stun breaks or not having a designated support in that situation doesnt make CC skills any stronger, it just means that your composition/build lacks basic pvp tools, which are mobility, damage mitigation, stun breaks and cleanses.

> > What's up with making statements that don't even have a meaning at all (your first statement)?

> > Anyway, I do not play w/o a stunbreak or as much stab as my class allows, I do play with good support players, I do not have major issues dealing with stunlock more frequently than could be expected in each given situation. Yet when it does happen, it shows just how flawed the system is. Can you honestly think of any way in which the combat system would be worse if CC had diminishing returns?

>

> When you're under focus fire on top of stun lock, you'll die in 3 seconds whether the CC lasts 3 seconds or 10 seconds. If less amount of players attack you it means that there's less CC thrown at you, which is easier to break and escape, but if there's more than 3-4 people on you, that means you're practically dead, stunned or not.

 

There are very few hard CC effects that last 3 seconds (a few tho), they're not very common for a reason, I think 3 sec is far too long for any skill, but imo it wouldn't be a big problem if you couldn't instantly get hit by more of them.

 

> Now let's assume you play some tanky build like spellbreaker or support tempest/firebrand/scrapper. You get stunned for 5 seconds and you have no breaks available, but you manage to survive due to instant heal/block/cleanse or damage mitigation skills/passive procs (elixir s, defy/endure pain and similar). With DR on CC you'll be basically invincible since enemy wasted most of their burst while you were CC-ed, but you still survived, meaning that your group will wreck their since they don't have skills to fire back at you or you'll just keep your party at full hp since they have no ways to kill you anymore.

 

You will be invincible because you have a few seconds of CC doing nothing/a lot less on you? But in the previous example you said if you get focused fired you die with or w/o the CC spam, which one is it? If they waste all their burst on a warrior with Defy Pain or worse an engineer in elixir S, they deserve to die tbh.

 

> You have to have both extremes on mind: class with virtually no stun breaks/blocks/invulns/mobility whose main counter is stun locking and kiting (also knows as necro) as well as tanky builds with plenty of damage mitigation tools whose counter is waiting for them to waste all defense (warr for example)/cast some risky skill (like overload) so you can stun lock them and kill them, because you cant kill/counter them otherwise (running away isn't counter). DR on CC wont improve anything, it will just give tankier builds another advantage that they certainly **do not need**.

 

Chain-CC is a design issue, not a class issue imo. For the record most "tanky" (hard term to really define imo) builds are builds with a lot of stab/stunbreaks/active defenses that prevent or mitigate stunlocking, go figure.

 

> Do all those games you mentioned with DR have stability, blocks, invulns, evades, 2 dodge rolls, stun breaks (blinks and stealth) as well as passive procs including any of those? I honestly doubt it.

 

I'd say it varies how many and how good tools those games have from game to game, I don't really wanna get into discussing the specific mechanics of other games on the gw2 forum, quickly becomes very off-topic.

 

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"Eleazar.9478" said:

> > Lol nerf movement skills are you annecro main? No they need to nerf aoes and make them skill shots (kind of like druids staff 4) and insta rez necros and gaurds. Positioning is a joke in team fights now. When they do that they won't have an excuse to not nerf passives. They literally said the reason they don't nerf passives a d imvulns and such is because there's too many aoes.

>

> Cant make all aoes skill shots because those are usually reflectable. Skillshots also have either 1 impact (fire/air staff on weaver; explodes on first impact) or they hit a lot more than 5 people (that druid skill pulses 7 times and hits 3 targets per pulse). Pulsing aoes like necro wells cant be reworked into skill shots because that would either make them useless or completely broken. Without aoes you dont have zone pressure and without zone pressure you have melee blobs with permanent boons, which is everything but skilled gameplay.

 

I get to agree with you here.

 

> @"Eleazar.9478" said:

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > @"Eleazar.9478" said:

> > > Lol nerf movement skills are you annecro main? No they need to nerf aoes and make them skill shots (kind of like druids staff 4) and insta rez necros and gaurds. Positioning is a joke in team fights now. When they do that they won't have an excuse to not nerf passives. They literally said the reason they don't nerf passives a d imvulns and such is because there's too many aoes.

> >

> > Cant make all aoes skill shots because those are usually reflectable. Skillshots also have either 1 impact (fire/air staff on weaver; explodes on first impact) or they hit a lot more than 5 people (that druid skill pulses 7 times and hits 3 targets per pulse). Pulsing aoes like necro wells cant be reworked into skill shots because that would either make them useless or completely broken. Without aoes you dont have zone pressure and without zone pressure you have melee blobs with permanent boons, which is everything but skilled gameplay.

>

> That is false druid staff 4 and rev hammer 3 can not be reflected and I didn't say for them to be weak, haveing them be lines instead of giant kitten circles would make positioning useful again ya in huge numbers you would still have bloat but my God you've ould actually use prooer positioning. The boon melee meta was actually alot more skilled than blob here nuke run away. The pulsing aoes are another issue too not only do they add visual clutter out the wazzzoo they have no skill click and boom to win button. I'm way more of a fan of 1/2 hit effects with big tells, its what makes all other good PvP games great.

 

How does Zone control skills make positioning less important? Excessive amounts of movement skills on the other hand do make it so that bad positioning isn't punished in the slightest however. Visual clutter is an issue, but a harder one to solve. Having a better way to differentiate between the different ground circles would imo be very good (animation culling happens, some visual effects look extremely similar etc)

[Israel.7056]

If you're getting hard ccd often that's a comp issue imo. Need more revs and guards. Now if you get ccd out in a bubble that's totally understandable and it happens to us all but that's also the point of spellbreakers.

[SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.70]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> If you're getting hard ccd often that's a comp issue imo. Need more revs and guards. Now if you get ccd out in a bubble that's totally understandable and it happens to us all but that's also the point of spellbreakers.

 

Already responded this

 

> @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> Anyway, I do not play w/o a stunbreak or as much stab as my class allows, I do play with good support players, I do not have major issues dealing with stunlock more frequently than could be expected in each given situation. Yet when it does happen, it shows just how flawed the system is.

But I will explain my point further. I think that CC-lock is poor design as it is the opposite of interaction which is the whole point of games. I do not have major issues dealing with it, if anything I am more often on the side that "uses" it. If me personally have issues dealing or not dealing with CC-locking isn't really relevant though for whether it's a good or bad mechanic (or rather lack thereof).

[steki.1478]

> @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > > > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > > Even in small scale, there's not many classes that could stun lock or they have quite telegraphed animations. Most stun breaks also provide either stability, evade or stealth, which can prevent stun locking and there's even passive procs for those on every class.

> > > Telegraphed skills are well and good while you still have evades, and not all stuns are heavily telegraphed either, the problem with them is also that once you do get stunned, you can't evade the next one, or the one after that etc, CC in itself is not too strong or even that poorly designed. "Most stun breaks also provide either stability, evade or stealth" Make that most good stunbreaks provide stability, evade or stealth, which shows the problem with the CC system perfectly imo, if a stunbreak is just a stunbreak, it might aswell not be there when fighting multiple enemies. There's not passive procs for each class. Necromancer, Revenant and Mesmer just off the top of my head dont have proc that stunbreaks them.

> > > > When fighting outnumbered you either win with skills or lose to numbers, there's not much philosophy. Playing builds with no stun breaks or not having a designated support in that situation doesnt make CC skills any stronger, it just means that your composition/build lacks basic pvp tools, which are mobility, damage mitigation, stun breaks and cleanses.

> > > What's up with making statements that don't even have a meaning at all (your first statement)?

> > > Anyway, I do not play w/o a stunbreak or as much stab as my class allows, I do play with good support players, I do not have major issues dealing with stunlock more frequently than could be expected in each given situation. Yet when it does happen, it shows just how flawed the system is. Can you honestly think of any way in which the combat system would be worse if CC had diminishing returns?

> >

> > When you're under focus fire on top of stun lock, you'll die in 3 seconds whether the CC lasts 3 seconds or 10 seconds. If less amount of players attack you it means that there's less CC thrown at you, which is easier to break and escape, but if there's more than 3-4 people on you, that means you're practically dead, stunned or not.

>

> There are very few hard CC effects that last 3 seconds (a few tho), they're not very common for a reason, I think 3 sec is far too long for any skill, but imo it wouldn't be a big problem if you couldn't instantly get hit by more of them.

>

 

It doesnt have to be 3 seconds from one skill. Assuming you're playing 2v3 and all 3 focus their burst and CC on you, you'll most likely die due to excessive damage thrown in your face, not because you got stun locked for long time. Mesmer for example uses its stun right before GS skills hit, to ensure that target doesn't dodge right after taking first instance of damage (since gs skills hit multiple times). Assuming you're playing semi-glass cannon build, you'll be dead either way.

 

> > Now let's assume you play some tanky build like spellbreaker or support tempest/firebrand/scrapper. You get stunned for 5 seconds and you have no breaks available, but you manage to survive due to instant heal/block/cleanse or damage mitigation skills/passive procs (elixir s, defy/endure pain and similar). With DR on CC you'll be basically invincible since enemy wasted most of their burst while you were CC-ed, but you still survived, meaning that your group will wreck their since they don't have skills to fire back at you or you'll just keep your party at full hp since they have no ways to kill you anymore.

>

> You will be invincible because you have a few seconds of CC doing nothing/a lot less on you? But in the previous example you said if you get focused fired you die with or w/o the CC spam, which one is it? If they waste all their burst on a warrior with Defy Pain or worse an engineer in elixir S, they deserve to die tbh.

 

In previous example you're not playing a tank who can survive under high pressure (passive invuln/block/protection/frost aura procs, active instant skills with similar effects), you're playing basically any other build which is like 80% of roaming builds. If they waste burst on blocks/invulns they do deserve to die, just like you deserve to die if you let them stun you for days without escaping on time. It works both ways really.

 

> > You have to have both extremes on mind: class with virtually no stun breaks/blocks/invulns/mobility whose main counter is stun locking and kiting (also knows as necro) as well as tanky builds with plenty of damage mitigation tools whose counter is waiting for them to waste all defense (warr for example)/cast some risky skill (like overload) so you can stun lock them and kill them, because you cant kill/counter them otherwise (running away isn't counter). DR on CC wont improve anything, it will just give tankier builds another advantage that they certainly **do not need**.

>

> Chain-CC is a design issue, not a class issue imo. For the record most "tanky" (hard term to really define imo) builds are builds with a lot of stab/stunbreaks/active defenses that prevent or mitigate stunlocking, go figure.

>

 

Chain CC isn't an issue as long as single person isn't able to do it - one could argue that mesmer can have multiple CC skills from both weapons and utility/elite skills, but (un)luckily, they can kill you much faster without all that CC. It's all about number of people: you take more damage/cc when more people are attacking you, you take less damage when there's more people stacked (most skills have 5 target limit, so not everyone takes damage all the time) etc. And if 5 people are in your face, chaining their CC then they are either doing good job focusing you or you're doing bad job avoiding that, which all comes down to personal build/skill level or group composition, not game issue. It would be an issue if everyone had lots of unblockable cc/damage, tools to remove stability or something similar, but that's very limited.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > If you're getting hard ccd often that's a comp issue imo. Need more revs and guards. Now if you get ccd out in a bubble that's totally understandable and it happens to us all but that's also the point of spellbreakers.

>

> Already responded this

 

Alright well I think that's kinda the end of that aspect of the discussion tbh.

 

Now the question of whether or not it should be possible to cc someone to death I say yes as long as there's some sort of potential counterplay in the game like stun breaks and stab. But if you're maining necro you're resigning yourself to being stunned to death a lot because that's one of the main weaknesses of necros. It doesn't happen often on rev because rev has so many stun breaks but rev is also in a lot of trouble if it gets condi bombed because it doesn't have many personal cleanses.

 

This is what happens when you main something: all your opinions of the gameplay are tinted with the trials and tribulations of whatever class you happen to be maining. So for me as a Rev I hate mesmers and thieves and soulbeasts with a passion because they're super obnoxious to fight on rev.

 

I'm with you on the idea that everything does too much thing but this cc lock thing reads like your necro main bias to me.

 

[Raizel.8175]

The main-problems of WvW - at least in my opinion - are that the maps are too large to enforce PvP (and traversing them is a huge pain in the ass to be honest), the siege-mechanics suck and don't really enforce strategic behaviour like splitting into flanks or stuff like that, it's a gamble anyway since it depends on your server if you have a fun/active WvW-scene and yeah, balance is also a thing. Stuff like that...

[SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.70]

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > > > > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > > > Even in small scale, there's not many classes that could stun lock or they have quite telegraphed animations. Most stun breaks also provide either stability, evade or stealth, which can prevent stun locking and there's even passive procs for those on every class.

> > > > Telegraphed skills are well and good while you still have evades, and not all stuns are heavily telegraphed either, the problem with them is also that once you do get stunned, you can't evade the next one, or the one after that etc, CC in itself is not too strong or even that poorly designed. "Most stun breaks also provide either stability, evade or stealth" Make that most good stunbreaks provide stability, evade or stealth, which shows the problem with the CC system perfectly imo, if a stunbreak is just a stunbreak, it might aswell not be there when fighting multiple enemies. There's not passive procs for each class. Necromancer, Revenant and Mesmer just off the top of my head dont have proc that stunbreaks them.

> > > > > When fighting outnumbered you either win with skills or lose to numbers, there's not much philosophy. Playing builds with no stun breaks or not having a designated support in that situation doesnt make CC skills any stronger, it just means that your composition/build lacks basic pvp tools, which are mobility, damage mitigation, stun breaks and cleanses.

> > > > What's up with making statements that don't even have a meaning at all (your first statement)?

> > > > Anyway, I do not play w/o a stunbreak or as much stab as my class allows, I do play with good support players, I do not have major issues dealing with stunlock more frequently than could be expected in each given situation. Yet when it does happen, it shows just how flawed the system is. Can you honestly think of any way in which the combat system would be worse if CC had diminishing returns?

> > >

> > > When you're under focus fire on top of stun lock, you'll die in 3 seconds whether the CC lasts 3 seconds or 10 seconds. If less amount of players attack you it means that there's less CC thrown at you, which is easier to break and escape, but if there's more than 3-4 people on you, that means you're practically dead, stunned or not.

> >

> > There are very few hard CC effects that last 3 seconds (a few tho), they're not very common for a reason, I think 3 sec is far too long for any skill, but imo it wouldn't be a big problem if you couldn't instantly get hit by more of them.

> >

>

> It doesnt have to be 3 seconds from one skill. Assuming you're playing 2v3 and all 3 focus their burst and CC on you, you'll most likely die due to excessive damage thrown in your face, not because you got stun locked for long time. Mesmer for example uses its stun right before GS skills hit, to ensure that target doesn't dodge right after taking first instance of damage (since gs skills hit multiple times). Assuming you're playing semi-glass cannon build, you'll be dead either way.

 

Dying during 1 stun due to excessive burst (which is a problem) or due to being hit by multiple people at once (which is not a problem) is one thing. Getting hit repeatedly by several stuns and basically just waiting (either for your stunbreak (with stability or an evade added) of choice or for you to die) is poor gameplay.

 

> > > Now let's assume you play some tanky build like spellbreaker or support tempest/firebrand/scrapper. You get stunned for 5 seconds and you have no breaks available, but you manage to survive due to instant heal/block/cleanse or damage mitigation skills/passive procs (elixir s, defy/endure pain and similar). With DR on CC you'll be basically invincible since enemy wasted most of their burst while you were CC-ed, but you still survived, meaning that your group will wreck their since they don't have skills to fire back at you or you'll just keep your party at full hp since they have no ways to kill you anymore.

> >

> > You will be invincible because you have a few seconds of CC doing nothing/a lot less on you? But in the previous example you said if you get focused fired you die with or w/o the CC spam, which one is it? If they waste all their burst on a warrior with Defy Pain or worse an engineer in elixir S, they deserve to die tbh.

>

> In previous example you're not playing a tank who can survive under high pressure (passive invuln/block/protection/frost aura procs, active instant skills with similar effects), you're playing basically any other build which is like 80% of roaming builds. If they waste burst on blocks/invulns they do deserve to die, just like you deserve to die if you let them stun you for days without escaping on time. It works both ways really.

 

Except in scenario one, they have a tell that says "The target can't take dmg (or similar effect)", they press buttons to do things despite this, ie active bad decision making.

In the case where you're chain CC-ed you can't react, because that's the whole point of CC-locking someone, ie a lack of ability to make decisions.

 

Note I am not saying diminishing returns should last particularly long either, so getting CC-ed once wouldn't make you immune for the remainder of the fight, my idea for numbers would be in the region of you can in total be CC-ed 2 sec/6 seconds of fighting, so at most you can get CC-ed 1/3rd of the time and in no longer than 2 sec increments, this seems reasonable for a game supposed to be rather "fast paced".

> > > You have to have both extremes on mind: class with virtually no stun breaks/blocks/invulns/mobility whose main counter is stun locking and kiting (also knows as necro) as well as tanky builds with plenty of damage mitigation tools whose counter is waiting for them to waste all defense (warr for example)/cast some risky skill (like overload) so you can stun lock them and kill them, because you cant kill/counter them otherwise (running away isn't counter). DR on CC wont improve anything, it will just give tankier builds another advantage that they certainly **do not need**.

> >

> > Chain-CC is a design issue, not a class issue imo. For the record most "tanky" (hard term to really define imo) builds are builds with a lot of stab/stunbreaks/active defenses that prevent or mitigate stunlocking, go figure.

> >

>

> Chain CC isn't an issue as long as single person isn't able to do it - one could argue that mesmer can have multiple CC skills from both weapons and utility/elite skills, but (un)luckily, they can kill you much faster without all that CC. It's all about number of people: you take more damage/cc when more people are attacking you, you take less damage when there's more people stacked (most skills have 5 target limit, so not everyone takes damage all the time) etc. And if 5 people are in your face, chaining their CC then they are either doing good job focusing you or you're doing bad job avoiding that, which all comes down to personal build/skill level or group composition, not game issue. It would be an issue if everyone had lots of unblockable cc/damage, tools to remove stability or something similar, but that's very limited.

 

Scenario 1, they are coordinating their CC is ofc an option, but if they were then they don't need stunlocking to kill 1 player, then they can/should be able to kill them w/o given proper focus fire.

 

Scenario 2, that you only get chain-CCed cause you played bad. This is sometimes the case (very rarely but it does happen to me too). But in those scenarios even just the damage of being caught out in the open "should" be enough to kill a single player during 1 CC-effect (otherwise the people who get to be multiple people "free attacking" one target are playing even worse).

 

Scenario 3, there are simply too many skills with a CC-effect just "slapped on them" for a game w/o diminishing returns to handle this. Lowering this amount is an option, but a rather shortsighted one as that number will just go up again next time they rework X class or release a new expac.

 

Scenario 1 & 2 are scenarios where the CC-lock shouldn't be needed to secure a kill and usually doesn't really matter

Scenario 3 is the more common scenario with getting CC-locked and the one I'd aim to curb.

 

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > If you're getting hard ccd often that's a comp issue imo. Need more revs and guards. Now if you get ccd out in a bubble that's totally understandable and it happens to us all but that's also the point of spellbreakers.

> >

> > Already responded this

>

> Alright well I think that's kinda the end of that aspect of the discussion tbh.

>

> Now the question of whether or not it should be possible to cc someone to death I say yes as long as there's some sort of potential counterplay in the game like stun breaks and stab. But if you're maining necro you're resigning yourself to being stunned to death a lot because that's one of the main weaknesses of necros. It doesn't happen often on rev because rev has so many stun breaks but rev is also in a lot of trouble if it gets condi bombed because it doesn't have many personal cleanses.

>

> This is what happens when you main something: all your opinions of the gameplay are tinted with the trials and tribulations of whatever class you happen to be maining. So for me as a Rev I hate mesmers and thieves and soulbeasts with a passion because they're super obnoxious to fight on rev.

>

> I'm with you on the idea that everything does too much thing but this cc lock thing reads like your necro main bias to me.

>

 

I do not main necro, I used to however, but I have played most classes to various degrees in WvW (if nothing else to learn how to counter them)

 

CC-ing someone to land key skills isn't a problem, getting hit by repeated "random" cc effects repeatedly (often thro 1 or 2 stacks of stabs) is a problem. On my condi rev (which is as close to a main as I have right now) for example, I do have access to stab, I do not get CC-locked more frequently than can reasonably be expected with the tools given (ie every now and then but not very often), whether I get CC-locked or not doesn't change how good/bad design it is. Nor does really what class has the biggest issues with it, the game mechanic is bad, even if it wasn't a strong strategy (and no class struggled against it) I'd say it was poor design, as how good/bad design something is, is not necessarily related to it's power level.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> CC-ing someone to land key skills isn't a problem, getting hit by repeated "random" cc effects repeatedly (often thro 1 or 2 stacks of stabs) is a problem. On my condi rev (which is as close to a main as I have right now) for example, I do have access to stab, I do not get CC-locked more frequently than can reasonably be expected with the tools given (ie every now and then but not very often), whether I get CC-locked or not doesn't change how good/bad design it is. Nor does really what class has the biggest issues with it, the game mechanic is bad, even if it wasn't a strong strategy (and no class struggled against it) I'd say it was poor design, as how good/bad design something is, is not necessarily related to it's power level.

 

Ok why is getting hit by repeated "random" cc effects a problem if you can counter it?

 

To me the question here is: is there counterplay? It seems that there is counterplay. So what is the issue?

[SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.70]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > CC-ing someone to land key skills isn't a problem, getting hit by repeated "random" cc effects repeatedly (often thro 1 or 2 stacks of stabs) is a problem. On my condi rev (which is as close to a main as I have right now) for example, I do have access to stab, I do not get CC-locked more frequently than can reasonably be expected with the tools given (ie every now and then but not very often), whether I get CC-locked or not doesn't change how good/bad design it is. Nor does really what class has the biggest issues with it, the game mechanic is bad, even if it wasn't a strong strategy (and no class struggled against it) I'd say it was poor design, as how good/bad design something is, is not necessarily related to it's power level.

>

> Ok why is getting hit by repeated "random" cc effects a problem if you can counter it?

>

> To me the question here is: is there counterplay? It seems that there is counterplay. So what is the issue?

 

Can you always counter it?

Most of the time, but not always (I am under no illusion that I counter it perfectly every time, but I'd conservatively say 8-9/10 times I actually die to stunlocking it's due to there simply not being enough breaks/sources of stability to deal with the sheer numbers of "random" CC skills), most of the time but not always (simply due to the sheer number of CC effects that there are).

 

One could ofc proliferate the amount of stunbreaks and stability in the game, but that would lead to strategically CC-ing your opponent being harder while "spamming" CC being the only way to get any amount of "stunnage" on your enemy. This seems less preferable than a situation where CC can be landed realtively reliable, but not in the sheer amounts that constitutes chain-CC.

 

What happens when you can't?

You are stuck in the position of waiting for it to end (either after they somehow run out of CC (unlikely) or you die).

 

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> Can you always counter it?

 

No but nothing can be countered 100 percent of the time. At some point you're supposed to either kill them or run out of buttons. This is good imo. It promotes ultra aggressive gameplay which I'm a fan of but I suppose that's just a matter of personal taste.

 

> Most of the time, but not always (I am under no illusion that I counter it perfectly every time, but I'd conservatively say 8-9/10 times I actually die to stunlocking it's due to there simply not being enough breaks/sources of stability to deal with the sheer numbers of "random" CC skills), most of the time but not always (simply due to the sheer number of CC effects that there are).

 

Well yeah but I think that's how it's supposed to work. There's play/counterplay but if you can't kill them before they overwhelm your defenses you're probably dead. So it's like you can't go too far into playing defensively or else you lose to attrition. Again it's a matter of personal taste but I like it.

 

> One could ofc proliferate the amount of stunbreaks and stability in the game, but that would lead to strategically CC-ing your opponent being harder while "spamming" CC being the only way to get any amount of "stunnage" on your enemy. This seems less preferable than a situation where CC can be landed realtively reliable, but not in the sheer amounts that constitutes chain-CC.

 

I dunno there's already a ton of stunbreaks and stab they're just not evenly spread out among all the classes. Guard has always dominated the stab scene with everything else trailing behind which is why guards have always been the main staple of WvW.

 

> What happens when you can't?

> You are stuck in the position of waiting for it to end (either after they somehow run out of CC (unlikely) or you die).

 

Right but again I think it's supposed to work like that. Everyone has a certain amount of finite play/counterplay options so the outcome of a fight usually comes down to who uses their respective tools more efficiently and effectively before they gas out so to speak.

 

[Gav.1425]

These are poor suggestions.

[SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.70]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > Can you always counter it?

>

> No but nothing can be countered 100 percent of the time. At some point you're supposed to either kill them or run out of buttons. This is good imo. It promotes ultra aggressive gameplay which I'm a fan of but I suppose that's just a matter of personal taste.

 

Stuff lacking proper counterplay is the entire point of the thread. You say ultra aggressive gameplay, I say faceroll keyboard and hope for the best.

 

> > Most of the time, but not always (I am under no illusion that I counter it perfectly every time, but I'd conservatively say 8-9/10 times I actually die to stunlocking it's due to there simply not being enough breaks/sources of stability to deal with the sheer numbers of "random" CC skills), most of the time but not always (simply due to the sheer number of CC effects that there are).

>

> Well yeah but I think that's how it's supposed to work. There's play/counterplay but if you can't kill them before they overwhelm your defenses you're probably dead. So it's like you can't go too far into playing defensively or else you lose to attrition. Again it's a matter of personal taste but I like it.

 

Attrition and ultra aggressive gameplay are on 2 opposite sides of a spectrum. Ultra Aggressive means blowing all CDs all at once usually at the start of the fight, attrition means spacing them out, trying to "trade up" so to speak in every situation.

 

> > One could ofc proliferate the amount of stunbreaks and stability in the game, but that would lead to strategically CC-ing your opponent being harder while "spamming" CC being the only way to get any amount of "stunnage" on your enemy. This seems less preferable than a situation where CC can be landed realtively reliable, but not in the sheer amounts that constitutes chain-CC.

>

> I dunno there's already a ton of stunbreaks and stab they're just not evenly spread out among all the classes. Guard has always dominated the stab scene with everything else trailing behind which is why guards have always been the main staple of WvW.

 

Well that's hardly a reason for why it isn't a problem. If anything that'd be an argument for why stunlocking is bad. If it warps a game to such a degree, then the mechanic must be inherently broken. Meaning to balance they'd either need to more equally distribute stunbreaks/stab across the board (or increase the amount overall), which would homogenize the classes, or they could fix the mechanic that causes the problem.

 

> > What happens when you can't?

> > You are stuck in the position of waiting for it to end (either after they somehow run out of CC (unlikely) or you die).

>

> Right but again I think it's supposed to work like that. Everyone has a certain amount of finite play/counterplay options so the outcome of a fight usually comes down to who uses their respective tools more efficiently and effectively before they gas out so to speak.

 

Stunlocking from getting hit by "random CC" spam

Supposed to work like that =/= Good

Stunlocking rarely comes down to trying to more efficiently use your CC compared to your opponent's counters to it. It comes down using CC faster than you can stack stab. Granting enough stacks of stability is something a very select subset of classes can do, especially in an AoE (ie support by stab). These classes quickly become the only realistic option. This is meta warping and could either be solved by spreading out even more stab out across the classes (ie the stab vs cc proliferation I talked about), which would mean the only way to actually CC someone is to spam, which means we come full circle.

 

> @"Gav.1425" said:

> These are poor suggestions.

 

Thank you for the high value and very elaborate post that truly points to many flaws. Comments like this truly are what a discussion is about, after reading this you managed to not only change my mind about my entire post, but also about my entire outlook on life. I will probably do my best to incorporate this kind of debating in the future in my posts, but I am not sure I can manage to put it to use in quite as eloquently of a way as you did.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> Stuff lacking proper counterplay is the entire point of the thread. You say ultra aggressive gameplay, I say faceroll keyboard and hope for the best.

 

Eh I dunno I think it's more about being the first to completely commit and being quick enough to completely overwhelm the opponent's reaction time. No hesitation no fear.

 

> Attrition and ultra aggressive gameplay are on 2 opposite sides of a spectrum. Ultra Aggressive means blowing all CDs all at once usually at the start of the fight, attrition means spacing them out, trying to "trade up" so to speak in every situation.

 

If we're going to speak in terms of spectrums I'd say ultra defensive is on the opposite side of ultra aggressive. Never push, never fully commit always try to have an escape plan, build defensive siege that sort of thing. The attrition I'm talking about is the defensive cds being outpaced by offensive cds. There's play/counterplay but it generally favors offense which is good I think. So I guess another way to say it is that the game leans more toward being proactive rather than reactive play if that makes sense. Again I think this is good.

 

> Well that's hardly a reason for why it isn't a problem. If anything that'd be an argument for why stunlocking is bad. If it warps a game to such a degree, then the mechanic must be inherently broken. Meaning to balance they'd either need to more equally distribute stunbreaks/stab across the board (or increase the amount overall), which would homogenize the classes, or they could fix the mechanic that causes the problem.

 

Warp has a sort of negative connotation. But yes the lack of stab and available stun breaks for most classes combined with the fairly ubiquitous amount of cc in the game has made guard the obvious choice for medium to large scale combat since launch. But this is how it is in every MMO I've ever played. The heavies are always designed to push in and tank damage and ccs better than any of the other classes because that's supposed to be their role. In a roleplaying game not everything is going to be equally good at everything, different classes occupy different roles. So if you want to be able to handle CC pretty well play a heavy. If you want to do an amazing amount of damage play necro but understand that CC is going to be a bigger threat to you. To me this makes perfect sense.

 

> Stunlocking from getting hit by "random CC" spam

> Supposed to work like that =/= Good

> Stunlocking rarely comes down to trying to more efficiently use your CC compared to your opponent's counters to it. It comes down using CC faster than you can stack stab. Granting enough stacks of stability is something a very select subset of classes can do, especially in an AoE (ie support by stab). These classes quickly become the only realistic option. This is meta warping and could either be solved by spreading out even more stab out across the classes (ie the stab vs cc proliferation I talked about), which would mean the only way to actually CC someone is to spam, which means we come full circle.

 

It depends on what you consider to be efficient within the context of a GW2 fight. What I'm talking about when I say efficient could perhaps better be called "more succinctly coordinated." It is an efficient and highly effective strategy to simply try to get everything in the same place at the same time and completely overwhelm the enemy before they even have a chance to react. I personally like this style of play but some people prefer something slower more methodical.

 

Ultimately it comes down to personal taste and I don't think you and I are likely to see eye to eye on this particular issue but in general I think you made some good critiques in your OP.

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:

> "I main Necro"

>

> And there goes your entire Post up in flames.

>

> As a Tipp: NEVER mention what class you play/main or you loose your credibility.

>

> At this point its looks more like a hidden "Necro is the worst class , nerf everthing else below the ground" thread.

>

> Dont get me wrong.

> All your points are correct.

>

> But there are alot of people that will stop reading after the words "I main Necro".

>

>

 

To be fair, when the list seems to contain mostly items that are uniquely prominent to your specified main, it does suggest a major bias. What works to invalidate the view point is when it seems to focus mainly on those biases, and other examples are suspiciously token in their weighting. So surprise, surprise when people assume that things a given class struggles with the most are called "game mode wide problems", and not fully acknowledge it from multiple angles, that they would think this is a "nerf the things kills me" thread.

 

With a predisposition of those types of complaint threads being long winded, to feign a credible argument, a wall of text does have to put effort into either prefacing or concluding on well compressed TLDR, so a reader gets your idea from the get go, and better follow the specific arguments that in the body.

[iKeostuKen.2738]

I would like to see the removal or down tonage of Ferocity. As well as a range nerf on retaliation to only effect melee attacks both added to the list. Getting hit from across the map cause some shmoe with retal decided to step on one of my traps is very unrewarding and randomly puts me in combat.

[SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.70]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.7026" said:

> > Stuff lacking proper counterplay is the entire point of the thread. You say ultra aggressive gameplay, I say faceroll keyboard and hope for the best.

>

> Eh I dunno I think it's more about being the first to completely commit and being quick enough to completely overwhelm the opponent's reaction time. No hesitation no fear.

 

Then I think we see differently on the terms aggressive/defensive. Which would lead to some confusion.

 

For starters if the only time chain-CC happened was when I didn't react fast enough, or my opponents were very well coordinated, I wouldn't consider it a problem, the problem is that an effective way to cause it is simply to everyone use all their CC as soon as you engage, which is a very simplistic strategy, which can in some situations (not all by any means) have very little counterplay. I also consider that the longer a fight is (within reason) the better it is (general statement not always true), because each player gets more opportunities to play good/bad.

 

> > Attrition and ultra aggressive gameplay are on 2 opposite sides of a spectrum. Ultra Aggressive means blowing all CDs all at once usually at the start of the fight, attrition means spacing them out, trying to "trade up" so to speak in every situation.

>

> If we're going to speak in terms of spectrums I'd say ultra defensive is on the opposite side of ultra aggressive. Never push, never fully commit always try to have an escape plan, build defensive siege that sort of thing. The attrition I'm talking about is the defensive cds being outpaced by offensive cds. There's play/counterplay but it generally favors offense which is good I think. So I guess another way to say it is that the game leans more toward being proactive rather than reactive play if that makes sense. Again I think this is good.

 

I guess it depends on how you define aggressive/defensive.

 

Generally when i'd think of an ultra aggressive build I'd think of full zerk burst builds, who try to kill you in one burst and if they fail they run away, while an ultra defensive build would be a minstrel "troll tank" build (ie a tanking build w/o any support elements) with everything in between falling on the spectrum.

 

But when it comes to playing I'd say ultra aggressive would be trying to kill your opponent(s) in one burst, while the more defensive you play the more attrition you play (this is speaking in terms of tactics and builds, no a "strategy" like camping towers and building siege etc, but actual incombat fighting).

 

Proactive and reactive I wouldn't equate to defensive versus offensive. There are proactive defenses (like Stability, Protection, Blocking, Dodging, etc) and reactive defenses (Healing, Condi clears, etc). Just as there are proactive offensive skills (like most damaging ones...) and reactive offensive skills (like the more proper interrupt skills, boon corrupts/removal, etc). The danger with going too far into the proactive direction is that the game risks becoming linear (ie you have your gameplan, you try to execute it, you don't really care what your opponent does). The danger with going too far in the reactive direction would be that very little would happen. In my opinion the best a mix of both leaning towards reactive.

 

> > Well that's hardly a reason for why it isn't a problem. If anything that'd be an argument for why stunlocking is bad. If it warps a game to such a degree, then the mechanic must be inherently broken. Meaning to balance they'd either need to more equally distribute stunbreaks/stab across the board (or increase the amount overall), which would homogenize the classes, or they could fix the mechanic that causes the problem.

>

> Warp has a sort of negative connotation. But yes the lack of stab and available stun breaks for most classes combined with the fairly ubiquitous amount of cc in the game has made guard the obvious choice for medium to large scale combat since launch. But this is how it is in every MMO I've ever played. The heavies are always designed to push in and tank damage and ccs better than any of the other classes because that's supposed to be their role. In a roleplaying game not everything is going to be equally good at everything, different classes occupy different roles. So if you want to be able to handle CC pretty well play a heavy. If you want to do an amazing amount of damage play necro but understand that CC is going to be a bigger threat to you. To me this makes perfect sense.

 

Thinking in terms of heavys and lights in this game is imo doing oneself a disservice. How "tanky" a class or build is depends more on the build/stats/situation than what kind of armor they wear.

 

> > Stunlocking from getting hit by "random CC" spam

> > Supposed to work like that =/= Good

> > Stunlocking rarely comes down to trying to more efficiently use your CC compared to your opponent's counters to it. It comes down using CC faster than you can stack stab. Granting enough stacks of stability is something a very select subset of classes can do, especially in an AoE (ie support by stab). These classes quickly become the only realistic option. This is meta warping and could either be solved by spreading out even more stab out across the classes (ie the stab vs cc proliferation I talked about), which would mean the only way to actually CC someone is to spam, which means we come full circle.

 

> It depends on what you consider to be efficient within the context of a GW2 fight. What I'm talking about when I say efficient could perhaps better be called "more succinctly coordinated." It is an efficient and highly effective strategy to simply try to get everything in the same place at the same time and completely overwhelm the enemy before they even have a chance to react. I personally like this style of play but some people prefer something slower more methodical.

 

That is often the most efficient way to to play, but that is in itself a problem imo. Mainly due to the simplicity of the strategy. Proactive play quickly becomes linear play. Linear play is what should never happen in a game.

 

> Ultimately it comes down to personal taste and I don't think you and I are likely to see eye to eye on this particular issue but in general I think you made some good critiques in your OP.

 

Well I can agree to disagree on this matter, thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

 

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> > @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:

> > "I main Necro"

> >

> > And there goes your entire Post up in flames.

> >

> > As a Tipp: NEVER mention what class you play/main or you loose your credibility.

> >

> > At this point its looks more like a hidden "Necro is the worst class , nerf everthing else below the ground" thread.

> >

> > Dont get me wrong.

> > All your points are correct.

> >

> > But there are alot of people that will stop reading after the words "I main Necro".

> >

> >

>

 

I assume this reply was actually meant at me and not the person you quote, otherwise it makes no sense contextually.

 

> To be fair, when the list seems to contain mostly items that are uniquely prominent to your specified main, it does suggest a major bias. What works to invalidate the view point is when it seems to focus mainly on those biases, and other examples are suspiciously token in their weighting. So surprise, surprise when people assume that things a given class struggles with the most are called "game mode wide problems", and not fully acknowledge it from multiple angles, that they would think this is a "nerf the things kills me" thread.

 

I do not main necro.... Maybe I need to put a disclaimer somewhere, I once used to tho.

 

I assume you mean section 1 with bias. While necro might be the class that pops into your head that struggles with these issues, you could replace it with any build that has less than 3 good movement skills and the arguments would work. Condi rev for example struggle with the very same things just as an example (there are others but that hardly feels like something worth listing). I personally do not think that any nerfs or buffs can really fix this area adequately as it is imo a design flaw. How visible the problem is changes from patch to patch.

 

> With a predisposition of those types of complaint threads being long winded, to feign a credible argument, a wall of text does have to put effort into either prefacing or concluding on well compressed TLDR, so a reader gets your idea from the get go, and better follow the specific arguments that in the body.

 

This is the shortened version. The TLDR or rather the prefacing would be the headlines to each (sub)section, being much more concise while keeping any amount of precision is hard. That this thread could be formulated better and/or structured I am sure, but sadly I am not the experienced write I wish I was. I'd say the structure is readable, tho it could be improved.

 

> @"iKeostuKen.2738" said:

> I would like to see the removal or down tonage of Ferocity. As well as a range nerf on retaliation to only effect melee attacks both added to the list. Getting hit from across the map cause some shmoe with retal decided to step on one of my traps is very unrewarding and randomly puts me in combat.

 

That would fall under "1.5 Overall Damage Proliferation" where I talk about excessive damage multipliers, ferocity is one of the damage multipliers this game has, if it is the one that needs toning down or not is hard to say

 

Retaliation isn't foremost what puts you into combat, your trap doing damage is, that'd be a rework of how you're put into combat (something that would be nice but more of a QoL fix). Retaliation as a mechanic I find pretty poor, but not quite bad enough to write about.

[iKeostuKen.2738]

Then I whole heartedly agree ^^

[starlinvf.1358]

There is a saying in the business world.... "Ain't nobody got time for that". Its no secret most people in charge of hiring will not bother reading past the first page of a resume, unless they catch something warranting investigating further. This idea builds off the fact that if you can't establish something important quickly, then its likely a person is going with a quantity over quality approach that is as meaningless as it is vast. The more complex the information being conveyed, the more important it needs to be grounded with a proper frame of reference that can be built and easily elaborated on.

 

For instance.... long lists can usually be organized by common elements. If a long list of elements have nothing in common, then how do you move between topics, or clearly explain the interactions? Looking at list, and knowing the common arguments around the forums, everything can be boiled down to a problem of raw volume and scaling. Theres simply too much everything. But I can break that down further, with few words, by pointing out the scaling problem goes hand in hand the indiscriminate nature of skill targeting; and that the power scaling problem is the result of skills being balanced around Raids, which are the inverse of the PvP combat the skills were originally designed around.

 

If I were to write a thesis, I state that the problems seen in WvW are the indirect result of Raids (which have opposing goals to PvP combat), combined with the direct result of POF Especs being designed to dismantle an entire PvP meta; but ironically made it stronger.

[Tehologist.5841]

Hitting with every CC you have on CD when engaging is a viable strategy. If you catch a couple of people out of position and thin numbers. All your aoe bombs are going to be more effective as you limited number of bodies stacking. Positioning and when to engage is so important. Could be the difference between a 20 man Zerg fighting a 50 man or suddenly fighting another 20 man on a good push.