Remove Alacrity, Give All Skills 33% Reduction in PvE?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"thrag.9740" said:

> > > It seems easier to balance 2 additional builds to compete with chrono, rather than remove a boon from the entire game.

> > Especially since currently everything _is_ balanced around it, so removing it would require a complete rebalancing of all skills and raid encounters.

> >

>

> The balance patches would disagree with your notion that the game is balanced around it. If it was there'd be zero reason ever to be changing cooldowns as they'd already be at the point where it wasn't needed. Find me a balance patch where Anet hasn't touched cooldowns since alacrity's inception.

Show me the part where Anet hasn't touched cooldowns before Alacrity was a thing. Manipulating cooldowns is a part of balance regardless of the baseline they balance around.

 

 

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"thrag.9740" said:

> > > > It seems easier to balance 2 additional builds to compete with chrono, rather than remove a boon from the entire game.

> > > Especially since currently everything _is_ balanced around it, so removing it would require a complete rebalancing of all skills and raid encounters.

> > >

> >

> > The balance patches would disagree with your notion that the game is balanced around it. If it was there'd be zero reason ever to be changing cooldowns as they'd already be at the point where it wasn't needed. Find me a balance patch where Anet hasn't touched cooldowns since alacrity's inception.

> Show me the part where Anet hasn't touched cooldowns before Alacrity was a thing. Manipulating cooldowns is a part of balance regardless of the baseline they balance around.

>

>

 

Without alacrity being present it makes sense to adjust cooldowns. Your hypothesis is that with they are balancing around 100% uptime. If that was the case they'd have no reason to ever adjust cooldowns post it's introduction as those cooldowns would have already been factored. It stands to pretty clear reason that since that's not the case they aren't balancing around Alacrity let alone any other singular boon having 100% uptime.

[Yasi.9065]

> @"Lord of the Fire.6870" said:

> > @"Yasi.9065" said:

> > Problem isnt alacrity, really. Vigor is more of a problem. You need it as a defensive boon and also because there are traits that let you do more dmg if your endurance is full. Retaliation. Fury. Those are boons that are difficult to organize.

> >

> > Removing alacrity would only make sense if theres a huge boon-overhaul. With boons being made 10man, different boon-spam builds and stat-contribution of might being lowered. Just to remove a boon? Not much use in that for theorycrafting. We would still be stuck with chronos.

>

> The problem with alacrity is it scales the dps with % this is always a concern for trouble, the other point is it changes how fast the game play is and skills in the rota which with alacrity must be executed faster. With 20% its nearly okish but with 66% gw2 must have been felt like a an hack&slay game ala Diablo. To say it out load without alacrity rotas would change and weapons would need a buff differently for each class.

>

> Spirits especially frost spirit has a similar problem but with 5% it also okish but it has the same balancing problem to make it more clear those % modifier multiply with each other this result in exponential grow which is really bad in terms of balancing at some point A- NET balancing team must realized themselves this is the reason those skills got nerfed again and again.

>

> By the way fury don't has this problem because with 100% crit rate you have a hard cap. Banners are absolute okay they have fix values and it isn't said that future elites could do something similar e.g engi with new towers.

>

> One thing more chrono isn't the only class who can do alacrity the reverent can do it too so far I heard the up time is equal after the last patch. I don't know how right this is but it certainly went in this direction.

 

You misunderstood the post. It wasnt about the boons themselves., but rather who can apply them to the grp for how long.

[thrag.9740]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> The balance patches would disagree with your notion that the game is balanced around it. If it was there'd be zero reason ever to be changing cooldowns as they'd already be at the point where it wasn't needed.

>

Oh, so if Anet balanced around all the boons present in a typical raid group the game would already be in a state were it was unnecessary to change anything? Great just do that. ez

 

[Klipso.8653]

Even if alacrity only gave 5%, it would still be meta. The existence of this effect in game will always place chrono as meta.

 

It was a mistake to add it, and nomatter how nerfed chrono becomes, the fact that they can reduce skill cooldowns (in a game with no mana pools, this is the only thing that matters) will guarantee that they will always be wanted.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> Without alacrity being present it makes sense to adjust cooldowns. Your hypothesis is that with they are balancing around 100% uptime. If that was the case they'd have no reason to ever adjust cooldowns post it's introduction as those cooldowns would have already been factored.

You do realize, that the very same reasoning applies to the state before alacrity (and is obviously equally wrong)? If everything was fine already, they should feel no need to balance anything, after all. If they _are_ balancing stuff (whether now, or before), it means they thing the state before balance is not ideal. And it's exactly the same whether they are balancing around alacrity or not.

 

[TexZero.7910]

> @"thrag.9740" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > The balance patches would disagree with your notion that the game is balanced around it. If it was there'd be zero reason ever to be changing cooldowns as they'd already be at the point where it wasn't needed.

> >

> Oh, so if Anet balanced around all the boons present in a typical raid group the game would already be in a state were it was unnecessary to change anything? Great just do that. ez

>

 

I mean that's your arguement in a nutshell and it's clear its wrong.

Boons were clearly not designed around having 100% uptime otherwise that additional power they provide would just be built in baseline.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> I mean that's your arguement in a nutshell and it's clear its wrong.

> Boons were clearly not designed around having 100% uptime otherwise that additional power they provide would just be built in baseline.

Perhaps they weren't originally designed to have 100% uptime, but in raid environment they do have that uptime. Do you really think that when Anet balances the encounters, for example, they ignore all the dps increases from boons, food/utilities, banners, class effects like spirits and spotter etc, just because those might not have been originally meant to be available with 100% uptime? That when they balance professions for pve, they ignore the situation in raids, where those boons are a given, but instead try to balance around some theoretical situation that doesn't really happen in PvE outside open world/solo content?

 

At this point it doesn't really matter what the original intentions for boons were. What matters is that for several last years 100% boon updates were baseline in any harder group content, and not balancing everything around that baseline would be a really bad idea. Unless you intended to change it and make sure the 100% uptime cannot happen, but so far i haven't seen any attempt to do so since even before HoT launch.

 

For one, I certainly hope Anet devs _aren't_ balancing the game around a fictional state that doesn't really mirror the game reality, like you seem to think they do.

 

[thrag.9740]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> Boons were clearly not designed around having 100% uptime otherwise that additional power they provide would just be built in baseline.

Why do you believe Anet's intention is to have 10 players who all play the exact same in raids?

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > I mean that's your arguement in a nutshell and it's clear its wrong.

> > Boons were clearly not designed around having 100% uptime otherwise that additional power they provide would just be built in baseline.

> Perhaps they weren't originally designed to have 100% uptime, but in raid environment they do have that uptime. Do you really think that when Anet balances the encounters, for example, they ignore all the dps increases from boons, food/utilities, banners, class effects like spirits and spotter etc, just because those might not have been originally meant to be available with 100% uptime? That when they balance professions for pve, they ignore the situation in raids, where those boons are a given, but instead try to balance around some theoretical situation that doesn't really happen in PvE outside open world/solo content?

>

> At this point it doesn't really matter what the original intentions for boons were. What matters is that for several last years 100% boon updates were baseline in any harder group content, and not balancing everything around that baseline would be a really bad idea. Unless you intended to change it and make sure the 100% uptime cannot happen, but so far i haven't seen any attempt to do so since even before HoT launch.

>

> For one, I certainly hope Anet devs _aren't_ balancing the game around a fictional state that doesn't really mirror the game reality, like you seem to think they do.

>

 

I disagree. The intent does matter and that's precisly why balance is in such a poor state.

Through the years Anet has been inconsistent when it comes to their gameplay systems, in this case boons specifically. They've attempted on quite a few times (Phalanx Strength Might Duration nerf and Ranger Glyph Might stack changes specifically) to curtail the power of specific boons and their uptime. For some reaons the same cannot be said of Alacrity which is much more gameplay warping than might.

 

I said the system needs to change for a reason, boons a temporary thing should never be 100% uptime. To jump to the drastic line of balancing around a fictional state is about as far from where that needs to go. What they need to do is go and reduce the effectiveness of concentration and the base durations of all boons so that they are once again temporary in nature as their name implies. Otherwise Anet may as well just scrap the concept of boons and just roll all that extra power into players and call it a day.

 

Also, this is again predicated on the premise that was brought up by yourself and thrag that Anet already balances around a fictional state of 100% uptime and again the patch notes from post HoT to current will disagree with that notion because if they were balancing around 100% uptime of any boon but in this case Alacarity they'd have no reason to manipulate cooldowns as they would have already been in a perfectly balanced state when they introduced the then Status which has only been Nerfed since.

 

> @"thrag.9740" said:

> Why do you believe Anet's intention is to have 10 players who all play the exact same in raids?

Why do you believe Anet balances around 100% uptime of alacrity when the patch history tells you otherwise ?

Why do you think my belief is Anet wants homogenization when i pretty clearly stated that if in said fictional universe that your prescribe to Anet balances around 100% boon uptime then they should just scrap the system entirely ? Boons become redundant if they are on all the time, they defeat their very nature of being temporary boost of power in combat.

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > I mean that's your arguement in a nutshell and it's clear its wrong.

> > > Boons were clearly not designed around having 100% uptime otherwise that additional power they provide would just be built in baseline.

> > Perhaps they weren't originally designed to have 100% uptime, but in raid environment they do have that uptime. Do you really think that when Anet balances the encounters, for example, they ignore all the dps increases from boons, food/utilities, banners, class effects like spirits and spotter etc, just because those might not have been originally meant to be available with 100% uptime? That when they balance professions for pve, they ignore the situation in raids, where those boons are a given, but instead try to balance around some theoretical situation that doesn't really happen in PvE outside open world/solo content?

> >

> > At this point it doesn't really matter what the original intentions for boons were. What matters is that for several last years 100% boon updates were baseline in any harder group content, and not balancing everything around that baseline would be a really bad idea. Unless you intended to change it and make sure the 100% uptime cannot happen, but so far i haven't seen any attempt to do so since even before HoT launch.

> >

> > For one, I certainly hope Anet devs _aren't_ balancing the game around a fictional state that doesn't really mirror the game reality, like you seem to think they do.

> >

>

> I disagree. The intent does matter and that's precisly why balance is in such a poor state.

> Through the years Anet has been inconsistent when it comes to their gameplay systems, in this case boons specifically. They've attempted on quite a few times (Phalanx Strength Might Duration nerf and Ranger Glyph Might stack changes specifically) to curtail the power of specific boons and their uptime. For some reaons the same cannot be said of Alacrity which is much more gameplay warping than might.

>

> I said the system needs to change for a reason, boons a temporary thing should never be 100% uptime. To jump to the drastic line of balancing around a fictional state is about as far from where that needs to go. What they need to do is go and reduce the effectiveness of concentration and the base durations of all boons so that they are once again temporary in nature as their name implies. Otherwise Anet may as well just scrap the concept of boons and just roll all that extra power into players and call it a day.

>

> Also, this is again predicated on the premise that was brought up by yourself and thrag that Anet already balances around a fictional state of 100% uptime and again the patch notes from post HoT to current will disagree with that notion because if they were balancing around 100% uptime of any boon but in this case Alacarity they'd have no reason to manipulate cooldowns as they would have already been in a perfectly balanced state when they introduced the then Status which has only been Nerfed since.

>

> > @"thrag.9740" said:

> > Why do you believe Anet's intention is to have 10 players who all play the exact same in raids?

> Why do you believe Anet balances around 100% uptime of alacrity when the patch history tells you otherwise ?

> Why do you think my belief is Anet wants homogenization when i pretty clearly stated that if in said fictional universe that your prescribe to Anet balances around 100% boon uptime then they should just scrap the system entirely ? Boons become redundant if they are on all the time, they defeat their very nature of being temporary boost of power in combat.

 

If spells are perfectly balanced without alacrity then once you reduce the cds by 20 pervent they will not be balanced. Because for longer cds 20 percent is more seconds then for short cds skills. Also they will line up diferently and you might squeze them in 2 times instead of 1 time before you want to swap weapons

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> They've attempted on quite a few times (Phalanx Strength Might Duration nerf and Ranger Glyph Might stack changes specifically) to curtail the power of specific boons and their uptime.

You might be misremembering. Phalanx Strength nerf was in the very same patch that gave might generation to druids. And the later druid changes were tied to raising the cap to 10 players. In neither case the uptime and power of Might has changed. All other changes were mostly similar to that - things being moved around, but no real nerf to overall boon generation. If anything, the current meta has even more boons with 100% upkeep than before. So, the facts hardly support your vievs here.

 

> I said the system needs to change for a reason, boons a temporary thing should never be 100% uptime. To jump to the drastic line of balancing around a fictional state is about as far from where that needs to go. What they need to do is go and reduce the effectiveness of concentration and the base durations of all boons so that they are once again temporary in nature as their name implies. Otherwise Anet may as well just scrap the concept of boons and just roll all that extra power into players and call it a day.

Have you ever considered the possibility, that boons migh be a thing purely because Anet wants to support (pun intended) other roles than just dps? That boons aren't folded in baseline, because as long as they exist separately, there would need to be players dedicated to giving out those boons?

 

> Also, this is again predicated on the premise that was brought up by yourself and thrag that Anet already balances around a fictional state of 100% uptime and again the patch notes from post HoT to current will disagree with that notion because if they were balancing around 100% uptime of any boon but in this case Alacarity they'd have no reason to manipulate cooldowns as they would have already been in a perfectly balanced state when they introduced the then Status which has only been Nerfed since.

You are assuming they were in perfectly balanced state before HoT, which we know they weren't, because Anet was adjusting them even then. If they were balancing skill cooldowns before Alacrity was a thing, that suggests they didn't consider pre-alacrity cooldowns to be perfectly balanced either, don't you think?

 

> > @"thrag.9740" said:

> > Why do you believe Anet's intention is to have 10 players who all play the exact same in raids?

> Why do you believe Anet balances around 100% uptime of alacrity when the patch history tells you otherwise ?

> Why do you think my belief is Anet wants homogenization when i pretty clearly stated that if in said fictional universe that your prescribe to Anet balances around 100% boon uptime then they should just scrap the system entirely ? Boons become redundant if they are on all the time, they defeat their very nature of being temporary boost of power in combat.

You perceive their role as temporary boosts of power in combat. Perhaps Anet doesn't think so. Maybe they keep the current state, because perfect boon upkeep is one of the things that separates unorganized crowds from organized groups. Without them, we'd be just stacking dps without much of class interaction, and you'd basically have open world "tactics" in high end instances.

 

Which is besides the point. And the point is, that if anet doesn't balance around the boon upkip they know will be achieveable, then the balance is already a failure the moment it arrived in any content where it actually matters.

 

Seriously, if they balanced around no boons baseline, then any high-end encounter would end up just plainly broken the moment someone added those boons.

 

For example, if they balanced around no alacrity, then in the situation without it, most classes would make similar dps, but once it got added thieves would end up left way behind (since alacrity doesn't work well with their initiative system). For some reason this is not what is happening, is it.

 

Basically, if they know that high-end group content will get that boon upkeep, then, regardless what they think about it, they can't not take it into consideration during balancing. They can't just say "we didn't intend for the boons to be used that way, so we will keep ignoring that you can get 100% upkeep of them, and balance the game as if you couldn't". That would be willfully ignoring the reality. There's no way it wouldn't go wrong..

[Daniel Handler.4816]

Should we change all the dps traits that benefit from unique boons?

[thrag.9740]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> Why do you believe Anet balances around 100% uptime of alacrity when the patch history tells you otherwise ?

Because it makes no sense for Anet to consider terrible team compositions when balancing content whose stated purpose is to be challenging, and because when I used the same logic as your argument to draw a conclusion you said:

 

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> it's clear its wrong.

If you don't even believe your own logic, why should I?

 

 

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> Why do you think my belief is Anet wants homogenization when i pretty clearly stated that if in said fictional universe that your prescribe to Anet balances around 100% boon uptime then they should just scrap the system entirely ? Boons become redundant if they are on all the time, they defeat their very nature of being temporary boost of power in combat.

 

Boons being on all the time is not redundant because, and I know that the past few times I told you this it hasn't sunken in, but seriously try just once to read this. Those boons come from a player playing the game effectively. Same as dps and cc and the success of mechanics.

 

Anet assumes that groups will have enough dps to clear content when they design it, but the dps isn't free, it isn't redundant, you only get that dps if you play effectively.

 

Anet assumes that groups will have enough cc to break bars when they design them, but the cc isn't free, we don't just give every class infinite free cc on autoattack, you get that cc for playing effectively.

 

The exact same thing is true for boon uptimes. You have to press the buttons correctly and run a thought out build. It isn't redundant, we don't just give everyone improved stats for free, you have to earn them through good game play.

[thrag.9740]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> It's not simply reducing cool downs, it's increasing availability of EVERY SKILL and EVERY SKILL RELATED EFFECT. You are literally talking down the usefulness of alacrity on everything which is not damage, and that is plain wrong.

 

You misunderstand me, I'm not talking down the usefulness of alacrity, of course alacrity is useful. I'm saying, that all skills having a 20% lower cool down isn't that hard to balance around. why do we use a skill? There has to be a reason coming from the encounter, which anet designs. Reduce the time for that reason to pop up by 20% and now you have it balanced for alacrity.

 

Can you point to examples of in game raid mechanics where this wouldn't work to help me better understand your concerns?

 

 

 

[TexZero.7910]

> @"thrag.9740" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > it's clear its wrong.

> If you don't even believe your own logic, why should I?

 

You don't get it. I don't believe _YOUR_ logic, because by _YOUR_ logic there'd be zero reason to have boons to begin with all that power would just be baseline. Clearly that's not the case therefore _YOUR_ logic is flawed.

 

Done with you on this as it's painfully clear you're not even trying to understand anymore.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> You might be misremembering. Phalanx Strength nerf was in the very same patch that gave might generation to druids. And the later druid changes were tied to raising the cap to 10 players. In neither case the uptime and power of Might has changed. All other changes were mostly similar to that - things being moved around, but no real nerf to overall boon generation. If anything, the current meta has even more boons with 100% upkeep than before. So, the facts hardly support your vievs here.

 

I'm not mis-remembering, i was talking about the entire histroy of both these changes and they aren't alone as far as system changes to total boon uptime

Just to push this home https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Phalanx_Strength/history & https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Grace_of_the_Land/history

 

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Have you ever considered the possibility, that boons migh be a thing purely because Anet wants to support (pun intended) other roles than just dps? That boons aren't folded in baseline, because as long as they exist separately, there would need to be players dedicated to giving out those boons?

 

No, because that line of thinking is irrational. You can support people generating and sharing boons without the current status quo of them being as good as to be always on. That's what good balance looks like. What we have now is bad balance and needs to be adjusted.

 

> You are assuming they were in perfectly balanced state before HoT, which we know they weren't, because Anet was adjusting them even then. If they were balancing skill cooldowns before Alacrity was a thing, that suggests they didn't consider pre-alacrity cooldowns to be perfectly balanced either, don't you think?

 

No actually, had you followed this thread from the start, i've been very adamant that alacrity and its subsquent introduction and changes to the game were as bad as the lack of changes prior to it's inception. Anet's approach to balance has been bad all around and that includes not having the foresight to see that introducing concentration, alacrity (then changing it to a boon) was a bad idea.

 

> You perceive their role as temporary boosts of power in combat. Perhaps Anet doesn't think so. Maybe they keep the current state, because perfect boon upkeep is one of the things that separates unorganized crowds from organized groups. Without them, we'd be just stacking dps without much of class interaction, and you'd basically have open world "tactics" in high end instances.

 

Again this is incorrect. It would shift things from less of an always on perspective to a coordinated burst window. It would require _more_ interaction between classes to achieve said state than what we currently have.

 

> Which is besides the point. And the point is, that if anet doesn't balance around the boon upkip they know will be achieveable, then the balance is already a failure the moment it arrived in any content where it actually matters.

 

Again, i'm not telling them to ignore the system in place. They have to balance around what they have and that means reducing power where it's been crept. This is the case for boons as a whole. Because of the almost comical upkeep players think a reasonable dps number looks like 30K+ this is almost double what we had as "high dps" prior to HoT(with the exceptions being Ele fgs/ib and condi engineer).

 

 

> Seriously, if they balanced around no boons baseline, then any high-end encounter would end up just plainly broken the moment someone added those boons.

 

Again the i've never stated anet should use a zero-sum balance method.

 

 

> For example, if they balanced around no alacrity, then in the situation without it, most classes would make similar dps, but once it got added thieves would end up left way behind (since alacrity doesn't work well with their initiative system). For some reason this is not what is happening, is it.

>

> Basically, if they know that high-end group content will get that boon upkeep, then, regardless what they think about it, they can't not take it into consideration during balancing. They can't just say "we didn't intend for the boons to be used that way, so we will keep ignoring that you can get 100% upkeep of them, and balance the game as if you couldn't". That would be willfully ignoring the reality. There's no way it wouldn't go wrong..

 

And yet again, they can always tone down the levels of upkeep because as it currently stands there's no difference between the artifical and temporary power boons are ment to provide versus the extreme of just granting that power to everyone and removing the system because it serves no purpose anymore.

 

[thrag.9740]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> Done with you on this as it's painfully clear you're not even trying to understand anymore.

 

aight cool, you wana talk about this one or keep ignoring it like you do in literally every thread:

 

> @"thrag.9740" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > Why do you think my belief is Anet wants homogenization when i pretty clearly stated that if in said fictional universe that your prescribe to Anet balances around 100% boon uptime then they should just scrap the system entirely ? Boons become redundant if they are on all the time, they defeat their very nature of being temporary boost of power in combat.

>

> Boons being on all the time is not redundant because, and I know that the past few times I told you this it hasn't sunken in, but seriously try just once to read this. Those boons come from a player playing the game effectively. Same as dps and cc and the success of mechanics.

>

> Anet assumes that groups will have enough dps to clear content when they design it, but the dps isn't free, it isn't redundant, you only get that dps if you play effectively.

>

> Anet assumes that groups will have enough cc to break bars when they design them, but the cc isn't free, we don't just give every class infinite free cc on autoattack, you get that cc for playing effectively.

>

> The exact same thing is true for boon uptimes. You have to press the buttons correctly and run a thought out build. It isn't redundant, we don't just give everyone improved stats for free, you have to earn them through good game play.

 

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"thrag.9740" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> >

> > It's not simply reducing cool downs, it's increasing availability of EVERY SKILL and EVERY SKILL RELATED EFFECT. You are literally talking down the usefulness of alacrity on everything which is not damage, and that is plain wrong.

>

> You misunderstand me, I'm not talking down the usefulness of alacrity, of course alacrity is useful. I'm saying, that all skills having a 20% lower cool down isn't that hard to balance around. why do we use a skill? There has to be a reason coming from the encounter, which anet designs. Reduce the time for that reason to pop up by 20% and now you have it balanced for alacrity.

>

> Can you point to examples of in game raid mechanics where this wouldn't work to help me better understand your concerns?

>

>

>

 

You are talking down alacrity because you are not acknowledging that it is the most useful boon bar none.

 

It does not compare to any of the other boons, it is the best by far and has multiple game altering effects which are derived from how it affects damage, cool downs, cc availability, other boons up-time, etc.

 

Having Arenanet balance the game around alacrity would already be reason enough for me to be in favor of removing it, that's way to restrictive for a single boon to be required. No, might, fury and quickness are not required since damage (which is the only component they affect) is very lax and forgiving designed around.

 

This is not about balancing around 1 boon and how difficult that would be, it is about the fact that balancing around the 1 boon would be the case in the first place. Your continued solution to balance around alacrity already omits 50% of all balance approach, the one where alacrity is not present. That is just flawed or we need to have more than 1 boon become as important, which would be even more restrictive.

 

Now I mentioned earlier that I am conflicted on this, since I do like the complexity that alacrity adds and in general I do not enjoy streamlining or over simplifying mechanics if not needed. I am very convinced though, if any boon in this game needs rework or removal it would be alacrity.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> I'm not mis-remembering, i was talking about the entire histroy of both these changes and they aren't alone as far as system changes to total boon uptime

> Just to push this home https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Phalanx_Strength/history & https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Grace_of_the_Land/history

...Doesn't that prove exactly what i have been pointing out to you? Nerf to phananx strength was not a nerf to overall Might generation, because it got transfered to Grace of the Land trait instead (and, what's better, full might stack upkeep no longer required two players to upkeep, but only one). The later change to GotL reduced the number of stacks, but increased the duration, which, instead of more boon burst, less sustain, as something you suggested Anet should strive for, it moved in the exact opposite direction.

Also, again, are you trying to deny that the boon upkeep in this meta is the greatest we've ever had? Much greater than the one we started with before HoT? How exactly does that "prove" they are going in opposite direction? because i, for one, just can't see it.

 

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Have you ever considered the possibility, that boons migh be a thing purely because Anet wants to support (pun intended) other roles than just dps? That boons aren't folded in baseline, because as long as they exist separately, there would need to be players dedicated to giving out those boons?

>

> No, because that line of thinking is irrational. You can support people generating and sharing boons without the current status quo of them being as good as to be always on. That's what good balance looks like. What we have now is bad balance and needs to be adjusted.

Now you are trying to impose your own ideas of balance on Anet. Have you ever considered that _they may not agree with you_?

 

> > You are assuming they were in perfectly balanced state before HoT, which we know they weren't, because Anet was adjusting them even then. If they were balancing skill cooldowns before Alacrity was a thing, that suggests they didn't consider pre-alacrity cooldowns to be perfectly balanced either, don't you think?

>

> No actually, had you followed this thread from the start, i've been very adamant that alacrity and its subsquent introduction and changes to the game were as bad as the lack of changes prior to it's inception. Anet's approach to balance has been bad all around and that includes not having the foresight to see that introducing concentration, alacrity (then changing it to a boon) was a bad idea.

That's not what you claimed. You claimed that the very fact they change cooldowns now is a proof they aren't balancing around 100% alacrity upkeep. And the argument you used to support that claim was that they wouldn't need to change cooldowns because those would have already been perfectly balanced the moment alacrity entered the picture. Which is obviously wrong, since the cooldows were _never_ in a perfectly balanced state (which you actually agree with, in the quote above).

So, you are basing your argument on something you don't even believe in the first place - Anet's ability to perfectly balance something on the first try.

 

>

> > You perceive their role as temporary boosts of power in combat. Perhaps Anet doesn't think so. Maybe they keep the current state, because perfect boon upkeep is one of the things that separates unorganized crowds from organized groups. Without them, we'd be just stacking dps without much of class interaction, and you'd basically have open world "tactics" in high end instances.

>

> Again this is incorrect. It would shift things from less of an always on perspective to a coordinated burst window. It would require _more_ interaction between classes to achieve said state than what we currently have.

Again, that's your vision, which has no impact whatsoever on what Anet believes the correct path is.

 

>

> > Which is besides the point. And the point is, that if anet doesn't balance around the boon upkip they know will be achieveable, then the balance is already a failure the moment it arrived in any content where it actually matters.

>

> Again, i'm not telling them to ignore the system in place. They have to balance around what they have and that means reducing power where it's been crept. This is the case for boons as a whole. Because of the almost comical upkeep players think a reasonable dps number looks like 30K+ this is almost double what we had as "high dps" prior to HoT(with the exceptions being Ele fgs/ib and condi engineer).

It's also half of what high-end dps looked like just after HoT (i _have_ seen tempests outputting 60k+ in actual boss fights before. It's no longer the case, if you haven't noticed, and nothing now comes even close). Besides, this is (again) besides the point. You are basically saying that Anet should not balance the skills/classes around the game as it is, but around _your personal vision of it_.The one they are clearly _not_ following.

 

Basically, they can balance the game around current state (so, 100% alacrity in high-end content), or change that "current state" (make the alacrity unable to be upkeep 100% of time, or even completely remove it). What you claim they do however is that they supposedly balance the skills around some baseline that is different than the current state, without trying to change said current state into this new baseline. Which is definitely **not** the way to balance anything.

 

My claim was, since we are still able to have perfect alacrity and quickness upkeep, and nothing so far seems to be changing it, they cannot possibly ignore it while balancing. They _have_ to be taking it into consideration. They can start balancing around a changed state only _after_ they have changed that state.

 

> > Seriously, if they balanced around no boons baseline, then any high-end encounter would end up just plainly broken the moment someone added those boons.

>

> Again the i've never stated anet should use a zero-sum balance method.

You have however claimed that they are not balancing the game around a state they know will exist. And this _is_ a way to a broken fights.

 

> > Basically, if they know that high-end group content will get that boon upkeep, then, regardless what they think about it, they can't not take it into consideration during balancing. They can't just say "we didn't intend for the boons to be used that way, so we will keep ignoring that you can get 100% upkeep of them, and balance the game as if you couldn't". That would be willfully ignoring the reality. There's no way it wouldn't go wrong..

>

> And yet again, they can always tone down the levels of upkeep because as it currently stands there's no difference between the artifical and temporary power boons are ment to provide versus the extreme of just granting that power to everyone and removing the system because it serves no purpose anymore.

They could, but they _aren't doing it_.

 

The point i'm trying to make to you is that you are basing all your arguments on what you think anet should do, not on what they are actually doing. And what they are actually doing now _doesn't follow your ideas_.

 

 

 

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

Anet is balancing around other boons too. For example 25 might adds more damage to condition classes then power classes. Without perma 25 might power classes are better then condi

[Laila Lightness.8742]

Boons should buff but also give disasvantages like alarcity could give you slower attack speed and dmg and might give more dmg but make you take more that would be fair

[MithranArkanere.8957]

The way to stop a boon from being a mandatory 100% upkeep isn't removing, it's making it stack in intensity instead duration and making sure it's impossible to have a 100% upkeep no matter how many professions are stacking (e.g: Skills that add time to boons would only be able to do it once per each individual stack), so it's just impossible to keep it 100% of the time, forcing people to use them at the right moment, like for a burst of damage after a breakbar.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> The way to stop a boon from being a mandatory 100% upkeep isn't removing, it's making it stack in intensity instead duration and making sure it's impossible to have a 100% upkeep no matter how many professions are stacking (e.g: Skills that add time to boons would only be able to do it once per each individual stack), so it's just impossible to keep it 100% of the time, forcing people to use them at the right moment, like for a burst of damage after a breakbar.

 

I would add downsides to boons likefury more crit chance should award lower crit dmg like 20% higher crit would give 20% lower crit dmg. Aegis would make you after broken 50% more vurnable . Adding consuquences too each boon intead of a buff you get a trade this would make 100% boon upkeep bad since it can potentially kill the group and make the boons be used more carefully since wrong boon at wrong time would be lethal and it should stack 25 might should give 50% less dmg reduction both condi and power while giving dmg buff. And alarcity would reduce cooldowns but also increase casting time of skills by dubble. Same with unique buffs like spirits but be doing same as their gw 1 counterpart also affect enemies

[thrag.9740]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> This is not about balancing around 1 boon and how difficult that would be, it is about the fact that balancing around the 1 boon would be the case in the first place. Your continued solution to balance around alacrity already omits 50% of all balance approach, the one where alacrity is not present. That is just flawed or we need to have more than 1 boon become as important, which would be even more restrictive.

 

Ok thats all well and good, but what you and Tex keep saying throughout this thread is that alacrity makes it more difficult to balance the game, you yourself say it here:

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> It essentially makes balance a lot lot LOT harder for the balance team. Given that the poor guys already have their hands full, I kind of could understand someone to argue that removing alacrity would allow for better balance thanks to easier balance.

 

as well as here

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Alacrity is tougher to balance over simply because it affects a lot more than just damage. If you have to balance around multiple issues you will run into more problems than balancing around only 1 (damage).

 

And yet now that I challenge that point, you move the goal posts to , 'alacrity shouldn't be mandatory'. That is an entirely separate discussion. The validity or lack thereof in that statement does not justify the stance that alacrity makes balance difficult. My point to you specifically was, and continues to be, alacrity isn't that hard to balance around. If Anet can balance around a non-alacrity group, they can pretty easily balance around a group with alacrity. You might not like the solution, but that doesn't make the solution difficult.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> No, might, fury and quickness are not required since damage (which is the only component they affect) is very lax and forgiving designed around.

Heres the thing, a statement like that, is just wild guessing because your not being quantitative. Your assuming the dps check is lax enough for that to be true. I have serious doubts that a typical group that has no might,fury or quickness could raid. I'm sure good groups could do it. Lets try to get some numbers for that

 

I took a thief to the golem (average golem average hitbox), I let the thief auto staff the golem for 20% and recorded anets reported dps. I gave the golem 25 vuln with the console to omit any misleading non-linear effects from the thief's auto attack vuln generation (in a real rain scenario, 25 vuln is probably a given whether we have quickness or not). I then redid the experiment giving the thief 25 might, fury, and quickness.

 

dps without boons: 5,987.

dps with boons: 12,716

 

Now, of course because crit chance isn't capped there is rng here, but roughly we can see the boons you feel confident are not mandatory give approximately a factor of 2.1 dps multiplier. Now of course, those boons come from somewhere, quickness from the chrono and might from the druid. A group that decided to raid without quickness or might would probably still keep the druid (it just wouldn't produce might), but probably also drop the chrono for a dps renegade. I'm going to assume 2 druids still because a lot of groups run that still.

 

(2 chronos + 1 bs + 2 druids + 5 dps)*2.1 -> 1 bs + 2 druids +alacrity renegade + 6 dps

 

Now this is going to be tricky, because we don't have benchmarks for classes running all meta except no might,fury,quickness. So, I'm going to try to reduce everything to a mutliplier of a standard dps player. Lets assume 1 chrono is a tanky minstrel chrono which does like, 3k damage, so one of the chronos is .1 dps and the other is a standard good chrono. Since a meta dps is around 35k, and a non-tanky chrono is 10k I will say the other chrono is .28 dps, that gives us:

 

(.38 dps + 1 bs + 2 druids + 5 dps)*2.1 -> 1 bs + 2 druids +alacrity renegade + 6 dps

 

Now, for druids, I think it is fair to assume 1 healer and 1 condi. The healer is pretty close to the minstrel chrono, .1 dps, the condi is .42 dps, for a total of .52 dps:

 

(.38 dps + 1 bs + .52 dps + 5 dps)*2.1 -> 1 bs + .52 dps +alacrity renegade + 6 dps

 

Ok, 1 bs is .85 dps. An alacrity renegade is around 25k so .71 dps

 

(.38 dps + .85 dps + .52 dps + 5 dps)*2.1 -> .85 dps + .52 dps +.71 dps + 6 dps

 

add em up

 

(6.75 dps) * 2.1 -> 8.08 dps

 

14.175 dps -> 8.08 dps

 

Now check my math here for me, I'm on my lunch break and have to do this quick. So, my best guess is that by running without might,fury and quickness your multiplying your group dps by a factor of .57, as in your dps is 57% of what it was if you had brought the 3 boons your saying are not mandatory. So, if typical groups kill bosses in 57% of the enrage timer, then groups that don't bring might/fury/quickness should have a good chance at it. Is that normal to kill the boss in 57% of the enrage timer?

 

Well lets take a look at the 50th percentile on raidar for each boss divided by that bosses enrage timer:

 

vg: 4:29 / 8:00 = 56%

gorse: 3:56 / 7:00 = 56%

sab: 6:13 / 9:00 = 69%

sloth: 4:04 / 7:00 = 58%

matt: 5:24 / 10:00 = 54%

 

I don't have time to do them all sorry. But from this, it seems that your statement that might,fury and quickness are not mandatory is true for about half of the groups that upload to raidar. I would assume that raidar's population is better than the general population. Does that make your statement true or false? Eh, kinda in the middle. Its definitely sketchy for you to say it without giving some numbers through. For about half of all groups, those boons are necessary.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"thrag.9740" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> >

> > This is not about balancing around 1 boon and how difficult that would be, it is about the fact that balancing around the 1 boon would be the case in the first place. Your continued solution to balance around alacrity already omits 50% of all balance approach, the one where alacrity is not present. That is just flawed or we need to have more than 1 boon become as important, which would be even more restrictive.

>

> Ok thats all well and good, but what you and Tex keep saying throughout this thread is that alacrity makes it more difficult to balance the game, you yourself say it here:

>

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > It essentially makes balance a lot lot LOT harder for the balance team. Given that the poor guys already have their hands full, I kind of could understand someone to argue that removing alacrity would allow for better balance thanks to easier balance.

>

> as well as here

>

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Alacrity is tougher to balance over simply because it affects a lot more than just damage. If you have to balance around multiple issues you will run into more problems than balancing around only 1 (damage).

>

> And yet now that I challenge that point, you move the goal posts to , 'alacrity shouldn't be mandatory'. That is an entirely separate discussion. The validity or lack thereof in that statement does not justify the stance that alacrity makes balance difficult. My point to you specifically was, and continues to be, alacrity isn't that hard to balance around. If Anet can balance around a non-alacrity group, they can pretty easily balance around a group with alacrity. You might not like the solution, but that doesn't make the solution difficult.

 

I did not move any goal posts, go reread my very first response in this thread, I clearly state:

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> - either you balance with alacrity in mind, which makes the boon absolutely required

> - or you balance without alacrity in mind, which will result in it still being brought (since it is a power increase) and thus power creep versus the original design (this could actually be fine, and might even be the way arenanet balances right now since raids have a ton of leeway performance wise)

 

The fact that some people consider it okay to balance around a required boon (yet at the same time ignore the consequences this causes) is not my problem. I have stated that I believe Arenanet balances without alacrity in mind, hence why the boon is so powerful in pve. If they did balance with alacrity in mind, the difficulty would spike up a lot more.

 

 

> @"thrag.9740" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > No, might, fury and quickness are not required since damage (which is the only component they affect) is very lax and forgiving designed around.

> Heres the thing, a statement like that, is just wild guessing because your not being quantitative. Your assuming the dps check is lax enough for that to be true. I have serious doubts that a typical group that has no might,fury or quickness could raid. I'm sure good groups could do it. Lets try to get some numbers for that

>

 

There is a difference between overcoming design with player skill. An average group of players can potentially improve their damage output by improving rotations, time on boss etc. Once you reach the top end of performance (around which most balance happens) you have a ton of damage which is far beyond which is needed for any boss in this game, even without boons.

 

The one thing you can not affect though (without bringing alacrity) is: skill timers, no matter how good a player you are, you are forced to work with given availability. Alacrity breaks this.

 

> @"thrag.9740" said:

> I took a thief to the golem (average golem average hitbox), I let the thief auto staff the golem for 20% and recorded anets reported dps. I gave the golem 25 vuln with the console to omit any misleading non-linear effects from the thief's auto attack vuln generation (in a real rain scenario, 25 vuln is probably a given whether we have quickness or not). I then redid the experiment giving the thief 25 might, fury, and quickness.

>

> dps without boons: 5,987.

> dps with boons: 12,716

>

> Now, of course because crit chance isn't capped there is rng here, but roughly we can see the boons you feel confident are not mandatory give approximately a factor of 2.1 dps multiplier. Now of course, those boons come from somewhere, quickness from the chrono and might from the druid. A group that decided to raid without quickness or might would probably still keep the druid (it just wouldn't produce might), but probably also drop the chrono for a dps renegade. I'm going to assume 2 druids still because a lot of groups run that still.

>

> (2 chronos + 1 bs + 2 druids + 5 dps)*2.1 -> 1 bs + 2 druids +alacrity renegade + 6 dps

>

> Now this is going to be tricky, because we don't have benchmarks for classes running all meta except no might,fury,quickness. So, I'm going to try to reduce everything to a mutliplier of a standard dps player. Lets assume 1 chrono is a tanky minstrel chrono which does like, 3k damage, so one of the chronos is .1 dps and the other is a standard good chrono. Since a meta dps is around 35k, and a non-tanky chrono is 10k I will say the other chrono is .28 dps, that gives us:

>

> (.38 dps + 1 bs + 2 druids + 5 dps)*2.1 -> 1 bs + 2 druids +alacrity renegade + 6 dps

>

> Now, for druids, I think it is fair to assume 1 healer and 1 condi. The healer is pretty close to the minstrel chrono, .1 dps, the condi is .42 dps, for a total of .52 dps:

>

> (.38 dps + 1 bs + .52 dps + 5 dps)*2.1 -> 1 bs + .52 dps +alacrity renegade + 6 dps

>

> Ok, 1 bs is .85 dps. An alacrity renegade is around 25k so .71 dps

>

> (.38 dps + .85 dps + .52 dps + 5 dps)*2.1 -> .85 dps + .52 dps +.71 dps + 6 dps

>

> add em up

>

> (6.75 dps) * 2.1 -> 8.08 dps

>

> 14.175 dps -> 8.08 dps

>

> Now check my math here for me, I'm on my lunch break and have to do this quick. So, my best guess is that by running without might,fury and quickness your multiplying your group dps by a factor of .57, as in your dps is 57% of what it was if you had brought the 3 boons your saying are not mandatory. So, if typical groups kill bosses in 57% of the enrage timer, then groups that don't bring might/fury/quickness should have a good chance at it. Is that normal to kill the boss in 57% of the enrage timer?

>

> Well lets take a look at the 50th percentile on raidar for each boss divided by that bosses enrage timer:

>

> vg: 4:29 / 8:00 = 56%

> gorse: 3:56 / 7:00 = 56%

> sab: 6:13 / 9:00 = 69%

> sloth: 4:04 / 7:00 = 58%

> matt: 5:24 / 10:00 = 54%

>

> I don't have time to do them all sorry. But from this, it seems that your statement that might,fury and quickness are not mandatory is true for about half of the groups that upload to raidar. I would assume that raidar's population is better than the general population. Does that make your statement true or false? Eh, kinda in the middle. Its definitely sketchy for you to say it without giving some numbers through. For about half of all groups, those boons are necessary.

 

What you have shown is that not bringing the 3 boons which contribute to damage on an average group will make the fight harder, no one ever disputed this.

 

Now do the math for a top end group and you will notice that the damage boons are not required and/or can be made up for with better play.

 

Then go and show how you will have WoD on a spellbreaker up every Dhuum split without alacrity (as an example), you won't. It's literally impossible since greater death mark is on a 80s cycle while WoD is on a 90s cooldown. This effect is visible on multiple bosses with multiple skills and effects, often it's availability of cc or simply reapplication of other boons.

 

Also notice 1 thing, you are actively comparing 3 boons to 1. That alone should give you an idea of how far you have to go to even try to compete with alacrity (try because alacrity still can not be overcome with better play), or would you care to do the math for only 1 boon? How would removing any 1 of the 3 boons compare to removing alacrity? Exactly, not at all.

 

Again, I'm not in favor of removing alacrity, it is in my opinion though one of most distorting factors as far as balance goes. If Arenanet decided to remove or rework it, I would not be surprised.