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

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> 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.

SO? Those are not necessary. Instead ot WoD you can take any number of other boonstrip mechanics, with much lower cooldowns. Many groups are already not running spellbreaker, and they do equally fine. Same for any other case.

 

Remember, than at the start, before mirror comp appeared, 100% alacrity was in no way guaranteed (in fact, some of the first tries of w1 were done with no chrono at all), and bosses still got killed. Even now, we often see some groups show off with single-class kills using classes that do not have access to alacrity.

 

So, it seems that lack of cooldown reduction also can be made up for with better play.

 

The problem is there's a ton of those "not necessary" things that theoretically "can be made up with better play". And if you're not using even one, you will quickly find out that all the other suddenly became far less optional. Remove two, three, all, and your chances quickly drop to zero.

So, exactly which ones of those "optional" things "you can do without" Anet is not balancing around? Because they surely balance around at least some of them.

 

 

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > 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.

> SO? Those are not necessary. Instead ot WoD you can take any number of other boonstrip mechanics, with much lower cooldowns. Many groups are already not running spellbreaker, and they do equally fine. Same for any other case.

>

> Remember, than at the start, before mirror comp appeared, 100% alacrity was in no way guaranteed (in fact, some of the first tries of w1 were done with no chrono at all), and bosses still got killed. Even now, we often see some groups show off with single-class kills using classes that do not have access to alacrity.

 

You are missing the point, WoD was an example of how alacrity affects rotations and can make otherwise impossible comps possible (for the sake of overcoming obstacles).

 

That is on top of the damage bonus, boon duration increase on all boon related skills and bonus crowd control.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

>

> So, it seems that lack of cooldown reduction also can be made up for with better play.

>

 

Sure, the question is how much of an advantage does a unique bonus bring and is it out of line with other bonuses?

 

Are you seriously going to tell me that you believe forfeiting any 1 boon will have the same effect as not having alacrity? That is plain denial. There is nothing which comes close to this boon, period.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> The problem is there's a ton of those "not necessary" things that theoretically "can be made up with better play". And if you're not using even one, you will quickly find out that all the other suddenly became far less optional. Remove two, three, all, and your chances quickly drop to zero.

> So, exactly which ones of those "optional" things "you can do without" Anet is not balancing around? Because they surely balance around at least some of them.

 

Except none are as strong as alacrity, that is the issue. It is by far the strongest power increase a group can get.

 

I've already mentioned that I do not believe arenanet balances around permanent boons, that is very evident in many encounters. It's also the same reason why good groups are able to completely break the game when actually having all the not mandatory buffs.

[thrag.9740]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>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.

No I wouldn't care to, because you've already stated the conclusion you will draw. Your welcome to take time out of your life and collect data yourself though, and analyze it. I would be really happy to see it, because every thread that brings up balance, I seem to always be the only person willing to collect data, analyze it, and just do general quantitative research, and that makes me pretty sad, because I would love to have a 2 sided quantitative discussion with this forum. But I'm always just left disappointed, so I'm gona drop.

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

 

> 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're right i don't believe in Anet's ability to perfectly balance something, but again it's not an all or nothing thing. It's the same common sense you wish to apply by stating they balance around it. Clearly if that was the case they'd have adjusted every cooldown in the game during the design phases for HoT. We did not have that happen. It's for that reason that i do not believe Anet is balancing around a single boon as i have stated numerous times now.

 

 

> 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.

 

That's not quite what i'm saying. What i am saying is that they should balance each class and it's respective power budgets first and set objective measurable goals for acceptable things like EHP & DPS. This is something that's sorely lacking. To be even clearer here i'm not saying that all roles have to be equal, but competitive. That should always be the end goal with balance.

 

Again they can balance the game in many ways, reducing some of the obvious power creep. Boons are a part of that problem arguably a very large portion of that problem because they've shifted from their initial design paradigm of coordinated usage for temporary gains to always on. Part of that is due to the amount of boons we can now share (stacks) & skills copying them, while the other is directly related to Concentration being overtuned currently.

 

> 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.

 

I don't disagree with you that it is a portion, where we disagree is that its the totality of how the balance. Which was state by yourself in this thread.

 

> 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.

 

No, what i stated was as above. There is no world in which Anet is balancing their game around a single boon. That's asisne and quite easily worse than the status quo.

 

> 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_.

 

Welcome to the forums ? I know you're not new here....but seriously this is your grand analysis is that someone on the forums disagrees with the status quo and therefore must be wrong because Anet isn't currently doing it ?

 

When the rude awakening happens and they change alacrity more i'll just have my own laugh and look back. It will happen, there's no way Anet and the "Systems" team doesn't already know that boons and alacrity are problematic as it's not just PvE that's brought this up but also WvW and sPvP. It's a systemic issue that will likely result in a large scale rework.

 

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

>

> > 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're right i don't believe in Anet's ability to perfectly balance something, but again it's not an all or nothing thing. It's the same common sense you wish to apply by stating they balance around it. Clearly if that was the case they'd have adjusted every cooldown in the game during the design phases for HoT. We did not have that happen. It's for that reason that i do not believe Anet is balancing around a single boon as i have stated numerous times now.

>

>

> > 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.

>

> That's not quite what i'm saying. What i am saying is that they should balance each class and it's respective power budgets first and set objective measurable goals for acceptable things like EHP & DPS. This is something that's sorely lacking. To be even clearer here i'm not saying that all roles have to be equal, but competitive. That should always be the end goal with balance.

>

> Again they can balance the game in many ways, reducing some of the obvious power creep. Boons are a part of that problem arguably a very large portion of that problem because they've shifted from their initial design paradigm of coordinated usage for temporary gains to always on. Part of that is due to the amount of boons we can now share (stacks) & skills copying them, while the other is directly related to Concentration being overtuned currently.

>

> > 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.

>

> I don't disagree with you that it is a portion, where we disagree is that its the totality of how the balance. Which was state by yourself in this thread.

>

> > 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.

>

> No, what i stated was as above. There is no world in which Anet is balancing their game around a single boon. That's asisne and quite easily worse than the status quo.

>

> > 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_.

>

> Welcome to the forums ? I know you're not new here....but seriously this is your grand analysis is that someone on the forums disagrees with the status quo and therefore must be wrong because Anet isn't currently doing it ?

>

> When the rude awakening happens and they change alacrity more i'll just have my own laugh and look back. It will happen, there's no way Anet and the "Systems" team doesn't already know that boons and alacrity are problematic as it's not just PvE that's brought this up but also WvW and sPvP. It's a systemic issue that will likely result in a large scale rework.

>

 

Boons in general is a problem in its self it just affect combat so much

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> That's not quite what i'm saying. What i am saying is that they should balance each class and it's respective power budgets first and set objective measurable goals for acceptable things like EHP & DPS. This is something that's sorely lacking. To be even clearer here i'm not saying that all roles have to be equal, but competitive. That should always be the end goal with balance.

And i'm saying, that, they cannot balance that budget for now while ignoring the fact that alacrity in high end content is perma available. Because, whether it is okay or not, it _is_ available.

 

> No, what i stated was as above. There is no world in which Anet is balancing their game around a single boon. That's asisne and quite easily worse than the status quo.

I never said they balance around a _single_ boon. They obviously have to balance around the available compliment of boons, not around alacrity alone. You however claim, that the alacrity is the boon they supposedly ignore when balancing. I don't buy it, because the boon does exist, and has an impact on endgame big enough that ignoring it is impossible.

 

> > 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_.

>

> Welcome to the forums ? I know you're not new here....but seriously this is your grand analysis is that someone on the forums disagrees with the status quo and therefore must be wrong because Anet isn't currently doing it ?

Yes, because the claims you made that i contended with were not about what Anet should be doing, but what they _are_ doing. Therefore, if they aren't doing it, you obviously _are_ wrong.

 

You keep mixing what you think they should do and what they are doing all the time, and you don't even seem to be aware of it.

 

Basically, you claim that Anet at the moment balances the game some specific way just because you think they should do it that way, even if the actual facts don't seem to support it.

 

> When the rude awakening happens and they change alacrity more i'll just have my own laugh and look back.

I don't actually care all that much about it. I'm quite open about the idea of reworking/removing Alacrity. I'm just pointing out, that _at the moment_ balancing they way you say they do would be a really dumb idea.

 

> It will happen, there's no way Anet and the "Systems" team doesn't already know that boons and alacrity are problematic as it's not just PvE that's brought this up but also WvW and sPvP. It's a systemic issue that will likely result in a large scale rework.

Perhaps in the future. But as i kept saying, until that happens, they _can't_ avoid balancing around what we have now. Because ignoring the current situation could only lead to broken encounters and broken balance.

 

Basically, while they may be balancing towards some new paradigm (whatever it might be), they must balance around the current one.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> That's not quite what i'm saying. What i am saying is that they should balance each class and it's respective power budgets first and set objective measurable goals for acceptable things like EHP & DPS. This is something that's sorely lacking.

 

Once upon a time when the build benchmarks for Raids started appearing, I asked if anyone has benchmarks without using any buffs (outside self buffs), in order to compare the performance of every build in a solo environment. That's how builds should be balanced by the developers anyway, how they compare with each other in a vacuum, this is the performance seen when solo in story missions or in the open world, where the majority of the players spend the majority of their time. Obviously nobody did that and the argument was very simple: "Who cares how you do solo?" We know that even if Anet balances around solo performance, the community won't like it, they care only on the benchmarks with the full buffs, and expect all those buffs to be present with 100% uptime.

 

Maybe Anet already has power budgets and they are happy with how each build performs when alone. It's the abundance and easy 100% uptime of buffs that mess the results.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > That's not quite what i'm saying. What i am saying is that they should balance each class and it's respective power budgets first and set objective measurable goals for acceptable things like EHP & DPS. This is something that's sorely lacking.

>

> Once upon a time when the build benchmarks for Raids started appearing, I asked if anyone has benchmarks without using any buffs (outside self buffs), in order to compare the performance of every build in a solo environment. That's how builds should be balanced by the developers anyway, how they compare with each other in a vacuum, this is the performance seen when solo in story missions or in the open world, where the majority of the players spend the majority of their time. Obviously nobody did that and the argument was very simple: "Who cares how you do solo?" We know that even if Anet balances around solo performance, the community won't like it, they care only on the benchmarks with the full buffs, and expect all those buffs to be present with 100% uptime.

>

> Maybe Anet already has power budgets and they are happy with how each build performs when alone. It's the abundance and easy 100% uptime of buffs that mess the results.

 

Anet could just make support role go away and make boons self target only wich would be easier

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Maybe Anet already has power budgets and they are happy with how each build performs when alone. It's the abundance and easy 100% uptime of buffs that mess the results.

Well, if a very common in endgame situation (100% uptime of boons) messes up the balance, it means that the balancing is bad, because it is something that definitely should be factored in.

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > Maybe Anet already has power budgets and they are happy with how each build performs when alone. It's the abundance and easy 100% uptime of buffs that mess the results.

> Well, if a very common in endgame situation (100% uptime of boons) messes up the balance, it means that the balancing is bad, because it is something that definitely should be factored in.

 

Even if it messes balance I still believe they should balance without that in mind, simply because in most of the game (even in Fractals - except CMs maybe) you won't have all the Raid buffs available. If they take the buffs (outside what they do to a person) then we'll get to a situation where a build can look amazing on the Raid Benchmarks but it's completely lacking everywhere else. Either address the up-time of buffs or don't factor them into balance.

 

As an example, why would they factor in Alacrity on how much damage a Weaver does? Weavers can't apply Alacrity themselves, if they balance Weaver dps around having it, it means their dps where they don't have it will suffer greatly.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> As an example, why would they factor in Alacrity on how much damage a Weaver does? Weavers can't apply Alacrity themselves, if they balance Weaver dps around having it, it means their dps where they don't have it will suffer greatly.

Not every class gets the same results from getting alacrity. If they balanced class dps around an Alacrity-less baselines, then the classes for whom Alacrity offers most would end up always the best in endgame content, while the classes on the opposite end of the spectrum (Thieves), would end up close to the bottom. Somehow i don't think this would be a great idea.

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Not every class gets the same results from getting alacrity. If they balanced class dps around an Alacrity-less baselines, then the classes for whom Alacrity offers most would end up always the best in endgame content, while the classes on the opposite end of the spectrum (Thieves), would end up close to the bottom. Somehow i don't think this would be a great idea.

 

If they balance class dps around having Alacrity then classes that rely heavily on Alacrity will under-perform in the 95% of the game where they obviously won't have access to it. While classes that do not benefit from Alacrity will do comparable dps with those that do, meaning in the 95% of the game their dps will be severely inflated. This is true for all buffs btw, not only Alacrity, 25 stacks of Might, permanent fury uptime, banners, spirits and so on.

 

Which brings the question: do we want them to balance their game around Raid benchmarks (where you have 100% buff uptime) or for anywhere else in the game, PVP, WVW, Solo story experience, solo open world world experience, even most Fractal runs, where you will never have 100% uptime of Alacrity (unless you are a Chrono) and/or other buffs.

 

I believe balancing the game around Raid benchmarks is a dumb idea, and is the reason for some very recent specific nerfs of some builds (I'm looking at Staff Elementalist nefs) and the recent buffs to other classes (Thief dps increase)

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Not every class gets the same results from getting alacrity. If they balanced class dps around an Alacrity-less baselines, then the classes for whom Alacrity offers most would end up always the best in endgame content, while the classes on the opposite end of the spectrum (Thieves), would end up close to the bottom. Somehow i don't think this would be a great idea.

>

> If they balance class dps around having Alacrity then classes that rely heavily on Alacrity will under-perform in the 95% of the game where they obviously won't have access to it. While classes that do not benefit from Alacrity will do comparable dps with those that do, meaning in the 95% of the game their dps will be severely inflated. This is true for all buffs btw, not only Alacrity, 25 stacks of Might, permanent fury uptime, banners, spirits and so on.

>

> Which brings the question: do we want them to balance their game around Raid benchmarks (where you have 100% buff uptime) or for anywhere else in the game, PVP, WVW, Solo story experience, solo open world world experience, even most Fractal runs, where you will never have 100% uptime of Alacrity (unless you are a Chrono) and/or other buffs.

WvW and SPvP need to be balanced separately either way. So, the real question is whether we want them to balance the game around high end content, or around open world. And while i don't subscribe to the notion that in open world balance doesn't matter, i do have to agree that in high end content it is more important.

 

> I believe balancing the game around Raid benchmarks is a dumb idea, and is the reason for some very recent specific nerfs of some builds (I'm looking at Staff Elementalist nefs) and the recent buffs to other classes (Thief dps increase)

While balancing around other content is a result why in PvE Necros are so mediocre, and rev hammer so bad.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> While balancing around other content is a result why in PvE Necros are so mediocre, and rev hammer so bad.

 

I don't get this Necros are amazing in PVE, even more so than most other classes. Unless you meant specifically they are mediocre in Raids. So you are saying that balancing the game around the top end is more important than balancing the game around the content most people play. Interesting point of view, but I can't agree with it. Poor Necromancers can't play in Raids, while Elementalists struggle in the latest story instances (that you can afk-beat on a Necro), now which one is more important I wonder.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > While balancing around other content is a result why in PvE Necros are so mediocre, and rev hammer so bad.

>

> I don't get this Necros are amazing in PVE, even more so than most other classes. Unless you meant specifically they are mediocre in Raids. So you are saying that balancing the game around the top end is more important than balancing the game around the content most people play. Interesting point of view, but I can't agree with it. Poor Necromancers can't play in Raids, while Elementalists struggle in the latest story instances (that you can afk-beat on a Necro), now which one is more important I wonder.

Get yourself a cleric auramancer tempest and you will afk-beat any story instance as well. It's not that eles have trouble with it - it's that the _glass dps builds meant specifically for raids_ are (not surprisingly) not so good outside raids without a healer to nanny them.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > While balancing around other content is a result why in PvE Necros are so mediocre, and rev hammer so bad.

> >

> > I don't get this Necros are amazing in PVE, even more so than most other classes. Unless you meant specifically they are mediocre in Raids. So you are saying that balancing the game around the top end is more important than balancing the game around the content most people play. Interesting point of view, but I can't agree with it. Poor Necromancers can't play in Raids, while Elementalists struggle in the latest story instances (that you can afk-beat on a Necro), now which one is more important I wonder.

> Get yourself a cleric auramancer tempest and you will afk-beat any story instance as well. It's just that the glass dps builds meant specifically for raids are (not surprisingly) not so good outside raids.

 

This isn't true. The glass dps builds of Dragonhunter, Holosmith, Soulbeast and Renegade (beat PoF and LS4 -up to Star will guide us- with those) are fine in story instances with zero changes from their meta builds. Same weapons, same traits, same skills. I had to make some changes on my Weaver build to be able to beat the story instances because the meta builds that do all this super damage aren't very suited for solo. I wonder though how that Weaver build compares in dps with the others. Maybe I'll fire up ArcDPS and go beat Joko on all 5 of those (and add the rest of the elite specs) to see how their actual damage compares.

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

Please tell me how many open world players minmax their build. The truth is some things that are important in ow arw usless in raids. But balancing around ow is rly bad idea. If you balance around ow then raids will not be balanced at all and many raiders will leave. On tve otger hand i am quite sure that 95% of ow players dont even read patchnotes.

[Grogba.6204]

Balancing around either won't work without absolutely breaking the other.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> Please tell me how many open world players minmax their build. The truth is some things that are important in ow arw usless in raids. But balancing around ow is rly bad idea. If you balance around ow then raids will not be balanced at all and many raiders will leave. On tve otger hand i am quite sure that 95% of ow players dont even read patchnotes.

 

Not reading patch notes and having trouble beating the latest story instances on certain professions are different things. Balance too much around Raids and certain builds become really hard to play when you are solo, removing all the enjoyment out of playing the game. Meanwhile, if Raids aren't balanced these "hardcore" players can very easily play the better builds, after all "hardcore" players should have many many builds ready to go and not just focus on one build. That's a crucial part of min-maxing. On the other hand, telling a casual player that plays a single character to roll a different class in order to beat the latest story instance isn't going to work very well.

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > Please tell me how many open world players minmax their build. The truth is some things that are important in ow arw usless in raids. But balancing around ow is rly bad idea. If you balance around ow then raids will not be balanced at all and many raiders will leave. On tve otger hand i am quite sure that 95% of ow players dont even read patchnotes.

>

> Not reading patch notes and having trouble beating the latest story instances on certain professions are different things. Balance too much around Raids and certain builds become really hard to play when you are solo, removing all the enjoyment out of playing the game. Meanwhile, if Raids aren't balanced these "hardcore" players can very easily play the better builds, after all "hardcore" players should have many many builds ready to go and not just focus on one build. That's a crucial part of min-maxing. On the other hand, telling a casual player that plays a single character to roll a different class in order to beat the latest story instance isn't going to work very well.

 

Important word there is certain. All classes have good ow builds. But diferent things are important in ow.

You cannot argue that some specifc build is bad in ow. Soldier core ele is bad in raids, that doesnt mean that ele is bad in raids.

 

Truth is, forveach proffesion there is great build for solo ow but some ow players pick builds based on feels and not math. I have nothing against it but then they cannot argue that their class is bad.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > While balancing around other content is a result why in PvE Necros are so mediocre, and rev hammer so bad.

> > >

> > > I don't get this Necros are amazing in PVE, even more so than most other classes. Unless you meant specifically they are mediocre in Raids. So you are saying that balancing the game around the top end is more important than balancing the game around the content most people play. Interesting point of view, but I can't agree with it. Poor Necromancers can't play in Raids, while Elementalists struggle in the latest story instances (that you can afk-beat on a Necro), now which one is more important I wonder.

> > Get yourself a cleric auramancer tempest and you will afk-beat any story instance as well. It's just that the glass dps builds meant specifically for raids are (not surprisingly) not so good outside raids.

>

> This isn't true. The glass dps builds of Dragonhunter, Holosmith, Soulbeast and Renegade (beat PoF and LS4 -up to Star will guide us- with those) are fine in story instances with zero changes from their meta builds. Same weapons, same traits, same skills. I had to make some changes on my Weaver build to be able to beat the story instances because the meta builds that do all this super damage aren't very suited for solo. I wonder though how that Weaver build compares in dps with the others. Maybe I'll fire up ArcDPS and go beat Joko on all 5 of those (and add the rest of the elite specs) to see how their actual damage compares.

That's not a problem with balancing around raids. That's a problem with ele specifically, and it was present since before raids were a thing. Ele simply needs a lot more sustain that needs to be available without having to sacrifice majority of its damage and changing builds specifically towards that goal. Other classes have it, that's why they can be fine in OW even on builds that aren't really meant for it.

 

Notice, that balancing sustain for dps classes was never part of raid balance (because healers), or even part of pve balance. All changes to solo sustain were ever caused by SPvP (and sometimes WvW).

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> Important word there is certain. All classes have good ow builds. But diferent things are important in ow.

> You cannot argue that some specifc build is bad in ow. Soldier core ele is bad in raids, that doesnt mean that ele is bad in raids.

>

> Truth is, forveach proffesion there is great build for solo ow but some ow players pick builds based on feels and not math. I have nothing against it but then they cannot argue that their class is bad.

 

Not really talking about ow builds because everything works there provided you can "hide" behind other players, let them do all the work if your build is bad and get the same reward. The problem when balancing around Raid benchmarks is when you go and do content solo, or even smaller party size, where you won't have all the buffs available. Balancing around having all the buffs available when outside Raids you won't have all the buffs anyway is problematic.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > While balancing around other content is a result why in PvE Necros are so mediocre, and rev hammer so bad.

> > > >

> > > > I don't get this Necros are amazing in PVE, even more so than most other classes. Unless you meant specifically they are mediocre in Raids. So you are saying that balancing the game around the top end is more important than balancing the game around the content most people play. Interesting point of view, but I can't agree with it. Poor Necromancers can't play in Raids, while Elementalists struggle in the latest story instances (that you can afk-beat on a Necro), now which one is more important I wonder.

> > > Get yourself a cleric auramancer tempest and you will afk-beat any story instance as well. It's just that the glass dps builds meant specifically for raids are (not surprisingly) not so good outside raids.

> >

> > This isn't true. The glass dps builds of Dragonhunter, Holosmith, Soulbeast and Renegade (beat PoF and LS4 -up to Star will guide us- with those) are fine in story instances with zero changes from their meta builds. Same weapons, same traits, same skills. I had to make some changes on my Weaver build to be able to beat the story instances because the meta builds that do all this super damage aren't very suited for solo. I wonder though how that Weaver build compares in dps with the others. Maybe I'll fire up ArcDPS and go beat Joko on all 5 of those (and add the rest of the elite specs) to see how their actual damage compares.

> That's not a problem with balancing around raids. That's a problem with ele specifically, and it was present since before raids were a thing. Ele simply needs a lot more sustain that needs to be available without having to sacrifice majority of its damage and changing builds specifically towards that goal. Other classes have it, that's why they can be fine in OW even on builds that aren't really meant for it.

>

> Notice, that balancing sustain for dps classes was never part of raid balance (because healers), or even part of pve balance. All changes to solo sustain were ever caused by SPvP (and sometimes WvW).

>

 

Perhaps it's an Elementalist only problem, I haven't tried every single elite spec in Season 4 or Path of Fire. You can say I'm biased towards this " balancing around Raid benchmarks" because Elementalist is my main, and got nerfed hard recently to be removed from top dps on those Raid benchmarks, all while they got nothing in return for their gameplay outside of Raids. A class that was already struggling, compared to most other specs, when soloing the latest story instances (not to mention PVP/WVW performance), was now nerfed further because it was over-performing in the Raid benchmarks. Which is why I can't really accept this type of balancing, obviously I'm biased but until I see the balance team doing a good job towards actual balance I'll be this way. Maybe they'll do a better job next time!

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > Important word there is certain. All classes have good ow builds. But diferent things are important in ow.

> > You cannot argue that some specifc build is bad in ow. Soldier core ele is bad in raids, that doesnt mean that ele is bad in raids.

> >

> > Truth is, forveach proffesion there is great build for solo ow but some ow players pick builds based on feels and not math. I have nothing against it but then they cannot argue that their class is bad.

>

> Not really talking about ow builds because everything works there provided you can "hide" behind other players, let them do all the work if your build is bad and get the same reward. The problem when balancing around Raid benchmarks is when you go and do content solo, or even smaller party size, where you won't have all the buffs available. Balancing around having all the buffs available when outside Raids you won't have all the buffs anyway is problematic.

 

When i speak about ow i mean solo play. Damage is not the only deciding factor in solo play.

[plushiesoda.8150]

Deleted in protest of anet leaving support ticket #7495730 without answer since October 10th 2019. It's sad how if this were a money-related issue you'd have answered within a couple of hours. At this point I'm not even mad, but disappointed by the mediocrity displayed by your community managers.