Please fix game balance

[Israel.7056]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> It sure would be nice if the devs could weigh in on this once in a while regarding their vision for WvW balance. For what it's worth, I much prefer 60-40 balancing compared to certain 99-1 matchups that currently exist.

>

> Too much of the latter has a chilling effect on all roaming and smallscale fights. If your non-dedicated roaming build stands only a 1% chance of beating a meta roamer, you're just never going to engage that fight. You're always going to run or waypoint or alt-f4. Then no one is having fun..

>

> It's better for everyone if builds are closer in power level, or at least stand SOME chance of winning an encounter assuming you outskill your opponent by enough.

 

Nah you just don't engage it 1v1 if you think it's a bad matchup. Like I don't 1v1 condi mirages but I'll quickly plus their fight with someone else or engage them in a team fight when I know I have some support. You just gotta be smart about when and how you engage.

[Shroud.2307]

Some things are powerful on a large scale, some things are powerful on a small scale. Everything has a role or something it is better at than the rest. WvW is designed around large scale combat (15+) with small scale being a secondary concern. Meaning, anything that has an influence on large scale combat will be adjusted if it's over performing. Anything on the small scale will be left to it's devices until it either begins to effect the large scale, or it begins to break the game (such as by getting through objective walls or doing something unintended).

 

The thing with the strong small scale classes like Ranger, Thief and Mesmer, is that their current design (mostly speaking about their PoF elite specs) allows them to be devastating _fringe fighters._ This means if they are co-ordinating with friends, or if they're skilled by themselves, they can be a serious threat to larger groups if they're ignored. They have mobility that allows them to escape if the group turns it's attention and they have skills that bypass or remove defenses to negate the _massive_ amount players will receive when in a large group (boons, heals, etc.). These are the things that make them such popular roamers and the things that become significantly more powerful in a 1v1. Without those things, they would have 0 chance to even approach a large group. With those things, they can put a dent in that group but are unlikely to completely dismantle it. Thus, their influence is not great enough to warrant nerfs but is both strong enough to participate in it on the fringe and to be oppressive in a 1v1.

 

The issue is that large scale combat has become so tanky over the years that fringe fighters (pickers, roamers, floaters, what ever you want to call them) have needed massive buffs to compensate or they'd never be able to do anything to the blob. You could argue, "well, as long as they're strong as roamers they don't need to be able to hurt zergs!" but why should that be the case? It's nice to have a dynamic to WvW other than join the blob or die. Although we don't see it very often, there are players that form small pick squads to isolate and kill stragglers in zergs and can at times be very effective at this. It's an extremely fun way to play but is also incredibly unrewarding because of how much more difficult it is and how much less of an impact you have.

 

It is absolutely true that many of the roaming classes have become OP, but so are the zerging classes. It's powercreep all around. The balance of it all is that everything is effective at something and some things are not as effective at others. You can fulfill any role with any profession but some may need additional support to realize their full potential. Targeting specific professions for significant nerfs is not the proper way to balance and diversify WvW. Adjustments across the board to allow for a more flexible meta is what should be done. Unfortunately, too many people have their noses buried in the numbers and all they see is "WOW THAT WAS LIKE HALF MY HEALTH, ANET PLS NERF."

[XECOR.2814]

> @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> Some things are powerful on a large scale, some things are powerful on a small scale. Everything has a role or something it is better at than the rest. WvW is designed around large scale combat (15+) with small scale being a secondary concern. Meaning, anything that has an influence on large scale combat will be adjusted if it's over performing. Anything on the small scale will be left to it's devices until it either begins to effect the large scale, or it begins to break the game (such as by getting through objective walls or doing something unintended).

>

> The thing with the strong small scale classes like Ranger, Thief and Mesmer, is that their current design (mostly speaking about their PoF elite specs) allows them to be devastating _fringe fighters._ This means if they are co-ordinating with friends, or if they're skilled by themselves, they can be a serious threat to larger groups if they're ignored. They have mobility that allows them to escape if the group turns it's attention and they have skills that bypass or remove defenses to negate the _massive_ amount players will receive when in a large group (boons, heals, etc.). These are the things that make them such popular roamers and the things that become significantly more powerful in a 1v1. Without those things, they would have 0 chance to even approach a large group. With those things, they can put a dent in that group but are unlikely to completely dismantle it. Thus, their influence is not great enough to warrant nerfs but is both strong enough to participate in it on the fringe and to be oppressive in a 1v1.

>

> The issue is that large scale combat has become so tanky over the years that fringe fighters (pickers, roamers, floaters, what ever you want to call them) have needed massive buffs to compensate or they'd never be able to do anything to the blob. You could argue, "well, as long as they're strong as roamers they don't need to be able to hurt zergs!" but why should that be the case? It's nice to have a dynamic to WvW other than join the blob or die. Although we don't see it very often, there are players that form small pick squads to isolate and kill stragglers in zergs and can at times be very effective at this. It's an extremely fun way to play but is also incredibly unrewarding because of how much more difficult it is and how much less of an impact you have.

>

> It is absolutely true that many of the roaming classes have become OP, but so are the zerging classes. It's powercreep all around. The balance of it all is that everything is effective at something and some things are not as effective at others. You can fulfill any role with any profession but some may need additional support to realize their full potential. Targeting specific professions for significant nerfs is not the proper way to balance and diversify WvW. Adjustments across the board to allow for a more flexible meta is what should be done. Unfortunately, too many people have their noses buried in the numbers and all they see is "WOW THAT WAS LIKE HALF MY HEALTH, ANET PLS NERF."

 

NO! There is a difference and ill tell you that. All classes that are roaming can also be part of a zerg on certain builds. Its not the mechanics, its the mentality of community that is stopping these classes. Majority of these classes already have a spec thats needed in current meta or have tools that if used in sync with correct comp can plough through enemies meta comp. Even thief and ranger can be used effectively to shave off people lagging behind and pin sniping. Its difficult but it can be done. You do not weigh these classes unviable for zerging based on difficulty.

 

On the other hand we have some classes mainly necro that do not have roaming ability of any form in any spec, now you can argue about reaper or core, but you know any player of equal calibur on any class will kill them in seconds its not even funny. The class does not have mechanical tools to survive any form of roaming against decent enemies. Here the limitations is lack of tools and functionalities.

 

Even if there was some way to play these classes on high difficulty to have upperhand on players of equal skill level. But no, you are still going to die as scourge by 10k autoattacks from ranger 2k units away no mattter if he joined wvw today and youre playing for 6yrs. This is not a counterplay, this is bad mechanics and discrimination.

[Kovu.7560]

> @"XECOR.2814" said:

> > @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> > Some things are powerful on a large scale, some things are powerful on a small scale. Everything has a role or something it is better at than the rest. WvW is designed around large scale combat (15+) with small scale being a secondary concern. Meaning, anything that has an influence on large scale combat will be adjusted if it's over performing. Anything on the small scale will be left to it's devices until it either begins to effect the large scale, or it begins to break the game (such as by getting through objective walls or doing something unintended).

> >

> > The thing with the strong small scale classes like Ranger, Thief and Mesmer, is that their current design (mostly speaking about their PoF elite specs) allows them to be devastating _fringe fighters._ This means if they are co-ordinating with friends, or if they're skilled by themselves, they can be a serious threat to larger groups if they're ignored. They have mobility that allows them to escape if the group turns it's attention and they have skills that bypass or remove defenses to negate the _massive_ amount players will receive when in a large group (boons, heals, etc.). These are the things that make them such popular roamers and the things that become significantly more powerful in a 1v1. Without those things, they would have 0 chance to even approach a large group. With those things, they can put a dent in that group but are unlikely to completely dismantle it. Thus, their influence is not great enough to warrant nerfs but is both strong enough to participate in it on the fringe and to be oppressive in a 1v1.

> >

> > The issue is that large scale combat has become so tanky over the years that fringe fighters (pickers, roamers, floaters, what ever you want to call them) have needed massive buffs to compensate or they'd never be able to do anything to the blob. You could argue, "well, as long as they're strong as roamers they don't need to be able to hurt zergs!" but why should that be the case? It's nice to have a dynamic to WvW other than join the blob or die. Although we don't see it very often, there are players that form small pick squads to isolate and kill stragglers in zergs and can at times be very effective at this. It's an extremely fun way to play but is also incredibly unrewarding because of how much more difficult it is and how much less of an impact you have.

> >

> > It is absolutely true that many of the roaming classes have become OP, but so are the zerging classes. It's powercreep all around. The balance of it all is that everything is effective at something and some things are not as effective at others. You can fulfill any role with any profession but some may need additional support to realize their full potential. Targeting specific professions for significant nerfs is not the proper way to balance and diversify WvW. Adjustments across the board to allow for a more flexible meta is what should be done. Unfortunately, too many people have their noses buried in the numbers and all they see is "WOW THAT WAS LIKE HALF MY HEALTH, ANET PLS NERF."

>

> NO! There is a difference and ill tell you that. All classes that are roaming can also be part of a zerg on certain builds. Its not the mechanics, its the mentality of community that is stopping these classes. Majority of these classes already have a spec thats needed in current meta or have tools that if used in sync with correct comp can plough through enemies meta comp. Even thief and ranger can be used effectively to shave off people lagging behind and pin sniping. Its difficult but it can be done. You do not weigh these classes unviable for zerging based on difficulty.

>

> On the other hand we have some classes mainly necro that do not have roaming ability of any form in any spec, now you can argue about reaper or core, but you know any player of equal calibur on any class will kill them in seconds its not even funny. The class does not have mechanical tools to survive any form of roaming against decent enemies. Here the limitations is lack of tools and functionalities.

>

> Even if there was some way to play these classes on high difficulty to have upperhand on players of equal skill level. But no, you are still going to die as scourge by 10k autoattacks from ranger 2k units away no mattter if he joined wvw today and youre playing for 6yrs. This is not a counterplay, this is bad mechanics and discrimination.

 

Darn. Wow.

 

Those "10k 2k range" attacks are from optimally positioned full glass 25 might rangers against glassy often high vulnerability opponents whilst precisely 1k-1.5k (or whatever passes, with the buffer) range away, merged with their pet for the offensive buff, utilizing sic 'em, strength of the pack, possibly zephyr, several damage-oriented traits such as pet's prowess, quarry and/or (this is a big one) remorseless, some unblockable investment (for successfully shooting into that zerg), damage-oriented sigils, runes and offensive foods. Basically a one trick pony. These rangers that two shot you are one shot by thieves, chained down by mesmers and two shot by other rangers and warriors. Moreover, if you're running with a group and staying close to tag they're not as big of a threat to you and your group is a big threat to them and if they're running a complete offense they're likely short on the tools required to retreat when someone from your group with a decent amount of mobility so much as breathes in their general direction. Say what you will, that takes some skill, luck and investment to pull off once.

 

Yes, a thief or ranger could contribute.

But in a large group composition, if you got to pick and choose each of your professions for total control over your composition, would you ever have a reason to take a thief or ranger's glassy nature and single target damage over a necromancer or guardian for the purposes of contributing to a large scale _sustained_ fight? No. You'd only ever ask for them if you needed some effective scouting done or a keep retapped. Any anywho, I murder warriors on my scourge solo all of the time, yet have difficulty with warriors whilst playing my ranger due to their inherent tankiness against power damage and tools to keep the gap closed. If someone could name a hard counter more true than ranger > necromancer in this game I'd love to hear it, people continually bring up the most extreme examples while trying to make their points (as I illustrated above) instead of acknowledging the average situation. I wouldn't be against necromancers having more tools to deal with ranged spam in general but necro players shouldn't go crying about rangers under the impression they eat the other professions as easily as the meta necro. As for the topic at hand, @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" pretty much has the right of it.

 

~ Kovu

[XECOR.2814]

> @"Kovu.7560" said:

> > @"XECOR.2814" said:

> > > @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> > > Some things are powerful on a large scale, some things are powerful on a small scale. Everything has a role or something it is better at than the rest. WvW is designed around large scale combat (15+) with small scale being a secondary concern. Meaning, anything that has an influence on large scale combat will be adjusted if it's over performing. Anything on the small scale will be left to it's devices until it either begins to effect the large scale, or it begins to break the game (such as by getting through objective walls or doing something unintended).

> > >

> > > The thing with the strong small scale classes like Ranger, Thief and Mesmer, is that their current design (mostly speaking about their PoF elite specs) allows them to be devastating _fringe fighters._ This means if they are co-ordinating with friends, or if they're skilled by themselves, they can be a serious threat to larger groups if they're ignored. They have mobility that allows them to escape if the group turns it's attention and they have skills that bypass or remove defenses to negate the _massive_ amount players will receive when in a large group (boons, heals, etc.). These are the things that make them such popular roamers and the things that become significantly more powerful in a 1v1. Without those things, they would have 0 chance to even approach a large group. With those things, they can put a dent in that group but are unlikely to completely dismantle it. Thus, their influence is not great enough to warrant nerfs but is both strong enough to participate in it on the fringe and to be oppressive in a 1v1.

> > >

> > > The issue is that large scale combat has become so tanky over the years that fringe fighters (pickers, roamers, floaters, what ever you want to call them) have needed massive buffs to compensate or they'd never be able to do anything to the blob. You could argue, "well, as long as they're strong as roamers they don't need to be able to hurt zergs!" but why should that be the case? It's nice to have a dynamic to WvW other than join the blob or die. Although we don't see it very often, there are players that form small pick squads to isolate and kill stragglers in zergs and can at times be very effective at this. It's an extremely fun way to play but is also incredibly unrewarding because of how much more difficult it is and how much less of an impact you have.

> > >

> > > It is absolutely true that many of the roaming classes have become OP, but so are the zerging classes. It's powercreep all around. The balance of it all is that everything is effective at something and some things are not as effective at others. You can fulfill any role with any profession but some may need additional support to realize their full potential. Targeting specific professions for significant nerfs is not the proper way to balance and diversify WvW. Adjustments across the board to allow for a more flexible meta is what should be done. Unfortunately, too many people have their noses buried in the numbers and all they see is "WOW THAT WAS LIKE HALF MY HEALTH, ANET PLS NERF."

> >

> > NO! There is a difference and ill tell you that. All classes that are roaming can also be part of a zerg on certain builds. Its not the mechanics, its the mentality of community that is stopping these classes. Majority of these classes already have a spec thats needed in current meta or have tools that if used in sync with correct comp can plough through enemies meta comp. Even thief and ranger can be used effectively to shave off people lagging behind and pin sniping. Its difficult but it can be done. You do not weigh these classes unviable for zerging based on difficulty.

> >

> > On the other hand we have some classes mainly necro that do not have roaming ability of any form in any spec, now you can argue about reaper or core, but you know any player of equal calibur on any class will kill them in seconds its not even funny. The class does not have mechanical tools to survive any form of roaming against decent enemies. Here the limitations is lack of tools and functionalities.

> >

> > Even if there was some way to play these classes on high difficulty to have upperhand on players of equal skill level. But no, you are still going to die as scourge by 10k autoattacks from ranger 2k units away no mattter if he joined wvw today and youre playing for 6yrs. This is not a counterplay, this is bad mechanics and discrimination.

>

> Darn. Wow.

>

> Those "10k 2k range" attacks are from optimally positioned full glass 25 might rangers against glassy often high vulnerability opponents whilst precisely 1k-1.5k (or whatever passes, with the buffer) range away, merged with their pet for the offensive buff, utilizing sic 'em, strength of the pack, possibly zephyr, several damage-oriented traits such as pet's prowess, quarry and/or (this is a big one) remorseless, some unblockable investment (for successfully shooting into that zerg), damage-oriented sigils, runes and offensive foods. Basically a one trick pony. These rangers that two shot you are one shot by thieves, chained down by mesmers and two shot by other rangers and warriors. Moreover, if you're running with a group and staying close to tag they're not as big of a threat to you and your group is a big threat to them and if they're running a complete offense they're likely short on the tools required to retreat when someone from your group with a decent amount of mobility so much as breathes in their general direction. Say what you will, that takes some skill, luck and investment to pull off once.

>

> Yes, a thief or ranger could contribute.

> But in a large group composition, if you got to pick and choose each of your professions for total control over your composition, would you ever have a reason to take a thief or ranger's glassy nature and single target damage over a necromancer or guardian for the purposes of contributing to a large scale _sustained_ fight? No. You'd only ever ask for them if you needed some effective scouting done or a keep retapped. Any anywho, I murder warriors on my scourge solo all of the time, yet have difficulty with warriors whilst playing my ranger due to their inherent tankiness against power damage and tools to keep the gap closed. If someone could name a hard counter more true than ranger > necromancer in this game I'd love to hear it, people continually bring up the most extreme examples while trying to make their points (as I illustrated above) instead of acknowledging the average situation. I wouldn't be against necromancers having more tools to deal with ranged spam in general but necro players shouldn't go crying about rangers under the impression they eat the other professions as easily as the meta necro. As for the topic at hand, @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" pretty much has the right of it.

>

> ~ Kovu

 

Please do not act like having berserk gear and just buying food off tp and choosing one shot traits takes skill or luck. I disagree that ranger takes optimal positioning against any necromancer. You use your mobility to gain distance and spam same longbow skills again and again while you are out of range. Also, ranger can knock you back several times because necro in general has least amount of stability access on top of being absurdly vulnerable to projectile AND having no mobility. Its too much. Btw ranger can spec for different build in zerg settings, not being a one shot build. And i encourage changes that make very niche builds in such classes more viable because they are suffering from the same thing which is being tunnel visioned into 1 part of game/role and completely absent from other.

And im only talking about bad matchups being too bad and too many for necromancer right now. Not that bad matchups shouldnt exist. Play ranger vs any other class and play necro vs any ranger and you will know how bad the matchup is. Its impossible to win in any case unless the opponent is complete and utter amateur.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

> @"Kovu.7560" said:

> > @"XECOR.2814" said:

> > > @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> > > Some things are powerful on a large scale, some things are powerful on a small scale. Everything has a role or something it is better at than the rest. WvW is designed around large scale combat (15+) with small scale being a secondary concern. Meaning, anything that has an influence on large scale combat will be adjusted if it's over performing. Anything on the small scale will be left to it's devices until it either begins to effect the large scale, or it begins to break the game (such as by getting through objective walls or doing something unintended).

> > >

> > > The thing with the strong small scale classes like Ranger, Thief and Mesmer, is that their current design (mostly speaking about their PoF elite specs) allows them to be devastating _fringe fighters._ This means if they are co-ordinating with friends, or if they're skilled by themselves, they can be a serious threat to larger groups if they're ignored. They have mobility that allows them to escape if the group turns it's attention and they have skills that bypass or remove defenses to negate the _massive_ amount players will receive when in a large group (boons, heals, etc.). These are the things that make them such popular roamers and the things that become significantly more powerful in a 1v1. Without those things, they would have 0 chance to even approach a large group. With those things, they can put a dent in that group but are unlikely to completely dismantle it. Thus, their influence is not great enough to warrant nerfs but is both strong enough to participate in it on the fringe and to be oppressive in a 1v1.

> > >

> > > The issue is that large scale combat has become so tanky over the years that fringe fighters (pickers, roamers, floaters, what ever you want to call them) have needed massive buffs to compensate or they'd never be able to do anything to the blob. You could argue, "well, as long as they're strong as roamers they don't need to be able to hurt zergs!" but why should that be the case? It's nice to have a dynamic to WvW other than join the blob or die. Although we don't see it very often, there are players that form small pick squads to isolate and kill stragglers in zergs and can at times be very effective at this. It's an extremely fun way to play but is also incredibly unrewarding because of how much more difficult it is and how much less of an impact you have.

> > >

> > > It is absolutely true that many of the roaming classes have become OP, but so are the zerging classes. It's powercreep all around. The balance of it all is that everything is effective at something and some things are not as effective at others. You can fulfill any role with any profession but some may need additional support to realize their full potential. Targeting specific professions for significant nerfs is not the proper way to balance and diversify WvW. Adjustments across the board to allow for a more flexible meta is what should be done. Unfortunately, too many people have their noses buried in the numbers and all they see is "WOW THAT WAS LIKE HALF MY HEALTH, ANET PLS NERF."

> >

> > NO! There is a difference and ill tell you that. All classes that are roaming can also be part of a zerg on certain builds. Its not the mechanics, its the mentality of community that is stopping these classes. Majority of these classes already have a spec thats needed in current meta or have tools that if used in sync with correct comp can plough through enemies meta comp. Even thief and ranger can be used effectively to shave off people lagging behind and pin sniping. Its difficult but it can be done. You do not weigh these classes unviable for zerging based on difficulty.

> >

> > On the other hand we have some classes mainly necro that do not have roaming ability of any form in any spec, now you can argue about reaper or core, but you know any player of equal calibur on any class will kill them in seconds its not even funny. The class does not have mechanical tools to survive any form of roaming against decent enemies. Here the limitations is lack of tools and functionalities.

> >

> > Even if there was some way to play these classes on high difficulty to have upperhand on players of equal skill level. But no, you are still going to die as scourge by 10k autoattacks from ranger 2k units away no mattter if he joined wvw today and youre playing for 6yrs. This is not a counterplay, this is bad mechanics and discrimination.

>

> Darn. Wow.

>

> Those "10k 2k range" attacks are from optimally positioned full glass 25 might rangers against glassy often high vulnerability opponents whilst precisely 1k-1.5k (or whatever passes, with the buffer) range away, merged with their pet for the offensive buff, utilizing sic 'em, strength of the pack, possibly zephyr, several damage-oriented traits such as pet's prowess, quarry and/or (this is a big one) remorseless, some unblockable investment (for successfully shooting into that zerg), damage-oriented sigils, runes and offensive foods. Basically a one trick pony. These rangers that two shot you are one shot by thieves, chained down by mesmers and two shot by other rangers and warriors. Moreover, if you're running with a group and staying close to tag they're not as big of a threat to you and your group is a big threat to them and if they're running a complete offense they're likely short on the tools required to retreat when someone from your group with a decent amount of mobility so much as breathes in their general direction. Say what you will, that takes some skill, luck and investment to pull off once.

>

> Yes, a thief or ranger could contribute.

> But in a large group composition, if you got to pick and choose each of your professions for total control over your composition, would you ever have a reason to take a thief or ranger's glassy nature and single target damage over a necromancer or guardian for the purposes of contributing to a large scale _sustained_ fight? No. You'd only ever ask for them if you needed some effective scouting done or a keep retapped. Any anywho, I murder warriors on my scourge solo all of the time, yet have difficulty with warriors whilst playing my ranger due to their inherent tankiness against power damage and tools to keep the gap closed. If someone could name a hard counter more true than ranger > necromancer in this game I'd love to hear it, people continually bring up the most extreme examples while trying to make their points (as I illustrated above) instead of acknowledging the average situation. I wouldn't be against necromancers having more tools to deal with ranged spam in general but necro players shouldn't go crying about rangers under the impression they eat the other professions as easily as the meta necro. As for the topic at hand, @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" pretty much has the right of it.

>

> ~ Kovu

 

Let’s not pretend glass builds other than thief and ele exist. Every other profession can have glass specs but with multiple block and invulnerability skills at their disposal they are not to glassy anymore

[Psycoprophet.8107]

I use full glass on my soulbeast for max dps,as long as I time my blocks and stone sig,bear invul and my unblockable attacks I can sustain a decent amount of time in a duel

[Psycoprophet.8107]

Bottom line is arenet balances classes based on pve and this has let to bad powercreep in pvp modes and some classes are at a huge disadvantage in a lot more combat scenarios than others. All the pvp modes are very poorly balanced no matter the communities excuses as to why it’s ok for certain professions to stand no chance against other in all but one scenario where others can be great in multiple scenarios, and I’m guesing ones saying it’s ok main bandwagon classes that do can do almost everything very well

[Israel.7056]

> @"EremiteAngel.9765" said:

> The current meta for Soulbeasts seems to be shifting more towards a Melee Boonbeast build which works amazingly well against other classes but a Condi necro eats for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

> I made the video recently for fights against soulbeasts, mirages and thieves but I had to try so hard to find a longbow soulbeast roamer that was alone XD

> On the other hand, Melee boonbeast lone roamers were rampant.

 

Well that's good dude I'm glad to hear it.

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> This game is better balanced than it probably ever has been. Unfortunately it's pearls before swine because most of these forum warriors ...

 

The irony...

 

> Humans are bad sports by nature, particularly the hyper competitive ones among us...

 

"Hyper competitive" playing a 6 year old MMORPG with no meaningful competitive playerbase to speak of, in a moribund game mode that has never been anything but a joke competitively, that is the funniest thing (along with WvW being balanced) I've read this week, thanks.

[Inoki.6048]

I remember the times when Ranger was a class everyone laughed at. Now it's something to dread. But I think aside from toning that damage down a tad the arcing projectile feature needs to be removed. Or given to Deadeyes as well, but be ready for a storm of complaints on the forums.

 

So remove the arcing projectile :) because with something that blatantly exceeds the 1.5k range (sometimes it feels like it's way over 2k) and the strength of skill 1 on the longbow, there's no escaping a ranger. And it truly requires no skill to press 1 once, and have it auto-attack for you for over 6k on 2k range.

[lodjur.1284]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> It sure would be nice if the devs could weigh in on this once in a while regarding their vision for WvW balance. For what it's worth, I much prefer 60-40 balancing compared to certain 99-1 matchups that currently exist.

>

> Too much of the latter has a chilling effect on all roaming and smallscale fights. If your non-dedicated roaming build stands only a 1% chance of beating a meta roamer, you're just never going to engage that fight. You're always going to run or waypoint or alt-f4. Then no one is having fun..

>

> It's better for everyone if builds are closer in power level, or at least stand SOME chance of winning an encounter assuming you outskill your opponent by enough.

 

Exactly

 

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"coro.3176" said:

> > It sure would be nice if the devs could weigh in on this once in a while regarding their vision for WvW balance. For what it's worth, I much prefer 60-40 balancing compared to certain 99-1 matchups that currently exist.

> >

> > Too much of the latter has a chilling effect on all roaming and smallscale fights. If your non-dedicated roaming build stands only a 1% chance of beating a meta roamer, you're just never going to engage that fight. You're always going to run or waypoint or alt-f4. Then no one is having fun..

> >

> > It's better for everyone if builds are closer in power level, or at least stand SOME chance of winning an encounter assuming you outskill your opponent by enough.

>

> Nah you just don't engage it 1v1 if you think it's a bad matchup. Like I don't 1v1 condi mirages but I'll quickly plus their fight with someone else or engage them in a team fight when I know I have some support. You just gotta be smart about when and how you engage.

 

Implying that you can choose when to engage when the top tier roamers have so much more mobility than basically everyone else.

Mobility creep in this game has been beyond stupid, 2-3 years ago I could basically roam on my necro (even if it was bad and the same problems existed, just much less than they do now), currently I feel that my holosmith with rocket boots or my condi mirage with jaunt+blink+IA+staff is too slow

[Solori.6025]

> @"EremiteAngel.9765" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > 5. Solo roamers/ duelists are largely irrelevant to wvw so it doesn't matter if you can beat necros in duels on your ranger they will melt your kitten face in anything like a team fight while you sit around counting your kitten and eventually get run over stone signet or not. Ranger is relegated to defensive clouding, flipping camps and ganking the fat kids while the big boy classes do all the heavy lifting and it's basically always been this way. Rangers are now and have always been trash because ranged single target pressure and mobility, their two main defined strengths, are mostly useless in wvw large objective fights, which are the meat of the game mode so to speak. If you main ranger you will get kicked from every squad you join and only the worst guilds will even consider taking you on. The fact that they can probably 100-0 1v1 the last roaming necros like eremite is a consolation prize at best.

>

> I'm glad to say that I've not been 100-0 yet on my core condi necro by any class when I'm playing awake (I usually roam half-asleep because it takes ages before I find a decent fight and my focus just dies).

> The only time I was 100-0 in recent memory was by a burst core mesmer which approached my power Reaper from invis and just 1-shot me with a burst combo even though I had like 2.8K armor and 25K HP XD

>

 

Was the core mes an asuran with big white eyes and bald. Looks like a discount gremlin on coke?

[subversiontwo.7501]

> @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> Some things are powerful on a large scale, some things are powerful on a small scale. Everything has a role or something it is better at than the rest. WvW is designed around...

It is a shame that your post got lost in all the back and forth noise in this thread because I believe you are making some very good points pertinent to the thread as first envisioned. You may not be entirely correct on every statement but _the essence of what you are trying to say is important_.

 

If people spent less time arguing from perspectives of the extremes in the mode (no party and full squad) and looked at where those meet, they would see that class balance has traditionally been rather good in this game. Most players may not play around, say, the game's original party-centric organisational design but that is where the differently scale-balanced classes meet each other and most classes and effects tend to fit into the overall balance thereabout.

 

 

If one takes that perspective and work their way out from there (both up and down in scale) they also get a better understanding of why things work the way they do at the extremes. This game is still mostly party-balanced (even if some squad-balancing is finding its way into the game now, possibly doing more harm than good) and that is also where intricates (reactivity, skill) and split vision (proactivity, understanding) meets. That is fairly important for an MMO as it is supposed to be about balance between skill, knowledge and organisation (or experience of them all). That is often lost in how people at extremes tend to be loud and/or numerous.

 

However, that should not be mistaken by game-breaking (or mode-breaking, or scale-breaking) issues not needing to be adressed. They do need to be adressed even if they are just breaking a certain scale but that is still different from expecting class-specific balance for every scale. That is important because what is game-breaking is rarely a class but rather specific mechanics that do not necessarily make up the bulk or idea of said class. It is also important for understanding that balance has to do with what is tolerable rather than perfect equilibrium. Balance is usually good as long as it is tolerable. Balance is bad when it is intolerable. Balance is usually intolerable when certain mechanics end up with unintended results in different contexts (and that is more likely than anything else the root of WvW's current issues as well where damage is stacking in rather unintended ways or where the context of WoD and Shades' synergy may not have been properly thought through). Then again, you can expect from a developer to adress these things and not just curiously watch them play out as they seem to do right now.

 

 

[Zero.3871]

> @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> Some things are powerful on a large scale, some things are powerful on a small scale. Everything has a role or something it is better at than the rest. **WvW is designed around large scale combat (15+) with small scale being a secondary concern**. Meaning, anything that has an influence on large scale combat will be adjusted if it's over performing. Anything on the small scale will be left to it's devices until it either begins to effect the large scale, or it begins to break the game (such as by getting through objective walls or doing something unintended).

>

> The thing with the strong small scale classes like Ranger, Thief and Mesmer, is that their current design (mostly speaking about their PoF elite specs) allows them to be devastating _fringe fighters._ This means if they are co-ordinating with friends, or if they're skilled by themselves, they can be a serious threat to larger groups if they're ignored. They have mobility that allows them to escape if the group turns it's attention and they have skills that bypass or remove defenses to negate the _massive_ amount players will receive when in a large group (boons, heals, etc.). These are the things that make them such popular roamers and the things that become significantly more powerful in a 1v1. Without those things, they would have 0 chance to even approach a large group. With those things, they can put a dent in that group but are unlikely to completely dismantle it. Thus, their influence is not great enough to warrant nerfs but is both strong enough to participate in it on the fringe and to be oppressive in a 1v1.

>

> The issue is that large scale combat has become so tanky over the years that fringe fighters (pickers, roamers, floaters, what ever you want to call them) have needed massive buffs to compensate or they'd never be able to do anything to the blob. You could argue, "well, as long as they're strong as roamers they don't need to be able to hurt zergs!" but why should that be the case? It's nice to have a dynamic to WvW other than join the blob or die. Although we don't see it very often, there are players that form small pick squads to isolate and kill stragglers in zergs and can at times be very effective at this. It's an extremely fun way to play but is also incredibly unrewarding because of how much more difficult it is and how much less of an impact you have.

>

> It is absolutely true that many of the roaming classes have become OP, but so are the zerging classes. It's powercreep all around. The balance of it all is that everything is effective at something and some things are not as effective at others. You can fulfill any role with any profession but some may need additional support to realize their full potential. Targeting specific professions for significant nerfs is not the proper way to balance and diversify WvW. Adjustments across the board to allow for a more flexible meta is what should be done. Unfortunately, too many people have their noses buried in the numbers and all they see is "WOW THAT WAS LIKE HALF MY HEALTH, ANET PLS NERF."

 

who said that wvw is designed for large scale? wvw is an open world pvp area, where everyone has the Right to choose how he want to Play. wvw is not only About ppt, its not only ppk, it is not only roaming or duelling. wvw is EVERYTHING of that. and like SCOURGE and FIREBRANDS and WARRIORS got nerfed for zergfight scenarios, when skills where too strong, the same is necessary for smallscale and duelling. i mean why got sand savant nerfed? because it was overperforming in zergfights,but it wasnt OP in duelling. now when skills like sick em are overperforming in roaming it should also be nerfed, even when its not OP in zergfights. it is just fun to see that EVERYONE was crying like a Baby About scourges month ago causing nerfes to a Point where this class got completely useless in roaming. but when it Comes to other classes your Argument is: "the part of game where my classes skill is broken doesnt matter". thats a poor Point. sry.

[Felipe.1807]

Yeah game balance is garbage, but its allways been like this, you get used to it after a while lol...and to people saying that SB only get big numbers on glass targets, thats not true, on FB with 3K armor and protection is not uncommon to see the 6K~10K ranger lb auto attacks...the last "what a hell just happened?" moment i had on WvW was when I got hitted by a 12K winters bite...I miss the time when Ranger actually needed to some skill to be played, braindead prefession lol but the same could be said about 80% of the builds out there.

[PeLi.5498]

Never. They are just interested in PvE

[oOStaticOo.9467]

To get those 10k LB AA, Ranger does need "some skill" to play. You are running a full Zerker Ranger that is glass and will die if the wind blows on it. Not to mention you also have to time everything right to get all the bonuses needed to do that all while hoping your opponent doesn't see you first and dodge, reflect, retal, invuln, evade, or stealth. What you are talking about mostly is luck. Most Rangers get lucky to hit somebody with that much damage. So either that Ranger had some really good luck or you had some really bad luck at the time of that hit. In that case, feelsbadman. Ranger has been the redheaded stepchild of WvW for the longest time. I'm glad that it has a small place now in WvW. Would like to see it's role increase more though to be honest.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> To get those 10k LB AA, Ranger does need "some skill" to play. You are running a full Zerker Ranger that is glass and will die if the wind blows on it. Not to mention you also have to time everything right to get all the bonuses needed to do that all while hoping your opponent doesn't see you first and dodge, reflect, retal, invuln, evade, or stealth. What you are talking about mostly is luck. Most Rangers get lucky to hit somebody with that much damage. So either that Ranger had some really good luck or you had some really bad luck at the time of that hit. In that case, feelsbadman. Ranger has been the redheaded stepchild of WvW for the longest time. I'm glad that it has a small place now in WvW. Would like to see it's role increase more though to be honest.

 

The interesting part of this comment is it was essentially the same point raised by theives justifying deaths judgement and malicious backstab.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > To get those 10k LB AA, Ranger does need "some skill" to play. You are running a full Zerker Ranger that is glass and will die if the wind blows on it. Not to mention you also have to time everything right to get all the bonuses needed to do that all while hoping your opponent doesn't see you first and dodge, reflect, retal, invuln, evade, or stealth. What you are talking about mostly is luck. Most Rangers get lucky to hit somebody with that much damage. So either that Ranger had some really good luck or you had some really bad luck at the time of that hit. In that case, feelsbadman. Ranger has been the redheaded stepchild of WvW for the longest time. I'm glad that it has a small place now in WvW. Would like to see it's role increase more though to be honest.

>

> The interesting part of this comment is it was essentially the same point raised by theives justifying deaths judgement and malicious backstab.

 

Difference is that Thieves have Stealth and High Mobility, Rangers do not. While yes Rangers have SOME Stealth it is nowhere near on par with Thief. Same goes for the Mobility. In order to use Ranger mobility they have to have Owl Pet and Swoop from GS. Which if you are using Owl that will reduce the amount of damage being put out therefore reducing that chance of a 10k AA. I'd say it is a little bit more difficult for Ranger than it is for Thief to set up the necessary buffs to do the damage.

[MUDse.7623]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > To get those 10k LB AA, Ranger does need "some skill" to play. You are running a full Zerker Ranger that is glass and will die if the wind blows on it. Not to mention you also have to time everything right to get all the bonuses needed to do that all while hoping your opponent doesn't see you first and dodge, reflect, retal, invuln, evade, or stealth. What you are talking about mostly is luck. Most Rangers get lucky to hit somebody with that much damage. So either that Ranger had some really good luck or you had some really bad luck at the time of that hit. In that case, feelsbadman. Ranger has been the redheaded stepchild of WvW for the longest time. I'm glad that it has a small place now in WvW. Would like to see it's role increase more though to be honest.

> >

> > The interesting part of this comment is it was essentially the same point raised by theives justifying deaths judgement and malicious backstab.

>

> Difference is that Thieves have Stealth and High Mobility, Rangers do not. While yes Rangers have SOME Stealth it is nowhere near on par with Thief. Same goes for the Mobility. In order to use Ranger mobility they have to have Owl Pet and Swoop from GS. Which if you are using Owl that will reduce the amount of damage being put out therefore reducing that chance of a 10k AA. I'd say it is a little bit more difficult for Ranger than it is for Thief to set up the necessary buffs to do the damage.

 

yeah thief has more mobility/stealth, ranger has more damge :)

[Felipe.1807]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > To get those 10k LB AA, Ranger does need "some skill" to play. You are running a full Zerker Ranger that is glass and will die if the wind blows on it. Not to mention you also have to time everything right to get all the bonuses needed to do that all while hoping your opponent doesn't see you first and dodge, reflect, retal, invuln, evade, or stealth. What you are talking about mostly is luck. Most Rangers get lucky to hit somebody with that much damage. So either that Ranger had some really good luck or you had some really bad luck at the time of that hit. In that case, feelsbadman. Ranger has been the redheaded stepchild of WvW for the longest time. I'm glad that it has a small place now in WvW. Would like to see it's role increase more though to be honest.

> >

> > The interesting part of this comment is it was essentially the same point raised by theives justifying deaths judgement and malicious backstab.

>

> Difference is that Thieves have Stealth and High Mobility, Rangers do not. While yes Rangers have SOME Stealth it is nowhere near on par with Thief. Same goes for the Mobility. In order to use Ranger mobility they have to have Owl Pet and Swoop from GS. Which if you are using Owl that will reduce the amount of damage being put out therefore reducing that chance of a 10k AA. I'd say it is a little bit more difficult for Ranger than it is for Thief to set up the necessary buffs to do the damage.

 

rangers dont have stealth and high mobility? and also, since HoT rangers had allways been one of the most disgusting things to fight against.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"Felipe.1807" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > To get those 10k LB AA, Ranger does need "some skill" to play. You are running a full Zerker Ranger that is glass and will die if the wind blows on it. Not to mention you also have to time everything right to get all the bonuses needed to do that all while hoping your opponent doesn't see you first and dodge, reflect, retal, invuln, evade, or stealth. What you are talking about mostly is luck. Most Rangers get lucky to hit somebody with that much damage. So either that Ranger had some really good luck or you had some really bad luck at the time of that hit. In that case, feelsbadman. Ranger has been the redheaded stepchild of WvW for the longest time. I'm glad that it has a small place now in WvW. Would like to see it's role increase more though to be honest.

> > >

> > > The interesting part of this comment is it was essentially the same point raised by theives justifying deaths judgement and malicious backstab.

> >

> > Difference is that Thieves have Stealth and High Mobility, Rangers do not. While yes Rangers have SOME Stealth it is nowhere near on par with Thief. Same goes for the Mobility. In order to use Ranger mobility they have to have Owl Pet and Swoop from GS. Which if you are using Owl that will reduce the amount of damage being put out therefore reducing that chance of a 10k AA. I'd say it is a little bit more difficult for Ranger than it is for Thief to set up the necessary buffs to do the damage.

>

> rangers dont have stealth and high mobility? and also, since HoT rangers had allways been one of the most disgusting things to fight against.

 

Never said they don't have it. Said that if they were to trait for Stealth and Mobility they would then take away from their ability to do the amount of damage you are complaining about. To get that damage they need to merge with Smokescale. Smokescale provides Ferocious buff to Ranger increasing power by 200 and ferocity by 100. If they are merged with Owl for mobility on the F1 then they are using Supportive buff, which gives you 100 vitality and an increase in outgoing healing by 25%. If they try to build for Stealth that means using Druid instead of Soulbeast, Rune of the Trapper, and using Traps instead of Sic' Em. Sic' Em provides for a 40% damage buff. If they are going for maximum damage then they will be running Rune of the Scholar x6. And NO Rangers have NOT been the "most disgusting things to fight against" since HoT. EVERY class besides Ranger has been the most disgusting thing to fight against. Spellbreakers with their OP WoD, Scourges with their corrupts and red carpet of death, Thieves with their Perma-stealth, FB with their insane boons, stab, and healing, Mesmers with their OP condi damage and clone regeneration......need I say more?

[MUDse.7623]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > @"Felipe.1807" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > > To get those 10k LB AA, Ranger does need "some skill" to play. You are running a full Zerker Ranger that is glass and will die if the wind blows on it. Not to mention you also have to time everything right to get all the bonuses needed to do that all while hoping your opponent doesn't see you first and dodge, reflect, retal, invuln, evade, or stealth. What you are talking about mostly is luck. Most Rangers get lucky to hit somebody with that much damage. So either that Ranger had some really good luck or you had some really bad luck at the time of that hit. In that case, feelsbadman. Ranger has been the redheaded stepchild of WvW for the longest time. I'm glad that it has a small place now in WvW. Would like to see it's role increase more though to be honest.

> > > >

> > > > The interesting part of this comment is it was essentially the same point raised by theives justifying deaths judgement and malicious backstab.

> > >

> > > Difference is that Thieves have Stealth and High Mobility, Rangers do not. While yes Rangers have SOME Stealth it is nowhere near on par with Thief. Same goes for the Mobility. In order to use Ranger mobility they have to have Owl Pet and Swoop from GS. Which if you are using Owl that will reduce the amount of damage being put out therefore reducing that chance of a 10k AA. I'd say it is a little bit more difficult for Ranger than it is for Thief to set up the necessary buffs to do the damage.

> >

> > rangers dont have stealth and high mobility? and also, since HoT rangers had allways been one of the most disgusting things to fight against.

>

> Never said they don't have it. Said that if they were to trait for Stealth and Mobility they would then take away from their ability to do the amount of damage you are complaining about. To get that damage they need to merge with Smokescale. Smokescale provides Ferocious buff to Ranger increasing power by 200 and ferocity by 100. If they are merged with Owl for mobility on the F1 then they are using Supportive buff, which gives you 100 vitality and an increase in outgoing healing by 25%. If they try to build for Stealth that means using Druid instead of Soulbeast, Rune of the Trapper, and using Traps instead of Sic' Em. Sic' Em provides for a 40% damage buff. If they are going for maximum damage then they will be running Rune of the Scholar x6. And NO Rangers have NOT been the "most disgusting things to fight against" since HoT. EVERY class besides Ranger has been the most disgusting thing to fight against. Spellbreakers with their OP WoD, Scourges with their corrupts and red carpet of death, Thieves with their Perma-stealth, FB with their insane boons, stab, and healing, Mesmers with their OP condi damage and clone regeneration......need I say more?

 

you do know tho that there is other birds, also one with the same buff as smokescale and the mobility of owl right? (smokescale is for stealth, not just the buff)

[Felipe.1807]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > @"Felipe.1807" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > > To get those 10k LB AA, Ranger does need "some skill" to play. You are running a full Zerker Ranger that is glass and will die if the wind blows on it. Not to mention you also have to time everything right to get all the bonuses needed to do that all while hoping your opponent doesn't see you first and dodge, reflect, retal, invuln, evade, or stealth. What you are talking about mostly is luck. Most Rangers get lucky to hit somebody with that much damage. So either that Ranger had some really good luck or you had some really bad luck at the time of that hit. In that case, feelsbadman. Ranger has been the redheaded stepchild of WvW for the longest time. I'm glad that it has a small place now in WvW. Would like to see it's role increase more though to be honest.

> > > >

> > > > The interesting part of this comment is it was essentially the same point raised by theives justifying deaths judgement and malicious backstab.

> > >

> > > Difference is that Thieves have Stealth and High Mobility, Rangers do not. While yes Rangers have SOME Stealth it is nowhere near on par with Thief. Same goes for the Mobility. In order to use Ranger mobility they have to have Owl Pet and Swoop from GS. Which if you are using Owl that will reduce the amount of damage being put out therefore reducing that chance of a 10k AA. I'd say it is a little bit more difficult for Ranger than it is for Thief to set up the necessary buffs to do the damage.

> >

> > rangers dont have stealth and high mobility? and also, since HoT rangers had allways been one of the most disgusting things to fight against.

>

> Never said they don't have it. Said that if they were to trait for Stealth and Mobility they would then take away from their ability to do the amount of damage you are complaining about. To get that damage they need to merge with Smokescale. Smokescale provides Ferocious buff to Ranger increasing power by 200 and ferocity by 100. If they are merged with Owl for mobility on the F1 then they are using Supportive buff, which gives you 100 vitality and an increase in outgoing healing by 25%. If they try to build for Stealth that means using Druid instead of Soulbeast, Rune of the Trapper, and using Traps instead of Sic' Em. Sic' Em provides for a 40% damage buff. If they are going for maximum damage then they will be running Rune of the Scholar x6. And NO Rangers have NOT been the "most disgusting things to fight against" since HoT. EVERY class besides Ranger has been the most disgusting thing to fight against. Spellbreakers with their OP WoD, Scourges with their corrupts and red carpet of death, Thieves with their Perma-stealth, FB with their insane boons, stab, and healing, Mesmers with their OP condi damage and clone regeneration......need I say more?

 

You dont need overkill levels of Stealth like Thief, longbow and smokescale give you enough...and yes, Druid is one of the most broken and unfun builds to fight against, hve no idea how CA didnt get the same nerfs that the sPvP version got it.