Designing PvP to be fun to play

[Bort.8647]

I am not new to pvp, but im not a veteran player either. I thought i would take the time to list the main things that i consider to be "not fun". These things have made me want to quit pvp most days i play, and while some are a l2p issue, i think others are just poor competitive design.

 

The least fun: Not being able to attack/find your target.

Stealth and target break. This applies mostly to thieves and mes, but to me nothing is less fun than being in a fight with no reasonable counterplay. spamming dodge while waiting for a deadeye to try and shoot you from 1500 range, or wading through a mess of clones being spammed in your face trying to click on the mesmer is pretty much never fun.

 

Not very fun at all: CC spam

This is the case in a lot of different competitive games, but loss of character control is never fun to experience. My main concern with this is the power creep of cc skills. With elite specs, it seems that there are just more and more ways to completely lock someone down, since some classes have way more cc than opponents have stunbreaks/stab. While veteran players might be able to recognize and avoid cc skills, newer or the average casual player will likely struggle with it for a while, and making one mistake can result in losing the fight.

 

Moderately un-fun: Visual Noise/skill effects

In teamfights, things like scourge aoe spam, mesmer clone spam, and holo forge/utility skills add a lot of extra skill and particle effects. This makes it difficult to spot other important skills and character animations you need to avoid.

 

What is fun: Reasonable counterplay options and high risk - high reward design.

Some classes like power rev, core guard, mender sword weaver, and d/p thief are very fun to fight. Most fights i have against these builds are won by the more skilled player, and you are heavily rewarded for anticipating your opponent correctly. d/p thief is a good example of high risk - high reward. You can be very powerful in a fight, but can also die very easily if you get caught or make a mistake. Mender sword weaver would be the opposite of low risk - low reward. You are very survivable, but will likely have difficulty winning any fight quickly and efficiently.

[Crinn.7864]

> @"Bort.8647" said:

> Moderately un-fun: Visual Noise/skill effects

> In teamfights, things like scourge aoe spam, mesmer clone spam, and holo forge/utility skills add a lot of extra skill and particle effects. This makes it difficult to spot other important skills and character animations you need to avoid.

When you can't see the telegraph due to all the telegraph in the way.

> What is fun: Reasonable counterplay options and high risk - high reward design.

High risk high reward is a oxymoron. Anything that is high risk is by definition non-competitive and non-viable. The entire purpose of strategies, build crafting, and team comps is to reduce the amount of risk.

 

[herrmartell.7109]

> @"Bort.8647" said:

> I am not new to pvp, but im not a veteran player either. I thought i would take the time to list the main things that i consider to be "not fun". These things have made me want to quit pvp most days i play, and while some are a l2p issue, i think others are just poor competitive design.

 

Okay?

 

> The least fun: Not being able to attack/find your target.

> Stealth and target break. This applies mostly to thieves and mes, but to me nothing is less fun than being in a fight with no reasonable counterplay. spamming dodge while waiting for a deadeye to try and shoot you from 1500 range, or wading through a mess of clones being spammed in your face trying to click on the mesmer is pretty much never fun.

 

Every mmo or multiplayer competitive game I've played had at least 1 class with stealth. You can counter them. It's not like you're being put in the middle of nowhere with no weapons/skills like a big slow target. Now, you CAN play like you have no weapons/skills and move like a big slow target, the point is you are supposed to learn your way out of this.

 

> Not very fun at all: CC spam

> This is the case in a lot of different competitive games, but loss of character control is never fun to experience. My main concern with this is the power creep of cc skills. With elite specs, it seems that there are just more and more ways to completely lock someone down, since some classes have way more cc than opponents have stunbreaks/stab. While veteran players might be able to recognize and avoid cc skills, newer or the average casual player will likely struggle with it for a while, and making one mistake can result in losing the fight.

 

Newbies make newbie mistakes. What's your point? The whole human learning process is all about mistake & learn. Without CC it boils down to who hits harder (or in this game, who can stack more conditions, faster).

 

> Moderately un-fun: Visual Noise/skill effects

> In teamfights, things like scourge aoe spam, mesmer clone spam, and holo forge/utility skills add a lot of extra skill and particle effects. This makes it difficult to spot other important skills and character animations you need to avoid.

 

Welcome to life. Seriously, are you going to blame the visuals on you not being able to deal with them? The game is supposed to be HARD, that's what it's make it competitive and fun. Although, I would never mention visuals as a factor to make a game hard...

 

> What is fun: Reasonable counterplay options and high risk - high reward design.

> Some classes like power rev, core guard, mender sword weaver, and d/p thief are very fun to fight. Most fights i have against these builds are won by the more skilled player, and you are heavily rewarded for anticipating your opponent correctly. d/p thief is a good example of high risk - high reward. You can be very powerful in a fight, but can also die very easily if you get caught or make a mistake. Mender sword weaver would be the opposite of low risk - low reward. You are very survivable, but will likely have difficulty winning any fight quickly and efficiently.

 

Good. You learned how to play vs power constructions. Now learn how to play vs the rest.

 

[Bort.8647]

thanks for the helpful comments. such a great community

[Eme.2018]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:

> High risk high reward is a oxymoron. Anything that is high risk is by definition non-competitive and non-viable. The entire purpose of strategies, build crafting, and team comps is to reduce the amount of risk.

 

I think the OP doesn't mean that everything (or anything) must be high risk - high reward but rather that **you shouldn't be able to reduce risk without compromising reward and you shouldn't be able to maximize reward without introducing more risk.**

 

It is generally considered healthy game design and if done correctly it most certainly is.

> @"herrmartell.7109" said:

> Welcome to life. Seriously, are you going to blame the visuals on you not being able to deal with them? The game is supposed to be HARD, that's what it's make it competitive and fun. Although, I would never mention visuals as a factor to make a game hard...

 

Visual clutter is a real problem and we see more and more of it being introduced with the expansions. Not being able to see what telegraphs to dodge is really, not the only problem here, it definitely makes the game appear and feel unfun.

 

Edit: Phrasing correction.

 

 

[Swagg.9236]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > @"Bort.8647" said:

> > Moderately un-fun: Visual Noise/skill effects

> > In teamfights, things like scourge aoe spam, mesmer clone spam, and holo forge/utility skills add a lot of extra skill and particle effects. This makes it difficult to spot other important skills and character animations you need to avoid.

> When you can't see the telegraph due to all the telegraph in the way.

> > What is fun: Reasonable counterplay options and high risk - high reward design.

> High risk high reward is a oxymoron. Anything that is high risk is by definition non-competitive and non-viable. The entire purpose of strategies, build crafting, and team comps is to reduce the amount of risk.

 

The fact that "high-risk; high-reward" tactics are dismissed as something that cannot exist is just a testament to how absolutely, utterly broken GW2 is as a PvP platform, and by extension, how much that the game's flawed design paradigms have damaged its playerbase. Obviously, team-play can help mitigate risky, individual play, but there are plenty of games which feature absolute madman strategies (both on respective team and individual levels) which do indeed have a high potential pay-out. Plenty of games in the RTS, FPS and even MOBA genres can feature map-based strategies, team compositions or individual builds which can yield a huge result for a team despite failure typically resulting in self-sacrifice or self-destruction. Whether it be something like a dark age militia rush in Age of Empires II or a sticky-jumper demo rollout to mid on TF2's 6v6 process map, just because GW2 is so limited in its ability for players to express themselves through gameplay doesn't mean that "high-risk; high-reward" strategies don't exist or aren't entirely valid in games across any number of genres (both digital and analog).

 

To even attempt to claim otherwise on no real basis aside from "it doesn't work in GW2" only means to show how poorly designed GW2 is; and while "high-risk" doesn't necessarily have to form the foundation of any effective PvP paradigm, the more that risk is removed from PvP, the more reactive, passive, restrictive and devoid of player skill that a PvP paradigm becomes. GW2 is definitely down in that trench.

[Crinn.7864]

> @"Eme.2018" said:

> > @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > High risk high reward is a oxymoron. Anything that is high risk is by definition non-competitive and non-viable. The entire purpose of strategies, build crafting, and team comps is to reduce the amount of risk.

>

> I think the OP doesn't mean that everything (or anything) must be high risk - high reward but rather that **you shouldn't be able to reduce risk without compromising reward and you shouldn't be able to maximize reward without introducing more risk.**

 

 

Define "reward" in the context of GW2 buildcrafting

 

 

[Farkon.2170]

2 simple things that are possible to implement would make pvp fun again.

Balancing and same rewards for unranked as in ranked so I don't get afkers just there for rewards.

[Bort.8647]

> @"Eme.2018" said:

**you shouldn't be able to reduce risk without compromising reward and you shouldn't be able to maximize reward without introducing more risk.**

>

>

This is pretty much what I meant by the expression "high risk - high reward". I think that it is bad for high dps builds to be able to fully engage in teamfights or 1v1s with low risk of dying.

 

My main point of this post was that the power creep of damage, cc and visual noise is making the game less fun.

[phokus.8934]

The only thing that’s not fun about GW2 pvp is reading these ridiculous posts about class balance and the state of the game.

[tinyreborn.1938]

Definition of 'fun to play :

I kill everyone - fun to play.

Im getting killed - not fun to play.

[gateless gate.8406]

Yep, GW2 pvp has many obvious problems.

 

Damage is off the charts

CC is constant

The only viable classes are those that can handle the above things (through invulnerabilities and stability spam)

[XECOR.2814]

> @"herrmartell.7109" said:

> > @"Bort.8647" said:

> > I am not new to pvp, but im not a veteran player either. I thought i would take the time to list the main things that i consider to be "not fun". These things have made me want to quit pvp most days i play, and while some are a l2p issue, i think others are just poor competitive design.

>

> Okay?

>

> > The least fun: Not being able to attack/find your target.

> > Stealth and target break. This applies mostly to thieves and mes, but to me nothing is less fun than being in a fight with no reasonable counterplay. spamming dodge while waiting for a deadeye to try and shoot you from 1500 range, or wading through a mess of clones being spammed in your face trying to click on the mesmer is pretty much never fun.

>

> Every mmo or multiplayer competitive game I've played had at least 1 class with stealth. You can counter them. It's not like you're being put in the middle of nowhere with no weapons/skills like a big slow target. Now, you CAN play like you have no weapons/skills and move like a big slow target, the point is you are supposed to learn your way out of this.

>

> > Not very fun at all: CC spam

> > This is the case in a lot of different competitive games, but loss of character control is never fun to experience. My main concern with this is the power creep of cc skills. With elite specs, it seems that there are just more and more ways to completely lock someone down, since some classes have way more cc than opponents have stunbreaks/stab. While veteran players might be able to recognize and avoid cc skills, newer or the average casual player will likely struggle with it for a while, and making one mistake can result in losing the fight.

>

> Newbies make newbie mistakes. What's your point? The whole human learning process is all about mistake & learn. Without CC it boils down to who hits harder (or in this game, who can stack more conditions, faster).

>

> > Moderately un-fun: Visual Noise/skill effects

> > In teamfights, things like scourge aoe spam, mesmer clone spam, and holo forge/utility skills add a lot of extra skill and particle effects. This makes it difficult to spot other important skills and character animations you need to avoid.

>

> Welcome to life. Seriously, are you going to blame the visuals on you not being able to deal with them? The game is supposed to be HARD, that's what it's make it competitive and fun. Although, I would never mention visuals as a factor to make a game hard...

>

> > What is fun: Reasonable counterplay options and high risk - high reward design.

> > Some classes like power rev, core guard, mender sword weaver, and d/p thief are very fun to fight. Most fights i have against these builds are won by the more skilled player, and you are heavily rewarded for anticipating your opponent correctly. d/p thief is a good example of high risk - high reward. You can be very powerful in a fight, but can also die very easily if you get caught or make a mistake. Mender sword weaver would be the opposite of low risk - low reward. You are very survivable, but will likely have difficulty winning any fight quickly and efficiently.

>

> Good. You learned how to play vs power constructions. Now learn how to play vs the rest.

>

 

Cc spam is the problem in game. Every player tries to cc spam and deals damage like "ill deal damage when opponent cant do anything hahaha, good thing i have 10cc skills". There is only benefit in spamming cc and making oponent lose control of their character. If there was an exhaustion system for applying cc, all the noob players on op classes would get exposed.

[Twilight Tempest.7584]

> @"XECOR.2814" said:

> If there was an exhaustion system for applying cc, all the noob players on op classes would get exposed.

 

What classes might those be?

[Liewec.2896]

to make pvp fun:

revert all nerfs, make every class OP again!

[Ario.8964]

High risk, high reward disappeared with the introduction of elite specs. It allowed players to cover the biggest weaknesses of their class without sacrificing. What anet has done is by removing the old trait system and not creating a proper sacrifice system for elite specs (they should have removed more aspects of the original class mechanics in exchange for the elite mechanics, and should have removed skill types/ trait lines available for selection in exchange for elite access) is gotten themselves stuck in this cycle where elites are constantly dominating every core build out there because they have more utility, sustain, damage, mobility, etc built in naturally than core builds. (with the exception of a few specs like DH). Without a huge overhaul/ redesign of the system, they will not be able to achieve any sort of high risk/ high reward building system due to the fact that elites cover weaknesses built into classes to keep them in check (Example: engi was weak to condi and cc but was able to dish out large amounts of those itself. With the introduction of holo and scrapper engi got huge resistance buffs to conditions and cc without losing it's access to damage or cc). Elites simply made the game too safe for players, eliminating the need to sacrifice when making builds.

[Solori.6025]

So..

Nerf everything you don't like.

Buff everything you do like = fun...

 

Cool

[SteepledHat.1345]

Thinly veiled mesmer complaint thread. No nerfs will satisfy these bronzers.

[Burnfall.9573]

> @"Ario.8964" said:

> High risk, high reward disappeared with the introduction of elite specs. It allowed players to cover the biggest weaknesses of their class without sacrificing. What anet has done is by removing the old trait system and not creating a proper sacrifice system for elite specs (they should have removed more aspects of the original class mechanics in exchange for the elite mechanics, and should have removed skill types/ trait lines available for selection in exchange for elite access) is gotten themselves stuck in this cycle where elites are constantly dominating every core build out there because they have more utility, sustain, damage, mobility, etc built in naturally than core builds. (with the exception of a few specs like DH). Without a huge overhaul/ redesign of the system, they will not be able to achieve any sort of high risk/ high reward building system due to the fact that elites cover weaknesses built into classes to keep them in check (Example: engi was weak to condi and cc but was able to dish out large amounts of those itself. With the introduction of holo and scrapper engi got huge resistance buffs to conditions and cc without losing it's access to damage or cc). Elites simply made the game too safe for players, eliminating the need to sacrifice when making builds.

 

>Someone knows the core of truth behind the design of elite specs<

[Sampson.2403]

I'd like to see an increase in the simplicity to recognize skill animations across the board. Some stuff is just too hard to see. It's an unnecessary barrier to entry to becoming a good player.

 

I'd also like to see bigger sized weapons in standard enemy models. I think it should be very obvious what weapon someone is holding.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Ario.8964" said:

> High risk, high reward disappeared with the introduction of elite specs. It allowed players to cover the biggest weaknesses of their class without sacrificing. What anet has done is by removing the old trait system and not creating a proper sacrifice system for elite specs (they should have removed more aspects of the original class mechanics in exchange for the elite mechanics, and should have removed skill types/ trait lines available for selection in exchange for elite access) is gotten themselves stuck in this cycle where elites are constantly dominating every core build out there because they have more utility, sustain, damage, mobility, etc built in naturally than core builds. (with the exception of a few specs like DH). Without a huge overhaul/ redesign of the system, they will not be able to achieve any sort of high risk/ high reward building system due to the fact that elites cover weaknesses built into classes to keep them in check (Example: engi was weak to condi and cc but was able to dish out large amounts of those itself. With the introduction of holo and scrapper engi got huge resistance buffs to conditions and cc without losing it's access to damage or cc). Elites simply made the game too safe for players, eliminating the need to sacrifice when making builds.

 

Pretty sure they are designed this way on purpose, just look to the English dictionary for a definition of the word "Elite" for evidence..

You basically cant call them elite unless they out performed the counterparts, which is why they are called elite specs.

[Ario.8964]

> @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > @"Ario.8964" said:

> > High risk, high reward disappeared with the introduction of elite specs. It allowed players to cover the biggest weaknesses of their class without sacrificing. What anet has done is by removing the old trait system and not creating a proper sacrifice system for elite specs (they should have removed more aspects of the original class mechanics in exchange for the elite mechanics, and should have removed skill types/ trait lines available for selection in exchange for elite access) is gotten themselves stuck in this cycle where elites are constantly dominating every core build out there because they have more utility, sustain, damage, mobility, etc built in naturally than core builds. (with the exception of a few specs like DH). Without a huge overhaul/ redesign of the system, they will not be able to achieve any sort of high risk/ high reward building system due to the fact that elites cover weaknesses built into classes to keep them in check (Example: engi was weak to condi and cc but was able to dish out large amounts of those itself. With the introduction of holo and scrapper engi got huge resistance buffs to conditions and cc without losing it's access to damage or cc). Elites simply made the game too safe for players, eliminating the need to sacrifice when making builds.

>

> Pretty sure they are designed this way on purpose, just look to the English dictionary for a definition of the word "Elite" for evidence..

> You basically cant call them elite unless they out performed the counterparts, which is why they are called elite specs.

 

I mean for technical wording yes. Anet said, however, when they were introducing them the goal was to not make them an upgrade, simply used as a tool to open up other roles for classes to perform, which even that failed to happen (excluding tempest which was actually done pretty well in terms of giving it another role). Engi is still teamfight control and a little bit of skirmish, guard is still support or heavy burst, ele is still 1v1 side noder, ranger is still 1v1 side noder or gimmick 1 shot, necro is teamfight damage, etc. The specs ended up, instead of being alternate roles for the class to fill, as upgraded ways to perform their original roles that they've had since the game's beginning. Especs were, given those guidelines, a failure.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Ario.8964" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > @"Ario.8964" said:

> > > High risk, high reward disappeared with the introduction of elite specs. It allowed players to cover the biggest weaknesses of their class without sacrificing. What anet has done is by removing the old trait system and not creating a proper sacrifice system for elite specs (they should have removed more aspects of the original class mechanics in exchange for the elite mechanics, and should have removed skill types/ trait lines available for selection in exchange for elite access) is gotten themselves stuck in this cycle where elites are constantly dominating every core build out there because they have more utility, sustain, damage, mobility, etc built in naturally than core builds. (with the exception of a few specs like DH). Without a huge overhaul/ redesign of the system, they will not be able to achieve any sort of high risk/ high reward building system due to the fact that elites cover weaknesses built into classes to keep them in check (Example: engi was weak to condi and cc but was able to dish out large amounts of those itself. With the introduction of holo and scrapper engi got huge resistance buffs to conditions and cc without losing it's access to damage or cc). Elites simply made the game too safe for players, eliminating the need to sacrifice when making builds.

> >

> > Pretty sure they are designed this way on purpose, just look to the English dictionary for a definition of the word "Elite" for evidence..

> > You basically cant call them elite unless they out performed the counterparts, which is why they are called elite specs.

>

> I mean for technical wording yes. Anet said, however, when they were introducing them the goal was to not make them an upgrade, simply used as a tool to open up other roles for classes to perform, which even that failed to happen (excluding tempest which was actually done pretty well in terms of giving it another role). Engi is still teamfight control and a little bit of skirmish, guard is still support or heavy burst, ele is still 1v1 side noder, ranger is still 1v1 side noder or gimmick 1 shot, necro is teamfight damage, etc. The specs ended up, instead of being alternate roles for the class to fill, as upgraded ways to perform their original roles that they've had since the game's beginning. Especs were, given those guidelines, a failure.

 

Words are empty though, its the action that matters, it always reveals the truth.

[darwinslittlehelper.7182]

> @"Ario.8964" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > @"Ario.8964" said:

> > > High risk, high reward disappeared with the introduction of elite specs. It allowed players to cover the biggest weaknesses of their class without sacrificing. What anet has done is by removing the old trait system and not creating a proper sacrifice system for elite specs (they should have removed more aspects of the original class mechanics in exchange for the elite mechanics, and should have removed skill types/ trait lines available for selection in exchange for elite access) is gotten themselves stuck in this cycle where elites are constantly dominating every core build out there because they have more utility, sustain, damage, mobility, etc built in naturally than core builds. (with the exception of a few specs like DH). Without a huge overhaul/ redesign of the system, they will not be able to achieve any sort of high risk/ high reward building system due to the fact that elites cover weaknesses built into classes to keep them in check (Example: engi was weak to condi and cc but was able to dish out large amounts of those itself. With the introduction of holo and scrapper engi got huge resistance buffs to conditions and cc without losing it's access to damage or cc). Elites simply made the game too safe for players, eliminating the need to sacrifice when making builds.

> >

> > Pretty sure they are designed this way on purpose, just look to the English dictionary for a definition of the word "Elite" for evidence..

> > You basically cant call them elite unless they out performed the counterparts, which is why they are called elite specs.

>

> I mean for technical wording yes. Anet said, however, when they were introducing them the goal was to not make them an upgrade, simply used as a tool to open up other roles for classes to perform, which even that failed to happen (excluding tempest which was actually done pretty well in terms of giving it another role). Engi is still teamfight control and a little bit of skirmish, guard is still support or heavy burst, ele is still 1v1 side noder, ranger is still 1v1 side noder or gimmick 1 shot, necro is teamfight damage, etc. The specs ended up, instead of being alternate roles for the class to fill, as upgraded ways to perform their original roles that they've had since the game's beginning. Especs were, given those guidelines, a failure.

 

Exactly the argument when the Heart of Thorns released. The new specs added options, and more power, directly on top of the Core. Years later, SOME professions actually lose some abilites when traited Elite (such as warrior reduced burst attacks) but most do not. The new specs should have an altered core mechanic and loss of a trait line, something, or it is just power creep. Balancing is made far more difficult and the elites are just a better version of the same thing. Adding more Elites has not fixed that basic problem.

[Ario.8964]

> @"darwinslittlehelper.7182" said:

> > @"Ario.8964" said:

> > > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > > @"Ario.8964" said:

> > > > High risk, high reward disappeared with the introduction of elite specs. It allowed players to cover the biggest weaknesses of their class without sacrificing. What anet has done is by removing the old trait system and not creating a proper sacrifice system for elite specs (they should have removed more aspects of the original class mechanics in exchange for the elite mechanics, and should have removed skill types/ trait lines available for selection in exchange for elite access) is gotten themselves stuck in this cycle where elites are constantly dominating every core build out there because they have more utility, sustain, damage, mobility, etc built in naturally than core builds. (with the exception of a few specs like DH). Without a huge overhaul/ redesign of the system, they will not be able to achieve any sort of high risk/ high reward building system due to the fact that elites cover weaknesses built into classes to keep them in check (Example: engi was weak to condi and cc but was able to dish out large amounts of those itself. With the introduction of holo and scrapper engi got huge resistance buffs to conditions and cc without losing it's access to damage or cc). Elites simply made the game too safe for players, eliminating the need to sacrifice when making builds.

> > >

> > > Pretty sure they are designed this way on purpose, just look to the English dictionary for a definition of the word "Elite" for evidence..

> > > You basically cant call them elite unless they out performed the counterparts, which is why they are called elite specs.

> >

> > I mean for technical wording yes. Anet said, however, when they were introducing them the goal was to not make them an upgrade, simply used as a tool to open up other roles for classes to perform, which even that failed to happen (excluding tempest which was actually done pretty well in terms of giving it another role). Engi is still teamfight control and a little bit of skirmish, guard is still support or heavy burst, ele is still 1v1 side noder, ranger is still 1v1 side noder or gimmick 1 shot, necro is teamfight damage, etc. The specs ended up, instead of being alternate roles for the class to fill, as upgraded ways to perform their original roles that they've had since the game's beginning. Especs were, given those guidelines, a failure.

>

> Exactly the argument when the Heart of Thorns released. The new specs added options, and more power, directly on top of the Core. Years later, SOME professions actually lose some abilites when traited Elite (such as warrior reduced burst attacks) but most do not. The new specs should have an altered core mechanic and loss of a trait line, something, or it is just power creep. Balancing is made far more difficult and the elites are just a better version of the same thing. Adding more Elites has not fixed that basic problem.

 

What would've been good for elites would have been removing access to the professions' line that buffed their main mechanic (for engi it'd be tools, thieves would lose trickery, wars lose discipline, etc.) losing a skill set, and then actually changing the mechanics of the class when they had the elite spec rather than just an upgraded version of what their mechanics were previously. Even looking at chrono when it was introduced, it literally just added a shatter onto their bar of existing shatters. Druid just gave ranger a free healing form on top of their pet mechanics and such. It's all just bad design and at this point I doubt anet will ever fix it, especially considering they can't even balance between elites atm.