Sorem.9157 Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > > > > > The fact is that there are a few reasons RI change and they are ALL consistent with my point. Just because you don't like the fact many reasons for the change exist doesn't mean you can accuse me of trying to dodge something. RI was wrong on LOTS of levels. You can't argue all of them away even if you wanted to. > > > > "If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. " > > > > Why not? I understand it would be better if we had 3 viable choices, or even more, spread across different traitlines, but all the GM traits have their own niche and RI was not competing with any of them. > > Exactly ... RI didn't COMPETE with the other traits because it was so good. If by default one trait is so good that you take it all the time, there isn't any question how build diversity is negatively affected by that single traits strength. > > I also like how you're telling me things I never said. It's cute. I never said balance can't be achieved with RI there. I said it's OP for sure and to me, that's reason enough for the change. Personally, I think Anet's 'diversity' claim is a little weak ... I think it would have been enough just to buff the other two to appropriate levels and leave it at that if this was JUST a problem with diversity, but it's not. RI by itself as a trait was too much at 50%. > You completely dodged my question and every single comment i made. Did you even read my post? In no moment i said people never take the other traits. I said they have their place and that they do not compete with RI. Give me an example of how the nerf to RI is good to Guardian. What is overperforming then (something must be, according to your line of thought), since you claim the trait is too strong and that diversity isn't the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorem.9157 Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > > > > > > > The fact is that there are a few reasons RI change and they are ALL consistent with my point. Just because you don't like the fact many reasons for the change exist doesn't mean you can accuse me of trying to dodge something. RI was wrong on LOTS of levels. You can't argue all of them away even if you wanted to. > > > > > > "If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. " > > > > > > Why not? I understand it would be better if we had 3 viable choices, or even more, spread across different traitlines, but all the GM traits have their own niche and RI was not competing with any of them. > > > > Exactly ... RI didn't COMPETE with the other traits because it was so good. If by default one trait is so good that you take it all the time, there isn't any question how build diversity is negatively affected by that single traits strength. > > > > I also like how you're telling me things I never said. It's cute. I never said balance can't be achieved with RI there. I said it's OP for sure and to me, that's reason enough for the change. Personally, I think Anet's 'diversity' claim is a little weak ... I think it would have been enough just to buff the other two to appropriate levels and leave it at that if this was JUST a problem with diversity, but it's not. RI by itself as a trait was too much at 50%. > > > > You completely dodged my question and every single comment i made. Did you even read my post? In no moment i said people never take the other traits. I said they have their place and that they do not compete with RI. > > Give me an example of how the nerf to RI is good to Guardian. What is overperforming then (something must be, according to your line of thought), since you claim the trait is too strong and that diversity isn't the problem? You keep defending the nerf with no reasonable arguments only statements with no evidence or facts to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > > > > > > > The fact is that there are a few reasons RI change and they are ALL consistent with my point. Just because you don't like the fact many reasons for the change exist doesn't mean you can accuse me of trying to dodge something. RI was wrong on LOTS of levels. You can't argue all of them away even if you wanted to. > > > > > > "If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. " > > > > > > Why not? I understand it would be better if we had 3 viable choices, or even more, spread across different traitlines, but all the GM traits have their own niche and RI was not competing with any of them. > > > > Exactly ... RI didn't COMPETE with the other traits because it was so good. If by default one trait is so good that you take it all the time, there isn't any question how build diversity is negatively affected by that single traits strength. > > > > I also like how you're telling me things I never said. It's cute. I never said balance can't be achieved with RI there. I said it's OP for sure and to me, that's reason enough for the change. Personally, I think Anet's 'diversity' claim is a little weak ... I think it would have been enough just to buff the other two to appropriate levels and leave it at that if this was JUST a problem with diversity, but it's not. RI by itself as a trait was too much at 50%. > > > > You completely dodged my question and every single comment i made. Did you even read my post? In no moment i said people never take the other traits. I said they have their place and that they do not compete with RI. > > Give me an example of how the nerf to RI is good to Guardian. What is overperforming then, since you claim the trait is too strong and that diversity is the problem? What example do you think I should give you that you simply won't argue that it's wrong? You and others seem to think this is some good vs. evil or right vs. wrong thing here. Anet makes changes they want to make; we adapt to them. No other process exists where the 'morality' of a change can affect it's implementation. Maybe if it's too much, Anet will adjust it later; that's happened. > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > > > > > > > > > The fact is that there are a few reasons RI change and they are ALL consistent with my point. Just because you don't like the fact many reasons for the change exist doesn't mean you can accuse me of trying to dodge something. RI was wrong on LOTS of levels. You can't argue all of them away even if you wanted to. > > > > > > > > "If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. " > > > > > > > > Why not? I understand it would be better if we had 3 viable choices, or even more, spread across different traitlines, but all the GM traits have their own niche and RI was not competing with any of them. > > > > > > Exactly ... RI didn't COMPETE with the other traits because it was so good. If by default one trait is so good that you take it all the time, there isn't any question how build diversity is negatively affected by that single traits strength. > > > > > > I also like how you're telling me things I never said. It's cute. I never said balance can't be achieved with RI there. I said it's OP for sure and to me, that's reason enough for the change. Personally, I think Anet's 'diversity' claim is a little weak ... I think it would have been enough just to buff the other two to appropriate levels and leave it at that if this was JUST a problem with diversity, but it's not. RI by itself as a trait was too much at 50%. > > > > > > > You completely dodged my question and every single comment i made. Did you even read my post? In no moment i said people never take the other traits. I said they have their place and that they do not compete with RI. > > > > Give me an example of how the nerf to RI is good to Guardian. What is overperforming then (something must be, according to your line of thought), since you claim the trait is too strong and that diversity isn't the problem? > > You keep defending the nerf with no reasonable arguments only statements with no evidence or facts to back it up. > Well, that's sort of right, because this isn't an academic debate or exercise that determines the course of the changes Anet makes. If I can't convince you on face value that 50% crit rate in RI is not a reasonable amount of buff, I think there isn't any objective thinking on the other side wondering why that's the case. You just see some builds you like getting nerfed ... and so you are arguing points that have little matter on the fact that what happens here is because of what Anet thinks needs to be done. Any idea that I present to you that 50% isn't reasonable is just going to be met by you with a subjective 'emotional' argument. If you think about other sources of crit rate and how you get them, you shouldn't have a problem seeing how this 50% is out of line. The real question here isn't if RI change is good or bad; it's happening. The question is how you adapt to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorem.9157 Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > > > > > > > > > The fact is that there are a few reasons RI change and they are ALL consistent with my point. Just because you don't like the fact many reasons for the change exist doesn't mean you can accuse me of trying to dodge something. RI was wrong on LOTS of levels. You can't argue all of them away even if you wanted to. > > > > > > > > "If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. " > > > > > > > > Why not? I understand it would be better if we had 3 viable choices, or even more, spread across different traitlines, but all the GM traits have their own niche and RI was not competing with any of them. > > > > > > Exactly ... RI didn't COMPETE with the other traits because it was so good. If by default one trait is so good that you take it all the time, there isn't any question how build diversity is negatively affected by that single traits strength. > > > > > > I also like how you're telling me things I never said. It's cute. I never said balance can't be achieved with RI there. I said it's OP for sure and to me, that's reason enough for the change. Personally, I think Anet's 'diversity' claim is a little weak ... I think it would have been enough just to buff the other two to appropriate levels and leave it at that if this was JUST a problem with diversity, but it's not. RI by itself as a trait was too much at 50%. > > > > > > > You completely dodged my question and every single comment i made. Did you even read my post? In no moment i said people never take the other traits. I said they have their place and that they do not compete with RI. > > > > Give me an example of how the nerf to RI is good to Guardian. What is overperforming then, since you claim the trait is too strong and that diversity is the problem? > > What example do you think I should give you that you simply won't argue that it's wrong? You and others seem to think this is some good vs. evil or right vs. wrong thing here. Anet makes changes they want to make; we adapt to them. No other process exists where the 'morality' of a change can affect it's implementation. > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact is that there are a few reasons RI change and they are ALL consistent with my point. Just because you don't like the fact many reasons for the change exist doesn't mean you can accuse me of trying to dodge something. RI was wrong on LOTS of levels. You can't argue all of them away even if you wanted to. > > > > > > > > > > "If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. " > > > > > > > > > > Why not? I understand it would be better if we had 3 viable choices, or even more, spread across different traitlines, but all the GM traits have their own niche and RI was not competing with any of them. > > > > > > > > Exactly ... RI didn't COMPETE with the other traits because it was so good. If by default one trait is so good that you take it all the time, there isn't any question how build diversity is negatively affected by that single traits strength. > > > > > > > > I also like how you're telling me things I never said. It's cute. I never said balance can't be achieved with RI there. I said it's OP for sure and to me, that's reason enough for the change. Personally, I think Anet's 'diversity' claim is a little weak ... I think it would have been enough just to buff the other two to appropriate levels and leave it at that if this was JUST a problem with diversity, but it's not. RI by itself as a trait was too much at 50%. > > > > > > > > > > You completely dodged my question and every single comment i made. Did you even read my post? In no moment i said people never take the other traits. I said they have their place and that they do not compete with RI. > > > > > > Give me an example of how the nerf to RI is good to Guardian. What is overperforming then (something must be, according to your line of thought), since you claim the trait is too strong and that diversity isn't the problem? > > > > You keep defending the nerf with no reasonable arguments only statements with no evidence or facts to back it up. > > > > Well, that's sort of right, because this isn't an academic debate or exercise that determines the course of the changes Anet makes. If I can't convince you on face value that 50% crit rate in RI is not a reasonable amount of buff, I think there isn't any objective thinking on the other side wondering why that's the case. YOu just see some builds you like getting nerfed ... and so you are arguing points that have little matter on the fact that what happens here is because of what Anet thinks needs to be done. > > The real question here isn't if RI change is good or bad; it's happening. The question is how you adapt to it. > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > > > > > > > > > The fact is that there are a few reasons RI change and they are ALL consistent with my point. Just because you don't like the fact many reasons for the change exist doesn't mean you can accuse me of trying to dodge something. RI was wrong on LOTS of levels. You can't argue all of them away even if you wanted to. > > > > > > > > "If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. " > > > > > > > > Why not? I understand it would be better if we had 3 viable choices, or even more, spread across different traitlines, but all the GM traits have their own niche and RI was not competing with any of them. > > > > > > Exactly ... RI didn't COMPETE with the other traits because it was so good. If by default one trait is so good that you take it all the time, there isn't any question how build diversity is negatively affected by that single traits strength. > > > > > > I also like how you're telling me things I never said. It's cute. I never said balance can't be achieved with RI there. I said it's OP for sure and to me, that's reason enough for the change. Personally, I think Anet's 'diversity' claim is a little weak ... I think it would have been enough just to buff the other two to appropriate levels and leave it at that if this was JUST a problem with diversity, but it's not. RI by itself as a trait was too much at 50%. > > > > > > > You completely dodged my question and every single comment i made. Did you even read my post? In no moment i said people never take the other traits. I said they have their place and that they do not compete with RI. > > > > Give me an example of how the nerf to RI is good to Guardian. What is overperforming then, since you claim the trait is too strong and that diversity is the problem? > > What example do you think I should give you that you simply won't argue that it's wrong? You and others seem to think this is some good vs. evil or right vs. wrong thing here. Anet makes changes they want to make; we adapt to them. No other process exists where the 'morality' of a change can affect it's implementation. > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact is that there are a few reasons RI change and they are ALL consistent with my point. Just because you don't like the fact many reasons for the change exist doesn't mean you can accuse me of trying to dodge something. RI was wrong on LOTS of levels. You can't argue all of them away even if you wanted to. > > > > > > > > > > "If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. " > > > > > > > > > > Why not? I understand it would be better if we had 3 viable choices, or even more, spread across different traitlines, but all the GM traits have their own niche and RI was not competing with any of them. > > > > > > > > Exactly ... RI didn't COMPETE with the other traits because it was so good. If by default one trait is so good that you take it all the time, there isn't any question how build diversity is negatively affected by that single traits strength. > > > > > > > > I also like how you're telling me things I never said. It's cute. I never said balance can't be achieved with RI there. I said it's OP for sure and to me, that's reason enough for the change. Personally, I think Anet's 'diversity' claim is a little weak ... I think it would have been enough just to buff the other two to appropriate levels and leave it at that if this was JUST a problem with diversity, but it's not. RI by itself as a trait was too much at 50%. > > > > > > > > > > You completely dodged my question and every single comment i made. Did you even read my post? In no moment i said people never take the other traits. I said they have their place and that they do not compete with RI. > > > > > > Give me an example of how the nerf to RI is good to Guardian. What is overperforming then (something must be, according to your line of thought), since you claim the trait is too strong and that diversity isn't the problem? > > > > You keep defending the nerf with no reasonable arguments only statements with no evidence or facts to back it up. > > > > Well, that's sort of right, because this isn't an academic debate or exercise that determines the course of the changes Anet makes. If I can't convince you on face value that 50% crit rate in RI is not a reasonable amount of buff, I think there isn't any objective thinking on the other side wondering why that's the case. YOu just see some builds you like getting nerfed ... and so you are arguing points that have little matter on the fact that what happens here is because of what Anet thinks needs to be done. > > The real question here isn't if RI change is good or bad; it's happening. The question is how you adapt to it. The whole point of this is to argument. This is a change that will affect a lot of people and discussion is important. If you have a magical solution for all these Guardians I'd be eager to hear it. Just because ArenaNet says something is going to happen, does not mean you need to aggree with it. You are very likely going to be forced to accept it, i know that it is very unlikely they will change their course of action because of a thread like this. But that does not change the fact that this kind of debate is important in order to grow a stronger community and to provide feedback. Don't come here advocating for a nerf if the best you got is "It is happening and we can't do anything about it". If that is your point, say it. If your point is that the change is ok and that RI is fine, you show your arguments or leave. At this point, you sound just like a troll and all i can say is that i'm done wasting time with this discussion, unless you decide to step up with some arguments. Basically what you're saying is that everything you said up until now is whatever. I guess we are done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 Like I said, if you can't see how 50% crit rate is an unreasonable buff, I can only assume you aren't aware of what kinds of crit rate buffs exist within the game that are reasonable and how they buff people. For that reason, there isn't any point in explaining it to you because you couldn't possibly see why it's a problem in the first place. My point has been pretty clear ... RI is OP and that's based on what other reasonable crit buffs are. It's not me complicating that message, it's you and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorem.9157 Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > Like I said, if you can't see how 50% crit rate is an unreasonable buff, I can only assume you aren't aware of what kinds of crit rate buffs exist within the game that are reasonable and how they buff people. For that reason, there isn't any point in explaining it to you because you couldn't possibly see why it's a problem in the first place. My point has been pretty clear ... RI is OP and that's based on what other reasonable crit buffs are. It's not me complicating that message, it's you and others. So everybody here is wrong with the exception of yourself? I can see why you think 50% Crit Chance is OP for a trait. I've given you more than enough reasons to prove that it isn't and you have not yet provided a reply to any of those reasons. I guess i gave you more credit than you deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > Like I said, if you can't see how 50% crit rate is an unreasonable buff, I can only assume you aren't aware of what kinds of crit rate buffs exist within the game that are reasonable and how they buff people. For that reason, there isn't any point in explaining it to you because you couldn't possibly see why it's a problem in the first place. My point has been pretty clear ... RI is OP and that's based on what other reasonable crit buffs are. It's not me complicating that message, it's you and others. > > So everybody here is wrong with the exception of yourself? > > I can see why you think 50% Crit Chance is OP for a trait. I've given you more than enough reasons to prove that it isn't and you have not yet provided a reply to any of those reasons. > > I guess i gave you more credit than you deserved. Why would you say that? I'm not the only person that thinks RI is wrong as it is in this thread. Besides, the number of people that agree with you in a thread proves nothing other than there are more people going to complain when they don't like something than people who try to tell them why the change makes sense. Yes you gave me reasons you think it's wrong. I don't see how those reasons are more significant than the fact that RI is not inline with any reasonable crit buff that exists in the game. /shrug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezrael.6859 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 Everyone isn't saying the nerf is out of line, a lot of people saw it coming and agree, there are several people that have been stating so in this very thread. Try not to say 'everyone thinks' in order to back-up your own subjective opinion, it really waters down your argument and means you won't be taken seriously. As for reasons why the nerf should have been expected; Retaliation uptime on Guardian is not difficult as Core or FB and not bad either for DH in PvP and WvW, in PvE it's significantly easier. The trait was essentially giving +1050 to a key stat with significant availability and that is too much. The other traits in game with that sort of power are tied to extremely limiting factors like being in stealth and only affecting one attack. If Elementalist or Thief had +50% crit when they had a boon like Might, Swiftness or Regen it would also be overpowered, this is nothing to do with base hp levels. As for similar traits; Hidden Killer, Danger Time and Death Perception all have far lower uptime than Righteous Instincts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.5684 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > As I already said, there are lots of reasons to nerf RI and I don't think diversity is even the best one. > > PI is used in some support builds? SW in condi? Sort of, maybe ... I don't think it's always a foregone conclusion, but let's get something clear here; just because certain traits are typically used in certain builds doesn't mean we have a diverse range of useful builds that's going down the toilet because of RI changes. The last time I saw someone promote a strong signet load up with PI as part of the 'diverse' toolkit on some guardian build was **never**. The amount of support signets give a group was pretty sad and frankly ... it still will be even after the change. I'm not convinced most 'support' builds use PI because it's not support, it's just enhanced passive effects on Guardian with some typical things like CC or whatever. > > The real point here is that if PI is used for support (or any) builds, it will more **likely** get used as such now with the changes. > > > Regardless of what you think of RI, it did not limit diversity before, since it was a back bone used by power builds in using core and both elites and by all weapons. Neither PI or AW, by design, can be an alternative. Nerfing RI only serves to limit builds in PvP. That is all. It is nothing more than nerf to power builds up in PvP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorem.9157 Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 So to sum up your arguments @"Ezrael.6859" and @"Obtena.7952" is that conformity of the traits along the specializations is more important than game balance as a whole? Btw, DH never used Radiance for PvP. The access to reliation it has does not justify giving up valor for it. I know this doesn't negate your point, i just think it is worth pointing out, since i have already commented on Core Guardian and on Harrierbrand on this thread and said nothing about PvP Radiance DH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Sorem.9157" said: > So to sum up your arguments @"Ezrael.6859" and @"Obtena.7952" is that conformity of the traits along the specializations is more important than game balance as a whole? > > Btw, DH never used Radiance for PvP. The access to reliation it has does not justify giving up valor for it. I know this doesn't negate your point, i just think it is worth pointing out, since i have already commented on Core Guardian and on Harrierbrand on this thread and said nothing about PvP Radiance DH. I don't see any evidence that this change affects game balance in any negative way ... at least not in the negative way you are trying to show ... especially considering that it's arguable that Anet primarily balances according to performance to begin with or the fact that it's not even in the game to see it yet. I do see people struggling to present conjecture as proof in a vain effort to do ... something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorem.9157 Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 The only one struggling to provide arguments is you man :s I guess i'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarox.9601 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > So to sum up your arguments @"Ezrael.6859" and @"Obtena.7952" is that conformity of the traits along the specializations is more important than game balance as a whole? > > > > Btw, DH never used Radiance for PvP. The access to reliation it has does not justify giving up valor for it. I know this doesn't negate your point, i just think it is worth pointing out, since i have already commented on Core Guardian and on Harrierbrand on this thread and said nothing about PvP Radiance DH. > > I don't see any evidence that this change affects game balance in any negative way ... at least not in the negative way you are trying to show ... especially considering that it's arguable that Anet primarily balances according to performance to begin with or the fact that it's not even in the game to see it yet. > > I do see people struggling to present conjecture as proof in a vain effort to do ... something. Can you tell us senpai whats your rating in pvp? did you ever played in platinum? Did you played anything than support guardian in wvw? Or you are here just to mock your fellow guardian players? If you are playing deadly casual and have no worries if something is nerfed or not why are you here, you clearly dont help to improve guardians just saying in every nerf "its justified, white-black, good-bad, tomejto-tomato". Guardians (especially FB) got hit like truck last patch with 50% tome nerf, this patch core guard (and every guard spec) was hit like a truck with again 50% nerf, next patch its probably DH time to nerf traps by 50%. So you are saying this is all justified while I dont see many guardians in high level pvp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Ragnarox.9601" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Sorem.9157" said: > > > So to sum up your arguments @"Ezrael.6859" and @"Obtena.7952" is that conformity of the traits along the specializations is more important than game balance as a whole? > > > > > > Btw, DH never used Radiance for PvP. The access to reliation it has does not justify giving up valor for it. I know this doesn't negate your point, i just think it is worth pointing out, since i have already commented on Core Guardian and on Harrierbrand on this thread and said nothing about PvP Radiance DH. > > > > I don't see any evidence that this change affects game balance in any negative way ... at least not in the negative way you are trying to show ... especially considering that it's arguable that Anet primarily balances according to performance to begin with or the fact that it's not even in the game to see it yet. > > > > I do see people struggling to present conjecture as proof in a vain effort to do ... something. > > Can you tell us senpai whats your rating in pvp? did you ever played in platinum? Did you played anything than support guardian in wvw? Or you are here just to mock your fellow guardian players? If you are playing deadly casual and have no worries if something is nerfed or not why are you here, you clearly dont help to improve guardians just saying in every nerf "its justified, white-black, good-bad, tomejto-tomato". > Guardians (especially FB) got hit like truck last patch with 50% tome nerf, this patch core guard (and every guard spec) was hit like a truck with again 50% nerf, next patch its probably DH time to nerf traps by 50%. So you are saying this is all justified while I dont see many guardians in high level pvp. IF any of that mattered at .... My rating in PVP has something to do with understanding why Anet is changing RI? Interesting connection ... ... you still think Anet is balancing primarily to performance or do you need another 6 years to be convinced how this works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunTzu.4513 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 >No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. First of all, i am a great fan of viable build diversity. Also i can see the point that 50% crit chance over this trait is too much. But in the whole picture i do not see what the nerf and imo slight buffs to other traits does to bring a reasonable impact for more build diversity. So i can understand why a lot of people are upset. For me it feels like the typical ANet kill it complete Nerfbat and buff a few other things without no significant impact. 33% percent would imo be more in line than 25%. Also i don't see why and when i should use any other trait than RI on a power based build. Sure we will adapt to the situation but for me it seems even the Devs have no clear goal where they want to go with all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkeyspit.3965 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Ezrael.6859" said: > If Elementalist or Thief had +50% crit when they had a boon like Might, Swiftness or Regen it would also be overpowered, this is nothing to do with base hp levels. And Weaver and Deadeye both significantly out DPS a DH/Core Guard in PvE. So your point is......invalid? What difference does it make what RI does so long as nobody is losing raid / fractal spots to Guardian, and nobody above silver rank in sPvP considers them a serious threat? "RI should be fixed because it's broken. Is it broken?" Sure. Should it be fixed? Why? What is the goal? The goal should be to make the game better, but that is not what will be accomplished here. - No single new build will emerge from this nerf, yet many existing ones will be negatively affected - PvE DH/Core guard, already at the lower end of the DPS ladder, will not move up any rungs because of this patch, and may actually fall lower. - The other 2 GM traits were buffed, but are still 100% completely omg-ur-a-noob-if-u-use-these-on-power-dps useless to a Power DPS DH or Core. You can't argue it with any degree of honesty. No Power DPS build will ever want a trait that buffs condition damage, nor would any Power DPS build care about signet sharing. The same builds that took their respective GM traits today will continue to take the same traits after the patch lands. So to summarize, a profession and build that was not overperforming vs. any of its peers, nor was any serious threat in competitive play, is getting a nerf because 'reasons', and the only defense anyone has is that the GM trait gives too many stats for free. Given that Power DPS Guardian isn't anywhere near the top of anything in any game mode DESPITE having this 'op' trait, that suggests that the build needs a lot of help in other areas, none of which was addressed in this patch, and since this patch doesn't actually 'fix' any imbalance with this profession for any game mode, all it will do is diminish the Power DPS Guardian for no reason. Sound like good design philosophy to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezrael.6859 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 They don't balance only for PvEasy. Core / DH PvE specs were at 140% crit and now they are at 115% crit... So... what's the problem, you were overcap before and you still are. Nothing for your Berserker PvEasy build will change after the patch for group play, are you complaining just for the sake of complaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorem.9157 Posted March 5, 2019 Author Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Ezrael.6859" said: > They don't balance only for PvEasy. Core / DH PvE specs were at 140% crit and now they are at 115% crit... So... what's the problem, you were overcap before and you still are. Nothing for your Berserker PvEasy build will change after the patch for group play, are you complaining just for the sake of complaining? Let's not forget that it isn't the majority of the people that build their Guardian for being top dps full zerker for Ranked. No, many many people build their Guardian with RI in mind, mixing Diviner, Valkyrie, Harrier and other stats in order to achieve optimal performance. With or without the boatloads of critchance you get from chrono/druid/banner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.5684 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Ezrael.6859" said: > They don't balance only for PvEasy. Core / DH PvE specs were at 140% crit and now they are at 115% crit... So... what's the problem, you were overcap before and you still are. Nothing for your Berserker PvEasy build will change after the patch for group play, are you complaining just for the sake of complaining? How about WvW and sPvP. These modes still do exist, you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk.5460 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 Good guardians will still perform well. The FOTM radiance guards will simply swap to Holosmith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"SunTzu.4513" said: > >No, it does make sense. If you want to promote build diversity, you can't have a broken trait like RI in your roster beside two other underperforming traits. That's one of a few reasons why RI is getting a nerf and the other two traits got love. Diversity is the result of choice, not appealing to meta builds and high performance. > > First of all, i am a great fan of viable build diversity. Also i can see the point that 50% crit chance over this trait is too much. But in the whole picture i do not see what the nerf and imo slight buffs to other traits does to bring a reasonable impact for more build diversity. So i can understand why a lot of people are upset. For me it feels like the typical ANet kill it complete Nerfbat and buff a few other things without no significant impact. 33% percent would imo be more in line than 25%. Also i don't see why and when i should use any other trait than RI on a power based build. Sure we will adapt to the situation but for me it seems even the Devs have no clear goal where they want to go with all of this. It doesn't really ... which is why I was clear that of all the reasons, I think it's the weakest one. As I've said, the strongest reason is simply that 50% crit buff is too much. > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said: > > @"Ezrael.6859" said: > > If Elementalist or Thief had +50% crit when they had a boon like Might, Swiftness or Regen it would also be overpowered, this is nothing to do with base hp levels. > > And Weaver and Deadeye both significantly out DPS a DH/Core Guard in PvE. So your point is......invalid? Um no, his point has nothing to do with levels of DPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkeyspit.3965 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 > @"Ezrael.6859" said: > They don't balance only for PvEasy. Core / DH PvE specs were at 140% crit and now they are at 115% crit... So... what's the problem, you were overcap before and you still are. Nothing for your Berserker PvEasy build will change after the patch for group play, are you complaining just for the sake of complaining? You are working from the fallacy that all DPS Guardians were wearing full Zerk gear and/or were in a group of 5/10 players with dedicated healers and/or a tank. Shockingly, the vast majority of PvE in GW2 doesn't mirror that description. The extra crit allowed some Guards to run with more defensive stats at a minimal lost of DPS by replacing precision with vitality. This is no longer the case. That in itself would be an issue if the DH/Core builds were at the top of the DPS ladder, but given they are already towards the bottom, a nerf to this "perk" seems unwarranted. > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said: > > > @"Ezrael.6859" said: > > > If Elementalist or Thief had +50% crit when they had a boon like Might, Swiftness or Regen it would also be overpowered, this is nothing to do with base hp levels. > > > > And Weaver and Deadeye both significantly out DPS a DH/Core Guard in PvE. So your point is......invalid? > > Um no, his point has nothing to do with levels of DPS. How does it not? He is using examples of two other professions who have equivalent health pools, and claiming that if they had traits that gave 50% crit chance, they would be overpowered. The only way that you could describe crit as making a DPS build overpowered is a function of the damage they would do, and since both of those builds do more DPS already, without the "op" crit trait, my statement stands. Guardian with the "op" crit trait can only just keep up with those two specs. 1+2+1+1 or 1+1+2+1, either way Ms. Scarlett, the revolver is empty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arken.3725 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 As a legendary spvper, it was already incredibly difficult to play Harrierbrand. This nerf was completely unwarranted when looking at the whole picture of what I had to give up in order to maintain sustain/pressure. Proper risk vs. reward, amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy.7360 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 This is what Anet came up with as a balance patch? Do they not understand the definition of balance? They nerfed a really strong dps ability and compensated with what? Extra range to a class that nobody really plays? How bout fixing the diversity to FB? This is the reason why I left this crap game. Was hoping for something exciting instead guardians get sh!t on time and time again. Are Mes's and Rev still brokenly OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mes.4607 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 I think core guard will be the same... use marauder amulet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now