Revenant unwanted in raids??

[Bahamoth.8053]

> @sorudo.9054 said:

> if a game content is exclusive to only a hand full of professions then it's time for Anet to change it big time, any class regardless should be able to join and if not then it's the content's fault.

 

Sorudo that is exactly what I am trying to hint out. Honestly I do even have the slightest chance to prove my build when as a revenant you cannot get into a group. Your class lacks this and that.... But yeah well maybe I should start a new class.

[zinkz.7045]

Maybe find a better guild, I mean raids in GW2 are a joke, people do them with 10 of one class, groups of 4-6, a thief even soloed a couple of bosses, this game is not Wildstar where eeking out every 0,1 % of DPS matters, it probably has the easiest raids in any MMORPG, hence they can be completed by mediocre players with any reasonable composition, you don't need the "perfect" comp for GW2 raids.

 

So the problem is player made, go find a guild with players in that aren't try-harding over over content that does not require it and are more flexible in regard to what classes people can bring along to a raid.

[Scipion.7548]

> @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> **If you have problems with your Rev just pick a different class to raid with**. It'll take a bit of time to level up and learn your class but you'll have more options.

>

> It's not the communities fault that they don't want you and you don't want to put in the effort to make yourself marketable.

 

And if he is attached to his character ? Don't forget we play an mmo...RPG, not a MOBA.

 

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> This isn't a problem with the game itself - Anet haven't blocked you from entering a raid on a revenant or put in mechanics which prevent groups from completing a raid if a revenant is there. It's players who are making that decision. Even if they have solid reasons for that (I honestly don't know anything about preferred raid groups so I have no idea why they wouldn't let you join) **Anet's ability to change it is limited**. For example there was never actually anything wrong with rangers in dungeons, only with certain builds (mainly ones that relied on the longbow and staying at range) but even after various balance patches "fixed" that it took months, if not years for most PUG groups to accept rangers. And during that time many groups wouldn't even give you time to say "It's ok, I'm not using longbow" or even "I'll swap to another character" - they saw you were a ranger and kicked you, end of 'discussion'.

 

Blizzard succeed. Bring the player, not the class.

Is Anet less skillfull than Blizzard ?

[Fermi.2409]

> Sounds like you met the infamous elitest jerks

>

> This has been something Engineers have had to deal with for some time now long before Holosmith was even thought of.

 

My Engi has been my go-to "high DPS"/tryhardish class for quite a while now and I've never had any problems. And I'm not even condi, just power since it's way easier

[Zedek.8932]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> i have to question this since you said even your guild wont accept you....

>

> Have you done some introspective into why that might possibly be the case ? Because in my experience when it comes to guild groups not accepting you, it's less to do about what you bring class wise and more to deal with what you bring drama wise.

 

A bit off-topic now:

 

In FF14 I was not "welcomed" in Free Company (their equivalent of guilds) because of the holy trinity. The tank was a totall buffoon and made us lose several times for obvious reasons (locking out the healer who was stuck in a cutscene) and the tank still engaged the boss and thus locking out the healer. He shifted the blame to me for some reason but since tanks are very rare in that game, they rather played the blame game instead of telling him he was a j..rk and rather branded me as "too bad to play with", even with "you know why no one wants to go with you in dungeons" 100% unjustified. (And by the way, was the last time I bothered with parties and guilds - Early 2015 to this very day, I rather stay a Lone Wolf than trying to find reasonable people. Dun Dun Dun... * plays sad violine music *). Since that day I would be very cautious with such assumptions of "Person X causes drama", the same happens in LoL. "Report X for doing A". Weird thing: It's usually the player saying that causing the initial drama.

 

Also, a guild is never a solo unit. You can have 70% on your side and still if ONE important or good guy does not like you personally or for whatever reason, the others opt out as well, leaving you alone.

 

I could also imagine with all the raid elitism in this game you might have a high percentage of very angry people at the other side of the screen.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Blaeys.3102 said:

> You will get a lot of back seat advice with a question like this, ranging from "find a guild" (even if it means abandoning one you enjoy being in now) to "start your own group" (even if you know nothing about the raid fights) to "you just don't know how to play" (a phrase that needs to be banned in game and on the forums), but none of it changes the fact that the HUGE disparity between professions and builds makes it very frustrating to play many professions that you enjoy - to the point that many just give up on raids completely.

 

The thing is, there is not a huge disparity in profession balance insofar as DPS goes. The disparity that does exist gets multiplied by the amount of buffs a fully-realized raid comp group provides. Is the problem with:

 

1) The much smaller differences unbuffed? Not really, as those differences are there to balance other differences between professions and spec choices. These include, but are not limited to, access to buffs, defense and health pool size.

2) The fact that different professions have different access to group buffs? These differences are part of the game balance decisions made to allow for a different feel when playing different professions and to create greater balance in PvP/WvW.

3) The fact that the game does offer so many buffs? Buffs are a large part of what make roles possible in harder instanced content. Chrono tanks are a thing because of the quickness, distortion and alacrity they bring to the table, not because a light armor profession takes damage better.

 

So, in order for ANet to reduce or eliminate those differences, they'd either have to go towards greater homogenization of professions, or reduce/eliminate group buffs. At what point do people start to complain that all professions feel substantially the same?

 

> Raids create an exclusive environment that perpetuates a "play the one true way or gtfo" mentality. And while it is at least partially player driven, the fault - and ultimate responsibility to fix it - rests with the developers. It is time for them to set aside their stubborn shortsighted concepts of what a raid "has to be" and fix this.

 

ANet is, and always has been, a company that likes to put stuff out there and let players derive solutions that work for them. Sure, they've changed a lot of things in GW2 since launch, but if you look at those changes, you'll find that many of them were made because the game design hindered or stopped players from finding solutions, not because players didn't want to find solutions. ANet has demographic data. I wouldn't be surprised if they were looking at data as to just how many people are kicked after joining a raid PuG. I also would not be surprised if they came up with their current raid philosophy as a result. The fact that there are easier and harder bosses allows for people to experience raids with their favored builds, albeit they might need to make more of an effort to do so than just joining a posted group. I don't find that to be a bad thing.

[Ashen.2907]

> @sorudo.9054 said:

> if a game content is exclusive to only a hand full of professions then it's time for Anet to change it big time, any class regardless should be able to join and if not then it's the content's fault.

 

Luckily the content is not exclusive in this manner.

 

But you cannot, and should not be able to, force other players in a group to change their playstyle to suit you.

 

The OP can access the content as he chooses, with his preferred character, he just needs to form his own groups or join those open to him, or join a guild, or find friends, etc.

[sorudo.9054]

IMO they should just close raids and rebuild it from the ground up, with this kind of exclusively no one is any better for it.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Scipion.7548 said:

> > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > **If you have problems with your Rev just pick a different class to raid with**. It'll take a bit of time to level up and learn your class but you'll have more options.

> >

> > It's not the communities fault that they don't want you and you don't want to put in the effort to make yourself marketable.

>

> And if he is attached to his character ? Don't forget we play an mmo...RPG, not a MOBA.

>

> > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > This isn't a problem with the game itself - Anet haven't blocked you from entering a raid on a revenant or put in mechanics which prevent groups from completing a raid if a revenant is there. It's players who are making that decision. Even if they have solid reasons for that (I honestly don't know anything about preferred raid groups so I have no idea why they wouldn't let you join) **Anet's ability to change it is limited**. For example there was never actually anything wrong with rangers in dungeons, only with certain builds (mainly ones that relied on the longbow and staying at range) but even after various balance patches "fixed" that it took months, if not years for most PUG groups to accept rangers. And during that time many groups wouldn't even give you time to say "It's ok, I'm not using longbow" or even "I'll swap to another character" - they saw you were a ranger and kicked you, end of 'discussion'.

>

> Blizzard succeed. Bring the player, not the class.

> Is Anet less skillfull than Blizzard ?

 

Honest question, as I have not played WoW in years, can someone show up on a thief expecting to fulfill the role of healer for a group in WoW raids?

[Chickenooble.5014]

> @Scipion.7548 said:

> > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > **If you have problems with your Rev just pick a different class to raid with**. It'll take a bit of time to level up and learn your class but you'll have more options.

> >

> > It's not the communities fault that they don't want you and you don't want to put in the effort to make yourself marketable.

>

> And if he is attached to his character ? Don't forget we play an mmo...RPG, not a MOBA.

So, it's an MMO RPG. His complaint wasn't that he couldn't Role Play but that he wanted to raid and no one wants to take him. He thinks it's about his class and not the raid composition, his skill level, attitude or something else. If it's about the class he can change his class. No one is required to take him and complaining about not being included isn't going to get a ton of invites his way.

 

 

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

There is another aspect of this issue that has not been addressed yet and that is team composition. More than any other aspect of the game, raids require specific team compositions. Not necessarily composition by class, but certainly composition by role. Raids require cooperation and teamwork, not only in game mechanics, but often with coordinated builds within subgroups in order for that subgroup to be able to accomplish its objective. If you don't believe me, try bringing a bit more toughness than the designated tank to a vale guardian fight, or be on a VG fight that only has 1 condi/DOT player. I use those as extreme and outdated examples, but they get the idea across.

 

I don't know how your raid team does things, but it is possible that their team composition may be such that your profession/build combination does not fit into their team structure, I.E. wanting to use a Herald boon-bot when they need a melee berserker or something along those lines. Your build on that particular character simply may not fit into their strategy, at least for some wing bosses.

 

I see a lot of comments from non-raiders or players wanting into raiding that do not understand the extent to which cooperative teamwork is necessary for a successful run. That is made more difficult in PUGS where by definition you are collecting a group of players who do not normally play together. I personally won't pug a raid, but instead of pure elitism, you may also simply be running into a commander that has a specific team composition that they want to have because that is the combination they have used to be successful on a boss and they want to stick with what they know when they already have so many other uncontrolled variables with pugging.

 

I suggest trying to be flexible, talk with your guild raid team and ask what they need, not simply expecting them to take what you have. You may find better results.

 

EDITED FOR CLARITY

[blambidy.3216]

I feel you pain since I've been excluded. Not for that class but for ranger before. However since not many had a druid, I just made my ranger into druid only for during raids. If they don't like your build, make a build that the group needs. Raiding is not as simple as people think. If one person is not doing what the teams needs, everyone is down. Which makes everyone frustrated. If they don't want renegade try a diff build or hopefully you have a different class they need. As much as us all want to jump in a raid. Your build does matter. You don't want to be a liability in battle.

[blambidy.3216]

However I don't know how valuable revenant renegade is during raid. Honestly I haven't seen revenant in a raid before. And thieves are also usually not included. As much as I love my thief more than any other class not one will let a thief in a raid. It's just a big liability. Just make sure you look everything up for your build during raid and practice. And show that you are needed in the raids.

[Andred.1087]

OP's specific case aside... When a whole profession has basically no use in raids, yeah, that's absolutely a design problem. There's no justifying that.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> This isn't a problem with the game itself

 

It is completely a fault of the game/Anet that certain classes don't have builds that are generally desired by raid groups.

[Korval.3751]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > This isn't a problem with the game itself

>

> It is completely a fault of the game/Anet that certain classes don't have builds that are generally desired by raid groups.

 

That literally makes no sense in a game with no raid trinity. That's less a fault of the person's chosen class, and more a fault with the guild not understanding that they don't have to structure their raids like a WOW raid. If the guild isn't taking you because of the class then it's time to move on. They are clearly dimwitted.

[blambidy.3216]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > This isn't a problem with the game itself

>

> It is completely a fault of the game/Anet that certain classes don't have builds that are generally desired by raid groups.

 

Not really. It's technically the leader of the raid groups fault for choosing what classes to be in and not. I've seen the devs able to raid with all classes perfectly fine when they demonstrate the classes. Each class and build has a diff way to play. Just because you like one way a class doesn't mean it's the best way for raiding. Same with PvP. Same with wvw. That's why you look up your build and find what's best. Which is why we have 5 character slots. Your telling me you created all classes that can't raid? Delete one and make one specific for raiding. Simple as that. But we just like to complain.

[Scipion.7548]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

 

> Honest question, as I have not played WoW in years, can someone show up on a thief expecting to fulfill the role of healer for a group in WoW raids?

 

No but you know this when you create a rogue. Blizzard warns you that you can only be a DPS and nothing else. But when you create a priest, a paladin, a shaman, a druid or a monk the game clearly tells you that you can be a healer, and the game don't lie because you will never be rejected from groups as healer with any of those classes. Same for tanks and dps. **You will never be rejected if you play one of the roles that is intented for your class**.

 

On the contrary, on GW2 I read on the character creation that "Guardians specialize in protective and defensive magic", so it's a kind of tanky support right ? But in game it's often very hard to be accepted as a tanky support guard (maybe less with FB spec, wait & see). Most of the time you have to go DPS. **Anet lied to me**.

So no, it's not only because of players that some role/classe combination aren't accepted, it's also because Anet did a mess.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Scipion.7548 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

>

> > Honest question, as I have not played WoW in years, can someone show up on a thief expecting to fulfill the role of healer for a group in WoW raids?

>

> No but you know this when you create a rogue. Blizzard warns you that you can only be a DPS and nothing else. But when you create a priest, a paladin, a shaman, a druid or a monk the game clearly tells you that you can be a healer, and the game don't lie because you will never be rejected from groups as healer with any of those classes. Same for tanks and dps. **You will never be rejected if you play one of the roles that is intented for your class**.

>

> On the contrary, on GW2 I read on the character creation that "Guardians specialize in protective and defensive magic", so it's a kind of tanky support right ? But in game it's often very hard to be accepted as a tanky support guard (maybe less with FB spec, wait & see). Most of the time you have to go DPS. **Anet lied to me**.

> So no, it's not only because of players that some role/classe combination aren't accepted, it's also because Anet did a mess.

 

No, you lied to yourself. Guardians do specialize in defensive and protective magic. That doesn't mean that's all they do and pigeonholing yourself into said state when the game rewards active mitigation over passive ones is silly.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Scipion.7548 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

>

> > Honest question, as I have not played WoW in years, can someone show up on a thief expecting to fulfill the role of healer for a group in WoW raids?

>

> No but you know this when you create a rogue. Blizzard warns you that you can only be a DPS and nothing else. But when you create a priest, a paladin, a shaman, a druid or a monk the game clearly tells you that you can be a healer, and the game don't lie because you will never be rejected from groups as healer with any of those classes. Same for tanks and dps. **You will never be rejected if you play one of the roles that is intented for your class**.

>

> On the contrary, on GW2 I read on the character creation that "Guardians specialize in protective and defensive magic", so it's a kind of tanky support right ? But in game it's often very hard to be accepted as a tanky support guard (maybe less with FB spec, wait & see). Most of the time you have to go DPS. **Anet lied to me**.

> So no, it's not only because of players that some role/classe combination aren't accepted, it's also because Anet did a mess.

 

> @Scipion.7548 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

>

> > Honest question, as I have not played WoW in years, can someone show up on a thief expecting to fulfill the role of healer for a group in WoW raids?

>

> No but you know this when you create a rogue. Blizzard warns you that you can only be a DPS and nothing else. But when you create a priest, a paladin, a shaman, a druid or a monk the game clearly tells you that you can be a healer, and the game don't lie because you will never be rejected from groups as healer with any of those classes. Same for tanks and dps. **You will never be rejected if you play one of the roles that is intented for your class**.

>

> On the contrary, on GW2 I read on the character creation that "Guardians specialize in protective and defensive magic", so it's a kind of tanky support right ? But in game it's often very hard to be accepted as a tanky support guard (maybe less with FB spec, wait & see). Most of the time you have to go DPS. **Anet lied to me**.

> So no, it's not only because of players that some role/classe combination aren't accepted, it's also because Anet did a mess.

 

How> @Scipion.7548 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

>

> > Honest question, as I have not played WoW in years, can someone show up on a thief expecting to fulfill the role of healer for a group in WoW raids?

>

> No but you know this when you create a rogue. Blizzard warns you that you can only be a DPS and nothing else. But when you create a priest, a paladin, a shaman, a druid or a monk the game clearly tells you that you can be a healer, and the game don't lie because you will never be rejected from groups as healer with any of those classes. Same for tanks and dps. **You will never be rejected if you play one of the roles that is intented for your class**.

>

> On the contrary, on GW2 I read on the character creation that "Guardians specialize in protective and defensive magic", so it's a kind of tanky support right ? But in game it's often very hard to be accepted as a tanky support guard (maybe less with FB spec, wait & see). Most of the time you have to go DPS. **Anet lied to me**.

> So no, it's not only because of players that some role/classe combination aren't accepted, it's also because Anet did a mess.

 

How did they lie?

 

In the example you gave it specifies that guardians specialize in defense/protection. They do. If other players in specific groups dont desire protection/defense it doesnt make anet liars.

 

Sears sold me a screwdriver, they said that its for driving screws. A friend wants help with a project for which a hammer is the ideal tool....Sears lied to me?

[Scipion.7548]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> How did they lie?

>

> In the example you gave it specifies that guardians specialize in defense/protection. They do. If other players in specific groups dont desire protection/defense it doesnt make anet liars.

>

> Sears sold me a screwdriver, they said that its for driving screws. A friend wants help with a project for which a hammer is the ideal tool....Sears lied to me?

 

1) Blizzard tells you that with X class you can do Y role. In game, in high lvl content (raid, pvp, dungeons), with X class you can do Y role because other players won't prevent you to play role Y with X class. Blizzard told you the truth.

2) Anet tells you that with X class you can do Y role. In game, in high lvl content (raid, pvp, fractal, wvw), with X class you cannot do Y role because other players will prevent you to play role Y with X class. Anet told you a lie.

 

See the difference ?

[Kalocin.5982]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect people to change their class and character for a mode, considering how the game originally sold itself on not requiring roles. At a certain point it defeats the purpose of removing a Trinity to begin with, it's simply a variation. If that's the chosen route then no player should be excluded because they chose the wrong class.

 

Imagine trying to invite your friend into the game and they're on the fence, but they like the look of one spec and want to go for it. "Oh no, can't do that, they're not taken". If I was that friend I'd say forget about it and go play an MMO that actually cares about proper balance and respecting the player.

 

If you look at other MMOs you can see while balance is rough, it's never such a large disparity that classes are out right rejected (unless we're going back to TBC WoW days). What helps is keeping most classes within 10% of each other give or take, and a good automated pairing system. For instance, monk in FFXIV can take a lot more hits than a cloth while dishing out some of the best dps. It does however lack support, so it is boosted in damage. Obviously not going to translate 100% here but there are options and some design decisions just don't make sense.

 

This game needs some focus on balance, because no one should feel guilty choosing any class; especially when you add in the RPG elements and identity in avatar.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @Scipion.7548 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > How did they lie?

> >

> > In the example you gave it specifies that guardians specialize in defense/protection. They do. If other players in specific groups dont desire protection/defense it doesnt make anet liars.

> >

> > Sears sold me a screwdriver, they said that its for driving screws. A friend wants help with a project for which a hammer is the ideal tool....Sears lied to me?

>

> 1) Blizzard tells you that with X class you can do Y role. In game, in high lvl content (raid, pvp, dungeons), with X class you can do Y role because other players won't prevent you to play role Y with X class. Blizzard told you the truth.

> 2) Anet tells you that with X class you can do Y role. In game, in high lvl content (raid, pvp, fractal, wvw), with X class you cannot do Y role because other players will prevent you to play role Y with X class. Anet told you a lie.

>

> See the difference ?

 

You've got it wrong though, what Anet tells you is that with class X you can play role Y in the base game, then the **PLAYER BASE** tells you that you can't use class X in role Y in the high level content which was added in much later than release, that's not the fault of Anet, therefore Anet did not lie to you.

[Scipion.7548]

> @Zaklex.6308 said:

> You've got it wrong though, what Anet tells you is that with class X you can play role Y in the base game, then the **PLAYER BASE** tells you that you can't use class X in role Y in the high level content which was added in much later than release, that's not the fault of Anet, therefore Anet did not lie to you.

 

Blizzard succeeded in that the **PLAYER BASE** tells the same thing that he does. When Blizz says class X can do role Y but not role Z, player base says exactly the same thing. It is a success. Even the min-maxers don't reject it.

But Anet didn't succeeded. The player base don't says the same thing that the developpers. Ok it is not a lie. It is a failure. Maybe Anet didn't lie to me, but it is its fault if I play a class intended to play role Y while the player base doesn't permit me to do it.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @blambidy.3216 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > > This isn't a problem with the game itself

> >

> > It is completely a fault of the game/Anet that certain classes don't have builds that are generally desired by raid groups.

>

> Not really. It's technically the leader of the raid groups fault for choosing what classes to be in and not. I've seen the devs able to raid with all classes perfectly fine when they demonstrate the classes. Each class and build has a diff way to play. Just because you like one way a class doesn't mean it's the best way for raiding. Same with PvP. Same with wvw. That's why you look up your build and find what's best. Which is why we have 5 character slots. Your telling me you created all classes that can't raid? Delete one and make one specific for raiding. Simple as that. But we just like to complain.

 

You do realize deleting characters is a bad idea right? Characters give Birthday gifts, so deleting them is a bad idea, so it is not a simple case. The real issue is how the balance goes with the raids. Yes, the community is a problem with how they like to be Elitists and follow "meta" only, but the blame also falls partly to A-net and how they balance as well.

 

Switching builds isn't always an option as well especially when you only like certain weapons from that class. I will be damned if I have to use d/d or a staff on my Thief in any content or someone tries to make me use them due to my dislike for those weapons. That is why I make my own groups though because I am tired of people telling me what to do or how to play. I will play my own way and what they want be damned for all I care. I am no ones puppet no longer. I actually have a spine to stand on.