Shao.7236 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > Imagine wanting to ban/balance around 2v2 > > > > Never asked for balanced to be based on 2v2. > > > > Cards get frequently limited and hard banned in Trading Card Games. Fighters frequently get banned in Fighting Games. Why not ban certain classes in certain PvP game modes when they've reached the status of mandatory? > > Nice false equivalence. This isn't a highly competitive game. It's an MMO. Other MMOs like WoW concede certain PvP modes and focus on balancing for their "main" mode. > > And the title of this post asks for a ban in 2v2s. That's balancing around 2v2s. FB still dominates the meta in 5v5, there's a need for change anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardRider.2980 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 Where was the ban requests in the last lot of broken seasons. I haven't enjoyed pvp this much in ages. It's hard yes.. but not impossible. Just need to adapt and communicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"Kuma.1503" said: > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > Plenty of games and tournaments make no bones about outright banning things from play. If you were playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl competitively, Metaknight was banned. In Smash 4 Bayonetta was banned. If you played Street Fighter Old Sagat and Akuma were historic banned characters. During Street Fighter 4 Seth and Gouken had been banned. BlazBue Chronophantasma Kokonoe was banned. In Dragon Ball Fighter Z there are immense calls for GT Goku to be banned and a number of locals have done so. Every single TCG game from Magic, to Yu-Gi-Oh to Pokemon has banned cards. > > I agree that FB Necro comps are too strong, but this is misinformation. It's very, very hard to get a character banned in fighting games. Bayonetta was never banned, but you could easily argue that she should have been. She single handedly lead to the most controversial grand finals tournament at the end of smash 4's lifespan. If you haven't seen the infamous moment, I suggest looking up Lima vs Captain Zac. > > Meta Knight came *very close* to being banned in Brawl, there was a mass effort from the biggest tourney organizers to ban him at all tournaments. Unfortunately, one guy decided not to ban him at his tourney. He just so happened to be the owner of Apex, the biggest smash tourney world wide. Due to this one guy, the entire attempt to ban MK fell apart because people would rather play by the rules set by the biggest stage. > > As for why it's so hard to get characters banned in fighting games. People invest countless hours into those characters. Namely, the big competetors like Zero, Nario, Dabuz, M2k, Leffen, Mango, ect. Players like these have huge influences in the community, they're who spectators come to see. If you ban a top tier like MK, you effectively ban these players from the tournament. It would be like going to a sports game only to realize that all of your favorite players have been replaced. > > tl;dr, banning characters is hard. Attempts to do so almost always fail in fighting games, likely will here too. > > > > Bayonetta was banned in multiple locals until she was appropriately nerfed. Metaknight was absolutely banned in North America. https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/03/meta-knight-banned-from-super-smash-bros-brawl Cloud was banned from Doubles. https://www.ssbwiki.com/Cloud_(SSB4)#Banned_in_Doubles Hero was banned in Australia and France https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqvsvl https://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-france-bans-hero-and-future-dlc-characters-from-official-smash-bros-ultimate-tournaments/ I understand that players invest countless hours into their favorite characters and classes. I do not suggest banning Necromancer and Firebrand recklessly and with no thought. I care about Necromancer and Firebrand mains. I want metas where each and every one of the top 10 is occupied by a different top tier player maining a different class, and across all tiers all classes are viable. I do not recklessly call for bans or nerfs. Necromancer and Firebrand deserve to be banned from 2v2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > The only thing stopping banning classes is the developer's own will. They can literally do whatever they see fit. > Their is a difference here. The ability to do whatever they want isn't what matters. The DISCRETION to do something IS. There will NEVER be a ban on classes, WHATEVER motivates it. It's one of the most nonsensical requests I've seen yet. > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > That would prevent necro from being able to do any competitive PVP which sucks. > > > > Any time you completely prevent a class not sure if you know what sunwell is, but its a term used in WOW when paladin was completely excluded from a raid and felt neglected and left out. > > > > banning necro would prevent them from competing, and competition can actually show how and what needs nerfed. > > One class feeling excluded and left out is less of a problem than literally every other class feeling excluded and left out. Maybe ... but the solution isn't to just ban a class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > Imagine wanting to ban/balance around 2v2 > > > > Never asked for balanced to be based on 2v2. > > > > Cards get frequently limited and hard banned in Trading Card Games. Fighters frequently get banned in Fighting Games. Why not ban certain classes in certain PvP game modes when they've reached the status of mandatory? > > Nice false equivalence. This isn't a highly competitive game. It's an MMO. Other MMOs like WoW concede certain PvP modes and focus on balancing for their "main" mode. > > And the title of this post asks for a ban in 2v2s. That's balancing around 2v2s. If necromancer and firebrand get banned for 2v2s, when ranked Conquest comes back there are no changes to their skills and abilities in a game mode where balancing is appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > The only thing stopping banning classes is the developer's own will. They can literally do whatever they see fit. > > > Their is a difference here. The ability to do whatever they want isn't what matters. The DISCRETION to do something IS. There will NEVER be a ban on classes, WHATEVER motivates it. It's one of the most nonsensical requests I've seen yet. Arenanet saw fit to hard disable Chaotic Interruption in PvP when CI Mirage was running absolutely rough shot over the game mode, and it absolutely deserved that. https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/83741/chaotic-interruption-temporarily-disabled-in-pvp https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/81789/we-need-emergency-nerfs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilyanna.9361 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 They should have banned mirage when everyone and their mother was playing it, and we were begging for it to be balanced. Should have banned spellbreaker when it was overpowered. Should have banned scourge and FB when it dominated the first half of the PoF lifespan. Y'all wanted to sit and defend your classes for ages. You made your bed, now lie in it. I don't feel remotely sorry for anyone after these forums were playing deaf for years when it actually mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zietlogik.6208 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > @"Kuma.1503" said: > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > Plenty of games and tournaments make no bones about outright banning things from play. If you were playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl competitively, Metaknight was banned. In Smash 4 Bayonetta was banned. If you played Street Fighter Old Sagat and Akuma were historic banned characters. During Street Fighter 4 Seth and Gouken had been banned. BlazBue Chronophantasma Kokonoe was banned. In Dragon Ball Fighter Z there are immense calls for GT Goku to be banned and a number of locals have done so. Every single TCG game from Magic, to Yu-Gi-Oh to Pokemon has banned cards. > > > > I agree that FB Necro comps are too strong, but this is misinformation. It's very, very hard to get a character banned in fighting games. Bayonetta was never banned, but you could easily argue that she should have been. She single handedly lead to the most controversial grand finals tournament at the end of smash 4's lifespan. If you haven't seen the infamous moment, I suggest looking up Lima vs Captain Zac. > > > > Meta Knight came *very close* to being banned in Brawl, there was a mass effort from the biggest tourney organizers to ban him at all tournaments. Unfortunately, one guy decided not to ban him at his tourney. He just so happened to be the owner of Apex, the biggest smash tourney world wide. Due to this one guy, the entire attempt to ban MK fell apart because people would rather play by the rules set by the biggest stage. > > > > As for why it's so hard to get characters banned in fighting games. People invest countless hours into those characters. Namely, the big competetors like Zero, Nario, Dabuz, M2k, Leffen, Mango, ect. Players like these have huge influences in the community, they're who spectators come to see. If you ban a top tier like MK, you effectively ban these players from the tournament. It would be like going to a sports game only to realize that all of your favorite players have been replaced. > > > > tl;dr, banning characters is hard. Attempts to do so almost always fail in fighting games, likely will here too. > > > > > > > > > > Bayonetta was banned in multiple locals until she was appropriately nerfed. > > > > Metaknight was absolutely banned in North America. > > https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/03/meta-knight-banned-from-super-smash-bros-brawl > > Cloud was banned from Doubles. > > https://www.ssbwiki.com/Cloud_(SSB4)#Banned_in_Doubles > > Hero was banned in Australia and France > > https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqvsvl > > https://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-france-bans-hero-and-future-dlc-characters-from-official-smash-bros-ultimate-tournaments/ > > I understand that players invest countless hours into their favorite characters and classes. I do not suggest banning Necromancer and Firebrand recklessly and with no thought. I care about Necromancer and Firebrand mains. I want metas where each and every one of the top 10 is occupied by a different top tier player maining a different class, and across all tiers all classes are viable. > > I do not recklessly call for bans or nerfs. > > Necromancer and Firebrand deserve to be banned from 2v2. you cherry picked those instances well, but you miss out on the vital piece of information that they are only banned in specific places, during specific times, temporarily. They were never globally banned...ever, each individual TO chose which rule set and which rules to enforce within those rulesets. Your references are the same as me saying "well i ban FB from playing at my house" therefore its banned, case closed, which obviously doesn't amount to anything, locals and tiny areas without any tournaments running beyond a C tier mean nothing, its like custom arenas in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > They should have banned mirage when everyone and their mother was playing it, and we were begging for it to be balanced. > > Should have banned spellbreaker when it was overpowered. > > Should have banned scourge and FB when it dominated the first half of the PoF lifespan. > > Y'all wanted to sit and defend your classes for ages. You made your bed, now lie in it. I don't feel remotely sorry for anyone after these forums were playing deaf for years when it actually mattered. I asked for Chronomancer post Phantasm rework back when it was 2 shotting people with Phantasmal Disenchanter and Defender to be hard banned. I've called for Condition Mirage and Mesmer nerfs in general for literally years now after the Phantasm rework. And as for Spellbreaker, Scourge, and Firebrand while I've called for nerfs to specific areas I've never suggested they get banned because I've never felt like an achievement like top 10 was impossible for other builds the way it is now, because as strong as they were we lived in an environment where Mirage/Holosmith/Druid(At the time)/Herald/Weaver/Thief in General had competitive builds. So you can keep your accusations of hypocrisy to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claytonmorby.3751 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > @"Kuma.1503" said: > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > Plenty of games and tournaments make no bones about outright banning things from play. If you were playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl competitively, Metaknight was banned. In Smash 4 Bayonetta was banned. If you played Street Fighter Old Sagat and Akuma were historic banned characters. During Street Fighter 4 Seth and Gouken had been banned. BlazBue Chronophantasma Kokonoe was banned. In Dragon Ball Fighter Z there are immense calls for GT Goku to be banned and a number of locals have done so. Every single TCG game from Magic, to Yu-Gi-Oh to Pokemon has banned cards. > > > > I agree that FB Necro comps are too strong, but this is misinformation. It's very, very hard to get a character banned in fighting games. Bayonetta was never banned, but you could easily argue that she should have been. She single handedly lead to the most controversial grand finals tournament at the end of smash 4's lifespan. If you haven't seen the infamous moment, I suggest looking up Lima vs Captain Zac. > > > > Meta Knight came *very close* to being banned in Brawl, there was a mass effort from the biggest tourney organizers to ban him at all tournaments. Unfortunately, one guy decided not to ban him at his tourney. He just so happened to be the owner of Apex, the biggest smash tourney world wide. Due to this one guy, the entire attempt to ban MK fell apart because people would rather play by the rules set by the biggest stage. > > > > As for why it's so hard to get characters banned in fighting games. People invest countless hours into those characters. Namely, the big competetors like Zero, Nario, Dabuz, M2k, Leffen, Mango, ect. Players like these have huge influences in the community, they're who spectators come to see. If you ban a top tier like MK, you effectively ban these players from the tournament. It would be like going to a sports game only to realize that all of your favorite players have been replaced. > > > > tl;dr, banning characters is hard. Attempts to do so almost always fail in fighting games, likely will here too. > > > > > > > > > > Bayonetta was banned in multiple locals until she was appropriately nerfed. > > > > Metaknight was absolutely banned in North America. > > https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/03/meta-knight-banned-from-super-smash-bros-brawl > > Cloud was banned from Doubles. > > https://www.ssbwiki.com/Cloud_(SSB4)#Banned_in_Doubles > > Hero was banned in Australia and France > > https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqvsvl > > https://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-france-bans-hero-and-future-dlc-characters-from-official-smash-bros-ultimate-tournaments/ > > I understand that players invest countless hours into their favorite characters and classes. I do not suggest banning Necromancer and Firebrand recklessly and with no thought. I care about Necromancer and Firebrand mains. I want metas where each and every one of the top 10 is occupied by a different top tier player maining a different class, and across all tiers all classes are viable. > > I do not recklessly call for bans or nerfs. > > Necromancer and Firebrand deserve to be banned from 2v2. You are recklessly calling for bans and nerfs. Over a gamemode very few play out of an already tiny PvP population. Guess what? At no point has PvP had fair representation of all the classes. And that's in 5v5 where there's more room to balance. If you want a fighting game, go play a fighting game. Just cut the melodramatics here. Instead of making a constructive post with suggestions on how to tune issues, you've made a kitten of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"Zietlogik.6208" said: > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > @"Kuma.1503" said: > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > > Plenty of games and tournaments make no bones about outright banning things from play. If you were playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl competitively, Metaknight was banned. In Smash 4 Bayonetta was banned. If you played Street Fighter Old Sagat and Akuma were historic banned characters. During Street Fighter 4 Seth and Gouken had been banned. BlazBue Chronophantasma Kokonoe was banned. In Dragon Ball Fighter Z there are immense calls for GT Goku to be banned and a number of locals have done so. Every single TCG game from Magic, to Yu-Gi-Oh to Pokemon has banned cards. > > > > > > I agree that FB Necro comps are too strong, but this is misinformation. It's very, very hard to get a character banned in fighting games. Bayonetta was never banned, but you could easily argue that she should have been. She single handedly lead to the most controversial grand finals tournament at the end of smash 4's lifespan. If you haven't seen the infamous moment, I suggest looking up Lima vs Captain Zac. > > > > > > Meta Knight came *very close* to being banned in Brawl, there was a mass effort from the biggest tourney organizers to ban him at all tournaments. Unfortunately, one guy decided not to ban him at his tourney. He just so happened to be the owner of Apex, the biggest smash tourney world wide. Due to this one guy, the entire attempt to ban MK fell apart because people would rather play by the rules set by the biggest stage. > > > > > > As for why it's so hard to get characters banned in fighting games. People invest countless hours into those characters. Namely, the big competetors like Zero, Nario, Dabuz, M2k, Leffen, Mango, ect. Players like these have huge influences in the community, they're who spectators come to see. If you ban a top tier like MK, you effectively ban these players from the tournament. It would be like going to a sports game only to realize that all of your favorite players have been replaced. > > > > > > tl;dr, banning characters is hard. Attempts to do so almost always fail in fighting games, likely will here too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bayonetta was banned in multiple locals until she was appropriately nerfed. > > > > > > > > Metaknight was absolutely banned in North America. > > > > https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/03/meta-knight-banned-from-super-smash-bros-brawl > > > > Cloud was banned from Doubles. > > > > https://www.ssbwiki.com/Cloud_(SSB4)#Banned_in_Doubles > > > > Hero was banned in Australia and France > > > > https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqvsvl > > > > https://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-france-bans-hero-and-future-dlc-characters-from-official-smash-bros-ultimate-tournaments/ > > > > I understand that players invest countless hours into their favorite characters and classes. I do not suggest banning Necromancer and Firebrand recklessly and with no thought. I care about Necromancer and Firebrand mains. I want metas where each and every one of the top 10 is occupied by a different top tier player maining a different class, and across all tiers all classes are viable. > > > > I do not recklessly call for bans or nerfs. > > > > Necromancer and Firebrand deserve to be banned from 2v2. > > you cherry picked those instances well, but you miss out on the vital piece of information that they are only banned in specific places, during specific times, temporarily. They were never globally banned...ever, each individual TO chose which rule set and which rules to enforce within those rulesets. Your references are the same as me saying "well i ban FB from playing at my house" therefore its banned, case closed, which obviously doesn't amount to anything, locals and tiny areas without any tournaments running beyond a C tier mean nothing, its like custom arenas in that regard. Nah when NINTENDO OF FRANCE hard bans something it's in an entirely different league than if michaeell123 bans something from his personal 2v2 and 1v1 streams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claytonmorby.3751 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"Shao.7236" said: > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > > Imagine wanting to ban/balance around 2v2 > > > > > > Never asked for balanced to be based on 2v2. > > > > > > Cards get frequently limited and hard banned in Trading Card Games. Fighters frequently get banned in Fighting Games. Why not ban certain classes in certain PvP game modes when they've reached the status of mandatory? > > > > Nice false equivalence. This isn't a highly competitive game. It's an MMO. Other MMOs like WoW concede certain PvP modes and focus on balancing for their "main" mode. > > > > And the title of this post asks for a ban in 2v2s. That's balancing around 2v2s. > > FB still dominates the meta in 5v5, there's a need for change anyway. There's always a class that dominates the meta. And having discussion about FB in that sense would be fine. This post is a joke though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnfall.9573 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 Mortrialusm, this is not a joke.....all we're saying, Leave Us Alone!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > @"Kuma.1503" said: > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > > Plenty of games and tournaments make no bones about outright banning things from play. If you were playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl competitively, Metaknight was banned. In Smash 4 Bayonetta was banned. If you played Street Fighter Old Sagat and Akuma were historic banned characters. During Street Fighter 4 Seth and Gouken had been banned. BlazBue Chronophantasma Kokonoe was banned. In Dragon Ball Fighter Z there are immense calls for GT Goku to be banned and a number of locals have done so. Every single TCG game from Magic, to Yu-Gi-Oh to Pokemon has banned cards. > > > > > > I agree that FB Necro comps are too strong, but this is misinformation. It's very, very hard to get a character banned in fighting games. Bayonetta was never banned, but you could easily argue that she should have been. She single handedly lead to the most controversial grand finals tournament at the end of smash 4's lifespan. If you haven't seen the infamous moment, I suggest looking up Lima vs Captain Zac. > > > > > > Meta Knight came *very close* to being banned in Brawl, there was a mass effort from the biggest tourney organizers to ban him at all tournaments. Unfortunately, one guy decided not to ban him at his tourney. He just so happened to be the owner of Apex, the biggest smash tourney world wide. Due to this one guy, the entire attempt to ban MK fell apart because people would rather play by the rules set by the biggest stage. > > > > > > As for why it's so hard to get characters banned in fighting games. People invest countless hours into those characters. Namely, the big competetors like Zero, Nario, Dabuz, M2k, Leffen, Mango, ect. Players like these have huge influences in the community, they're who spectators come to see. If you ban a top tier like MK, you effectively ban these players from the tournament. It would be like going to a sports game only to realize that all of your favorite players have been replaced. > > > > > > tl;dr, banning characters is hard. Attempts to do so almost always fail in fighting games, likely will here too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bayonetta was banned in multiple locals until she was appropriately nerfed. > > > > > > > > Metaknight was absolutely banned in North America. > > > > https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/03/meta-knight-banned-from-super-smash-bros-brawl > > > > Cloud was banned from Doubles. > > > > https://www.ssbwiki.com/Cloud_(SSB4)#Banned_in_Doubles > > > > Hero was banned in Australia and France > > > > https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqvsvl > > > > https://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-france-bans-hero-and-future-dlc-characters-from-official-smash-bros-ultimate-tournaments/ > > > > I understand that players invest countless hours into their favorite characters and classes. I do not suggest banning Necromancer and Firebrand recklessly and with no thought. I care about Necromancer and Firebrand mains. I want metas where each and every one of the top 10 is occupied by a different top tier player maining a different class, and across all tiers all classes are viable. > > > > I do not recklessly call for bans or nerfs. > > > > Necromancer and Firebrand deserve to be banned from 2v2. > > You are recklessly calling for bans and nerfs. Over a gamemode very few play out of an already tiny PvP population. The only builds I've ever asked to be hard banned before are Disenchanter Chrono post rework, and CI Mirage. There's a threshold which goes beyond simply being over powered and over performing to being outright mandatory to perform which is where immediate bans are warranted and Firebrand+Necro have both crossed it. > > Guess what? At no point has PvP had fair representation of all the classes. And that's in 5v5 where there's more room to balance. I'm not asking for permanent changed to skills, or traits, or utilities. Those balance choices are going to play out based on Conquest MAT and Ranked performance. But while 2v2s are active, in a very specific time and place and game mode, Firebrand and Necro should be banned for the health of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"Spellhunter.9675" said: > There is at least 1 setup in 2v2 hardcounter both necro and fb. But as I can see most people can't even use their brains to figure this out. So guys, wait a couple of days and metabattle will tell you how to play the game.  Which is why 9 of the top 10 are playing either firebrand or necro right now. And why you're definitely on the top 250 with your secret miraculous hard counter to Firebrand and necro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shao.7236 Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > @"Shao.7236" said: > > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > > > Imagine wanting to ban/balance around 2v2 > > > > > > > > Never asked for balanced to be based on 2v2. > > > > > > > > Cards get frequently limited and hard banned in Trading Card Games. Fighters frequently get banned in Fighting Games. Why not ban certain classes in certain PvP game modes when they've reached the status of mandatory? > > > > > > Nice false equivalence. This isn't a highly competitive game. It's an MMO. Other MMOs like WoW concede certain PvP modes and focus on balancing for their "main" mode. > > > > > > And the title of this post asks for a ban in 2v2s. That's balancing around 2v2s. > > > > FB still dominates the meta in 5v5, there's a need for change anyway. > > There's always a class that dominates the meta. And having discussion about FB in that sense would be fine. This post is a joke though. It dominates the meta with the wrong reasons, aka bad design compared it's other options. It's a straight upgrade with no equivalent alternatives anywhere because there's no downsides to be firebrand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apharma.3741 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 *sips* https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1134736#Comment_1134736 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apharma.3741 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 > @"Burnfall.9573" said: > Mortrialusm, this is not a joke.....all we're saying, Leave Us Alone!!  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arken.3725 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 I'm actually for a temporary ban on FB. Not even joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Boyer.6524 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 > @"Shao.7236" said: > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > @"Shao.7236" said: > > > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > > > > @"claytonmorby.3751" said: > > > > > > Imagine wanting to ban/balance around 2v2 > > > > > > > > > > Never asked for balanced to be based on 2v2. > > > > > > > > > > Cards get frequently limited and hard banned in Trading Card Games. Fighters frequently get banned in Fighting Games. Why not ban certain classes in certain PvP game modes when they've reached the status of mandatory? > > > > > > > > Nice false equivalence. This isn't a highly competitive game. It's an MMO. Other MMOs like WoW concede certain PvP modes and focus on balancing for their "main" mode. > > > > > > > > And the title of this post asks for a ban in 2v2s. That's balancing around 2v2s. > > > > > > FB still dominates the meta in 5v5, there's a need for change anyway. > > > > There's always a class that dominates the meta. And having discussion about FB in that sense would be fine. This post is a joke though. > > It dominates the meta with the wrong reasons, aka bad design compared it's other options. It's a straight upgrade with no equivalent alternatives anywhere because there's no downsides to be firebrand. Exactly, yup. Shao got to it before I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refuriation.5246 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > They should have banned mirage when everyone and their mother was playing it, and we were begging for it to be balanced. > > > > Should have banned spellbreaker when it was overpowered. > > > > Should have banned scourge and FB when it dominated the first half of the PoF lifespan. > > > > Y'all wanted to sit and defend your classes for ages. You made your bed, now lie in it. I don't feel remotely sorry for anyone after these forums were playing deaf for years when it actually mattered. > > I asked for Chronomancer post Phantasm rework back when it was 2 shotting people with Phantasmal Disenchanter and Defender to be hard banned. I've called for Condition Mirage and Mesmer nerfs in general for literally years now after the Phantasm rework. > > And as for Spellbreaker, Scourge, and Firebrand while I've called for nerfs to specific areas I've never suggested they get banned because I've never felt like an achievement like top 10 was impossible for other builds the way it is now, because as strong as they were we lived in an environment where Mirage/Holosmith/Druid(At the time)/Herald/Weaver/Thief in General had competitive builds. > > So you can keep your accusations of hypocrisy to yourself. And yet when I go through your post history it is all defending the mesmer class and complaining about other classes. Bro you are getting old, it's time to head for your bed and sleep for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 > @"Arken.3725" said: > I'm actually for a temporary ban on FB. Not even joking.  Even top tier firebrands agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortrialus.3062 Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 > @"Refuriation.5246" said: > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > > They should have banned mirage when everyone and their mother was playing it, and we were begging for it to be balanced. > > > > > > Should have banned spellbreaker when it was overpowered. > > > > > > Should have banned scourge and FB when it dominated the first half of the PoF lifespan. > > > > > > Y'all wanted to sit and defend your classes for ages. You made your bed, now lie in it. I don't feel remotely sorry for anyone after these forums were playing deaf for years when it actually mattered. > > > > I asked for Chronomancer post Phantasm rework back when it was 2 shotting people with Phantasmal Disenchanter and Defender to be hard banned. I've called for Condition Mirage and Mesmer nerfs in general for literally years now after the Phantasm rework. > > > > And as for Spellbreaker, Scourge, and Firebrand while I've called for nerfs to specific areas I've never suggested they get banned because I've never felt like an achievement like top 10 was impossible for other builds the way it is now, because as strong as they were we lived in an environment where Mirage/Holosmith/Druid(At the time)/Herald/Weaver/Thief in General had competitive builds. > > > > So you can keep your accusations of hypocrisy to yourself. > > And yet when I go through your post history it is all defending the mesmer class and complaining about other classes. Bro you are getting old, it's time to head for your bed and sleep for a long time.  > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > @"RabbitUp.8294" said: > > > @"Curunen.8729" said: > > > > @"RabbitUp.8294" said: > > > > How about leaving things as is? > > > > > > Phantasm spam/screen clutter is pretty broken in pvp due to various trait/skill interactions, there's no way it will be left as it is. > > > > > > Better to construct some ideas on this forum than wait for Anet to potentially nuke it all into irrelevance. > > > > Since when is pvp dominated by chronophantasma chronos? You are focusing on a niche build. > > Bunker Chrono is not a niche build, it is a god-tier duelist and is a frequent appearance winning in Automated Tournaments and in high rated League games. It is unambiguously a top tier build. Mesmer currently has several top tier builds. > > Chronophantasma was my favorite trait in the entire game for a long, long time. But it just shouldn't exist in this form in a post rework world where phantasmas are all now exceptionally powerful to compensate for them only doing one attack instead of as many attacks as they can across an entire fight. It is insane to expect players to potentially have to avoid the taunt of 4-6 Phantasmal Defenders in a row, all of which have potentially fight ending ramifications. It is insane to expect players to avoid four phantasmal defenders, all of which can have fight ending ramifications. It is insane to expect players to avoid 3-4 Illusionary Avengers, all of which can have fight ending consequences. > > Even if it wasn't absurdly overpowered, it shouldn't exist in this form because of the truely insane amount of screenclutter and visual noise it causes. One Chrono is potentially worse than the entire zoo meta of old combined. > > > @"Levetty.1279" said: > > > @"Curunen.8729" said: > > > > @"RabbitUp.8294" said: > > > > How about leaving things as is? > > > > > > Phantasm spam/screen clutter is pretty broken in pvp > > > > Considering PvP is won by the people who are most willing to pay for the win I'm not sure why you are advocating destroying Mesmer in PvE again. > > > > > You could delete Chronophantamsa and real PvE mesmers will be uneffected. Boonshare Chronos run Seize the Moment over Chronophantasma. DPS Mirages can't run Chronophantasma. DPS Chronomancer is the only PvE build that runs Chronophantasma and who cares really? Mesmers have a better DPS spec already, a spec that should be the meta dps build, and Support Chrono is mandatory in fractals and Raids. - April 9, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arken.3725 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 I mean, anyone with a decent head on their shoulders and who isn't selfish would want fair changes. It only makes sense to me, regardless if it messes with my profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said: > > > The only thing stopping banning classes is the developer's own will. They can literally do whatever they see fit. > > > > > Their is a difference here. The ability to do whatever they want isn't what matters. The DISCRETION to do something IS. There will NEVER be a ban on classes, WHATEVER motivates it. It's one of the most nonsensical requests I've seen yet. > > Arenanet saw fit to hard disable Chaotic Interruption in PvP when CI Mirage was running absolutely rough shot over the game mode, and it absolutely deserved that. > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/83741/chaotic-interruption-temporarily-disabled-in-pvp > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/81789/we-need-emergency-nerfs OK ... but we are talking about banning classes, not changing traits ... or are you confused about your own thread? 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