Guild Wars 2

I can’t breathe

having one of each profession in your party is a bad thing :^)

Yes, pretty sad about this. I understood they want to promote diversity

“It will negatively impact WvW”.

Err pretty sure people are only suggesting it for the actual raids. Not for anywhere else.

The meta is not changing at an alarming rate.

I don’t know if there has been a distinction between boons and profession specific buffs (Spotter, banners, Assassin’s Presence, etc) but I can definitely see how boons affecting 10 targets would be difficult to balance. Stuff like protection, aegis, resistance, that could seriously break some things.

However the profession specific buffs I think should be 10 targets for the reasons listed countless times already. If my raid wants Spotter and Assassin’s Presence to beat the rage timer I don’t want to use 4 spots for that I would rather use 2. Let some other professions play.

I am not in sky is falling mode or anything, and I am fully prepared to be wrong this is just my initial concern.

ANet meant exactly those. Because they are unique buffs, you want to have all of them and that is limiting to party composition

Encouraging players to play all the classes is limiting to party diversity…
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
( sigh…)

While it is disappointing, I can see the point. I don’t think the intent is for all buffs to be available all the time. It allows other professions to play a different role, with out always having to play the same one. For example warriors won’t always have to be banner bots, their banner buffs could be replaced by a ranger and revenant. It also allows classes that are good at self buffing, like necros and warriors, to break away from the group, or be in groups that don’t need aoe might ir buffing. Just a couple of examples, but I believe this was also an intent.

I don’t understand how they think this is a good idea.

1 PSEA warrior and persisting flames ele per group. 1 frost spirit/spotter ranger per group. 1 chronomancer per group for alacrity/quickness sharing.

That’s 2 spots left, for which Herald/Reaper/Scrapper/Daredevil are competing.

Herald brings the group ferocity buff and 50% extra boon duration for even longer quickness uptime from the chrono.

So 2 heralds for those 2 last spots on each group.

Reaper, Scrapper, Daredevil are out.

It’s just an unbelievably dumb decision.

If they made it 10-man wide for raids, ALL professions could be included without missing out on group buffs.

How’s about 1 straight DPS group, 1 condi group, 1 mobility group. The mobility group is in charge of tear down any defensive mechanisms (like the wall surrounding from the boss for instance?). The DPS group will hug your PSEA warrior + Quickness/Aclarity bot + Frost/Spotter whatever, while the Condi group operates as roamers on their own. Because seriously, condi classes like engi/ranger doesn’t really need external buff. They are quite efficient on their own with Quickness, low CD skills, Might, and what not.

spoj.9672:

“It will negatively impact WvW”.

Hasn’t stopped them before. >.>

This was very disappointing to me too. I fought really hard with them to get it spread to ten-people, but they’re just too scared of the ramifications for party compositions. They think that you simply won’t start a raid run until you have “one of every profession buff class” and you’ll opt not to run that night. Similarly, they feel like this creates some kind of “super party” that is somehow more OP than stacking the strongest classes in the first place.

I disagree with them, but whatever. It just means we’ll have to bring two warriors instead of one, among other things, limiting the flexibility for other classes to participate. Their arguments are really weak when you consider that the “optimal raid group composition” will always exist and be desired no matter what; all they do by keeping the buff sharing at 5 is prevent certain classes from making the optimal list and keep the discrimination against them.

Zenith.7301:

If they made it 10-man wide for raids, ALL professions could be included without missing out on group buffs.

They just made running 9 unique classes unviable.

Where is that class diversity?

Rising Dusk.2408:

This was very disappointing to me too. I fought really hard with them to get it spread to ten-people, but they’re just too scared of the ramifications for party compositions. They think that you simply won’t start a raid run until you have “one of every profession buff class” and you’ll opt not to run that night. Similarly, they feel like this creates some kind of “super party” that is somehow more OP than stacking the strongest classes in the first place.

I disagree with them, but whatever. It just means we’ll have to bring two warriors instead of one, among other things, limiting the flexibility for other classes to participate. Their arguments are really weak when you consider that the “optimal raid group composition” will always exist and be desired no matter what; all they do by keeping the buff sharing at 5 is prevent certain classes from making the optimal list and keep the discrimination against them.

Please keep pressing them and submitting reports from this thread.

I don’t get how this people just blatantly disregard player feedback when they come up with these idead.

How hard would it be to collaborate with rT/DnT/SC people, ask them for parses and trade PM’s to float ideas before they implement their broken mess.

3 years of “NO NECRO/NO RANGER!”, and come this xpac it’ll be “NO REAPER!” if it comes down to it, with Daredevil taking the place of Ranger.

Gav.1425:

Zenith.7301:

If they made it 10-man wide for raids, ALL professions could be included without missing out on group buffs.

They just made running 9 unique classes unviable.

Where is that class diversity?

You dont have to run all 9 unique classes. The point is right now with 5 man buffing an optimised group is limited by choice because certain roles will be mandatory but they need to cover both 5 man groups. Whereas with 10 man buffing those mandatory roles take up less slots. Which frees up choice for diverse approaches and tactics with the remaining slots.

Its been repeated countless times. But its the best example. Phalanx warrior is pretty much indispensible. But we now need 2 of them. If anything else is indispensible we also need 2 of them. As long as this trend continues we end up with the same limited parties we have now. So basically 2 identical parties to make up 10. Thats some really great diversity.

spoj.9672:

You dont have to run all 9 unique classes. The point is right now with 5 man buffing an optimised group is limited by choice because certain roles will be mandatory but they need to cover both 5 man groups. Whereas with 10 man buffing those mandatory roles take up less slots. Which frees up choice for diverse approaches and tactics with the remaining slots.

Never said we had to run all 9, I’m just saying that now we certainly can’t of you care about optimization.

Pretty bad decision on their part imo. Especially since their reasons for limiting it to 5 players is flawed. There will always be an optimal group, it’s just now that optimal group is limited to specific classes. If buffs could be spread to 10 members there could be variety in how parties would stack might, perma-fury, etc. Now it’s just going to be a requirement to have 2 phalanx warriors every time for maximum might.

They might as well just limit the raids to 5 people.

I don’t have 9 friends anyways.

Making buffs spread would have made controlling them easier, if there is ever a point where the team is together and there is two PS Warriors meleeing you can’t guarantee all 10 players will gain might, same goes for the other buffs.

I’d understand if damage numbers became worryingly high with all those stacked modifiers but the excuse they gave was mind numbingly stupid.

Rising Dusk.2408:

This was very disappointing to me too. I fought really hard with them to get it spread to ten-people, but they’re just too scared of the ramifications for party compositions. They think that you simply won’t start a raid run until you have “one of every profession buff class” and you’ll opt not to run that night. Similarly, they feel like this creates some kind of “super party” that is somehow more OP than stacking the strongest classes in the first place.

I disagree with them, but whatever. It just means we’ll have to bring two warriors instead of one, among other things, limiting the flexibility for other classes to participate. Their arguments are really weak when you consider that the “optimal raid group composition” will always exist and be desired no matter what; all they do by keeping the buff sharing at 5 is prevent certain classes from making the optimal list and keep the discrimination against them.

I think you made a very good point, absolutely agree, couldn’t have said it better/that good myself.

TBH I think it’s just a made up argument because it’s probably too much work for them and casuals won’t care anyway.

Zenith.7301:

How hard would it be to collaborate with rT/DnT/SC people, ask them for parses and trade PM’s to float ideas before they implement their broken mess.

This. Calling in “top” players for help could really make a difference — particularly since they’ve shown they have very little understanding of their own game and how it’s played .(This is true for all game modes: PvE, PvP, WvW).

I can totally see being cautious about Blown Out Damage.

It is the thing that’s historically decimated their combat system, the thing that has been most impacted by power creep, and what they’ve more or less specifically designed Raids to not succumb to. Taking the reigns off Force Multipliers and letting them go hog wild seems a bit counter-productive in light of that.

It also may help the gameplay of support skills.
Right now hitting everybody is such a forgone conclusion, range as a concept doesn’t really factor into your gameplay. For alot of skills, range is basically all they have going for them as Things We Play With, and defacto removing that just makes them something you cycle through mindlessly or put up at the start of the fight and then forget about.

You can argue you’d feel some unwanted pressures during the party composition phase. But for the actual combat itself, somebody using support skills having to truly consider range and position is very healthy for PvE Support.

If they are going to keep the five player limited buffs, they should instead look into the potential each profession can have with increasing in their group’s damage. From that point of view, some classes are very strong and others are very weak. A better position to be in would be if any combination of five professions would increase the damage of their party somewhat equally.

The way I think about it is like this: It’s a better situation to be in any combination of two parties of five different classes is a better position to be in then each buff affecting 10 players because the former allows for more combinations of classes than the latter.

The problem is, I sincerely doubt they will ever balance the classes to be that way.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Zenith.7301:

How hard would it be to collaborate with rT/DnT/SC people, ask them for parses and trade PM’s to float ideas before they implement their broken mess.

This. Calling in “top” players for help could really make a difference — particularly since they’ve shown they have very little understanding of their own game and how it’s played .(This is true for all game modes: PvE, PvP, WvW).

This will never happen because it would basically be openly admitting they have no idea what they’re doing – which we all know to be a fact in a large number of past situations – but never have they actually bothered to come out and say “ok we didn’t do so well on that one” because I don’t know really – developer pride?

Aside from that – I too feel this is silly -you’ll basically run the best comp x2 if the 10 players can’t interact with each other properly being stuck to the 5 man limit.

They can still interact to some extend even tho there’s no direct visual interaction unless you target the player. Won’t cut it for sure, but there’s that o/.

Gav.1425:

They might as well just limit the raids to 5 people.

I don’t have 9 friends anyways.

deSade.9437:

Gav.1425:

They might as well just limit the raids to 5 people.

I don’t have 9 friends anyways.

Gather your fans, cat and your cat’s friends. I heard cat makes a good DPS for when you play druid.

Iris Ng.9845:

deSade.9437:

Gav.1425:

They might as well just limit the raids to 5 people.

I don’t have 9 friends anyways.

Gather your fans, cat and your cat’s friends. I heard cat makes a good DPS for when you play druid.

/chuckle

My “fans” only seem interested in randomly (and creepily) pming me while I sit around cities…. “oh you’re the guy from the forum blabla I wanna slap your face with a moist towel”… Aight.

I’ll ask my cat if he wants to try out raids next week. /bribes with can of tuna

They just can’t limit buff cap increase to raids only because game runs on potatoes and goat sacrifices. Op party composition argument is complete bs.

How incredibly disappointing. It’s so obvious, why this is a bad idea. Their reason is basically they don’t know how to balance around diverse groups because they allowed the current meta to persist for so long. What a joke, I’m immediately turned off of raiding now. I was so excited to be bringing my Necro/Reaper to the group.

Find it a little bit unfair how you guys think, she already stated the reason why 10 man buffing is a no go.
It would force people to bring 1 of each class with the right traitlines to build up to maximum potential, to prevent bosses from being melted down raids would be made towards this maximum potential and 1 of each class would be mandatory, miss 1 class? raid can’t go because of missed potential.

@Setz, how is that not a better deal than having to find TWO of the same profession running exactly the most optimal builds?

Gnat.9405:

@Setz, how is that not a better deal than having to find TWO of the same profession running exactly the most optimal builds?

Assuming that 2x the same thing will be the most optimal thing.

Setz.9675:

Find it a little bit unfair how you guys think, she already stated the reason why 10 man buffing is a no go.
It would force people to bring 1 of each class with the right traitlines to build up to maximum potential, to prevent bosses from being melted down raids would be made towards this maximum potential and 1 of each class would be mandatory, miss 1 class? raid can’t go because of missed potential.

That was a poor reason that doesnt make sense given the context. Raids are probably going to be exclusionary no matter what. So it would be better to at least allow for all 9 proffessions to fit into the group. Rather than only 5-6 because you require multiple duplicates to simply fully cover buffs on everyone.

Organised teams are always going to go for the most optimal group. So it also doesnt make sense for that reason. And i doubt a 9 profession party would be the best group anyway. But we dont even have that option with 5 man buffing.

The excuse “we dont want players to wait for that one class” doesnt hold up. Because with this system the exact same thing could happen. Groups will be forced to wait for that second phalanx warrior or chrono or they cant go. Its the exact same problem. Only with less diversity. And greater chance of certain classes continuously being excluded from groups.

So can anyone explain to me the logic behind anets decision with an actual reason that makes sense? Other than they cant work out how to split 10 man buffing from the rest of the game (probably the real reason).

it’s just bad design.

like in a bad joke… “hey lets do some new, fancy stuff”- “ok, lets do sth never been there”- “whats about a 10 player content” – “great let’s do it” – “anything against” – “dunno, maybe we’ll find out later, when we test it”

that’s a bit like including a boss where you need a classical tank and heal, oh, wait his game don’t supports tank and heal…

it’s nice to play with 9 frieds -at least i hope so- but when it’s promised hard contend you should be allowed to build your team composition for the challenges you face, not for basic mechanics you need to take with you…

spoj.9672:

So can anyone explain to me the logic behind anets decision with an actual reason that makes sense? Other than they cant work out how to split 10 man buffing from the rest of the game (probably the real reason).

10 man buffs means Anet’s servers must do more computations per second than it does now. This costs money. That’s the reason.

Lord Kuru.3685:

spoj.9672:

So can anyone explain to me the logic behind anets decision with an actual reason that makes sense? Other than they cant work out how to split 10 man buffing from the rest of the game (probably the real reason).

10 man buffs means Anet’s servers must do more computations per second than it does now. This costs money. That’s the reason.

Didn’t stop them from removing condi caps to please world boss zergers.

Taku.6352:

Lord Kuru.3685:

spoj.9672:

So can anyone explain to me the logic behind anets decision with an actual reason that makes sense? Other than they cant work out how to split 10 man buffing from the rest of the game (probably the real reason).

10 man buffs means Anet’s servers must do more computations per second than it does now. This costs money. That’s the reason.

Didn’t stop them from removing condi caps to please world boss zergers.

That cost them money too. Just because they’re willing to spend money on that doesn’t mean they’d do it for this. Condi caps has been a thing people have consistently complained about since launch.

People wanted condi caps lifted because they weren’t getting credit in world boss zergs. Loot is something people care deeply about. While ten man buffing is mechanically a similar issue, it doesn’t affect players’ loot income directly …so I don’t see it as being something that’ll get much attention from the general population.

When their raids turn into dungeons 2.0 maybe they’ll think about it. I’m so bummed out about this.

I mean, I was probably going to play Reaper in the expansion, but with this decision I’m not going to invest time in a class that’s going to be rejected from raid teams who care about optimization (the groups that will actually get stuff killed).

Now I’ve got my choices narrowed down to Chronomancer or Herald.

Lord Kuru.3685:

spoj.9672:

So can anyone explain to me the logic behind anets decision with an actual reason that makes sense? Other than they cant work out how to split 10 man buffing from the rest of the game (probably the real reason).

10 man buffs means Anet’s servers must do more computations per second than it does now. This costs money. That’s the reason.

In an instance with only 10 players inside I’m pretty kitten sure that won’t be a problem, nor overly difficult to do

Zenith.7301:

I mean, I was probably going to play Reaper in the expansion, but with this decision I’m not going to invest time in a class that’s going to be rejected from raid teams who care about optimization (the groups that will actually get stuff killed).

Now I’ve got my choices narrowed down to Chronomancer or Herald.

You shouldn’t consider pugging them anyway.

Trying to figure out ArenaNet’s rationale.

As for variety in raids, yes, there will always be an “optimum” composition whether or not they allow supergroups. Which is probably why they won’t allow supergroups.

Imagine one of the current dungeons magnified into a raid. Guess what it’ll look like 3-6 months from now. Probably something like this.

Don’t need stealth.
Don’t need portals.
Don’t need lame kitten reflects.

We need:

One warrior for Phalanx Strength and banners, one ranger for FrostSpotter-maybe-Fury, and seven other spots taken by elementalists because they have the highest AoE damage and good defense coverage when everything explodes before it has a chance to move. Also, the eles can prestack Might/Fury for everyone should they so desire.

For PUGs, it’ll be one warrior, one ranger, and seven hammer guards with “Feel My Wrath!” I realize FMW was just nerfed, but look, you can now chain seven guardians to cover everyone in a 10-player group within the 45 seconds cooldown. A few guards could run boon duration increases and voila, perma quickness for everybody! \o/

Should players find a way to “OS” (one-shot) some annoying boss, it’ll turn into “need a XYZ” whatever class that is. Then we run six ele or guards.

If condi damage becomes king in this hypothetical raid based on current dungeon mechanics, we run 1x warrior and 9x rangers with bonfire/quickdraw (AoE burn all the things), or 1x warrior + 1x ranger + 8x burn guards, or 8x necro.

Redesigning raids to allow 10-player boon sharing (supergroups) isn’t going to influence people into magically inviting underutilized classes. Players will only have a wider option to invite other classes, like we have the option to wear Nomad’s armor.

Restricting people may actually promote more creativity and resourcefulness. It also breaks down the raid group into more manageable chunks. In two parties of five in this hypothetical dungeon-raid, we can run:

Party 1:
1x warrior
1x ranger
3x ele

Party 2:
1x warrior
1x ranger
2x ele
1x necro <—because we ran out of ele AND because a random class stuffed in this last slot doesn’t stick out as much, AND feels like it can’t do as much damage if played badly since it’s attached to the 2nd raid sub-unit. So let’s give it a chance.

At the worst, keeping two 5-player parties potentially means ArenaNet gets exactly the same kind of “diversity” they would have gotten should they allow 10-person boon sharing, and without the headache of having to balance yet another game mode.

Anyway, that’s how I’m reading all this.

spoj.9672:

So can anyone explain to me the logic behind anets decision with an actual reason that makes sense? Other than they cant work out how to split 10 man buffing from the rest of the game (probably the real reason).

Anet’s reasoning was kind of odd to me. The impression I got from Crystal was that if buffs went 10 person, then the optimal setup would eclipse partially optimal groups due to the buffs being multiplicative. So it became an issue of, if they balance around this optimal group, average groups are going to fall far, far behind. And if they balance around an average group, the optimal group is going to absolutely steam roll the content. I kind of get the point, but I also thought raids weren’t going to allow just the “average” group to come in, so it feels kind of like a moot point?

Which leads me to be a little confused as to what level of difficulty the raids will actually be. On one hand, they keep talking about how “it’s so hard!”, but on the other hand, they won’t do a buff change so that groups don’t have to have a ranger (example). They definitely want to allow diversity (diversity as in what completes content, not what is the best group, which seems to be the focus of this thread) in groups, but I think sadly the more diverse the group is allowed to be, the more trivial the content is because of some of the lacking classes (which maybe could have been remedied by those lower classes having unique, 10 party wide buffs, but then we’re back to the power creep Crystal mentioned). And I don’t have a ton of faith that anet is going to choose the right balance between diversity and difficulty, or that they even should have a balance between the two.

That’s my take on it at least. Pretty disappointing, regardless.

I’m waiting for the balance patch really.

Phalanx warrior as a required buff isn’t a justification to make phalanx buff more people. It’s a justification to nerf phalanx because it is deemed a “required” buff in comparison to all other avaliable buffs.

If they’re really trying to build a system where there are no required classes, only required roles, then no one class should ever so totally eclipse all other options for the support, damage, or control it brings to the table.

However, if they don’t pass around buffs/nerfs to bring everyone more in line with each other in terms of group utility (for all game modes) the concept of “everyone can be useful as long as everyone brings complimentary builds” is already DOA.

rotten.9753:

Zenith.7301:

I mean, I was probably going to play Reaper in the expansion, but with this decision I’m not going to invest time in a class that’s going to be rejected from raid teams who care about optimization (the groups that will actually get stuff killed).

Now I’ve got my choices narrowed down to Chronomancer or Herald.

You shouldn’t consider pugging them anyway.

Who said I was gonna pug them? I said in that post I was considering joining a prospective raid team. Another case may be just convincing my FFXIV raid peeps to try these raids out since they quit GW2 long ago.

Part of joining any raid team concerned with success/efficiency is working out the team comps.

I was really looking forward to playing reaper, and with that announcement if I still decide to play reaper I’m basically screwing over my team with a suboptimal comp.

Convincing my raid group to try GW2 raids will be annoying, though ;(. Given GW2’s history of abandoning PvE content and making purely PvP balance decisions for the most part, why should they abandon FFXIV or Wildstar instead.

In FFXIV the DPS is so ridiculously well balanced. Parsing shows monk at 1300, dragoon at 1270, Ninja at 1150 (they bring a 2% raid DPS buff), and the support DPS classes of bard and machinist at around 1000 DPS. For the caster DPS, black mages are doing 1250ish, Summoners about 1200.

Within the melee DPS, the spread isn’t even greater than a 5% difference. Between melee and casters, the DPS spread does not exceed a 10% difference, and casters are balanced around better aoe/cleave.

I mean, how can I ask people to abandon much better balanced PvE MMOs for one whose developers clearly have no idea how to balance properly let alone prioritize PvE because “esports”.

Zenith.7301:

Who said I was gonna pug them? I said in that post I was considering joining a prospective raid team. Another case may be just convincing my FFXIV raid peeps to try these raids out since they quit GW2 long ago.

Part of joining any raid team concerned with success/efficiency is working out the team comps.

I was really looking forward to playing reaper, and with that announcement if I still decide to play reaper I’m basically screwing over my team with a suboptimal comp.

Convincing my raid group to try GW2 raids will be annoying, though ;(. Given GW2’s history of abandoning PvE content and making purely PvP balance decisions for the most part, why should they abandon FFXIV or Wildstar instead.

In FFXIV the DPS is so ridiculously well balanced. Parsing shows monk at 1300, dragoon at 1270, Ninja at 1150 (they bring a 2% raid DPS buff), and the support DPS classes of bard and machinist at around 1000 DPS. For the caster DPS, black mages are doing 1250ish, Summoners about 1200.

Within the melee DPS, the spread isn’t even greater than a 5% difference. Between melee and casters, the DPS spread does not exceed a 10% difference, and casters are balanced around better aoe/cleave.

I mean, how can I ask people to abandon much better balanced PvE MMOs for one whose developers clearly have no idea how to balance properly let alone prioritize PvE because “esports”.

Raids won’t be about just damage. At least I hope so.

PopeUrban.2578:

I’m waiting for the balance patch really.

Phalanx warrior as a required buff isn’t a justification to make phalanx buff more people. It’s a justification to nerf phalanx because it is deemed a “required” buff in comparison to all other avaliable buffs.

If they’re really trying to build a system where there are no required classes, only required roles, then no one class should ever so totally eclipse all other options for the support, damage, or control it brings to the table.

However, if they don’t pass around buffs/nerfs to bring everyone more in line with each other in terms of group utility (for all game modes) the concept of “everyone can be useful as long as everyone brings complimentary builds” is already DOA.

I don’t think most are suggesting that group boons be extended to 10, it’s more the special skills like EA, Banners, Spotter, Frost Spirit, Vampiric thingy on necro, and all that stuff.

I guess we can only truly comment once we get to try it, but at face value this seems pretty disappointing.

PopeUrban.2578:

I’m waiting for the balance patch really.

Phalanx warrior as a required buff isn’t a justification to make phalanx buff more people. It’s a justification to nerf phalanx because it is deemed a “required” buff in comparison to all other avaliable buffs.

I actually think it kind of is. We can either bring 2 ps wars to get the whole party its might, or we can have one, and let that other slot be taken by a different class. Unlike staff eles, warriors don’t stack with one another.

You can nerf ps war if you want, but then groups will swap ps war for a scepter hammer ele I’d imagine. Removing warrior and replacing it with even more eles seems lame.

On a side note, because everyone keeps complaining about ps war on these forums, does anyone have the average might generation for scepter hammer ele when we assume there is always a fire field?

More than enough from a hammer ele but you won’t get that outside a vacuum since there will be conflicting fields all the time.