Guild Wars 2

Ayrilana.1396:

Dinosaurs.8674:

Ayrilana.1396:

Like I’ve stated several times already, necro was brought because of an unintended mechanic that allowed them to create tons on jagged horrors to tank while stacking bleeds. I’d hardly consider fixing something like that as a nerf otherwise why not just call fixing the glyph of elemental power as a nerf too. Or fixing scoring earth many months ago as a nerf. Or that fall damage thing that could kill other players as a nerf. This is the point that you’re missing which I have mentioned several times.

There will always be a meta which involves the most optimal builds and group composition. Those that are not the best are excluded no matter how close they may be. Let’s assume that Ele can now stack might up to 8 times without losing DPS and that sroppibg the warrior allows them to maintain full might stacks on everyone and group DPS is increased by 2K. Those that favor the meta would go with the 3 Ele per team comp and then consider the previous comp unviable. That’s pretty much sums them up.

You can buff other classes but they’ll still go with what team comp is the strongest no matter how close. Why not just nerf Ele’s damage down so that other classes are more equal. No reason to add even more power creep so they can be equitable to Ele. Not to mention the balancing implications that there would be in other game modes.

And as I had said, I was showing sympathy towards those that felt necro was undesirable and saying that Anet could always buff them. I was trying to come off as less harsh but my mistake. Next time I won’t make that mistake again. It was in no way part of my argument.

Of course players will always tend towards the strongest classes in a particular fight. The issue is that “the strongest classes” are the same for every fight in the only raid. I don’t think anyone would argue that the previous patch had a balanced and diverse raid meta, but it’s certainly true that the recent patch was a step backwards in that regard.

Unfortunately just nerfing ele would do little, because despite being the best personal DPS in most fights, its group DPS is still substantially worse than warrior, mesmer, and druid.

The recent patch only changed the optimal team composition. It had minimal impact on the viability of any of the classes including team compositions.

That is only true for experienced groups, where the lost DPS could be made up in 10-15 seconds resulting in only a slightly longer boss fight. If you are in a group that was less experienced and was maybe getting close to the enrage timer, you may not be able to make up for the lost DPS fast enough and necromancer may in fact not be viable. At the very least, 40-60 seconds of extra fight time could easily result in a substantial reduction of success rate for less experienced groups, which is about as close to non-viability as you can get considering the low difficulty level of this game’s raids.

Dinosaurs.8674:

Ayrilana.1396:

Dinosaurs.8674:

Ayrilana.1396:

Like I’ve stated several times already, necro was brought because of an unintended mechanic that allowed them to create tons on jagged horrors to tank while stacking bleeds. I’d hardly consider fixing something like that as a nerf otherwise why not just call fixing the glyph of elemental power as a nerf too. Or fixing scoring earth many months ago as a nerf. Or that fall damage thing that could kill other players as a nerf. This is the point that you’re missing which I have mentioned several times.

There will always be a meta which involves the most optimal builds and group composition. Those that are not the best are excluded no matter how close they may be. Let’s assume that Ele can now stack might up to 8 times without losing DPS and that sroppibg the warrior allows them to maintain full might stacks on everyone and group DPS is increased by 2K. Those that favor the meta would go with the 3 Ele per team comp and then consider the previous comp unviable. That’s pretty much sums them up.

You can buff other classes but they’ll still go with what team comp is the strongest no matter how close. Why not just nerf Ele’s damage down so that other classes are more equal. No reason to add even more power creep so they can be equitable to Ele. Not to mention the balancing implications that there would be in other game modes.

And as I had said, I was showing sympathy towards those that felt necro was undesirable and saying that Anet could always buff them. I was trying to come off as less harsh but my mistake. Next time I won’t make that mistake again. It was in no way part of my argument.

Of course players will always tend towards the strongest classes in a particular fight. The issue is that “the strongest classes” are the same for every fight in the only raid. I don’t think anyone would argue that the previous patch had a balanced and diverse raid meta, but it’s certainly true that the recent patch was a step backwards in that regard.

Unfortunately just nerfing ele would do little, because despite being the best personal DPS in most fights, its group DPS is still substantially worse than warrior, mesmer, and druid.

The recent patch only changed the optimal team composition. It had minimal impact on the viability of any of the classes including team compositions.

That is only true for experienced groups, where the lost DPS could be made up in 10-15 seconds resulting in only a slightly longer boss fight. If you are in a group that was less experienced and was maybe getting close to the enrage timer, you may not be able to make up for the lost DPS fast enough and necromancer may in fact not be viable. At the very least, 40-60 seconds of extra fight time could easily result in a substantial reduction of success rate for less experienced groups, which is about as close to non-viability as you can get considering the low difficulty level of this game’s raids.

Read the post before this one which I made as you were writing this. You can’t use player skill to determine viability otherwise a new group of players doing raids could call the mirror comp unviable if they keep failing at it. As they get more skilled, they’ll succeed at that comp. as they get more skilled, other comps can result in a success. Player skill is unreliable when determining whether a build/comp is actually viable.

Ayrilana.1396:

Dinosaurs.8674:

Ayrilana.1396:

Dinosaurs.8674:

Ayrilana.1396:

Like I’ve stated several times already, necro was brought because of an unintended mechanic that allowed them to create tons on jagged horrors to tank while stacking bleeds. I’d hardly consider fixing something like that as a nerf otherwise why not just call fixing the glyph of elemental power as a nerf too. Or fixing scoring earth many months ago as a nerf. Or that fall damage thing that could kill other players as a nerf. This is the point that you’re missing which I have mentioned several times.

There will always be a meta which involves the most optimal builds and group composition. Those that are not the best are excluded no matter how close they may be. Let’s assume that Ele can now stack might up to 8 times without losing DPS and that sroppibg the warrior allows them to maintain full might stacks on everyone and group DPS is increased by 2K. Those that favor the meta would go with the 3 Ele per team comp and then consider the previous comp unviable. That’s pretty much sums them up.

You can buff other classes but they’ll still go with what team comp is the strongest no matter how close. Why not just nerf Ele’s damage down so that other classes are more equal. No reason to add even more power creep so they can be equitable to Ele. Not to mention the balancing implications that there would be in other game modes.

And as I had said, I was showing sympathy towards those that felt necro was undesirable and saying that Anet could always buff them. I was trying to come off as less harsh but my mistake. Next time I won’t make that mistake again. It was in no way part of my argument.

Of course players will always tend towards the strongest classes in a particular fight. The issue is that “the strongest classes” are the same for every fight in the only raid. I don’t think anyone would argue that the previous patch had a balanced and diverse raid meta, but it’s certainly true that the recent patch was a step backwards in that regard.

Unfortunately just nerfing ele would do little, because despite being the best personal DPS in most fights, its group DPS is still substantially worse than warrior, mesmer, and druid.

The recent patch only changed the optimal team composition. It had minimal impact on the viability of any of the classes including team compositions.

That is only true for experienced groups, where the lost DPS could be made up in 10-15 seconds resulting in only a slightly longer boss fight. If you are in a group that was less experienced and was maybe getting close to the enrage timer, you may not be able to make up for the lost DPS fast enough and necromancer may in fact not be viable. At the very least, 40-60 seconds of extra fight time could easily result in a substantial reduction of success rate for less experienced groups, which is about as close to non-viability as you can get considering the low difficulty level of this game’s raids.

Read the post before this one which I made as you were writing this. You can’t use player skill to determine viability otherwise a new group of players doing raids could call the mirror comp unviable if they keep failing at it. As they get more skilled, they’ll succeed at that comp. as they get more skilled, other comps can result in a success. Player skill is unreliable when determining whether a build/comp is actually viable.

This whole discussion is way too caught up in what “viable” means. Of course everything is viable. It is possible to kill the boss with anything, even for a new group. But ignoring player skill when discussing any quality of a class is ridiculous. Snow Crows did a 3 man vale guardian, so by that logic 7 empty slots is a viable strategy in that fight. Objectively that is not wrong, but what is the point in arguing that other than being semantically correct?

Whether necromancer is “viable” to the best raiders or median-level raiders or whatever is a discussion that misses the point. The fact is that in virtually every situation, in almost every fight there is now no reason to actually want a necromancer in a group. That’s the real problem on the level of the individual class – what people want for a class isn’t mere viability, it is a compelling reason to bring this class to a fight. And necromancer is now in the same boat as engineer and revenant to some extent, where sure they could be used, and often will be used, but that doesn’t mean those classes are in an even remotely healthy place. I and most of the other experienced raiders I know would argue that the current class designs in general function extremely poorly in raids, and it shows in the relative usefulness of the classes, among other things.

Dinosaurs.8674:

This whole discussion is way too caught up in what “viable” means. Of course everything is viable. It is possible to kill the boss with anything, even for a new group. But ignoring player skill when discussing any quality of a class is ridiculous. Snow Crows did a 3 man vale guardian, so by that logic 7 empty slots is a viable strategy in that fight. Objectively that is not wrong, but what is the point in arguing that other than being semantically correct?
Whether necromancer is “viable” to the best raiders or median-level raiders or whatever is a discussion that misses the point. The fact is that in virtually every situation, in almost every fight there is now no reason to actually want a necromancer in a group. That’s the real problem on the level of the individual class – what people want for a class isn’t mere viability, it is a compelling reason to bring this class to a fight. And necromancer is now in the same boat as engineer and revenant to some extent, where sure they could be used, and often will be used, but that doesn’t mean those classes are in an even remotely healthy place. I and most of the other experienced raiders I know would argue that the current class designs in general function extremely poorly in raids, and it shows in the relative usefulness of the classes, among other things.

And this takes it just outside the scope of what I was arguing which I tend to agree with. Classes can always be improved upon to make them more beneficial than how they currently are. I wouldn’t necessarily say balance it towards a meta though.

In any case, it’ll probably be for the best if game modes could be balanced separately in a way that doesn’t encumber the balancing team. I wouldn’t be surprised if the lack of excitement for some classes in one game mode is a result of attempting to keep it balanced in another or across all

AndyS.5630:

Obtena.7952:

That’s true, there are lots of excessive effects and Anet decides which ones are intended or not. Anet decided that stacking boon and duration wasn’t. so they made changes. Seems like a perfectly reasonable way to approach game changes to me, given that it’s their prerogative to do that. So what’s the problem here? … other than your excessively sensational interpretation that this ‘ruins’ the game?

We have more players that are forced to play not something they like. That’s a good enough definition of ruining the game.

Being restricted in how you want to play is not a good enough definition of ruining the game because you are restricted in many ways, right from the beginning of the game due to it’s mechanics and the concepts of the classes. Yet, the game was no more ruined from day one than it is now that some of the mechanics change. That relationship between restrictions on how you play and the ‘ruin’ of the game is illogical and nonsense. Mechanics and skill changes are the norm, not the exception and we have had many years of these kinds of changes, yet the game is not any more ruined than it has been.

I mean, at this point, if your just going to spout rhetoric and claim it’s ruinous to the game, I don’t think there is any reasonable approach to discussing things with you; I see no reason for Anet to give ear to such an illogical approach to assessing the changes.

Ayrilana.1396:

Astralporing.1957:

Ayrilana.1396:

They’re not accepting that there exists a realm between failure and optimal.

They do. They also know, however, that going suboptimal often increases the chances of failing (which for most players are significant even with the best group composition).
It doesn’t matter if the best skilled groups can do the boss with nonoptimal compositions if you happen to not be in such a group. And in groups where the success chances aren’t that great to begin with, not letting them go even lower is quite important.

In the context of an average pug group, “viable” would be something that doesn’t drag the group down. From such a point of view there’s not much difference between significantly suboptimal class/build, and a player that comes in naked and weaponless with no traits set. Even if the latter is also technically “viable” (as you can theoretically finish the encounter with one such player in the group).

Adding player skill levels distorts “viable”.

Perhaps. On the other hand, without considering that context, “viable” has no meaning whatsoever. After all, if we just use the dictionary meaning without that context, every single class and build combination is viable.

At this moment you’re merely arguing semantics while losing the sight of the argument as a whole.

Shiren.9532:

The same goes for herald’s boon duration. What kind of power creep would be needed for the second revenant elite spec to compete with 50% boon duration? Every other profession and build would need to exist in an environment where that kind of boon duration existed. That’s a nightmare for balance, especially with nine more elite specializations around the corner.

Excuse me, but what will next mesmer elite spec have to be to compete with permanent Quickness and Alacrity? Not only these two buffs increase group DPS directly, they also let use other buff skills more, so some Warrior will not only put some ~40% more DPS, but also provide ~40% more Might through Chrono’s buffs. Herald’s boon duration bonus is child’s play compared to that.

I can consider Expertise similar (to Quickness and Alacrity) because it doubles as affecting both damaging and utility conditions.

Ayrilana.1396:

Raids can be done without relying on the meta. This is a fact. Just because something isn’t optimal does not mean that it’s not viable. I can agree with using viability as the degree between it being optimal and it being an utter failure. I’m not using it in that sense though due to so many people going under the assumption that if it’s not optimal then it’s not viable. They’re not accepting that there exists a realm between failure and optimal. You also can’t really use player restrictions in regards to viability otherwise why not just include AP and LI as well since those impact a player’s ability to get into a group.

AP and LI have nothing to do with class balance.

Obtena.7952:

Being restricted in how you want to play is not a good enough definition of ruining the game because you are restricted in many ways, right from the beginning of the game due to it’s mechanics and the concepts of the classes.

When I’m talking about being restricted (as ruining the game) I mean having conceptual choices horrible balance-wise. Do you like Thief or Engineer for their class concepts? Sorry, no raids for you. Wait, let’s get those dark arts masters Necromancers out of raids as well. And no, you can’t compare undesirable classes (that have strong concepts behind them) and undesirable stat prefixes, runes, sigils etc (that are usually picked just for stats).

I know a lot of people look down on the “play how you want” mentality, but it has been a differentiator for GW2 compared to other games since day one. How they approached raids in general, and definitely the last “balance” patch, are taking the game in the wrong direction – one that is having, imo, a very negative impact on how players feel about GW2 and Anet.

I know people (including some devs) don’t want to hear it, but this is why multiple raid tiers are needed so badly. We will never see any semblance of actual balance between all of the professions. There will always be those that FAR outshine others when it comes to mission critical tasks such as pure damage, boon sharing, healing, interrupts, etc. The only solutions would just serve to destroy any flavor between the classes and take something important from the game.

Imo, top tier epic raiding should be developed around the min-max meta – providing the ultimate challenge for those who don’t care about class flavor and simply want to play to the math.

At the same time, there should be a semi challenging 10-player experience for the rest – the ones that want to play scepter mesmers or rifle engineers or longbow rangers (or dozens of other options) without having to worry about hurting someone else’s chances at completing the raid.

AndyS.5630:

Shiren.9532:

The same goes for herald’s boon duration. What kind of power creep would be needed for the second revenant elite spec to compete with 50% boon duration? Every other profession and build would need to exist in an environment where that kind of boon duration existed. That’s a nightmare for balance, especially with nine more elite specializations around the corner.

Excuse me, but what will next mesmer elite spec have to be to compete with permanent Quickness and Alacrity? Not only these two buffs increase group DPS directly, they also let use other buff skills more, so some Warrior will not only put some ~40% more DPS, but also provide ~40% more Might through Chrono’s buffs. Herald’s boon duration bonus is child’s play compared to that.

I can consider Expertise similar (to Quickness and Alacrity) because it doubles as affecting both damaging and utility conditions.

Ayrilana.1396:

Raids can be done without relying on the meta. This is a fact. Just because something isn’t optimal does not mean that it’s not viable. I can agree with using viability as the degree between it being optimal and it being an utter failure. I’m not using it in that sense though due to so many people going under the assumption that if it’s not optimal then it’s not viable. They’re not accepting that there exists a realm between failure and optimal. You also can’t really use player restrictions in regards to viability otherwise why not just include AP and LI as well since those impact a player’s ability to get into a group.

AP and LI have nothing to do with class balance.

Obtena.7952:

Being restricted in how you want to play is not a good enough definition of ruining the game because you are restricted in many ways, right from the beginning of the game due to it’s mechanics and the concepts of the classes.

When I’m talking about being restricted (as ruining the game) I mean having conceptual choices horrible balance-wise. Do you like Thief or Engineer for their class concepts? Sorry, no raids for you. Wait, let’s get those dark arts masters Necromancers out of raids as well. And no, you can’t compare undesirable classes (that have strong concepts behind them) and undesirable stat prefixes, runes, sigils etc (that are usually picked just for stats).

And neither does player skill and yet it’s one of the primary factors as to whether some builds/comps are effective for some players and not others. Please read the post again in its context as you missed the point that I was going with it.

Actually it’s kind of funny since the post was a response to one of yours. You defined viability using factors outside of whether the build/comp itself can be successful of not. The build/comp thus is not viable if it’s not easily accessible which is due to players wanting the most optimal build/comp which is really no different than players imposing restrictions on AP/LI.

Ayrilana.1396:

And neither does player skill and yet it’s one of the primary factors as to whether some builds/comps are effective for some players and not others. Please read the post again in its context as you missed the point that I was going with it.

Actually it’s kind of funny since the post was a response to one of yours. You defined viability using factors outside of whether the build/comp itself can be successful of not. The build/comp thus is not viable if it’s not easily accessible which is due to players wanting the most optimal build/comp which is really no different than players imposing restrictions on AP/LI.

Player skill is generally hard to determine while gathering the raid. As such people are trying to build compositions based on their estimation of expected value of player skill. Viabilities of classes/compositions in top guilds are higher because expected values of player skills are higher. As for AP/LI as a part of viability measure, if groups struggle to find the needed class, they can lower AP/LI reqs, further increasing the viability of high demand low supply classes (while expected value of player skill actually goes down in this case, but they just assume that it’s worth it).

AndyS.5630:

When I’m talking about being restricted (as ruining the game) I mean having conceptual choices horrible balance-wise. Do you like Thief or Engineer for their class concepts? Sorry, no raids for you. Wait, let’s get those dark arts masters Necromancers out of raids as well. And no, you can’t compare undesirable classes (that have strong concepts behind them) and undesirable stat prefixes, runes, sigils etc (that are usually picked just for stats).

No, you see, that’s a player-imposed restriction, so if you don’t like the game being ‘ruined’ by restrictions, you can blame players for their exclusive approach to making Raid teams, not Anet.

Obtena.7952:

No, you see, that’s a player-imposed restriction, so if you don’t like the game being ‘ruined’ by restrictions, you can blame players for their exclusive approach to making Raid teams, not Anet.

No. If you have sub-optimal composition and boss doesn’t die, players will be asked to switch to something better. First re-rolls, and the resulting success probability gain is entirely on Anet. The presence of the basic question “Can you switch to something better?” is entirely on Anet. The basic principle “If we don’t kill in 2 more tries I switch to something better” is also entirely on Anet. You can’t blame players for the existence of something better. As I have said before, players’ actions are entirely dependent on Anet-made balance.

AndyS.5630:

Obtena.7952:

No, you see, that’s a player-imposed restriction, so if you don’t like the game being ‘ruined’ by restrictions, you can blame players for their exclusive approach to making Raid teams, not Anet.

No. If you have sub-optimal composition and boss doesn’t die, players will be asked to switch to something better. First re-rolls, and the resulting success probability gain is entirely on Anet. The presence of the basic question “Can you switch to something better?” is entirely on Anet. The basic principle “If we don’t kill in 2 more tries I switch to something better” is also entirely on Anet. You can’t blame players for the existence of something better. As I have said before, players’ actions are entirely dependent on Anet-made balance.

And if they’re using the mirror comp then what?

Ayrilana.1396:

And if they’re using the mirror comp then what?

Well, “better” is not a guarantee of winning, it merely increases chances of it. On the other hand, it does increase your chances. When the difference becomes too great, one would be dumb to ignore it.

Astralporing.1957:

Ayrilana.1396:

And if they’re using the mirror comp then what?

Well, “better” is not a guarantee of winning, it merely increases chances of it. On the other hand, it does increase your chances. When the difference becomes too great, one would be dumb to ignore it.

And that’s the thing though. At what threshold is the difference too great?

Assuming your group has other condi choices such as Condi Ranger, Condi PS War, Condi Engi, the patch has limited necro use as general condi class. I have no idea why the ANet devs chose to see fellow squad Druids spending their time and energy healing minions as a bad thing… necro never really had the DPS numbers anyway, until super late-game when it was possible but still unlikely to end up with large numbers of minion (end of Sab, end of Matt). But really this was not necro so much as excellent druid work. Limiting minions uptime might make some Druids question whether they did something wrong.

That being said, one may still be able to squeeze in a necro or two into a few 5-5 fights:
1. Sabetha — one alongside another condi class or two like warrior. The critical Karde turret part can be simplified by stacking condi followed by a timely epi. Hopefully Karde will not move much from the center and get distracted by Bomb throwers/ jumppad runners.
2. Sloth — one or two to ease condi clear for the group. Good groups will protect from the occasional fear, and then necro could keep plague signet up all the time.
3. Matthias — one for group condi clear, and slight help with group life siphon/heals. Hitting reaper 4 at abom phase and watching lots of group healing is quite rewarding to see.

icy`

AndyS.5630:

Obtena.7952:

No, you see, that’s a player-imposed restriction, so if you don’t like the game being ‘ruined’ by restrictions, you can blame players for their exclusive approach to making Raid teams, not Anet.

No. If you have sub-optimal composition and boss doesn’t die, players will be asked to switch to something better.

I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption for a number of reasons. Again, i’m just going to refer to the stupid situation we had with metapushers and dungeons, because it’s the same thing.

The association that success is linked so closely to the meta is just stupid. It was proven false in dungeons, we have already seen the same proof it’s nonsense for raids. You can keep stringing along that meta philosophy that you claim is a result of Anet’s design approach to team instanced encounters, but that’s a fallacy in this game. Everytime someone 3 mans a raid or doesn’t have Chronos and wins … the kind of thinking you are exhibiting gets more and more ridiculous. The NEED for specific conditions to win on classes/builds, etc… is an artificial construction by players, not imposed by Anet’s design on the game, but on their own insecurities and fears of losing.

Obtena.7952:

The association that success is linked so closely to the meta is just stupid. It was proven false in dungeons, we have already seen the same proof it’s nonsense for raids.

In dungeons the speed of your runs was not directly tied to the chances of your success. That is why going with slower, but buffier builds was an option, and why dps speed was for purists only. A raid group built so it could finish gorse in 30 minutes will 100% fail however, because there’s a hard time limit.

Failure rate was not tied to meta (all that much) in dungeons because their difficulty level was much lower (and even full wipe was not really a failure, as it didn’t set you back all that much).

Still, there were (and still are) differences between builds. For example, you’re not going to tell me that the current fractal comp of 4nec 1 druid requires the same skill level to finish the content as, say, a group of 5 engi.

Yes, there’s no requirement to be running specific group comps to win, but running some of them is going to help you, while running others will hinder you. And in some cases the difference between those two can be a difference between a win and a loss.

Ayrilana.1396:

And that’s the thing though. At what threshold is the difference too great?

At kill vs wipe with that group.

Obtena.7952:

I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption for a number of reasons. Again, i’m just going to refer to the stupid situation we had with metapushers and dungeons, because it’s the same thing.

The big difference is that in dungeons it’s usually only matter of time, while in raids it’s matter of success.

Obtena.7952:

The association that success is linked so closely to the meta is just stupid. It was proven false in dungeons, we have already seen the same proof it’s nonsense for raids. You can keep stringing along that meta philosophy that you claim is a result of Anet’s design approach to team instanced encounters, but that’s a fallacy in this game. Everytime someone 3 mans a raid or doesn’t have Chronos and wins … the kind of thinking you are exhibiting gets more and more ridiculous. The NEED for specific conditions to win on classes/builds, etc… is an artificial construction by players, not imposed by Anet’s design on the game, but on their own insecurities and fears of losing.

You’re losing the point again. Adjusting your composition is improving your chances to succeed, but it’s neither requirement nor guarantee. And exactly that is called “ruined” by me. Elementalist is so high on damage against large hitbox that many common mistakes are very forgiving. You can come undergeared, undertraited, inexperienced (with class), and still bring more to the fight, than some of the classes on the lower end of DPS benchmarks.

Challenge raids aren’t something people will do on a regular basis. I’ve read the reports of spending hours to get them done. The meta philosophy is about players assessing their ability to kill the bosses. They can come with anything and won’t care if it gets the job done. But if not they are assessing the possible gain from further training and some composition adjustments. Composition adjustments can bring more than training for another hour.

AndyS.5630:

You’re losing the point again. Adjusting your composition is improving your chances to succeed, but it’s neither requirement nor guarantee. And exactly that is called “ruined” by me. Elementalist is so high on damage against large hitbox that many common mistakes are very forgiving. You can come undergeared, undertraited, inexperienced (with class), and still bring more to the fight, than some of the classes on the lower end of DPS benchmarks.

Challenge raids aren’t something people will do on a regular basis. I’ve read the reports of spending hours to get them done. The meta philosophy is about players assessing their ability to kill the bosses. They can come with anything and won’t care if it gets the job done. But if not they are assessing the possible gain from further training and some composition adjustments. Composition adjustments can bring more than training for another hour.

So optimizing your raid team composition for high probabilities of success is ‘ruining’ for you? I have a few good news tidbits for you then

1. GW2 is the LEAST ‘ruined’ MMO on the market according to your definition, because instanced content has a very wide breadth of build variety where you can be successful
2. You can play the game ‘unruined’ by teaming with people that don’t care about optimizing their team compositions, knowing full well they can succeed without doing so.

Again, this is simply self-imposed player restrictions.

AndyS.5630:

Ayrilana.1396:

And that’s the thing though. At what threshold is the difference too great?

At kill vs wipe with that group.

Or they can improve their skills if they’re that close.

You people keep debating this topic as if Anet has ever shown any history of listening to forum feedback on the collateral damage their PvP centric changes have on PvE.

They just erased revenants out of existence and power necromancer was garbage, so they had to go condi, and now they don’t even have a competitive build.

Druids who wanted an offensive option could run offensive gear, they nuked that too by pigeonholing druid into healing power gear to benefit from its class mechanisms and traits which don’t have any true offensive alternatives.

These people simply don’t care. It is very likely they don’t even read these forums; instead they just send Gaile or Grouch to occasionally deal with you because they’re too important to come into the forums and explain their changes.

Zenith.7301:

You people keep debating this topic as if Anet has ever shown any history of listening to forum feedback on the collateral damage their PvP centric changes have on PvE.

The irony of this statement is real.

The same patch the people are complaining about was filled with reverts to ele dagger due to heavy handed PvP based nerfs.

But yes clearly it does take anet 8 months to admit they screwed up and revert bad changes.

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

You people keep debating this topic as if Anet has ever shown any history of listening to forum feedback on the collateral damage their PvP centric changes have on PvE.

The irony of this statement is real.

The same patch the people are complaining about was filled with reverts to ele dagger due to heavy handed PvP based nerfs.

But yes clearly it does take anet 8 months to admit they screwed up and revert bad changes.

Those are not revert changes. They were changes to dagger because ele in general is doing rather badly in spvp.

Zenith.7301:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

You people keep debating this topic as if Anet has ever shown any history of listening to forum feedback on the collateral damage their PvP centric changes have on PvE.

The irony of this statement is real.

The same patch the people are complaining about was filled with reverts to ele dagger due to heavy handed PvP based nerfs.

But yes clearly it does take anet 8 months to admit they screwed up and revert bad changes.

Those are not revert changes. They were changes to dagger because ele in general is doing rather badly in spvp.

Almost all of those dagger changes are reverts from when they gutted DD due to its synergy with Cele builds.

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

You people keep debating this topic as if Anet has ever shown any history of listening to forum feedback on the collateral damage their PvP centric changes have on PvE.

The irony of this statement is real.

The same patch the people are complaining about was filled with reverts to ele dagger due to heavy handed PvP based nerfs.

But yes clearly it does take anet 8 months to admit they screwed up and revert bad changes.

Those are not revert changes. They were changes to dagger because ele in general is doing rather badly in spvp.

Almost all of those dagger changes are reverts from when they gutted DD due to its synergy with Cele builds.

Builds not used in PvE, but PvP. As I said, spvp/WvW logic behind their balance changes.

A buff to impale and reduction to cd of burning speed isn’t going to change much of the standing dagger has in PvE.

Zenith.7301:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

You people keep debating this topic as if Anet has ever shown any history of listening to forum feedback on the collateral damage their PvP centric changes have on PvE.

The irony of this statement is real.

The same patch the people are complaining about was filled with reverts to ele dagger due to heavy handed PvP based nerfs.

But yes clearly it does take anet 8 months to admit they screwed up and revert bad changes.

Those are not revert changes. They were changes to dagger because ele in general is doing rather badly in spvp.

Almost all of those dagger changes are reverts from when they gutted DD due to its synergy with Cele builds.

Builds not used in PvE, but PvP. As I said, spvp/WvW logic behind their balance changes.

A buff to impale and reduction to cd of burning speed isn’t going to change much of the standing dagger has in PvE.

I don’t care where the build is stronger, they were global nerfs that were reverted because at the time they didn’t skill split. Does this make it clearer for you ? They reverted the bad decision they made prior to skill split balancing about 8 months later. IRONY it occurred in the worst balance patch they’ve put out to date.

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

You people keep debating this topic as if Anet has ever shown any history of listening to forum feedback on the collateral damage their PvP centric changes have on PvE.

The irony of this statement is real.

The same patch the people are complaining about was filled with reverts to ele dagger due to heavy handed PvP based nerfs.

But yes clearly it does take anet 8 months to admit they screwed up and revert bad changes.

Those are not revert changes. They were changes to dagger because ele in general is doing rather badly in spvp.

Almost all of those dagger changes are reverts from when they gutted DD due to its synergy with Cele builds.

Builds not used in PvE, but PvP. As I said, spvp/WvW logic behind their balance changes.

A buff to impale and reduction to cd of burning speed isn’t going to change much of the standing dagger has in PvE.

I don’t care where the build is stronger, they were global nerfs that were reverted because at the time they didn’t skill split. Does this make it clearer for you ? They reverted the bad decision they made prior to skill split balancing about 8 months later. IRONY it occurred in the worst balance patch they’ve put out to date.

Well, the irony is on you i am afraid, because the reverts didn’t happen because of the negative impacts the nerfs had on PvE. Both the nerfs and the reverts happened for purely PvP reasons. Which actually underscores Zenith’s original statement even more.

Astralporing.1957:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

TexZero.7910:

Zenith.7301:

You people keep debating this topic as if Anet has ever shown any history of listening to forum feedback on the collateral damage their PvP centric changes have on PvE.

The irony of this statement is real.

The same patch the people are complaining about was filled with reverts to ele dagger due to heavy handed PvP based nerfs.

But yes clearly it does take anet 8 months to admit they screwed up and revert bad changes.

Those are not revert changes. They were changes to dagger because ele in general is doing rather badly in spvp.

Almost all of those dagger changes are reverts from when they gutted DD due to its synergy with Cele builds.

Builds not used in PvE, but PvP. As I said, spvp/WvW logic behind their balance changes.

A buff to impale and reduction to cd of burning speed isn’t going to change much of the standing dagger has in PvE.

I don’t care where the build is stronger, they were global nerfs that were reverted because at the time they didn’t skill split. Does this make it clearer for you ? They reverted the bad decision they made prior to skill split balancing about 8 months later. IRONY it occurred in the worst balance patch they’ve put out to date.

Well, the irony is on you i am afraid, because the reverts didn’t happen because of the negative impacts the nerfs had on PvE. Both the nerfs and the reverts happened for purely PvP reasons. Which actually underscores Zenith’s original statement even more.

I think you all are on the same side of the ultimate issue, not sure why you’re arguing.

And why can’t people see that most of these roles are actually not pushed by Anet, but by the players themselves?

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period. People just likes to ignore them for speedruns and that’s ok, but don’t go on complaining about class diversity when your only thing on mind is to stack and beat stuff to death, that way Anet could remove all mechanics and make all battles just static avatars with numbers popping out.

People is just expecting this to be played like any other TAB Targeting MMO out there, and seriosuly, it’s not. Wake up, this isn’t WoW, it’s GW2, with a different target demographic and gameplay set in mind based on “freedom of choice” and socialization, and the direction Anet is taking it doesn’t wants to seem to carter to other kind of public, why? Because this business model is working for them.

I joined GW2 because I heard it was a casual friendly MMO, and guess what? Even with high level fractals and raids on it I’ve found my place, the place where I play with my wife and friends, where we can pug and have either a glorious victory or dire defeat, and still have a lot of fun in the process.

The Meta exists and will always exist, and it will shift, and people will keep on making dramas of it. What should go away is the terribly elitistic and egoistical attitude of “exp” puggers that want to imitate organized play, and guess why no one wants to have voice calls? It’s disgusting enough already to read toxicity, now imagine hearing it…

Aldath.1275:

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period.

Nope. Dungeons and fractals? Yeah, possibly, even likely, depending on the skill of the group. Raids? Nope. Not on all bosses anyway. There are some minimum requirements there that not all group comps would fulfill.

Astralporing.1957:

Aldath.1275:

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period.

Nope. Dungeons and fractals? Yeah, possibly, even likely, depending on the skill of the group. Raids? Nope. Not on all bosses anyway. There are some minimum requirements there that not all group comps would fulfill.

Is that an objectively bad thing? there is optimal, there is suboptimal-but-viable, there is reasonable and there is unreasonable. Is it too high a bar to ask people to run at least reasonable builds?

I don’t think so. I think the base line of have a healer, enough cc and meager dps needed to beat enrage isn’t a very constrciting paragdigm. That’s all it takes to qualify as reasonable. If that is too restricting for you I’d suggest that raids just aren’t for you the same way ESL pvp isn’t for me.

NikeEU.7690:

Astralporing.1957:

Aldath.1275:

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period.

Nope. Dungeons and fractals? Yeah, possibly, even likely, depending on the skill of the group. Raids? Nope. Not on all bosses anyway. There are some minimum requirements there that not all group comps would fulfill.

Is that an objectively bad thing? there is optimal, there is suboptimal-but-viable, there is reasonable and there is unreasonable. Is it too high a bar to ask people to run at least reasonable builds?

I don’t think so. I think the base line of have a healer, enough cc and meager dps needed to beat enrage isn’t a very constrciting paragdigm. That’s all it takes to qualify as reasonable. If that is too restricting for you I’d suggest that raids just aren’t for you the same way ESL pvp isn’t for me.

People run viable builds but nobody wants them because everyone and their mother just blindly follows elitists guides that most can’t even execute properly.

Shadowstep.6049:

NikeEU.7690:

Astralporing.1957:

Aldath.1275:

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period.

Nope. Dungeons and fractals? Yeah, possibly, even likely, depending on the skill of the group. Raids? Nope. Not on all bosses anyway. There are some minimum requirements there that not all group comps would fulfill.

Is that an objectively bad thing? there is optimal, there is suboptimal-but-viable, there is reasonable and there is unreasonable. Is it too high a bar to ask people to run at least reasonable builds?

I don’t think so. I think the base line of have a healer, enough cc and meager dps needed to beat enrage isn’t a very constrciting paragdigm. That’s all it takes to qualify as reasonable. If that is too restricting for you I’d suggest that raids just aren’t for you the same way ESL pvp isn’t for me.

People run viable builds but nobody wants them because everyone and their mother just blindly follows elitists guides that most can’t even execute properly.

Makes sense to me. If you can’t run a good build properly why should I expect you’ll do any bether running a trash build? I’LL take my chances with bad player on good build vs bad player on bad build.

Obtena.7952:

1. GW2 is the LEAST ‘ruined’ MMO on the market according to your definition, because instanced content has a very wide breadth of build variety where you can be successful
2. You can play the game ‘unruined’ by teaming with people that don’t care about optimizing their team compositions, knowing full well they can succeed without doing so.

1. Most of instanced content is a joke in terms of difficulty. It wasn’t designed for full ascended people, so of course full ascended people have a very wide breadth. In any MMO as you outclass content, it becomes trivial. It’s like soloing low level instance in WOW with a melee Warlock or Mage. You could do it, but it’s nowhere near a possibility for relevant content.
2. Sorry, but this was a part of “ruined” definition. Requiring to find a needle in a haystack is what’s ruining the game. Be it spending half an hour looking for chrono, or trying to find a group with a bad class.

Ayrilana.1396:

Or they can improve their skills if they’re that close.

And spend 10 hours on that… Because as you get better it takes longer to improve further.

AndyS.5630:

Ayrilana.1396:

Or they can improve their skills if they’re that close.

And spend 10 hours on that… Because as you get better it takes longer to improve further.

If you are a video game character.

AndyS.5630:

Ayrilana.1396:

Or they can improve their skills if they’re that close.

And spend 10 hours on that… Because as you get better it takes longer to improve further.

True except if they’re on the cusp of succeeding, where switching to an optimal comp would push them over, then a little more training would allow them to suceed with what they’re running. Those on the low end, that are still trying to suceed, have a lot of room for improvement compared to those who routinely beat bosses with minutes to spare.

AndyS.5630:

Obtena.7952:

1. GW2 is the LEAST ‘ruined’ MMO on the market according to your definition, because instanced content has a very wide breadth of build variety where you can be successful
2. You can play the game ‘unruined’ by teaming with people that don’t care about optimizing their team compositions, knowing full well they can succeed without doing so.

1. Most of instanced content is a joke in terms of difficulty. It wasn’t designed for full ascended people, so of course full ascended people have a very wide breadth. In any MMO as you outclass content, it becomes trivial. It’s like soloing low level instance in WOW with a melee Warlock or Mage. You could do it, but it’s nowhere near a possibility for relevant content.
2. Sorry, but this was a part of “ruined” definition. Requiring to find a needle in a haystack is what’s ruining the game. Be it spending half an hour looking for chrono, or trying to find a group with a bad class.

That doesn’t change anything I said … GW2 isn’t ‘ruined’ in the sense you have to play specific builds to succeed in instanced content. The problem with your statements is that they don’t align with the reality of playing this game. Maybe YOU feel you need to team with 2 chrono’s to succeed in raids, but we already have examples of people succeeding without them.

So really, when you claim the game is ruined because people need to sit around for a long time to find specific builds/classes to win raids, that sounds more like people are substituting their time for being unskilled. Seems to me that’s exactly how challenging content should work. I don’t see a logicial argument that says it should be easy for unskilled players to succeed at the same rate … or at all … when compared to skilled players.

So please, recognize that Anet does want this to be their highest skilled content in the game and that when people QQ they need Chronos to be a crutch for them, that it’s the fact those people are unskilled ruining the game for them, not Anet’s game design.

Obtena.7952:

AndyS.5630:

Obtena.7952:

1. GW2 is the LEAST ‘ruined’ MMO on the market according to your definition, because instanced content has a very wide breadth of build variety where you can be successful
2. You can play the game ‘unruined’ by teaming with people that don’t care about optimizing their team compositions, knowing full well they can succeed without doing so.

1. Most of instanced content is a joke in terms of difficulty. It wasn’t designed for full ascended people, so of course full ascended people have a very wide breadth. In any MMO as you outclass content, it becomes trivial. It’s like soloing low level instance in WOW with a melee Warlock or Mage. You could do it, but it’s nowhere near a possibility for relevant content.
2. Sorry, but this was a part of “ruined” definition. Requiring to find a needle in a haystack is what’s ruining the game. Be it spending half an hour looking for chrono, or trying to find a group with a bad class.

That doesn’t change anything I said … GW2 isn’t ‘ruined’ in the sense you have to play specific builds to succeed in instanced content or have to wait hours to find that needle in the hay stack to succeed. So as I’ve already said … GW2 is not ruined by your very own definitions … These are ‘problems’ that are induced by player prejudices, not Anet game design.

You’re not wrong here in terms of “you don’t need this specific comp to clear”, however anet completely gutting builds and making them useless is bad. “Yeah but you can still take it” is not an argument when it’s so bad that no one in their right mind would, except they’re trying to make very specific clears.
No one argues that there are builds which cannot be taken, the whole argument here is that some builds are so bad that you SHOULD not take them while at the same time rendering classes useless in that regard.

You, I agree with you but Chrono isn’t a gutted build that has been made bad here, and neither is Rev or Druid because as you can see, they are still very desireable with the people that think they don’t have the skills to complete the raids without them.

You see, the other thing is that diversity means there are always builds that are so bad that people won’t take them. It’s not a requirement that Anet ensure all builds are good. That’s silly. That’s also ignoring the fact that there is a team dynamic. Believe it or not, some people don’t mind what builds you use, or what classes they have in the team, or what gear you wear, because they know its not as important as knowing what to do and how to play your build.

Again, you’re just illustrating the difference between how people that have skill think and how people that supplement skill with optimally performing builds/classes think.

Obtena.7952:

You, I agree with you but Chrono isn’t a gutted build that has been made bad here, and neither is Rev or Druid because as you can see, they are still very desireable with the people that think they don’t have the skills to complete the raids without them.

I’d argue about revs being desired, imo they are in quite a weird spot right now and it’d highly depend on your comp.
Neither chronos and druids have been gutted, the “attempt” to gut chrono backfired completely, at least for PvE. The problem here is, again, that both classes are so extremely important due to what they bring that you’re most likely looking for a very specific type of clear to not take them with you. Both classes are so important and desirable that it makes more sense to wait for someone to fill those roles than dropping them for something else, because otherwise you’d lose so much DPS and support that everything will be so much more difficult. Sure, you can go without chronos, druids, even PS, but that’s just not going to happen in a squad looking to clear with reasonable times and without giving themselves a major headache.

//Since you added an edit to this, of course not every build should be viable. However, every CLASS should be, this is currently not the case. If there’s people who mind/don’t mind what you play is also not up to debate since this is still not the point. There might be players who take 4 necros with them and manage to clear, that’s great and all; that doesn’t mean necro is suddenly anything remotely to a good class.

I think that’s arguable that there are some classes not viable … especially with the people that are skilled that don’t need specific classes to succeed anyways.

Again, it goes right back to how skilled the team is are and if they need to make up for a lack of skill with specific tools and professions. That ‘need’ to make up for lack of skill does not define what classes are viable and are not. It’s simply defines the skill threshold necessary to play those classes and succeed.

Everytime someone succeeds in a raid with a ‘not viable’ class, those arguments just get more and more nonsensical. Considering the margin that people are capable of completing raids, I would say the main culprit to failure isn’t a lack of specific classes or skills, it’s players sucking.

Again, just like in dungeons … we had people single manning dungeons, then groups turning around and insisting on meta builds and excluding classes because they ‘need’ certain things to succeed. Sure … because they sucked.

Obtena.7952:

I think that’s arguable that there are some classes not viable … especially with the people that are skilled that don’t need specific classes to succeed anyways.

Again, it goes right back to how skilled the team is are and if they need to make up for a lack of skill with specific tools and professions. That ‘need’ to make up for lack of skill does not define what classes are viable and are not. It’s simply defines the skill threshold necessary to play those classes and succeed.

Everytime someone succeeds in a raid with a ‘not viable’ class, those arguments just get more and more nonsensical. Considering the margin that people are capable of completing raids, I would say the main culprit to failure isn’t a lack of specific classes or skills, it’s players sucking.

Again, just like in dungeons … we had people single manning dungeons, then groups turning around and insisting on meta builds and excluding classes because they ‘need’ certain things to succeed. Sure … because they sucked.

I completely understand your point, but looking at meta comps to make up for a lack of individual skill is not true as a whole. I mean sure, there’s definitely groups who pick meta comps because they’d not be able to finish with other, much less effective comps, but are high end players who turn to the meta because it’s the most effective thing bad? I doubt it. There’s plenty of players who could clear in whatever comp, my squad could too, doesn’t mean it’s something that should be done in an average run.

We’re talking about the latter group here, or at least that’s what I’ve gotten from this whole thread. Imo, Anet should balance the game in a way that each class is within range of each other in terms of efficiency. Currently, we have a bunch of classes that are so overly efficient so that you do not want to drop them (you can, however) and others that barely make sense to take for encounters, if at all. Classes should always have areas they excel at, thus rendering them more useful for specific content while having weaknesses which make them weaker at other types of content (within the same gametype, of course) but not to the point where you ask yourself “why do we even have this class when we could have another one which does basically the same + more and better?”
This is where our opinions differ though, so I doubt we’re gonna get to any kind of real “agreement”.

Is there some common ground here?

- At high level play, is 5-5 less fun than 4-4-2 because 5-5 is just two dungeon parties with less class diversity?
- At average level play, are off-meta compositions (such as 7-2-1) further away from the meta composition?
- At average level play, has the class diversity required to achieve average-level been reduced? (Eg, pre patch only needing 1 ps, 1 druid, 1 chrono?)
- Is the designation of the necro lich form nerf as a “bug fix” a misrepresentation or unwarranted? (Has been in the game for 5 years, and meta for 1 year, 20% cut on meta build?)

Anything agreed on here?

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

We’re talking about the latter group here, or at least that’s what I’ve gotten from this whole thread. Imo, Anet should balance the game in a way that each class is within range of each other in terms of efficiency. Currently, we have a bunch of classes that are so overly efficient so that you do not want to drop them (you can, however) and others that barely make sense to take for encounters, if at all. Classes should always have areas they excel at, thus rendering them more useful for specific content while having weaknesses which make them weaker at other types of content (within the same gametype, of course) but not to the point where you ask yourself “why do we even have this class when we could have another one which does basically the same + more and better?”
This is where our opinions differ though, so I doubt we’re gonna get to any kind of real “agreement”.

I think the part I bolded is where we fundamentally disagree. My view is that the game is too complex for Anet to ‘cater’ to any part of it to ensure class equality. I do believe that it’s not worth their effort to ensure that for a given level of player skill, all classes should perform within a range of efficiency for a subset of a particular game element, especially without considering the impact that would have to the other two.

That’s why I think the current compromise is reasonable. If not equal within a range, at least the content makes it equal within a certain level of skill. In otherwords, if your classes can’t be balanced over the whole game, the non-competitive PVE content is flexible to that inequality, within a certain level of player skill. In essence, I see people complaining about nerfed crutch skills as really asking for the content to be flexible for them at a lower level of player skill than it currently is … which really degrades the whole point of raids being challenging.

I believe one thing … if classes were able to be balanced in a reasonable range of equality, then raid success would have to be made MUCH more dependent on player skill … so in the end, I don’t think players understand the implications of wanting to maintain these unintended skill effects; they would be less likely to be accepted to good teams and less likely to be competent in raids.

Absurdo.8309:

Is there some common ground here?

- At high level play, is 5-5 less fun than 4-4-2 because 5-5 is just two dungeon parties with less class diversity?

4-4-2 and 5-5 are pretty similar in diversity, I think people compare to 7-2-1 when they talk about diversity which allowed 6 different DPS roles as opposed to now where you have 4 in the 5-5.

- At average level play, are off-meta compositions (such as 7-2-1) further away from the meta composition?

No idea what this means.

- At average level play, has the class diversity required to achieve average-level been reduced? (Eg, pre patch only needing 1 ps, 1 druid, 1 chrono?)

Somewhat. The DPS slots are down to 4 from 6 of a 7-2-1 comp.

- Is the designation of the necro lich form nerf as a “bug fix” a misrepresentation or unwarranted? (Has been in the game for 5 years, and meta for 1 year, 20% cut on meta build?)

Shouldn’t call it a bug fix, but in the end it doesn’t matter it was a severe nerf.

The only good thing about the necro nerf is that people now take ranger/engis instead who were always good but shunned because of “omg necro OP” disinformation.

NikeEU.7690:

Shadowstep.6049:

NikeEU.7690:

Astralporing.1957:

Aldath.1275:

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period.

Nope. Dungeons and fractals? Yeah, possibly, even likely, depending on the skill of the group. Raids? Nope. Not on all bosses anyway. There are some minimum requirements there that not all group comps would fulfill.

Is that an objectively bad thing? there is optimal, there is suboptimal-but-viable, there is reasonable and there is unreasonable. Is it too high a bar to ask people to run at least reasonable builds?

I don’t think so. I think the base line of have a healer, enough cc and meager dps needed to beat enrage isn’t a very constrciting paragdigm. That’s all it takes to qualify as reasonable. If that is too restricting for you I’d suggest that raids just aren’t for you the same way ESL pvp isn’t for me.

People run viable builds but nobody wants them because everyone and their mother just blindly follows elitists guides that most can’t even execute properly.

Makes sense to me. If you can’t run a good build properly why should I expect you’ll do any bether running a trash build? I’LL take my chances with bad player on good build vs bad player on bad build.

Other builds are not trash…..

Shadowstep.6049:

NikeEU.7690:

Shadowstep.6049:

NikeEU.7690:

Astralporing.1957:

Aldath.1275:

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period.

Nope. Dungeons and fractals? Yeah, possibly, even likely, depending on the skill of the group. Raids? Nope. Not on all bosses anyway. There are some minimum requirements there that not all group comps would fulfill.

Is that an objectively bad thing? there is optimal, there is suboptimal-but-viable, there is reasonable and there is unreasonable. Is it too high a bar to ask people to run at least reasonable builds?

I don’t think so. I think the base line of have a healer, enough cc and meager dps needed to beat enrage isn’t a very constrciting paragdigm. That’s all it takes to qualify as reasonable. If that is too restricting for you I’d suggest that raids just aren’t for you the same way ESL pvp isn’t for me.

People run viable builds but nobody wants them because everyone and their mother just blindly follows elitists guides that most can’t even execute properly.

Makes sense to me. If you can’t run a good build properly why should I expect you’ll do any bether running a trash build? I’LL take my chances with bad player on good build vs bad player on bad build.

Other builds are not trash…..

Don’t bother arguing … left over relics from Dungeon meta days. The idea that players equipped ‘properly’ that don’t know how to play are more valuable than players knowing their class in and out that don’t play meta is just grasping at relevance.

In a game where skilled players can ‘short’ instanced PVE content so badly, thinking like this are a parody of themselves.

Obtena.7952:

Shadowstep.6049:

NikeEU.7690:

Shadowstep.6049:

NikeEU.7690:

Astralporing.1957:

Aldath.1275:

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period.

Nope. Dungeons and fractals? Yeah, possibly, even likely, depending on the skill of the group. Raids? Nope. Not on all bosses anyway. There are some minimum requirements there that not all group comps would fulfill.

Is that an objectively bad thing? there is optimal, there is suboptimal-but-viable, there is reasonable and there is unreasonable. Is it too high a bar to ask people to run at least reasonable builds?

I don’t think so. I think the base line of have a healer, enough cc and meager dps needed to beat enrage isn’t a very constrciting paragdigm. That’s all it takes to qualify as reasonable. If that is too restricting for you I’d suggest that raids just aren’t for you the same way ESL pvp isn’t for me.

People run viable builds but nobody wants them because everyone and their mother just blindly follows elitists guides that most can’t even execute properly.

Makes sense to me. If you can’t run a good build properly why should I expect you’ll do any bether running a trash build? I’LL take my chances with bad player on good build vs bad player on bad build.

Other builds are not trash…..

Don’t bother arguing … left over relics from Dungeon meta days. The idea that players equipped ‘properly’ that don’t know how to play are more valuable than players knowing their class in and out that don’t play meta is just grasping at relevance.

In a game where skilled players can ‘short’ instanced PVE content so badly, thinking like this are a parody of themselves.

To be fair, he compared “bad player with good build” and “bad player with bad build” – he never mentioned “good player with bad build”, which is something different

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

Obtena.7952:

Shadowstep.6049:

NikeEU.7690:

Shadowstep.6049:

NikeEU.7690:

Astralporing.1957:

Aldath.1275:

The fractals, dungeons and raids can all be clared by any team comp with knowledge of the scenario and boss mechanics. Period.

Nope. Dungeons and fractals? Yeah, possibly, even likely, depending on the skill of the group. Raids? Nope. Not on all bosses anyway. There are some minimum requirements there that not all group comps would fulfill.

Is that an objectively bad thing? there is optimal, there is suboptimal-but-viable, there is reasonable and there is unreasonable. Is it too high a bar to ask people to run at least reasonable builds?

I don’t think so. I think the base line of have a healer, enough cc and meager dps needed to beat enrage isn’t a very constrciting paragdigm. That’s all it takes to qualify as reasonable. If that is too restricting for you I’d suggest that raids just aren’t for you the same way ESL pvp isn’t for me.

People run viable builds but nobody wants them because everyone and their mother just blindly follows elitists guides that most can’t even execute properly.

Makes sense to me. If you can’t run a good build properly why should I expect you’ll do any bether running a trash build? I’LL take my chances with bad player on good build vs bad player on bad build.

Other builds are not trash…..

Don’t bother arguing … left over relics from Dungeon meta days. The idea that players equipped ‘properly’ that don’t know how to play are more valuable than players knowing their class in and out that don’t play meta is just grasping at relevance.

In a game where skilled players can ‘short’ instanced PVE content so badly, thinking like this are a parody of themselves.

To be fair, he compared “bad player with good build” and “bad player with bad build” – he never mentioned “good player with bad build”, which is something different

In his mind people with “bad” build are bad, period. Not to mention, those builds are not even “bad”, they are just not most optimal for elitist 6 man raid runs.