Guild Wars 2

Jerus.4350:

It’s not a matter of “ohh you’re in defensive gear, you must suck” while it may be a common response it’s a response of idiots. What it is though is “ohh you’re in defensive gear, well now you can suck and be fine”. It allows you to be less skilled, doesn’t require it.

If you choose to bring all the safety nets you can, that’s fine, but trying to say that choosing this should not punish you in any way… well it’s silly.

It does punish you — at least if you care about speed or big numbers. It doesn’t punish you much and that’s fine.

To the point of the OP, for most dungeons there’s ‘one right answer’, and that’s kind of a letdown, at least philosophically.

Leo G.4501:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

“playing offensively without offensive gear will lower your damage by like 60% everything you do will be substantially less effective.”

-Doesn’t alter the play style.

“playing offensively in nomads and clerics gear is not playing offensively. because you are 60% lower than max effecincy”

-still, doesn’t change the play style.

“playing defensively in berserker can still have you at max effeciency, which is not taking enough damage to kill you.”

Lol kind of the point. It doesn’t alter the playstyle which is the issue that could be changed.

But yeah you guys are posting a lot (most of it repeating the same thing). I’ll try to make some responds when I get home. . .

please begin with:
“This is why I think stats should alter playstyle..”

And no “because other games do it that way” is not a good answer.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Leo G.4501:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

“playing offensively without offensive gear will lower your damage by like 60% everything you do will be substantially less effective.”

-Doesn’t alter the play style.

“playing offensively in nomads and clerics gear is not playing offensively. because you are 60% lower than max effecincy”

-still, doesn’t change the play style.

“playing defensively in berserker can still have you at max effeciency, which is not taking enough damage to kill you.”

Lol kind of the point. It doesn’t alter the playstyle which is the issue that could be changed.

But yeah you guys are posting a lot (most of it repeating the same thing). I’ll try to make some responds when I get home. . .

please begin with:
“This is why I think stats should alter playstyle..”

And no “because other games do it that way” is not a good answer.

Already mentioned the various points that could be changed due to this, from types of encounters to rewards.

And no, I don’t have to start with that. I worded the sentence just fine to leave space for discussion. I’m not trying to dominate the discussion like some attempt to do.

Windsagio.1340:

Jerus.4350:

It’s not a matter of “ohh you’re in defensive gear, you must suck” while it may be a common response it’s a response of idiots. What it is though is “ohh you’re in defensive gear, well now you can suck and be fine”. It allows you to be less skilled, doesn’t require it.

If you choose to bring all the safety nets you can, that’s fine, but trying to say that choosing this should not punish you in any way… well it’s silly.

It does punish you — at least if you care about speed or big numbers. It doesn’t punish you much and that’s fine.

To the point of the OP, for most dungeons there’s ‘one right answer’, and that’s kind of a letdown, at least philosophically.

Then the “let down” is of your own limitation.
There is significantly more than one way to complete each encounter, or each dungeon.

Even “optimal” is debatable. I’m sure those who set records have had to try a lot of different strategies, builds and team comps over the past 2-3 years.

so.. The philosophical “let down” is the limitations of your own mind.

Windsagio.1340:

Jerus.4350:

It’s not a matter of “ohh you’re in defensive gear, you must suck” while it may be a common response it’s a response of idiots. What it is though is “ohh you’re in defensive gear, well now you can suck and be fine”. It allows you to be less skilled, doesn’t require it.

If you choose to bring all the safety nets you can, that’s fine, but trying to say that choosing this should not punish you in any way… well it’s silly.

It does punish you — at least if you care about speed or big numbers. It doesn’t punish you much and that’s fine.

To the point of the OP, for most dungeons there’s ‘one right answer’, and that’s kind of a letdown, at least philosophically.

There’s always a best way to do things given certain criteria.

Leo G.4501:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Leo G.4501:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

“playing offensively without offensive gear will lower your damage by like 60% everything you do will be substantially less effective.”

-Doesn’t alter the play style.

“playing offensively in nomads and clerics gear is not playing offensively. because you are 60% lower than max effecincy”

-still, doesn’t change the play style.

“playing defensively in berserker can still have you at max effeciency, which is not taking enough damage to kill you.”

Lol kind of the point. It doesn’t alter the playstyle which is the issue that could be changed.

But yeah you guys are posting a lot (most of it repeating the same thing). I’ll try to make some responds when I get home. . .

please begin with:
“This is why I think stats should alter playstyle..”

And no “because other games do it that way” is not a good answer.

Already mentioned the various points that could be changed due to this, from types of encounters to rewards.

And no, I don’t have to start with that. I worded the sentence just fine to leave space for discussion. I’m not trying to dominate the discussion like some attempt to do.

I have yet to see any reason for which stats have/should to alter play style.
Could they? yes.
but why should they?
Please, enlighten me.

NikeEU.7690:

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Is the concept of Active Defense not “inherent to GW2”? The second the combat was designed around active defense, positioning and parry/blocks PvE was destined to be dominated by glass cannon builds among players at the skill/experience cap. It may not be exactly how the developers envisioned it, but it is the inevitable end result of that decision.

The concept of active defenses does not make glass king, the high power of the active defenses makes glass king.

Do you see the difference? It’s all in the numbers and the balance.

As your buddy noted, they’re not going to touch old content much, but we’re seeing the new content already impacting things — just not in a form where you’d want to have the ‘meta’ discussion.

If you take the current balance as the be-all and end-all and as what must be in the system, you’re making a pretty basic mistake.

Active defense in this game is binary. You dodge or you don’t. You block or you don’t. You stand out of the arc of attack or red circle or you don’t. You can make content where those things are more challenging or less challenging to do, but those are binary actions.

Active defense is binary, but lets take (and admittedly crazy) test case.

Let’s say every 3 seconds the boss pulses a dodge/blockable 500 damage attack on the whole area in addition to his normal attacks. The boss has wyvern style defiance and enough health that at max dps it’s a 5 minute fight

There are problems with this fight (numbers are kitten -pulled so they might be very wrong), but it’s (hopefully) illustrative of a point so I hope we can stay focused on that.

The fight takes a very different flavor, because toughness and healing support (and protection) are much much much more important than dps or active defenses. Aegis will be stripped almost immediately and even if the pulse was worth dodging it’s not realistic to be able to keep your dodges up even with vigor.

There, simply, is a fight that would work within the current system but emphasizes a whole different set of defensive abilities and actions than the current model. It’s not likely that they’d do so much to deemphasize active defenses, but it’s a design decision not to.

If they wanted to design encounters that made toughness more valuable, they could. If they wanted to design encounters where dodge was useless, they could. They choose not to, but nothing in the system forces them to play exactly like the existing archetype you’re used to from dungeons.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Windsagio.1340:

Jerus.4350:

It’s not a matter of “ohh you’re in defensive gear, you must suck” while it may be a common response it’s a response of idiots. What it is though is “ohh you’re in defensive gear, well now you can suck and be fine”. It allows you to be less skilled, doesn’t require it.

If you choose to bring all the safety nets you can, that’s fine, but trying to say that choosing this should not punish you in any way… well it’s silly.

It does punish you — at least if you care about speed or big numbers. It doesn’t punish you much and that’s fine.

To the point of the OP, for most dungeons there’s ‘one right answer’, and that’s kind of a letdown, at least philosophically.

Then the “let down” is of your own limitation.
There is significantly more than one way to complete each encounter, or each dungeon.

Even “optimal” is debatable. I’m sure those who set records have had to try a lot of different strategies, builds and team comps over the past 2-3 years.

so.. The philosophical “let down” is the limitations of your own mind.

A variety of widely differing solutions is more long-term interest than a single known solution with minor variations.

Also, it’s good to push players somewhat out of their comfort zone, if you can do it gently. People like their comfort zone, but at the same time there’s plenty of complaint about how boring and full of sameness the content is.

EDIT: Merging because I’m multiposting too much

Jerus.4350:

Windsagio.1340:

Jerus.4350:

It’s not a matter of “ohh you’re in defensive gear, you must suck” while it may be a common response it’s a response of idiots. What it is though is “ohh you’re in defensive gear, well now you can suck and be fine”. It allows you to be less skilled, doesn’t require it.

If you choose to bring all the safety nets you can, that’s fine, but trying to say that choosing this should not punish you in any way… well it’s silly.

It does punish you — at least if you care about speed or big numbers. It doesn’t punish you much and that’s fine.

To the point of the OP, for most dungeons there’s ‘one right answer’, and that’s kind of a letdown, at least philosophically.

There’s always a best way to do things given certain criteria.

But there could be differing best ways to do different encounters.

I’m not gonna argue that each and every encounter should have a ton of different tracks to success, that’s a herculean design task, and would likely end up bland.

On the other hand, different encounters having different routes to success makes a game more lively and interesting.

This ‘so-called’ group of highly skilled, effenciency driven players with excellent twitch reflexes and timing that adamantly insist on using passive, inefficient gear (for their self proclaimed focus/skill level) HAS to be the absolute smallest minority in all of GW2. Even to the point that it seems like an oxymoron and is hard to take serious. :/ Otherwise they just sound like a selfish bunch of ‘anti-conformist’, hipster kittens that are diligently trying to pass their psychological problems with the current system as “trying to make GW2 better” and looking out for the community.

*If some new player asks you “What’s a good build for their profession?” do you literally tell them ‘Berserker’ or ‘Carrion’ or another gear prefix and then go about your business as if those are actually builds/‘roles’? That’s how your arguments sound, which is ridiculous, to say the least.

**Get over the names of the passive stat sets. NOTHING about gear in GW2 is active apart from weapon skill selections. The build system offers plenty of diversity. Group with like-minded people. The “Feedback duration increase” and “Wall of Reflection duration increase” that you think would be so epic and active are already available via traits, though their damage scales with Prec/Fer. hehe

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Is the concept of Active Defense not “inherent to GW2”? The second the combat was designed around active defense, positioning and parry/blocks PvE was destined to be dominated by glass cannon builds among players at the skill/experience cap. It may not be exactly how the developers envisioned it, but it is the inevitable end result of that decision.

The concept of active defenses does not make glass king, the high power of the active defenses makes glass king.

Do you see the difference? It’s all in the numbers and the balance.

As your buddy noted, they’re not going to touch old content much, but we’re seeing the new content already impacting things — just not in a form where you’d want to have the ‘meta’ discussion.

If you take the current balance as the be-all and end-all and as what must be in the system, you’re making a pretty basic mistake.

Active defense in this game is binary. You dodge or you don’t. You block or you don’t. You stand out of the arc of attack or red circle or you don’t. You can make content where those things are more challenging or less challenging to do, but those are binary actions.

Active defense is binary, but lets take (and admittedly crazy) test case.

Let’s say every 3 seconds the boss pulses a dodge/blockable 500 damage attack on the whole area in addition to his normal attacks. The boss has wyvern style defiance and enough health that at max dps it’s a 5 minute fight

There are problems with this fight (numbers are kitten -pulled so they might be very wrong), but it’s (hopefully) illustrative of a point so I hope we can stay focused on that.

The fight takes a very different flavor, because toughness and healing support (and protection) are much much much more important than dps or active defenses. Aegis will be stripped almost immediately and even if the pulse was worth dodging it’s not realistic to be able to keep your dodges up even with vigor.

There, simply, is a fight that would work within the current system but emphasizes a whole different set of defensive abilities and actions than the current model. It’s not likely that they’d do so much to deemphasize active defenses, but it’s a design decision not to.

If they wanted to design encounters that made toughness more valuable, they could. If they wanted to design encounters where dodge was useless, they could. They choose not to, but nothing in the system forces them to play exactly like the existing archetype you’re used to from dungeons.

so..
hammer guard?
occasional healing rain/geyser?
^ add some blasts for muchos win.
Use tactics or defence banner?
Take strength in numbers guardian trait?

Just a few ideas to counter 500/3sec attack.

Ever met sparki/slick?
They fire these AoE fields that cause everyone to take 400/sec/ oil field.

Granted you have an ooze that can clear them, but this requires someone off melee range, doing little-no dps while kiting the ooze. This is also on top of the regular attacks.

400/sec/field ( or 1200/3sec/ field) is also far more damage than 500/3sec.

Fact is to make this hard enough to completely push people out of zerker gear, you’d make it so hard the majority of the player base would never beat it. Something anet doesn’t want to occur.

Windsagio.1340:

Active defense is binary, but lets take (and admittedly crazy) test case.

Let’s say every 3 seconds the boss pulses a dodge/blockable 500 damage attack on the whole area in addition to his normal attacks. The boss has wyvern style defiance and enough health that at max dps it’s a 5 minute fight

There are problems with this fight (numbers are kitten -pulled so they might be very wrong), but it’s (hopefully) illustrative of a point so I hope we can stay focused on that.

The fight takes a very different flavor, because toughness and healing support (and protection) are much much much more important than dps or active defenses. Aegis will be stripped almost immediately and even if the pulse was worth dodging it’s not realistic to be able to keep your dodges up even with vigor.

There, simply, is a fight that would work within the current system but emphasizes a whole different set of defensive abilities and actions than the current model. It’s not likely that they’d do so much to deemphasize active defenses, but it’s a design decision not to.

If they wanted to design encounters that made toughness more valuable, they could. If they wanted to design encounters where dodge was useless, they could. They choose not to, but nothing in the system forces them to play exactly like the existing archetype you’re used to from dungeons.

There are no fights that require a decent amount of offensive support. If you want fights that require much more defense, they should also design bosses with enrage timers, let’s say you need avg. 15 mights and fury for the duration of the entire encounter or you will fail. Sounds fair to me because there are no encounters that would teach players how to play offensively, the existing bosses with timers are very easy to met.

Exactly what Artemis said in regards to the attrition mechanics.

As for diversity in encounters, we have that. You can have that.

I’ve kited Archdiviner, it’s probably the worst way to do it, especially with the reflect.

However, you can load up on immob and add that to it, makes for more control and while longish, very smooth typically.

Then you can actually bring a “tank” here and be quite useful. A tanked up Guardian will be able to hold agro and let everyone else damage in a pretty safe situation only watching for a handful of attacks or a jailed “tank”.

But, the best way is to do that “tanking” with maybe a piece or two of knights gear just enough to solidify agro a bit (though honestly melee range usually does the trick). This allows for higher damage while still keeping it a controlled smooth fight, but takes a very skilled and confident guardian as well as some luck that they don’t keep getting jailed constantly.

4 different approaches to the same fight. I’d say kiting is most common, followed by the immob style, then I’d actually say the zerk tanking thing is more common than the “tank” tanking thing, because most people just don’t bother with the tanky gear when they have the skill to run the block rotation required of the guard. Still only know a handful of guards who can though.

rotten.9753:

There are no fights that require a decent amount of offensive support. If you want fights that require much more defense, they should also design bosses with enrage timers, let’s say you need avg. 15 mights and fury for the duration of the entire encounter or you will fail. Sounds fair to me because there are no encounters that would teach players how to play offensively, the existing bosses with timers are very easy to met.

Start this concept off gently with a world boss that isn’t very dangerous ( say in a 15-25 zone) but does require high might/fury uptime to beat. Progressively adding bosses ( upgrading existing ones) to require higher damage gear/traits to complete in time. Making them progressively more dangerous so more learn to use their active defenses and support skills also?

That could have interesting results.

we could do with something like this to make it possible though
We still need something in game to show people combo fields ( a bit of text on level up isn’t cutting it imo). Had to explain to someone with AP around 17k ( should be a fair amount of time in the game) how fire field blasting worked the other day.

Add a heart quest to make combos? The npc can have dialog tailored to each class, maybe with skills listed ( like when using a chat code).
I remember an achievement for making combos, so detecting them shouldn’t be too hard.

Anything to help make the learning curve easier to traverse for people..

Tman.6349:

This ‘so-called’ group of highly skilled, effenciency driven players with excellent twitch reflexes and timing that adamantly insist on using passive, inefficient gear (for their self proclaimed focus/skill level) HAS to be the absolute smallest minority in all of GW2. Even to the point that it seems like an oxymoron and is hard to take serious. :/ Otherwise they just sound like a selfish bunch of ‘anti-conformist’, hipster kittens that are diligently trying to pass their psychological problems with the current system as “trying to make GW2 better” and looking out for the community.

The largest group simply doesn’t care about your standards of skill and efficiency though :p

Artemis Thuras.8795:

so..
hammer guard?
occasional healing rain/geyser?
^ add some blasts for muchos win.
Use tactics or defence banner?
Take strength in numbers guardian trait?

Just a few ideas to counter 500/3sec attack.

Ever met sparki/slick?
They fire these AoE fields that cause everyone to take 400/sec/ oil field.

Granted you have an ooze that can clear them, but this requires someone off melee range, doing little-no dps while kiting the ooze. This is also on top of the regular attacks.

400/sec/field ( or 1200/3sec/ field) is also far more damage than 500/3sec.

Fact is to make this hard enough to completely push people out of zerker gear, you’d make it so hard the majority of the player base would never beat it. Something anet doesn’t want to occur.

I did say in the post that my numbers might be off one way or another. :p

The point is rather that there’s nothing inherent in the game that prefers the current preferred style, you can design the encounters for or against it… if anything it links to what you said, the vast ease of the game caters to glass dps because there’s relatively little risk.

Edit: Which is another chance to go back to the OP: To change the current meta and bring more variety, they must make the game harder. They might well choose that making the game harder isn’t worth the negative effects, but that’s the only realistic way to do it.

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Is the concept of Active Defense not “inherent to GW2”? The second the combat was designed around active defense, positioning and parry/blocks PvE was destined to be dominated by glass cannon builds among players at the skill/experience cap. It may not be exactly how the developers envisioned it, but it is the inevitable end result of that decision.

The concept of active defenses does not make glass king, the high power of the active defenses makes glass king.

Do you see the difference? It’s all in the numbers and the balance.

As your buddy noted, they’re not going to touch old content much, but we’re seeing the new content already impacting things — just not in a form where you’d want to have the ‘meta’ discussion.

If you take the current balance as the be-all and end-all and as what must be in the system, you’re making a pretty basic mistake.

Active defense in this game is binary. You dodge or you don’t. You block or you don’t. You stand out of the arc of attack or red circle or you don’t. You can make content where those things are more challenging or less challenging to do, but those are binary actions.

Active defense is binary, but lets take (and admittedly crazy) test case.

Let’s say every 3 seconds the boss pulses a dodge/blockable 500 damage attack on the whole area in addition to his normal attacks. The boss has wyvern style defiance and enough health that at max dps it’s a 5 minute fight

There are problems with this fight (numbers are kitten -pulled so they might be very wrong), but it’s (hopefully) illustrative of a point so I hope we can stay focused on that.

The fight takes a very different flavor, because toughness and healing support (and protection) are much much much more important than dps or active defenses. Aegis will be stripped almost immediately and even if the pulse was worth dodging it’s not realistic to be able to keep your dodges up even with vigor.

There, simply, is a fight that would work within the current system but emphasizes a whole different set of defensive abilities and actions than the current model. It’s not likely that they’d do so much to deemphasize active defenses, but it’s a design decision not to.

If they wanted to design encounters that made toughness more valuable, they could. If they wanted to design encounters where dodge was useless, they could. They choose not to, but nothing in the system forces them to play exactly like the existing archetype you’re used to from dungeons.

So basically add healing check like in every trinity mmo ever made?

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Is the concept of Active Defense not “inherent to GW2”? The second the combat was designed around active defense, positioning and parry/blocks PvE was destined to be dominated by glass cannon builds among players at the skill/experience cap. It may not be exactly how the developers envisioned it, but it is the inevitable end result of that decision.

The concept of active defenses does not make glass king, the high power of the active defenses makes glass king.

Do you see the difference? It’s all in the numbers and the balance.

As your buddy noted, they’re not going to touch old content much, but we’re seeing the new content already impacting things — just not in a form where you’d want to have the ‘meta’ discussion.

If you take the current balance as the be-all and end-all and as what must be in the system, you’re making a pretty basic mistake.

Active defense in this game is binary. You dodge or you don’t. You block or you don’t. You stand out of the arc of attack or red circle or you don’t. You can make content where those things are more challenging or less challenging to do, but those are binary actions.

Active defense is binary, but lets take (and admittedly crazy) test case.

Let’s say every 3 seconds the boss pulses a dodge/blockable 500 damage attack on the whole area in addition to his normal attacks. The boss has wyvern style defiance and enough health that at max dps it’s a 5 minute fight

There are problems with this fight (numbers are kitten -pulled so they might be very wrong), but it’s (hopefully) illustrative of a point so I hope we can stay focused on that.

The fight takes a very different flavor, because toughness and healing support (and protection) are much much much more important than dps or active defenses. Aegis will be stripped almost immediately and even if the pulse was worth dodging it’s not realistic to be able to keep your dodges up even with vigor.

There, simply, is a fight that would work within the current system but emphasizes a whole different set of defensive abilities and actions than the current model. It’s not likely that they’d do so much to deemphasize active defenses, but it’s a design decision not to.

If they wanted to design encounters that made toughness more valuable, they could. If they wanted to design encounters where dodge was useless, they could. They choose not to, but nothing in the system forces them to play exactly like the existing archetype you’re used to from dungeons.

I would still run full berserker for this. It wouldn’t be hard at all. Have the Guardian run hammer for 100% protection uptime. Have the staff ele’s rotate to Water for their water fields and have the group coordinate blasts to heal to full once every 20 seconds or so.

while it might not seem like it, organized groups change their builds, utilities and weapons on an encounter by encounter basis to bring whatever tools are needed to the fight. A fight like that wouldn’t be any different. It certainly wouldn’t be enough to get us to take off Berserker gear, though it might make Scholar Runes obsolete.

Any content so challenging that skilled organized groups have to switch to tanky gear would be so challenging pugs or bad players would have no chance of completing it.

Are people really so desperate to get their nomads facetank into the speed run meta that they want to change the games combat system?

Fenrir.3609:

Are people really so desperate to get their nomads facetank into the speed run meta that they want to change the games combat system?

Yup. People really want to get rewards for doing nothing but occasionally spawning waterfields.

Rotating Healing Spring w/o it overlapping takes coordination okay… ;p

the problem is that people for some reason think if they have a reason to use a different gear prefix or give a different boon the game will suddenly become super interesting and amazing.

it won’t.

and so we have boring threads like these where people smash their heads in to brick walls because neither side is yielding.

Fenrir.3609:

Are people really so desperate to get their nomads facetank into the speed run meta that they want to change the games combat system?

It’s substantially more complex with that. There are a ton of reasons people might want the current situation changed:

Some are bored with the vast sameness of the encounters and want them mixed up
Some are annoyed at kittenish behavior by people pushing their style (this cuts both ways of course) and are striking out.
Some people don’t like the fact that the balance is skewed (often along class lines too, which doesn’t help).

It’s easy to dismiss the people that disagree with you as lazy and bad, but it’s certainly not very useful, and honestly does your position a lot of harm.

@Several others, as I predicted in the post in question, you focued on the specific, admittedly pulled out of the behind numbers in the example instead of scaling the style to the appropriate skill level.

It’s kind of an annoying trick (if fairly natural), but I put myself in a catch-22. If I make the numbers too high, people will either say “That enforces trinity via a dedicated healer” or “That’s just impossible no matter what”, whereas if I make them to low, they’ll do what happened in this case and talk about how that would be easy and they would ignore it. It’s an impossible puzzle maybe ><

So screw examples, this is the point I was aiming at:

Designers can absolutely build encounters to work for against any particular stat combination or even to mitigate any particular effect (say, blocking or reflects).

They choose not to in this case for various reasons (most of which are pretty easy to guess at), but to say that the current status quo is inherent instead of based on specific encounter design decisions is dead wrong.

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Windsagio.1340:

NikeEU.7690:

Is the concept of Active Defense not “inherent to GW2”? The second the combat was designed around active defense, positioning and parry/blocks PvE was destined to be dominated by glass cannon builds among players at the skill/experience cap. It may not be exactly how the developers envisioned it, but it is the inevitable end result of that decision.

The concept of active defenses does not make glass king, the high power of the active defenses makes glass king.

Do you see the difference? It’s all in the numbers and the balance.

As your buddy noted, they’re not going to touch old content much, but we’re seeing the new content already impacting things — just not in a form where you’d want to have the ‘meta’ discussion.

If you take the current balance as the be-all and end-all and as what must be in the system, you’re making a pretty basic mistake.

Active defense in this game is binary. You dodge or you don’t. You block or you don’t. You stand out of the arc of attack or red circle or you don’t. You can make content where those things are more challenging or less challenging to do, but those are binary actions.

Active defense is binary, but lets take (and admittedly crazy) test case.

Let’s say every 3 seconds the boss pulses a dodge/blockable 500 damage attack on the whole area in addition to his normal attacks. The boss has wyvern style defiance and enough health that at max dps it’s a 5 minute fight

There are problems with this fight (numbers are kitten -pulled so they might be very wrong), but it’s (hopefully) illustrative of a point so I hope we can stay focused on that.

The fight takes a very different flavor, because toughness and healing support (and protection) are much much much more important than dps or active defenses. Aegis will be stripped almost immediately and even if the pulse was worth dodging it’s not realistic to be able to keep your dodges up even with vigor.

There, simply, is a fight that would work within the current system but emphasizes a whole different set of defensive abilities and actions than the current model. It’s not likely that they’d do so much to deemphasize active defenses, but it’s a design decision not to.

If they wanted to design encounters that made toughness more valuable, they could. If they wanted to design encounters where dodge was useless, they could. They choose not to, but nothing in the system forces them to play exactly like the existing archetype you’re used to from dungeons.

So this “new” encounter you are proposing is supposed to increase how valuable toughness and healing power is. Then let me ask you this if one/two players get extra toughness/healing power what is the rest of the party going to do? Or you want the entire party to switch their gear stats for that encounter only?

Optimally an encounter would be doable with all trait/gear sets but have optimal ease or optimal efficiency with various different trait/gear sets.

This is a bit of a (to use a term I love) Grail Quest though, it’s this nice ideal that’s probably impossible to reach.

Still we’re seeing some examples in places…

The idea of the husks is to make it more efficient to kill them with condition than with DD. That’s a model.

The threshers (of various types) are designed to emphasize ranged damage and interrupts over maxdpsmelee – or sometimes forcing you to switch between range and melee.

This is the kind of thing. You can melee burn the leeching thresher if it drops its drain aoes a lot, but it’ll likely take you longer than the guy that’s standing out of the aoe and shooting it. Similarly, especially once they decap condi, husks will probably die faster to that than to people just punching on them.

~~~

TI’ll admit this is substantially harder with defensive stats vs offensive stats, but it’s hardly impossible, and it would be interesting to see.

Windsagio.1340:

TI’ll admit this is substantially harder with defensive stats vs offensive stats, but it’s hardly impossible, and it would be interesting to see.

Reminds me of that AH PVT Hammer Guardian I know, who used to be so proud for never getting downed in any dungeon he ever did, while laughing at the “zerkers” who got downed. Of course he was never actually targeted by any mobs ever but to him it was his “survival” build that did the job, while offering next to nothing for the team…

How is me having extra Toughness to survive the unique encounter mechanics better is going to help the rest of my team? How is me having extra Vitality to survive the unique encounter mechanics better is going to help the rest of my team?

With offensive stats it’s relatively easy, get more Power, more critical hits or more condition damage (based on mob) and kill the mobs faster, you ARE helping the team. How is an increase in Vitality and Toughness going to help the team survive an encounter built for extra toughness/vitality?

In the case of defenses the only answer I can come up (as stated above) is to make hte encounters harder in general so that more players need the safety net of the defensive stats.

It’s easy to lose track of that point (for me) in the face of all the people deciding they want to be nasty about people with different needs though… that gets us on tangents :p

@Windsagio
The thing is, if we´d have encounters in this game which are designed to be beaten by making use of some form of defensive gear, chances are high most players wouldn´t be able to complete it at all when using more offensive gear.
This wouldn´t exactly be an improvement from the status quo (use whatever you feel comfortable with = win, loot and all the good stuff).

So yeah… can we call it a day for now and wait for the next “zerker must go”-thread? The last 4 pages or so were really painful for me to digest >.>

Windsagio.1340:

In the case of defenses the only answer I can come up (as stated above) is to make hte encounters harder in general so that more players need the safety net of the defensive stats.

It’s easy to lose track of that point (for me) in the face of all the people deciding they want to be nasty about people with different needs though… that gets us on tangents :p

We’ll just change utilities>traits>sigils>rune before changing stats. The argument for defensive stats is to make them mandatory that’s worse than zerk meta, damage is king conditions need to brought to power efficiency, only defensive stat that could make it would be healing power if siphon was a reliable damage source.

Skoigoth.9238:

@Windsagio
The thing is, if we´d have encounters in this game which are designed to be beaten by making use of some form of defensive gear, chances are high most players wouldn´t be able to complete it using offensive gear, which wouldn´t exactly an improvement from the status quo (use whatever you feel comfortable with = win, loot and all the good stuff).

So yeah… can we call it a day for now and wait for the next “zerker must go”-thread? The last 4 pages or so were really painful for me to digest >.>

This doesn’t have to be a ‘zerker must go’ thread though. People pigeonholed it into that, but there’s a ton of room to explore in ‘expanding encounter variety’ without the usual subjects dragging it into their pet grievance.

Windsagio.1340:

Skoigoth.9238:

@Windsagio
The thing is, if we´d have encounters in this game which are designed to be beaten by making use of some form of defensive gear, chances are high most players wouldn´t be able to complete it using offensive gear, which wouldn´t exactly an improvement from the status quo (use whatever you feel comfortable with = win, loot and all the good stuff).

So yeah… can we call it a day for now and wait for the next “zerker must go”-thread? The last 4 pages or so were really painful for me to digest >.>

This doesn’t have to be a ‘zerker must go’ thread though. People pigeonholed it into that, but there’s a ton of room to explore in ‘expanding encounter variety’ without the usual subjects dragging it into their pet grievance.

Big difference between “expanding encounter variety” and “specifically anti zerker targeted expansion of variety”. It kind of creates the ‘zerker must go’ mentality when people present such ideas.

I like the new silverwaste mobs, they’re fun, I don’t feel they’re very anti zerker at all though. They just encourage using some different tools that you may not regularly use otherwise. IE bringing offhand pistol is huge on thief, being able to interrupt any particularly nasty attack on Threshers is huge. For the teragriffs that charge, cripples are excellent so you try and have that available if you’re going to be somewhat close.

Every enemy has a proper counter, it’s excellent. It’s not anti zerker causing me to constantly take damage for no reason, it instead focuses on actively using tools that may or may not be damage focused but you’ll be compelled to use them regardless.

I actually do enjoy bringing my D/F Ele in there sometimes and trying to manage a few different of the mob types at once, it can be tough, but fun. (then of course a bunch of people come to help and the fun dies down >.<)

Windsagio.1340:

It’s substantially more complex with that. There are a ton of reasons people might want the current situation changed:

Some are bored with the vast sameness of the encounters and want them mixed up

So you advocate new instanced pve content and new encounters. But no, some would rather have massive changes to the combat system in order to see heal spammers and face tanks involved in dungeon speed clears.

Some are annoyed at kittenish behavior by people pushing their style (this cuts both ways of course) and are striking out.

Oddly enough the people who push their style on others the most on these forums tends to be the anti zerk/meta crowd.

Some people don’t like the fact that the balance is skewed (often along class lines too, which doesn’t help).

You mean the balance skewed in terms of people going dps and making full use of the games active combat system being able to complete the instanced pve content of the game (a small fraction of the games content) faster than facetanks who can semi afk through it?

Or do you mean the skewed balance across the game which sees pvt/clerics/nomads and celestial and non full glass dps builds all being of prime import in several of the games key metas and in vast swathes of gameplay?

Or perhaps the skewed balance which sees the likes of nomads and clerics being so effective at what it does that it utterly trivializes content for even the lowest skilled player?

I will state though that yes, clearly “balance” in all aspects of the game could an should be improved. But some of the stuff you see in threads like this is way, way OTT.

It’s easy to dismiss the people that disagree with you as lazy and bad, but it’s certainly not very useful, and honestly does your position a lot of harm.

Honestly at this point, i’m beyond caring frankly. Whilst you occassionally do get some interesting ideas it’s more often than not the same (bad) arguments regurgitated from any of the last painful anti zerk/meta threads you care to choose from. So often the rebuttals get more terse and far less constructive.

Fenrir, it’s about POV and perspective. If you come into the discussion from a close-minded attitude expecting a fight that’s what you’re going to see and going to get.

To your points:

1) (forcing change of mechanics instead of new encounters ) No I didn’t, I’m all about making the new encounters more interesting. My closest argument to what you’re saying there is that it’s not impossible to do.
2) (“no, the anti-zerk people are the real jerks!”) This is what I’m saying about perspective. You see people you disagree with as being nasty and pushy but not people you agree with. As I said, this effect cuts both ways, and it hurts the discussion both ways.
3)(blah blah blah facetanks) No I"m talking about the same choice always being the most efficient.
4) (something about my ideas being bad retreads?) wow that hurts :‘(. But again perspective. There’s this tendency to shove square pegs into round holes and equate points with the talking points you’re comfortable arguing against. This isnt’ fair to you or to me.

Windsagio.1340:

Fenrir, it’s about POV and perspective. If you come into the discussion from a close-minded attitude expecting a fight that’s what you’re going to see and going to get.

To your points:

1) (forcing change of mechanics instead of new encounters ) No I didn’t

I’m not saying you have. I’m talking about the thread in general and others like it.

2) (“no, the anti-zerk people are the real jerks!”) This is what I’m saying about perspective. You see people you disagree with as being nasty and pushy but not people you agree with. As I said, this effect cuts both ways, and it hurts the discussion both ways.

I don’t see people who disagree with me as being “nasty” in the slightest.

You mentioned people pushing their playstyle on others, I merely pointed out that more often than not on these forums such playstyle pushing actually comes from the anti zerk meta crowd.

3)(blah blah blah facetanks) No I"m talking about the same choice always being the most efficient.

Clarify that please. Is my full zerk scholar dungeon meta guard now the optimal go to for tourny pvp, zerging the silverwastes and frontlining/gvg?

4) (something about my ideas being bad retreads?) wow that hurts :‘(. But again perspective. There’s this tendency to shove square pegs into round holes and equate points with the talking points you’re comfortable arguing against. This isnt’ fair to you or to me.

Er, again I’m not singling you out (at all), I don’t recall you from any of the countless previous anti zerk/meta threads if I’m being honest (that is not meant in a ba way). I was refering to the thread, ones like it and their general content.

Windsagio.1340:

Fenrir, it’s about POV and perspective. If you come into the discussion from a close-minded attitude expecting a fight that’s what you’re going to see and going to get.

To your points:

1) (forcing change of mechanics instead of new encounters ) No I didn’t, I’m all about making the new encounters more interesting. My closest argument to what you’re saying there is that it’s not impossible to do.
2) (“no, the anti-zerk people are the real jerks!”) This is what I’m saying about perspective. You see people you disagree with as being nasty and pushy but not people you agree with. As I said, this effect cuts both ways, and it hurts the discussion both ways.
3)(blah blah blah facetanks) No I"m talking about the same choice always being the most efficient.
4) (something about my ideas being bad retreads?) wow that hurts :‘(. But again perspective. There’s this tendency to shove square pegs into round holes and equate points with the talking points you’re comfortable arguing against. This isnt’ fair to you or to me.

Here’s what it is.
They don’t want stat variation to matter for their play.
That’s about it, its not really even about zerk specifically. Zerk just happens to be the set they already invested in.

Essentially right now there is one stat.set that allows them to be good at everything that matters, and do substantially more dmg, and that is how they prefer it.

I feel this is an ok idea, if it didn’t totally fubar wncounter design and cause numerous stat set balance issues.

Let’s be honest you lnow the only reason bosses are beatable in under 30 seconds is because they can’t give a boss more hp or it would take others 10 years

Jerus.4350:

I think you misunderstand my point on the hardmode. ALL I’m asking for is a version where downed = failure of the dungeon. If that’s too harsh, maybe just dead = failure, but still, in either case it’d really promote being more defensive as you can easily make things go from a 1 to 2 shot, and that’s HUGE. Because almost innately that will mean it’s actually a 3 shot if you use your heal between the first and second mistake suddenly it’s not that second hit but the third that downs you, space out your mistakes enough and you might even be able to heal up that second shot and go on to allow yourself 4…

Well in the example you posted, all that would result in is rezzing 2 guys at the end of the fight. Or do you mean die (which is = to down) means you’re done for the rest of the run?

What do others think of such a stipulation? Personally, I think it undermines rezzing type utilities. Some people may not like them and it may not be “optimal” to rez fully dead in a fight but it cuts those tactics completely. It makes me think it’d garner a more solo mentality (moreso than currently) in groups.

Jerus.4350:

The only situation where more dps becomes a much easier tactic is in content that can literally be blown up (looking at you AC/CM) For content like Lupi, not so much. Don’t believe me, take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qc-h49HeqU
Seems you can still have a decent kill time and make it so you don’t have to avoid everything.

Well, reflect is OP, after all.

Why dont you just be honest about what you want. Because most of the time it is about anti zerk meta in some form. Otherwise you wouldnt be discussing it.

Leo G.4501:

Jerus.4350:

The only situation where more dps becomes a much easier tactic is in content that can literally be blown up (looking at you AC/CM) For content like Lupi, not so much. Don’t believe me, take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qc-h49HeqU
Seems you can still have a decent kill time and make it so you don’t have to avoid everything.

Well, reflect is OP, after all.

Reflect damage had very little contribution to that time. :P

Artemis Thuras.8795:

I have yet to see any reason for which stats have/should to alter play style.
Could they? yes.
but why should they?
Please, enlighten me.

Perhaps you’re not reading then? People have posted plenty of reasons. Are they all good reasons? Perhaps not. I try to analyze and understand others’ position to help aid in crafting better ideas around more solid reasons but one thing I’ve decided to stop doing is constantly repeat myself. Not going to waste my time attempting to discuss something with someone who is obviously completely against actually discussing anything.

Leo G.4501:

Jerus.4350:

I think you misunderstand my point on the hardmode. ALL I’m asking for is a version where downed = failure of the dungeon. If that’s too harsh, maybe just dead = failure, but still, in either case it’d really promote being more defensive as you can easily make things go from a 1 to 2 shot, and that’s HUGE. Because almost innately that will mean it’s actually a 3 shot if you use your heal between the first and second mistake suddenly it’s not that second hit but the third that downs you, space out your mistakes enough and you might even be able to heal up that second shot and go on to allow yourself 4…

Well in the example you posted, all that would result in is rezzing 2 guys at the end of the fight. Or do you mean die (which is = to down) means you’re done for the rest of the run?

What do others think of such a stipulation? Personally, I think it undermines rezzing type utilities. Some people may not like them and it may not be “optimal” to rez fully dead in a fight but it cuts those tactics completely. It makes me think it’d garner a more solo mentality (moreso than currently) in groups.

Jerus.4350:

The only situation where more dps becomes a much easier tactic is in content that can literally be blown up (looking at you AC/CM) For content like Lupi, not so much. Don’t believe me, take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qc-h49HeqU
Seems you can still have a decent kill time and make it so you don’t have to avoid everything.

Well, reflect is OP, after all.

Yeah I mean once you’re out, you’re out. No picking up a player who’s out, they’re just stuck there till the end, if the group finishes they’ll get the bonus chest rewards but that’s it for them.

Maybe downed = out is too much, but dead = out for sure.

Honestly IMO the reason Zerk has become what it is, is because people would rather fail, die, run back, than take a little extra bit of defense to ensure they don’t kill themselves when they screw up. Taking away that option and I would bet money people take something like a pillar guard at the very least.

And, yeah it was a nice phase transition…. but it aws done in clerics gear, meaning absolute minimal reflect damage being done due to no precision other than through his traits. And it was still able to phase skip. I think the point that being well organized and playing well will still yield timely kills even in fully defensive gear is proven just fine by it. I’ve had zerker groups take twice as long, unable to gather for the use of WoR like that (it’s a bit fickle). So I don’t think the gear is as powerful as a players ability to do things right.

spoj.9672:

Leo G.4501:

Jerus.4350:

The only situation where more dps becomes a much easier tactic is in content that can literally be blown up (looking at you AC/CM) For content like Lupi, not so much. Don’t believe me, take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qc-h49HeqU
Seems you can still have a decent kill time and make it so you don’t have to avoid everything.

Well, reflect is OP, after all.

Reflect damage had very little contribution to that time. :P

It was a contributing factor. Was it the only contributing factor? Of course not, but it helps alot.

spoj.9672:

Why dont you just be honest about what you want. Because most of the time it is about anti zerk meta in some form. Otherwise you wouldnt be discussing it.

diversity is the buzz word they hide behind. the reality is simply that they wish tank stats were good.

a bit like how the people who complain about “not being able to play how they want” are simply people who want to be allowed to stroll in to any pug group, regardless of description and do the dungeon, to hell with whether the lfg asked for pink armour only, elementalists only, berserker gear only and so on and so forth.

but of course to say that openly would be scummy, so these people like to hide behind phrases and buzz words to add some sort of moral supremacy to their standpoint.

Jerus.4350:

And, yeah it was a nice phase transition…. but it aws done in clerics gear, meaning absolute minimal reflect damage being done due to no precision other than through his traits. And it was still able to phase skip. I think the point that being well organized and playing well will still yield timely kills even in fully defensive gear is proven just fine by it. I’ve had zerker groups take twice as long, unable to gather for the use of WoR like that (it’s a bit fickle). So I don’t think the gear is as powerful as a players ability to do things right.

Perhaps I’m mistaken but isn’t reflect crit chance governed by your crit chance? One can easily pump that up with sigils, traits and boons. I’m not discounting the effort they made, just saying, I’ve always said reflect is OP period and is balanced poorly in this game. I’m definitely sure reflect didn’t contribute nothing and I’m certain it didn’t contribute “very little”. Did it do less than it could have? Yes, but part of an OP effect can still be OP

As for the last statement, I don’t disagree. However, it was never my stance that passive defense was weak (the opposite, in fact) or that Clerics gear is somehow overshadowed by things (but honestly, it is…). My stance always was, people look for various solutions to make content tough yet it’s going to be tougher doing that when our tools are so powerful with little sacrifice.

maha.7902:

spoj.9672:

Why dont you just be honest about what you want. Because most of the time it is about anti zerk meta in some form. Otherwise you wouldnt be discussing it.

diversity is the buzz word they hide behind. the reality is simply that they wish tank stats were good.

a bit like how the people who complain about “not being able to play how they want” are simply people who want to be allowed to stroll in to any pug group, regardless of description and do the dungeon, to hell with whether the lfg asked for pink armour only, elementalists only, berserker gear only and so on and so forth.

but of course to say that openly would be scummy, so these people like to hide behind phrases and buzz words to add some sort of moral supremacy to their standpoint.

This is what I was talking about above. Of course the differing opinion is lying and shortsighted and deceptive.

To repeat the umpteenth time, there’s many reasons people get into this discussion. Grouping and dismissive is silly and wrong and massively destructive.

let’s put aside the smoke and mirrors.

a simple question.

do you wish tankier stat combinations to be stronger, if not actually preferred by one or multiple party members in group content?

a simple yes or no will suffice.

maha.7902:

spoj.9672:

Why dont you just be honest about what you want. Because most of the time it is about anti zerk meta in some form. Otherwise you wouldnt be discussing it.

diversity is the buzz word they hide behind. the reality is simply that they wish tank stats were good.

a bit like how the people who complain about “not being able to play how they want” are simply people who want to be allowed to stroll in to any pug group, regardless of description and do the dungeon, to hell with whether the lfg asked for pink armour only, elementalists only, berserker gear only and so on and so forth.

but of course to say that openly would be scummy, so these people like to hide behind phrases and buzz words to add some sort of moral supremacy to their standpoint.

Can we acknowledge the third group that wants justice for condition damage and not mix it with the anti-zerker group at least??

Leo G.4501:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

I have yet to see any reason for which stats have/should to alter play style.
Could they? yes.
but why should they?
Please, enlighten me.

Perhaps you’re not reading then? People have posted plenty of reasons. Are they all good reasons? Perhaps not. I try to analyze and understand others’ position to help aid in crafting better ideas around more solid reasons but one thing I’ve decided to stop doing is constantly repeat myself. Not going to waste my time attempting to discuss something with someone who is obviously completely against actually discussing anything.

So you have no opinion as to why it should change?
Just that it should change because.
Fluffy bunny posts?

Pointless changes to ruin gw2 because you want to play a different game it seems.

Jerus.4350:

Yeah I mean once you’re out, you’re out. No picking up a player who’s out, they’re just stuck there till the end, if the group finishes they’ll get the bonus chest rewards but that’s it for them.

Maybe downed = out is too much, but dead = out for sure.

Honestly IMO the reason Zerk has become what it is, is because people would rather fail, die, run back, than take a little extra bit of defense to ensure they don’t kill themselves when they screw up. Taking away that option and I would bet money people take something like a pillar guard at the very least.

Woops, I mistakenly deleted this part of the post. I meant to say something.

Yeah, it might be a bit much but who knows? What do others think?

Me thinking out loud, if people are so finicky to reset fractals until they get what they want, I don’t see why players wouldn’t just jump ship and reset the instance if someone died too far from the end boss (and “too far” could vary from player to player). I mean, dungeons aren’t very long so it wouldn’t be that tough.

It could certainly be a part of a hardmode but I don’t think it’d stand on its own as a hardmode. There’d likely have to be other features to it.

As for the last part, you might be right and I definitely feel that it’s part of the problem. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like when people WP back during events, because it’s already pretty hax to just “respawn”. It should require resources to keep your numbers up…it’s one of the factors that could make things challenging and require people to play more carefully! Basically, if you’re with me, you’re not dying on me! I’ll rub you till you’re raw! You’re going to help me kill whatever I’m trying to kill!

maha.7902:

let’s put aside the smoke and mirrors.

a simple question.

do you wish tankier stat combinations to be stronger, if not actually preferred by one or multiple party members in group content?

a simple yes or no will suffice.

Good question.
I want them to be preferred when one or more party members isn’t able to actively avoid enough damage for any reason. Oh wait…

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Leo G.4501:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

I have yet to see any reason for which stats have/should to alter play style.
Could they? yes.
but why should they?
Please, enlighten me.

Perhaps you’re not reading then? People have posted plenty of reasons. Are they all good reasons? Perhaps not. I try to analyze and understand others’ position to help aid in crafting better ideas around more solid reasons but one thing I’ve decided to stop doing is constantly repeat myself. Not going to waste my time attempting to discuss something with someone who is obviously completely against actually discussing anything.

So you have no opinion as to why it should change?
Just that it should change because.
Fluffy bunny posts?

Pointless changes to ruin gw2 because you want to play a different game it seems.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Dont-make-Dungeons-harder-More-builds-Viable/page/2

Go do some scrolling.

maha.7902:

let’s put aside the smoke and mirrors.

a simple question.

do you wish tankier stat combinations to be stronger, if not actually preferred by one or multiple party members in group content?

a simple yes or no will suffice.

Except it won’t because you’re framing the question mightily.

That being said, I kind of don’t care except on a high concept level.

As a designer it bugs me that some stat sets are so much more useful than others.

As a player I play what’s effective but find most of the fights just unbearably boring (Fractals are much more interesting than dungeons, I don’t do dungeons at all anymore because I don’t want to hate the game).

For more detail, across classes:
I have 6 characters in zerk or assassin gear, 1 in sinister gear, and 1 in celestial gear. I have a few weird backup sets floating around, but those are the basics. In essence, I play as a meta player… and it’s dull for most of those dungeons.

As a member of the forum community I have to strive mightily to attempt to separate the frankly awful attutides people take with the content of their posts, which even at the best of times jaundices me to their position and makes me much more likely to want to argue.

~~~

Except for the third point above, I’m engaged in this discussion because the ‘hard’ gameplay as it currently is, is in most cases, pretty kitten boring and repetitive. I personally hope they make the encounters harder (at least up to post-10 fractal level) to fix this, and I feel in the context of the OP that increasing the difficulty would also have a very large impact on the ‘zerker meta’ question, especially linked with the system changes and encounter design they’re already moving towards.