Found dead: the 'Zerker meta?
No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.
Even if they made pure Direct damage tactically poor, it’s still not enforcing anything, it’s simply moving the ‘optimal’ slider.
A central premise of GW2, and something the devs have done a pretty good job at supporting is that they don’t enforce a particular play style.
~~~
Let’s take a moment to note the ‘people like you’ language, this is why we can’t have nice things ><
~~~
Anyways I, and many people, want to make more of the options available more socially acceptable and want more variety in encounter. You’re flat saying I’m claiming the opposite, and I have no idea why (except convenience in dispute, maybe?)
There’s honestly a brutal level of doublethink in this, and an element of ‘turning accusations back’, but it really has no basis… It’s simply not what I’m saying
Edit: And again, this is the problem. It’s nigh impossible to even have the discussion when it continuously gets filed into these conveniently arguable slots. It’s rote argument that signifies nothing except self-validation.
Still, this is a chance to speak on enforcing playstyles. I like being fast too, so I run zerk or asssasin gear on many of my characters. That being said, If I’m adverting a group I never advertise any grouping limits, and argue with my friends sometimes when they do.
I’m happy with people playing zerk, I do it myself. The thing I’m not happy with is the divisive attitude around it and the fact that people think enforcing their playstyle on their groups is a good filter of skill or acceptibility.
Anyone is free to set their groups as they want, but I don’t think much of it, and more importantly, I think it would be really fun if we had fewer burn friendly fights that took different styles for my characters (and maybe pull out some of the chars that don’t get much play).
(edited by Windsagio.1340)
Other options are already viable. I seriously dont understand why people have a problem with this. Please explain to me what is wrong with a system where everything works.
The reason we cant have a decent discussion is because there is a major failing in understanding of the other side.
If you are argueing to make other methods socially acceptible. Then fair enough. But theres no discussion to be had there. Because thats a people problem and unrelated to the system. You also cant fix people. This thread is about changing the system not the people. So i believe you are in the wrong thread.
(edited by spoj.9672)
Actually in EQ it was all about the trinity system taken to the extreme. You needed a tank, puller, slower/mezzer/debuffer, healer, dpser(main assist), secondary tank/secondary assist or else it’s a no go. It would take 30-60 minutes+ sometimes just to get a team together and sometimes not at all. This is obviously not the right way to go but that is the ultimate result once you start pushing content requiring different builds in a party for the sake of diversity since the only way to incentivize/force people to have different builds is to make them absolutely crucial to success of a party and that’s guaranteed to turn off a majority of the people.
Which is why I’m not too warm on absolutely requiring certain setups to complete content (like making some things totally immuned to x or z stat), because that can lead to exactly what you describe, or multi-gear set checks.
Luckily in GW2, roles are over multiple classes and multi-build. Everyone can heal themselves, most classes can boon hate, remove condis, reflect etc. Not to mention we can swap gear/builds/skills on the fly, which definitely would mitigate the time looking for groups if that were to be the case. Remember many MMOs has it so the build you had was permanent over years. If you built non-optimal you would have to wait for some reset offer from Devs or retire that toon.
My personal opinion is that by lowering overall mob health while maximizing their use of pathing, boons, condis and active defenses, would promote build diversity alone.
Take condition damage for example. The big advantage of condition damage is that it’s a DoT that bypasses active and passive defense, save for condi removal and temp immunity/resistance. When going against players it’s great, because players depend on a lot on active/passive defense to stay alive instead of lots of health. That means condis can pressure players to death and is very viable that way.
It suffers the most in PvE because there’s no need for a DoT-like damage when in most cases, you’re focused on bursting down enormous health bars on enemies that have no active or passive defense. On top of this, you have the condi cap that limits it to about 5-10K damage max for the enite team/zerg. If you take two classes into a dungeon that both stack to cap, it’s as if you have 4 players instead of 5. This can easily add 10min-30min to completion time.
Now instead of insane hp, what if the trash and bosses started constantly using protection, applying area weakness, removing condis and using self/group heals in conjunction with one another to protect their hp?
Condis looks a lot more appetizing when the base health of mobs is much lower and normal player damage is reduced by a large amount without boon stripping, condi clensing and target priority. Condi pressure and poison may be enough to make enemy trash seriously misuse their heals and clenses, leaving an opening to prioritize the rest of the team’s DPS on select mobs. Having two condi builds may make sense as the new enemies are able to condi clear regularly, so keeping up the condi pressure may take more than one player.
Other options are already viable. I seriously dont understand why people have a problem with this. Please explain to me what is wrong with a system where everything works.
The reason we cant have a decent discussion is because there is a major failing in understanding of the other side.
If you are argueing to make other methods socially acceptible. Then fair enough. But theres no discussion to be had there. Because thats a people problem and unrelated to the system. You also cant fix people. This thread is about changing the system not the people. So i believe you are in the wrong thread.
There is a bit of a discussion to be had, though. To make them more “socially acceptable,” it will basically require a change to the current dungeon environment. Either introduction of new content where the optimal route is something that we currently don’t see (lots of ways to make this work, but it involves looking outside of current PvE for ideas), or an increase in difficulty to the point where the majority of 5-zerk teams just don’t have the coordination or ability to hold up anymore. I would rather we not see the later, but it can work.
There are tons of ways to increase difficulty without putting a stronger emphasis on DPS. There are also ways to create optimal situations for things other than Power DPS. Reversing the health/armor paradigm would immedietly bring condition builds in. Revenant+Engineer or Necro + Mesmer are both pairings that can work well with minimal condition overlap (as is Revenant+Necro). Designing encounters with lowered spike damage, but drastically increased pressure would keep total enemy DPS the same, but encourage beefier setups as pressure overwhelms active defenses, but spike damage does not. Environmental effects are also perfectly fine for use in dungeons (Arah uses a few) and those can also alter what is optimal for a path.
And yeah, I hate the idea of uncrittable enemies as it is lazy design and really makes nobody happy.
Other options are already viable. I seriously dont understand why people have a problem with this. Please explain to me what is wrong with a system where everything works.
The reason we cant have a decent discussion is because there is a major failing in understanding of the other side.
If you are argueing to make other methods socially acceptible. Then fair enough. But theres no discussion to be had there. Because thats a people problem and unrelated to the system. You also cant fix people. This thread is about changing the system not the people. So i believe you are in the wrong thread.
I said that myself, everything is viable, naked runs are viable.
I’ve posted it a few times, the primary problem is people. People want to divide and denigrate and exclude, and people are tribal and think in terms of sides.
The secondary problem is a lack of variety of encounter. If one method of encounter is far and away easier than any other (as I’d argue is the case right now with DD burns), then it has a de facto stifling effect on development of other styles.
And thank you, but you’re mistaken this is a thread about the direction they’re taking re:Zerker and play styles in HOT. Given that I’ve talked about both the things I think they should do and my opinions on what they are doing, I feel quite at home.
~~~
There’s another point though, I’d argue I understand people’s POV pretty well (as much as possible I want to avoid the ‘sides’ generalization, it’s harmful to the discussion). I think there’s a lot of framing and reframing going on though, both internal and external. To me the primary motivators are a tribal feeling of being under attack (linked with a sense of self-association with a particular playstyle) and a resistance to change of a system that feels comfortable and favorable to people.
Now to be brutally frank, I don’t expect anyone to state agreement with either of those concepts. I mean, they’re not actively negative, but they’re not quite super positive either. That’s not how we like to think of ourselves. The thing is, peoples self-validation isn’t really a reasonable part of the discussion, we have to try our best to cut to the core of things:
~~
So the core of things:
Some people feel attacked and insulted by the “Zerk Meta” and want to strike back and insult back.
Some people just want more variety of playstyles or just variety of play.
Some people Feel attacked and insulted for playing/pushing zerk and want to strike back and insult back
Some people want to complete content as quickly as possible and don’t want to move away from the current style because that hurts their farming rate.
Some people want to be validated and get their props, and really don’t want to give an inch of the ground to those they’ve designated their ‘lessors’.
Some people apparently just want to rage against folks that disagree with them (Anet forum moderation is pretty strong though so those posts don’t last very long, usually)
Almost everyone is a mix of these things.
And that brings us back to page 2 of this thread (or somewhere around there), that gear doesn’t matter, cause PvE is supereasy.
As opposed to sPVP where you’re rewarded for failing…
I’d love some elaboration on this.
or WvW where you’re rewarded for gathering in a giant blob or not at all.
Blobbing up is a way to play, yes, but there are different types of gameplay styles in WvW. Some require more skill than others, and are way more effective than blobbing. Generally the unskilled or people not really wanting to put in effort blob up. I recommend trying roaming.
Sure, PVE is pretty easy if you’re just trying to complete it, but at least you have to be successful and in dungeons/fractals your contribution matters has a pretty large impact. In general i think it would be fair to say that GW2 is supereasy.
Uhm… aren’t dungeons stack in the corner mash 1? With like little to no chance of dying, ever? Or glitching through stuff, or skipping half the dungeon with invis, or always going for the cheap-o semi-exploits (eg.: lupicus half health gone with 1 reflect)? I do not want to offend dungeon running people or anything, but “knowledge” mostly boils down to 1 guy saying “stack here”.
As for Fractals, I guess some may find those difficult, I don’t really. And I’m a guy who has been resetted from lv 58 to 30 and went back up to 50 again.
Which is easier, stacking in a corner pressing 1 or playing a turret engineer in pvp and afk while raking in the wins?… See I can nitpick a certain part about a game mode and make it sound skilless too.
Stacking in a corner.
Turret engi are extremely easy to kill.
4x Necromancer, 3x Mesmer, 4x Guardian, 4x Thief, 4 Revenant
Other options are already viable. I seriously dont understand why people have a problem with this. Please explain to me what is wrong with a system where everything works.
The reason we cant have a decent discussion is because there is a major failing in understanding of the other side.
If you are argueing to make other methods socially acceptible. Then fair enough. But theres no discussion to be had there. Because thats a people problem and unrelated to the system. You also cant fix people. This thread is about changing the system not the people. So i believe you are in the wrong thread.
The social acceptance or non-acceptance of builds is based on realities in game due to PvE design. People just don’t “feel” that Zerker is most optimal. It “is” the most optimal in PvE. It’s the most optimal due to offering the most DPS, because the design of most PvE content in GW2 lends itself to only DPS mattering in the end.
There is a big gap between viable and optimal. I could “viably” run a team through an instance with pure defensive builds/specs. Why would I when the PvE is designed in such a way that we would easily survive anyways in full glass cannon and complete the same instance 40 minutes to an hour earlier?
Why would someone then who’s used to realistic completion times, accept defensive/support build(s) into the team that only pushes the completion time back considerably?
This question is where the “social” non-acceptance of anyone not adhering to the zerker meta comes from in many pugs/teams. The gap between viable and optimal is too great between zerker and other gear sets. So the answer is:
“No change your gear, the instance will take too long and your build offers nothing in return. We want to stack on that boss too and burn down that healthbar before it shifts into the next phase.”
When it should be more like:
“Support role? Oh were all DPS, but that should take some of the constant pressure off so we don’t need to perfectly time everything. Sure keep your build.”
Now requiring different builds and dedicated roles could definitely be an issue. What I want to see are design choices that make PvE content more challenging, while bringing what’s viable and optimal closer together. Both in effort required (with different teams struggling with different aspects of PvE combat) and completion time.
Zerker should in my opinion keep the top spot as most optimal if the team is good enough with active defenses.
Zerker should in my opinion keep the top spot as most optimal if the team is good enough with active defenses.
Slight shift, “Pure damage” is how I’d put it. We do need to stay aware of the constant problem that power is simply more useful than Condition damage.
No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.
Other options are already viable since all options are viable. Viability is not the same as Optimal. Based on your comments you just want the game to be played your way with optimal builds according to you. That is the very definition of forcing others to play your way.
(edited by DeathPanel.8362)
No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.
Other options are already viable since all options are viable. Viability is not the same as Optimal. Based on your comments you just want the game to be played your way with optimal builds according to you. That is the very definition of forcing others to play your way.
How is something different being optimal forcing anyone to play their way any more than zerker being optimal forcing anyone to play your way? Double standards, much?
Either having something (doesn’t matter what) be optimal forces people to play a certain way…or it doesn’t.
Zerker can be viable without being optimal, just like every other gear set in the game is viable without being optimal. In no way does it force anyone to play a certain way, so long as it’s viable.
(edited by Drarnor Kunoram.5180)
No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.
Other options are already viable since all options are viable. Viability is not the same as Optimal. Based on your comments you just want the game to be played your way with optimal builds according to you. That is the very definition of forcing others to play your way.
This is just nuts. I’m not sure how many different ways I can say it… so here’s another way.
Right now the ‘optimality curve’ is way out of whack, with encounters designed in such a way that a particular single strategy and setup isn’t only optimal, it’s gamebreakingly powerful. Anet needs to, AND IN FACT IS improving their tools and encounter design to flatten the curve somewhat so that one tactic doesn’t trivialize content and other tactics aren’t felt to be quite so punished. For skilled players, the curve will still exist, because the defensive stats are essentially hedges against errors.
~~~~
And here’s the thing you need to understand. I’m insanely stubborn and patient. You can strawman me as many times as you want, and I’ll continue to just correct you in slightly different wordings. It doesn’t hurt my case much to be able to refine and restate my position any number of times. If anything it helps me hone my point and my message.
Look, there is nothing wrong with players obsessing over Zerker as the one true way. It is and players are right to use it to the point of abusing it. The meta is NOT A PLAYER PROBLEM. IT’S A DESIGN PROBLEM.
In any set of 10+ choices there shouldn’t BE a single blatantly superior choice. As things stand, there is. Any change that leads to there being another singularly superior option is a rubbish change and its not what the design-savvy complainers are asking for. Zerkers should never stop being good. But it should stop being best for the majority of skill levels in the majority of high-value encounters. Each encounter will naturally have preferable choices — the problem is most of the high value encounters have the same solution: Hit it harder.
If you had a dungeon encounter that was “survive this bombardment for 3 minutes. If less than 4 players are standing at the end of 3 minutes you lose.” you’d see a different set of gear being deployed for that fight. But the fact is the dungeon bosses are for the most part not just unimaginatively repetitive – they’re outright anti-imaginative. The best solution is always ‘hit it harder’ and the goal-driven players do what they are told: they hit it harder.
I wonder what your basis for comparison is…”
- Jareth, King of Goblins.
I think that all this talk about gear doesn’t matter until encounter design changes. I think what needs to happen is completely obliterate the ability to stack on every dungeon/open world boss.
The current meta of everyone stack here requires absolutely no skill except the occasional dodge now.
One thing would add skill back into this game. Bosses should do a blanket AE with no cast time and no warning signs.
This ae should do 20% damage to everyone who is directly next to someone else make it 5 meters. next to one person 20% no biggie. Next to 5 everyone wipes.
There should be no stacking in the game at all. There’s no reason for it. It adds nothing. It just reminds me of every other game where a tank holds a mob still and everyone beats on it. There is absolutely no difference except as a group we make up a tank.
No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.
Other options are already viable since all options are viable. Viability is not the same as Optimal. Based on your comments you just want the game to be played your way with optimal builds according to you. That is the very definition of forcing others to play your way.
How is something different being optimal forcing anyone to play their way any more than zerker being optimal forcing anyone to play your way? Double standards, much?
It’s pretty sad you still don’t get it after it’s been explained to you many times this thread.
If state A is status quo, and you change the game such that state B is the new optimal where state B is the one advocated by you and players who adapted to state A is forced to now change their setups to play in state B optimally, you’ve just demonstrably and by definition forced people to play the game your way.
I’m not calling for any changes so I’m not forcing anyone to play my way since that is the way things are already. If you knew basic logic you’d know the fact that I took the default position is in no way using double standards.
You are the one calling for changes therefore it’s incumbent upon you to show why it is needed and you’ve failed to make your case. It’s just one fallacy after another with no good arguments.
And here’s the thing you need to understand. I’m insanely stubborn and patient. You can strawman me as many times as you want, and I’ll continue to just correct you in slightly different wordings. It doesn’t hurt my case much to be able to refine and restate my position any number of times. If anything it helps me hone my point and my message.
You should look up the definition of what a strawman argument is, because if you knew you would know I never strawmanned you.
Also I never denied that the optimal curve is not even for pve, your response implying I deny this is in itself a strawman against me ironically.
My main point is you need to figure out how to address the unevenness of the optimal curve in a smart way such that you aren’t forcing diversity for the sake of diversity resulting in less fun for everyone due to unintended consequences. If any solution fails to result in a net positive outcome then the logical choice is to stay with the status quo until a solution resulting in net positive outcome can be reached.
If you read my posts previously to the other guy you’d know this is my central point.
(edited by DeathPanel.8362)
No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.
Other options are already viable since all options are viable. Viability is not the same as Optimal. Based on your comments you just want the game to be played your way with optimal builds according to you. That is the very definition of forcing others to play your way.
How is something different being optimal forcing anyone to play their way any more than zerker being optimal forcing anyone to play your way? Double standards, much?
It’s pretty sad you still don’t get it after it’s been explained to you many times this thread.
If state A is status quo, and you change the game such that state B is the new optimal where state B is the one advocated by you and players who adapted to state A is forced to now change their setups to play in state B optimally, you’ve just demonstrably and by definition forced people to play the game your way.
I’m not calling for any changes so I’m not forcing anyone to play my way since that is the way things are already. If you knew basic logic you’d know the fact that I took the default position is in no way using double standards.
You are the one calling for changes therefore it’s incumbent upon you to show why it is needed and you’ve failed to make your case. It’s just one fallacy after another with no good arguments.
Yet you keep coming up with nothing to explain how Zerker being optimal in all dungeon content isn’t “forcing” people to play a certain way, but anything else becoming optimal, in some old or brand new content, does just that.
Right now, if someone wants to play optimally, they are forced to play Zerker, regardless of what they like doing. Heck, they are even forced to not play Necro at all. Engineers and Rangers can also be argued to be excluded in the face of optimal goals.
It works both ways. You are preaching a double-standard, which does nothing to persuade anyone.
(edited by Drarnor Kunoram.5180)
Yet you keep coming up with nothing to explain how Zerker being optimal in all dungeon content isn’t “forcing” people to play a certain way, but anything else becoming optimal, in some old or brand new content, does just that.
You’re playing a game where you need to follow all the rules and mechanics of the game. That is a necessary constraint.
The point is I’m not forcing people to play things my way like you accuse me because the game is this way already. My input now has no bearing on how this game is and used to be since this is the status quo.
However as I’ve explained already if you advocate for a change where people adapted to the current state have to change their ways to run dungeons optimally, you’ve just forced this subset of people who run dungeons optimally to play things your way.
Get it now?
Yet you keep coming up with nothing to explain how Zerker being optimal in all dungeon content isn’t “forcing” people to play a certain way, but anything else becoming optimal, in some old or brand new content, does just that.
You’re playing a game where you need to follow all the rules and mechanics of the game. That is a necessary constraint.
The point is I’m not forcing people to play things my way like you accuse me because the game is this way already.
However as I’ve explained already if you advocate for a change where people adapted to the current state have to change their ways to run dungeons optimally, you’ve just forced this subset of people who run dungeons optimally to play things your way.
Get it now?
So you’re saying that nobody is forced to walk everywhere to map things out, because that is how the game was released? But Heart of Thorns will release and force everyone to hang glide if they want to map everything, because that’s a change from how it currently is?
Because that is exactly the sort of argument you are making. In no way is anyone forced to play Zerker now. Likewise, if Zerker were not the optimal choice in every single dungeon, nobody would be forced to play whatever is optimal.
Running what is optimal is a choice. You make the choice, you do what is necessary to fulfill your goal. But you are not being forced because you chose it.
(edited by Drarnor Kunoram.5180)
Running what is optimal is a choice. You make the choice, you do what is necessary to fulfill your goal. But you are not being forced because you chose it.
Congrats, you’ve just defeated your own entire argument for changing the game to make different optimal builds.
Since if what you say is true then it doesn’t matter that there’s a zerk meta for pve since it’s your choice whether or not you want to use it given that all other builds are viable anyway.
I accept your apology and concession.
Lol you just don’t get it. I’ve explained in excruciating logical detail to you many times already the implications of what you are asking for. Go read a book on basic logic and read up on what default position means. Hopefully you can throw out less strawmans after that. Class dismissed.
(edited by DeathPanel.8362)
Yet you keep coming up with nothing to explain how Zerker being optimal in all dungeon content isn’t “forcing” people to play a certain way, but anything else becoming optimal, in some old or brand new content, does just that.
You’re playing a game where you need to follow all the rules and mechanics of the game. That is a necessary constraint.
The point is I’m not forcing people to play things my way like you accuse me because the game is this way already.
However as I’ve explained already if you advocate for a change where people adapted to the current state have to change their ways to run dungeons optimally, you’ve just forced this subset of people who run dungeons optimally to play things your way.
Get it now?
So you’re saying that nobody is forced to walk everywhere to map things out, because that is how the game was released? But Heart of Thorns will release and force everyone to hang glide if they want to map everything, because that’s a change from how it currently is?
Because that is exactly the sort of argument you are making.
Lol you just don’t get it. I’ve explained in excruciating logical detail to you many times already the implications of what you are asking for. Go read a book on basic logic and read up on what default position means. Hopefully you can throw out less strawmans after that. Class dismissed.
Congrats on quoting only the first paragraph of my post, then trying to look good from there.
If anything but Zerker were to become optimal, whether in the entire dungeon scene or in just part of it, it still would not be forcing anyone to play anything unless that were the only way to complete the content (which absolutely nobody is suggesting). Playing whatever were to become optimal would be no more forced than playing Zerker is now.
Why? Because playing what is optimal is a choice you make. The game does not force it on you in any way. But if you set a goal (which being “optimal” is a goal you desire), then you need to do what is necessary to meet that goal if you think you will meet it.
Regardless, you are not being forced to do anything. You chose to do that yourself. Choices have consequences.
However, what does variation on “optimal” bring? Quite a few things that would be healthy to the game and dungeon scene as a whole; more interesting encounters, renewed interest in dungeons by players, developer attention, greater challenge, and a happier overall playerbase due to less exclusion. The fact you choose to ignore absolutely everything that goes against your notion is rather disappointing, honestly.
(edited by Drarnor Kunoram.5180)
Why? Because playing what is optimal is a choice you make. The game does not force it on you in any way. But if you set a goal (which being “optimal” is a goal you desire), then you need to do what is necessary to meet that goal if you think you will meet it.
Regardless, you are not being forced to do anything. You chose to do that yourself. Choices have consequences.
Wait… are you trying to argue against yourself now? I could literally copy and paste your statements here in mock responses to your earlier statements in the thread bemoaning how zerk meta is ruining pve and that diversity needs to be encouraged/enforced through changes. Where’s all this choice talk coming from?
You aren’t forced to play the zerk meta and that’s the bottom line. So according to your own logic you shouldn’t care about it because you have the choice to choose it or not. Thanks for defeating your own argument.
I accept your concession.
I’m legitimately boggled. This is a serious “Up is down, blue is red” moment.
Or in the case of this argument, “opening up options is forcing people to play a single way”
~~~~~
Edit: Deserves a bit more, Deathpanel, maybe people want to see the game as interesting as possible, or simply care about the art of design. There’s no need to personalize it or cast yourself as under attack here.
You aren’t forced to play the zerk meta and that’s the bottom line. So according to your own logic you shouldn’t care about it because you have the choice to choose it or not. Thanks for defeating your own argument.
I accept your concession.
And likewise, if a Cleric’s meta arose, you wouldn’t be forced to play it. Your entire argument was that players like you would be forced to change how you play when it is quite clearly not true in the slightest.
My argument has always been much larger than anyone being forced to play a certain way; it was rather obvious that nobody was (except, apparently, to you). My argument was that different paths should have different metas/optimal compositions. Which you effectively countered with “I don’t want to get new gear to run content.” Granted, you didn’t refer to yourself, rather “players running a single build for dungeon running,” but I find it safe to assume you do count yourself in that group.
They could still run all dungeon paths in that gear just fine. They just may not be optimal in all of them. So, they make a choice: “stick with what I already have and not be optimal 100% of the time, or invest in multiple gearsets and always have the right one to be optimal.”
In short: your argument falls apart as soon as you admit that it would not be forcing anything for the meta to vary.
I can point quite clearly to what the benefits are of altering the dungeon meta to not be homogenous. The only thing you have said in response is that players who want to be optimal in everything would have to invest in it and not all would want to make that investment. It’s fine that not all players would want to invest in being optimal in a variety of metas, but they shouldn’t pretend they are being forced to play a certain way when all they are doing is dealing with the consequences of their choice..
I’m legitimately boggled. This is a serious “Up is down, blue is red” moment.
Or in the case of this argument, “opening up options is forcing people to play a single way”
More strawman arguments.
Reading comprehension is not your friend apparently. Earlier in the thread I actually stated I’d like to see other builds be brought in line to be just as optimal such as boosting condition damage mechanics.
The guy I was responding to wants to nerf content in such a way that zerk builds specifically are bad against it so that other builds are better in comparison.
So the main difference here is while I advocate for boosting for equality he advocates for nerfing and enforcing his views.
I recommend you read some earlier posts before you embarrass yourself misrepresenting my position any more.
You aren’t forced to play the zerk meta and that’s the bottom line. So according to your own logic you shouldn’t care about it because you have the choice to choose it or not. Thanks for defeating your own argument.
I accept your concession.
And likewise, if a Cleric’s meta arose, you wouldn’t be forced to play it. Your entire argument was that players like you would be forced to change how you play when it is quite clearly not true in the slightest.
You do realize digging yourself deeper and throwing out more strawman doesn’t actually help your argument right?
For those who were born rampaging pedants or just practice every day, “Forced” in the context of a game we could all just uninstall tomorrow and probably have better lives because it is generally used as shorthand for “forced if we want to play anything close to top tier performance.”
Not held at gun point forced. Not there are no other BAD options available (there are plenty). Forced as in “there are no other comparably good options.”
…Which would be why even when Zerker to a straight nerf to the face with the Ferocity change, when people threatened to switch to something else you could just ask them “Yeah? Really? To what? It’s still going to be the best answer to end game content after the nerf…”
I wonder what your basis for comparison is…”
- Jareth, King of Goblins.
And that brings us back to page 2 of this thread (or somewhere around there), that gear doesn’t matter, cause PvE is supereasy.
As opposed to sPVP where you’re rewarded for failing…
I’d love some elaboration on this.
or WvW where you’re rewarded for gathering in a giant blob or not at all.
Blobbing up is a way to play, yes, but there are different types of gameplay styles in WvW. Some require more skill than others, and are way more effective than blobbing. Generally the unskilled or people not really wanting to put in effort blob up. I recommend trying roaming.
Sure, PVE is pretty easy if you’re just trying to complete it, but at least you have to be successful and in dungeons/fractals your contribution matters has a pretty large impact. In general i think it would be fair to say that GW2 is supereasy.
Uhm… aren’t dungeons stack in the corner mash 1? With like little to no chance of dying, ever? Or glitching through stuff, or skipping half the dungeon with invis, or always going for the cheap-o semi-exploits (eg.: lupicus half health gone with 1 reflect)? I do not want to offend dungeon running people or anything, but “knowledge” mostly boils down to 1 guy saying “stack here”.
As for Fractals, I guess some may find those difficult, I don’t really. And I’m a guy who has been resetted from lv 58 to 30 and went back up to 50 again.
I did a poor job of explaining my point, if success has a correlation to rewards, PVP and WvW hardly should be considered more difficult. If you’re ignoring rewards, then absolutely going against a good sPVP team is surely more difficult than routinely going through a more static encounter that you’ll find in PVE at a casual pace. And it still disgusts me that WvW is so reliant on zergs to even see a reward, just as much as I’m disgusted by the state of zergs in open world PVE handing out rewards for raising your hand when roll is taken.
However, PVP you get a pat on the back whether you win or lose though. If your goal is to be the best and never lose, well, an attitude that believes that dungeons are about “stack in and corner and bash 1” is not much different than believing that taking your reward for a loss is a success. If you judge PVP based on winning and being a top ranked player, then you shouldn’t view dungeons as simply getting through it and taking your reward but instead be looking at it as attempting to match or beat record times, and even the best teams have quite a bit of trouble replicating it consistently, which would warrant some respect of difficulty would it not?
If you want difficulty in this game you have to make it for yourself, every avenue has it’s ways of becoming easy if you focus simply on completing it and getting rewards.
If the difficulty on enemies went up, some people would switch away from Zerker. Statistically speaking, they may be an insignificant portion, but it would still be a drop. I never said that some who can’t run zerker now would run zerker later. I said some who can run zerker now could not run zerker later.
And not all mobs in dungeons are skippable, so it’s quite possible adding Retaliation would make a difference. The impact of any change depends greatly on where the change is made as well as what the change is.
Not meaning to offend but are you new to MMOs or something?
Making content harder is not going to make people switch over to zerker. It’s going to make zerker even more important. It will make elitism go through the roof and gear checks the norm. Unless you specifically change content to nerf zerker somehow, which just means the next best thing become the new meta and few months later you end up back here complaining about that meta build. It’s an needless and endless cycle.
Any kind of elevation of difficulty naturally leads to these types of results. I’ve been playing MMOs since EQ original and this is the one trend that is consistent in all MMOS that raise difficulty in that way and it’s corrosive to the player community and discourages pugs.
You either have not thought out the consequences of your ideas or your analysis is flawed as many people in this post as well as myself have demonstrated.
What games like UO or EQ did to raise difficulty was simply increase mob health and damage by 1000%, which led to content 1 hit killing and players taking too long to kill stuff before dieing without optimal DPS/ganking. Those Devs at the time didn’t have much choice due to the technical limitations in 95-2000. So the meta was kill it asap before it killed you (at least in UO which is what I played). That’s when just going pure DPS thrives and that isn’t what anyone is really arguing for who want to open up the meta.
Actually in EQ it was all about the trinity system taken to the extreme. You needed a tank, puller, slower/mezzer/debuffer, healer, dpser(main assist), secondary tank/secondary assist or else it’s a no go. It would take 30-60 minutes+ sometimes just to get a team together and sometimes not at all. This is obviously not the right way to go but that is the ultimate result once you start pushing content requiring different builds in a party for the sake of diversity since the only way to incentivize/force people to have different builds is to make them absolutely crucial to success of a party and that’s guaranteed to turn off a majority of the people.
Or you brought a Shaman, a bard, and only if content was difficult enough a tank and maybe grab a cleric/ench if it stressed the shaman/bard too much (I played way too much EQ Bards were OP!)
If the difficulty on enemies went up, some people would switch away from Zerker. Statistically speaking, they may be an insignificant portion, but it would still be a drop. I never said that some who can’t run zerker now would run zerker later. I said some who can run zerker now could not run zerker later.
And not all mobs in dungeons are skippable, so it’s quite possible adding Retaliation would make a difference. The impact of any change depends greatly on where the change is made as well as what the change is.
Not meaning to offend but are you new to MMOs or something?
Making content harder is not going to make people switch over to zerker. It’s going to make zerker even more important. It will make elitism go through the roof and gear checks the norm. Unless you specifically change content to nerf zerker somehow, which just means the next best thing become the new meta and few months later you end up back here complaining about that meta build. It’s an needless and endless cycle.
Any kind of elevation of difficulty naturally leads to these types of results. I’ve been playing MMOs since EQ original and this is the one trend that is consistent in all MMOS that raise difficulty in that way and it’s corrosive to the player community and discourages pugs.
You either have not thought out the consequences of your ideas or your analysis is flawed as many people in this post as well as myself have demonstrated.
What games like UO or EQ did to raise difficulty was simply increase mob health and damage by 1000%, which led to content 1 hit killing and players taking too long to kill stuff before dieing without optimal DPS/ganking. Those Devs at the time didn’t have much choice due to the technical limitations in 95-2000. So the meta was kill it asap before it killed you (at least in UO which is what I played). That’s when just going pure DPS thrives and that isn’t what anyone is really arguing for who want to open up the meta.
Actually in EQ it was all about the trinity system taken to the extreme. You needed a tank, puller, slower/mezzer/debuffer, healer, dpser(main assist), secondary tank/secondary assist or else it’s a no go. It would take 30-60 minutes+ sometimes just to get a team together and sometimes not at all. This is obviously not the right way to go but that is the ultimate result once you start pushing content requiring different builds in a party for the sake of diversity since the only way to incentivize/force people to have different builds is to make them absolutely crucial to success of a party and that’s guaranteed to turn off a majority of the people.
Or you brought a Shaman, a bard, and only if content was difficult enough a tank and maybe grab a cleric/ench if it stressed the shaman/bard too much (I played way too much EQ Bards were OP!)
Bards were good at soloing light blue to blue to farm gold and exp but when you try to level AA off of slightly higher end stuff you need a full meta group. For true high end stuff you needed a whole raid. I remembered having my guild raid of 100+ people wipe because a single shaman messed up and aggroed the boss before we got the tank rotations ready. One person’s single mistake wiped out 3-4 hours of work with a 100 people. That’s what true difficulty is and I for one don’t want to experience that again.
If only some of the kids today actually had to go through what we went through they’d be a lot more appreciative and stop asking for more difficulty. We had to coordinate freaken tank rotations and we didn’t even have teamspeak back then. They know not what they ask.
(edited by DeathPanel.8362)
Stacking in a corner.
Turret engi are extremely easy to kill.
Not according to pvp forums.
Zerker can be viable without being optimal, just like every other gear set in the game is viable without being optimal. In no way does it force anyone to play a certain way, so long as it’s viable.
If zerker (or any glass gear like sinister) isn’t optimal, what’s the point of running a glass gear without a proper reward? It’s like fractals vs open world. The former is much harder and doesn’t even reward you proportionally.
People secretly want Defense gear to reward as much as Damage gear.
If zerker (or any glass gear like sinister) isn’t optimal, what’s the point of running a glass gear without a proper reward? It’s like fractals vs open world. The former is much harder and doesn’t even reward you proportionally.
The encounter design could solve this. If the design allows a player to trade survivability for extra damage, it would still be fair. Another way would be “forcing” the player with such difficult content that the risks of going zerker do not match the rewards for going zerker.
People secretly want Defense gear to reward as much as Damage gear.
Correct, I do want this to happen, not in all encounters but in some. We have this diversity and I’m not happy to one gear/build is defined as training gear.
People secretly want Defense gear to reward as much as Damage gear.
Correct, I do want this to happen, not in all encounters but in some. We have this diversity and I’m not happy to one gear/build is defined as training gear.
Do you see the issue within my words? Reread please.
Hint : People secretly want 0 damage gear to reward as much as 100% damage gear.
People want that 0 = 100.
Do you see the issue within my words? Reread please.
Hint : People secretly want 0 damage gear to reward as much as 100% damage gear.
People want that 0 = 100.
I know what you said and as long as you only speak bout gear, I will still say I want that to happen in some encounters.
If you said would say: “People secretly want no risk strategies to reward as much as high risk strategies.”, I would say those are selfish. The only question that remains is, should all risk by defines by the build only? I would be very happy if we had some encounters were we could sacrifice survivability for damage. Why? Because survivability could come from other players, different weapons, … .
In the current state of the game Risk is defined by use of mechanics (active defense/support), then by traits to boost said mechanics and then by passive defense (gear).
- Mechanics and Traits are self sufficient
- Gear plays a secondary part by boosting a side not covered by mechanics or traits
- Boosting furthermore an asset powered by Mechanics or Traits is overkill
Mechanics are active defense as reflects, boons, conditions, CC, block, invuln and dodge. They come from utility skills, traits and Dodge roll.
- A) There is enough active defense to complete content using fast damage
- B) There is not enough of active defense to complete content using medium damage gear
- C) There is too much active defense to complete content using no damage gear (pure defense gear)
A) is a small risk for reward, B is medium risk for reward and C) is no risk for reward. The problem is in the core of the game, in its mechanics. There’s just enough of them to achieve no risk at all.
In the current state of the game Risk is defined by use of mechanics (active defense/support), then by traits to boost said mechanics and then by passive defense (gear).
- Mechanics and Traits are self sufficient
- Gear plays a secondary part by boosting a side not covered by mechanics or traits
- Boosting furthermore an asset powered by Mechanics or Traits is overkill
Mechanics are active defense as reflects, boons, conditions, CC, block, invuln and dodge. They come from utility skills, traits and Dodge roll.
- A) There is enough active defense to complete content using fast damage
- B) There is not enough of active defense to complete content using medium damage gear
- C) There is too much active defense to complete content using no damage gear (pure defense gear)
A) is a small risk for reward, B is medium risk for reward and C) is no risk for reward. The problem is in the core of the game, in its mechanics. There’s just enough of them to achieve no risk at all.
All nice and well, but if we introduce new mechanics that boosts damage at the expense of health or active defense, we can change the amount of active defense needed or make the mechanics non effective if used with active defense. By doing that we can make gear have a meaning full role in the Risk calculation.
As a player who has played high level fractals only two classes seem to even benefit from stats as toughness and vitality and they are Gurdian and Warrior(Heavy armor classes). Because of that I don´t find it likely that the Zerker PvE meta will ever die.
And likewise, if a Cleric’s meta arose, you wouldn’t be forced to play it. Your entire argument was that players like you would be forced to change how you play when it is quite clearly not true in the slightest.
You do realize digging yourself deeper and throwing out more strawman doesn’t actually help your argument right?
Forcing specific builds for specific encounters not only makes group formation tedious but promotes greater elitism with gear checks and role calls etc.
At the end of the day what you say essentially boils down to making mixed groups mandatory for beating content optimally, which is a solution looking for a problem that isn’t there.
The net result of your changes would be to make things unnecessarily more tedious and less fun because people would have to either swap characters and/or gear to optimally beat different content what they used to be able to beat optimally with their dedicated pve character with one gear setup that is well known. (ie one with zerker build in most cases)
-snip-
What you state will increase that tedium for me due to either making me swap characters or gear for specific encounters or take longer to beat with my pve char’s current gear with no tangible benefit whatsoever. What you don’t realize is your proposal simply results in a net increase in tedium and frustration and net decrease in fun at the end of the day.
But I’m the one using strawman arguments. Please, tell me where I suggested that increasing variety of optimal builds and strategies would force anyone to do anything or bring a trinity to the game? Let me know where I suggested that having multiple optimal possibilities for different paths making mixed groups mandatory? I’m really rather curious.
Heck, I can also bring up
You admit that you are not the sole arbiter of what is “supposed” to be or not and say that is ANET’s job but you conclude with: “ANET isn’t perfect at making things the way they are SUPPOSED to be.” once again claiming you are the sole arbiter of what is supposed to be or not. You get points for contradicting yourself within the same paragraph. Congratulations.
I don’t see how I’m contradicting myself when the examples I gave are ANet’s own words. That’s right, I didn’t say that Berserker is supposed to be the highest DPS (though I agree it should be), nor did I say Necromancer is an attrition profession. Those are ANet’s words.
Lol are you serious? In the beginning of the paragraph you say you are not the sole arbiter of what things are supposed to be, yet by the end of the paragraph you say ANET isn’t perfect at making things the way they are Supposed to be. That by definition is a self contradiction because by stating that you implicitly mean that you know how things are supposed to be. Those are YOUR words.
Again, I clearly stated that ANet defined how those things are supposed to be (if you like, I can link their statements), yet you claim those were my words. ANet’s definition of how things are supposed to be is apparently my sole decision now? When ANet outright states something is supposed to be a certain way, then reality doesn’t match their statements, it’s somehow me deciding how things are supposed to be? Does that mean I am ANet? That would be news to me.
So tell me, who is using strawmans?
If the difficulty on enemies went up, some people would switch away from Zerker. Statistically speaking, they may be an insignificant portion, but it would still be a drop. I never said that some who can’t run zerker now would run zerker later. I said some who can run zerker now could not run zerker later.
And not all mobs in dungeons are skippable, so it’s quite possible adding Retaliation would make a difference. The impact of any change depends greatly on where the change is made as well as what the change is.
Not meaning to offend but are you new to MMOs or something?
Making content harder is not going to make people switch over to zerker. It’s going to make zerker even more important. It will make elitism go through the roof and gear checks the norm. Unless you specifically change content to nerf zerker somehow, which just means the next best thing become the new meta and few months later you end up back here complaining about that meta build. It’s an needless and endless cycle.
Any kind of elevation of difficulty naturally leads to these types of results. I’ve been playing MMOs since EQ original and this is the one trend that is consistent in all MMOS that raise difficulty in that way and it’s corrosive to the player community and discourages pugs.
You either have not thought out the consequences of your ideas or your analysis is flawed as many people in this post as well as myself have demonstrated.
What games like UO or EQ did to raise difficulty was simply increase mob health and damage by 1000%, which led to content 1 hit killing and players taking too long to kill stuff before dieing without optimal DPS/ganking. Those Devs at the time didn’t have much choice due to the technical limitations in 95-2000. So the meta was kill it asap before it killed you (at least in UO which is what I played). That’s when just going pure DPS thrives and that isn’t what anyone is really arguing for who want to open up the meta.
Actually in EQ it was all about the trinity system taken to the extreme. You needed a tank, puller, slower/mezzer/debuffer, healer, dpser(main assist), secondary tank/secondary assist or else it’s a no go. It would take 30-60 minutes+ sometimes just to get a team together and sometimes not at all. This is obviously not the right way to go but that is the ultimate result once you start pushing content requiring different builds in a party for the sake of diversity since the only way to incentivize/force people to have different builds is to make them absolutely crucial to success of a party and that’s guaranteed to turn off a majority of the people.
Or you brought a Shaman, a bard, and only if content was difficult enough a tank and maybe grab a cleric/ench if it stressed the shaman/bard too much (I played way too much EQ Bards were OP!)
Bards were good at soloing light blue to blue to farm gold and exp but when you try to level AA off of slightly higher end stuff you need a full meta group. For true high end stuff you needed a whole raid. I remembered having my guild raid of 100+ people wipe because a single shaman messed up and aggroed the boss before we got the tank rotations ready. One person’s single mistake wiped out 3-4 hours of work with a 100 people. That’s what true difficulty is and I for one don’t want to experience that again.
If only some of the kids today actually had to go through what we went through they’d be a lot more appreciative and stop asking for more difficulty. We had to coordinate freaken tank rotations and we didn’t even have teamspeak back then. They know not what they ask.
Talking velious, maybe luclin era and before aye? Even then bard played Mezzer/puller and could play slower as well in the toughest group content if you had a competent tank/healer.
But yeah, I don’t miss that hard trinity because you’re right, I remember simply not doing any higher end content many days because we didn’t have our tanks or healers who were able to handle it on that day.
If the difficulty on enemies went up, some people would switch away from Zerker. Statistically speaking, they may be an insignificant portion, but it would still be a drop. I never said that some who can’t run zerker now would run zerker later. I said some who can run zerker now could not run zerker later.
And not all mobs in dungeons are skippable, so it’s quite possible adding Retaliation would make a difference. The impact of any change depends greatly on where the change is made as well as what the change is.
Not meaning to offend but are you new to MMOs or something?
Making content harder is not going to make people switch over to zerker. It’s going to make zerker even more important. It will make elitism go through the roof and gear checks the norm. Unless you specifically change content to nerf zerker somehow, which just means the next best thing become the new meta and few months later you end up back here complaining about that meta build. It’s an needless and endless cycle.
Any kind of elevation of difficulty naturally leads to these types of results. I’ve been playing MMOs since EQ original and this is the one trend that is consistent in all MMOS that raise difficulty in that way and it’s corrosive to the player community and discourages pugs.
You either have not thought out the consequences of your ideas or your analysis is flawed as many people in this post as well as myself have demonstrated.
What games like UO or EQ did to raise difficulty was simply increase mob health and damage by 1000%, which led to content 1 hit killing and players taking too long to kill stuff before dieing without optimal DPS/ganking. Those Devs at the time didn’t have much choice due to the technical limitations in 95-2000. So the meta was kill it asap before it killed you (at least in UO which is what I played). That’s when just going pure DPS thrives and that isn’t what anyone is really arguing for who want to open up the meta.
Actually in EQ it was all about the trinity system taken to the extreme. You needed a tank, puller, slower/mezzer/debuffer, healer, dpser(main assist), secondary tank/secondary assist or else it’s a no go. It would take 30-60 minutes+ sometimes just to get a team together and sometimes not at all. This is obviously not the right way to go but that is the ultimate result once you start pushing content requiring different builds in a party for the sake of diversity since the only way to incentivize/force people to have different builds is to make them absolutely crucial to success of a party and that’s guaranteed to turn off a majority of the people.
Or you brought a Shaman, a bard, and only if content was difficult enough a tank and maybe grab a cleric/ench if it stressed the shaman/bard too much (I played way too much EQ Bards were OP!)
Bards were good at soloing light blue to blue to farm gold and exp but when you try to level AA off of slightly higher end stuff you need a full meta group. For true high end stuff you needed a whole raid. I remembered having my guild raid of 100+ people wipe because a single shaman messed up and aggroed the boss before we got the tank rotations ready. One person’s single mistake wiped out 3-4 hours of work with a 100 people. That’s what true difficulty is and I for one don’t want to experience that again.
If only some of the kids today actually had to go through what we went through they’d be a lot more appreciative and stop asking for more difficulty. We had to coordinate freaken tank rotations and we didn’t even have teamspeak back then. They know not what they ask.
Talking velious, maybe luclin era and before aye? Even then bard played Mezzer/puller and could play slower as well in the toughest group content if you had a competent tank/healer.
But yeah, I don’t miss that hard trinity because you’re right, I remember simply not doing any higher end content many days because we didn’t have our tanks or healers who were able to handle it on that day.
I played until Omens expansion I think. As I recall monks usually are pullers because of feign death to avoid excess adds. Bard mez is pretty unreliable since it can be resisted a lot an don’t last as long and not a good substitute for Enc mez and slows. Although this may have changed in later expansions.
Yeah, EQ is trinity taken to the extreme where higher end mobs could 1/2 shot you if you weren’t a tank.
Again, I clearly stated that ANet defined how those things are supposed to be (if you like, I can link their statements), yet you claim those were my words.
You are still lying. This is what you said VERBATIM:
You’re right; I’m not the sole arbiter of what is “supposed” to be or not. That is ANet’s job. Berserker is supposed to be the highest DPS set, and it is! Necromancer is supposed to be an attrition profession that is hard to get away from and…well, it’s not. Moral of the story: ANet isn’t perfect at making things the way they are supposed to be.
Your contradiction is due to the first and last sentence of that paragraph that are in your own words, what ANET may or may not have said about berserker or necros is irrelevant because that is not what I was calling you out on. (Not that you even actually quoted ANET anyway. Your statements regarding necros and berserker are just your own opinion of what ANET wants considering one can make a very good berserker necro that isn’t attrition based in pve as well as wvw.)
“You’re right; I’m not the sole arbiter of what is “supposed” to be or not.”
and
“Moral of the story: ANet isn’t perfect at making things the way they are supposed to be.”
Are contradictions.
class dismissed.
(edited by DeathPanel.8362)
Again, I clearly stated that ANet defined how those things are supposed to be (if you like, I can link their statements), yet you claim those were my words.
You are still lying. This is what you said VERBATIM:
You’re right; I’m not the sole arbiter of what is “supposed” to be or not. That is ANet’s job. Berserker is supposed to be the highest DPS set, and it is! Necromancer is supposed to be an attrition profession that is hard to get away from and…well, it’s not. Moral of the story: ANet isn’t perfect at making things the way they are supposed to be.
1) Nowhere here did you quote ANET whatsoever.
2) Your contradiction is due to the first and last sentence of that paragraph that are in your own words, what ANET may or may not have said about berserker or necros is irrelevant.class dismissed.
Did I directly quote them? No. Was I stating facts? Yes.
ANet has stated Beserker is supposed to be the highest DPS gear set. Is it? Yes.
ANet has stated that Necromancer is supposed to be an attrition profession and very difficult to get away from. Is it? No.
So, given what ANet has stated as to how things are supposed to be, how would you classify their record on making things the way they say it is supposed to be? As it isn’t 100%, it is not “perfect” by definition.
So everything I said in that post is completely true. Care to try and deny that? I’ll happily provide links if you feel it’s necessary.
I still can’t see how my sentences conflict each other at all. You are really reaching for that one. It does not matter one whit who is qualified to determine how things are supposed to be, the “moral of the story” can still be completely true.
(edited by Drarnor Kunoram.5180)
Did I directly quote them? No. Was I stating facts? Yes.
ANet has stated Beserker is supposed to be the highest DPS gear set. Is it? Yes.
ANet has stated that Necromancer is supposed to be an attrition profession and very difficult to get away from. Is it? No.
Seriously guy you need to stop with all these fallacious arguments it’s making you look bad. (well worse)
“Did I directly quote them? No. Was I stating facts? Yes.”
This statement easily shows your dishonesty. If you didn’t have the quotes then you don’t get to talk for them.
No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.
Other options are already viable since all options are viable. Viability is not the same as Optimal. Based on your comments you just want the game to be played your way with optimal builds according to you. That is the very definition of forcing others to play your way.
How is something different being optimal forcing anyone to play their way any more than zerker being optimal forcing anyone to play your way? Double standards, much?
Either having something (doesn’t matter what) be optimal forces people to play a certain way…or it doesn’t.
Zerker can be viable without being optimal, just like every other gear set in the game is viable without being optimal. In no way does it force anyone to play a certain way, so long as it’s viable.
I’m sorry, but almost everything you just said is wrong. The only reason why zerker is optimal (in instanced PvE only) is because all of its stats are dedicated to killing enemies in the most efficient manner. Condi is not optimal in this same scenario due to game/system limitations. Defensive stats are not optimal because they contribute absolutely nothing to making enemies die. Vitality and Toughness only contribute if that player wearing that stat is picking up another downed player…and then goes right back to being a non contributor immediately afterwards. Healing is slightly better than vitality/toughness because it at least helps your teammates some. The point of this is, that the only way to make zerker not be optimal is to make zerker die or invalidate the purpose of zerker gear….which would be a complete betrayal by ANET to its customers who enjoy berserker gear. Defensive stats can never be optimal in a game without tanks and healers being required…because those are the only functions they could optimally provide in instanced PvE. Again, the goal in instanced PvE is to make enemy AI health bars drop to zero…how can stats that do not accomplish this be optimal without tanks and healers being required? How can zerker not be optimal without that?
http://www.guildwars2guru.com/news/960-class-balance-philosophies/
Necro
The necro boasts the highest natural health of all the caster classes, and also has death shroud to extend that life total even higher. While they don’t have some of the escape or damage reduction capabilities that other classes boast, they do have a lot of ways to win attrition fights. They have access to poison on multiple weapons, they are able to combine condition damage with raw damage, and they have multiple disables to interrupt enemy skills. Necomancers also have multiple movement disabling abilities, while allows them to chase down enemies who are low on health.
http://www.twitch.tv/guildwars2/b/496005243 @7:54
These Berserkers are still going to be the highest DPS in the game.
Hey, I told you I could link quotes from ANet if you wanted. Am I being dishonest, or are you grasping at straw for another scarecrow to knock down?
(edited by Drarnor Kunoram.5180)
If zerker (or any glass gear like sinister) isn’t optimal, what’s the point of running a glass gear without a proper reward? It’s like fractals vs open world. The former is much harder and doesn’t even reward you proportionally.
The encounter design could solve this. If the design allows a player to trade survivability for extra damage, it would still be fair. Another way would be “forcing” the player with such difficult content that the risks of going zerker do not match the rewards for going zerker.
Translation for statement #1….reward the player who invested in minimal damage gear with extra damage.
Translation for statement #2…die zerk die! So I can feel better about my low damage gear choices.
No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.
Other options are already viable since all options are viable. Viability is not the same as Optimal. Based on your comments you just want the game to be played your way with optimal builds according to you. That is the very definition of forcing others to play your way.
How is something different being optimal forcing anyone to play their way any more than zerker being optimal forcing anyone to play your way? Double standards, much?
Either having something (doesn’t matter what) be optimal forces people to play a certain way…or it doesn’t.
Zerker can be viable without being optimal, just like every other gear set in the game is viable without being optimal. In no way does it force anyone to play a certain way, so long as it’s viable.
I’m sorry, but almost everything you just said is wrong. The only reason why zerker is optimal (in instanced PvE only) is because all of its stats are dedicated to killing enemies in the most efficient manner. Condi is not optimal in this same scenario due to game/system limitations. Defensive stats are not optimal because they contribute absolutely nothing to making enemies die. Vitality and Toughness only contribute if that player wearing that stat is picking up another downed player…and then goes right back to being a non contributor immediately afterwards. Healing is slightly better than vitality/toughness because it at least helps your teammates some. The point of this is, that the only way to make zerker not be optimal is to make zerker die or invalidate the purpose of zerker gear….which would be a complete betrayal by ANET to its customers who enjoy berserker gear. Defensive stats can never be optimal in a game without tanks and healers being required…because those are the only functions they could optimally provide in instanced PvE. Again, the goal in instanced PvE is to make enemy AI health bars drop to zero…how can stats that do not accomplish this be optimal without tanks and healers being required? How can zerker not be optimal without that?
Well, why does Zerker not rule everything in PvP modes? Unpredictability, mitigation, and pressure. Mitigation and pressure are easily brought into PvE. For example, if you’re under Weakness, the damage from Zerker is not much higher than the damage from Soldier gear. It’s higher, sure, but that’s already a step toward making Zerker not “optimal” while remaining “viable.” Add in lots of low damage attacks that overwhelm active defense and Zerker may actually not be the optimal choice anymore. No enforcing of tanks/healers, but the amount of time a Zerker geared character would have to back off to recover may actually put them in second place for efficiency. Alternatively, you could have the ele (all speedruns have eles right now) switch to water attunement and the team blasts water fields to stay alive instead of fire fields to deal more damage. More durable builds may not need to do that tactic change, and then clear times become a bit more similar (how similar depends on a large number of factors).
The easiest change would just be high armor, low health enemies. Now Zerker is still viable, but “optimal” goes to a condition damage set (most likely Sinister) instead.
Alternatively, goals that aren’t “kill stuff” can provide different “optimals” as well.
Zerker can be viable without being optimal (it is in PvP and WvW). I have no problems at all with all dungeon paths having a meta, and I don’t mind some of them being all zerk. I just dislike all of them being that way.
(edited by Drarnor Kunoram.5180)