Guild Wars 2

ODB.6891:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

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.

Do you even realize what it is that you are really trying to make happen? You are trying to eliminate the current reason a lot of players even do speed runs in instanced PvE. That reason is the speed/profitability ratio investment. What happens when a dungeon path is no longer profitable for zerk in regards to speed/profitability? I can answer that….zerk stops doing that content and finds something else that does provide a better speed/profitability ratio. That leaves all these nomads/clerics/sinisters/etc doing this content by themselves….in slow motion. Is that really what they want? I don’t think it is, otherwise they wouldn’t be spazzing out over not being “optimal” for this content. What they really want is to be forced upon zerk players so they can have faster runs. On the extremely unlikely chance ANET was to make such changes…what are you going to do then…follow zerk players to whatever next thing they choose to do for speed/profitability and complain about that too?

Yes, I do realize what I’m trying to make happen with these suggestions; reduce the time difference between 5 glass cannon and bulkier team compositions on a particular path. Increasing mob passive defense and damage (which is what ANet has currently done to increase dungeon difficulty) won’t manage that, but rather further enforce zerker dominance.

Depending on the tuning, yes, it is quite possible that a bulkier set of builds becomes the meta for that path. With even more precise tuning, 5-zerk will still be optimal for the path but will not be the meta anymore, as only the best players will be able to complete the content quickly that way.

It is quite possible to make an average run time of a path be 15 minutes for soldier’s, 17 minutes for bad-average zerkers, and 12 minutes for the best (requiring high level coordination). So, what do you think will remain optimal, and what would become meta?

And no, not all zerks would leave that content, even if zerk were no longer optimal. Quite a few players run Zerk with no care for speedrunning, so they would still be running it. Others would run it for personal challenge (perhaps there is some tactic involving lesser-used skills that once again makes zerk optimal). Even if neither happened, there would still be other dungeon paths where zerk remains optimal and probably even meta.

And no, many players do speedruns for the challenge, not the loot. If they were doing it for the loot, they wouldn’t blow 15 minutes organizing the group for a single dungeon and have the same overall completion time as a non-speedrun group. Interestingly, the good speedrun folks would end up being least affected by what I propose.

rotten.9753:

First of all, gw1 had no gear stats. So any comparison to gw2 prequel is invalid.

Any direct comparison, yes. It is however an example, that the optimum meta does not need to be a single build, as some people in this thread seems to claim.

ODB.6891:

xDudisx.5914:

Lazaar.9123:

Sagat.3285:

If the content is challenging enough pure dps is not optimal look at pvp and wvw.

Both of those game modes have people that use zerkers, not all classes benefit from celestial in sPvP, and plenty of backliners use zerkers in WvW.

But you don’t see a zerg with only backline and is very rare to see a spvp team with 5 zerkers.

The reason being that it is not optimal. You do, however, see groups with all soldiers, or all celestial, etc. You don’t see zerk players demanding a content or game design change to “fix” that. Why is that? Why is it so hard to accept that everything in every game mode may not be optimal for your gear set up? Why is it so important for players not in zerk gear to chase zerk players around trying to force themselves into zerk groups? Its not even like there are many zerk only groups anymore. I know I haven’t seen one in a very long time…and I pug in LFG nearly every day.

Full soldier? Soldier is almost not even present in spvp. Even groups with celestial most times bring a zerker thief. Even in wvw is not common to see entire group of soldier.

Do you play in NA server? I see more zerker in lfg than anything else.

ODB.6891:

xDudisx.5914:

Lazaar.9123:

Sagat.3285:

If the content is challenging enough pure dps is not optimal look at pvp and wvw.

Both of those game modes have people that use zerkers, not all classes benefit from celestial in sPvP, and plenty of backliners use zerkers in WvW.

But you don’t see a zerg with only backline and is very rare to see a spvp team with 5 zerkers.

The reason being that it is not optimal. You do, however, see groups with all soldiers, or all celestial, etc. You don’t see zerk players demanding a content or game design change to “fix” that. Why is that? Why is it so hard to accept that everything in every game mode may not be optimal for your gear set up? Why is it so important for players not in zerk gear to chase zerk players around trying to force themselves into zerk groups? Its not even like there are many zerk only groups anymore. I know I haven’t seen one in a very long time…and I pug in LFG nearly every day.

Can you at least recognize that conditions need to be fixed,zerker is optimal due to weak AI/encounters and you can boost other stats usefulness while still keeping zerker optimal?? Can you?

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Yes, I do realize what I’m trying to make happen with these suggestions; reduce the time difference between 5 glass cannon and bulkier team compositions on a particular path. Increasing mob passive defense and damage (which is what ANet has currently done to increase dungeon difficulty) won’t manage that, but rather further enforce zerker dominance.

Depending on the tuning, yes, it is quite possible that a bulkier set of builds becomes the meta for that path. With even more precise tuning, 5-zerk will still be optimal for the path but will not be the meta anymore, as only the best players will be able to complete the content quickly that way.

It is quite possible to make an average run time of a path be 15 minutes for soldier’s, 17 minutes for bad-average zerkers, and 12 minutes for the best (requiring high level coordination). So, what do you think will remain optimal, and what would become meta?

And no, not all zerks would leave that content, even if zerk were no longer optimal. Quite a few players run Zerk with no care for speedrunning, so they would still be running it. Others would run it for personal challenge (perhaps there is some tactic involving lesser-used skills that once again makes zerk optimal). Even if neither happened, there would still be other dungeon paths where zerk remains optimal and probably even meta.

And no, many players do speedruns for the challenge, not the loot. If they were doing it for the loot, they wouldn’t blow 15 minutes organizing the group for a single dungeon and have the same overall completion time as a non-speedrun group. Interestingly, the good speedrun folks would end up being least affected by what I propose.

So basically you want to increase the difficulty of the content to the point that you have to build defense to not die unless you are the best of the best.

Explain to me how that would be a good thing, because all it would do is restrict the meta even more by making Warriors the best class in the game.

Sagat.3285:

Can you at least recognize that conditions need to be fixed,zerker is optimal due to weak AI/encounters and you can boost other stats usefulness while still keeping zerker optimal?? Can you?

Absolutely nobody is arguing that they don’t want conditions to work better in dungeons/fractals.

Sagat.3285:

ODB.6891:

xDudisx.5914:

Lazaar.9123:

Sagat.3285:

If the content is challenging enough pure dps is not optimal look at pvp and wvw.

Both of those game modes have people that use zerkers, not all classes benefit from celestial in sPvP, and plenty of backliners use zerkers in WvW.

But you don’t see a zerg with only backline and is very rare to see a spvp team with 5 zerkers.

The reason being that it is not optimal. You do, however, see groups with all soldiers, or all celestial, etc. You don’t see zerk players demanding a content or game design change to “fix” that. Why is that? Why is it so hard to accept that everything in every game mode may not be optimal for your gear set up? Why is it so important for players not in zerk gear to chase zerk players around trying to force themselves into zerk groups? Its not even like there are many zerk only groups anymore. I know I haven’t seen one in a very long time…and I pug in LFG nearly every day.

Can you at least recognize that conditions need to be fixed,zerker is optimal due to weak AI/encounters and you can boost other stats usefulness while still keeping zerker optimal?? Can you?

I 100% recognize that conditions should be fixed…if it is even possible with with their game engine design. Zerker is optimal because of the fact that direct damage currently does the best job at killing enemies in instanced PvE and that most damage is avoidable by well timed dodges and active defenses. I disagree that there is any type of boost to other stat’s usefulness that will not go against ANET’s core game design for PvE in GW2.

Astralporing.1957:

Any direct comparison, yes. It is however an example, that the optimum meta does not need to be a single build, as some people in this thread seems to claim.

Gw1 build can be compared to your utilites, weapons (skill bar) and traits (attribute points). Not gear.

xDudisx.5914:

ODB.6891:

xDudisx.5914:

Lazaar.9123:

Sagat.3285:

If the content is challenging enough pure dps is not optimal look at pvp and wvw.

Both of those game modes have people that use zerkers, not all classes benefit from celestial in sPvP, and plenty of backliners use zerkers in WvW.

But you don’t see a zerg with only backline and is very rare to see a spvp team with 5 zerkers.

The reason being that it is not optimal. You do, however, see groups with all soldiers, or all celestial, etc. You don’t see zerk players demanding a content or game design change to “fix” that. Why is that? Why is it so hard to accept that everything in every game mode may not be optimal for your gear set up? Why is it so important for players not in zerk gear to chase zerk players around trying to force themselves into zerk groups? Its not even like there are many zerk only groups anymore. I know I haven’t seen one in a very long time…and I pug in LFG nearly every day.

Full soldier? Soldier is almost not even present in spvp. Even groups with celestial most times bring a zerker thief. Even in wvw is not common to see entire group of soldier.

Do you play in NA server? I see more zerker in lfg than anything else.

Yes, I do play on a NA server. My play times may be drastically different and more random than yours though….I generally play anywhere from 9pm-10am est. The point was, that there is a different meta in the various PvP modes than in instanced PvE, but you don’t hear zerk players demanding that changed.

xDudisx.5914:

Do you play in NA server? I see more zerker in lfg than anything else.

Yes because it takes time to set the full zerk group. On the other hand, if you put your “everyone welcomed” group on lfg it fills in seconds. You can perform a little experiment if you don’t believe it.

Lol people complaining about making AI better and content harder.

Right now there are bosses that you don’t even need to dodge on full zerker because you can just walk 2 steps to the sides and avoid all dmg. The most common example is ac p1 final boss.

Some other bosses are so underpowered that a simple wall of reflection makes the boss do less dmg than some elite mobs. Example: CM p1 first boss

Also several cheap mechanics like Frost from CM where you can avoid almost all the dmg jumping on the beam or rock. SE p3 carier where people can sit on the ledge and range it…..

xDudisx.5914:

Lol people complaining about making AI better and content harder.

Right now there are bosses that you don’t even need to dodge on full zerker because you can just walk 2 steps to the sides and avoid all dmg. The most common example is ac p1 final boss.

Some other bosses are so underpowered that a simple wall or reflection makes the boss do less dmg than some elite mobs. Example: CM p1 first boss

Also several cheap mechanics like Frost from CM where you can avoid almost all the dmg jumping on the beam or rock. SE p3 carier where people can sit on the ledge and range it…..

Explain to me how having to build defense makes the game more challenging, because defense is passive and is easier by far because it doesn’t require you to do anything.

xDudisx.5914:

Also several cheap mechanics like Frost from CM where you can avoid almost all the dmg jumping on the beam or rock. SE p3 carier where people can sit on the ledge and range it…..

You do realise those are exploits and if anet had a dungeon team like they had 2 years ago, those would have been fixed by now?

xDudisx.5914:

Lol people complaining about making AI better and content harder.

Right now there are bosses that you don’t even need to dodge on full zerker because you can just walk 2 steps to the sides and avoid all dmg. The most common example is ac p1 final boss.

Some other bosses are so underpowered that a simple wall or reflection makes the boss do less dmg than some elite mobs. Example: CM p1 first boss

Also several cheap mechanics like Frost from CM where you can avoid almost all the dmg jumping on the beam or rock. SE p3 carier where people can sit on the ledge and range it…..

If you have even read prior posts….you would know that is not even the discussion. The discussion is constant requests to find ways for incoming damage to overwhelm zerk geared players …so that they will be pressured to switch to different gear…or to have to back off/hide to try to recover. The discussion also has suggested adding in unavoidable damage to accomplish this effect…which explicitly means make zerk die…unless they switch to different gear or have someone healing them. Zerk players have no problems with making content difficult…the problem is trying to make it where it is no longer feasible to try to complete content in zerk gear.

Ezekel.6394:

xDudisx.5914:

Lol people complaining about making AI better and content harder.

Right now there are bosses that you don’t even need to dodge on full zerker because you can just walk 2 steps to the sides and avoid all dmg. The most common example is ac p1 final boss.

Some other bosses are so underpowered that a simple wall or reflection makes the boss do less dmg than some elite mobs. Example: CM p1 first boss

Also several cheap mechanics like Frost from CM where you can avoid almost all the dmg jumping on the beam or rock. SE p3 carier where people can sit on the ledge and range it…..

Explain to me how having to build defense makes the game more challenging, because defense is passive and is easier by far because it doesn’t require you to do anything.

Explain me how your question is even related to what I said in the quoted post?

xDudisx.5914:

Explain me how your question is even related to what I said in the quoted post?

Because you are implying that people who are wearing full Zerker want easy dungeons while those in Soldier or Knights want harder ones, even though by wearing Zerker the dungeon is harder than it would be if you were wearing Soldier or Knights.

Ezekel.6394:

xDudisx.5914:

Explain me how your question is even related to what I said in the quoted post?

Because you are implying that people who are wearing full Zerker want easy dungeons while those in Soldier or Knights want harder ones, even though by wearing Zerker the dungeon is harder than it would be if you were wearing Soldier or Knights.

You are quick at making false claims. All I said is AI and dungeons need to be harder. If you think you can’t kill the bosses I cited as examples if they remove the exploits than the problem is not the gear, is you defending an easy time for zerkers.

In a boss that requires no dodge how exactly is zerker harder than nomads? The skill involved at jumping on a rock/beam or walking 2 steps to the side must be very high.

xDudisx.5914:

The skill involved at jumping on a rock/beam or walking 2 steps to the side must be very high.

You’d be surprised. :/

xDudisx.5914:

Ezekel.6394:

xDudisx.5914:

Explain me how your question is even related to what I said in the quoted post?

Because you are implying that people who are wearing full Zerker want easy dungeons while those in Soldier or Knights want harder ones, even though by wearing Zerker the dungeon is harder than it would be if you were wearing Soldier or Knights.

You are quick at making false claims. All I said is AI and dungeons need to be harder. If you think you can’t kill the bosses I cited as examples if they remove the exploits than the problem is not the gear, is you defending an easy time for zerkers.

In a boss that requires no dodge how exactly is zerker harder than nomads? The skill involved at jumping on a rock/beam or walking 2 steps to the side must be very high.

I don’t see how pointing out exploits has anything to do with Zerker vs other stat combinations.

They should definitely fix exploits and make harder bosses, but that won’t change the fact that Zerker is the meta and I haven’t seen anyone saying they want easy bosses and exploits so I am not sure who exactly you are talking to when you say “people complaining about making AI better and content harder”.

Ok, it seems there is a misunderstanding about tanky/support gear. Here is something everyone should keep in mind when posting :

• Requesting Anet to design boss/world bosses/raids that feature some mechanics that require a tanky support set is understandable and a reasonable suggestion (similar to the TT wurm that includes mobs vulnerable to conditions and not direct damage).
• Requesting Anet to rebalance skills/traits such that tanky gear is as efficient as glass canon gear is a nonsense and foolish.

ODB.6891:

xDudisx.5914:

Lol people complaining about making AI better and content harder.

Right now there are bosses that you don’t even need to dodge on full zerker because you can just walk 2 steps to the sides and avoid all dmg. The most common example is ac p1 final boss.

Some other bosses are so underpowered that a simple wall or reflection makes the boss do less dmg than some elite mobs. Example: CM p1 first boss

Also several cheap mechanics like Frost from CM where you can avoid almost all the dmg jumping on the beam or rock. SE p3 carier where people can sit on the ledge and range it…..

If you have even read prior posts….you would know that is not even the discussion. The discussion is constant requests to find ways for incoming damage to overwhelm zerk geared players …so that they will be pressured to switch to different gear…or to have to back off/hide to try to recover. The discussion also has suggested adding in unavoidable damage to accomplish this effect…which explicitly means make zerk die…unless they switch to different gear or have someone healing them. Zerk players have no problems with making content difficult…the problem is trying to make it where it is no longer feasible to try to complete content in zerk gear.

It’s fairly easy to balance this then. If there is to be “unavoidable” pressure on the offensive end of mobs, then the unavoidable pressure should be designed in such a way that over time, it’s a little less than the average self heal and/or one group heal. So about 4-5K damage over a 30 second period as either direct damage, damage over time, or a mix.

No one (at least most) is saying it has to be overwhelming though. Also it doesn’t have to be unavoidable either. Adding lots of condition pressure for example wouldn’t be unavoidable. There is such things as condition clenses etc. along with a whole list of other combat features that Zerkers have access to just as much as any passive defense build. They should be required to use them more than more passive defense teams. Use them correctly, you survive and still wipe out content at record paces.

The reality is that right now, there’s almost no such thing as pressure in older PvE content. Many people here are suggesting that there be at least some pressure using existing game mechanics, so the fact that you run glass cannon builds has a side effect, a downside. If the other part of your argument is valid (that speed clearers etc. are very skilled at avoiding damage and mitigating it with active defense, which I agree), Zerker meta should be able to overcome anyways.

I think what is frustrating many people with some of those arguing against implementing more pressure and better AI implementation, is this defensive attitude that some try to defend what’s been universally seen as bad AI and design pretty much since launch. Some who are defending it and being against any AI/pressure buff to mobs, mostly because it would actually make things more challenging, more engaging and less predictable and won’t admit that’s their main issue with such changes.

I think it’s a valid point to worry about having pressure being too high to the point where the simple math means that a full team of glass cannons cannot keep up with enemy damage. That could be a very hard thing to balance and could be a real issue. However, to suggest that any pressure and better AI implementation alone would lead to a zerker meta death is not true.

Late Edit: Typos :p

Astralporing.1957:

rotten.9753:

First of all, gw1 had no gear stats. So any comparison to gw2 prequel is invalid.

Any direct comparison, yes. It is however an example, that the optimum meta does not need to be a single build, as some people in this thread seems to claim.

Gw1 was as meta as gw2 hell even worse for oganized pve content and pvp

pandas.9450:

Astralporing.1957:

rotten.9753:

First of all, gw1 had no gear stats. So any comparison to gw2 prequel is invalid.

Any direct comparison, yes. It is however an example, that the optimum meta does not need to be a single build, as some people in this thread seems to claim.

Gw1 was as meta as gw2 hell even worse for oganized pve content and pvp

In organized PvE it wasn’t too bad. Mostly because there were 2-3 metas per high-end content and all or almost every profession had a role to play in at least one. If you didn’t, it was really easy to get a character to level 20 and gear it up to whatever content you wanted to meta in 2-3 days.

The issue was always waiting around for specialized monk builds more than anything.

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Let’s just wait for the new “challenging” content anet is cooking in the background and see how the meta evolves. Isaiah said that they are now much better prepared because they know the system much better, unlike before launch.

Also, for the 9001th time, zerk meta occurs only in dungeons which were abandoned in favour of open world content where the meta is play-whatever-you-want, no one kicks anyone for playing outside the meta and everyone is welcomed regardless of their gear, achievement points and a moon phase.

rotten.9753:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Let’s just wait for the new “challenging” content anet is cooking in the background and see how the meta evolves. Isaiah said that they are now much better prepared because they know the system much better, unlike before launch.

Also, for the 9001th time, zerk meta occurs only in dungeons which were abandoned in favour of open world content where the meta is play-whatever-you-want, no one kicks anyone for playing outside the meta and everyone is welcomed regardless of their gear, achievement points and a moon phase.

I agree with both those points though., The differences are I do want to see more variety of encounter and I don’t feel the zerk meta is something sancrosanct to be protected.

That’s kind of the thing I get stuck on. A lot of the people arguing (for the current meta? Against change? I’m not quite sure) are themselves saying that the current content is boring, and that they’re grinding and it’s all carrot-and-stick at this point.

Why would you not want that changed?

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Seems to me the argument comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s possible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess.

See what I did there? I see you’ve been using some kind of debate strategy this whole thread where you make a statement like this with obvious bias…where you specifically omit the fact that the other side is just as guilty. You dress it up and make it sound well informed, but at the end of the day…its just a jab at the other side. Like way earlier in the thread, anytime someone argued against you…you’d respond as “that’s why we can’t have a discussion”. If you have something valid to say…or just your opinion…just say it and leave this stuff out.

Windsagio.1340:

Why would you not want that changed?

Because anet is busy working on the expansion and there is an interview with Colin & Isaiah during which Colin said they will focus on a new content from now on instead of tinkering with the old one.

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Seems to me the argument comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s possible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess.

See what I did there? I see you’ve been using some kind of debate strategy this whole thread where you make a statement like this with obvious bias…where you specifically omit the fact that the other side is just as guilty. You dress it up and make it sound well informed, but at the end of the day…its just a jab at the other side. Like way earlier in the thread, anytime someone argued against you…you’d respond as “that’s why we can’t have a discussion”. If you have something valid to say…or just your opinion…just say it and leave this stuff out.

It’s certainly possible to change the meta. Easy, even. Here’s how: double enemy armor, halve enemy health. Direct damage takes an equal amount of time to kill as it does now, but conditions now kill faster.

No nerfs made at all, but a new meta has arisen!

That was a simple one, though. Bringing other setups into the meta requires more thought and tuning, but nobody has presented an argument as to why it isn’t possible, just that they don’t like the implications.

Nike.2631:

NoTrigger.8396:

all i can say to the people who are complaining about berserker gear, you dont understand how the combat system works or you simply refuse to understand it.

For what I sincerely wish would be the last time: NO. We get it. The complaint IS NOT THAT ZERKER IS THE RIGHT RESPONSE TO EXISTING CONTENT. The complaint is that the 1-dimensional “kill it faster” encounter design is mind numbingly BORING.

Nike.2631:

That’s why certain people hate the first Dredge fractal puzzle so much – killing the Dredge doesn’t make a difference, they just respawn. The fight tests your survivability, not your DPS.

NoTrigger.8396:

people hate it because there are no real mechanics involved and its just a lazy way to design stuff. dredge are the perfect example for bad encounter and mob design.

Are you KIDDING? The first fight in the Dredge fractal is one of the most technical fights in the game. And that’s because 2 people have to withstand a beating without dodge roll god-modeing while someone has to get in position without drawing agro, all while “hur hur kill-em, kill-em faster!” DOESN’T WORK.

That it doesn’t disintegrate when exposed to the meta that pervades the game is a good thing, not “bad design”.

And its supremely easy with use of stealth/blocks. It’s hardly what I would call technical let alone the most technical. It’s still a strait forward answer to the problem. You know how easy that part would be if people just used say 3-4 thieves? my god.

Meta is a lot more than simply the individual builds people run, it also has to do with group composition and all that stuff. Thieves are pretty common in fractals for specifically these kind of things, now you usually have 1, but you stealth up towards the first one, clear the lower platform, he takes the first, you all get inside, someone with blocks or invuln takes the second to let thief in and what not, if you have a mesmer you can portal the 2nd guy in or you can just use pads, either way 2 people blocking/invuln/stealth if they have it on the side buttons, thief SR on the main button, boom you’re done in like what? 2 mins?

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Seems to me the argument comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s possible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess.

See what I did there? I see you’ve been using some kind of debate strategy this whole thread where you make a statement like this with obvious bias…where you specifically omit the fact that the other side is just as guilty. You dress it up and make it sound well informed, but at the end of the day…its just a jab at the other side. Like way earlier in the thread, anytime someone argued against you…you’d respond as “that’s why we can’t have a discussion”. If you have something valid to say…or just your opinion…just say it and leave this stuff out.

I’m a paid designer tho (in no way associated with Arenanet) :p

More to the point, saying something is impossible is far more bold than saying something is possible.

rotten.9753:

Windsagio.1340:

Why would you not want that changed?

Because anet is busy working on the expansion and there is an interview with Colin & Isaiah during which Colin said they will focus on a new content from now on instead of tinkering with the old one.

I’d be shocked if we saw any changes to the old content beyond those required by system-wide changes (ie, defiance change).

I’m sure there are plenty of people who want the old content changed, but that’s not really the thrust of this particular discussion (HoT forum and all). We want to see variety introduced in the new content, along, possibly, with some system changes (as they’re already doing) to close some holes that mess with encounter balance.

ODB.6891:

Regardless of what happens in some game…other than the one we are playing…in what universe would it be okay to have higher or even similar damage output for a gear set designed for maximum passive personal safety/survival…versus one that sacrifices all passive personal safety/survival in favor of maximum damage output? I can’t see how that could possibly be justified. You made your bed, lie in it? Or make a new bed? Stop asking to lie in zerk’s bed when you don’t want to make that bed. What kind of compensation should zerk get out of that trade…more survival? I’m pretty sure we aren’t asking for that. Even if it were acceptable to completely even out the playing field on damage and survivability in instanced PvE, they already have that option…its called celestial. If either side wants celestial…they should earn/purchase it.

Asking for difficult content is not bad in anyway. What is bad is asking for changes to be made to specifically penalize other players out of jealousy, attempts to force your inclusion into their groups, etc. And for the record, that was not a personal attack on you. I don’t know you and you haven’t said anything offensive to me…so I have no reason to do that. By “So I can feel better about my low damage gear choices”, I was referring to anyone who intentionally picks low damage gear and then expects/demands/lobbies for the benefits of the opposite gear choice….especially at the expense of those who did pick that opposite gear choice. I can definitely understand why you would perceive my response negatively, because things like that sound bad when you see the literal interpretation of what a statement like you made means.

Its like two people walking into a car dealership. One buys a sports car and the other buys a mini van. Obviously they can both get from point A to point B on the same road. One is clearly going to be capable of doing it faster and likely with less emphasis on safety features. The other is going to be more utility oriented and family friendly..more emphasis on safety features. After purchase…is it acceptable for the mini van customer to start demanding that things be done to penalize the sport car customer for not having access to as many safety features…so they will have to switch to a mini van too? Would it be acceptable for the mini van customer to demand an engine upgrade for free to be able to reach the driving speeds of the sports car customer? In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with either purchase choice, you get what you intentionally purchased or you were a very bad customer who did not bother to research your purchase choices before purchase. What you are asking for is not variety. You are asking for ANET to design anti-zerk encounters to force a new meta. Why would they do that to their customers who did choose a perfectly valid option…just like you did…and are not filling up the forums with complaints like this?

It’s not the cars that are the problem. They are indeed doing what they are advertised, the problem is the road. They are made in such way that the risk for the sports car is close to non existant. Would it be wrong to ask for a dangerous short cut along the way which is only accessible for the van, due to his safety features? Would it be wrong to ask for a road where the sports car has to drive slower or extremely well to not crash into a wall?

I would say no because the current road catered the sports car due to it’s properties, while the feautures of the van are unnecessary or nigh useless.

DeathPanel.8362:

Because without tanks and healer roles you can’t have pve content that requires someone gear in defensive gear, at least not the type of content that don’t frustrate people. (ie bosses that have massive 1-2 shot kill undodgeable abilities unless you gear soldiers and other someone to heal you in cleric gear while you taunt boss as is in traditional trinity)

When content can be done with any gear the obvious logical result is that the gear which gives you the most dps wins out as the optimal. The only thing that making content harder in order to discourage this will do is make builds and group setups more restrictive and exclude people who otherwise want to play with fun builds.

Well an example that could be used is a 5 man boss with 150000 health, 15000 armor that has an attack that recoil equal to the damage done. If it downs a player it gains health equal to the player max health. The base damage of that attack 10000 on light armor which happens ever 5 seconds. Would zerker be optimal?

DeathPanel.8362:

Irrelevant. My point is about ANET’s philosophy, not what passive dense is. I don’t need you to rehash something I already know. Your statement in no way refutes mine.

Focussing on active defense does not mean that active defense should be the only meaningfull defense. Also if you look at the ‘new’ grant masters it does contain a variety of stuff (passive defense, healing,…) so I’m not sure if the design philosophy is only about active defense.

DeathPanel.8362:

I didn’t say fun and difficult are mutually exclusive.
Also note that the marionette world boss was done by zergs of people with a vast variety in gear choice including many that are sub level 80 using just junk gear. Proving that the zerg meta isn’t remotely an issue in even your own example.

Playable and optimal are two different things.

rotten.9753:

So if I use soldier’s gear I could sacrifice its innate survivability to get even more damage than berserker’s?

It’s innate survivability or more. It could also be the survivability given by an ally.

So that, not only you would have higher survivability but you could change it to have a higher damage potential than purely glass cannon builds. Am I getting that right?

Yes, if you play good, you can do better than purely glass canon builds, but by doing it you can end up squishier then said glass canon. If you decide not to play said mechanic you will do damage of a soldier.

Tim.6450:

Yes, if you play good, you can do better than purely glass canon builds, but by doing it you can end up squishier then said glass canon. If you decide not to play said mechanic you will do damage of a soldier.

So your proposal will make soldier’s gear much better than berserker’s. If you need survivability, you have it already and in the case you can sacrifice it for more damage, the game will help you with that. Do you see nothing wrong with that? I mean, that just makes it a superior gear which is versatile.

I’m going to laugh when more difficult content is actually going to affect the people using defensive stats in the first place, because of them not having the skill level to complete the content. There’s always people that cry for nerfs when anything remotely difficult is put in the game.

Lazaar.9123:

I’m going to laugh when more difficult content is actually going to affect the people using defensive stats in the first place, because of them not having the skill level to complete the content. There’s always people that cry for nerfs when anything remotely difficult is put in the game.

First of all, hardly anyone is one is calling for nerfs. We’re calling for the further buff of PvE content from its original sad state.

However, the crying is definitely going to happen when you have more difficult content and better AI. If it’s done right, anyone who uses passive defenses as a crutch to not use skills and active defense properly, will be forced to do so in better PvE content.

The same way people who use very high DPS as a crutch will cry, because enemies aren’t statues of health to DPS down, or the fact their glass cannon builds would actually have to manage pressure. You know, be actual “glass cannons” rather than just “cannons.” :p

Tim.6450:

DeathPanel.8362:

Because without tanks and healer roles you can’t have pve content that requires someone gear in defensive gear, at least not the type of content that don’t frustrate people. (ie bosses that have massive 1-2 shot kill undodgeable abilities unless you gear soldiers and other someone to heal you in cleric gear while you taunt boss as is in traditional trinity)

When content can be done with any gear the obvious logical result is that the gear which gives you the most dps wins out as the optimal. The only thing that making content harder in order to discourage this will do is make builds and group setups more restrictive and exclude people who otherwise want to play with fun builds.

Well an example that could be used is a 5 man boss with 150000 health, 15000 armor that has an attack that recoil equal to the damage done. If it downs a player it gains health equal to the player max health. The base damage of that attack 10000 on light armor which happens ever 5 seconds. Would zerker be optimal?

That’s a ridiculous example. That just means the meta is toughness condition. And honestly do you think that encounter would be in anyway fun? People like you would start a riot on this forum if that type of encounter was implemented.

Tim.6450:

DeathPanel.8362:

Irrelevant. My point is about ANET’s philosophy, not what passive dense is. I don’t need you to rehash something I already know. Your statement in no way refutes mine.

Focussing on active defense does not mean that active defense should be the only meaningfull defense. Also if you look at the ‘new’ grant masters it does contain a variety of stuff (passive defense, healing,…) so I’m not sure if the design philosophy is only about active defense.

Again, irrelevant. I was talking about ANET’s philosophy. Go argue with ANET.

Tim.6450:

DeathPanel.8362:

I didn’t say fun and difficult are mutually exclusive.
Also note that the marionette world boss was done by zergs of people with a vast variety in gear choice including many that are sub level 80 using just junk gear. Proving that the zerg meta isn’t remotely an issue in even your own example.

Playable and optimal are two different things.

You must have fun arguing with the nonexistent ethereal strawman version of me, because you keep on arguing against me as if I said things I never said.

Windsagio.1340:

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Seems to me the argument comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s possible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess.

See what I did there? I see you’ve been using some kind of debate strategy this whole thread where you make a statement like this with obvious bias…where you specifically omit the fact that the other side is just as guilty. You dress it up and make it sound well informed, but at the end of the day…its just a jab at the other side. Like way earlier in the thread, anytime someone argued against you…you’d respond as “that’s why we can’t have a discussion”. If you have something valid to say…or just your opinion…just say it and leave this stuff out.

I’m a paid designer tho (in no way associated with Arenanet) :p

More to the point, saying something is impossible is far more bold than saying something is possible.

semantics….you know what the point was.

Tim.6450:

ODB.6891:

Regardless of what happens in some game…other than the one we are playing…in what universe would it be okay to have higher or even similar damage output for a gear set designed for maximum passive personal safety/survival…versus one that sacrifices all passive personal safety/survival in favor of maximum damage output? I can’t see how that could possibly be justified. You made your bed, lie in it? Or make a new bed? Stop asking to lie in zerk’s bed when you don’t want to make that bed. What kind of compensation should zerk get out of that trade…more survival? I’m pretty sure we aren’t asking for that. Even if it were acceptable to completely even out the playing field on damage and survivability in instanced PvE, they already have that option…its called celestial. If either side wants celestial…they should earn/purchase it.

Asking for difficult content is not bad in anyway. What is bad is asking for changes to be made to specifically penalize other players out of jealousy, attempts to force your inclusion into their groups, etc. And for the record, that was not a personal attack on you. I don’t know you and you haven’t said anything offensive to me…so I have no reason to do that. By “So I can feel better about my low damage gear choices”, I was referring to anyone who intentionally picks low damage gear and then expects/demands/lobbies for the benefits of the opposite gear choice….especially at the expense of those who did pick that opposite gear choice. I can definitely understand why you would perceive my response negatively, because things like that sound bad when you see the literal interpretation of what a statement like you made means.

Its like two people walking into a car dealership. One buys a sports car and the other buys a mini van. Obviously they can both get from point A to point B on the same road. One is clearly going to be capable of doing it faster and likely with less emphasis on safety features. The other is going to be more utility oriented and family friendly..more emphasis on safety features. After purchase…is it acceptable for the mini van customer to start demanding that things be done to penalize the sport car customer for not having access to as many safety features…so they will have to switch to a mini van too? Would it be acceptable for the mini van customer to demand an engine upgrade for free to be able to reach the driving speeds of the sports car customer? In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with either purchase choice, you get what you intentionally purchased or you were a very bad customer who did not bother to research your purchase choices before purchase. What you are asking for is not variety. You are asking for ANET to design anti-zerk encounters to force a new meta. Why would they do that to their customers who did choose a perfectly valid option…just like you did…and are not filling up the forums with complaints like this?

It’s not the cars that are the problem. They are indeed doing what they are advertised, the problem is the road. They are made in such way that the risk for the sports car is close to non existant. Would it be wrong to ask for a dangerous short cut along the way which is only accessible for the van, due to his safety features? Would it be wrong to ask for a road where the sports car has to drive slower or extremely well to not crash into a wall?

I would say no because the current road catered the sports car due to it’s properties, while the feautures of the van are unnecessary or nigh useless.

Remember, you can swap gear while out of combat. If there were indeed short cuts you could only utilize through a lot of sustain people would just swap quickly then go. Is this the gameplay you support? carrying multiple sets of gear just to utilize certain short cuts built in?

With that pointed out, you’d basically have a scenario with your analogy where you can drive your sportscar on the road to where you want to go, then hit the short cut, jump into a jeep, power over the muddy terrain, then hop back into a sports car waiting for you on the other side.

It’s simply not a reasonable request, at least not without bending over backwards to hand things to the more defensive setup, in which case new meta becomes super tanky and still finish in the same time rendering less tanky builds obsolete. Pretty terrible game design if you ask me.

Lazaar.9123:

I’m going to laugh when more difficult content is actually going to affect the people using defensive stats in the first place, because of them not having the skill level to complete the content. There’s always people that cry for nerfs when anything remotely difficult is put in the game.

Exactly right.

Those people simply don’t understand how this game works. A majority of the mitigation in this game comes from active defenses like evades, blinds, aegis, reflect, etc and not passive defense like from toughness and hp. Even if content was raised in difficulty to make it harder to survive it’s the people that rely on passive defense to survive that will be hurt the most.

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Seems to me the argument comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s possible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess.

See what I did there? I see you’ve been using some kind of debate strategy this whole thread where you make a statement like this with obvious bias…where you specifically omit the fact that the other side is just as guilty. You dress it up and make it sound well informed, but at the end of the day…its just a jab at the other side. Like way earlier in the thread, anytime someone argued against you…you’d respond as “that’s why we can’t have a discussion”. If you have something valid to say…or just your opinion…just say it and leave this stuff out.

I’m a paid designer tho (in no way associated with Arenanet) :p

More to the point, saying something is impossible is far more bold than saying something is possible.

semantics….you know what the point was.

Yes and it’s invalid. There’s a massive difference between ‘this can be done here’s some speculation, ideas, and discussion on the subject’ and ‘nope, can’t be done don’t bother talking about it it’s impossible’

Also, not really semantics, but I hate to grammar kitten ><

EDIT:

It’s funny how the people who agree with me all understand how things work and are supposed to work, and the people who disagree simply have no idea.

Windsagio.1340:

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Seems to me the argument comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s possible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess.

See what I did there? I see you’ve been using some kind of debate strategy this whole thread where you make a statement like this with obvious bias…where you specifically omit the fact that the other side is just as guilty. You dress it up and make it sound well informed, but at the end of the day…its just a jab at the other side. Like way earlier in the thread, anytime someone argued against you…you’d respond as “that’s why we can’t have a discussion”. If you have something valid to say…or just your opinion…just say it and leave this stuff out.

I’m a paid designer tho (in no way associated with Arenanet) :p

More to the point, saying something is impossible is far more bold than saying something is possible.

semantics….you know what the point was.

Yes and it’s invalid. There’s a massive difference between ‘this can be done here’s some speculation, ideas, and discussion on the subject’ and ‘nope, can’t be done don’t bother talking about it it’s impossible’

Also, not really semantics, but I hate to grammar kitten ><

EDIT:

It’s funny how the people who agree with me all understand how things work and are supposed to work, and the people who disagree simply have no idea.

Okay, I’ll make it simple for you. Since you are possibly intentionally evading the point of my original reply to you. The point of that reply had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. The point of my reply had everything to do with the snide replies to other’s posts…much like the way you just did with the edit to your reply to me. The point of my reply also had to do with the misleading/intentional omissions in your replies to others in this thread. At the end of the day, it has just been annoying watching your condescending replies, since it has been entirely unnecessary to reply that way. If you are actually a designer/developer…I really hope you are in no way a customer facing employee with that personality. Even if you are a designer/developer…that does not make you automatically correct about anything. That does not make your ideas valid or other’s invalid. And yeah…everyone hates a grammar kitten.

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

Seems that the arguement comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s impossible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess ><

~~~

It’s in some ways difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Seems to me the argument comes down to non-designers (with or without agenda) insiting that it’s possible for designers to design a different system without massive direct nerfs.

More evidence that players aren’t actually game designers I guess.

See what I did there? I see you’ve been using some kind of debate strategy this whole thread where you make a statement like this with obvious bias…where you specifically omit the fact that the other side is just as guilty. You dress it up and make it sound well informed, but at the end of the day…its just a jab at the other side. Like way earlier in the thread, anytime someone argued against you…you’d respond as “that’s why we can’t have a discussion”. If you have something valid to say…or just your opinion…just say it and leave this stuff out.

I’m a paid designer tho (in no way associated with Arenanet) :p

More to the point, saying something is impossible is far more bold than saying something is possible.

semantics….you know what the point was.

Yes and it’s invalid. There’s a massive difference between ‘this can be done here’s some speculation, ideas, and discussion on the subject’ and ‘nope, can’t be done don’t bother talking about it it’s impossible’

Also, not really semantics, but I hate to grammar kitten ><

EDIT:

It’s funny how the people who agree with me all understand how things work and are supposed to work, and the people who disagree simply have no idea.

Okay, I’ll make it simple for you. Since you are possibly intentionally evading the point of my original reply to you. The point of that reply had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. The point of my reply had everything to do with the snide replies to other’s posts…much like the way you just did with the edit to your reply to me. The point of my reply also had to do with the misleading/intentional omissions in your replies to others in this thread. At the end of the day, it has just been annoying watching your condescending replies, since it has been entirely unnecessary to reply that way. If you are actually a designer/developer…I really hope you are in no way a customer facing employee with that personality. Even if you are a designer/developer…that does not make you automatically correct about anything. That does not make your ideas valid or other’s invalid. And yeah…everyone hates a grammar kitten.

To be fair, developers are usually never customer facing unless you’re in some small startup.

Jerus.4350:

Remember, you can swap gear while out of combat. If there were indeed short cuts you could only utilize through a lot of sustain people would just swap quickly then go. Is this the gameplay you support? carrying multiple sets of gear just to utilize certain short cuts built in?

With that pointed out, you’d basically have a scenario with your analogy where you can drive your sportscar on the road to where you want to go, then hit the short cut, jump into a jeep, power over the muddy terrain, then hop back into a sports car waiting for you on the other side.

It’s simply not a reasonable request, at least not without bending over backwards to hand things to the more defensive setup, in which case new meta becomes super tanky and still finish in the same time rendering less tanky builds obsolete. Pretty terrible game design if you ask me.

I actually do the gear switch thing already sometimes. I always have 2-3 sets on my main characters and if a zerker pug starts failing (or any team really), I switch out to whatever fits the current situation if I think it will help (usually does, easily). So it’s definitely a possibility that could happen. If you “absolutely” couldn’t do something without using x defensive gear sets and the other parts could be DPSed with ease, we would start seeing multi-gear checks.

To use the sportscar analogy you guys are having fun with (your point reminds me of something they would do on Top Gear lol), is that the trick is to design the course in such a way, that you don’t bother jumping in and out of different cars because you’re not really saving time doing so. Just a lot of extra headache. Instead of thinking of an off-road shortcut, think of making the entire track a bit slippery due to rainy conditions. Where extra traction and vehicle control begins to become just as or more important than pure speed to win the race.

How do we make the track conditions a bit poorer for the drivers (make it so speed/DPS is less important and active/passive defense, cc and condis more important)?

Cut base overall health of enemies.

This has to happen if defensive and condition stats are to become more viable. There’s already content that breaks their use (hp scaling for difficulty like fractals and timed phases on bosses).

Think for a second: For arguments sake lets say it takes a defensive team twice as long to kill enemies on fractals 50 than a pure DPS team. What would happen on higher fractal levels when health doubles or triples again? If they were completing 30 minutes slower due to mob health, the defensive team would automatically take 1 hour more if health doubled. An hour and a half once it triples. That’s a lot of extra time just because of what gear sets people are using.

Replace high health with counterable passive/active defense and better AI/pathfinding.

If you sliced an enemies health in half then gave it a protection boon and heal casts every 3-10 secs, you basically just made lower DPS and condis 100% more effective from a time completion point of view. As long as the lower DPS team properly ccs and mitigates mob skill use. Zerker can do this and would end up being even fast if they did so, which is why…

Add more constant pressure an player damage mitigation, but counterable, to encounters.

Obviously the sticking point on this thread to say the least.

This addition fills in the rest of the time gap I believe. At least a bit. The advantage of running more defensive stats and support builds would be that a more defensive oriented team wouldn’t have to worry as much about countering AI pressure, while glass cannon teams would (rightfully so). So they could spend an easier time countering active/passive AI defenses and getting their DPS up. Zerker meta and other glass cannons would be forced to “do or die.” Countering both AI pressure as fast as possible, while also avoiding extra damage, countering active/passive AI defense and spiking down enemies. Remember though, that enemy health overall has been severely reduced, meaning if glass cannons do everything right, they have a lot less health to cut through compared to the older mob design.

Multiple metas should appear where it doesn’t matter what gear you’re running. As long as you know how to play the game and use your skills/class effectively.

It’s not easy to get this right. The risk is that by trying to do so, you make the track too slippery and the danger of driving the poor handling sportscar just isn’t worth the effort. It needs to still be worth hopping into the sportscar to win the race… if you’re a pro-racer.

Cut base overall health of enemies.

Would make Zerker even better and defensive stats even worse. Would also make conditions even worse because they only even out over longer fight duration. Also nobody is arguing for conditions not being better in PvE, but all that would do is add Sinister to the meta.

Replace high health with counterable passive/active defense and better AI/pathfinding.

Wouldn’t make defensive or support stats any better because CC isn’t bound to stats. The only way to make defensive stats better is to add so much unavoidable damage that people can’t run Zerker and that just makes classes that are innately squishy be horrible.[/quote]

Add more constant pressure an player damage mitigation, but counterable, to encounters.

CC has nothing to do with stat distributions so it wouldn’t change anything and like I have said already would make classes that are innately squishy bad.

That’s the thing, speed runs are already much more focused on the non killing aspects than the killing. Your ability to traverse the area quickly is paramount to your speeding through the content.

Take a look at the latest race on SE1. First team goes through with a pretty optimal damage setup, second team comes through with a bit more practicality for buffing, third team wipes them both up with portal tricks while sacrificing damage.

Arah speed runs are another thing, the big jumps in time were all portal tricks more so than stacking damage.

With that you often have your thief running pistol offhand, a notable damage loss but huge increase in utility/support with the blind field and ready application of smoke field for blind as well as defiant stripping.

I’m all for more mechanics requiring proper use of active defenses, but the second you add in unavoidable stuff that requires simple passive damage you’re just creating a dps race, which personally, I don’t find fun, neither do I find building yourself to soak it up while you slowly kill fun. I enjoy the active defense mechanics of this game.

The “problem” with gear IMO is the lack of stats that help you actively defend and control, however I don’t really see it as a problem becauas ethat’s what traits are for. Gear in this game is NOT your build, Gear is your slider for your passive defense/offense and the way it is applied. More toughness less damage intake, more vitality more health, more power harder hits, more precision more crits, more condi damage harder condi ticks. Where you get the flavor in this game is not your gear, that just boosts the effectiveness of how you trait and the utilities you choose.

To continue the car metaphor, It’s not really taht gear defines your type of car, no the gear is your engine. Do you have that slow and steady reliable and easily repaired deisel, or maybe that powerful Hemi, maybe a 4 cylender gas efficient model or maybe even an electric motor. What defines the rest of your car is your traits and utilities, do you have a raised suspension, offroad wheels, or maybe some high performance slick wheels for speed. Did you get the slick body to optimize your wind resistance or a beefy armored exterior? A 40gallon gas tank or a 10 gallon to optimize weight? Etc. Etc.

Jerus.4350:

Remember, you can swap gear while out of combat. If there were indeed short cuts you could only utilize through a lot of sustain people would just swap quickly then go. Is this the gameplay you support? carrying multiple sets of gear just to utilize certain short cuts built in?

Yes, because swapping your gear/build is already a thing now.

Jerus.4350:

It’s simply not a reasonable request, at least not without bending over backwards to hand things to the more defensive setup, in which case new meta becomes super tanky and still finish in the same time rendering less tanky builds obsolete. Pretty terrible game design if you ask me.

So having a meta that bends backwards for dps setups while rendering tanky builds obsolete is a better alternative?

rotten.9753:

So your proposal will make soldier’s gear much better than berserker’s. If you need survivability, you have it already and in the case you can sacrifice it for more damage, the game will help you with that. Do you see nothing wrong with that? I mean, that just makes it a superior gear which is versatile.

damage and survivability in one, is not new look at zerk hammer guardian. It does decent amount of damage but it gives insane amounts of AOE protection. My suggestion is one or the other. Reflects are another example high defense and damage in one (it also favors zerk, because it uses your precision and ferocity).

Also zerker has gotten advantages in other content: kudu has a one shot mechanic that ignore hp and armor (pretty sure jade maw has similar attack) , mordrem menders get interupted at crits, … . So why is soldier having an advantage in another fight unfair?