Guild Wars 2

If you are evaluating Thief against each of the following classes right now, who gets nerfed of the two? This is designed to get classes to consider where they rank in terms of viability and which classes just suck compared to them.

Thief v:

1) Elementalist
2) Engineer
3) Mesmer
4) Necromancer
5) Ranger
6) Guardian
7) Warrior

Simple answers (put explanations underneath if you want). Which class gets the nerf between the two (Thief or each of the 7 others)?

What should happen: every class nerfed over Thief except Necromancer (needs PvE love) and maaaaybe Elementalist.

What will happen: Thief nerfed over everyone, and justified with some wacky interpretation of a misunderstood mechanic.

So, Intercepter would say that in pairings every class is weaker than the thief save the necromancer and elementalist when combining all elements of the game?

Not judging just trying to make sure everyone knows how this question is designed to be answered.

I don’t know who Intercepter is, but you have it precisely backwards.

Don’t you mean thief v:

yes Thief v (each of the other 7 classes). Saw that mistake a bit late.
In each pairing, which class would/should get nerfed to achieve parity?
Context is across the game (best you answer about total utility/value).

I’m not one for nerfing. Dumbs the game down and takes away from the game rather than adds to it. I think thief should be buffed vs each class. Each class had a specific build that can destroy thieves. Most don’t run it or play it poorly.

What exactly is the point of this?

In PvE’s point of view, no profession should get nerfed only buffed, because it is less fun when your party struggles in an easy dungeon because ANET decided to nerf the profession to please the PvP. Any party composition should have equal shot at completing a dungeon at the same time a group of Warriors and Mesmers could. I’m tired of seeing profession getting nerfed and suffers for the rest of the game because they can’t get into a party or get into a party only to get kicked. Nerfing profession doesn’t make for a kind community, only a bunch of jerks.

I really hate that.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

In PvE’s point of view, no profession should get nerfed only buffed

Power creep is a thing. Otherwise we’d all have OHKO buttons on our bars, Teq would be easy, and the game would be perfect(ly boring).

Interceptor.2653:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

In PvE’s point of view, no profession should get nerfed only buffed

Power creep is a thing. Otherwise we’d all have OHKO buttons on our bars, Teq would be easy, and the game would be perfect(ly boring).

You take something out of context just so you can say that even though it has nothing to do with what I posted?

I-lister.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

You take something out of context […]

Your post is literally right above mine; nobody will be confused. I had a single point to make about one thing that you said, and did so. Power creep matters even in PvE.

Interceptor.2653:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

You take something out of context […]

Your post is literally right above mine; nobody will be confused. I had a single point to make about one thing that you said, and did so. Power creep matters even in PvE.

That’s my point. You take something out of context believing that I am talking about “power creep” when I mentioned “buff.”

Sir Vincent III.1286:

That’s my point. You take something out of context believing that I am talking about “power creep” when I mentioned “buff.”

Buffs are how power creep happens. If you have a never-nerf policy, that’s the ultimate end result.

Easy, I’m surprised that “Who Gets the Nerf?” is even a question when the thief is on the table.
Going down the list:
1. Thief
2. Thief
3. Thief
4. Thief
5. Thief
6. Thief
7. Thief

Reasoning (possibly players): OP UNBALACNED PERMA STEALTH EXPLOIT FACEROLLING CLASS SOOOOOO EZ TO PLAY AND ROLL NUBS 4DAYZ LOLL9OLOLOLL I GET KILLED ALL TIMEZ BY OPEN STEALTH NERF THEM PLZ

Real reasoning (possibly as devs): To provide build diversity.

Real Real reasoning (possibly as devs as to why their real reasoning):

Interceptor.2653:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

That’s my point. You take something out of context believing that I am talking about “power creep” when I mentioned “buff.”

Buffs are how power creep happens. If you have a never-nerf policy, that’s the ultimate end result.

That’s a slippery slope argument that is too far from what I’ve posted.

While PvE mobs gets ridiculously stronger, we get nerfed.

Good policy (/sarcasm).

Sir Vincent III.1286:

That’s a slippery slope argument that is too far from what I’ve posted.

It is no such thing. You support a policy of no nerfs, only buffs. That logical result of that, no matter how long it takes to get there, is power creep. And making monsters get stronger to compensate, is just a nerf to players by another name.

Balance by buffing has been tried. It has failed. Nerfs are unpopular, but they are necessary.

Interceptor.2653:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

That’s a slippery slope argument that is too far from what I’ve posted.

It is no such thing. You support a policy of no nerfs, only buffs. That logical result of that, no matter how long it takes to get there, is power creep. And making monsters get stronger to compensate, is just a nerf to players by another name.

Balance by buffing has been tried. It has failed. Nerfs are unpopular, but they are necessary.

Argument in the sense of it being a slippery slope, it is and it isn’t.

Only buffing… so let’s talk about just damage, and use simple numbers and a simple scenario.
Class A deals 100 damage.
Class B deals 50 damage.

This feels unbalanced because B doesn’t do the same amount of damage.

Class B now deals 100 damage.

For some odd reason Class A doesn’t deal as much damage as B. We can’t nerf B, so we can only buff A.

Class A now deals 125 damage.

Everyone is happy.

Class A is later buffed to do 200 damage.
Well now we’re at the start where A did twice what B did.

It can be done. Just we will see a constant inflation of numbers (eventually we will be doing 40k on normal auto attacks like in other games). To “nerf” one class in the case of only buffing, you buff other classes.

Zero Day.2594:

Interceptor.2653:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

That’s a slippery slope argument that is too far from what I’ve posted.

It is no such thing. You support a policy of no nerfs, only buffs. That logical result of that, no matter how long it takes to get there, is power creep. And making monsters get stronger to compensate, is just a nerf to players by another name.

Balance by buffing has been tried. It has failed. Nerfs are unpopular, but they are necessary.

Argument in the sense of it being a slippery slope, it is and it isn’t.

Only buffing… so let’s talk about just damage, and use simple numbers and a simple scenario.
Class A deals 100 damage.
Class B deals 50 damage.

This feels unbalanced because B doesn’t do the same amount of damage.

Class B now deals 100 damage.

For some odd reason Class A doesn’t deal as much damage as B. We can’t nerf B, so we can only buff A.

Class A now deals 125 damage.

Everyone is happy.

Class A is later buffed to do 200 damage.
Well now we’re at the start where A did twice what B did.

It can be done. Just we will see a constant inflation of numbers (eventually we will be doing 40k on normal auto attacks like in other games). To “nerf” one class in the case of only buffing, you buff other classes.

Exactly. Thank you.

IMO, there’s a lot more room for buffing, because you can only take away so much before the game becomes a joke.