Guild Wars 2

I will start with saying that before I was all for rewarding people with top stats in any match, however, over time I was convinced that this is not good approach because, as Anet said, people would stop trying to win matches and start chasing top stats. Also, this is not the only problem with this.

First of all, there are classes which can contribute more without doing single damage to the opponent (for example thief that decaps well), than classes which can do 2 million damage fighting on enemy node entire match not achieving anything by doing so.

In the same way, like someone already mentioned, some classes are naturally inclined towards getting multiple top stats in every match, but not because they are good players, but because their class/build simply gives that that ability.

And the last thing wrong with this is that for example player A did 1001 damage and players B, C, D and E did 1000 damage each, so player A gets top damage stat and gets additionally rewarded for that marginal “contribution”. I would say this is even more unfair than the system we have now.

But on one I do agree with many posting here and on forums in general, there should be a way to reward/punish more or less players based on their performance. We just have to find more objective way to measure performance (which I understand may never be achieved).

I was suggesting before that maybe statistics can help with this. For example in a team of 5 doing 20% of team’s anything is expected. Doing more than 20% is a signal you should be rewarded and doing less than 20% is a signal you should be “punished”. Of course, getting more than 20% damage but less than 20% healing (which is more or less expected behavior) would cancel each other out, because you have more damage oriented build, and same goes for someone with a healing/support build. This way, if you did above 20% in 3-4 categories, then regardless of top stats, it is clear sign you have contributed a lot in that match and should be rewarded more in case of win, or punished less in case of defeat.

@ usnedward

You completely misjudged my motivation. First of all, I like PvP and that is why I am concerned about it. Considering amount of time I am investing in this game (very low), burn -out is hardly an option for me.

My point was that I understand that in every forum of every game there are same complaining topics. However, there is crucial difference where those games are still popular, while this game mode here is losing players in bulks. Obviously there is something going on here, that is different than in those games and that is why people who like PvP need to understand that something serious needs to change before PvP loses even more players of the very few that are still playing it. Defending Anet and saying how everything is ok will not convince those people to come back and is in that regard not only useless, but even damaging for the community overall.

@ Everyone

I realize that the title is very misleading to many, so I have edited it so you can better understand what I actually meant.

Actually, the part where you are right is also the part where you are wrong (confusing, right?).

If they do balance properly, the way PvP game (mode) should actually be like, then they don’t have to balance for different modes. Like many people in many threads have said, PvP must be about trade-offs. You want to be good at something, ok, but then you must give up on being good at something else.

We already have build system that is so complex that I find it hard to believe that in such system you can’t make possibilities to make single class good at almost anything (which was game’s goal in the first place), but at the cost of something else (which is the part they missed). For example, if you play ele and you take traits A,B and C, you will be more single target damage oriented, but if you take traits D, E and F, you will be more support etc.

I think this is much easier to balance in 1v1 and 2v2 than in 5v5 where system has no clue whatsoever who is playing what. Assumption here is that for 2v2 you will hardly go in a solo queue (the point is to already have a partner for this), so system does not have to take this into consideration because the 2 of you will be as successful as how well your synergy is made. On the other hand for 5v5 many people don’t have pre-made teams so they go as solo or duo and then matchmaking is unbalanced exactly because system cannot take into account so many variables and create balanced comp.

I see that we all agree on balance thing, but I was asking question why is balancing things so hard for devs? Are they neglecting PvP or, like I stated in initial post, problem is game design itself. Manifesto killed PvP because even though there were great ideas there, they can’t be applied everywhere. And if that is the case, then I am scared if PvP can ever recover since this is game’s core design we’re talking about.

So, we know that game manifesto was all about “play what you want” and breaking away from the trinity. While I agree that such philosophy did wonders for some aspects of the game, I think it was the very cause of PvP downfall (well, one of).

Yes, it is true that you can play any class the way you want, but reality is that there will always be some classes better at something than some other classes. While this works in open world content and dungeons (unless you wanna do speed-farming), when you raise skill and challenge level, it is natural that everyone must seek for optimal solutions. This is obvious when you look at raids and even fractals and I would add competitive PvP to this list.

If you want to be successful at challenging content, then you can’t actually screw around and play some ineffective or less effective builds, just because you like it. I mean, you can. but you will not be successful at that content.

This is exactly the issue that in my opinion damaged PvP significantly. Every class can play in theory many builds and be anything from tanky to support to damage dealer. Also, you can combine and be a little bit of everything and even deal 2 kinds of damage. So, if you look at some other PvP games (since I am focusing on PvP in this thread), characters there also have some diversity, but their roles are more or less pre-definded, which is what Anet tried to avoid in GW2. However, I think it backfired because it created overly-complicated matching system, where there are just too many variables to be taken into account in order to create balanced matches.

I know that someone might say “Well, but you have meta builds and majority plays meta builds, which reduces variables a lot”. I agree, but I think matchmaking does not take into account which builds are meta for some class at the moment…

Also, another important thing is that balance is revolving around rock-paper-scissors system. I saw that many people requested introduction of more game modes for PvP (1v1, 2v2, 3v3…) but since we have this kind of system, then 1v1, for example, would be just about which class you get as opponent. If you get your own heavy counter, then GG, if you get the class to which you are heavy counter then again GG. It removes significantly skill influence (assuming both players are at similar skill level) and goes down to luck (if you are rock, will you get paper or scissors).

Someone will say that this does not prevent introduction of 2v2 and 3v3 or Capture the flag or Deathmatch…and again I agree, but the issue here is that population is so small, that we cannot have balanced matches in 1 game mode. Imagine splitting population across multiple game modes…

Sorry for the wall of text, but I think this is a very complex issue and based on how Anet tackles this will depend if this game mode is truly dead or it can have any kind of future. But I am worried that the very game design is preventing further development of competitive PvP or PvP game mode in general.

I don’t know what can be the solution. Maybe completely separating traits and skills from other game modes, increasing rewards (I know it draws PvE players, but PvP needs to renew the player base somehow) and then introduce tournaments and new game modes.

What do you guys think?

Trevor Boyer.6524:

The problem this season wasn’t total matches played, it was that it was too rewarding to run alt accounts and manipulate match making and their out comes.

I think that many forum posts indicate that there really was a problem with total matches played and that population decreased significantly. And the very fact that it is well known that smurfing has become extremely profitable thing to do should be a clue about current state of sPvP.

Anyway, just to clear up some things. When I said pro players, I didn’t mean actual ESL players. I meant those self-entitled low plat guys, who took upon themselves to explain to all others, trying to make legitimate arguments what is wrong in the game, that everything is ok and that it’s just that those players are bad (git gud argument). ESL players showed us how they feel about the game when they started leaving to play other games.

Also, I am not comparing GW2 to LoL or OW as games. I am comparing atmosphere on the forums and people complaining, which all these games share, which then some people use as argument that nothing is wrong because those games also have people crying all over forums. While that obviously is true, still, like I already said, people still want to play those games, so yes, there is crucial difference whether you want to admit it or not.

I understand that if you go to any forum of any competitive game, you can find similar atmosphere like here. People will be people and they will, in 90% of cases, blame everyone and everything else for their lack of success.

I truly get that…HOWEVER!

You also must take into consideration how many people plays games like LoL, DOTA 2, OW etc. Although people there also complain more or less for the same things, their player base is consisted of millions of players. That is really important because it shows that with all the negativity, people still want to play those games.

What is the case with GW2? Well, obviously, people do not want to play this game anymore (sPvP). So, whenever you get on that pro high horse of yours and start defending Anet for what they did or did not do to sPvP, just think about with who you will be playing next season. Numbers don’t lie. Just look at the number of matches played in average. Last season top ranked players played above 500 matches each, this season top 2 players played ONLY mandatory 120 matches to be on the leaderboard. I myself have played 4 times less matches this season comparing to last.

So, if you still feel the need to defend Anet and use arguments like “well, there is negativity in every game”, I wish you nice fights with Forest NPC’s in the future.

Crinn.7864:

AngryBear.8741:

I understand when you duo you can use fake DC to save your partner’s rating, but if I am in solo q, why did I get punished for DC if I got back, even had few top stats and my team won?

1) If a member of the a duo DC both of them lose rating.
2) DC punishment is purely based on how long you DC, there is no consideration for outcome.

I understand that for duo, but I did not duo so I was obviously not trying to cheat anyone (unless you think I wanted to cheat myself). I DID NOT lose Internet connection but I got kicked from server. I did my best to reconnect as fast as possible, joined game while it was still in very early phase, got top stats and my team won and still system is punishing me. This is just adding insult to injury. Of course this is not the only reason, but when you add up everything that is going on this season, this is where I draw the line. I am not playing this game to be under stress and that is why I am moving away from this.

I understand when you duo you can use fake DC to save your partner’s rating, but if I am in solo q, why did I get punished for DC if I got back, even had few top stats and my team won?

And BTW my connection was more than fine. This DC was entirely on your side for sure because my Internet did not break even for a second and my PC is more than good enough for GW2.

Your systems are such #$%%$#@ that I even got daily rewards for Necromancer win, but still I lost rating+got dishonor because of error on YOUR servers.

Just keep on losing players because 100% I will not participate in any of the following PvP seasons and I am so demotivated right now that I am not even sure I wanna continue playing this season at all anymore.

Look at those awesome scores…

My SS is not placement matches. It’s matches after those, after system has evaluated my MMR so it can provide balanced matches for me. <——- gotta laugh at this

I think so far this has been the worst League experience.

It’s not about elo hell and things like that. I don’t care where on the ladder I am. But the quality of matches is just unbearable. Whether I win or lose, it doesn’t matter, 200-300-400 point difference is NOT good matchmaking. Nobody likes those matches win or lose…

I know some will say “But hey, things didn’t settle yet”, but league lasts 2 months. If we have to wait 1 month for things to settle and then during 2nd month 80% of population leaves and you will say “well, there’s not enough people for MM to do its job properly”. So when will we enjoy this great pvp you work for 5 years to brings us?

Are fights uploaded somewhere so we can watch?

And here is more. This was all ranked, played in the prime time (so don’t give me those off-peak hours theories). So last 10 matches, 50% were not even close between the teams. We are not talking about 1 match in thousands, we are talking about 50% of matches in the prime time.

megilandil.7506:

its the base of ELO system, your reward depends of diference whith oponents, the chances of wining and others only are adjustments to aply this system to teams

I understand that but my opinion is that it is absurd. It is absurd to try to create balanced matches where people have different expectations to win. I admit that I am maybe stupid, but I don’t see how that makes sense to anyone.

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

carrying or being carried is not a factor for algorithm, they can factor it, b have to do more efort to stay competitive and not being a sandbag for entyre team that the player that is playing at her level, and for your logical aproach the ones who have to be more rewarded are the three other guys, they dont choice to drag the lesser mmr one, the duoer choice it

Actually, if MM is working properly (and I firmly believe it is not bcs of lack of players) then teams are made to be of equal strength (or as close as possible). In that sense, no one should be carrying anyone, since average team MMR should be equal or close (for example, other team also has someone with lower MMR who drags MMR of the entire team which then in the end makes the match balanced after all). Therefore, it doesn’t make sense (as someone was saying before me) that 1 player in the same team “has more chance to win/lose” than the other player in the same team. Therefore getting/losing different amount of points is completely wrong if matches are made “fair”.

for mm purpouses a duo is like a single player that ocupies two slots (they do their calculations to give to that “entity” a mmr number) and after make the q.
the lesser duoer not drag entire team to a lower mmr match, if the duo are calculated as average, the duo brings a lower player and a higher, if taken the high one(last seasons do it) brings a sandbag, this is the reasons that make that in great numbers anet says duoq is not a “exploit” but everyone knows that a duo of same level players being coordinated(voice coms, knowing eachothers plystile) brings a great advantage in the solo environement

I don’t think you understood the point.

Ok, let’s say duo is observed as single entity with their own MMR. Let’s say Player A is 2k MMR and Player B is 1k MMR. Is it safe to assume this “entity” is in average 1.5k MMR? Ok, so the game will try to find a match with 8 other players around 1.5k MMR.

For argument sake let’s say it managed to find 8 players with exactly 1.5k MMR each and creates the match. Both teams in average have 1.5k MMR, so numbers say they both have equal chances of winning. So, how can you claim that Player B has less chance of winning, if teams are created in this manner, to justify higher reward, but lesser penalty? Yes, he is facing stronger opponents than himself, but in his team there is also player that is better than enemy, so teams should be (in theory) of equal strength. So, how can in one team, which on paper is of same strength as the other team, you can have 2 players with different chances of winning the match? It is completely absurd.

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

carrying or being carried is not a factor for algorithm, they can factor it, b have to do more efort to stay competitive and not being a sandbag for entyre team that the player that is playing at her level, and for your logical aproach the ones who have to be more rewarded are the three other guys, they dont choice to drag the lesser mmr one, the duoer choice it

Actually, if MM is working properly (and I firmly believe it is not bcs of lack of players) then teams are made to be of equal strength (or as close as possible). In that sense, no one should be carrying anyone, since average team MMR should be equal or close (for example, other team also has someone with lower MMR who drags MMR of the entire team which then in the end makes the match balanced after all). Therefore, it doesn’t make sense (as someone was saying before me) that 1 player in the same team “has more chance to win/lose” than the other player in the same team. Therefore getting/losing different amount of points is completely wrong if matches are made “fair”.

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

skylink.4972:

it probably means that i just started randomly from one day to another play bad. Thats very likely. Yep. The delusional people opened my eyes its all clear now.
When i get first time PvPer in my team with 500AP vs top 10 and lose that game, its because im bad and should be punished for it.

This was my point exactly. There are too many situations and things that you have no control of, that affect outcome of matches, but still you are being punished because you are not top tier player that can duel 1 v3 or 1 v 4 to overcome this.

And since I am not the only one who is having games in streaks, I agree it is BS that one day I was playing so well to win 10 matches and then suddenly I forgot to play next day and I was complete trash and only because of that I lost 10 matches.

And the biggest issue is that things are getting worse and worse as the season nears end. Just last night I had situation where 1 was AFK for several minutes from my team. Then when we said we will report him he logged out and logged in to fake DC and by the time he started playing it was like 200 point difference and then he spent rest of the match complaining why we reported him. So yeah, it was me that sucked in that match and deserved to lost ranking. I know someone will say “oh, but it’s just 1 match”, but I don’t play 50 matches every day. I have work and other stuff to do, so I don’t have that much chance to recover if I get 1 or 2 bad situations like this one. So does that mean that since I can’t play as much as other people I am not skilled because every match like this one has much bigger impact on my rating than on someone else’s?

skylink.4972:

Me, as a thief main, get to play thief in 1 out of 10 matches if i dont want to end up with 3 thieves in team.

And this is another point that I was making how bad composition for one team completely throws match in favor of another team, simply because they can play their mains and you are forced to play 2nd, 3rd or 4th class (because it depends to what you must switch). Even if we assume that MM is trying to make balanced matches and the most equal teams as possible regarding rating, every little thing can decide match and being forced to play something else is exactly disadvantage that is enough for other team to win.

Ithilwen.1529:

The issue is that the OP is not a typical case player. As such, he’s not a suitable case for an experiment like the one we’re talking about. That makes the experiment invalid ( in the logic sense of the word.)

The fact that an ESL player can climb through divisions is not relevant to the existence or non-existence of “elo hell.” It does validate “smurfing” as a strategy.

The idea of “elo hell” applies when: player of skill level that could be (for example) Bronze or Silver finds it impossible to climb out of Bronze.

I understand the motive of promoting “competitive” attitudes. I myself am trying to have a more “competitive” mindset as promoted by Helseth.

This experiment doesn’t prove it’s hypothesis, a priori, because it wasn’t set up well.

This…

And I didn’t say that there is only one player in the world who can do anything. I said that so far we know of a single case but still even though some others can do that, number of people who can do that with class x is significantly lower than number of people who can do it with class y, simply because class y has a lot more carry potential.

Anyway, let us see you (top most awesome player in the world) do the same with necro and shut me up for good. It is still lose-lose because even if you can do it, it still proves nothing because you are among top 5 players in the world and like I said, the game shouldn’t be tailered for top 5 people in the world, or even top 100.

Ask yourself why GW2 has such a poor PvP scene comparing to other games (I am referring to number of people playing).

nothelseth.4621:

AngryBear.8741:

nothelseth.4621:

AngryBear.8741:

flog.3485:

AngryBear.8741:

flog.3485:

AngryBear.8741:

Now do the same with necro and we will have something to talk about…

You should take a look at this particular thread in forums wher a player reached legend using core necro

And that proves that 1 (ONE) player in entire game can do it. Thanks for proving exactly what I wanted to say.

Your assumption doesn’t prove anything imo. You really believe that all PvP players who reach legendary are out on forums saying that they finally reached this tier ?

Someone reaching legendary with necro solo queue (especially starting from bronze)? Yes, I believe everyone achieving that would post it on forums.

This is a ridicilous statement.

I don’t play necro and I could easily climb out of bronze playing it with a similiar winratio to my mesmer. People dont manage condition cleanses there or dodge key skills, you’ll literally oneshot people with either power or condi just doing reaper 5 and reaper 4.

The gameplay I did to climb bronze (push far, stand outside node when people outnumber, kill 1v1 when people finally rotate out) easily works with every single class (including fresh air ele) for bronze.

jesus, the idea that NOBODY could EVER soloque out of bronze with necro is just.. insane. There is no way you watched my climb. Absolutely no way.

I was not saying nobody can do that. I was saying that amount of people that can do that with necro, comparing to amount of people who can do it with some other class (especially mesmer), is basically statistical error.

And dude, being one of the best players achieving this proves nothing. It is like saying that because Micheal Jordan at his prime could carry any NCAA team to the title means that if you think you are good, you should be able to do the same.

And I say that literally every single good necro in the game could easily carry bronze just as easily I did on mesmer. The only build change I’d do is slap on wurm and you’re ready to carry.

I also want to ask you again; Did you even watch my gameplay in bronze? You’re saying that I did it with help of being mesmer as if it’s relevant at all. It’s absolutely not, anyone who watched the progression would know that.

I did not watch your streams but I did watch few videos you posted on YT (I don’t know how many in total you posted but I’ve seen few).

And I am not talking about carrying bronze. I am talking about starting in bronze and then carrying teams all the way to the legendary as if EVERYTHING depends on you (with necro). I believe you and few players can do that, but the game is not designed to be played by you and few other people and rest of us to admire how awesome you are (even though I am sure you enjoy that very much).

nothelseth.4621:

AngryBear.8741:

flog.3485:

AngryBear.8741:

flog.3485:

AngryBear.8741:

Now do the same with necro and we will have something to talk about…

You should take a look at this particular thread in forums wher a player reached legend using core necro

And that proves that 1 (ONE) player in entire game can do it. Thanks for proving exactly what I wanted to say.

Your assumption doesn’t prove anything imo. You really believe that all PvP players who reach legendary are out on forums saying that they finally reached this tier ?

Someone reaching legendary with necro solo queue (especially starting from bronze)? Yes, I believe everyone achieving that would post it on forums.

This is a ridicilous statement.

I don’t play necro and I could easily climb out of bronze playing it with a similiar winratio to my mesmer. People dont manage condition cleanses there or dodge key skills, you’ll literally oneshot people with either power or condi just doing reaper 5 and reaper 4.

The gameplay I did to climb bronze (push far, stand outside node when people outnumber, kill 1v1 when people finally rotate out) easily works with every single class (including fresh air ele) for bronze.

jesus, the idea that NOBODY could EVER soloque out of bronze with necro is just.. insane. There is no way you watched my climb. Absolutely no way.

I was not saying nobody can do that. I was saying that amount of people that can do that with necro, comparing to amount of people who can do it with some other class (especially mesmer), is basically statistical error.

And dude, being one of the best players achieving this proves nothing. It is like saying that because Micheal Jordan at his prime could carry any NCAA team to the title means that if you think you are good, you should be able to do the same.

flog.3485:

AngryBear.8741:

flog.3485:

AngryBear.8741:

Now do the same with necro and we will have something to talk about…

You should take a look at this particular thread in forums wher a player reached legend using core necro

And that proves that 1 (ONE) player in entire game can do it. Thanks for proving exactly what I wanted to say.

Your assumption doesn’t prove anything imo. You really believe that all PvP players who reach legendary are out on forums saying that they finally reached this tier ?

Someone reaching legendary with necro solo queue (especially starting from bronze)? Yes, I believe everyone achieving that would post it on forums.

flog.3485:

AngryBear.8741:

Now do the same with necro and we will have something to talk about…

You should take a look at this particular thread in forums wher a player reached legend using core necro

And that proves that 1 (ONE) player in entire game can do it. Thanks for proving exactly what I wanted to say.

Now do the same with necro and we will have something to talk about…

As the season is nearing end I am also starting to think that matches are RNG more than anything else. In my opinion proof for that are total blowouts which happen more and more (and I don’t mean AFKs and DCs). If MMR is working correctly, then matches like 500:100 should never happen (excluding AFKs and DCs) and lately they happen A LOT.

Your teammates and team composition matters A LOT, so all those talks how “if you are good you will carry” are complete BS. That is exactly where RNG thingy shows its face.

MM system uses your rating in order to create matches with players of similar rating, assuming that if it makes teams as close average rating as possible, game is considered to be “fair”. However, team composition and map also matter a lot. Lately more and more I am getting matches with 3 and even 4 of the same class in my team. I see that happening to enemy teams as well. This just shows that all that system does is looking MMR, but by doing so it makes horrible team compositions (for example 3 necros and 2 guardians).
If this happens, then either no one changes class or they go to some other class which they play not so well (or even worse they see this as opportunity to practice their thief they made 2h ago). Also, don’t forget that legendary backpack achievements require you to play several different classes, which means that many of those chasing achievements will play often 3rd or 4th class, just to complete those.

I know this happens because player base is not as large as it should be, but all this contributes to this “RNG” factor.

Hello,

It is obvious Anet is trying to implement things to measure skill, so I wanted to make this thread to describe few things that I think needed to be addressed.

First of all, I wanted to say that overall I am happy with Season 5. Rewards are great and playing PvP finally feels rewarding. Queues are very short, it feels that many people are playing this season, visible MMR was great thing to implement…so really I am not trying to complain, I am just trying to give my two cents on things that need to be improved/changed.

I wanted to start with something that many people have already mentioned. Number of wins/losses does not represent your skill (or to be more precise, it does not represent your skill accuratelly). While I agree that number of wins/losses is the only objective thing that can show how good you are, I think that the way it affects your MMR (or ranking points, however you want to call it) needs some serious improvements.

Why am I saying this? Well, I will tell you just few examples:

1. We all know that MM system is not perfect and many threads here have proven that. Even one of the devs confirmed there are things that needed to be changed in one of those threads. Since dev already confirmed they will look into it, I will discuss this no more. The only reason I am mentioning this is because unfair/unbalanced matches should not have same impact (or even remotely close impact) on your MMR as the ones which are (considered to be) fair. I understand that GW2 still doesn’t have enough people for MMR to be really effective and bad matchmakings happen, but don’t punish players who do play for the faults of the system.

2. This situation actually happened to me. I know it is extremely rare, but there is larger point to be made:

We were playing Temple of the Silent Storm. Entire match was extremely even (GG matchmaking for that) so fastforward to the last seconds of the match. My team has advantage in points and holds 1 node and enemy team holds 1 node, while there is fight for 3rd node. Enemy team wins third node and mid buff. So, what happens next? My team has 499 and enemy team has 496. Next tick brings us to exactly 500:500 and BOOM! They win and I lose 13 ranking points.

Maybe someone will convince me that this is fair (I am honestly ready to listen explanation), but I find it extremely unfair that defeat over technicality (honestly I have no idea how winner was decided) carries same weight as when you lose 500:0 and this brings us to a bigger picture. How many of you consider fair that loss with 500 difference is same as losing 500:499, or 500:490? I agree that 500:500 situation is rare, but last two I mentioned are really not that rare. If you have such a small margine, then there is no real difference in skill between those two teams, That one point can mean that at the beggining their thief got 1 second faster to the close than our thief (just a random example), but you will make entire team lose 10-15 ranking points each because of that.

I think that margine should make the difference. It will also motivate people to play till the end and not ragequit and go AFK. If you know that losing with 50 points difference and 500 points difference actually makes huge impact on how many ranking points you will lose, you will be less likely to just give up (especially after 1 fight in mid).

3. Another thing that should have impact on how many points you win/lose is your contribution. Now, I am not saying that Top Stat means anything, but you have already implemented measuring percentage of everything comparing to rest of the team. Maybe those values should give you insight how well someone played. Top Stat is bad because you can deal 1000 dmg and someone else can deal 1001 and they will get Top Damage. However, if you make some way to account % of dmg, % of healing, attack/defense time, number of kills/deaths I think you can measure real contribution for each player. Now, someone will say this is bad for thieves, for example, since they spend a lot of time just running around. Well, why not implement upvote (and maybe downvote) at the end of the matches? That way, some thief who did their job properly can be upvoted, even though his stats don’t show his actual contribution. I really cannot see down side of this. It is chance to reward players who excelled according to their teammates.

So, anyway, these are things that in my opinion are currently not fair and don’t affect MMR properly. Maybe you have different opinion and I am asking you to tell me where I am wrong, since I am open for learning.

I know it’s been asked, but seriously, enough is enough. How hard can it be to just add 1 more option to the list? I am sick and tired of losing pips, who are so hard to earn in solo Q anyway, because someone is tanking their MMR or I don’t know what other reason they might have since it really doesn’t matter anyway.

It is funny how linecasting was actually a thing that nobody denies, which further means that people abusing it had such huge damage it was never intended by any means and people are still arguing how it didn’t contribute to improving run times.

I am not denying that maybe you can/could do equal or maybe even better time without it, but to claim how it didn’t matter is just insane and delusional.

And that argument how nobody wanted to do record runs because they knew everything would be reset soon is such a kitten because wasn’t that your last chance to be forever remembered as “best” before major change? From my point of view it was huge motivation to use that time to give your best to beat those times, not the opposite. It is easy and very convenient to hide behind that false excuse.

Cogbyrn.7283:

AngryBear.8741:

spoj.9672:

The anti meta propaganda is really getting tiring at this point. You do realise its now switched to a sinister meta for fractals?

But things have far from settled. So all this continued bull about the meta is no longer relevant. Please just let it go.

I think issue is more about how it came to some situation, not the situation itself. It is not important whether it was zerker meta, or sinister meta or whatever. The important thing is what created such atmosphere, because even though meta shifted, such mindset can repeat itself over and over again.

Every MMO I’ve played, which has been a pretty large number of AAA titles, has developed some sort of exclusionary meta environment for basically all game modes. If you don’t do what the meta says, you’re dumb/bad/whatever.

Is the right answer to “meta propaganda” to run a propaganda campaign against them? Honestly, Booger’s post above reads, very literally, like a real propaganda campaign, appealing to emotions, yelling via capital letters, etc. Is that really necessary? Or does it make the “other” side just look crazy, too?

A meta is going to exist. In every game you ever play. I don’t care if it’s a single player game, if there’s an online community, it will develop some sort of “this is the best way to do it”mentality.

In actuality, what this game needs in particular for PvE is a robust meter. Let the data speak for itself. If you’re in a group with a meta build, and you destroy them in damage, the data doesn’t lie. You can prove your own usefulness demonstrably with data, instead of theoretical math.

TL;DR: People created the meta atmosphere, and they’ll continue to create it forever. If you don’t want to play with people who have a severely exclusionary mentality when it comes to a meta, find people who just want to enjoy the game. They exist.

I have actually suggested just that in one of the previous topics, which got closed because it “deviated from the topic” or something, but neither side was too interested to participate in that experiment. Either they care more about who has bigger…you know…than actually proving stuff in reasonable manner other than spreadsheets which no one with right mind would actually investigate to the detail to see if they got it right or wrong, or they were both scared they might prove themselves wrong, so they decided to stick to what they were doing so far.

I actually maxed fractal mastery and I will craft ascended set for necro just for fractals to see for myself if necro is really not optimal class, or the game is just like real world – if you have money and means (for example big news companies) you can portray the world to be just as you want it to be.

spoj.9672:

The anti meta propaganda is really getting tiring at this point. You do realise its now switched to a sinister meta for fractals?

But things have far from settled. So all this continued bull about the meta is no longer relevant. Please just let it go.

I think issue is more about how it came to some situation, not the situation itself. It is not important whether it was zerker meta, or sinister meta or whatever. The important thing is what created such atmosphere, because even though meta shifted, such mindset can repeat itself over and over again.

I think necro’s reputation is not earned. It is way better than the majority of the community thinks. I have been following these discussions closely past few weeks or so and I can say I have not found any real evidence of many claims made against necros, other than it not being exactly the best buff/support class in game.

The main issue with necro, in my humble opinion, is not lack of buff/support play, but the fact that it is way way better against multiple opponents than against single opponent (Reaper amplifies this even more, especially with shouts). Since majority of PvE content is fighting some boss, the necro is not as effective in those fights as it can be when fighting bunch of opponents. It doesn’t mean necro is bad, just that it loses effectiveness while fighting single opponent. I think this is the reason why in WvW necro is really useful and popular, because in that environment aoe damage becomes a lot more important, as well as de-buffing, aoe blinds and chills and similar mechanics, which don’t do much in PvE environment.

I think necro is good class, capable of doing any aspect that exists in this game in more than satisfying manner. However, since developers have said that their idea is that necro supports with damage, I think that damage in such case is not high enough to justify lack of other things. If necro got higher damage (which I have been saying since first HoT beta it needs), than such damage increase would basically overwrite lack of might stacking for example. Basically that means that you can get ele, which would allow you to get those 25 might stacks much easier, but if you can’t find ele, then you wouldn’t mind taking necro, which would do superb damage, so even if you can stack up less than 25 might stacks, you wouldn’t feel you were losing damage overall. This is only rough example, don’t split hairs over it, it was just meant to show that if you take away something, then give it something else to properly compensate while still encouraging different play styles.

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

AngryBear.8741:

snip because too much text

I’m not going to respond to all of this, neither am I going to read through all these wall of texts here, but I wanted to point a thing out: Meta-builds are guidelines. If you can’t adapt to situations and change traits/lines/etc. out you are still a kittenty player. Everyone should be aware that one build can’t be the best for every single encounter everywhere, this is common sense and if someone really thinks that they’re dense as kitten to be honest.

You are talkign about 90% of the community here…

Let me just say I got involved into this out of pure curiosity. I am playing PvP and WvW 90% of my time so PvE situation, especially high level Fractals, is completely unknown to me. However, I know that Necros are considered to be bad and I know that people make LFG messages like “no necros” and I know players are being kicked from the parties just because they play certain profession that didn’t find its place among those builds/characters considered to be meta. Those things are fact, so denying it is a bit foolish and pointless.

So, we have Nemesis who challenges that kind of thinking and that makes me curious enough to investigate. On the other hand we obviously have group of people doing record runs which gives them the right to defend their claims about optimal way to do things. That is why I keep suggesting way to end this debate and show if meta is really so much better and more efficient that everything other than that is pure waste of time so that those not part of the meta deserve to be kicked.

However, going into this I have found one seriously disturbing thing (have in mind I am not supporting either side in this conflict). There is site which most people visit in search for builds (I am not sure I am allowed to name it, but you know which site it is). So, on that site each class has very few builds that are considered to be meta (usually 1-3). So, and this comes from purely WvW point of view, if you have build that is meta, are you taking into account other party members and their builds? If you have optimal party setup where each member has optimal build, doesn’t that mean that such builds are made just for that party setup and no other party setup?

To clarify what I mean: Let’s say there is meta build for WvW warrior. That build is posted on that mentioned site and community (large part of it that doesn’t know to make their own builds and figure out synergies) will just take that build for granted and force all warriors to run it inside their team. However, stop and think a bit about synergies. What if purpose of that warrior is to provide cc (just giving an example for conversation’s sake), but to be efficient, it has to have guardians running other build supporting the warrior. You also must have ele with water fields because you still need those heals. So, for that warrior build to be effective, you must complete it with builds for other members in the team. Ok, so let’s say that your team setup to work requires 7 guardians. Now, what if for any given reason in the world you don’t have 7 guardians in the team (3 of them got sick (players) and can’t play, it happens). Do you still keep on using that warrior meta build even though your group composition has to change which means that things you are suppose to be getting from some members are now impossible to get?

I don’t know about you, but I would definitely have to adapt to new composition, instead of stubbornly force meta builds even though some other setup, in that new situation, would be for sure more efficient.

Let’s give just another example. So far every Reaper build (based on shroud) has mandatory Unyielding Blast trait (applies vulnerability on auto attack in shroud). So, if I was to go for that build upvoted by the community to be “the best” and let’s say that I am member of a team with 7 reapers, does that mean all 7 should run that trait? Seven people to maintain 25 stacks of vuln? Really?

So, what does that mean? That means that in such situation meta build is actually less effective than some other build which would change that trait for something else (not necessarily trait from same line, but maybe completely different build that provides something else). You don’t need 7 people maintaining 25 stacks of vuln. At least 3 of those are better of doing something else so they must have build of their own that provides something else for the team. So, then we have 2 meta builds? Ok, but let’s take that 2nd build we made to complete 1st setup and put it another setup where there are no 7 reapers but only 1 next to you. That build would then be suboptimal because in that situation you would need the 1st one.

So, what I am trying to show is that every single build depends on the situation, party composition and player’s skill that is using that build. There is no meta build because every build out there when put into different environment other than the one originally intended for will stop being the most efficient way to do anything.

Consequences of this are that you cannot make site where you will put certain amount of builds and call them a meta and create idea in people’s minds that those builds are somehow the best for their class. Even if you write “THIS BUILD IS ONLY FOR LEVEL 50 FRACTALS!!!!!!!” you are still forgetting to mention that such build is optimal ONLY in certain party setup where ALL other members are running their meta builds that complement your build. That further means that you can have different composition which would use different builds but in such way to best complement that particular composition which would create another meta builds setup and so on and so on.

The way things are currently presented to the community through that site is damaging, it limits people’s creativity, it creates toxisity and makes gaming really uncomfortable for certain people who really like to play certain classes that are being excluded and in the end it conveys incomplete information for the consumer. So, regarding that I agree with Nemesis when he says that there is no “best build”, there is only “best at”.

I meant why are you against fro them to do it since that is what I initially suggested.

But again and again, you just assume things. You have never seen how someone plays for example Death Magic trait line in service of damage. Just because you can’t figure it out it doesn’t mean someone else can’t also. That is why I said don’t theorize, show it, prove your claim in a simple and objective manner so that everyone understands. I don’t understand why you are against it. If you are right, such test will just confirm it and that would be it.

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

Sure, PvE is about learning encounters. This however also makes it about optimizing them and trying to hit the best possible times, if you’re into that. It’s a different form of challenge compared to PvP and WvW.

But this is the issue. No one ever compared runs to establish 1 set up against the other. For example “Here is the video where with meta build I do this run in 2 minutes and the best time I got with non-meta build is 4 minutes, so there you go, meta build is twice as effective”. That is what I am asking instead of pointless spreadsheet wars that majority don’t even understand. I do understand what nemesis is saying, but I am not eager to just dismiss what other good players are saying and what community is been using for years. So I ask for clear proof. Nemesis has to prove that what considers to be non meta builds and classes can actually do the content equally efficiently, while Nike has to prove that meta is meta because it significantly shortens time needed to do that same content. Like I say, spreadsheet wars will go on forever, we will never know the truth and people will keep being discriminated because of it.

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

Besides, information is there to be shared, yes. However, people should be wary of what information they consume and expand their knowledge based on said information, verifying it on their own and checking what it exactly says. If someone says “Necromancer has no place in an optimal group setup”, then that doesn’t mean Necromancer is bad, just that it doesn’t offer the best way to get something done. If people interpret it as “Necromancer is bad” then that’s the fault of the people and, quite frankly, the lack of their brain/their willingness to use it, not the fault of the person who gave out the information. That’s given the information is true, of course. This applies to virtually anything anyway.

I agree with this, however, I still don’t see who put those information out there and based on what. I never saw any tests that prove this. All I saw were claims that things work certain way and don’t work certain other way upvoted on certain site by who knows who which made it “meta”. “Necro brings nothing to the group” is confirmed how exactly? Because it can’t share might (which by the way it can)? Necro has high dps, high survivability, it can keep vulnerability up (it is a group thing in which necro contributes by a lot)…There are many factors to be taken into account when talking about who brings what to the table, not just party buffs.

Here we have 2 groups which actually put effort into proving things. However, they obviously can’t seem to agree which calculations are correct and which are false. So, there is my suggestion to show it once and for all.

I don’t agree with Nemesis when he says that you have to account 10 people factor as variable. While that it is true, using that as excuse to not even try (I am not saying he doesn’t want to try it) is same as saying that you can’t establish which sport team is better because they have different players. I think it’s quite the wrong view.

I am not trying to go against PvE community, but PvE, even at highest level, is predictable. No matter how hard you make certain content and mechanics, it is fact that those mechanics won’t change from one encounter to another. That makes it possible to learn mechanics and adapt (unlike in PvP/WvW environment). So, if you have a group of 5 people that play certain PvE content a lot, and I don’t think anyone would disagree that Nike and Nemesis are good players (you can disagree on their views and ideas, but not whether they can play the game or not), then those variables aren’t exactly variables. It is content you have done hundreds if not thousands times before and it’s gonna be the same the next time also.

And this discussion goes on and on while there is one and final way to end it.

I respectfully disagree because if you kick Necro right after he joins a party or write in LFG tool “no necros” then you are not doing it because he doesn’t know how to play their class. You are doing it based on pure prejudice. Or maybe you want to tell me that number of necros that can’t play their class is somehow significantly larger than number of eles that can’t play their class, if taking a necro is a risk, but taking an ele isn’t? I have never heard of the case of ele being kicked from the party just because being an ele.

@ Nemesis

Like I said, your work is something majority wouldn’t understand. I am not claiming you are right or worng, I am just saying we need objective and simple way everyone can understand to show who is right and who is wrong.

Think of it this way, if you make “non berserker meta” party and manage to do lvl 50 fractal in better or even similar time as them, then you have proven that there is no meta at all, there are just good and bad players and builds. Don’t forget that in all honesty, for the other side it is not just enough to win, they must win by significant margine, because if you base "most efficient: claim based on 5% difference, then it is beyond elitism to kick ppl for 30 second shorter run (for example).

But you’re saying Necros and Rangers are good now, but they are still being underrated and kicked from parties because of this general idea that was established in ppl’s minds.

Like I said in separate thread I made about this, I have no idea what results will be. This is just a way to silence one side and stop endless wars regarding this issue and most important of all, either prevent kicking ppl just based on class they play, or give Anet something to think about regarding balance of those excluded classes.

I doubt, after presenting such videos, losing side (whoever that may be) would have any validity in their claims whatsoever.

This is not a flaming thread. I have no idea who would win. This is just idea about a way we can finally establish who is right and be done with it. Just because something is out of the forum doesn’t mean it is out of the game. There are people still being discriminated based on their profession and that is something that affects those players.

My suggestion is about how to end all forum, reddit, youtube, map chat and other wars regarding this issue.

I think there is one undeniable way to establish who is right here. On one side we have group of people claiming that (berserker) meta is the only way to be efficient at high level Fractals, while on the other hand we have Nemesis (there are more people for sure, but he stands out) who claims that (berserker) meta is a lie and that it was Icebow meta.

Now, here is (more or less) simple test for both sides which can show who is right and who is not:

I challenge both sides to form party of their choosing and do as many Fractals as they want and record and present any run they wish (I assume they would want to show fastest run, but who knows). However, there are some rules.

1. “Berserker meta” party should obviously use only berserker builds. “Berserker meta” party cannot have Necromancers or Rangers in it.

2. “Anti berserker meta” party must have at least one Necromancer and/or Ranger (preferably 1 of each). “Anti berserker meta” party can use any set up they want (even if it is full berserker since the “berserker meta” excludes Necromancer and Rangers), however, for sake of everyone I hope they will use more diverse build setup.

3. They will agree on number of maps and which maps they will test so that certain mechanics don’t affect one type of builds. I suggest that each team suggests 2 maps which means they will have to test between 2 and 4 maps (preferably 2). At the end they must show best run for each map.

If they agree on it, they can select only 1 map of course.

4. Build changing is allowed but as long as it doesn’t affect type of the build in which the Fractal started (no changing power to condition or hybrid damage build for example).

5. Since the point of meta in general is to present ways to do things in most efficient way, each video must show run from the moment teams are in until the moment last boss is dead. This is to account for build changing, since spending time to change build before encounter is not really efficient and goes against the very idea of meta setup.

You can both keep presenting your calculations, but I don’t think average Joe will understand half of it. However, I do think that this is situation that needs a closure because meta has divided community and created toxicity and that is a FACT. Now let’s see if it was justified or it was just BS created by certain minority which majority accepted without asking questions.

I think there is one undeniable way to establish who is right here. On one side we have group of people claiming that (berserker) meta is the only way to be efficient at high level Fractals, while on the other hand we have Nemesis (there are more people for sure, but he stands out) who claims that (berserker) meta is a lie and that it was Icebow meta.

Now, here is (more or less) simple test for both sides which can show who is right and who is not:

I challenge both sides to form party of their choosing and do as many Fractals as they want and record and present any run they wish (I assume they would want to show fastest run, but who knows). However, there are some rules.

1. “Berserker meta” party should obviously use only berserker builds. “Berserker meta” party cannot have Necromancers or Rangers in it.

2. “Anti berserker meta” party must have at least one Necromancer and/or Ranger (preferably 1 of each). “Anti berserker meta” party can use any set up they want (even if it is full berserker since the “berserker meta” excludes Necromancer and Rangers), however, for sake of everyone I hope they will use more diverse build setup.

3. They will agree on number of maps and which maps they will test so that certain mechanics don’t affect one type of builds. I suggest that each team suggests 2 maps which means they will have to test between 2 and 4 maps (preferably 2). At the end they must show best run for each map.

If they agree on it, they can select only 1 map of course.

4. Build changing is allowed but as long as it doesn’t affect type of the build in which the Fractal started (no changing power to condition or hybrid damage build for example).

5. Since the point of meta in general is to present ways to do things in most efficient way, each video must show run from the moment teams are in until the moment last boss is dead. This is to account for build changing, since spending time to change build before encounter is not really efficient and goes against the very idea of meta setup.

You can both keep presenting your calculations, but I don’t think average Joe will understand half of it. However, I do think that this is situation that needs a closure because meta has divided community and created toxicity and that is a FACT. Now let’s see if it was justified or it was just BS created by certain minority which majority accepted without asking questions.

P.S. I will create separate topic with this just so it gets more attention. I hope you won’t mind.

Ok, so let me tell you a story (it is on topic I promise). And for the record, I am not calling anyone a monkey, monkeys are just part of the story and nothing more than that.

You take large cage and put 5 monkeys in it and in that cage you also make stairs with hanging banana on top. So of course monkeys will immediately go for the banana, but the trick is to splash them with cold water when they try to do that. But, further more, the trick is that even if just 1 reaches for the banana, you splash all 5 monkeys anyway.

So, they will probably try to go for the banana few times, but in time they will realize that reaching for the banana = cold water splash no matter who goes for it and eventually they learn that going for banana is a bad thing for all.

Ok, so now you take 1 monkey out of the cage and put totally new monkey in the cage. New monkey will of course immediately go for the banana. But what happens now is that 4 “old” monkeys will jump on him to stop him. Since he won’t understand what is going on he will keep trying to go for it and they will keep stopping him by using any means necessary. Eventually, after a lot of beatings, “new” monkey will learn that reaching for the banana is a no no. Pay attention that by now you don;t even need cold water to make a point.

Now, imagine that in time, 1 by 1, you replace all 5 “old” monkeys with totally new monkeys. Eventually you will have group of monkeys beating any new monkey going for the banana, but none of them will know why they are doing that. All they know is that “it is how things there are being done since forever” and they acquire it as normal behavior.

Now you understand why no video will change people’s acquired behavior no matter how hard you try because you will never change opinion of the entire community with 1,2,3…10 videos. Not because videos necessarily suck, but because people are people. Until metabattle lists necro as meta for PvE, old monkeys will keep beating new monkeys going for that banana.

So, I have calculated my average play time and it is less than 2.5h per day (who knows how much of AFK time is in it) and I have 4 ascended sets.

You should edit build since it has no traits.

I don’t use Vampirism runes but I heard they tend to kick you out of Death Shroud which is annoying and can kill you when you are no way near death.

I used to run Air and Fire on both weapons but recently I changed Air to somethign else (testing few sigils) and some combination I find to work better overall (less damage but more some other things).

Anyway, make the build complete for full evaluation.

I will also reply here instead of creating new thread which just makes things harder to keep in line for people to read.

My issues with Reaper are:

1. Greatsword actually worked well in PvE for me. I can’t say I would have anything to change or add. Fighting larger number of mobs even puts GS in front of dagger in my opinion because it has the damage but also it has high utility thanks to skills 4 and 5.

However in PvP and WvW GS is completely useless or maybe not useless but really poor choice. I wrote after BWE1 that the problem with GS is not the damage. You can make GS one hit anyone, but I would still not use it due to how slow it is and how hard it is to land those hits. So again I repeat increasing damage on GS will not make it more fun to play or better option in PvP and WvW because this is dynamic game where slow things are just BAD.

Oh and I must add that skill 5 is bugged. in 50% of times it didn’t activate at all, even though I went berserk pressing the button (and yes, I am sure target was in front of me and in range). Just to be clear, I am not talking about it not pulling anyone because I was blinded or interrupted or enemy dodged. In one occasion I had enemy cleaving me face to face and I started pressing 5 to cc him and it never went on cooldown at all and he was right there in front of me. If he had stability or ANYTHING it would not pull him but it should be on cooldown.

2. Reaper Shroud is awesome but I still feel it drains faster than Death Shroud. I also started to think it is due to a fact you are cleaving more so you are under more damage, but in PvP it’s 5 ppl one way or the other, in 1 v1 situation you take same damage no matter if you are in RS or DS. I didn’t test so I can come forward with numbers (because I usually don’t have a lot of time so I wanted to play the game instead of playing with numbers) but it is just personal impression that I can’t shake off since last beta weekend no matter how many times I tried to find reasonable explanations for it.

Maybe it degrades faster as it is made that way in code, maybe skills cost more LF (just speculating), maybe Vital Persistence is not working as intended…I can’t tell for sure, but it just feels that the issue is there.

3. Shouts are better than before but still I would not take them over the wells, or spectrals, or some signets, so I am not sure in which build they would fit as preferred option.

The issue is that their damage is low. It is very situational whether you will get that cooldown reduction or not (making them bad choice especially in PvP or any small scale fights). Also, choice between Augury of Death and Relentless Pursuit somehow always goes in favor of Relentless Pursuit so it is another thing that discourages you to go for shouts.

Apart from low damage there is also cast time (with some, especially elite shout which is the only one I can say I regret not being able to use it as viable option since without the trait 120s CD is just too long for such short effect). As if that wasn’t enough benefits you get through condi transfer and especially with boon gain are so weak because they end before you notice them. They just don’t feel like they are worth taking in almost any scenario.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I heard before that with HoT there will be new runes and sigils in game. Since HoT is less than 2 months away and we only have 2 more beta weekends to test and give our feedback on balance and similar, when are we getting info about those new runes and sigils? Don’t you think they should be tested too or otherwise everything we test can be broken by those once they come in game?

Maybe I misunderstood something or they gave up on that idea, but I was just curious what was happening with those.

These are some excellent changes! I am really happy to see how much our feedback was important to Robert and how he really listened to us and what we want.

However I still think there are few issues to consider. Speaking as mostly WvW player, with Reaper becoming melee profession, my biggest concern is dropping too much damage for survivability. I think we can all agree that Reaper can hardly go into melee train with zerker equipment and necro’s damage is the only thing that was making it viable for WvW. I think we need more defense through Reaper Shroud/Traits so we don’t have to sacrifice too much to be just able to survive.

I don’t think I am asking much because necro has really low group contribution, so unless its damage is over the roof, why take it over warrior for example? Losing damage makes the only thing necro was good at not exist anymore.

P.S. Just to be clear, I am not saying Reapers should keep same damage as backline necros with zerker spec and have improved defense at the same time. I am just saying don’t let us sacrifice too much damage.

Sigmoid.7082:

You would receive a message saying immune.

This! Thank you! I get it now…