Obtena, what you are not realizing is that all classes should be within reasonable range of each other in terms of efficiency and that there should be enough playroom while still being close enough to the optimal option.
Yes, that’s correct and that’s exactly why we see the changes we got in this patch … because there were a few classes that stood out from others, being picked because of specific skills that gave extreme results.
I don’t follow that logic. By definition, the optimized solution is easy/fast. How does achieving fast/easy though optimization, which results in non-diversity make it a problem? Players have a choice to decide if that’s how they want to play. So if players can choose to play optimal vs. diverse … where does the problem lie? That you don’t have diversity AND optimal solution? If it’s the problem you’re talking about, it’s here to stay because it’s an insurmountable task to ensure numerous, optimal solutions to raids given the number of combinations of builds and classes available.
We want diversity within a reasonable margin of optimal solution.
How can you claim we didn’t get that? Why is that even relevant? how is that even a quantifiable statement? It’s not.
Look, arguments about how your damage changed are irrelevant … because I’m pretty sure that’s one of the motivating factors in why Anet introduced these changes. I mean, just spiking everyones damage to burst a raid boss with an extended duration of buffs … it’s safe to say that was not part of Anet’s plan and clear how chrono/rev nerfs address that.
it’s ludicrious to think we have less diversity than we did before … it’s worth mentioning again … this is the same nonsense we had with metapushers in dungeons. You didn’t need to run meta in dungeons to be successful, EVER and there is no reason to QQ about dead raid diversity because you don’t need 2 chronos to give everyone buffs to be successful either.
There was a lesson from dungeons and Anet is applying it here. People are being really insincere here … choosing to run specific classes when you don’t need to does not mean Anet killed diversity in raiding. That’s just crazy.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
SNIP
The manner of your typing is what’s pedantic. You say 10 words in 10 sentences. Brevity=soul of wit, blabla.
I don’t think people are being ‘non-brevious’ to avoid being witty. It’s not clear to people how you come to your conclusion about diversity dying … because of class equalizations. Diversity dies when people only want specific classes, which is what was happening due to OP’ed combos of effects. Anet reversed that … diversity should AT LEAST stay the same.
It doesn’t rly tbh because of how OP quickness is, and all other boons tbh. Not taking the buff classes (warr, druid, chrono) puts you at a severe disadvantage. It’s very much worth stacking them. So by nerfing chrono all they did was giving them an extra spot on a raid group.
No, I’m actually correct because you don’t need a Chrono to stack quickness on 10 players to be successful in raids begin with … Quickness being OPed doesn’t mean you need it for success, so yes, you can raid without it successfully and have a diverse team.
This is the same, incorrect mentality that meta lovers forced on players for dungeons … people didn’t need to play only meta builds to complete dungeon content either.
Aye but dungeons were easy. Believe it or not, raiding with pugs is actually quite the challenge. I for one, don’t believe that a no quickness pug raid will have much success, unless you’re planning to spend 2h on a single boss fight.
IDK if you’re overestimating raiders by looking at qT/DnT vids or underestimating the effect quickness has, but for real, you’re making it sooooooo much more difficult not bringing quickness. You’re pretty much always gonna hit enrage.
That doesn’t change the fact that quickness is not a requirement to complete a raid, so I’m not wrong.
I think the main takeaway is that being non-diverse looks to be optimal and the easiest way to complete the fight. That, imo, is a problem.
I don’t follow that logic. By definition, the optimized solution is easy/fast. How does achieving fast/easy though optimization, which results in non-diversity make it a problem? Players have a choice to decide if that’s how they want to play. So what part is actually the problem?
The optimized = non-diverse isn’t something that can be changed. If it’s a problem, it’s here to stay.
Only it was pre-patch.
Really? Do you want to elaborate because frankly, I don’t know what your referring to.
What is the ‘it’ that was pre-patch?
And if players could use all weapons then they’d be limited by the number of weapon types. There will always be a limitation. That said, the existing system provides numerous possibilities for builds with some being better than others.
The healing/elite skills are just one skill. Hardly build breaking.
None of what you mentioned hinders build variety to a degree that a player cannot have multiple build options. There is no reason why GW2 must do what was done in GW1 for the build system. I also seem to remember there being certain meta builds that people felt required for specific content. Sounds kind of familiar…
You’re just defending the point that it should stay as it is right now. But you can’t deny that there could be more. More variety. Is there any reason why they shouldn’t change it?
Because if they decide to put resources to change that, they are deciding to not do or delay something else.
At this point we are 4 years in, if people have a problem with a fundamental design decision that results in the game that has builds that are optimal in damage for certain situations, it’s time for you to just move on and accept that it’s not a game you will enjoy playing if this is a deal breaker for you. It’s not like changing a skill or a number.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Here is some reality … it’s more about making something happen for yourself than luck. I have yet to find a time where I couldn’t go into HoT, find some people doing activities I needed to do and join them … or someone asking for help and I do that for them. If I put just a bit more effort, it wasn’t hard to co-operate with them to get specific things I wanted to get done as well.
Perhaps that was a bit harsh. I think the difference is; the people that know how to navigate an MMO … then everyone else that thinks it’s a Single Player RPG with other people around.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I won’t critisize the style … that’s a personal issue but it leaves little to someone who likes the simpler, less imposing look … I was hoping that legendary armor would be more effects driven, like the flying bats and snowflakes we have. Instead we got Transformers.
Mesmers use a GS and are in range…bye
That doesn’t change what I said … you know what a GS Mesmers attacks are and skilled PVPer’s use that as information to know how to fight one.
Under your scheme, I can literally be attacked by any class with any weapon skin and any weapon skill. This removes the part of the skill in PVPing. That’s a huge flaw in your proposal that you aren’t addressing. Based on your terse, dismissive reply to my concern, you won’t be either, which is why your idea won’t be taken seriously by anyone.
You still haven’t answered my question: What problem are you trying to fix? oh and of course … bye
(edited by Obtena.7952)
What’s the problem you’re trying to fix?
Personally, I don’t think it makes any sense to choose a weapon independent of weapons skills. I mean, this does have practical implications for competitive parts of the game to … I see a guy with a sword standing at range … and he’s pummeling me with ranged attacks … WTH?
SNIP
The manner of your typing is what’s pedantic. You say 10 words in 10 sentences. Brevity=soul of wit, blabla.
I don’t think people are being ‘non-brevious’ to avoid being witty. It’s not clear to people how you come to your conclusion about diversity dying … because of class equalizations. Diversity dies when people only want specific classes, which is what was happening due to OP’ed combos of effects. Anet reversed that … diversity should AT LEAST stay the same.
It doesn’t rly tbh because of how OP quickness is, and all other boons tbh. Not taking the buff classes (warr, druid, chrono) puts you at a severe disadvantage. It’s very much worth stacking them. So by nerfing chrono all they did was giving them an extra spot on a raid group.
No, I’m actually correct because you don’t need a Chrono to stack quickness on 10 players to be successful in raids begin with … Quickness being OPed doesn’t mean you need it for success, so yes, you can raid without it successfully and have a diverse team.
This is the same, incorrect mentality that meta lovers forced on players for dungeons … people didn’t need to play only meta builds to complete dungeon content either.
Aye but dungeons were easy. Believe it or not, raiding with pugs is actually quite the challenge. I for one, don’t believe that a no quickness pug raid will have much success, unless you’re planning to spend 2h on a single boss fight.
IDK if you’re overestimating raiders by looking at qT/DnT vids or underestimating the effect quickness has, but for real, you’re making it sooooooo much more difficult not bringing quickness. You’re pretty much always gonna hit enrage.
That doesn’t change the fact that quickness is not a requirement to complete a raid, so I’m not wrong.
I think the main takeaway is that being non-diverse looks to be optimal and the easiest way to complete the fight. That, imo, is a problem.
I don’t follow that logic. By definition, the optimized solution is easy/fast. How does achieving fast/easy though optimization, which results in non-diversity make it a problem? Players have a choice to decide if that’s how they want to play. So if players can choose to play optimal vs. diverse … where does the problem lie? That you don’t have diversity AND optimal solution? If it’s the problem you’re talking about, it’s here to stay because it’s an insurmountable task to ensure numerous, optimal solutions to raids given the number of combinations of builds and classes available.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Strawman or not … that’s tough news. Anyone that doesn’t actually anticipate that old maps and content become old news in an MMO is fooling themselves … and to complain about it? I mean, why don’t I join an MMO after 4 years and QQ i’m behind everyone … oh that’s right … because that would be nonsense. OFC you’re behind and having a hard time completing things. That’s no surprise to anyone who has played MMO’s.
Let’s review this again … WHAT are you paying for in an MMO … access to a service. There is no guarantee you ‘win’ or can ‘catch up’. OP is over a year behind on an expansion … does any reasonable player here actually think there is something weird about his situation? I don’t. That doesn’t make HoT terribly designed at all. IMO, that’s what makes GW2 an MMO. I guess people forgot what that means, for better or worse.
My recommendation, better make some friend that want to help you … or you to help them.
The problem is not that the maps are getting old and less played,it’s that they shove grouping down your throat everywhere,and they don’t downscale enough to compensate for lower population.
It’s failed design from top to bottom.
Gee … Content you group for .. IN AN MMO of all games??!?! … how unreasonable!!! :/
SNIP
The manner of your typing is what’s pedantic. You say 10 words in 10 sentences. Brevity=soul of wit, blabla.
I don’t think people are being ‘non-brevious’ to avoid being witty. It’s not clear to people how you come to your conclusion about diversity dying … because of class equalizations. Diversity dies when people only want specific classes, which is what was happening due to OP’ed combos of effects. Anet reversed that … diversity should AT LEAST stay the same.
It doesn’t rly tbh because of how OP quickness is, and all other boons tbh. Not taking the buff classes (warr, druid, chrono) puts you at a severe disadvantage. It’s very much worth stacking them. So by nerfing chrono all they did was giving them an extra spot on a raid group.
No, I’m actually correct because you don’t need a Chrono to stack quickness on 10 players to be successful in raids begin with … Quickness being OPed doesn’t mean you need it for success, so yes, you can raid without it successfully and have a diverse team.
This is the same, incorrect mentality that meta lovers forced on players for dungeons … people didn’t need to play only meta builds to complete dungeon content either.
Aye but dungeons were easy. Believe it or not, raiding with pugs is actually quite the challenge. I for one, don’t believe that a no quickness pug raid will have much success, unless you’re planning to spend 2h on a single boss fight.
IDK if you’re overestimating raiders by looking at qT/DnT vids or underestimating the effect quickness has, but for real, you’re making it sooooooo much more difficult not bringing quickness. You’re pretty much always gonna hit enrage.
That doesn’t change the fact that quickness is not a requirement to complete a raid, so I’m not wrong.
SNIP
The manner of your typing is what’s pedantic. You say 10 words in 10 sentences. Brevity=soul of wit, blabla.
I don’t think people are being ‘non-brevious’ to avoid being witty. It’s not clear to people how you come to your conclusion about diversity dying … because of class equalizations. Diversity dies when people only want specific classes, which is what was happening due to OP’ed combos of effects. Anet reversed that … diversity should AT LEAST stay the same.
It doesn’t rly tbh because of how OP quickness is, and all other boons tbh. Not taking the buff classes (warr, druid, chrono) puts you at a severe disadvantage. It’s very much worth stacking them. So by nerfing chrono all they did was giving them an extra spot on a raid group.
No, I’m actually correct because you don’t need a Chrono to stack quickness on 10 players to be successful in raids begin with … Quickness being OPed doesn’t mean you need it for success, so yes, you can raid without it successfully and have a diverse team.
This is the same, incorrect mentality that meta lovers forced on players for dungeons … people didn’t need to play only meta builds to complete dungeon content either.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
OMg I almost thought you were going to suggest mounts after reading the first sentence!
I don’t mind your suggestion, though I think it opens the door to powerleveling, which I would believe is unintended.
Axe will never compete with the highest DPS power builds you can get on a Necro, simply because it’s part of that lost child class of weapons that do midrange damage. It’s the same for Axe on Ranger. Sort of good, but not the best, not the worst. So no, I don’t think it will replace dagger or GS.
That being said, It becomes an even more compelling weapon to support DPS builds … I am enjoying the noticeably more damage the axe does and the boost I get on my reaper build having it as my chosen ranged weapon.
You mean brings it inline….
Inline with what?
With the idea that stats matter … oh pardon me, a correction is in order .. that stats matter for ALL aspects of a characters abilities, not just damage.
This thread will keep going because people will argue they like it and therefore try to create a reason to use it.
That’s true, because people liking a weapon, regardless of the motivation, is a valid reason to use it. As far as this thread is concerned, people have reasons to use the sword, even if it’s not a top performance weapon.
OKay fair point. But then the argument changes as to whether or not that is okay for us as a community to condone such game elements.
If it is okay to have primary weapons traited and stat’d for the sake of likability rather than usefulness.
If it is okay for 1 class to be less or more effective than another because it is more likeable than the other. The argument just continues to expand outward from there….
I don’t even think these questions make sense in the first place. How are you going to have a game with different things and reasonably expect ALL of those things to be all at the same level of effectiveness in the first place? It’s unrealistic. There is no link between how much a class is liked and how effective it is, so questioning that is confusing.
Frankly, if your concern is effectiveness, then this approach to game design accommodates you as well, because you have the choice to play the things you believe to be the most effective and ignore the ones that aren’t.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
In otherwords, it’s a really nice spin on saying “we aren’t giving you good damage AND healing, now you have to choose stats to decide where you are on that spectrum”. I don’t really see a problem with that …
I do.
You can’t really deal damage in CAF (which is the main healing source) unless you want to suicide. It roots you in place if you do.So now we are forced into healing power exclusively because if we don’t, our whole traitline that made us competitive is absolutely counter-productive and useless – in which case we might as well want to play the core ranger that is super bad. And anyone will tell you that.
I personally would not be okay with that.
I won’t discuss specifics, mainly because he have none from Anet ATM
… but currently, if your specing for Druid, your intention is to heal in a raid. now you are talking about being forced into heal power to heal in raids. If your primary role is to heal, regardless of how you gear to get it, then what is the concern for how good your damage is?
You are right, the difference might be damage, we won’t know until they change it, but why is that so unreasonable if the expectation is that you are there to heal anyways? I mean, the thinking that you’re going to be primary healer and complain about damage … that’s backwards.
As far as I’m concerned, this is exactly why it’s happening … You’re not OK with having your stats impact your healing? Funny … everyone has NO problem with stats impacting damage. It’s a double standard.
Healing in a raid has never been the reason I specced intro druid. I’m guessing you are primarily a pve player. Maybe that’s why you don’t understand what a bad idea this is for pvp/wvw.
It’s a bad idea for pvp/wvw? Maybe, but I don’t see what that has to do with the thread anyways … The OP isn’t talking about pvp/Wvw and neither was I.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
SNIP
The manner of your typing is what’s pedantic. You say 10 words in 10 sentences. Brevity=soul of wit, blabla.
I don’t think people are being ‘non-brevious’ to avoid being witty. It’s not clear to people how you come to your conclusion about diversity dying … because of class equalizations. Diversity dies when people only want specific classes, which is what was happening due to OP’ed combos of effects. Anet reversed that … diversity should AT LEAST stay the same.
[pedantry intensifies]
Running into a raid with 10 engineers should not work for obvious reasons.
Actually, it’s not obvious … if you’re an advocate for diversity like your thread title indicates, why shouldn’t you be able to run a raid with 10 engineers? That would indicate a huge level of diversity IMO … with the ability of any specific profession filling many roles adequately. I can’t think of a more diverse situation than having many professions having the ability to choose the role they want to fill in a raid. I think the changes actually go a long way from pigeonholing any specific profession into a specific role. If the changes make the given professions less desirable, then they are equalized among their peers. That is a positive move to diversity.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Again … another patch change confirming Guardian’s position in the profession hierarchy. You can’t ignore Anet’s desire to regard Guardian as a baseline profession. How can we expect grand changes on SW’s and the like if that’s where we sit?
This thread will keep going because people will argue they like it and therefore try to create a reason to use it.
That’s true, because people liking a weapon, regardless of the motivation, is a valid reason to use it. As far as this thread is concerned, people have reasons to use the sword, even if it’s not a top performance weapon.
We were taking about the mechanic which you called unintended. If this were the case they might as well just remove the mechanic itself. But they don’t want to. I guess you are just not willing to make any distinctions in how the boons are provided.
As I said, we obviously got different points of view here. Not going to argue any further.
There is no reason to remove Boon sharing and Duration increasing mechanics just because of a few skills that boost them beyond what Anet thinks is inappropriate … so no, even in the case where some combinations of mechanics give unintended effects, they don’t need to remove any mechanics to fix that. Simply reducing the skills effects themselves will be enough to remedy this.
Same goes for you Obtena, you haven’t given me anything, yet you still blatantly lie on other class forums on how mesmer needs to be toned down. Shame.
Well, let me help you out a bit, since you asked so nicely by calling me a liar …
I have already given you a hint about how you can do exactly that in a previous post. This isn’t an MMO for no reason. If you struggle with some part of the game, it’s not out of the question that you get people to help you out. As I’ve already said, that’s not just a glib answer to ignoring what you think is a problem, it’s a strategy that people employ to get things done in MMO’s all the time. It’s not Anet’s concern to fix the game for you if you want to play it like a Single player RPG … I know, I know, it’s supposed to be a ‘personal’ story right? You’re supposed to be able to complete ‘personal’ stories on your own yes? The fact is that there is no accounting for how well people play with what builds and classes, unless you are suggesting that Anet dumb down all content in the personal story based on the lowest common denominator for class, skill and build. That’s not unreasonable either .. there are a few story instances where it’s hard if not impossible to get the achievements without help, so my question here is what makes whatever particular instance you’re talking about so special that it requires a buff to the class when previously hard instances did not?
If the game’s ideology is every man for himself, then I can see EXACTLY why they want to limit boon sharing and duration increases, regardless of the game element being played.
If they want to take away rolls and function that define a class, they should normalize all damage coefficient too so every classes do similar dps, not some classes doing twice the damage of others.
Then we can say that people should depend on himself.
Maybe they should … I guess it’s a good topic to make a thread and have a discussion about. Personally, I think that’s a sensational statement though; Anet isn’t removing any roles here, they are just changing the way heal values are affected by stats and gear.
… and? That seems very much inline with the ideology you speak of as well. So far, I think this every man for themselves ideology isn’t helping your argument.
If the game’s ideology is every man for himself, then I can see EXACTLY why they want to limit boon sharing and duration increases, regardless of the game element being played.
…
As far as I’m concerned, this is exactly why it’s happening … You’re not OK with having your stats impact your healing? Funny … everyone has NO problem with stats impacting damage. It’s a double standard.
This here is wrong.
Our heals have already been adjusted to meet this standard. You cannot sustain a raid without any healing power and if you try you loose DPS because of it – because you spend too much time healing something that could have gone from 10% to 100% in 2 seconds.
I don’t see anything in that assessment that tells me there is something wrong with Anet’s upcoming changes because Anet hasn’t put the changes in place yet. I’m not even sure it’s clear to you what Anet is proposing to do because it sounds to me that if you already stack healing power, the way Anet describes it, the change should be almost transparent to you anyways.
In addition, you can throw away the ‘In a game where everyone is responsible for their own footing’ statement for raids … you already know that’s not how raids were designed.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Non Raiders blocked from XP bar spirit shards
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: Obtena.7952
Hey, at least they gave you the things you asked for to have dungeons made properly … you’re just going to have to remember you’re playing an MMO to do it.
In otherwords, it’s a really nice spin on saying “we aren’t giving you good damage AND healing, now you have to choose stats to decide where you are on that spectrum”. I don’t really see a problem with that …
I do.
You can’t really deal damage in CAF (which is the main healing source) unless you want to suicide. It roots you in place if you do.So now we are forced into healing power exclusively because if we don’t, our whole traitline that made us competitive is absolutely counter-productive and useless – in which case we might as well want to play the core ranger that is super bad. And anyone will tell you that.
I personally would not be okay with that.
I won’t discuss specifics, mainly because he have none from Anet ATM
… but currently, if your specing for Druid, your intention is to heal in a raid. now you are talking about being forced into heal power to heal in raids. If your primary role is to heal, regardless of how you gear to get it, then what is the concern for how good your damage is?
You are right, the difference might be damage, we won’t know until they change it, but why is that so unreasonable if the expectation is that you are there to heal anyways? I mean, the thinking that you’re going to be primary healer and complain about damage … that’s backwards.
As far as I’m concerned, this is exactly why it’s happening … You’re not OK with having your stats impact your healing? Funny … everyone has NO problem with stats impacting damage. It’s a double standard.
That’s amusing to say the least … What is so ‘right’ about possessing tools with unintended effects? I can assure you that right or wrong, the second any dev in any game sees something they don’t want happening, it’s getting fixed. If right or wrong is based on the dev’s idea of what is intended or not … I would say this is a pretty ‘right’ thing to do.
They did not say SoI got an unintended effect nor that it had an unintended mechanic. That’s something you have been bringing up. They simply stated that they are adjusting boon duration and application for certain classes.
Right … they are just nerfing excessive boon sharing and duration because they LOVE those features being in the game … gotcha!
I think that’s exactly what makes SoI a good target … it’s a niche tool for a class that isn’t particularly well supported for boon distribution in the first place. I’m not sure why it would annoy people to have a nerf on a tool with a poorly supported game mechanic. It’s junk like this that make the tool and not the class, the desirable feature. That’s not a healthy approach for a class to have.
SoI isn’t a good target and it’s not the right target. It’s an easy and convenient target.
Being niche or unique doesn’t mean it is a poorly supported game mechanic.
Easy and Convenient might be what Anet are after. and no, I didn’t say boon sharing was a poorly supported game mechanic, I was agreeing with the poster I was replying to that Mesmers don’t apply boons well in the first place. Perhaps that wasn’t clear, but that’s what my meaning was.
No it’s not the whole fix to the problem, but that’s not really what we are talking about here anyways. […] Saying that this single change won’t fix the whole problem, so it shouldn’t happen is tunnel vision.
Actually, that’s exactly the point. SoI just is a pawn being sacrificed. Why would we want to lose an interesting mechanic even though it doesn’t solve the issue?
Solve what issue though… can you definitely tell us why it doesn’t solve the issue if we don’t know what it is? Let me take this a step further … if we can assume from the communication that Anet doesn’t like the amount of sharing and duration for boons currently in the game, how can anyone logically argue that changing SoI doesn’t make sense? How does reducing its active effect not address some of the ‘Mesmers share’ of the entire boon sharing problem? It absolutely does.
This is the point where I remind you that players aren’t some group that Anet needs to consult with to change the game to make sure they ‘get it right’. They don’t need to state the actual problem that needs to be addressed because they have their approach and they are following it; it’s not a requirement that players agree and understand it.
No, they don’t. But that doesn’t make them right. And it doesn’t make you right.
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to discuss the teased changes and (dis)approve.
That’s amusing to say the least … What is so ‘right’ about possessing tools with unintended effects? I can assure you that right or wrong, the second any dev in any game sees something they don’t want happening, it’s getting fixed. If right or wrong is based on the dev’s idea of what is intended or not … I would say this is a pretty ‘right’ thing to do.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I won’t disagree that there are situations where mace works or that there is always some kind of QoL change that could be made. We might disagree on certain specifics, but the real debate here is if Anet needs to buff mace, simply because it was ‘left behind’. I think not, because if the goal is to make it ‘top hat’ again, then anyone can use ‘left behind’ ad infinitum every time another weapon gets made top hat. That’s no way to think or act as a game dev.
QoL buffs are a different discussion entirely; it’s not what the OP was referring to.
This is the point where I remind you that players aren’t some group that Anet needs to consult with to change the game to make sure they ‘get it right’. They don’t need to state the actual problem that needs to be addressed because they have their approach and they are following it; it’s not a requirement that players agree and understand it. Their really wouldn’t be any point to giving us a problem statement because they aren’t looking for our feedback on how it should be fixed anyways. It’s a typical consumer relationship.
Putting that aside, I don’t think this is as complex as you are trying to make it. You don’t actually need some problem statement to see what’s going on here. What reason would Anet have to nerf boon duration and sharing? Answer: because they think there is too much boon duration and sharing. People always want to make up some complex reason so they can argue Anet’s solution is wrong. Reality is that it really isn’t that hard to infer what’s going on here.
you are ignoring all the OTHER things that the game is as well to make that point and even disprove or diminish your point; i.e., you are cherrypicking. That’s not an honest approach to having a discussion with people.
How can it be cherrypicking if I make a point of saying that it is more than just a platformer, going on to list some of the many other things that the game is as well?
Outright lying is not an honest approach to having a discussion with people.
Just because you list other things the game does doesn’t mean you’re looking at the game as a whole when you make arguments that choose a specific aspect of it, ignoring the rest. Funny you try to make that seem like that’s a lie somehow.
and yes, GW2 is a platforming game.
GW2 is as much a platforming game as it is a chat room, or a way to wear out your mouse, or a way to create pretty wallpaper for your computer.
Point is, the game is more than the sum of it’s parts. If you want to be selective and say it’s a platformer to prove your point, then you are ignoring all the OTHER things that the game is as well to make that point and even disprove or diminish your point; i.e., you are cherrypicking. That’s not an honest approach to having a discussion with people.
No it’s not the whole fix to the problem, but that’s not really what we are talking about here anyways. We only can go by what we have been told so there isn’t any point to assume Anet is attempting to fix the whole problem of boon distribution and duration by just changing only two skills in the game. That would be silly.
I think we can anticipate a number of changes that give access to easy boons and durations over a significant number of players, based on the information we got from this communication. Saying that this single change won’t fix the whole problem, so it shouldn’t happen is tunnel vision.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
that fact that players do not go to HOT to play a platformer is fact, not opinion.
So you somehow have evidence that all players do not go to HoT to play a platformer? Or maybe you meant “some players” – how many? How did you get this evidence?
Facts are based on evidence.
Here is one datapoint …. I don’t play HoT to experience a platformer … I don’t think i’m unique in that regard either.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that people don’t log into MMO’s and expect to have a platformer experience … not sure what evidence you are looking for other than if you want a platformer game, you can buy one wihtout the MMO experience.
That statement isn’t unreasonable though, even without the ‘evidence’ you are asking for … what kind of person buys an MMO expansion hoping to get a platformer experience? Obviously someone that has no clue what MMO’s are about. So if you excluded those ‘special’ kinds of people from the discussion, that statement makes lots of sense to me.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I don’t care about whatever label you want to give it, but clearly, Anet thinks getting tons of boons and having them last excessive amounts of time is unintended, hence they fix they are going to make.
This is true. The question is how to actually solve the issue in a reasonable way.
What ever you want to label that as, it still makes no sense to want to hold on tools that relate to unintended effects in the game, then on the other hand cry that the class is hard done by because of ‘no damage’ or ‘too hard to play.’ I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the cycle where a class gets the fixes on broken tools before any dev would consider building it back up. Stacking good fixes on broken tools simply isn’t an option.
It might indeed be a moot point to discuss why SoI should stay the way it is and Facet of Nature has to go just because SoI has been there first. This doesn’t change the fact, though, that SoI is worthless if there are no long duration boons. Changing SoI is an easy fix for WvW. But it doesn’t change the integral underlying issue. SoI isn’t broken. Boon generation is.
The reason why many Mesmers are so annoyed is because we can’t apply boons too well to begin with. SoI gave us a niche and a unique mechanic to provide boons. And it will be taken away.
So far we don’t know if the damage compensation which is being advertised might make up for it. Maybe it will, which would be a nice change for Mesmers which objectively have been at the bottom of the food change in most game modes longer than most other classes during the lifetime of GW2 so far. But it doesn’t change the fact that we will lose something unique to us. And personally, I’m not too optimistic taking the last few class balance patches and the current – I’ll use this term losely – class balance ‘speed’ into consideration.
I think that’s exactly what makes SoI a good target … it’s a niche tool for a class that isn’t particularly well supported for boon distribution in the first place. I’m not sure why it would annoy people to have a nerf on a tool with a poorly supported game mechanic. It’s junk like this that make the tool and not the class, the desirable feature. That’s not a healthy approach for a class to have.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
HoT being a power creep was their strategy to make them money? Wow, there is some overtime conspiracy theory going on there … I won’t bother to ask you for how you arrived at that conclusion.
Nerfing base healing is related to game balance if your goal is to make healing in your groups more dependent on gear of the healers instead of the classes that group is made up of. If that’s not clear to you, well, I will leave you to figure that out in your own cesspool of vitriol yourself.
……You don’t think the purpose of an expansion is for a company to make money?
That’s not what I said now is it? I’m challenging the ridiculous statement you made about how power creep was introduced in HoT to make money. I’m pretty sure HoT would have made money without power creep, probably more, since people abhor power creep anyways. It’s bad when you don’t understand other people, it’s even worse when you can’t even follow your own discussion.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
HoT being a power creep was their strategy to make them money? Wow, there is some overtime conspiracy theory going on there … I won’t bother to ask you for how you arrived at that conclusion.
Nerfing base healing is related to game balance if your goal is to make healing in your groups more dependent on gear of the healers instead of the classes that group is made up of. If that’s not clear to you, well, I will leave you to figure that out in your own cesspool of vitriol yourself.
I don’t think SoI is broken though. It only seems broken because of the ridiculously high durations you can get on boons before sharing them through facet of nature and all of the new ways to access boon duration in HoT.
… and you don’t think that synergy between giving boons on Mes and making them ridiculously duration on Rev is part of the reason Anet was specifically talking Rev and Mesmer changes in that communication?
I don’t care about whatever label you want to give it, but clearly, Anet thinks getting tons of boons and having them last excessive amounts of time is unintended, hence they fix they are going to make. What ever you want to label that as, it still makes no sense to want to hold on tools that relate to unintended effects in the game, then on the other hand cry that the class is hard done by because of ‘no damage’ or ‘too hard to play.’ I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the cycle where a class gets the fixes on broken tools before any dev would consider building it back up. Stacking good fixes on broken tools simply isn’t an option.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
You claim Anet doesn’t fixing things then? That’s exactly their motivation for making this healing change on Druid. Anet uses balance patches to ‘fix/change’ (whatever word you want to call it) all the time for all classes. You can sit there and argue semantics, but lying about Anet doesn’t do stuff because ‘work’ and when they do it ‘not fixes but changes’ is just nonsense.
I don’t see anything to be upset about here; Anet want gear stats to matter and when gear stats matter, options open up for players. I don’t see how anyone could argue that’s a bad thing unless they don’t care about game balance.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
In otherwords, it’s a really nice spin on saying “we aren’t giving you good damage AND healing, now you have to choose stats to decide where you are on that spectrum”. I don’t really see a problem with that …
Yeah except no matter how glassy we go we never really get good damage. If they want our healing to scale off our stats they should make our power scale more appropriately while they are at it. Otherwise why will anyone bother gearing for damage?
I don’t think that’s a compelling argument to be honest. It’s not about if you get good damage or not because we’ve had situations with classes having bad damage for 4 years now … it’s about putting druid on a sliding scale so they have choice in gear stats impacting their healing performance. Frankly, I don’t get why that’s a problem but apparently, Anet thinks it is. I believe it has more to do with the underlying team composition options than it does giving Druid stat choice.
If someone had the forethought to do so, they would measure current healing performance and compare to post fix healing performance …. you never know, druid healing performance may even increase.
Anet thinks it is because they have no clue how to balance their game and they react to complaints instead of paying attention to how things actually work.
I would have no problem with healing scaling off armor as long as we have other viable options.
Sigh … this is a tired bit of vitriol and not worth discussing. If that’s your belief, then you wouldn’t be here making a statement on the topic.
As to ‘viable options’, you can’t make that conclusion. You don’t know what balance has in store for the class. Like I said, you can’t even say this is a bad change yet, healing may actually increase.
I’m making that conclusion because that is what their history has shown us. They have very little interest in fixing the core problems with the class because it is to much work.
That ‘s untrue … Anet has revisited and changed core class skills in every balance patch we have had so far … so yeah, make up whatever facts you want to believe, but try not lie about things. Obviously if it’s too much work, they don’t mind doing it.
I get it, you don’t like what’s happening, but you’re just not credible if you’re going to lie about the history that your basing your arguments on.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
In otherwords, it’s a really nice spin on saying “we aren’t giving you good damage AND healing, now you have to choose stats to decide where you are on that spectrum”. I don’t really see a problem with that …
Yeah except no matter how glassy we go we never really get good damage. If they want our healing to scale off our stats they should make our power scale more appropriately while they are at it. Otherwise why will anyone bother gearing for damage?
I don’t think that’s a compelling argument to be honest. It’s not about if you get good damage or not because we’ve had situations with classes having bad damage for 4 years now … it’s about putting druid on a sliding scale so they have choice in gear stats impacting their healing performance. Frankly, I don’t get why that’s a problem but apparently, Anet thinks it is. I believe it has more to do with the underlying team composition options than it does giving Druid stat choice.
If someone had the forethought to do so, they would measure current healing performance and compare to post fix healing performance …. you never know, druid healing performance may even increase.
Anet thinks it is because they have no clue how to balance their game and they react to complaints instead of paying attention to how things actually work.
I would have no problem with healing scaling off armor as long as we have other viable options.
Sigh … this is a tired bit of vitriol and not worth discussing. If that’s your belief, then you wouldn’t be here making a statement on the topic.
As to ‘viable options’, you can’t make that conclusion. You don’t know what balance has in store for the class. Like I said, you can’t even say this is a bad change yet, healing may actually increase.
Pretty simple: You asked what the purpose of sword was if it doesn’t do ‘legit’ damage … it’s a weapon people can use if they want to. It has nothing to do with performance. Obviously there are way more reasons to include weapons for classes other than “do legit damage”, because there wouldn’t be classes like warriors with a dozen weapons to choose from if that was true.
Frankly, I think what is ‘legit’ damage is debatable in the first place,a s well as the fact that damage isn’t the only factor in choosing a weapon, depending on what element of the game you play. There is no reason for Anet to jump on every weapon to improve it every time meta changes or when a player thinks they see a deficiency.
Their are reasons to use sword; I use it because it stacks significant amounts of bleeds very fast. You say Warrior bleeds suck? I beg to differ. I can apply 8 stacks of them every 7 seconds just from regular Burst, not including what I get from traits and Sword AA.
Oh, okay I get it now. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you understood what I wrote. Then since there was still a misunderstanding, I assumed I was the one in error in my interpretation. But in reality the problem was very simple. The fact is you are not understanding what “I” am writing, and you are the one having a misunderstanding.
You get 8 stacks of bleeding with Sword f1? Ok great…..in the time you are sitting there channeling this move what do you think is happening? And you do realize that 8 stacks of bleeding could total up to mere hundreds of damage? How does 8 stacks of bleeding and a few hundred in power damage, from a 4 second channel, matchup against 4 seconds of hundred blades? The point of the thread was to ask questions like that…..I literally posted other comparisons just like this above.
And in terms of ur sword AA…..I’m really curious what bleed damage values you are getting! Maybe you can post ur build or a screenshot or makeup an imaginary number and post it here to educate me? That would be thrilling.
Oh you want an imaginary number … I have one: i
But seriously, I don’t get your complaint. Sword has a purpose and even if you don’t think it’s a good one, it fills it well. There isn’t a point to argue if 8 stacks is ‘good’ or not; the point is that if you are going to play condi warrior, your using sword and that’s a good enough reason for it to exist, even in the state its in. You might question the motivation to play that build, but that’s dependent on the player, not the game. You’re angle in this thread is performance and if performance was the only factor in making a choice on a build, you would be completely right, but it’s not so …
Wow impressive except 2 necros can stack around 90+ bleeds.
Wow … you compared the bleed stack from ONE warrior skill to the combined abilities of TWO necros to apply bleeds … what a completely valid comparison ><
(edited by Obtena.7952)
In otherwords, it’s a really nice spin on saying “we aren’t giving you good damage AND healing, now you have to choose stats to decide where you are on that spectrum”. I don’t really see a problem with that …
Yeah except no matter how glassy we go we never really get good damage. If they want our healing to scale off our stats they should make our power scale more appropriately while they are at it. Otherwise why will anyone bother gearing for damage?
I don’t think that’s a compelling argument to be honest. It’s not about if you get good damage or not because we’ve had situations with classes having bad damage for 4 years now … it’s about putting druid on a sliding scale so they have choice in gear stats impacting their healing performance. Frankly, I don’t get why that’s a problem but apparently, Anet thinks it is. I believe it has more to do with the underlying team composition options than it does giving Druid stat choice.
If someone had the forethought to do so, they would measure current healing performance and compare to post fix healing performance …. you never know, druid healing performance may even increase.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
That’s such a baseless opinion. The elements that resemble HoT as a ‘platformer’ game are such a small part of what HoT is, that it makes no sense to even think it was put there or would even mildly appeal to anyone into that type of game. I mean, did I actually read someone try to compare jumping mushrooms in HoT to Mario Bros in the last few pages? Just …. WOW. Those straws are getting REALLY short right now aren’t they.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I’m always impressed by how much people will cling to broken mechanics that impede the the future development of a class they love.
I cannot speak for everyone, but don’t jump to conclusions here. If ANet “fixes” boon spam problem by nerfing Facet of Nature and SoI then they haven’t fixed anything at all (since its the generation that is the biggest problem. Boon duration, while still powerful, isn’t nearly as powerful if classes weren’t spitting out the most powerful boons every other step), and we have good reason to be kittened off about it.
SoI was strong, but not broken. It was a bit overtuned and a small nerf could not be horrible. But all it did was highlight what was really broken, the constant boon generation from rev and elite specs. If that isn’t addressed and the only “fix” is nerfing SoI and facet of nature then this patch will be nothing but an undeserved nerf for mesmers
I’m not suggesting it’s THE fix, but there is no way your going to have a reasonable report with Anet to discuss making the class better when there are obviously stupid tricks that a class can do. That’s not just a statement based on this change … it occurs all the time in this game and in others. You’re not going to get the good stuff the class needs while these kinds of things exist.
I mean, complain when the class isn’t good … but then complain when the obviously broken stuff is to be fixed? That’s silly. No one should defend that kind of thinking.
That’s not even a Mace problem … it’s just how symbols work. I mean, if you expect to lay down a symbol and have intelligent players just stand in it, forget about it, even if they were instacast. They just move. There is no point in pretending that speeding up Mace 2 would make it all that much of a difference.
Even in PVE, a fast mace 2 is simply a faster rotation … but the advantage of having an on demand, fast throwdown symbol in PVE is significant enough.
The crippling feature of mace is the heals … unwanted, unnecessary, ineffective. But because they are there, it’s hard to justify doing anything else with the weapon.
Still, I don’t see a reason to buff mace right now, just like there wasn’t any reason to buff any other non-meta weapon for any other class. Anet does not attempt to make EVERY weapon relevant at all times for an evolving game state. That would be a huge waste of their time.