Guild Wars 2

So you think they’re doing it as a loss leader for that mad mad eSports money?

It’s a better reason than ’they’re just stubborn jerks’ but it still seems occam’d to me by “they believe PvP drives retention and isn’t too expensive to support”

rotten.9753:

Windsagio.1340:

What’s a better alternate interpretation for them pushing one and not the other?

They desperately want esports.

but why?

Silverwastes would be fun for me if it weren’t for the ‘only grinding for rewards’ jerkity-jerks who refuse to play the zone as intended.

There’s another bit here, really.

I’d enjoy new dungeons but I don’t think they’ll happen.

People seem to be arguing from the starting point that they want dungeons badly and are looking for affirmation that they’ll happen.

rotten.9753:

Windsagio.1340:

Zaw, the essential flaw in your argument is that they pretty clearly quit making dungeons due to participation issues. If they thought it was just lack of new content they likely would have done the opposite :p

Do you have any metrics? PvP is dead yet they constantly shove esports down our throats.

I don’t have metrics (as a general rule the raw numbers tend to be trade secrets), but I have observed behavior on Anets part.

If we work on the assumption that they’re a business first, it’s reasonable to think that they’re going to put their money where they think they can get the most benefit. PvP apparently qualifies while dungeons pretty clearly do not.

What’s a better alternate interpretation for them pushing one and not the other?

Zaw, the essential flaw in your argument is that they pretty clearly quit making dungeons due to participation issues. If they thought it was just lack of new content they likely would have done the opposite :p

Vayne.8563:

Anet added a new dungeon path and I’m pretty sure most players have never beaten it. I’m talking about the Aetherblade path of course. Annecdotally, I have a guild that now has over 200 people, with over 100 people logging in every week. Less than twenty people in the guild run dungeons at all, let alone regularly. We have four groups of people who do dungeons. I do dungeons but I wouldn’t care if I ever did one again. It’s not my thing.

The problem with liking and focusing on something is you assume that most people will feel the same. It’s not true. It’s never been true.

A lotro dev talked about raids in Lotro when Lotro stopped supporting raiding.. He said only 10% of the population ever raided in Lotro, since the beginning. He also said that the same demographic accounts for 50% of the forum posts.

Also, how many people do dungeons to make money and nothing else. They don’t care about dungeons or challenges. They care about quick loot? Because if you give those same players a non-dungeon way to make loot, if it’s more efficient, they’re there. By leaving dungeons one of the more profitable things in the game, Anet has skewed dungeon numbers to be higher than they would be.

I have some buddies I do fractals with; occasionally the concept comes up of whether we should do some dungeon speedruns to make some $$$. It’s never about anything else though.

The cost/benefit on raids has just got to be awful.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Players ask for stuff that they don’t actually want and wont’ actually use all the time.

The numbers are important because we lie (even to ourselves).

You have to laugh though, the zerker conflict is so ugly that it drives people further away from dungeons and makes any dungeon reltaed discussion nigh-impossible.

To the OP: Due to mostly cultural reasons dungeons appear inaccessible to a large number of players, so they don’t do them. I’m willing to speculate that dungeons don’t feed spending much at all (if anything the opposite, because people grind dungeons for quick gold to gem-convert ), which doesn’t exactly make them more eager to develop more of them.

Mortifer.2946:

Guardians will get longbows http://gfycat.com/ImmaterialWhichEgret
anet listened!

If that’s so, it’s sad. They listened to unimaginitive people asking for the most boring possible weapon for a guardian.

Glint seems likely mesmer type effects (and chronomancy)

Apolo.5942:

runeblade.7514:

Apolo.5942:

runeblade.7514:

Apolo.5942:

runeblade.7514:

Apolo.5942:

runeblade.7514:

Apolo.5942:

Are we still BS around the risk reward crap. You always cancel out of it, and it never hits anyone for any significant damage, there is literally NO risk and NO reward involved. That is not risk/reward, thats is a NONSKILL, might as well have a blank spot there.

If you think there is no risk, then there is no reason for you to care.

Yes there is because there is no reward either, might as well just give me 4 skills with GS for all this does.

Yeah, HB does very low dps, thats why warriors don’t use it in dungeon runs.

If you cared to read this is a pvp oriented thread, pve conrflake comps dont need balancing.

If you cared to read my post. You would know that warrior uses HB for a reason.

Yes, i do use it in dungeos, same as blurred frenzy or the axe from the ranger, the reason is quite simple. AI is stupid enough to stand its full length on the same place. Some people here seem to be as competent as AI.

Why else would you use HB, Blurred Frenzy, or whirling defense?

Because i like the weapon? and i dont know i have this thing where i get miffed if im playing with 4 skills and everyone else has 5?.

Your exaggeration aside, not every weapon is equally optimal in every mode, especially when we’re talking about a weapon that’s pretty kitten good. Also you have 6 base weapons skills as warrior, ><

PS: The only skill this is a valid complaint for is ranger LS 1, and only because it actually CONTROLS YOUR MOVEMENT.

I’m still stuck on “Something works or it doesn’t. No reason to try it in a different context or get a little better and t;ry again or just try again because of course if first you don’t succeed what you were trying to do is worthless.”

Scoobaniec.9561:

Youre basically saying right now “its ok i have some cc skill which wont cc everytime but its nothing to worry about” either something work or doesnt. In current meta everyone can facetank hb. If thb skill fails at the olny thing it was supposed to do like many of forum user says – cleavinign bodies and yet it fails, then whats the point of this skill? Leave number 2 blank, noone will notice any difference anyway.

That’s… yeah. That’s something.

In PvE you’d largely be right, something works or something doesn’t.

HOWEVER; PvP is just as much about situational adjustment as it is about build. A large amount of the skill is getting someone to use up a skill or an ability at the wrong time, largely negating their usefulness. If you use your condition cleanse or stun break early, they’re effectively useless.

If you think of PvP as if it were PvE you’re only going to have frustration.

It didn’t work once, that means its useless!

Apolo.5942:

Windsagio.1340:

So you can do it, but you have to make sacrifices?

Or you can use one of the many many other weapon combinations, some of which are exceptionally strong in PvP?

~~~~

The idea that a class with as many strong options as warrior is complaining about 1 skill that’s hard to use when compared to some of the other things out there is kind of nutty to me.

Thats because you should go back to reading comprehension 101. The title says Self Rooting Melee skills. NOT “One Hundred Blades”.

This applies to every other skills like this in the game, not just HB.

And yet, title aside the talk is mostly about 100B. As a few have mentioned, there’s a legitimate case to be made about the ranger 1h LS, but that’s not the focus of the complaints.

It’s also very different than 100B, in that it’s like a real root.

Still, I’m happy to go with what others said: There’s a valid complaint about ranger LS1. Warriors need to qwittheirkittenin’

So you can do it, but you have to make sacrifices?

Or you can use one of the many many other weapon combinations, some of which are exceptionally strong in PvP?

~~~~

The idea that a class with as many strong options as warrior is complaining about 1 skill that’s hard to use when compared to some of the other things out there is kind of nutty to me.

Apolo.5942:

Are we still BS around the risk reward crap. You always cancel out of it, and it never hits anyone for any significant damage, there is literally NO risk and NO reward involved. That is not risk/reward, thats is a NONSKILL, might as well have a blank spot there.

Except if the enemy is knocked down/immob/not paying attention, it’s huge damage.

It’s a hard to set up skill in pvp, but not useless as all that.

People really really really need to quit playing PvP warrior like it’s PvE.

Lévis.5489:

Why people always talk about warrior, when rangers have a weapon that root them into place as they main, spammable skill.

Honestly because all the strongest classes have the biggest complainers (you should hear the eles). Dunno why, unless they’re tier shopping.

Possibilitiy 2: People mad their PVE pure dps build sucks in pvp

When was the MMO taunt invented? That’ll fix people up for answering the trinity question.

Obtena.7952:

I don’t see the need … why do we keep seeing suggestions that desire to restrict player’s ability to make choices? Do people really want to just get spoonfed that badly?

transparent buff request is the answer ><

Zenith.7301:

Windsagio.1340:

Zenith: You’re focusing on only pve which largely misses my point, the mesmer skills are useful in general. They’re exceptionally useful in pvp and wvw which is where the channeling limitation on 100B actually matters

I mean I get downplaying, but c’mon now :p

Useful in general my kitten , if you’re a person who only pve’s it’s pretty crappy design to have a class so useless in the one format you play. Warriors and guardians aren’t only useful in some formats and useless in others.

They’re not remotely useless in PVE, they’re one of the classes that are always welcome. What they offer is amazingly useful, and if we get more complex encounter design it will only get more so (right now there’s not much room for null field in PvE, for instance, but man the possibilities).

Zenith: You’re focusing on only pve which largely misses my point, the mesmer skills are useful in general. They’re exceptionally useful in pvp and wvw which is where the channeling limitation on 100B actually matters

I mean I get downplaying, but c’mon now :p

Also, again look at the classes holistically. Mesmers also have some of the most useful utilities and elites in the game across all game modes.

And yes portal/veil/mass haste/mass invis/null field/whateverthehellthereflectiscalled are all a part of the overall calculation of the class. Of course they are.

In the case of 100B, it’s very high damage on a very low cooldown with a disadvantage that you lose damage on mobile enemies — BUT THE OP IS INCORRECT in that it is not self-rooting. It’s a channel that’s broken by movement. There’s really very low risk to 100B compared to melee aside from the temptation to stay in getting more hits when you should move out of the way.

And you can taunt essentially no enemies of champion rank or higher.

Jerus.4350:

I can at least partially agree with that. No need to be a jerk. However, the reverse happens a lot. “shut up you elistist, I’ll play how I want!” when you simply give someone a tip on how to approach an encounter… Or the people who feel the need to grief "zerk’ groups just because they don’t agree with the idea that people should be allowed to try and find like minded players.

We’ve had this conversation before though. There are jerks on both sides and it really doesn’t help anything.

And, a lot of people do PUG that talk about that stuff. Just becuase people are in guilds doesn’t mean they stick only to their guild, PUGs IMO can be much mroe fun, it’s more chaotic and less routine.

Yeah we have, I’m hoping we can taper off the thread on “We need to quit being jerks to each other, and we need to quit borrowing offense”

Jerus.4350:

Windsagio.1340:

spoj.9672:

Windsagio.1340:

spoj.9672:

Im all for having a condi geared person being optimal for some encounters. Because that doesnt force people to build passive defence or certain ways to succeed.

But lets be honest. If we have diversity between berserker and sinister. People are still going to complain that there is no diversity because the optimal is still all glass. Which is how it should be. If you sacrifice damage for defence then you should be slower at killing things. Therefore you should be slower at the combat encounters.

The solution to that honestly is raw difficulty.

Again, huge tradeoffs, especially with CS and engagement, but it should be

“If you’re good enough do pure DPS builds, if you need extra margin of error add defensive stats”.

I believe that’s the concept they started with, but it kind of slid off with the difficulty curve (my pet theory is that it partially links to meta pusher too. People consistently being told they can’t group or are bad for not being zerk end up trying to run it when not ready and getting blown up > leads to complaints, but that’s theory). That’s where cultural manipulation would have to come in, and that problem might be insoluable.

Exactly. It doesnt change the optimal way to do things. So we will still get people complaining.

And the problem with just making things more difficult is that hurts casual players more than it hurts the average player that runs meta builds. You have to be careful with how far you go.

Im glad they have always believed in this approach and that they are finally trying to make it work. Its what ive always suggested when it comes to these threads.

The direction of the fixes seems to be, in essence, adding zerk difficulty by closing gameplay loopholes; for instance, I suspect bosses starting with full defiance instead of 0 defiance will have a larger effect on boss burns than anyone yet expects, as will stability (in certain encounters, no more stacking the corner for molten facility most likely).

The big problem is that it’s really suboptimal to design encounters to poor player culture. If people were comfortable playing what gearset they needed to stay alive instead of feeling that they’re terrible and wful and can’t group unless they gear ‘right’, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

But how do you even start to fix that? You’re not going to stop DnT from making fun of ‘bads’.

Are you surprised it’s happening though?

Lets go back to car examples

Look at people driving. When the roads are wide open, everyone is content, driving their pace, changing lanes if the person ahead of them is going slower than they want to be going, no conflicts. When traffic hits and people are forced to slow down… Road Rage begins. Why should dungeons be any different? When suddenly you’re held back by other people it causes frustration. People ask for others who enjoy the same play style so they don’t go through the dungeon frustrated because we all play this game for fun and that’s not really a fun situation to be in.

New content should change that up quite a bit as Hopefully it isn’t something we’ll breeze throught he first day and have that expectation like we do in these years old dungeons we are currently running.

I’m not surprised I admit, I can always hope for better ><

Also, the I’d modify road metaphor a bit. A lot of these people never or almost never pug, but they still carry on at great length about the ‘bads’ (you’ll notice I fixate on that term, it’s for a reason: It’s dehumanizing and petty, and to me is really emblematic of the entire attitude and its problems). The guy playing a nomad tank warrior in AC has no effect on an elite speedrun player, the experiences simply don’t interact in game. It only becomes an issue when they begin pushing back and forth across the meta.

This is more like a Hummer on the street being outraged at seeing a bicyclist and feeling the need to force them off the road — or just to mock their choice of ride. Unless they’re in the way (or running stop signs/lights, kitten scofflaw bikers) what’s the gain of being mad at/disdainful of them? And yet people do it.

spoj.9672:

Windsagio.1340:

spoj.9672:

Im all for having a condi geared person being optimal for some encounters. Because that doesnt force people to build passive defence or certain ways to succeed.

But lets be honest. If we have diversity between berserker and sinister. People are still going to complain that there is no diversity because the optimal is still all glass. Which is how it should be. If you sacrifice damage for defence then you should be slower at killing things. Therefore you should be slower at the combat encounters.

The solution to that honestly is raw difficulty.

Again, huge tradeoffs, especially with CS and engagement, but it should be

“If you’re good enough do pure DPS builds, if you need extra margin of error add defensive stats”.

I believe that’s the concept they started with, but it kind of slid off with the difficulty curve (my pet theory is that it partially links to meta pusher too. People consistently being told they can’t group or are bad for not being zerk end up trying to run it when not ready and getting blown up > leads to complaints, but that’s theory). That’s where cultural manipulation would have to come in, and that problem might be insoluable.

Exactly. It doesnt change the optimal way to do things. So we will still get people complaining.

And the problem with just making things more difficult is that hurts casual players more than it hurts the average player that runs meta builds. You have to be careful with how far you go.

Im glad they have always believed in this approach and that they are finally trying to make it work. Its what ive always suggested when it comes to these threads.

The direction of the fixes seems to be, in essence, adding zerk difficulty by closing gameplay loopholes; for instance, I suspect bosses starting with full defiance instead of 0 defiance will have a larger effect on boss burns than anyone yet expects, as will stability (in certain encounters, no more stacking the corner for molten facility most likely).

The big problem is that it’s really suboptimal to design encounters to poor player culture. If people were comfortable playing what gearset they needed to stay alive instead of feeling that they’re terrible and wful and can’t group unless they gear ‘right’, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

But how do you even start to fix that? You’re not going to stop DnT from making fun of ‘bads’.

I honeslty can’t remember most of the solutions suggested at this point though, somebody should be awesome and make a compilation

spoj.9672:

Im all for having a condi geared person being optimal for some encounters. Because that doesnt force people to build passive defence or certain ways to succeed.

But lets be honest. If we have diversity between berserker and sinister. People are still going to complain that there is no diversity because the optimal is still all glass. Which is how it should be. If you sacrifice damage for defence then you should be slower at killing things. Therefore you should be slower at the combat encounters.

The solution to that honestly is raw difficulty.

Again, huge tradeoffs, especially with CS and engagement, but it should be

“If you’re good enough do pure DPS builds, if you need extra margin of error add defensive stats”.

I believe that’s the concept they started with, but it kind of slid off with the difficulty curve (my pet theory is that it partially links to meta pusher too. People consistently being told they can’t group or are bad for not being zerk end up trying to run it when not ready and getting blown up > leads to complaints, but that’s theory). That’s where cultural manipulation would have to come in, and that problem might be insoluable.

That being said, I wouldn’t mind some endurance fights just for flavor, things like fixed up versions of the Cliffside Chest seal or the Underground switch room but cleaned up. I personally think doing that sometimes can be interesting and fun, and hope they give more chances for that kind of experience. I wouldn’t directly relate that to the primary balance question, which I would define as we discussed above.

~~~

If there are serious direct stat changes/rebalances the only argument I could make would be rampager vs sinister vs zerker vs assassin, and even that I feel would be better handled through system and encounter design rather than through stat manipulation.

spoj.9672:

People only demand zerk because its easier than listing every weapon/trait/utility each class should be using. And those groups want efficient runs. Which means they should be using the optimal builds with optimal gear. The shorthand for that just happens to be zerk in most cases despite assassin actually being better for a lot of classes. Personally i would prefer to use the term optimal builds or meta builds in my LFG’s. And heres the thing. I would rather take a knights/soldiers wearing player using a meta build and weapons than a zerk using player taking useless utilities and weapons when i advertise for efficient runs.

Then a lot of people are misusing “zerk”. Wouldn’t surprise me very much though ><

Its completely unrelated to diversity. You cant have multiple optimals for the same encounter without devalueing player choice (hidden arcana instance) or creating time gates so no matter how you approach the encounter it will always take the same amount of time. Encounters where what your build brings doesnt matter are just bad design.

The argument we’re seeing a lot now, though, is different optimal strategies for different encounters. It’s an argument I like. If there’s a path with multiple encounters that have (moderately) different optimal tactics, players are left with some interesting minor choices; They can carry multiple sets and respec, or they can say ‘well the condi necro is a bit slower on these fights, but he’ll speed us up a LOT on this other fight, it won’t slow us down much to bring him’.

The gear isnt relevant to the discussion. Its perfectly balanced with other types of gear. People like to be efficient so they demand efficient gear. Also content is too easy so people gravitate to efficient runs more easily. When encounters get harder a few people will stop asking for zerker. The majority will probably just try to adapt and learn to improve. But the problem wont go anywhere. If you can even call it a problem.

really, it’s clearly not. There’s 1 set of gear that’s optimal for a vast majority of the harder content. The gear is so optimal that it trivializes some content.

Like I said, I’m not sure anyone left is calling for the nerf stick, they’re asking for different tactics to be optimal in different situations. I’d add to that that I don’t expect them to touch existing content at all (might have said that before, it blurs) except where system changes require it.

~~~

It gets so blurry, it’s funny. To a large degree people are focusing on changing encounters in such a way to make zerk style more in line with other styles sometimes, but then we go down the rabbit hole again.

(quotes approximated of course)
“There should be encounters that encourage other playstyles mixed in with the burn friendly styles”
“Zerk gear is meaningless, it’s your traits”
“Well that’s just not true, gear is clearly an important part of someones effectiveness in teh play-style”
“No, it really doesn’t matter”
—->singularity

spoj.9672:

@Windsagio
Well thats false. Because even though you may fell like “you are going to suck”. The build works in exactly the same way. You just do less damage/healing etc. Its unchanged apart from efficiency.

A condi necro using soldiers is still a condi necro. It just does really bad damage. To the point where its so inefficient it doesnt make sense to use that mismatched gear. But its still the same build and has the exact same playstyle.

Anyway anet has stated they are going in the direction of traits/utilities/weapon diversity for HoT. So its a rather pointless discussion. Atleast until we see how well they pull it off.

Forgiving the strong language (it’s a personal flaw), it’s as you say, they’re not being very effective. If the ‘gear doesn’t matter’ argument held true, people wouldn’t demand zerk gear.

That’s the fallacy I can’t get around: In a discussion at least partially predicated on demanding zerker gear, the people defending the ‘zerker meta’ are suddenly arguing that gear doesn’t matter. It’s very possible there’s a subtlety I missed, but it seems flat out contradictory.

Otherwise, maybe we can just get it off the table. I think we all understand that you can play any style with reduced effectiveness with any stat set. The amount of reduced effectiveness varies based on a bunch of issues, but nevertheless that’s an important piece of the base discussion.

This is where we get into the Meta discussion stuff that makes OBD so annoyed; it seems like we’re at the point where people defending a particular mix of stats against changes (we don’t need to/shouldn’t change zerk gear as compared to other stat sets) are actually arguing that the stat set isn’t really relevant to the discussion, while commonly demanding that particular stat set in runs. Can you see how it’d be easy to call shenanigans on that?.

Jerus.4350:

Windsagio.1340:

spoj.9672:

I dont know about the rest of you. But a game which creates diversity through traits, weapons and utilities sounds better than a game which creates diversity in just gear stats.

Focus of the last few pages has been on playstyle rather than on gear. Gear is relevant insofar as your stat emphasis effects your play style.

That’s the thing, it really doesn’t, not nearly as much as your traits/utility/weapon choices.

Your gear = base stats, your stats simply empower your trait/weapon/utility choices but won’t change the way you play beyond deciding whether or not you have to dodge an attack or if you can take it on the chin and be fine.

I just can’t go along with that man. If for instance your skills and traits are centered towards generating conditions and condition damage and you have no gear and only base +300 from your trait line, you are going to suck. A fire/staff ele in Nomads gear is going to be terrible because he doesn’t have stats to support any damage output

Some traits and abilities are essentially stat agnostic, that is true, and some take only minor effect from stats. Your overall playstyle is heavily stat-dependent, however..

spoj.9672:

I dont know about the rest of you. But a game which creates diversity through traits, weapons and utilities sounds better than a game which creates diversity in just gear stats.

Focus of the last few pages has been on playstyle rather than on gear. Gear is relevant insofar as your stat emphasis effects your play style.

rotten.9753:

Windsagio.1340:

2) Even if you break defiance, and the boss is one that has susceptibility when broken (as compared to a special effect), taunt is missing the primary function of traditional taunts, in that it doesn’t change your position in the threat calculation (except for a small boost from proximity). Thus it cannot be used effectively to control threat the way a standard taunt does.

When you break defiance, a boss isn’t susceptible, it reacts predeterminedly. You cannot use taunt even to change its position, similarly to how you cannot use push, pull and launch.

My impression is that this is only sometimes true. I could of course be mistaken, but that’s my feeling… especially with the older champions, which I expect to have a ‘standard’ broken state.

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

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

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

~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

semantics….you know what the point was.

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

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

EDIT:

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

Yeah I didn’t want to post the rote taunt speech for these, but here it is:

1) Taunt in GW2 is a control effect similar to stun or daze or fear. This means it is not a condition that can be cleansed, but it also means that defiance is certain to apply to it (also stun breaks, but I’m not sure if any enemies use stun breaks).
2) Even if you break defiance, and the boss is one that has susceptibility when broken (as compared to a special effect), taunt is missing the primary function of traditional taunts, in that it doesn’t change your position in the threat calculation (except for a small boost from proximity). Thus it cannot be used effectively to control threat the way a standard taunt does.

Where’s HoT in this thread?

rotten.9753:

Windsagio.1340:

Why would you not want that changed?

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

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

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

ODB.6891:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

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

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

~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

rotten.9753:

Windsagio.1340:

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

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

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

~~~

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

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

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

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

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

Why would you not want that changed?

Skimmed the last 2.5 pages, so maybe Imissed some;

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

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

~~~

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

Bunmaster.9734:

What happened to “play the way you want”? When ppl use meta, they play the way they want. Those who don’t use the meta, they play the way they want.
If players want to take their time, they shouldn’t expect to have the same rewards as those who practice and speedrun them every night.

While the content could’ve been designed better, right now it’s not. The ppl who cry about the zerker meta, they will cry about the next meta as well.
Players are not forced to play the zerker meta, but on the flip side, they must also reap what they sow, a slower pace.

People are being continually pressured to play a particular style, this isn’t optimal for that theory.

And for the umpteenth time, nobody left in this discussion is saying they should make zerker suck or directly nerf it, they just want more variety of styles to be optimal depending on the fight. Every question having the same answer is boring.

Well the changes are happening, some of them are already announced and in the track.

And you know, I’d be willing to make a bet that it doesn’t please anet much that a lot of players run dungeons simply for the gold/hour payoff.

I’m actively avoiding betas but just as actively pursue news.

Betas are the death of joy.

This goes back to my posts a few pages back.

The usual suspects are consistently aggressive and clannish on this subject and consistently utterly incapable of compromise or even open discussion.

It’s notable because it’s so amazingly consistent. Same group, same arguments, same intractability.

My personal theory is that there’s a really really strong reinforcement loop going on and it causes weird reactions when people disrupt the loop with outside/conflicting opinions.

I’m legitimately boggled. This is a serious “Up is down, blue is red” moment.

Or in the case of this argument, “opening up options is forcing people to play a single way”

~~~~~

Edit: Deserves a bit more, Deathpanel, maybe people want to see the game as interesting as possible, or simply care about the art of design. There’s no need to personalize it or cast yourself as under attack here.

DeathPanel.8362:

Windsagio.1340:

No, I"m sorry. Making other options viable is not enforcing those methods.

Other options are already viable since all options are viable. Viability is not the same as Optimal. Based on your comments you just want the game to be played your way with optimal builds according to you. That is the very definition of forcing others to play your way.

This is just nuts. I’m not sure how many different ways I can say it… so here’s another way.

Right now the ‘optimality curve’ is way out of whack, with encounters designed in such a way that a particular single strategy and setup isn’t only optimal, it’s gamebreakingly powerful. Anet needs to, AND IN FACT IS improving their tools and encounter design to flatten the curve somewhat so that one tactic doesn’t trivialize content and other tactics aren’t felt to be quite so punished. For skilled players, the curve will still exist, because the defensive stats are essentially hedges against errors.

~~~~

And here’s the thing you need to understand. I’m insanely stubborn and patient. You can strawman me as many times as you want, and I’ll continue to just correct you in slightly different wordings. It doesn’t hurt my case much to be able to refine and restate my position any number of times. If anything it helps me hone my point and my message.