Raids are not balanced when there is a 9-10k Difference between professions. - Page 5 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

Raids are not balanced when there is a 9-10k Difference between professions.

1235

Comments

  • Nimon.7840Nimon.7840 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Yoci.2481 said:
    Classes should not be balanced around raids, raids should be designed around class balance.

    Agreed and to be fair ... that is exactly what is happening in this game. There is a wide range of class balance, so raids have a really low threshold for success.

    If at all, they try to do that, but aren't achieving it at all.
    There's a reason why almost every single raid boss is either guard or mesmer meta.

    If raids are designed around classes, why is there no single boss, where you stack engis, or necros as most effective tactic available (meta)?

    Because that's not what they doing. If it was true, they would have never hard nerfed epibounce.

    But as time goes on, it's almost time for another pve balance patch (end of this month), let's see where this goes.

    Another we love guardian and don't care if it's meta in all three gamemodes on various different builds?
    Or an actual balance patch that addresses some big issues?

    Like reworking guardian quickness elite, that makes it easy to stack perma quickness without investing into boon duration (4guards +off Chrono, or 3guards+ranger with moa stance+off Chrono)

    Or nerfing rangers burst power damage (while giving it sustained damage)

    Or nerfing guard and eles Condi burst dmg (via burn, while giving it more slow ramp up damage (for example bleeds)

    Or buffing necro to a extend, that it can compete with other classes dps. So people can play their favourite class while not feeling like dragging down the whole group

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2020

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Yoci.2481 said:
    Classes should not be balanced around raids, raids should be designed around class balance.

    Agreed and to be fair ... that is exactly what is happening in this game. There is a wide range of class balance, so raids have a really low threshold for success.

    If at all, they try to do that, but aren't achieving it at all.
    There's a reason why almost every single raid boss is either guard or mesmer meta.

    That doesn't make sense. The reason people can bring a wide variety of builds to instanced content is because the content has low threshold for success. Meta only talks about what is OPTIMAL to succeed. Those two things are completely unrelated. What is meta has NOTHING to do with how raids are balanced to allow for wide class balance range.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nimon.7840 said:
    But as time goes on, it's almost time for another pve balance patch (end of this month), let's see where this goes.

    Already the yearly PvE patch? No I think they will continue to focus on sPvP/WvW a bit ;-)

    Another we love guardian and don't care if it's meta in all three gamemodes on various different builds?
    Or an actual balance patch that addresses some big issues?

    Like reworking guardian quickness elite, that makes it easy to stack perma quickness without investing into boon duration (4guards +off Chrono, or 3guards+ranger with moa stance+off Chrono)

    If the issue is quickness, it's quickness that need to be adressed not especially the guardian. The guardian have plenty to be adressed thought...

    Or nerfing rangers burst power damage (while giving it sustained damage)

    I'm not sure it's the problem. Throught the years, the ranger's issue with balance have always been it's familiar and I believe it's a bit to much of work for ANet to balance (Well, who know, I might be surprised...)

    Or nerfing guard and eles Condi burst dmg (via burn, while giving it more slow ramp up damage (for example bleeds)

    Aaah, condition damage... The main issue of condition damage come from the fact that auto-attacks are "skills" instead of being standard regular attack common to all professions. This allow a high application rate of conditions promoting short lasting conditions over long lasting conditions. This in return make condition duration less important than it should and make cleansing conditions in PvP environment feel pointless due to the constantly renewed conditions. Burn just happen to benefit the most from such design, nerfing it could soothe some mind but ultimately it wouldn't fix the issue.

    Note that elementalists can already use bleed instead of burn, this doesn't make them more balanced.

    Or buffing necro to a extend, that it can compete with other classes dps. So people can play their favourite class while not feeling like dragging down the whole group

    You perfectly know that it's more complicated than that. The issue of the necromancer is that most of it's tools are ill designed for how PvE group/raid encounters are designed. The thing that need to be done is less a matter of buffing the necromancer than a matter of making it's tools less ill suited for the encounters. And ANet's devs definitely try to do it, fractals instabilities are a great example of their efforts.

    Another thing that need to be taken into consideration is that the necromancer is naturally more resilient when dealing damage due to the shroud. It's difficult to justify "competitive damage" on top of something that can deal it's peak damage while shielding it's health pool for extended periods of time.

    All in all, fixing the necromancer would requiert a lot of work. Not that ANet don't have opportunities to add some simple change that would benefit the profession in PvE (like making boon corruption interact with defiance) but all in all the focus of the traits on improving damage while being "in shroud" instead of doing it while being "out of shroud" is probably the biggest hurdle they would have to face for the sake of "fairness". And that requiert work that they don't necessarily want to invest since they mostly answer sPvP rants with sPvP balance suggestions that don't go beyond: "reduce [X] damage" or "increase [Y] CD".

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2020

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Yoci.2481 said:
    Classes should not be balanced around raids, raids should be designed around class balance.

    Agreed and to be fair ... that is exactly what is happening in this game. There is a wide range of class balance, so raids have a really low threshold for success.

    If at all, they try to do that, but aren't achieving it at all.
    There's a reason why almost every single raid boss is either guard or mesmer meta.

    Well, so that's one of those threads. For 5 pages people keep repeating pretty much the same thing that was already answered on the first page, but for some reason they don't understand that.
    It doesn't matter what is considered "meta", because raids aren't balanced around top dps charts. It's not a raid balancing problem, it's a player attitude probem. And the solution is as simple as creating your own squad instead of joining a sheep-leader's one.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Yoci.2481 said:
    Classes should not be balanced around raids, raids should be designed around class balance.

    Agreed and to be fair ... that is exactly what is happening in this game. There is a wide range of class balance, so raids have a really low threshold for success.

    If at all, they try to do that, but aren't achieving it at all.
    There's a reason why almost every single raid boss is either guard or mesmer meta.

    Well, so that's one of those threads. For 5 pages people keep repeating pretty much the same thing that was already answered on the first page, but for some reason they don't understand that.
    It doesn't matter what is considered "meta", because raids aren't balanced around top dps charts. It's not a raid balancing problem, it's a player attitude probem. And the solution is as simple as creating your own squad instead of joining a sheep-leader's one.

    Apparently, EVERY thread is a soapbox to complain about what is meta ... /shrug.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2020

    there is no reason do some pve raid balance .. The raid is to closed. Yesterday I was try find raid run, no result, kp, li, kp kp kp kp .. training 50 kp //
    There closed burble and let them play inside how they wont, spend any resourse for that 0.5-2% is not any reason.
    After trying find raid run I back on wvw and get perfect difference how it that content is open, and accessible. No one can't say "you not have kp - no pips for you". Bye raids again for long time.

    p.s as for me raid should be same Ascalon dungeon, but for 10 people. But not .. we have that .. so let it live inside kp burble without spend resource from anet.

  • Nimon.7840Nimon.7840 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2020

    @lare.5129 said:
    there is no reason do some pve raid balance .. The raid is to closed. Yesterday I was try find raid run, no result, kp, li, kp kp kp kp .. training 50 kp //
    There closed burble and let them play inside how they wont, spend any resourse for that 0.5-2% is not any reason.

    Yes there is. Cause pve needs some kind of balance as well.
    But open world players will basically not notice, if their class is doing 3k more dps while having optimal buffs.
    Cause they will never ever have those kind of buffs.

    So the only reason to do pve balance at all is instanced pve endgame content, being fractals and especially raids

    After trying find raid run I back on wvw and get perfect difference how it that content is open, and accessible. No one can't say "you not have kp - no pips for you". Bye raids again for long time.

    p.s as for me raid should be same Ascalon dungeon, but for 10 people. But not .. we have that .. so let it live inside kp burble without spend resource from anet.

    And people complaining about li requirements don't even want to raid. They want to kill a boss here and there, but they are not putting in as much time as static groups. If they're really interested, they go, look for a raid learn guild, get their experiences there, and then join a static.

    Lots of statics will let you join them, if you are willing to learn.

    • There's also very often groups that take you with them, without you meeting their li-requirements.

    Lots of people join, without knowing boss mechanics, or join with very inappropriate builds, that have to much toughness for example (best thing I had was a full soldier ele)
    But you are joining a group with limited player space. You can't expect people to carry your a... All doing mechanics and dmg. While you do 10dps autoattack and wiping their group by not doing mechanics correctly.

    That's why lots of groups want kp. They want a proof, that you can bring something to the group, cause for a lot of statics, raids are still "hard" content.

    And for the better groups, the content is on farm status, so they don't want to waste a lot of time, as long as there's no new content.
    And then there's some people, that basically can't play the class in this content, they're enjoying the most, cause that class does a lot less dps than others.
    So if you buff that class, it might make it easier for the first kind of groups, that think that raids are still work to to to clear.
    It will also make the gamemode more enjoyable for players of the other kinds of groups, that just farm the content, wanna have a fun time with some people, but clear the content as fast as possible.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nimon.7840 said:
    Yes there is. Cause pve needs some kind of balance as well.

    for that?? if only 1-2% can touch that

    But open world players will basically not notice, if their class is doing 3k more dps while having optimal buffs.

    3k is normal dps in normal build and nomal set. 80% stat combination have toughness or vitality. This is fail stats ? Don't think so. Just raiders don't understand gw2, or something wrong wiht raids.

    Lots of people join, without knowing boss mechanics, or join with very inappropriate builds, that have to much toughness for example (best thing I had was a full soldier ele)

    good stats. You need check tank, if he not cap toughness and not use toughness food.. On soldier toughness not main stat, main is power, so check tank !!

    While you do 10dps autoattack and wiping their group by not doing mechanics correctly.

    yes, I was told what any time modification and achievement whit speed kill should be removed from raid.

    That's why lots of groups want kp. They want a proof, that you can bring something to the group, cause for a lot of statics, raids are still "hard" content.

    This is not "hard" , this is "closed." And keep attention that in gw2 we not have stat boost every half year, and can't complete these raids solo !

    And for the better groups, the content is on farm status, so they don't want to waste a lot of time, as long as there's no new content.

    yes, you right ! 0.5-2% burble? so why we should worry them ??? They will farm ir anyway if it "farm"

    And then there's some people, that basically can't play the class in this content, they're enjoying the most, cause that class does a lot less dps than others.

    if this is as you say have only "farm status" for 1-2% - they can make meta class and farm with less enjoy.

    It will also make the gamemode more enjoyable for players of the other kinds of groups, that just farm the content, wanna have a fun time with some people, but clear the content as fast as possible.

    farmer want clear? and we ask helm to that elitare part more support ?? for that? this is seriously ???

  • Josiah.2967Josiah.2967 Member ✭✭✭

    Giving it some thought. I really think a Grave Digger could use a significant buff. Increase the damage Grave Digger does at 50% damage, 25%, 15%. Kind of like Thief. That way it is a backloaded DPS spec and most of the damage is outside of shroud in that state.

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:
    ...

    You proved multiple times that you have no idea how this game works. Tank needs max toughness? For real? He just needs 1 more than everyone else which shouldn't be any higher than 1151 on most bosses when you have a soulbeast in the group.
    It wouldn't surprise me at all if some commanders have you on their blacklist since the stuff you post all the time just shows your lack of understanding game mechanics. You even did fractal cms for more than a year and still think that scourges and other bad builds are good in there. I dont even want to know what kind of abstrusity you try to play in raids if you think soldiers is a good stat combo. Hint, it was already bad during old dungeon days.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Figure I'll throw my hat I'm the ring since this is something I care about but just didn't have the time to discuss. Let's see.

    I do think the gap is a bit too high. This shouldn't be much of an argument, yet here we are. I'd personally be okay with 3-5k difference as I feel that's large enough for people to really feel rewarded for playing their elementalist complicated mega rotation. But the gap is much higher than that which is problematic.

    As for raid fights specifically, Arena net could apply weakness of the bosses which could benefit specific builds. So bosses could and probably should have completely unique boons players can't get which can drastically change the fight's dynamic. These boons shouldn't make the fight impossible just more difficult so you could do it without a Spellbreaker or Necromancer for example but it might be difficult. However these mechanics are mostly meaningless if we keep mesmer's sword auto attack with a boon strip. This undermines the utility that the necro or Spellbreaker would bring so that should be removed. I'd suggest moving a boon strip to sword 3's teleport on the mesmer so it can keep the utility but it should never be on an auto attack.

    As for Boss weaknesses we could have something like chill could cause a weakened break bar and/or the break bar shows up more frequently. There is also the possibility of something like an extra burst of damage based on the one applying the chill. Just as an example.

    Of course my personal favorite would probably be skills interacting with the environment in unique ways. So let's say there's a mechanic where a pillar is summoned that summons ghosts and damages foes in its radius and the radius grows over time. Normally its difficult to remove but perhaps a necromancer could walk into it without death shroud and they begin to absorb it and gain life force, breaking it down quickly. They could still take the damage so it's still risky for them. Perhaps they take more from damage than one of the other 8 classes so it's a real risk for them to do this. Maybe we get a terminal where an engineer can hack a turret to turn on the enemy.

    Maybe the above example is a bit too gimmicky, but it could be fun and they're just off hand examples.

    As for profession balance, which we should go back to. The reaper is an easy class to use and learn. It is designed to he a tank and it is quite tanky. The issue is that it doesn't provide utility like the other tanks you could bring. Which makes it undesirable. I don't see a real way to fix this issue either. Taunt doesn't really do much in raids as it is so even if reaper did have taunt it wouldn't matter. What anet probably should do is rework Agro so taunt influences the threat and it should be clear who the boss is agroed onto. Having it be "who's got the biggest toughness" is probably the wrong way to go about it but idk. This is a bit beyond my depth.

    Contrary to what people might think, Scourge is not an easy elite spec to use. Unlike reaper, scourge has a lot of nuance and quarks of its playstyle which I can only describe as a bit clunky(but super fun) and there are a lot of misconceptions in the community on how it actually works. Which has lead to raid website taking over a year to figure out what is optimal because of their combined low ceiling on damage output and their high skill requirement. Scourge does need a bump up for sure in its DPS build and if it has to sacrifice some party support for its DPS build this should be taken.

    As for Engineer. Their condi rotation is probably a bit too complex for what you get out of it. I've used it quite a bit and its quite risky. For me personally, this rotation is much easier to pull off than scourge rotation even though I have more experience on scourge but the payoff is a bit finicky. It would be nice to see some of these rotations like engineer and Elementalist simplified since the issue isn't so much the complexity of the rotation as it just is the skill ordering and timing. Where scourge requires internal timing, resource management and skill priorities it doesn't have the skill bar bloat that the engineer and elementalist does. The subtle nuances of something like scourge are fine which you only get with experience but the means to master a engineer or elementalist being based on repetition is a bit of an issue in my opinion. I wont deny that the Elementalist rotation is more difficult than the scourge, it is. It's just more difficult in a less engaging way imo.

    Even if the elementalist and others were made simplier in their rotation I would still say they should be higher damage than a class like a necromancer but lack in utility. Which they do not. I strongly disagree with the idea that if the dps was closer to each other that no one would take Ele or Guardian because there is no proof of that. This only happens when massive gaps are in the game such as during the berserker meta.

    This issue also might not be as big if arena net went over and done a balance pass on Dungeons to make them more in line with their content of 2020. If the maps are too finicky to work with, throw them out. You have the resources and textures from them to reuse. Different builds and classes function differently in smaller groups which have to deal with mobs in different ways. Reaper might not ever be that good in raids but they could be amazing in revamped dungeons.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nephalem.8921 said:
    You proved multiple times that you have no idea how this game works.

    And I don't want. I have my vision and spread it. And I get success. So this is one of reasons why I like GuildWars2

    Tank needs max toughness? For real? He just needs 1 more than everyone else which shouldn't be any higher than 1151 on most bosses when you have a soulbeast in the group.

    yes, tank should have max or near max value by mmo concept. GuildWars2 give you chance not do it precisionsly, but it not as rule.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all if some commanders have you on their blacklist since the stuff you post all the time just shows your lack of understanding game mechanics.

    ofc some have. But I try do raids one week per year, so it is not "all". But how we see raid a 1% burble, so who knows? may be all.

    You even did fractal cms for more than a year and still think that scourges and other bad builds are good in there.

    yes, 4 scourges and ministrel crhono or plaguedoctor rev is good choose.

    I dont even want to know what kind of abstrusity you try to play in raids if you think soldiers is a good stat combo.

    it not very good, but it can be. Or you suggest only zek and viper ?? This is smell elitism.. shame on you !!!

    Hint, it was already bad during old dungeon days.

    but magic find armor start was meta :))

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 4, 2020

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Giving it some thought. I really think a Grave Digger could use a significant buff. Increase the damage Grave Digger does at 50% damage, 25%, 15%. Kind of like Thief. That way it is a backloaded DPS spec and most of the damage is outside of shroud in that state.

    I think it would make Reaper boring and much more simple to play. It would just be a major buff.
    Gravedigger spam under 50%, with very high healing per attack from Soul Eater, while we can receive healing from allies and take hits from enemies without loosing damage.

    Having high damage while our health is shielded is what allows to increase Reaper damage without make Reaper overpowered.

    We have to avoid taking damage before entering shroud, to not loose 5% bonus from Scholar runes.
    We have to avoid taking damage while we are in shroud, to not loose a lot of DPS.
    We can’t be healed while in shroud, so we loose a very big amount of incoming support and often there is not heal for us when, after leaving shroud, we really need it.

    Reapers that use Shroud to shield Health, are usually “bad Reapers”, and they do very low damage. They are also not really durable in fights (unless support is very good, but that has nothing to do with the strength of Reaper).

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:
    but magic find armor start was meta :))

    No it was not. Only very selfish people used it. Reduced dps to 0 and required the rest of the group to clear the dungeon for you. Using it in pugs was probably the worst someone could do.

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Scourge difficulty is also a kind of difficulty that I find not healthy for the game, since it encourage to watch the skill bar all the time, paying less attention to many other things that happens around. We already have to pay attention to so many things.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

  • Josiah.2967Josiah.2967 Member ✭✭✭

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Giving it some thought. I really think a Grave Digger could use a significant buff. Increase the damage Grave Digger does at 50% damage, 25%, 15%. Kind of like Thief. That way it is a backloaded DPS spec and most of the damage is outside of shroud in that state.

    I think it would make Reaper boring and much more simple to play. It would just be a major buff.
    Gravedigger spam under 50%, with very high healing per attack from Soul Eater, while we can receive healing from allies and take hits from enemies without loosing damage.

    Having high damage while our health is shielded is what allows to increase Reaper damage without make Reaper overpowered.

    We have to avoid taking damage before entering shroud, to not loose 5% bonus from Scholar runes.
    We have to avoid taking damage while we are in shroud, to not loose a lot of DPS.
    We can’t be healed while in shroud, so we loose a very big amount of incoming support and often there is not heal for us when, after leaving shroud, we really need it.

    Reapers that use Shroud to shield Health, are usually “bad Reapers”, and they do very low damage. They are also not really durable in fights (unless support is very good, but that has nothing to do with the strength of Reaper).

    I am just trying to find a quick and relatively easy fix.
    1.) You have to be alive for the first half of the fight, and still do good damage the first have of the fight. To maybe it does the most damage at 10%.
    2.) Let's say they buff Grave Digger damage at the 50% threshold damage by 20%. 5% of 20% is a 1% increase. I doubt anybody is going to notice the difference.
    3.) The Reaper rotation changes even more while the enemy is closer to death. In the end (where quite often more damage is going on) you will be doing more damage outside of using your life force. The time you probably want to use it to mitigate some of the damage. Meaning you are also more vulnerable to maximize your DPS potential.
    4.) Get rid of the cancel animation for the 300 DPS boost. (The above buff will more than justify it)
    5.) The theme of the Reaper doing more and more damage the closer the enemy is to death is cool.

    Obviously we don't want the whole buff to be around Grave Digger. It would be nice if Axe did more damage...but it's to safe to make it do close to as much damage as the Greatsword. Warhorn 5 could use a huge buff to become part of our rotation again. It may not be perfect, but I think it is a huge improvement.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Giving it some thought. I really think a Grave Digger could use a significant buff. Increase the damage Grave Digger does at 50% damage, 25%, 15%. Kind of like Thief. That way it is a backloaded DPS spec and most of the damage is outside of shroud in that state.

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    I am just trying to find a quick and relatively easy fix.

    What are you trying to fix? You realize that if you want to close a 9-10K DPS gap with Gravedigger or just reaper in general, you would have to make some skills the most broken DPS skills in the game right? I mean, why would Anet break a class to that level to address a problem you already have a solution for?

    Let's be honest here. Do you think a buff is going to get into the DPS inner circle for raids? Even if you somehow got the gap down to 4-5K ... you still aren't going to get into that inner circle because this already happened before a few years back. The solution here is not likely a buff to DPS because it will never be enough to get you teams how you are trying to get them with the people you aim to team with.

    If you are claiming 9-10 K DPS is preventing you from teaming, then you need 9-10K more DPS, not 2,3 or 4.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

    Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

    That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

    You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

    Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

    Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    About raid : raid it not like dungeons for some reasons.. Ofc we can discus that this is no ok, but it is.
    Bosses have enrage time. It is smell fail. Some achievements also depend form time. This is not good...
    So we can't take normal chill roleplay people to raid and get success..

    So how we can fix that raid issue ? we have different ways..
    1)make armor stats less dependable from player total dps.
    2)make raid boses more dependable from mechanic, and more more less dependable from dps
    3) nerf raid, by cut 50-80% hp for all time, or one day per week ?Probably Dhuum cm will be more fun if cut 90% from him.

    4) make 1 +2 +3

    @Nephalem.8921 said:
    No it was not. Only very selfish people used it. Reduced dps to 0 and required the rest of the group to clear the dungeon for you. Using it in pugs was probably the worst someone could do.

    But it was standard. It was cool.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

    I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't scream DPS spec more if it tried.

    As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

    Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

    That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

    You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

    Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

    Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

    There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

    If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

    But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

    Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

    And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

    Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:
    About raid : raid it not like dungeons for some reasons.. Ofc we can discus that this is no ok, but it is.
    Bosses have enrage time. It is smell fail. Some achievements also depend form time. This is not good...
    So we can't take normal chill roleplay people to raid and get success..

    So how we can fix that raid issue ? we have different ways..
    1)make armor stats less dependable from player total dps.
    2)make raid boses more dependable from mechanic, and more more less dependable from dps
    3) nerf raid, by cut 50-80% hp for all time, or one day per week ?Probably Dhuum cm will be more fun if cut 90% from him.

    4) make 1 +2 +3

    You know, when they released the first wing there were players raids that have gone to the length of doing at least val guardian without any gear to show that armor stats aren't even needed in the "dps check".

    That said, I agree on the 2nd point, the possible mechanics skips throught high dps is probably part of the reason the "dps centric" balance arguments fuel the forum.

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

    Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

    That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

    You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

    Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

    Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

    There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

    If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

    But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

    Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

    And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

    Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

    That could be my last answer, because you are clearly not willing to take my arguments into consideration, probably you just want Scourge to have “everything” because you prefer it. While I’m trying to find a balance so that most necromancer can have something to enjoy and all elite specs can have their place in the game (without suggesting big reworks that would let a lot of people unhappy for loosing what they used to enjoy).

    What I said before shows that Scourge is not more difficult, it is more difficult in certain aspects and less difficult in other aspects.

    Your comment also contains wrong assumptions about me, only wrong assumptions. I’ll clarify: I rarely play Scourge healer (for reasons that I don’t want to explain), and I have tried to play Scourge condition multiple times (I know it and it is well equipped).

    10 seconds in shroud and 10 seconds out of it, for me, is a lot of time in shroud. Also, that proportion is not even right.

    I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you have something else to argue, you can search the answer in my previous comments. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand them, if you really want to.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

    Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

    That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

    You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

    Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

    Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

    There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

    If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

    But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

    Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

    And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

    Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

    That could be my last answer, because you are clearly not willing to take my arguments into consideration, probably you just want Scourge to have “everything” because you prefer it. While I’m trying to find a balance so that most necromancer can have something to enjoy and all elite specs can have their place in the game (without suggesting big reworks that would let a lot of people unhappy for loosing what they used to enjoy).

    What I said before shows that Scourge is not more difficult, it is more difficult in certain aspects and less difficult in other aspects.

    Your comment also contains wrong assumptions about me, only wrong assumptions. I’ll clarify: I rarely play Scourge healer (for reasons that I don’t want to explain), and I have tried to play Scourge condition multiple times (I know it and it is well equipped).

    10 seconds in shroud and 10 seconds out of it, for me, is a lot of time in shroud. Also, that proportion is not even right.

    I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you have something else to argue, you can search the answer in my previous comments. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand them, if you really want to.

    Calling the kettle black I see. The issue you're not looking at is just how easy it is to use. Are you willing to sacrifice reaper's shroud for this higher damage? Are you willing to sacrifice this element of them to get it? Because that's what you'd need to do. And its not even like I don't agree that reaper should be buffed. I do, I don't agree on the idea that it should be better than scourge at condi specifically.

    Also, the ranged argument isn't a good one either. You're in the safest zone in the group. I know that seems counter intuitive but its true. Melee range is the safest because its where all the healers are and focus, its where the buffs are and are focus. Ranged, its rarely there. And Range also has to move much more. Of course this is a flaw of Arena net's balance in general. But even I, as a scourge more frequently stick to melee range than long range because I'd have a massive dps loss. Even if I had all the buffs available to me, at least a minor dps loss since torch is a part of the rotation. So your argument is flawed just out the gate.

    Scourge also doesn't have the support to really offset the conflicts of its damage either. Barrier and the minor cleans the Condi build brings is nice, but its fluff. And fluff I could live without on the DPS build. Condi scourge should be stronger than condi reaper and should be comparable to power reaper. This isn't controversial and its only controversial for you because you feel reaper gets the short end of the stick when that's not true at all. That's core necromancer.

    Reaper is a tank. its designed like a tank, it moves like a tank, it hits like a tank. The issue is the way arena net designed raids and armor. Because of this tanking is much easier to achieve than it should be and specs like Chronomancer far out pace it because they not only tank but provide support. Reaper can't achieve this because of its fundamental design flaws and the flaws of the systems of the game. If you have a positive solution to this I'm all ears. But the idea that Reaper should be the DPS spec for everything isn't a solution. Its just pushing out scourge from one of its fundamental roles.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    You should really read over your own statement there, because this is your feelings. And you don't seem to be able to reflect on that. I DON'T want to be forced onto reaper if I want to place DPS. You DON'T want to be forced onto scourge. Never in my statements did I suggest reaper shouldn't be comparable. You have. And you claim its bad design. But its not. Nuance to gameplay isn't bad design. There is engagement with scourge you can't get on Engineer, reaper, elementalist, ranger and so on. And there's engagement you can get on those as well. YOU don't like it. YOU don't want it to be viable. YOU want to push players out of a spec they enjoy because YOU'RE salty over scourge's preference.

    I'd be willing to fight with you for the reaper in to aid it, but you need to stop attacking my favorite way to play the game first and stop trying to bury what the other half of the necromancer community wants.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

    I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't scream DPS spec more if it tried.

    As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

    Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

    Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

    But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

    Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

    That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

    You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

    Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

    Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

    There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

    If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

    But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

    Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

    And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

    Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

    That could be my last answer, because you are clearly not willing to take my arguments into consideration, probably you just want Scourge to have “everything” because you prefer it. While I’m trying to find a balance so that most necromancer can have something to enjoy and all elite specs can have their place in the game (without suggesting big reworks that would let a lot of people unhappy for loosing what they used to enjoy).

    What I said before shows that Scourge is not more difficult, it is more difficult in certain aspects and less difficult in other aspects.

    Your comment also contains wrong assumptions about me, only wrong assumptions. I’ll clarify: I rarely play Scourge healer (for reasons that I don’t want to explain), and I have tried to play Scourge condition multiple times (I know it and it is well equipped).

    10 seconds in shroud and 10 seconds out of it, for me, is a lot of time in shroud. Also, that proportion is not even right.

    I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you have something else to argue, you can search the answer in my previous comments. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand them, if you really want to.

    Calling the kettle black I see. The issue you're not looking at is just how easy it is to use. Are you willing to sacrifice reaper's shroud for this higher damage? Are you willing to sacrifice this element of them to get it? Because that's what you'd need to do. And its not even like I don't agree that reaper should be buffed. I do, I don't agree on the idea that it should be better than scourge at condi specifically.

    Also, the ranged argument isn't a good one either. You're in the safest zone in the group. I know that seems counter intuitive but its true. Melee range is the safest because its where all the healers are and focus, its where the buffs are and are focus. Ranged, its rarely there. And Range also has to move much more. Of course this is a flaw of Arena net's balance in general. But even I, as a scourge more frequently stick to melee range than long range because I'd have a massive dps loss. Even if I had all the buffs available to me, at least a minor dps loss since torch is a part of the rotation. So your argument is flawed just out the gate.

    Scourge also doesn't have the support to really offset the conflicts of its damage either. Barrier and the minor cleans the Condi build brings is nice, but its fluff. And fluff I could live without on the DPS build. Condi scourge should be stronger than condi reaper and should be comparable to power reaper. This isn't controversial and its only controversial for you because you feel reaper gets the short end of the stick when that's not true at all. That's core necromancer.

    Reaper is a tank. its designed like a tank, it moves like a tank, it hits like a tank. The issue is the way arena net designed raids and armor. Because of this tanking is much easier to achieve than it should be and specs like Chronomancer far out pace it because they not only tank but provide support. Reaper can't achieve this because of its fundamental design flaws and the flaws of the systems of the game. If you have a positive solution to this I'm all ears. But the idea that Reaper should be the DPS spec for everything isn't a solution. Its just pushing out scourge from one of its fundamental roles.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    You should really read over your own statement there, because this is your feelings. And you don't seem to be able to reflect on that. I DON'T want to be forced onto reaper if I want to place DPS. You DON'T want to be forced onto scourge. Never in my statements did I suggest reaper shouldn't be comparable. You have. And you claim its bad design. But its not. Nuance to gameplay isn't bad design. There is engagement with scourge you can't get on Engineer, reaper, elementalist, ranger and so on. And there's engagement you can get on those as well. YOU don't like it. YOU don't want it to be viable. YOU want to push players out of a spec they enjoy because YOU'RE salty over scourge's preference.

    I'd be willing to fight with you for the reaper in to aid it, but you need to stop attacking my favorite way to play the game first and stop trying to bury what the other half of the necromancer community wants.

    There is only one thing I need to say, everything else is explained in my previous comments.

    The ranged advantage of Scourge was a part of my argument not mainly focused on raids.

    Edit:

    I’ll answer here to the comment below. I don’t want to make a new comment.

    What you said below is mostly correct, but you are the one that mentioned a Reaper “tankiness” which is only an advantage outside of Raids (more precisely “where there is not allies support”). I “know” you think it is the opposite, you don’t need to repeat that.

    I have then mentioned one thing that let Scourge play safer in many situations. My intention was not to compare everything about Scourge and Reaper, but helping “you” to notice that there are already compensations for the lack of Shroud.

    I’m not shifting any argument (starting to talk about that little detail you mentioned was not my intention and in fact I’m not even going to make a new comment) and honestly I‘m not playing any “game” with you.

    I have already said where you can look for my “answers” to your arguments: my previous comments.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

    Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

    That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

    You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

    Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

    Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

    There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

    If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

    But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

    Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

    And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

    Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

    That could be my last answer, because you are clearly not willing to take my arguments into consideration, probably you just want Scourge to have “everything” because you prefer it. While I’m trying to find a balance so that most necromancer can have something to enjoy and all elite specs can have their place in the game (without suggesting big reworks that would let a lot of people unhappy for loosing what they used to enjoy).

    What I said before shows that Scourge is not more difficult, it is more difficult in certain aspects and less difficult in other aspects.

    Your comment also contains wrong assumptions about me, only wrong assumptions. I’ll clarify: I rarely play Scourge healer (for reasons that I don’t want to explain), and I have tried to play Scourge condition multiple times (I know it and it is well equipped).

    10 seconds in shroud and 10 seconds out of it, for me, is a lot of time in shroud. Also, that proportion is not even right.

    I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you have something else to argue, you can search the answer in my previous comments. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand them, if you really want to.

    Calling the kettle black I see. The issue you're not looking at is just how easy it is to use. Are you willing to sacrifice reaper's shroud for this higher damage? Are you willing to sacrifice this element of them to get it? Because that's what you'd need to do. And its not even like I don't agree that reaper should be buffed. I do, I don't agree on the idea that it should be better than scourge at condi specifically.

    Also, the ranged argument isn't a good one either. You're in the safest zone in the group. I know that seems counter intuitive but its true. Melee range is the safest because its where all the healers are and focus, its where the buffs are and are focus. Ranged, its rarely there. And Range also has to move much more. Of course this is a flaw of Arena net's balance in general. But even I, as a scourge more frequently stick to melee range than long range because I'd have a massive dps loss. Even if I had all the buffs available to me, at least a minor dps loss since torch is a part of the rotation. So your argument is flawed just out the gate.

    Scourge also doesn't have the support to really offset the conflicts of its damage either. Barrier and the minor cleans the Condi build brings is nice, but its fluff. And fluff I could live without on the DPS build. Condi scourge should be stronger than condi reaper and should be comparable to power reaper. This isn't controversial and its only controversial for you because you feel reaper gets the short end of the stick when that's not true at all. That's core necromancer.

    Reaper is a tank. its designed like a tank, it moves like a tank, it hits like a tank. The issue is the way arena net designed raids and armor. Because of this tanking is much easier to achieve than it should be and specs like Chronomancer far out pace it because they not only tank but provide support. Reaper can't achieve this because of its fundamental design flaws and the flaws of the systems of the game. If you have a positive solution to this I'm all ears. But the idea that Reaper should be the DPS spec for everything isn't a solution. Its just pushing out scourge from one of its fundamental roles.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    You should really read over your own statement there, because this is your feelings. And you don't seem to be able to reflect on that. I DON'T want to be forced onto reaper if I want to place DPS. You DON'T want to be forced onto scourge. Never in my statements did I suggest reaper shouldn't be comparable. You have. And you claim its bad design. But its not. Nuance to gameplay isn't bad design. There is engagement with scourge you can't get on Engineer, reaper, elementalist, ranger and so on. And there's engagement you can get on those as well. YOU don't like it. YOU don't want it to be viable. YOU want to push players out of a spec they enjoy because YOU'RE salty over scourge's preference.

    I'd be willing to fight with you for the reaper in to aid it, but you need to stop attacking my favorite way to play the game first and stop trying to bury what the other half of the necromancer community wants.

    There is only one thing I need to say, everything else is explained in my previous comments.

    The ranged advantage of Scourge was a part of my argument not mainly focused on raids.

    And reaper does far more damage in open world. You're shifting your argument, which I can play that game too. So here's the thing. If you're making that argument, reaper out DPS scourge in open world and dungeons.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

    I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't scream DPS spec more if it tried.

    As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

    Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

    Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

    But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

    Well, to start we SHOULDN'T look at quickbrand because what other specs do is not relevant to Necro. We also SHOULDN'T consider what other MMO's do either because GW2 is fundamentally different from most of those MMO's in how it's designed and how classes are derived from that design.

    My point here is simple ... there is a theme for an espec and whatever that theme is will determine what tools it gets. If the theme is 'tank', then that's the sort of tools it will get (even though I disagree that would be considered a class theme ... but that's neither her nor there). From where I sit, Scourge theme was never aligned with a DPS focused toolset, so the arguments that are presented to claim it should be a DPS focused toolset because of reasons that are NOT theme-based don't make sense. In fact, we have seen Scourge continually nerfed in that DPS area ... so that should be a strong indicator of what Anet wants for this espec and how it aligns with Scourge theme.

    Anyways, we are off a little on topic. The fact is that these gaps don't prevent people from raiding with the exception of those that don't learn how to do so. If there is a reason to reduce the gaps, whatever they are, they are certainly not going to be justified based on a game mechanics argument, since the game already accommodates for these gaps with the raid design itself. When I realized that, I thought it was genius because chasing meta is a nonsense activity.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

    I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't scream DPS spec more if it tried.

    As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

    Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

    Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

    But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

    Well, to start we SHOULDN'T look at quickbrand because what other specs do is not relevant to Necro. We also SHOULDN'T consider what other MMO's do either because GW2 is fundamentally different from most of those MMO's in how it's designed and how classes are derived from that design.

    My point here is simple ... there is a theme for an espec and whatever that theme is will determine what tools it gets. If the theme is 'tank', then that's the sort of tools it will get (even though I disagree that would be considered a class theme ... but that's neither her nor there). From where I sit, Scourge theme was never aligned with a DPS focused toolset, so the arguments that are presented to claim it should be a DPS focused toolset because of reasons that are NOT theme-based don't make sense. In fact, we have seen Scourge continually nerfed in that DPS area ... so that should be a strong indicator of what Anet wants for this espec and how it aligns with Scourge theme.

    Anyways, we are off a little on topic. The fact is that these gaps don't prevent people from raiding with the exception of those that don't learn how to do so. If there is a reason to reduce the gaps, whatever they are, they are certainly not going to be justified based on a game mechanics argument, since the game already accommodates for these gaps with the raid design itself. When I realized that, I thought it was genius because chasing meta is a nonsense activity.

    The argument is that a spec can't be a support and a DPS at the same time and that it shouldn't be. I fundamentally disagree with that idea and other specs can be pointed to as examples when a claim like that is made. As for the comparisons to other MMOs, I'm not using them because I think its fun. I'm pointing out what is different and what is similar. Reaper was designed to be a tank and as such with this logic it shouldn't be allowed to have high DPS if we're to use our friend's logic. Look at chronomancer. One of the DPS specs that is extremely high yet it is one of the strongest support. Why we need to isolate necromancer from everything else makes no sense. Necromancer doesn't exist in a separate space but exists within the same game. The Support a Condi scourge provides to a group is minor in comparison to other high damage Support specs and this isn't up for debate, that's just facts.

    What our friend here wants is to sacrifice the scourge for the reaper, which is a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other, both can exist as DPS and both can exist in their different respective spaces. Its not a one or the other choice. We can and should be able to play both as they are. He even said we shouldn't force players to play something they don't want to play. Well, I don't want to play reaper as a DPS. I want to play scourge as a DPS. This shouldn't be a controversial statement yet you both have attempted to make it so.

    And what Arena net intended for the scourge was both a support spec and a high DPS spec. Scourge has been nerfed mostly in other areas of the game where its was over preforming in the 3 pillars of the game. Control, Damage and support. I've long suggested these roles on the scourge should be better defined and I've even stated in this post that follows along with that philosophy. But removing part of the scourge's identity is not the answer to the issues the necromancer faces. Scourge was designed as the primary condition damage spec for necromancer. This is a fact. Demonic Lore, sadistic searing and Fell Beacon are all evidence of this fact. Looking further into it, sand sage was designed with this in mind as well.

    Look. I want reaper to be good. I do. But I will not let people throw scourge under the bus because they have this false notion that there isn't room for both as different forms of DPS. Reaper has just as many flawed designs as the scourge. More so in fact because its build on the ideas put in place by death shroud.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

    People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

    Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

    I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't scream DPS spec more if it tried.

    As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

    Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

    Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

    But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

    Well, to start we SHOULDN'T look at quickbrand because what other specs do is not relevant to Necro. We also SHOULDN'T consider what other MMO's do either because GW2 is fundamentally different from most of those MMO's in how it's designed and how classes are derived from that design.

    My point here is simple ... there is a theme for an espec and whatever that theme is will determine what tools it gets. If the theme is 'tank', then that's the sort of tools it will get (even though I disagree that would be considered a class theme ... but that's neither her nor there). From where I sit, Scourge theme was never aligned with a DPS focused toolset, so the arguments that are presented to claim it should be a DPS focused toolset because of reasons that are NOT theme-based don't make sense. In fact, we have seen Scourge continually nerfed in that DPS area ... so that should be a strong indicator of what Anet wants for this espec and how it aligns with Scourge theme.

    Anyways, we are off a little on topic. The fact is that these gaps don't prevent people from raiding with the exception of those that don't learn how to do so. If there is a reason to reduce the gaps, whatever they are, they are certainly not going to be justified based on a game mechanics argument, since the game already accommodates for these gaps with the raid design itself. When I realized that, I thought it was genius because chasing meta is a nonsense activity.

    The argument is that a spec can't be a support and a DPS at the same time and that it shouldn't be. I fundamentally disagree with that idea and other specs can be pointed to as examples when a claim like that is made. As for the comparisons to other MMOs, I'm not using them because I think its fun. I'm pointing out what is different and what is similar. Reaper was designed to be a tank and as such with this logic it shouldn't be allowed to have high DPS if we're to use our friend's logic. Look at chronomancer. One of the DPS specs that is extremely high yet it is one of the strongest support. Why we need to isolate necromancer from everything else makes no sense. Necromancer doesn't exist in a separate space but exists within the same game. The Support a Condi scourge provides to a group is minor in comparison to other high damage Support specs and this isn't up for debate, that's just facts.

    What our friend here wants is to sacrifice the scourge for the reaper, which is a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other, both can exist as DPS and both can exist in their different respective spaces. Its not a one or the other choice. We can and should be able to play both as they are. He even said we shouldn't force players to play something they don't want to play. Well, I don't want to play reaper as a DPS. I want to play scourge as a DPS. This shouldn't be a controversial statement yet you both have attempted to make it so.

    And what Arena net intended for the scourge was both a support spec and a high DPS spec. Scourge has been nerfed mostly in other areas of the game where its was over preforming in the 3 pillars of the game. Control, Damage and support. I've long suggested these roles on the scourge should be better defined and I've even stated in this post that follows along with that philosophy. But removing part of the scourge's identity is not the answer to the issues the necromancer faces. Scourge was designed as the primary condition damage spec for necromancer. This is a fact. Demonic Lore, sadistic searing and Fell Beacon are all evidence of this fact. Looking further into it, sand sage was designed with this in mind as well.

    Look. I want reaper to be good. I do. But I will not let people throw scourge under the bus because they have this false notion that there isn't room for both as different forms of DPS. Reaper has just as many flawed designs as the scourge. More so in fact because its build on the ideas put in place by death shroud.

    I’m not a friend of anyone here, and from what I understand of Obtena.7952 I don’t think he agree with me (maybe only partially).

    What you are mentioning in your comment do not correspond to what I said, nor to what I think or want. I’d be grateful if you would stop “trying to” (it could not be your intention) alterate people perception of what I’m saying.

    Anyway, I don’t want Scourge damage to be nerfed, but I also don’t think there is anything (I thought you was “asking for” more damage) you should be rewarded for when playing Scourge (not something that you don’t currently have) over Reaper.

    Also, you and other people see flaws in Reaper design (many people asked to change it radically), but that is your point of view. These things you perceive as flaws, are not flaws for me and many other people.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

    People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

    Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

    Whether or not it functions in practice doesn't negate the original intent. Since then Anet has moved away form that idea, but because of this has neglected one of the core designs of the reaper. And as such the top line for reaper is a bit all over the place now. Contradicting itself between its defense and damage. Of course Reaper always had this problem, but scourge wasn't the only thing nerfed into the ground. Reaper was too. Their chill application and damage were made laughable before PoF and their buffs are only a recent occurrence.

    Tank typically falls under control. Which the reaper is quite good at now, and with the removal of Crippling on the shades they're arguably better than scourge in some situations. I've spoken with the devs over the years on occasions back during and before reaper was released. They never wanted reaper or necromancer in general to be a high damage class. Of course the community didn't agree with their approach and as such what we can surmise from this is, yes, this was there intention but things are changing and Arena net is slow to correct.

    Currently scourge is in shambles. It needs some major buffs and reworks. As much as people like to say scourge was Over powered, it really wasn't. It had an over powered aspect to it and everything around the problem was gutted which has left it a shell of its former self. Sand Savant was the problem in combination with the AoE crippling. This was overwhelming, and because of this we get to keep sand savant but lose everything else in the process. Yes the scourge has flawed design but that's because arena net refused to listen to the Scourge players when we were pointing out what the problem is. THey listened to what everyone else thought the problem was without ever touching the spec.

    Scourge was always meant to be about damage, control and supporting allies. Its built into its design. I agree these themes crossed the streams a bit too much. But out right denying that Damage was never in the scourge's theming is just mistaken. Especially given the trait design and its chosen weapon.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Black Storm.6974 said:
    I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

    Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

    Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

    Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

    It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

    The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

    I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

    I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

    Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

    Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

    To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

    I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't scream DPS spec more if it tried.

    As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

    Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

    Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

    But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

    Well, to start we SHOULDN'T look at quickbrand because what other specs do is not relevant to Necro. We also SHOULDN'T consider what other MMO's do either because GW2 is fundamentally different from most of those MMO's in how it's designed and how classes are derived from that design.

    My point here is simple ... there is a theme for an espec and whatever that theme is will determine what tools it gets. If the theme is 'tank', then that's the sort of tools it will get (even though I disagree that would be considered a class theme ... but that's neither her nor there). From where I sit, Scourge theme was never aligned with a DPS focused toolset, so the arguments that are presented to claim it should be a DPS focused toolset because of reasons that are NOT theme-based don't make sense. In fact, we have seen Scourge continually nerfed in that DPS area ... so that should be a strong indicator of what Anet wants for this espec and how it aligns with Scourge theme.

    Anyways, we are off a little on topic. The fact is that these gaps don't prevent people from raiding with the exception of those that don't learn how to do so. If there is a reason to reduce the gaps, whatever they are, they are certainly not going to be justified based on a game mechanics argument, since the game already accommodates for these gaps with the raid design itself. When I realized that, I thought it was genius because chasing meta is a nonsense activity.

    The argument is that a spec can't be a support and a DPS at the same time and that it shouldn't be. I fundamentally disagree with that idea and other specs can be pointed to as examples when a claim like that is made. As for the comparisons to other MMOs, I'm not using them because I think its fun. I'm pointing out what is different and what is similar. Reaper was designed to be a tank and as such with this logic it shouldn't be allowed to have high DPS if we're to use our friend's logic. Look at chronomancer. One of the DPS specs that is extremely high yet it is one of the strongest support. Why we need to isolate necromancer from everything else makes no sense. Necromancer doesn't exist in a separate space but exists within the same game. The Support a Condi scourge provides to a group is minor in comparison to other high damage Support specs and this isn't up for debate, that's just facts.

    What our friend here wants is to sacrifice the scourge for the reaper, which is a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other, both can exist as DPS and both can exist in their different respective spaces. Its not a one or the other choice. We can and should be able to play both as they are. He even said we shouldn't force players to play something they don't want to play. Well, I don't want to play reaper as a DPS. I want to play scourge as a DPS. This shouldn't be a controversial statement yet you both have attempted to make it so.

    And what Arena net intended for the scourge was both a support spec and a high DPS spec. Scourge has been nerfed mostly in other areas of the game where its was over preforming in the 3 pillars of the game. Control, Damage and support. I've long suggested these roles on the scourge should be better defined and I've even stated in this post that follows along with that philosophy. But removing part of the scourge's identity is not the answer to the issues the necromancer faces. Scourge was designed as the primary condition damage spec for necromancer. This is a fact. Demonic Lore, sadistic searing and Fell Beacon are all evidence of this fact. Looking further into it, sand sage was designed with this in mind as well.

    Look. I want reaper to be good. I do. But I will not let people throw scourge under the bus because they have this false notion that there isn't room for both as different forms of DPS. Reaper has just as many flawed designs as the scourge. More so in fact because its build on the ideas put in place by death shroud.

    I’m not a friend of anyone here, and from what I understand of Obtena.7952 I don’t think he agree with me (maybe only partially).

    What you are mentioning in your comment do not correspond to what I said, nor to what I think or want. I’d be grateful if you would stop “trying to” (it could not be your intention) alterate people perception of what I’m saying.

    Anyway, I don’t want Scourge damage to be nerfed, but I also don’t think there is anything (I thought you was “asking for” more damage) you should be rewarded for when playing Scourge (not something that you don’t currently have) over Reaper.

    Also, you and other people see flaws in Reaper design (many people asked to change it radically), but that is your point of view. These things you perceive as flaws, are not flaws for me and many other people.

    I have no, and have never have had an interest in changing the reaper's core design. I have had interest in changing the core necromancer's design, but that's quite different. The reaper's flaws are something you've pointed out yourself. One of it being it can't be healed while in shroud. But this goes beyond just that and I've written entire essays on why the shroud mechanic was a bad idea and how it absolutely cripples the necromancer's current and future design space but I'm not going to get into that. I've also only been referring to what you have said. I've even quoted you.

    You don't want their damage to be nerfed sure, but what you do want is them pushed out of the meta. By making the gap between reaper and scourge strong enough in these raiding situations, you are effectively pushing the DPS scourge out of the meta entirely. Condi Scourge has one major outstanding role. Epidemic. And that isn't unique to them. IF reaper were to surpass them in condi damage they would be pushed out. And we go back to one of the least interesting and least engaging reaper builds I've ever had the misfortune of running once again.

    Also I was calling you friend to be polite. I'm not looking to breed hostility with you. Just trying to bridge your understanding with my own.

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    Sorry for not being friendly in my messages :) (really, I’m not ironic).

    I hope none of us will be sad or disappointed by what ArenaNet could eventually change about Core necromancer, Reaper or Scourge.

    I don’t see flaws in the Shroud design. I just love it :)

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 6, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

    People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

    Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

    Whether or not it functions in practice doesn't negate the original intent. Since then Anet has moved away form that idea, but because of this has neglected one of the core designs of the reaper. And as such the top line for reaper is a bit all over the place now. Contradicting itself between its defense and damage. Of course Reaper always had this problem, but scourge wasn't the only thing nerfed into the ground. Reaper was too. Their chill application and damage were made laughable before PoF and their buffs are only a recent occurrence.

    Tank typically falls under control. Which the reaper is quite good at now, and with the removal of Crippling on the shades they're arguably better than scourge in some situations. I've spoken with the devs over the years on occasions back during and before reaper was released. They never wanted reaper or necromancer in general to be a high damage class. Of course the community didn't agree with their approach and as such what we can surmise from this is, yes, this was there intention but things are changing and Arena net is slow to correct.

    Currently scourge is in shambles. It needs some major buffs and reworks. As much as people like to say scourge was Over powered, it really wasn't. It had an over powered aspect to it and everything around the problem was gutted which has left it a shell of its former self. Sand Savant was the problem in combination with the AoE crippling. This was overwhelming, and because of this we get to keep sand savant but lose everything else in the process. Yes the scourge has flawed design but that's because arena net refused to listen to the Scourge players when we were pointing out what the problem is. THey listened to what everyone else thought the problem was without ever touching the spec.

    Scourge was always meant to be about damage, control and supporting allies. Its built into its design. I agree these themes crossed the streams a bit too much. But out right denying that Damage was never in the scourge's theming is just mistaken. Especially given the trait design and its chosen weapon.

    I won't assume what the original intents of the various especs are ... and I think you do yourself a bad favour in doing that yourself. I'm not denying anything; I'm simply looking at the actions Anet has taken to change the class over time; Scourge has lost DPS and Reaper has gained DPS. If that's not indicative of the direction Anet wants for the specs, then nothing will be.

    I do think one thing here that we should all acknowledge ... the 'contradiction' between defense and damage is the fundamental theme of the necro and that's always going to regulate necro in that special place where Anet can't just pile on damage to it without an equally significant consequence to its defense. We already saw that happen when they changed the decay rate on life force while in Reaper shroud. This will always be a thing unless Anet decides to 'break' the link between Necro's defense and damage for a future Espec. Most people don't understand this and I don't blame them because it's predominantly a necro thing that maybe shouldn't exist. I've always been of the opinion that a 'second-life' mechanic is not a good one and rubs people the wrong way. Interestingly enough, something similar also happens with Berserker, but that's a different discussion.

    To be frank, I don't think Anet listens to players as much as you claim; they have already indicated they take data from actual gameplay. There is probably a balance between player feedback and game data/analysis ... but when most of the player feedback provided is like THIS thread, you can't be surprised if they lean more towards game data over player feedback. Honestly, the premise that necro's don't get teamed in instanced PVE because there is a 9-10K DPS gap is absurd and no level of sensationalism will make a compelling reason to change it. Why it's absurd? Because guaranteed Anet has game data suggesting the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

    People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

    Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

    Whether or not it functions in practice doesn't negate the original intent. Since then Anet has moved away form that idea, but because of this has neglected one of the core designs of the reaper. And as such the top line for reaper is a bit all over the place now. Contradicting itself between its defense and damage. Of course Reaper always had this problem, but scourge wasn't the only thing nerfed into the ground. Reaper was too. Their chill application and damage were made laughable before PoF and their buffs are only a recent occurrence.

    Tank typically falls under control. Which the reaper is quite good at now, and with the removal of Crippling on the shades they're arguably better than scourge in some situations. I've spoken with the devs over the years on occasions back during and before reaper was released. They never wanted reaper or necromancer in general to be a high damage class. Of course the community didn't agree with their approach and as such what we can surmise from this is, yes, this was there intention but things are changing and Arena net is slow to correct.

    Currently scourge is in shambles. It needs some major buffs and reworks. As much as people like to say scourge was Over powered, it really wasn't. It had an over powered aspect to it and everything around the problem was gutted which has left it a shell of its former self. Sand Savant was the problem in combination with the AoE crippling. This was overwhelming, and because of this we get to keep sand savant but lose everything else in the process. Yes the scourge has flawed design but that's because arena net refused to listen to the Scourge players when we were pointing out what the problem is. THey listened to what everyone else thought the problem was without ever touching the spec.

    Scourge was always meant to be about damage, control and supporting allies. Its built into its design. I agree these themes crossed the streams a bit too much. But out right denying that Damage was never in the scourge's theming is just mistaken. Especially given the trait design and its chosen weapon.

    I won't assume what the original intents of the various especs are ... and I think you do yourself a bad favour in doing that yourself. I'm not denying anything; I'm simply looking at the actions Anet has taken to change the class over time; Scourge has lost DPS and Reaper has gained DPS. If that's not indicative of the direction Anet wants for the specs, then nothing will be.

    I do think one thing here that we should all acknowledge ... the 'contradiction' between defense and damage is the fundamental theme of the necro and that's always going to regulate necro in that special place where Anet can't just pile on damage to it without an equally significant consequence to its defense. We already saw that happen when they changed the decay rate on life force while in Reaper shroud. This will always be a thing unless Anet decides to 'break' the link between Necro's defense and damage for a future Espec. Most people don't understand this and I don't blame them because it's predominantly a necro thing that maybe shouldn't exist. I've always been of the opinion that a 'second-life' mechanic is not a good one and rubs people the wrong way. Interestingly enough, something similar also happens with Berserker, but that's a different discussion.

    To be frank, I don't think Anet listens to players as much as you claim; they have already indicated they take data from actual gameplay. There is probably a balance between player feedback and game data/analysis ... but when most of the player feedback provided is like THIS thread, you can't be surprised if they lean more towards game data over player feedback. Honestly, the premise that necro's don't get teamed in instanced PVE because there is a 9-10K DPS gap is absurd and no level of sensationalism will make a compelling reason to change it. Why it's absurd? Because guaranteed Anet has game data suggesting the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

    Scourge hasn't lost all that much damage in PvE. Only in PvP and WvW. They lost a quite a bit once the bug was fixed but they haven't gone and just changed the damage of the scourge in PvE. They're still comparable. Plus considering they've adjusted the numbers across the board and have done poorly implemented balance with scourge overall there PvP and WvW balance isn't honestly a great example or a great indicator. If we take your logic into this we could then assume that chronomancer and mirage are not meant to be DPS either since they've lost far more than the scourge has in terms of DPS.

  • Agrippa Oculus.3726Agrippa Oculus.3726 Member ✭✭✭

    I always wondered why ANet chose to strip the whole shroud mechanic for Scourge but still not allow it to go full DPS. You still HAVE to go for defence (in the form of barrier). Necromancers are just really not allowed to go FULL offensive. And I really got the feeling that ANet just made a mistake in doing this. I really don't believe it's a 100% deliberate design choice from them. It just happened that way ... Or at least, that's what I believe ... Anyway, imo they should either fix that with te next e-spec, or do this with the Scourge, already. It already has lost its shroud mechanic, why not at least give the player a choice to be able to go full offensive!

    And it doesn't HAVE to be that complex: I was always thinking of changing or altering the Sadistic Searing trait in the lines of stripping barrier (or making it only 5% effective or something) from your F3 and F5 abilities and change it to (party-wide?) dps instead. You can make it even sound interesting, that your barrier from F3 and F5 now changes to thorns barrier which will increase outgoing damage instead of decreasing incoming damage. Whereas within the code, it just adds dps to skills until the barrier is eaten away. And for the fun of it, you could just turn the health-globe upside down, where the thorns barrier is at the bottom of your health globe instead of the top.
    Really, just spit-balling here of course, it doesnt have to be complex imo, just keep it simple.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 6, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

    People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

    Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

    Whether or not it functions in practice doesn't negate the original intent. Since then Anet has moved away form that idea, but because of this has neglected one of the core designs of the reaper. And as such the top line for reaper is a bit all over the place now. Contradicting itself between its defense and damage. Of course Reaper always had this problem, but scourge wasn't the only thing nerfed into the ground. Reaper was too. Their chill application and damage were made laughable before PoF and their buffs are only a recent occurrence.

    Tank typically falls under control. Which the reaper is quite good at now, and with the removal of Crippling on the shades they're arguably better than scourge in some situations. I've spoken with the devs over the years on occasions back during and before reaper was released. They never wanted reaper or necromancer in general to be a high damage class. Of course the community didn't agree with their approach and as such what we can surmise from this is, yes, this was there intention but things are changing and Arena net is slow to correct.

    Currently scourge is in shambles. It needs some major buffs and reworks. As much as people like to say scourge was Over powered, it really wasn't. It had an over powered aspect to it and everything around the problem was gutted which has left it a shell of its former self. Sand Savant was the problem in combination with the AoE crippling. This was overwhelming, and because of this we get to keep sand savant but lose everything else in the process. Yes the scourge has flawed design but that's because arena net refused to listen to the Scourge players when we were pointing out what the problem is. THey listened to what everyone else thought the problem was without ever touching the spec.

    Scourge was always meant to be about damage, control and supporting allies. Its built into its design. I agree these themes crossed the streams a bit too much. But out right denying that Damage was never in the scourge's theming is just mistaken. Especially given the trait design and its chosen weapon.

    I won't assume what the original intents of the various especs are ... and I think you do yourself a bad favour in doing that yourself. I'm not denying anything; I'm simply looking at the actions Anet has taken to change the class over time; Scourge has lost DPS and Reaper has gained DPS. If that's not indicative of the direction Anet wants for the specs, then nothing will be.

    I do think one thing here that we should all acknowledge ... the 'contradiction' between defense and damage is the fundamental theme of the necro and that's always going to regulate necro in that special place where Anet can't just pile on damage to it without an equally significant consequence to its defense. We already saw that happen when they changed the decay rate on life force while in Reaper shroud. This will always be a thing unless Anet decides to 'break' the link between Necro's defense and damage for a future Espec. Most people don't understand this and I don't blame them because it's predominantly a necro thing that maybe shouldn't exist. I've always been of the opinion that a 'second-life' mechanic is not a good one and rubs people the wrong way. Interestingly enough, something similar also happens with Berserker, but that's a different discussion.

    To be frank, I don't think Anet listens to players as much as you claim; they have already indicated they take data from actual gameplay. There is probably a balance between player feedback and game data/analysis ... but when most of the player feedback provided is like THIS thread, you can't be surprised if they lean more towards game data over player feedback. Honestly, the premise that necro's don't get teamed in instanced PVE because there is a 9-10K DPS gap is absurd and no level of sensationalism will make a compelling reason to change it. Why it's absurd? Because guaranteed Anet has game data suggesting the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

    Scourge hasn't lost all that much damage in PvE. Only in PvP and WvW. They lost a quite a bit once the bug was fixed but they haven't gone and just changed the damage of the scourge in PvE. They're still comparable. Plus considering they've adjusted the numbers across the board and have done poorly implemented balance with scourge overall there PvP and WvW balance isn't honestly a great example or a great indicator. If we take your logic into this we could then assume that chronomancer and mirage are not meant to be DPS either since they've lost far more than the scourge has in terms of DPS.

    If you take my logic ... you don't talk like class X is meant to be 'DPS' to begin with or try to compare especs to each other because those things don't make sense to do. I believe that's a role-based description imposed by players to try to understand classes they play. I believe that's an over complication of the actual concept for how classes are designed. I don't believe Anet is trying to target a 'role' for any class; I believe they simply decide that certain things are appropriate for the theme of the class they are designing and that class gets those tools. An even bolder belief I hold is that the tools Anet gives a spec aren't even strictly aligned with the game content ... For example, when we get traits that don't appear useful and other weird things that look specialized to a fraction of the content we have.

    Basically, I believe Anet offers flavours ... players can decide where those flavours are appropriate. I don't believe Anet sits there and says "oh, players need a healer for raids ... here is a druid" because that's not inline with the philosophy of the game in the first place and the content design doesn't require it to succeed.

    I really don't think how much was lost or gained by Scourge or Reaper is relevant in the discussion at all. The changes made to these especs are indicative of the direction Anet wants them to take, PERIOD. There should be NO debate about that; if those changes aren't what Anet wanted the specs to do, they wouldn't make those changes. You can deny all this if you prefer and still believe there is some balance thing going on that relates performance to skill values that no one understands and there are these templates being used to define class roles that players impose ... but I just don't see it through how the game is executed.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Nimon.7840Nimon.7840 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:
    I always wondered why ANet chose to strip the whole shroud mechanic for Scourge but still not allow it to go full DPS. You still HAVE to go for defence (in the form of barrier). Necromancers are just really not allowed to go FULL offensive. And I really got the feeling that ANet just made a mistake in doing this. I really don't believe it's a 100% deliberate design choice from them. It just happened that way ... Or at least, that's what I believe ... Anyway, imo they should either fix that with te next e-spec, or do this with the Scourge, already. It already has lost its shroud mechanic, why not at least give the player a choice to be able to go full offensive!

    Yeah I also feel like there should be a trait, that removes barrier from all skills, but adds extra damage in form of burning for example (skills that would apply barrier, loose all their barrier value and inflict 2 stacks of burning for 2 seconds. Burn damage is increased by 20%)

    Something like that. And this might even be underfunded, as you basically loose all supportive barriers, it would need to bump up the scourge dps by 2-4k)

    And it doesn't HAVE to be that complex: I was always thinking of changing or altering the Sadistic Searing trait in the lines of stripping barrier (or making it only 5% effective or something) from your F3 and F5 abilities and change it to (party-wide?) dps instead. You can make it even sound interesting, that your barrier from F3 and F5 now changes to thorns barrier which will increase outgoing damage instead of decreasing incoming damage. Whereas within the code, it just adds dps to skills until the barrier is eaten away. And for the fun of it, you could just turn the health-globe upside down, where the thorns barrier is at the bottom of your health globe instead of the top.
    Really, just spit-balling here of course, it doesnt have to be complex imo, just keep it simple.

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 6, 2020

    Scourge was probably designed to be mainly a support spec. It wasn’t designed without Shroud to give more DPS to necromancer.

    ArenaNet could give more DPS to any necromancer Elite Spec if they wanted to. Scourge has nothing that make it more appropriate to get that.

    Probably, necromancer elite specs are simply not designed to get that.

    Since people ask so much for that extra DPS, and since we already got a support spec, maybe the next elite spec will be designed to have a lot of DPS (both power and condition). They can do that if they want.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:
    I always wondered why ANet chose to strip the whole shroud mechanic for Scourge but still not allow it to go full DPS. You still HAVE to go for defence (in the form of barrier). Necromancers are just really not allowed to go FULL offensive. And I really got the feeling that ANet just made a mistake in doing this. I really don't believe it's a 100% deliberate design choice from them. It just happened that way ... Or at least, that's what I believe ... Anyway, imo they should either fix that with te next e-spec, or do this with the Scourge, already. It already has lost its shroud mechanic, why not at least give the player a choice to be able to go full offensive!

    If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because the shade mechanism like the shroud is still the main defensive mechanism of the necromancer's scourge e-spec.

    From my point of view, the "dps issue" of the necromancer come from the fact that the shroud is pushed toward the spot of being a dps stance while naturally being a defensive stance. The "out of shroud" stance on the other hand is kept mild in favor of the shroud stance despite it being lacking defensively. The necromancer is in an awkward spot where it rely to much on the shroud to do to many things.

    Had ANet favored the "out of shroud" stance for damage scourge would have had no more dps issue than the core and it's skills could have been simply support/control skills. However, since the "in shroud" stance is favored, a lot of damage potential would have been lost if ANet didn't supply the skills with damage sources. And it's what led scourge to this absurd state where he is stuck right now (huge lighting red circles, traits exceptions and horrible QoL on it's gameplay).

    NB.: They likely won't fix anything with the next e-spec because core traits are preventing the necromancer to move on with e-spec. The main mechanism of the next e-spec will continue to stay defensive due to the unholy sanctuary shackle and the fact that core is almost void of active defense skills. And the "in shroud" damage traits will continue to clash with the inherent defensive nature of the shroud, leaving the necromancer unable to escape the fate of being in this "mild" state damage wise and defensive wise.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    "Scourges channel their life force into the desert sands to summon biddable shades that damage enemies and create shields for their allies. They use punishment skills to torment their enemies, and wield torches to light the path to their destruction."

    Idk. Sounds like Arena net designed scourge to be both a support and a damage spec. Like reaper is designed to be a control and damage spec. I say control because I do consider tanks to be a form of control.

    But actually I do have a damage spec design for a necromancer. I could also design the vampire spec I promised over a year ago which probably would be more popular than my Diabolist.

    Personally, I'd like to see demonic lore remove the condi cleans from Nefarious Favor and the barrier from sand cascade in favor of damaging conditions. I don't want scourge's support build to be hurt, rather I'd like to see its damage build strengthened just a touch. Perhaps some extra torment and burning. I'm not a 100% on that. Desert shroud should not be changed. The fact that the shades provide some defense is honestly fine. Guardian's, Mesmer's, engineer's elementalist's, revenant's mechanics respectively all provide then with defense. Defense on damage specs only seems controversial on necromancer and no one else which is major hypocrisy.

    On the reaper's side and core necromancer how I would buff them, and I would buff them, I'd give them both access to utility and healing skills in shroud. The healing skill wouldn't heal you but their active or passive would still work. This would actually be a decent boost to reaper especially since they would have the damage boost from signet of suffering as well as no waste from their wells. Of course a reaper with access to spectral grasp in shroud and signet of suffering with dhuumfire sounds like someone's personal hell. But I'd probably enjoy the build quite a bit.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 7, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Idk. Sounds like Arena net designed scourge to be both a support and a damage spec.

    It is designed as should. You a welcome on open world, and you aslo con do solo LS with scourge. Don't try do merge design and toxic raid 1% burble with any design. This is better say "scourge not have enough dps exploits for toxic burble".
    If you take 5 power dps scourges and can't do some t2 fractal. Yes, something not good. But of toxic comm not accept you in raid wiht p scourge build - this is only raid problem, not scourge.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Idk. Sounds like Arena net designed scourge to be both a support and a damage spec.

    It is designed as should. You a welcome on open world, and you aslo con do solo LS with scourge. Don't try do merge design and toxic raid 1% burble with any design. This is better say "scourge not have enough dps exploits for toxic burble".
    If you take 5 power dps scourges and can't do some t2 fractal. Yes, something not good. But of toxic comm not accept you in raid wiht p scourge build - this is only raid problem, not scourge.

    Wasn't talking about power damage specifically. People have been arguing that scourge is a primary support design which is just not the case. Not in its trait design and not in their description and introduction to the elite spec.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 7, 2020

    Arena net also said scourge would provide a lot of boons to allies. But we don't see that... which has been something I've been advocating for for years now...

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 7, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Arena net also said scourge would provide a lot of boons to allies.

    currently 2x-4x might, no very cool, but we can't predict future .. may be in exp3 scourge also will have alacrity and quickness ?? but now not no boon xD
    oh we have stabiltity weil for 5 ppl for few seconds, may be they mean this ?

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Arena net also said scourge would provide a lot of boons to allies. But we don't see that... which has been something I've been advocating for for years now...

    Theoretically, by converting conditions into boons, Scourge is able to provide any boon, but it's way too inconsistent.
    I would rather see a slight rework of Scourge to improve consistency and unique boons.

    Some ideas:
    Skill type Mark : Triggered by object entities (crates, world boss, ...) as they are by regular foes.
    Trait : Soul Reaping : Speed of Shadows : Grants Swiftness and remove movement-impairing conditions from 5 allies around you when entering shroud.
    Trait : Soul Reaping : Eternal Life : Protection (3s) is given to 5 allies around you when entering shroud.
    Trait : Soul Reaping : Soul Barbs : Also increase outgoing healing.
    Trait: Scourge : Abrasive Grit : Also, when Might on ally matches or exceeds the threshold, grants Dark Aura (4s). Threshold : 25.
    F1 skill : Nefarious Favor : Convert 1 condition into Vigor (2s)