Raids are not balanced when there is a 9-10k Difference between professions. - Page 6 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

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

12346>

Comments

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kulvar.1239 said:
    Some ideas:

    make that necro wail also apply alacrity and quickness.. and etc.. but it is only one small thing between "ideas" and "what we have" // this small thing is reality.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:

    @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 ?

    As fun as quickness and alacrity would be, I doubt it. Protection does make sense, but idk. Retal would be fun but last time necromancer had a lot of retal it was nerfed into the ground. Now we have one source of retal. So I doubt arena net would give it back to us. BUT! perhaps on a future spec with short bursts of it on minions. Could be interesting for a minion spec's counter play.

  • Black Storm.6974Black Storm.6974 Member ✭✭
    edited May 8, 2020

    It is clear that Scourge is not only a support spec.

    Support was what necromancer always lacked and it is what came with Scourge. People asked for more support for a very long time before Scourge, and ArenaNet buffed necromancer support just a bit (it was not designed to have a lot of support, It was designed to be selfish, as ArenaNet said multiple times).

    Power and condition damage necromancers has been used and was popular for a very long time before Scourge.

    Scourge is the support Elite Spec of necromancer.

    Scourge is designed to have both “damage” and support, together. Maybe Scourge is simply not designed to choose between “full support” and “full damage”, because Scourge is designed as a support/damage spec.

  • Strider.7849Strider.7849 Member ✭✭✭

    @DeceiverX.8361 said:

    @Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

    @DeceiverX.8361 said:
    Why are people so toxic about minmaxing PvE damage lol.

    Like, a reaper's damage alone isn't causing anyone to fail a raid.

    Like over the course of ten players, if reaper deals 20% less damage than the top-end DPS, here's some head-math:
    10 players means a given player, assuming perfect balance and everyone playing DPS, does 10% of the overall damage.
    If we suggest two supports/non-DPS, it's 12.5%.

    Assuming all 7 other DPS are the top-end, then the reaper will deal 20% less relatively-speaking. meaning we can knock off 20% evenly and the reaper does 10% flat.
    This is a 2.56% reduction in kill speed.

    If the encounter some some reason takes 8 full minutes, or 480 seconds, the difference in time is... 480*.0256 = 12.3 seconds.

    Your reaper is reducing your clear speed by a whopping 12 seconds at the 8 minute mark assuming the rest of the raid is playing theoretical max DPS for completion. That's still nearly 20% of the remaining time on a 10 minute raid.

    Even in a party operating entirely of reapers, the net clear time is still only just over one minute slower.

    One minute! You're asking to rework a healthily-designed, all-levels-of-play-friendly and fair class for an efficiency difference of a matter of lost seconds of time in an MMO of all things.

    And of course, this time drops off the faster and better the group is! I see SC put out a video of a sub-two-minute clear today! A reaper instead of a thief or whatever selfish DPS class there adds literally 2 seconds to clear time! That's THREE DODGE ROLLS OF TIME.

    How can anyone argue something so asinine?

    This is why raids were and are bad for the game. The deviation in terms of performance day-to-day is basically non-existent and has no actual bearing on content completion, yet people are asking for class reworks because something maybe doesn't perform perfectly.

    Like... it's PvE, where completing the content itself is supposed to be as fun as playing the class. To which most people who play reaper LOVE it. If you're getting your panties in a knot because someone caused you to spend 12 more seconds longer in a raid, you're not enjoying the game and should probably re-evaluate how you're spending your time.

    I love it how some people try to convince others by taking real valuable and significant values (like percentages) and turn them to insignificant absolute values (like seconds) in a terribly specific scenario.
    Let me do the same now, as an example:
    Let me substitute that 20% into a cut in your income: if you're working 10 minutes this might only contribute to mere cents (or even less) that you're losing out on ... Why would you get your "panties in a knot" on less than a few cents, really??? Even worse: in your team: if you're the only one getting that paycut, your team notices even LESS. Wow, what are you even worrying about, right?

    You see what I or actually you did there? First of all, you are describing a situation from a team perspective, while we're talking about single class (DPS) performance; not team/squad (DPS) performance. But the real elephant in the room is obviously you taking a specific absolute number (8 minutes) of which literally NO-ONE will exactly bound him/herself to in their lifetime.

    To get into somewhat more real potential time-loss scenarios (without getting tooooo complex): you have to multiply this number (8 minutes) with how many raids you do on your Necro, and well, let's just put Fractals in there as well, and while we're on it: Strikes, and maybe all other stuff where DPS is important, like dungeons, story instances, world bosses, etc. ... (oh wait, this game (or at least the PvE part of it) is one of the most heavily focused on DPS games, I've seen in a long time, so you might just type /age and you have your number right there :)). And when you then have some kind of estimated number of total time spent, you can divide this with your 8 minutes sample, and then multiply this with the time loss that you as a player contributed for, for you AND all other players (you conveniently left this out in your calculations, but that's ok, I'm here to remind you!), because they ALL could've done better. Because of your choice of class, you're taking away time from everyone, not just yourself. And then you have a more genuine depiction of the truth, instead of your: let's put this in a VERY specific vacuum scenario!

    Btw, you know what really helps in complex calculation like these! Percentages. Without really having to do complex estimated potential time-loss calculations, you could just look at a relative values and have a straight away feeling with it.
    I.e.: at least 20% less DPS than other classes, because you've chosen the wrong class is quite significant! Simple! K.I.S.S. :)

    Your entire first argument defies the very logic you lay out and is based on a logical fallacy called a false equivalency. You say I would be upset about losing the money, but your rhetorical 20% pay cut only has implicit merit because most people can't afford to lose 20% of their income based on numeric absolutes like the value of their wage and the fixed cost of housing groceries, and so on. That's not the case here; if I told you I could pay you $10 million per year to work 5 days a week or $8 million to work four days a week, I can almost guarantee you would take the latter option. Why? Because the consequences of losing an insignificant relative value - the abstract concept of value driven by numeric absolutes in how we live our lives - is lost when considering the positives of work/life balance. See, your money example only works because the value you attach to it is based on a preconceived fixed value INSTEAD of a percentage. In all reality, the percent is totally worthless. And reality is the basis of my argument, because nobody gives a kitten about percentages of anything.

    Those seconds lost are not significant at all in the real world, and you're conflating it based on fallacy of how the numbers are actually handled. Period. If you're playing an MMO and raiding, you're not panicking about a raid taking 20 more seconds because you absolutely NEED to not be playing for those subsequent seconds with negligible value. Further, such extensions in time, measured in the real world as overall time spent are not measured against other variables (you claim this as a loss of overall time) and are not spent continually at 100% content-completion for said math to matter. Time in the real world that we let ourselves play should be allocated to complete a raid based on its realistic low-ball-expectancy investment; you do not say "I have five minutes so I'll pray for a quick raid and if we don't complete it by then I'll log out midway through." No, instead you look at your remaining play time, make a judgment on if you can realistically complete the content by the time you actually have to log out, and go from there with no regard to its duration. If you only have 2 minutes left to play on a hard time cap, you don't go to a raid and log out early. It takes 10 raids to match that point to "save" that time, so for the "lost time" to actually matter, it carries some major assumptions:
    A.) You would have had the same, optimized group with no wasted time between raids, such as having no waiting periods at all between content. Realistically, this isn't happening;
    B.) Everyone else is max damage or the skill level is identical across all players pushing upper thresholds;
    C.) There is a hard time limit;
    D.) The nominal amount of successive raids is substantial enough to impact the chance of possibly doing another one under the optimal circumstances at the beginning of play time to impact others cumulatively.

    None of these criteria are realistic to all incur, especially the notion that there is no downtime; if you wait on average longer than 12 seconds to form a group in between raids, your entire argument of "lost time" is literally nullified, and the same goes in most realistic scenarios where the time cap isn't hard; 8 raids at 8 minutes translates to 96 extra seconds.
    And to make it matter assuming all of the above criteria ARE fulfilled, to do another raid with said "lost time" in numeric values (because this is the only benchmark that matters in terms of out-of-game time and rewards), would require four and a half times that consecutively to make a difference; meaning the actual time spent playing prior is 884.5 or nearly five hours of game time under IDEAL circumstances. Most players also have a bit of time for leeway when they stop and start, usually by a matter of some minutes (implicitly meaning a significant chunk of a raid in it of itself), so it's more a matter of "do I want to go a little later tonight?" versus "do I want to call it now?"

    And like your initial flawed logic I pointed out in the first argument pointing out the abstract value we assign to our time, is also philosophically my point about the very nature of playing in it of itself; you speak on the level of someone optimizing solely around quantitative values that are the result of raid completions, because your only innate defense is based on the number of completions for reducing time, like budgeting a paycheck to accrue a resource based on a numeric value (back to my point about it being the only thing that matters). But in reality, this has absolutely no bearing on anything quantifiable in the real world, and we should be deriving worth as perceived fun, an immeasurable concept that can't be quantified. The only reason any of the attitude towards optimization to anyone is for the act of playing itself and some compulsion to optimize, which is in itself unhealthy; you're basing your time spent managing raid completions akin to a financial optimization problem made by someone frantically trying to figure out how to pay the bills. That's not healthy behavior, and if people are playing enough successive raids to see substantial increases in numeric absolutes (I.E. doing enough "extra" raids to shave significant amounts of time for their far-reaching goals), there's serious concern for other real-life problems given the emphasis on expedition and minute value of in-game acquisitive goals.

    Not to mention it's strictly hypocritical to say that "wasting" another person's time in such insignificant "losses" (in quotes because of the aforementioned) is justified. You specify it impacts everyone else, but so does reworking classes or expecting other players' patterns to change based on some notion that all people must play according to a certain structure because of your perspective of needing that "saved time."

    The one constant through this - the one percent which actually holds weight - is whether or not people are having fun in the very act of playing their class, because 100% of the time spent playing is playing said class. If it completes the content without a significant cut in terms of the pragmatic absolutes per player (I.E., not in the matter of seconds relative to several minutes), That's the one and only thing which matters with such minutia.

    If the class is redesigned, and it's made less fun or less-well-designed, it impacts everyone in the PvP and WvW sections of the game 100% of the time as well as players who previously liked the existing design. ANet has already cited of all content, raids and "difficult group content" have the lowest active playerbase. Reworking a class without perfect implementation/ideas with an overwhelming amount of support for the sake of such minutia is literally the best way to negatively-impact the objective most number of players and play-hours from all mathematical perspectives. That's what I'm defending, and why demanding reworks is absolutely asinine, selfish, and is based on unrealistic expectations of play patterns and nothing more than some very oversimplified math.

    You talk about depictions of the truth but then put situations in vacuums in your own words. In the scientific and engineering worlds, we call that one thing: BS. Your designations don't follow pragmatism enough to actually work in the real world, to which we develop surrounding models and simulations to get a real picture, because such simplicity is not accurate.

    If you're going to try and math me out, I want the full explanation, because strictly speaking, from a pragmatic perspective, I think your argument is indefensible with real numbers and harms the bulk majority of players.

    Off topic, but from the little bit I read I would take the 10 mill to work 5 days a week rather than 8 mill for 4 days. Who would pass up two million dollars for 1 day extra a week within a year.

  • @Strider.7849 said:

    @DeceiverX.8361 said:

    @Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

    @DeceiverX.8361 said:
    Why are people so toxic about minmaxing PvE damage lol.

    Like, a reaper's damage alone isn't causing anyone to fail a raid.

    Like over the course of ten players, if reaper deals 20% less damage than the top-end DPS, here's some head-math:
    10 players means a given player, assuming perfect balance and everyone playing DPS, does 10% of the overall damage.
    If we suggest two supports/non-DPS, it's 12.5%.

    Assuming all 7 other DPS are the top-end, then the reaper will deal 20% less relatively-speaking. meaning we can knock off 20% evenly and the reaper does 10% flat.
    This is a 2.56% reduction in kill speed.

    If the encounter some some reason takes 8 full minutes, or 480 seconds, the difference in time is... 480*.0256 = 12.3 seconds.

    Your reaper is reducing your clear speed by a whopping 12 seconds at the 8 minute mark assuming the rest of the raid is playing theoretical max DPS for completion. That's still nearly 20% of the remaining time on a 10 minute raid.

    Even in a party operating entirely of reapers, the net clear time is still only just over one minute slower.

    One minute! You're asking to rework a healthily-designed, all-levels-of-play-friendly and fair class for an efficiency difference of a matter of lost seconds of time in an MMO of all things.

    And of course, this time drops off the faster and better the group is! I see SC put out a video of a sub-two-minute clear today! A reaper instead of a thief or whatever selfish DPS class there adds literally 2 seconds to clear time! That's THREE DODGE ROLLS OF TIME.

    How can anyone argue something so asinine?

    This is why raids were and are bad for the game. The deviation in terms of performance day-to-day is basically non-existent and has no actual bearing on content completion, yet people are asking for class reworks because something maybe doesn't perform perfectly.

    Like... it's PvE, where completing the content itself is supposed to be as fun as playing the class. To which most people who play reaper LOVE it. If you're getting your panties in a knot because someone caused you to spend 12 more seconds longer in a raid, you're not enjoying the game and should probably re-evaluate how you're spending your time.

    I love it how some people try to convince others by taking real valuable and significant values (like percentages) and turn them to insignificant absolute values (like seconds) in a terribly specific scenario.
    Let me do the same now, as an example:
    Let me substitute that 20% into a cut in your income: if you're working 10 minutes this might only contribute to mere cents (or even less) that you're losing out on ... Why would you get your "panties in a knot" on less than a few cents, really??? Even worse: in your team: if you're the only one getting that paycut, your team notices even LESS. Wow, what are you even worrying about, right?

    You see what I or actually you did there? First of all, you are describing a situation from a team perspective, while we're talking about single class (DPS) performance; not team/squad (DPS) performance. But the real elephant in the room is obviously you taking a specific absolute number (8 minutes) of which literally NO-ONE will exactly bound him/herself to in their lifetime.

    To get into somewhat more real potential time-loss scenarios (without getting tooooo complex): you have to multiply this number (8 minutes) with how many raids you do on your Necro, and well, let's just put Fractals in there as well, and while we're on it: Strikes, and maybe all other stuff where DPS is important, like dungeons, story instances, world bosses, etc. ... (oh wait, this game (or at least the PvE part of it) is one of the most heavily focused on DPS games, I've seen in a long time, so you might just type /age and you have your number right there :)). And when you then have some kind of estimated number of total time spent, you can divide this with your 8 minutes sample, and then multiply this with the time loss that you as a player contributed for, for you AND all other players (you conveniently left this out in your calculations, but that's ok, I'm here to remind you!), because they ALL could've done better. Because of your choice of class, you're taking away time from everyone, not just yourself. And then you have a more genuine depiction of the truth, instead of your: let's put this in a VERY specific vacuum scenario!

    Btw, you know what really helps in complex calculation like these! Percentages. Without really having to do complex estimated potential time-loss calculations, you could just look at a relative values and have a straight away feeling with it.
    I.e.: at least 20% less DPS than other classes, because you've chosen the wrong class is quite significant! Simple! K.I.S.S. :)

    Your entire first argument defies the very logic you lay out and is based on a logical fallacy called a false equivalency. You say I would be upset about losing the money, but your rhetorical 20% pay cut only has implicit merit because most people can't afford to lose 20% of their income based on numeric absolutes like the value of their wage and the fixed cost of housing groceries, and so on. That's not the case here; if I told you I could pay you $10 million per year to work 5 days a week or $8 million to work four days a week, I can almost guarantee you would take the latter option. Why? Because the consequences of losing an insignificant relative value - the abstract concept of value driven by numeric absolutes in how we live our lives - is lost when considering the positives of work/life balance. See, your money example only works because the value you attach to it is based on a preconceived fixed value INSTEAD of a percentage. In all reality, the percent is totally worthless. And reality is the basis of my argument, because nobody gives a kitten about percentages of anything.

    Those seconds lost are not significant at all in the real world, and you're conflating it based on fallacy of how the numbers are actually handled. Period. If you're playing an MMO and raiding, you're not panicking about a raid taking 20 more seconds because you absolutely NEED to not be playing for those subsequent seconds with negligible value. Further, such extensions in time, measured in the real world as overall time spent are not measured against other variables (you claim this as a loss of overall time) and are not spent continually at 100% content-completion for said math to matter. Time in the real world that we let ourselves play should be allocated to complete a raid based on its realistic low-ball-expectancy investment; you do not say "I have five minutes so I'll pray for a quick raid and if we don't complete it by then I'll log out midway through." No, instead you look at your remaining play time, make a judgment on if you can realistically complete the content by the time you actually have to log out, and go from there with no regard to its duration. If you only have 2 minutes left to play on a hard time cap, you don't go to a raid and log out early. It takes 10 raids to match that point to "save" that time, so for the "lost time" to actually matter, it carries some major assumptions:
    A.) You would have had the same, optimized group with no wasted time between raids, such as having no waiting periods at all between content. Realistically, this isn't happening;
    B.) Everyone else is max damage or the skill level is identical across all players pushing upper thresholds;
    C.) There is a hard time limit;
    D.) The nominal amount of successive raids is substantial enough to impact the chance of possibly doing another one under the optimal circumstances at the beginning of play time to impact others cumulatively.

    None of these criteria are realistic to all incur, especially the notion that there is no downtime; if you wait on average longer than 12 seconds to form a group in between raids, your entire argument of "lost time" is literally nullified, and the same goes in most realistic scenarios where the time cap isn't hard; 8 raids at 8 minutes translates to 96 extra seconds.
    And to make it matter assuming all of the above criteria ARE fulfilled, to do another raid with said "lost time" in numeric values (because this is the only benchmark that matters in terms of out-of-game time and rewards), would require four and a half times that consecutively to make a difference; meaning the actual time spent playing prior is 884.5 or nearly five hours of game time under IDEAL circumstances. Most players also have a bit of time for leeway when they stop and start, usually by a matter of some minutes (implicitly meaning a significant chunk of a raid in it of itself), so it's more a matter of "do I want to go a little later tonight?" versus "do I want to call it now?"

    And like your initial flawed logic I pointed out in the first argument pointing out the abstract value we assign to our time, is also philosophically my point about the very nature of playing in it of itself; you speak on the level of someone optimizing solely around quantitative values that are the result of raid completions, because your only innate defense is based on the number of completions for reducing time, like budgeting a paycheck to accrue a resource based on a numeric value (back to my point about it being the only thing that matters). But in reality, this has absolutely no bearing on anything quantifiable in the real world, and we should be deriving worth as perceived fun, an immeasurable concept that can't be quantified. The only reason any of the attitude towards optimization to anyone is for the act of playing itself and some compulsion to optimize, which is in itself unhealthy; you're basing your time spent managing raid completions akin to a financial optimization problem made by someone frantically trying to figure out how to pay the bills. That's not healthy behavior, and if people are playing enough successive raids to see substantial increases in numeric absolutes (I.E. doing enough "extra" raids to shave significant amounts of time for their far-reaching goals), there's serious concern for other real-life problems given the emphasis on expedition and minute value of in-game acquisitive goals.

    Not to mention it's strictly hypocritical to say that "wasting" another person's time in such insignificant "losses" (in quotes because of the aforementioned) is justified. You specify it impacts everyone else, but so does reworking classes or expecting other players' patterns to change based on some notion that all people must play according to a certain structure because of your perspective of needing that "saved time."

    The one constant through this - the one percent which actually holds weight - is whether or not people are having fun in the very act of playing their class, because 100% of the time spent playing is playing said class. If it completes the content without a significant cut in terms of the pragmatic absolutes per player (I.E., not in the matter of seconds relative to several minutes), That's the one and only thing which matters with such minutia.

    If the class is redesigned, and it's made less fun or less-well-designed, it impacts everyone in the PvP and WvW sections of the game 100% of the time as well as players who previously liked the existing design. ANet has already cited of all content, raids and "difficult group content" have the lowest active playerbase. Reworking a class without perfect implementation/ideas with an overwhelming amount of support for the sake of such minutia is literally the best way to negatively-impact the objective most number of players and play-hours from all mathematical perspectives. That's what I'm defending, and why demanding reworks is absolutely asinine, selfish, and is based on unrealistic expectations of play patterns and nothing more than some very oversimplified math.

    You talk about depictions of the truth but then put situations in vacuums in your own words. In the scientific and engineering worlds, we call that one thing: BS. Your designations don't follow pragmatism enough to actually work in the real world, to which we develop surrounding models and simulations to get a real picture, because such simplicity is not accurate.

    If you're going to try and math me out, I want the full explanation, because strictly speaking, from a pragmatic perspective, I think your argument is indefensible with real numbers and harms the bulk majority of players.

    Off topic, but from the little bit I read I would take the 10 mill to work 5 days a week rather than 8 mill for 4 days. Who would pass up two million dollars for 1 day extra a week within a year.

    :)
    Me2.
    But to get on-topic with this picture, because it's even worse than that: Now imagine that you can make 10 mil with working 4 days a week or 10 mil while having to work 5 days a week, because you've happen to choose the wrong profession. The choice gets even easier, right?!!

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 11, 2020

    @Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

    @Strider.7849 said:

    @DeceiverX.8361 said:

    @Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

    @DeceiverX.8361 said:
    Why are people so toxic about minmaxing PvE damage lol.

    Like, a reaper's damage alone isn't causing anyone to fail a raid.

    Like over the course of ten players, if reaper deals 20% less damage than the top-end DPS, here's some head-math:
    10 players means a given player, assuming perfect balance and everyone playing DPS, does 10% of the overall damage.
    If we suggest two supports/non-DPS, it's 12.5%.

    Assuming all 7 other DPS are the top-end, then the reaper will deal 20% less relatively-speaking. meaning we can knock off 20% evenly and the reaper does 10% flat.
    This is a 2.56% reduction in kill speed.

    If the encounter some some reason takes 8 full minutes, or 480 seconds, the difference in time is... 480*.0256 = 12.3 seconds.

    Your reaper is reducing your clear speed by a whopping 12 seconds at the 8 minute mark assuming the rest of the raid is playing theoretical max DPS for completion. That's still nearly 20% of the remaining time on a 10 minute raid.

    Even in a party operating entirely of reapers, the net clear time is still only just over one minute slower.

    One minute! You're asking to rework a healthily-designed, all-levels-of-play-friendly and fair class for an efficiency difference of a matter of lost seconds of time in an MMO of all things.

    And of course, this time drops off the faster and better the group is! I see SC put out a video of a sub-two-minute clear today! A reaper instead of a thief or whatever selfish DPS class there adds literally 2 seconds to clear time! That's THREE DODGE ROLLS OF TIME.

    How can anyone argue something so asinine?

    This is why raids were and are bad for the game. The deviation in terms of performance day-to-day is basically non-existent and has no actual bearing on content completion, yet people are asking for class reworks because something maybe doesn't perform perfectly.

    Like... it's PvE, where completing the content itself is supposed to be as fun as playing the class. To which most people who play reaper LOVE it. If you're getting your panties in a knot because someone caused you to spend 12 more seconds longer in a raid, you're not enjoying the game and should probably re-evaluate how you're spending your time.

    I love it how some people try to convince others by taking real valuable and significant values (like percentages) and turn them to insignificant absolute values (like seconds) in a terribly specific scenario.
    Let me do the same now, as an example:
    Let me substitute that 20% into a cut in your income: if you're working 10 minutes this might only contribute to mere cents (or even less) that you're losing out on ... Why would you get your "panties in a knot" on less than a few cents, really??? Even worse: in your team: if you're the only one getting that paycut, your team notices even LESS. Wow, what are you even worrying about, right?

    You see what I or actually you did there? First of all, you are describing a situation from a team perspective, while we're talking about single class (DPS) performance; not team/squad (DPS) performance. But the real elephant in the room is obviously you taking a specific absolute number (8 minutes) of which literally NO-ONE will exactly bound him/herself to in their lifetime.

    To get into somewhat more real potential time-loss scenarios (without getting tooooo complex): you have to multiply this number (8 minutes) with how many raids you do on your Necro, and well, let's just put Fractals in there as well, and while we're on it: Strikes, and maybe all other stuff where DPS is important, like dungeons, story instances, world bosses, etc. ... (oh wait, this game (or at least the PvE part of it) is one of the most heavily focused on DPS games, I've seen in a long time, so you might just type /age and you have your number right there :)). And when you then have some kind of estimated number of total time spent, you can divide this with your 8 minutes sample, and then multiply this with the time loss that you as a player contributed for, for you AND all other players (you conveniently left this out in your calculations, but that's ok, I'm here to remind you!), because they ALL could've done better. Because of your choice of class, you're taking away time from everyone, not just yourself. And then you have a more genuine depiction of the truth, instead of your: let's put this in a VERY specific vacuum scenario!

    Btw, you know what really helps in complex calculation like these! Percentages. Without really having to do complex estimated potential time-loss calculations, you could just look at a relative values and have a straight away feeling with it.
    I.e.: at least 20% less DPS than other classes, because you've chosen the wrong class is quite significant! Simple! K.I.S.S. :)

    Your entire first argument defies the very logic you lay out and is based on a logical fallacy called a false equivalency. You say I would be upset about losing the money, but your rhetorical 20% pay cut only has implicit merit because most people can't afford to lose 20% of their income based on numeric absolutes like the value of their wage and the fixed cost of housing groceries, and so on. That's not the case here; if I told you I could pay you $10 million per year to work 5 days a week or $8 million to work four days a week, I can almost guarantee you would take the latter option. Why? Because the consequences of losing an insignificant relative value - the abstract concept of value driven by numeric absolutes in how we live our lives - is lost when considering the positives of work/life balance. See, your money example only works because the value you attach to it is based on a preconceived fixed value INSTEAD of a percentage. In all reality, the percent is totally worthless. And reality is the basis of my argument, because nobody gives a kitten about percentages of anything.

    Those seconds lost are not significant at all in the real world, and you're conflating it based on fallacy of how the numbers are actually handled. Period. If you're playing an MMO and raiding, you're not panicking about a raid taking 20 more seconds because you absolutely NEED to not be playing for those subsequent seconds with negligible value. Further, such extensions in time, measured in the real world as overall time spent are not measured against other variables (you claim this as a loss of overall time) and are not spent continually at 100% content-completion for said math to matter. Time in the real world that we let ourselves play should be allocated to complete a raid based on its realistic low-ball-expectancy investment; you do not say "I have five minutes so I'll pray for a quick raid and if we don't complete it by then I'll log out midway through." No, instead you look at your remaining play time, make a judgment on if you can realistically complete the content by the time you actually have to log out, and go from there with no regard to its duration. If you only have 2 minutes left to play on a hard time cap, you don't go to a raid and log out early. It takes 10 raids to match that point to "save" that time, so for the "lost time" to actually matter, it carries some major assumptions:
    A.) You would have had the same, optimized group with no wasted time between raids, such as having no waiting periods at all between content. Realistically, this isn't happening;
    B.) Everyone else is max damage or the skill level is identical across all players pushing upper thresholds;
    C.) There is a hard time limit;
    D.) The nominal amount of successive raids is substantial enough to impact the chance of possibly doing another one under the optimal circumstances at the beginning of play time to impact others cumulatively.

    None of these criteria are realistic to all incur, especially the notion that there is no downtime; if you wait on average longer than 12 seconds to form a group in between raids, your entire argument of "lost time" is literally nullified, and the same goes in most realistic scenarios where the time cap isn't hard; 8 raids at 8 minutes translates to 96 extra seconds.
    And to make it matter assuming all of the above criteria ARE fulfilled, to do another raid with said "lost time" in numeric values (because this is the only benchmark that matters in terms of out-of-game time and rewards), would require four and a half times that consecutively to make a difference; meaning the actual time spent playing prior is 884.5 or nearly five hours of game time under IDEAL circumstances. Most players also have a bit of time for leeway when they stop and start, usually by a matter of some minutes (implicitly meaning a significant chunk of a raid in it of itself), so it's more a matter of "do I want to go a little later tonight?" versus "do I want to call it now?"

    And like your initial flawed logic I pointed out in the first argument pointing out the abstract value we assign to our time, is also philosophically my point about the very nature of playing in it of itself; you speak on the level of someone optimizing solely around quantitative values that are the result of raid completions, because your only innate defense is based on the number of completions for reducing time, like budgeting a paycheck to accrue a resource based on a numeric value (back to my point about it being the only thing that matters). But in reality, this has absolutely no bearing on anything quantifiable in the real world, and we should be deriving worth as perceived fun, an immeasurable concept that can't be quantified. The only reason any of the attitude towards optimization to anyone is for the act of playing itself and some compulsion to optimize, which is in itself unhealthy; you're basing your time spent managing raid completions akin to a financial optimization problem made by someone frantically trying to figure out how to pay the bills. That's not healthy behavior, and if people are playing enough successive raids to see substantial increases in numeric absolutes (I.E. doing enough "extra" raids to shave significant amounts of time for their far-reaching goals), there's serious concern for other real-life problems given the emphasis on expedition and minute value of in-game acquisitive goals.

    Not to mention it's strictly hypocritical to say that "wasting" another person's time in such insignificant "losses" (in quotes because of the aforementioned) is justified. You specify it impacts everyone else, but so does reworking classes or expecting other players' patterns to change based on some notion that all people must play according to a certain structure because of your perspective of needing that "saved time."

    The one constant through this - the one percent which actually holds weight - is whether or not people are having fun in the very act of playing their class, because 100% of the time spent playing is playing said class. If it completes the content without a significant cut in terms of the pragmatic absolutes per player (I.E., not in the matter of seconds relative to several minutes), That's the one and only thing which matters with such minutia.

    If the class is redesigned, and it's made less fun or less-well-designed, it impacts everyone in the PvP and WvW sections of the game 100% of the time as well as players who previously liked the existing design. ANet has already cited of all content, raids and "difficult group content" have the lowest active playerbase. Reworking a class without perfect implementation/ideas with an overwhelming amount of support for the sake of such minutia is literally the best way to negatively-impact the objective most number of players and play-hours from all mathematical perspectives. That's what I'm defending, and why demanding reworks is absolutely asinine, selfish, and is based on unrealistic expectations of play patterns and nothing more than some very oversimplified math.

    You talk about depictions of the truth but then put situations in vacuums in your own words. In the scientific and engineering worlds, we call that one thing: BS. Your designations don't follow pragmatism enough to actually work in the real world, to which we develop surrounding models and simulations to get a real picture, because such simplicity is not accurate.

    If you're going to try and math me out, I want the full explanation, because strictly speaking, from a pragmatic perspective, I think your argument is indefensible with real numbers and harms the bulk majority of players.

    Off topic, but from the little bit I read I would take the 10 mill to work 5 days a week rather than 8 mill for 4 days. Who would pass up two million dollars for 1 day extra a week within a year.

    :)
    Me2.
    But to get on-topic with this picture, because it's even worse than that: Now imagine that you can make 10 mil with working 4 days a week or 10 mil while having to work 5 days a week, because you've happen to choose the wrong profession. The choice gets even easier, right?!!

    If DPS was the only reason people made those choices, you might be on to something here. If money was the only reason to work 4 vs. 5 days a week, your comparison would make sense. Good thing for us in life and in the game, there are other reasons besides money and DPS to choose work and choose classes.

    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/

  • Josiah.2967Josiah.2967 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    Just another new Guild Wars 2 article worth quoting.

    Thegamer.com

    Basically the paladins of Guild Wars 2, Guardians have held the top spot for damage for many patches and updates now.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Just another new Guild Wars 2 article worth quoting.

    Thegamer.com

    Basically the paladins of Guild Wars 2, Guardians have held the top spot for damage for many patches and updates now.

    That's perfect. That quote shows the meta changes and that your going to forced to choose a different class at some point if you decide that DPS is your primary reason to play a specific class/build. So basically ... making choices to get what you want ... like I've already told you, regardless of what that 'want' is.

    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 ✭✭✭✭

    so hope now we understand properly direction what is wrong. It is not different dps values.
    The main problem - broken raid's hwere players dps make so big value ..
    So fist step = vote to ban sc site, abort all measures, and dps compares ..
    Second - rework raid by reduce boss hp 5-10x.

  • Mini Crinny.6190Mini Crinny.6190 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2020

    @lare.5129 said:
    Second - rework raid by reduce boss hp 5-10x.

    Bosses are already killed in about half the time needed anyway, the power creep in the game is crazy so every class needs a nerf

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2020

    @lare.5129 said:
    so hope now we understand properly direction what is wrong. It is not different dps values.
    The main problem - broken raid's hwere players dps make so big value ..
    So fist step = vote to ban sc site, abort all measures, and dps compares ..
    Second - rework raid by reduce boss hp 5-10x.

    1. There's no way they could ban it. And there's nothing wrong with players being informed.
    2. Reducing boss hp isn't needed and wouldn't have much of the impact other than just further trivializing the encounters -some people still would rather make them within 1 minute than 2 minutes.

    Actual "solutions" (but still not exactly)
    a) make raid mechanics unskippable by dps
    b) who cares, just start making your own squads and get over it.

  • @Yasai.3549 said:
    Similarly, if Core Engi is literal dumpster at anything (which is really sad btw, this is something Anet should look at because Engi is a core profession), Holo exists which does respectable DPS, and Scrapper does offer pretty decent support.

    Agreed. Core engineer is an awful mess and Arenanet should do something about it! The crazy amount of nerfing on core engineer is the main reason. Arenanet have always "balanced" engineer that instead of nerfing the overpowered holo or sustain monster scrapper, they swing the nerf hammer at core.

    Engineer is by far the least played core profession (elite spec or not) in the game. Guardian has almost 3 times more play hours (!).

    https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics

  • Josiah.2967Josiah.2967 Member ✭✭✭

    I find myself gravitating to other games lately. I think I have given up on the idea of GW2 having balanced PVE endgame. Is that healthy?

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 22, 2020

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    I find myself gravitating to other games lately. I think I have given up on the idea of GW2 having balanced PVE endgame. Is that healthy?

    Depends what you mean. Do you think it's healthy that people who don't understand an established game and complain about it continue to play it? I don't. I'd rather play a game with 10K satisfied players that all understand how it works and accept it than a game with 1M players who think there is something wrong with it who can't leave their baggage at the door.

    Besides ... this game is not subscription ... it's designed to allow players to come and go as they please. If balance in DPS for endgame PVE is such a big deal to you that you can't get over your ideas of how you think an MMO should work, then it's good you left for all stakeholders.

    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 ✭✭✭✭

    Really sad that there's no word about pve balance yet.
    Only something about pvp balance...

  • Josiah.2967Josiah.2967 Member ✭✭✭

    Can someone explain this balance patch:

    Ranger

    Slash (Bird): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.38 to 0.25.
    Chilling Slash (Owl): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    Blinding Slash (Raven): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    

    I do not understand this nerf? Were their some secret meta I didn't know about? Meanwhile, guardians remain untouched.

  • Nimon.7840Nimon.7840 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Can someone explain this balance patch:

    Ranger

    Slash (Bird): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.38 to 0.25.
    Chilling Slash (Owl): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    Blinding Slash (Raven): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    

    I do not understand this nerf? Were their some secret meta I didn't know about? Meanwhile, guardians remain untouched.

    If I'm not wrong this is to nerf them in spvp?!
    Cause everyon was playing birds and they were considered op.

    But yes. I agree. Especially burn firebrand needs to be nerfed in wvw. As well as the immobilize spam (main offenders being ranger, ele, guard)

  • Mini Crinny.6190Mini Crinny.6190 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2020

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Can someone explain this balance patch:

    Ranger

    Slash (Bird): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.38 to 0.25.
    Chilling Slash (Owl): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    Blinding Slash (Raven): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    

    I do not understand this nerf? Were their some secret meta I didn't know about? Meanwhile, guardians remain untouched.

    If I'm not wrong this is to nerf them in spvp?!
    Cause everyon was playing birds and they were considered op.

    But yes. I agree. Especially burn firebrand needs to be nerfed in wvw. As well as the immobilize spam (main offenders being ranger, ele, guard)

    What immobilise does guard have? That won't be useless anyway? Ele immobilise is fine, 1 sec immobilise from trait is nothing compared to what Guard and Scourge can do with genuine support and damage lul

  • Josiah.2967Josiah.2967 Member ✭✭✭

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Can someone explain this balance patch:

    Ranger

    Slash (Bird): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.38 to 0.25.
    Chilling Slash (Owl): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    Blinding Slash (Raven): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    

    I do not understand this nerf? Were their some secret meta I didn't know about? Meanwhile, guardians remain untouched.

    If I'm not wrong this is to nerf them in spvp?!
    Cause everyon was playing birds and they were considered op.

    But yes. I agree. Especially burn firebrand needs to be nerfed in wvw. As well as the immobilize spam (main offenders being ranger, ele, guard)

    What immobilise does guard have? That won't be useless anyway? Ele immobilise is fine, 1 sec immobilise from trait is nothing compared to what Guard and Scourge can do with genuine support and damage lul

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

  • Nimon.7840Nimon.7840 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Can someone explain this balance patch:

    Ranger

    Slash (Bird): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.38 to 0.25.
    Chilling Slash (Owl): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    Blinding Slash (Raven): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    

    I do not understand this nerf? Were their some secret meta I didn't know about? Meanwhile, guardians remain untouched.

    If I'm not wrong this is to nerf them in spvp?!
    Cause everyon was playing birds and they were considered op.

    But yes. I agree. Especially burn firebrand needs to be nerfed in wvw. As well as the immobilize spam (main offenders being ranger, ele, guard)

    What immobilise does guard have? That won't be useless anyway? Ele immobilise is fine, 1 sec immobilise from trait is nothing compared to what Guard and Scourge can do with genuine support and damage lul

    Guard: traited mantras apply immob on last charge
    Ele: 900 range immob might be fine, yes, but there's overload earth as well and earth dagger 3.

    Yes, not all of them are as good as others, but right now, the immob spam is just too much.

    Yes guard an necro are strong in wvw. But they're not alone.

    Rev can easily do a lot more damage than a necro and brings more boons (especially additional stability, but also might and fury) and dmg reduction.

    Engi can either be played as heal/ cleanse scrapper as well as dmg and while it's the best cleanser in the game right now, because it doesn't just cleanse but convert those condis, its dmg capability is still higher than necros even after the bomb kit nerf.

    Ele being the only support that's able to hit 10 people with it's shouts.
    While also having a spec that can easily do 2-3 times more damage than a necro.

    Warrior having the most op skill in wvw: the elite bubble that prevents enemies from getting boons
    While also being able to have a lot more boons trips than necro in short fights.
    And you can also play a heal/cleanse warrior.

    So please. Don't act as if guard and necro are the only strong classes in wvw.

    Only ranger, thief and mesmer are a bit behind.
    But even these classes aren't that bad.

    mesmer can bring great utility - focuspulls, gravity well, veil, portal, illusion of life or very good single target damage.

    Thiefs are good for focussing enemy backliners.

    Rangers can bring immob spam, or oneshot enemy backliners as well.

  • Mini Crinny.6190Mini Crinny.6190 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2020

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Can someone explain this balance patch:

    Ranger

    Slash (Bird): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.38 to 0.25.
    Chilling Slash (Owl): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    Blinding Slash (Raven): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    

    I do not understand this nerf? Were their some secret meta I didn't know about? Meanwhile, guardians remain untouched.

    If I'm not wrong this is to nerf them in spvp?!
    Cause everyon was playing birds and they were considered op.

    But yes. I agree. Especially burn firebrand needs to be nerfed in wvw. As well as the immobilize spam (main offenders being ranger, ele, guard)

    What immobilise does guard have? That won't be useless anyway? Ele immobilise is fine, 1 sec immobilise from trait is nothing compared to what Guard and Scourge can do with genuine support and damage lul

    Guard: traited mantras apply immob on last charge
    Ele: 900 range immob might be fine, yes, but there's overload earth as well and earth dagger 3.

    Yes, not all of them are as good as others, but right now, the immob spam is just too much.

    Yes guard an necro are strong in wvw. But they're not alone.

    Ele being the only support that's able to hit 10 people with it's shouts.
    While also having a spec that can easily do 2-3 times more damage than a necro.

    I think guards have a better trait to use instead of immobilize,

    As for Ele, 10 shouts is going to change, anet mentioned they were bringing a change to all traits that affect 10 targets in competitive scene 'soon'

    Weaver doing less damage than necro would mean Weaver being weak or Necro being OP, since all weaver does is damage, Scourge can corrupt boons, Give barriers and still do pretty strong damage so it's balanced for Weaver to do more damage,

    Dagger 3 in earth is pretty mediocre, overload earth is a skill everyone can see so should be punished if you fail to dodge or block. Try playing Ele and try and do more damage than a scourge

  • Mini Crinny.6190Mini Crinny.6190 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2020

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

    Yes, Benchmarks on a non moving Golem that doesn't hit back is a clear indication of what is meta and what is not

    /sarcasm

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2020

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    My condi engineer does ~5k dps on a stationary golem and according to the WvW forums it uses the most broken super OP toxic gear there is.

    my rev shiro does 3k-5k autos, ive managed to burst with one skill arround 15k rare but hapened in PoF 31k.

    in terms on direct damage output i assume reaper m8 be the best damage class(gamemode wide) shiro end way to glassy compared to reapers to achieve those values.

  • Josiah.2967Josiah.2967 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2020

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

    Yes, Benchmarks on a non moving Golem that doesn't hit back is a clear indication of what is meta and what is not

    /sarcasm

    Don't forget the benchmarks for raid encounters as well. I will assume good intent, and you just haven't looked at the actual encounter benchmarks. Which can make the spread even greater than the golem.

  • Mini Crinny.6190Mini Crinny.6190 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

    Yes, Benchmarks on a non moving Golem that doesn't hit back is a clear indication of what is meta and what is not

    /sarcasm

    Don't forget the benchmarks for raid encounters as well. I will assume good intent, and you just haven't looked at the actual encounter benchmarks. Which can make the spread even greater than the golem.

    All joking aside, any class works Even Reaper and Scourge will work, you can do raid content with Necro or have some weird comp and still get through raids so long as the group knows what they are doing, the group comps from SC are for the quickest and most efficient way of doing it and I think people look at these and decide that that's all we are allowing into raid groups even though every class can do it.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2020

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:
    Can someone explain this balance patch:

    Ranger

    Slash (Bird): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.38 to 0.25.
    Chilling Slash (Owl): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    Blinding Slash (Raven): Reduced power coefficient per strike from 0.66 to 0.475.
    

    I do not understand this nerf? Were their some secret meta I didn't know about? Meanwhile, guardians remain untouched.

    If I'm not wrong this is to nerf them in spvp?!
    Cause everyon was playing birds and they were considered op.

    But yes. I agree. Especially burn firebrand needs to be nerfed in wvw. As well as the immobilize spam (main offenders being ranger, ele, guard)

    What immobilise does guard have? That won't be useless anyway? Ele immobilise is fine, 1 sec immobilise from trait is nothing compared to what Guard and Scourge can do with genuine support and damage lul

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

    The only thing benchmarks do is prove they aren't being used to balance classes in PVE.

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

    Yes, Benchmarks on a non moving Golem that doesn't hit back is a clear indication of what is meta and what is not

    /sarcasm

    Don't forget the benchmarks for raid encounters as well. I will assume good intent, and you just haven't looked at the actual encounter benchmarks. Which can make the spread even greater than the golem.

    You don't seem to understand that the benchmarks are not representative of the playerbase or indicative of what is needed to succeed in raids. Can you explain how using the SINGLE benchmark point from the top performing players is a sensible way for Anet to balance DPS for all classes in PVE across all the performance range that raids are already designed to accommodate?

    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/

  • Cobrakon.3108Cobrakon.3108 Member ✭✭✭

    The problem is not only dps, but the lack of spike damage in the game. Autos are too powerful. There is still too much time when you get to sit in one spot and do rotations. I would prefer lower boss hp pools but less time to hit the boss.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cobrakon.3108 said:
    The problem is not only dps, but the lack of spike damage in the game. Autos are too powerful. There is still too much time when you get to sit in one spot and do rotations. I would prefer lower boss hp pools but less time to hit the boss.

    How is this a "problem", especially in the context of this thread?

  • Josiah.2967Josiah.2967 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 27, 2020

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

    Yes, Benchmarks on a non moving Golem that doesn't hit back is a clear indication of what is meta and what is not

    /sarcasm

    Don't forget the benchmarks for raid encounters as well. I will assume good intent, and you just haven't looked at the actual encounter benchmarks. Which can make the spread even greater than the golem.

    All joking aside, any class works Even Reaper and Scourge will work, you can do raid content with Necro or have some weird comp and still get through raids so long as the group knows what they are doing, the group comps from SC are for the quickest and most efficient way of doing it and I think people look at these and decide that that's all we are allowing into raid groups even though every class can do it.

    I love this! The way you worded it...just shows that the extreme imbalance is no longer in question.

  • Mini Crinny.6190Mini Crinny.6190 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

    Yes, Benchmarks on a non moving Golem that doesn't hit back is a clear indication of what is meta and what is not

    /sarcasm

    Don't forget the benchmarks for raid encounters as well. I will assume good intent, and you just haven't looked at the actual encounter benchmarks. Which can make the spread even greater than the golem.

    All joking aside, any class works Even Reaper and Scourge will work, you can do raid content with Necro or have some weird comp and still get through raids so long as the group knows what they are doing, the group comps from SC are for the quickest and most efficient way of doing it and I think people look at these and decide that that's all we are allowing into raid groups even though every class can do it.

    I love this! The way you worded it...just shows that the extreme imbalance is no longer in question.

    Yes Weaver isn't top DPS, something is wrong with that

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

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:

    @Josiah.2967 said:

    It's nice to have benchmarks on my side....

    Yes, Benchmarks on a non moving Golem that doesn't hit back is a clear indication of what is meta and what is not

    /sarcasm

    Don't forget the benchmarks for raid encounters as well. I will assume good intent, and you just haven't looked at the actual encounter benchmarks. Which can make the spread even greater than the golem.

    All joking aside, any class works Even Reaper and Scourge will work, you can do raid content with Necro or have some weird comp and still get through raids so long as the group knows what they are doing, the group comps from SC are for the quickest and most efficient way of doing it and I think people look at these and decide that that's all we are allowing into raid groups even though every class can do it.

    I love this! The way you worded it...just shows that the extreme imbalance is no longer in question.

    No one questions it exists. The question is about if Anet needs to do something about it ... they already have on the content side.

    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/

  • Cobrakon.3108Cobrakon.3108 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Cobrakon.3108 said:
    The problem is not only dps, but the lack of spike damage in the game. Autos are too powerful. There is still too much time when you get to sit in one spot and do rotations. I would prefer lower boss hp pools but less time to hit the boss.

    How is this a "problem", especially in the context of this thread?

    The reason it is is a problem is because all classes are able to do a large chunk of their dps whithout having to move around much and the window for damage is large enough at times that any descrepency in dps rotation among the classes will be more obvious. If there were less chances to do full rotations and instead you were relegated to spike damage more often, then differences in theoretical maximums of class dps would matter less as it would take more skill to time your spike damage. So what I believe we need is to have more scenarios with "well placed" damage rather than "stack and rotate". The numbers will start to stagger as to who tops the damage charts making it less class dependent.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 28, 2020

    @Cobrakon.3108 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Cobrakon.3108 said:
    The problem is not only dps, but the lack of spike damage in the game. Autos are too powerful. There is still too much time when you get to sit in one spot and do rotations. I would prefer lower boss hp pools but less time to hit the boss.

    How is this a "problem", especially in the context of this thread?

    The reason it is is a problem is because all classes are able to do a large chunk of their dps whithout having to move around much and the window for damage is large enough at times that any descrepency in dps rotation among the classes will be more obvious. If there were less chances to do full rotations and instead you were relegated to spike damage more often, then differences in theoretical maximums of class dps would matter less as it would take more skill to time your spike damage. So what I believe we need is to have more scenarios with "well placed" damage rather than "stack and rotate". The numbers will start to stagger as to who tops the damage charts making it less class dependent.

    Hold on, this is NOT a problem because of choice for players and the fact that instanced content success has a very low threshold that accommodates these dps differences.

    If you want DPS and the freedom to move around, choose a class that gives you that. If you don't think you get that with Necro, then strike it off your list.

    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/

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 28, 2020

    @Cobrakon.3108 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Cobrakon.3108 said:
    The problem is not only dps, but the lack of spike damage in the game. Autos are too powerful. There is still too much time when you get to sit in one spot and do rotations. I would prefer lower boss hp pools but less time to hit the boss.

    How is this a "problem", especially in the context of this thread?

    The reason it is is a problem is because all classes are able to do a large chunk of their dps whithout having to move around much and the window for damage is large enough at times that any descrepency in dps rotation among the classes will be more obvious. If there were less chances to do full rotations and instead you were relegated to spike damage more often, then differences in theoretical maximums of class dps would matter less as it would take more skill to time your spike damage. So what I believe we need is to have more scenarios with "well placed" damage rather than "stack and rotate". The numbers will start to stagger as to who tops the damage charts making it less class dependent.

    Oh, so you have the short dps meter somewhere, can I see the results and builds?
    Otherwise, not sure why you're writing what you're writing.