Suggested Changes to Increase Raid Meta Flexibility — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Suggested Changes to Increase Raid Meta Flexibility

Allow Scourge to replace 1 Druid and 1 Warrior. Allow Renegade and Firebrand to replace 1 Chrono.

  • General: Make all class-specific stat bonuses effect 10 targets, up from 5 targets
  • Druid: Make Frost Spirit and Sun Spirt effect 10 targets, up from 5 targets
  • Scourge: Add Grace of the Land to GM Trait - Sand Savant, modified appropriately
  • Scourge: Oppressive Collapse - Decrease CD to 20 seconds; Increase Might radius to 600
  • Revenant: Redesign Ventari/Renegade to upkeep 100% alacrity
<1

Comments

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Raids are fairly flexible. It's just that many are fixated on needing the utmost optimal classes/builds.

  • Mikeskies.1536Mikeskies.1536 Member ✭✭✭

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    This doesn't increase flexibility so much as it forces scourge, firebrand and renegade.

    Also, there's zero reason to be giving GoTL to everyone. Like please, let's not go the route of homogenization when the entire purpose of specializations is to carve out niche's. It's already bad enough that rev's have access to alacrity.

    How is it homogenization? GoTL would be given to just Scourge, not everyone. Providing different professions access to overlapping mechanics opens up diversity in raids, increasing professional variability, rather than being pigeon-holed into 2 Druids, 2 Chronos and 2 Warriors. No one loses their niche/spec identity by providing overlapping buffs. Druid isn't defined by GOTL, for example.

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Mikeskies.1536 said:

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    This doesn't increase flexibility so much as it forces scourge, firebrand and renegade.

    Also, there's zero reason to be giving GoTL to everyone. Like please, let's not go the route of homogenization when the entire purpose of specializations is to carve out niche's. It's already bad enough that rev's have access to alacrity.

    How is it homogenization? GoTL would be given to just Scourge, not everyone. Providing different professions access to overlapping mechanics opens up diversity in raids, increasing professional variability, rather than being pigeon-holed into 2 Druids, 2 Chronos and 2 Warriors. No one loses their niche/spec identity by providing overlapping buffs. Druid isn't defined by GOTL, for example.

    Next you'll try to sell me on chrono not being defined by alacrity right ?

    Let's not try and beat around the bush here Druids Niche is offensive support and healing and you're trying to give the damage amplification part of GoTL to Scourge is Homogenization. It's not going to increase diversity so much as force 1 Druid 1 Scourge. That's not choice that's restriction.

    Instead you could just as easily have scourge still have an offensive support niche by having attacks against barrier return 1-2 stacks of burn/torment and have it's decay be less harsh. If barrier had a guarenteed 3 seconds of max duration before decay it's support would be entirely viable, if it's decay rate was 2% per second it would be viable. As is you're trying to tackle the issue of scourge in the most generic and sloppy way possible and that is identity theft.

  • Rennie.6750Rennie.6750 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 18, 2017

    Offensive buffs should be reworked to have a much lesser impact on dps not to make having them all mandatory, and every single buff should be shared among 3-4 professions, to ensure diversity. Some non party-wide self-buffs can of course remain, but group dps increase just makes the class providing the best ones mandatory picks over anything else. Buff others and the former ones simply phase out of existence. So buffs are not enough. What is required is a major overhaul of boons and buffs, ie a nerf. I believe defensive buffs are fine though. They're not useless but greatly undervalued quite often.

  • Aninika.6819Aninika.6819 Member ✭✭✭

    While I do agree that GoTL should not be given to other classes, there's nothing wrong with Rev having access to alacrity. FB can pump out quickness to compete with Chrono. There's nothing wrong with other classes having access to unique buffs as long as they don't have access to the same unique buffs (so FB doesn't also get access to alacrity) and Rev doesn't get access to quickness as a shareable boon, leaving Chrono in the niche spot for both quickness and alacrity. But, I do agree that other classes should have something that makes them more competitive with Chrono, cPS, and Druid.

  • I don't understand the hesitation of opening up GotL and other buffs to other classes. These buffs really aren't any functionally different than boons, which multiple classes can already apply. Honestly, I vaguely wish that more of these things were actual boons instead of random one-off buffs, as that way you could actually build for their application and spread them around a little easier. That might not ever happen (although it did with Quickness), but suffice it to say that spreading these class-specific buffs around more would do wonders for the overall build diversity of the PvE instanced game modes.

    Valor Zeal [VZ] - Stormbluff Isle

  • @Ertrak.9506 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    Raids are fairly flexible. It's just that many are fixated on needing the utmost optimal classes/builds.

    Please try running a raid with no quickness and alacrity and let me know how that goes, thanks.

    You can still down a boss with several minutes to spare without either, it's not like they are mandatory for success.

  • savacli.8172savacli.8172 Member ✭✭✭

    @Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582 said:

    @Ertrak.9506 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    Raids are fairly flexible. It's just that many are fixated on needing the utmost optimal classes/builds.

    Please try running a raid with no quickness and alacrity and let me know how that goes, thanks.

    You can still down a boss with several minutes to spare without either, it's not like they are mandatory for success.

    +1

    Players like to go fast. That's it. Plenty of bosses have been taken out with as little as 4 players or with running only green gear. Possible to kill bosses without alacrity and Quickness? Absolutely! Are you gonna be miserable the whole encounter because it feels like you're moving in slow motion? Of course!

  • Ertrak.9506Ertrak.9506 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 19, 2017

    @Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582 said:

    @Ertrak.9506 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    Raids are fairly flexible. It's just that many are fixated on needing the utmost optimal classes/builds.

    Please try running a raid with no quickness and alacrity and let me know how that goes, thanks.

    You can still down a boss with several minutes to spare without either, it's not like they are mandatory for success.

    Id argue 90% (hyperbole...) cant meet dps checks on bosses without those buffs, even on bosses like vg wth very loose dps checks.

    Ppl seem to think the only reason ppl run the meta is because ppl are obsessed with doing things optimally. While this isnt untrue, its not the whole reason. More than anyone wants to admit, most groups cant beat bosses without these buffs (i don't mean just quickness and alacrity here either), effectively making them mandatory and therefore said classes that provide them the best, mandatory.

  • @UnbentMars.9126 said:
    I'm gonna take an extreme stance and just straight up say GotL was a mistake to add as a group buff in the first place and should be removed from the game entirely or folded into dps buffs for rangers and their pets, or dropped down to a 1%/stack damage buff.

    Druids already had the ability to give class specific buffs with the spirits, and GotL is the only thing standing in the way of firebrands, tempests, and ventari revenants being considered useful for healing. Getting rid of GotL would not diminish a druid's capability for heals while increasing the usefulness of alternate options.

    Why not just make it available to other classes like Alacrity to Revenant?

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rising Dusk.2408 said:
    I don't understand the hesitation of opening up GotL and other buffs to other classes. These buffs really aren't any functionally different than boons, which multiple classes can already apply. Honestly, I vaguely wish that more of these things were actual boons instead of random one-off buffs, as that way you could actually build for their application and spread them around a little easier. That might not ever happen (although it did with Quickness), but suffice it to say that spreading these class-specific buffs around more would do wonders for the overall build diversity of the PvE instanced game modes.

    By opening it up, you're not increasing diversity but killing it. You're creating another source of competition where X class can do Y's job better so we'll never take Y.

    If you leave it unique but give each class a specialized point of power, you can create real diversity because you have to make choices based on not only your comp but the trade-offs between how certain classes may interact.

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @CptAurellian.9537 said:
    You can hardly kill diversity for support roles when you have none to begin with.

    Misconception, you about as many choices for competitive support as you do for DPS. Tempest, Druid, Warrior, Chrono, Rev & Firebrand are all very capable and viable supports. Scourge with some minor tweaks would also slot in there with no real downsides.

    This is largely the problem though people say support in the far reaching vacuum when they actually mean, we don't have enough viability when it comes to healing. Sure, but Scourge isn't that and slapping GoTL on them isn't going to fix their support. What will make them viable supports is increasing the barrier uptime window and giving it some momentary power like applying conditions when struck while under the influence of barrier.

    As for fixing healing Ventari at this point really is just numbers, if they do that it would be equal to or greater than that of Druid. Right now it's just slightly behind. But these two would be your go to Offensive healing supports.

    What is needed is another Defense healing support. Guardian/Firebrand could in an ideal world fill this if they decreased hammer 1 after cast (boring playstyle) and increased the overall strength of Resolve and Writ of Persistence. Then G/FB could compete with Tempest for the go to Defensive Healing supports.

    All im saying here is they have plenty of options to fix balance none of which need to be the lazy go to of identity theft. Leave the niche's alone and build in new niche's for each class if you want more diversity.

  • @TexZero.7910 said:
    If you leave it unique but give each class a specialized point of power, you can create real diversity because you have to make choices based on not only your comp but the trade-offs between how certain classes may interact.

    All this really does is create a new meta with new mandatory classes to achieve the ideal spread of buffs. Opening up access to more classes actually gives you multiple venues to reach 100% uptime of specific key buffs, which lets groups bring what they want.

    Valor Zeal [VZ] - Stormbluff Isle

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rising Dusk.2408 said:

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    If you leave it unique but give each class a specialized point of power, you can create real diversity because you have to make choices based on not only your comp but the trade-offs between how certain classes may interact.

    All this really does is create a new meta with new mandatory classes to achieve the ideal spread of buffs. Opening up access to more classes actually gives you multiple venues to reach 100% uptime of specific key buffs, which lets groups bring what they want.

    The idea is not to have 100% uptime, that's half the problem with design as is. You should be pushed to make strategic trade-offs of power, not just stack all the game changing buffs which is what your idea pushes really hard.

  • copying a post i made on the necro forum. it may be stupid, but i think it can be an interesting idea at least:

    i had a thought about how i would like to improve the necro's support.... (Raid perspective)
    I do agree with some of the suggestions about having barriers affected by concentration, that makes you sacrifice damage for support. and that's a good thing imo.
    however i do not agree with adding another unique buff, that will only add to the problem. and i think the game needs less of it.

    what i would suggest is to add a function to the barriers so that they allow unique buffs to be copied... (lets say with the GM trait)
    how it would work is:

    • when you give someone a barrier that has a unique buff (lets say Spotter). that spotter buff is then applied to all other allies also affected by your barrier. the buff lasts
      the duration of that barrier.

    it will not affect boons, so you still need classes for that job.
    but what that can do is to free up the group composition a little. you are still going to bring the WAY to OP druid/cPS/chrono. But it can free up some spots in the second group. if your chrono #2 is tiered of playing chrono because no one else bothers to gear one up, replace him with some guardian main who wants to try a quickness build. alacrity is provided by chrono #1, and copied to the second group via barrier...

    Pro's:

    • Free's up the composition from the mandatory 2x3 supp + 2 dps.
    • no need to add yet another unique buff to the game to be able to contribute to the group via offensive support.
    • you still need to bring what ever class that can provide the unique buffs you want, so it wont throw anything else out the window

    Cons:

    • barriers need to last longer, ideally have it be affected by concentration so that you have to specc for this to work.
    • Up-time on these buffs copied by barrier may not be as good as in group #1, maybe that is the compensation for bringing more dps specs?
    • your noob friend that got carried by Mesmer distorts will face tank every hit from the boss and loose all his barrier = no buffs.
    • that same friend decides to pick flowers on the other side of the arena. no barrier = no buffs.

    Maybe this this wont work in practice, instead have the buffs copied a set amount of seconds every tome you provide the barrier, but the copy functions the same way...
    this is just some thoughts i had about how you can support in a unique way, without adding more stupid unique buffs...

  • Rising Dusk.2408Rising Dusk.2408 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 19, 2017

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    The idea is not to have 100% uptime, that's half the problem with design as is. You should be pushed to make strategic trade-offs of power, not just stack all the game changing buffs which is what your idea pushes really hard.

    There aren't enough buffs at this point where even if they took your suggestion would you not be able to maintain sufficient uptime. Even if you did something crazy like halve banner durations, people would just require two Warriors to upkeep the buff. With sufficient nerfs to these effects, eventually sacrifices would need to be made, but at that point you'd also have to seriously rebalance every GW2 raid encounter as well. Ultimately it would settle on "whatever combined does the most possible damage" and we'd get just as much rigidity as we have now to achieve that.

    If, for instance, you just took banner buffs and EA and gave them to another class like Guardian, then a player could play either a Warrior or a Guardian to fill that role. That is actual diversity. I guess if you removed literally every effect like this, then you'd just get a bunch of DPS classes and you'd achieve parity that way, but I think that would create a much less compelling combat experience overall (and it'd devolve into 10 "whatever does most damage" groups, which is the worst-case).

    Valor Zeal [VZ] - Stormbluff Isle

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TexZero.7910 said:

    @Rising Dusk.2408 said:

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    If you leave it unique but give each class a specialized point of power, you can create real diversity because you have to make choices based on not only your comp but the trade-offs between how certain classes may interact.

    All this really does is create a new meta with new mandatory classes to achieve the ideal spread of buffs. Opening up access to more classes actually gives you multiple venues to reach 100% uptime of specific key buffs, which lets groups bring what they want.

    The idea is not to have 100% uptime, that's half the problem with design as is. You should be pushed to make strategic trade-offs of power, not just stack all the game changing buffs which is what your idea pushes really hard.

    I don't like the idea of intentionally crippling the boons to the point you can't upkeep their duration. It won't kill the meta which is created around those buffs, simply make playing it so much harder as you'd need to sync the skill uses of multiple players to get a reasonable burst. The alternative - groups which simply don't care about the combat boons - is no better. It's sluggish, chaotic struggle. Just go to off-meta t4 groups to get a glimpse of it.

    The current meta might not have diversity, but at least it has gameplay which properly rewards skill. Which is more important after all.

    Personally, I'd go the other way - let multiple classes be able to maintain the vital buffs. Actually ANet are doing something like that. Firebrand's access to quickness, Renegade's might and alacrity sharing. These are not good enough to warrant a direct replacement of the current support meta, but then this won't be diversity, it will be changing one rigid meta with another. Diversity is giving the options to have a different viable group comp which may or may not partly overlap with the existing one.

  • My suggestions:
    1. Raise aura traits (Spotter, Empower Allies, etc.) to a 10 target cap.
    2. Raise Empower Allies to a 10 target cap

    Just from these two, we can drop from 2 Druids and CPS Warriors to 1 of each, opening two slots.

    1. Give Necromancers an aura-style debuff to enemies, perhaps lowering stats. Necros already have a skill that actually lowers a target's Vitality stat, so this is clearly possible in the game engine. I would advise against the chosen stat being Vitality, since each point of Vitality is only 10 health, which to make any relevant impact on bosses, would literally insta-kill trash mobs.
    2. Reduce energy costs on Renegade. They need to be able to do something other than auto-attack when they use their abilities.

    Plague Signet is the only skill in the game that is worse when traited.

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rising Dusk.2408 said:

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    The idea is not to have 100% uptime, that's half the problem with design as is. You should be pushed to make strategic trade-offs of power, not just stack all the game changing buffs which is what your idea pushes really hard.

    There aren't enough buffs at this point where even if they took your suggestion would you not be able to maintain sufficient uptime. Even if you did something crazy like halve banner durations, people would just require two Warriors to upkeep the buff. With sufficient nerfs to these effects, eventually sacrifices would need to be made, but at that point you'd also have to seriously rebalance every GW2 raid encounter as well. Ultimately it would settle on "whatever combined does the most possible damage" and we'd get just as much rigidity as we have now to achieve that.

    If, for instance, you just took banner buffs and EA and gave them to another class like Guardian, then a player could play either a Warrior or a Guardian to fill that role. That is actual diversity. I guess if you removed literally every effect like this, then you'd just get a bunch of DPS classes and you'd achieve parity that way, but I think that would create a much less compelling combat experience overall (and it'd devolve into 10 "whatever does most damage" groups, which is the worst-case).

    Or we can not go the extreme and actually create cross-class synergies. IE right now we have what i'll refer to as Mirror Meta. Instead of outright copying this by giving us two classes that can do it we can quite literally open up other meta comps by enforcing what they do well and having them do it well together. I.E The old GW1 way where we had multiple meta comps be it RoJ, Frost, Manly etc... You could just as easily do the same by turning off the always on passive power of things like banners/spirts/GoTL/and unique class passives and have them play a more pivotal role in designing your composition. Some simple changes to instead of always on but conditional power would go a long way ex. Frost Spirit 10% damage bonus is only applied when your target has 3 or more seconds of chill. Yes it would take a lot to shift the current design to this but ultimately it solves the problems we currently have because as is we have too much always on effects and that's what's really hurting diversity more than any single skill/class you can point to.

  • @TexZero.7910 said:
    Or we can not go the extreme and actually create cross-class synergies. IE right now we have what i'll refer to as Mirror Meta. Instead of outright copying this by giving us two classes that can do it we can quite literally open up other meta comps by enforcing what they do well and having them do it well together. I.E The old GW1 way where we had multiple meta comps be it RoJ, Frost, Manly etc... You could just as easily do the same by turning off the always on passive power of things like banners/spirts/GoTL/and unique class passives and have them play a more pivotal role in designing your composition. Some simple changes to instead of always on but conditional power would go a long way ex. Frost Spirit 10% damage bonus is only applied when your target has 3 or more seconds of chill. Yes it would take a lot to shift the current design to this but ultimately it solves the problems we currently have because as is we have too much always on effects and that's what's really hurting diversity more than any single skill/class you can point to.

    Can you give an example of a set of changes that would result in actual diversity? I realize rose-tinted glasses are tough to see past, but even in GW1 there was a rigid meta for all content if you were speed clearing. There were definitely "pug" builds then that were slower with greater reliability for unfamiliar groups (DwG/Ursanway, for instance), but we have that now in GW2 raiding as well (magi Druid/minstrel Chrono) so there's really no difference. The kind of changes @Drarnor Kunoram.5180 is suggesting, for instance (although I'm assuming he means Ranger Spirits having 10 target cap) would "kind of" add diversity by removing mandatory roles and adding two DPS classes over a Warrior and a Ranger. If all DPS classes are created equally by ANet's balance, then technically you achieve greater diversity in making those changes, but then you would end up with mandatory Engineer (Pinpoint Precision) and mandatory Revenant (Assassin's Presence) slots. It doesn't create true diversity because people are still locked into stuff, just the stuff they're locked into has now shifted slightly. The only way to achieve "true" diversity is to allow a specific buff to come from multiple classes with similar DPS, thus allowing either class to be selected for a given role.

    Valor Zeal [VZ] - Stormbluff Isle

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 19, 2017

    @Rising Dusk.2408 said:

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    Or we can not go the extreme and actually create cross-class synergies. IE right now we have what i'll refer to as Mirror Meta. Instead of outright copying this by giving us two classes that can do it we can quite literally open up other meta comps by enforcing what they do well and having them do it well together. I.E The old GW1 way where we had multiple meta comps be it RoJ, Frost, Manly etc... You could just as easily do the same by turning off the always on passive power of things like banners/spirts/GoTL/and unique class passives and have them play a more pivotal role in designing your composition. Some simple changes to instead of always on but conditional power would go a long way ex. Frost Spirit 10% damage bonus is only applied when your target has 3 or more seconds of chill. Yes it would take a lot to shift the current design to this but ultimately it solves the problems we currently have because as is we have too much always on effects and that's what's really hurting diversity more than any single skill/class you can point to.

    Can you give an example of a set of changes that would result in actual diversity? I realize rose-tinted glasses are tough to see past, but even in GW1 there was a rigid meta for all content if you were speed clearing. There were definitely "pug" builds then that were slower with greater reliability for unfamiliar groups (DwG/Ursanway, for instance), but we have that now in GW2 raiding as well (magi Druid/minstrel Chrono) so there's really no difference. The kind of changes @Drarnor Kunoram.5180 is suggesting, for instance (although I'm assuming he means Ranger Spirits having 10 target cap) would "kind of" add diversity by removing mandatory roles and adding two DPS classes over a Warrior and a Ranger. If all DPS classes are created equally by ANet's balance, then technically you achieve greater diversity in making those changes, but then you would end up with mandatory Engineer (Pinpoint Precision) and mandatory Revenant (Assassin's Presence) slots. It doesn't create true diversity because people are still locked into stuff, just the stuff they're locked into has now shifted slightly. The only way to achieve "true" diversity is to allow a specific buff to come from multiple classes with similar DPS, thus allowing either class to be selected for a given role.

    I've given examples of how to achieve this.

    You start by turning off the always on power that drives the meta as it currently stands. Yes part of that is shifting to allowing boons/buffs to effect 10 people. The other part is by turning off the always on part for specific points of power. I.E if i wanted to make a comp that was based around burning up time i might have a comp (for name sake lets call it firestarter) that uses Engi/Firebrand/Scourge/Druid. The synergy would come from changing PP & Sun Spirit to only apply extra stacks and damage when above a threshold lets say 15 burning stacks. Now you have to choose you comp based around what boons/uptime and group synergy you want. Not based upon what gives us the most always on power.

  • xDudisx.5914xDudisx.5914 Member ✭✭✭

    Change the entire game balance because of raids? NO.

    10 target instead of 5 would affect wvw.

  • @xDudisx.5914 said:
    Change the entire game balance because of raids? NO.

    10 target instead of 5 would affect wvw.

    ANET has already proven that they can and will separate balance in PvE, WvW, and PvP. The most recent changes to scourge in WvW alone are plenty evidence of that. That argument holds no water.

    "Beware those who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    Tempest, Spellbreaker, Mirage, Scourge
    [AGNY] - Eternal Agony Guild, Sanctum of Rall

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @xDudisx.5914 said:
    Change the entire game balance because of raids? NO.

    10 target instead of 5 would affect wvw.

    It would be better for WvW. Also lul boons in WvW. How you enjoying Pirateship 2.0 ?

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TexZero.7910 said:

    @Rising Dusk.2408 said:

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    Or we can not go the extreme and actually create cross-class synergies. IE right now we have what i'll refer to as Mirror Meta. Instead of outright copying this by giving us two classes that can do it we can quite literally open up other meta comps by enforcing what they do well and having them do it well together. I.E The old GW1 way where we had multiple meta comps be it RoJ, Frost, Manly etc... You could just as easily do the same by turning off the always on passive power of things like banners/spirts/GoTL/and unique class passives and have them play a more pivotal role in designing your composition. Some simple changes to instead of always on but conditional power would go a long way ex. Frost Spirit 10% damage bonus is only applied when your target has 3 or more seconds of chill. Yes it would take a lot to shift the current design to this but ultimately it solves the problems we currently have because as is we have too much always on effects and that's what's really hurting diversity more than any single skill/class you can point to.

    Can you give an example of a set of changes that would result in actual diversity? I realize rose-tinted glasses are tough to see past, but even in GW1 there was a rigid meta for all content if you were speed clearing. There were definitely "pug" builds then that were slower with greater reliability for unfamiliar groups (DwG/Ursanway, for instance), but we have that now in GW2 raiding as well (magi Druid/minstrel Chrono) so there's really no difference. The kind of changes @Drarnor Kunoram.5180 is suggesting, for instance (although I'm assuming he means Ranger Spirits having 10 target cap) would "kind of" add diversity by removing mandatory roles and adding two DPS classes over a Warrior and a Ranger. If all DPS classes are created equally by ANet's balance, then technically you achieve greater diversity in making those changes, but then you would end up with mandatory Engineer (Pinpoint Precision) and mandatory Revenant (Assassin's Presence) slots. It doesn't create true diversity because people are still locked into stuff, just the stuff they're locked into has now shifted slightly. The only way to achieve "true" diversity is to allow a specific buff to come from multiple classes with similar DPS, thus allowing either class to be selected for a given role.

    I've given examples of how to achieve this.

    You start by turning off the always on power that drives the meta as it currently stands. Yes part of that is shifting to allowing boons/buffs to effect 10 people. The other part is by turning off the always on part for specific points of power. I.E if i wanted to make a comp that was based around burning up time i might have a comp (for name sake lets call it firestarter) that uses Engi/Firebrand/Scourge/Druid. The synergy would come from changing PP & Sun Spirit to only apply extra stacks and damage when above a threshold lets say 15 burning stacks. Now you have to choose you comp based around what boons/uptime and group synergy you want. Not based upon what gives us the most always on power.

    That's very impractical and even if we assume it increases diversity (which it doesn't necessarily), it makes the LFG even more tedious. And the meta will still be about what gives most effective power. It might be Power, Condi, Vuln, but it makes no difference. You'll still have a single most efficient comp and everyone will go for that, because it's the sensible and safe choice. Why risk not finding a group with your preferred snowflake comp when you can just build for what everyone else uses and find groups a lot easier and faster? So it's an exercise in futility. You want to increase diversity? Spread out the access to effective power. Make different classes overlap each other so that you can take the key component every one brings from a different source. That's the only practical way I see.

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    That's very impractical and even if we assume it increases diversity (which it doesn't necessarily), it makes the LFG even more tedious. And the meta will still be about what gives most effective power. It might be Power, Condi, Vuln, but it makes no difference. You'll still have a single most efficient comp and everyone will go for that, because it's the sensible and safe choice. Why risk not finding a group with your preferred snowflake comp when you can just build for what everyone else uses and find groups a lot easier and faster? So it's an exercise in futility. You want to increase diversity? Spread out the access to effective power. Make different classes overlap each other so that you can take the key component every one brings from a different source. That's the only practical way I see.

    You claim it's impractical but your idea is literally to homogenize every class, that doesn't change the meta nor does it increase diversity. If everyone can do everything everyone else can, then it simply becomes pick X best. At which point we're right back where we started, everyone picking the OP must have uptime things.

    Literally ask yourself this....At the end of the day are you still taking the equivalent "bonuses", eg Spotter, Alacrity, Banners, EA, GoTL, Quickness, perma might ? If so then we've not increased any diversity as we are literally doing the exact same thing.

    The only way to have real diversity is to turn off the always on power so that you can have comps that have similar baseline effectiveness due to having different moments of power. This is real diversity not some shallow clone of the mirror stuff you keep preaching.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Again, "turning it off" will not create diversity, it will create annoyance. It's about the optimal way of playing, and it will be still optimal to take all these. You'll simply need to line them up and create a pattern of "burst - wait - burst - ..." gameplay. As you'll need to synchronize skill uses across many players for that to happen, it won't be a very smooth experience, hence the "annoyance" part. You can't realistically make your gameplay worse than it is. It will kitten the players off on epic proportions. And not gained anything for it.

  • Why do people insist on thinking that Raids don't already offer flexibility? The fact that every encounter can be 'sold' to 1-4 customers means that there's a huge amount of wiggle room. QT's benchmarks give us the dream teams (and many of us find that incredibly helpful); they aren't, however, designed to show everything that's viable. More importantly, ANet's stats on raids show that encounters are completed successfully with all sorts of teams outside the meta.

    And research by players shows, as we knew before DPS meter logging was available, that comp is less important than the group knowing their profession and the encounter.

    Of course there's plenty of room for ANet to adjust relative balance of support|DPS|control across the profs & specs. But the problem isn't a non-diverse optimum comp; the problem is that some people insist that this optimum is the only option, when that's demonstrably untrue.

    I'm not against seeing suggestions for changing/improving profs. But let's make them on the basis of making sure that each class offers something useful for each type of content, not to try to topple the meta (which will always be monotone, as long as there are people who insist it's the only option; there is always going to be an optimum comp).

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Horus.9685Horus.9685 Member ✭✭
    edited October 20, 2017

    All decent Suggestion but, imo the fix to gotl is just deleting it from the Game.
    It doesnt even matter that Most druids can’t even keep up 3 Stacks avg. That trait along with alacrity Come back to bitte their kitten as Mann thought on hot launch.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    Why do people insist on thinking that Raids don't already offer flexibility? The fact that every encounter can be 'sold' to 1-4 customers means that there's a huge amount of wiggle room. QT's benchmarks give us the dream teams (and many of us find that incredibly helpful); they aren't, however, designed to show everything that's viable. More importantly, ANet's stats on raids show that encounters are completed successfully with all sorts of teams outside the meta.

    And research by players shows, as we knew before DPS meter logging was available, that comp is less important than the group knowing their profession and the encounter.

    Of course there's plenty of room for ANet to adjust relative balance of support|DPS|control across the profs & specs. But the problem isn't a non-diverse optimum comp; the problem is that some people insist that this optimum is the only option, when that's demonstrably untrue.

    I'm not against seeing suggestions for changing/improving profs. But let's make them on the basis of making sure that each class offers something useful for each type of content, not to try to topple the meta (which will always be monotone, as long as there are people who insist it's the only option; there is always going to be an optimum comp).

    The reason people go with optimum comp is insecurity. These comps are proven to work, and people are unwilling to risk with a comp they aren't sure is going to work. Raid sellers aren't really relevant when we're talking about general applicability. These are very skilled players who can afford to use a different comp. You're right that there's a lot of leeway in raids, however an average group will have noticeable increase of difficulty and failures using a sub-optimal comp. Which isn't always "what's recommended by qT", by the way. For instance, in my own guild group we run a third healer on Matthias and necros on MO and Xera for the Epidemic. Neither is optimal in the absolute sense of the word, but it's what works best for us because we're casuals. But good luck using these in a pug. People will tell you "you shouldn't need" them and they'll be technically correct.

  • Sykper.6583Sykper.6583 Member ✭✭✭

    I think the method forward is to look at these unique buffs and apply a similar but different unique buff to other unused professions, and tone ALL these unique buffs down, or bring them down in line to a level compared with another unique buff profession that does a different amount of DPS.

    For example, hypothetical and likely inaccurate math let's say the Warrior with the banners was doing 10k on his own, and his banners raised the group DPS by like 5k.
    Let's also say that Necromancer got their own unique buff and that while necromancers were balanced around 12k, meaning they did more than the Warrior (DO NOT TAKE THIS AS FACT), their unique buff to the raid added around 3k to the raid. Meaning both are comparable and flexible, and at least one IF not both could be used by the raid.

    However at this juncture we start running into the issue of wanting to bring just these unique buff supports along for the raids, which is why I said tune them all down in favor of raising the Personal DPS of the profession. Make the warrior do 12k and raise the raid DPS by 3k (rather than 5k) and the necro does 14k and raises raid DPS by 1k. And again, this is just between DPS of a warrior and necro, I know the DPS numbers at the high level are literally 35k+ for raw DPS classes, that's something to take into consideration and I would like to touch on it more.

    But ultimately I don't think Grace needs to go, I think Grace needs to stay, be cut down just a tad and other professions have access to DPS increasing buffs of varied impact that scale according to their DPS as a whole. That's how we could achieve some manner of flexibility.

    I'll go into detail after work probably.

  • Mikeskies.1536Mikeskies.1536 Member ✭✭✭

    My initial idea was not to have one specialization completely take over the role of another specialization, but to increase diversity by allowing certain specializations to have overlapping and unique capabilities. In my mind, the goal should be to replace the 2nd set of Chronomancer, Berserker and Druid, by increasing the target count of current class-specific enhancements to 10 targets and allowing a combination of other specializations to take over the benefits those three bring. For example, you can either do 2x Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid, or Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid and Scourge, Firebrand, Renegade, balanced accordingly.

    Whether or not this is the best solution, I don't know. WOW, for example, went from unique buffs for each class, to overlapping buffs between classes, to no buffs at all.

  • Joxer.6024Joxer.6024 Member ✭✭✭

    @Mikeskies.1536 said:
    My initial idea was not to have one specialization completely take over the role of another specialization, but to increase diversity by allowing certain specializations to have overlapping and unique capabilities. In my mind, the goal should be to replace the 2nd set of Chronomancer, Berserker and Druid, by increasing the target count of current class-specific enhancements to 10 targets and allowing a combination of other specializations to take over the benefits those three bring. For example, you can either do 2x Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid, or Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid and Scourge, Firebrand, Renegade, balanced accordingly.

    Whether or not this is the best solution, I don't know. WOW, for example, went from unique buffs for each class, to overlapping buffs between classes, to no buffs at all.

    Yea, we keep referencing WOW but I think its were many of us came from or still do raid there, and you are right. They did swap it up. It used to be only a Mage could sheep a mob and you needed that cc in many fights, but then Blizz changed it so that other classes could also sheep, thereby giving others a slot for a raid. Not sure what the norm is now as it has been many years for me raiding there but I agree in that it would be nice if other classes could do some of the same skills, so that people could bring them no worrys.
    It all really goes back to what you want to run though as we have all said the raids can be done with any sort of combos of classes, as long as the key roles are covered. I reckon POF raids are going to bring something new to the table....just look at the mechanics of the bountys and such. Could be fun??!! ;)

  • Mikeskies.1536Mikeskies.1536 Member ✭✭✭

    @Joxer.6024 said:

    @Mikeskies.1536 said:
    My initial idea was not to have one specialization completely take over the role of another specialization, but to increase diversity by allowing certain specializations to have overlapping and unique capabilities. In my mind, the goal should be to replace the 2nd set of Chronomancer, Berserker and Druid, by increasing the target count of current class-specific enhancements to 10 targets and allowing a combination of other specializations to take over the benefits those three bring. For example, you can either do 2x Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid, or Chronomancer, Berserker, Druid and Scourge, Firebrand, Renegade, balanced accordingly.

    Whether or not this is the best solution, I don't know. WOW, for example, went from unique buffs for each class, to overlapping buffs between classes, to no buffs at all.

    Yea, we keep referencing WOW but I think its were many of us came from or still do raid there, and you are right. They did swap it up. It used to be only a Mage could sheep a mob and you needed that cc in many fights, but then Blizz changed it so that other classes could also sheep, thereby giving others a slot for a raid. Not sure what the norm is now as it has been many years for me raiding there but I agree in that it would be nice if other classes could do some of the same skills, so that people could bring them no worrys.
    It all really goes back to what you want to run though as we have all said the raids can be done with any sort of combos of classes, as long as the key roles are covered. I reckon POF raids are going to bring something new to the table....just look at the mechanics of the bountys and such. Could be fun??!! ;)

    I think the uniqueness of GW2 is that Specs provide active bonuses, in addition to passive stat boosts. It is that uniqueness and teamwork requirement that really brings PVE to a higher level. Everyone's performance is interdependent on the performance of your team members, both on a mechanics level and a rotational level.

  • @TexZero.7910 said:
    I.E if i wanted to make a comp that was based around burning up time i might have a comp (for name sake lets call it firestarter) that uses Engi/Firebrand/Scourge/Druid. The synergy would come from changing PP & Sun Spirit to only apply extra stacks and damage when above a threshold lets say 15 burning stacks. Now you have to choose you comp based around what boons/uptime and group synergy you want. Not based upon what gives us the most always on power.

    See, this wouldn't happen though. What would happen is that whatever does the most damage becomes meta, the classes that give those buffs becoming required (probably still Ranger, Warrior, and Chronomancer), and everything else just gets ignored in benchmarks and realistic scenarios. In your example, it would mean that Druids would just stop bringing Sun Spirit and bring another Glyph for more GotL (assuming the threshold were more restrictive, since 15 burning stacks is easily maintained by just 2 cPS Warriors). By making buffing effects less accessible, all you ultimately achieve is removing them from the meta entirely as other options (such as more direct damage) become better. None of this has any positive effect on diversity.

    Valor Zeal [VZ] - Stormbluff Isle

  • Remove DPS checks

    Add raidfinder auto groups

    Taq the tank.

    There. Meta exclusion shattered. Anyone can pug raid then.

  • CptAurellian.9537CptAurellian.9537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Congratulations, you missed the point of the entire discussion with astonishing precision.

    R.I.P. Build Templates, 15.10.2019

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rising Dusk.2408 said:

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    I.E if i wanted to make a comp that was based around burning up time i might have a comp (for name sake lets call it firestarter) that uses Engi/Firebrand/Scourge/Druid. The synergy would come from changing PP & Sun Spirit to only apply extra stacks and damage when above a threshold lets say 15 burning stacks. Now you have to choose you comp based around what boons/uptime and group synergy you want. Not based upon what gives us the most always on power.

    See, this wouldn't happen though. What would happen is that whatever does the most damage becomes meta, the classes that give those buffs becoming required (probably still Ranger, Warrior, and Chronomancer), and everything else just gets ignored in benchmarks and realistic scenarios. In your example, it would mean that Druids would just stop bringing Sun Spirit and bring another Glyph for more GotL (assuming the threshold were more restrictive, since 15 burning stacks is easily maintained by just 2 cPS Warriors). By making buffing effects less accessible, all you ultimately achieve is removing them from the meta entirely as other options (such as more direct damage) become better. None of this has any positive effect on diversity.

    Homogenization still doesn't add diversity either. All you end up doing is having the exact same comp because instead of having multiple viable meta-comps we've just shifted from one mirror comp to another. What you're arguing here is that you want your vanilla ice-cream served in a cone instead of a cup.

  • Grimheart.2853Grimheart.2853 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2018

    Wow! That's a... low quality suggestion.

  • I'm sure these question have come up before, but does anyone believe that Anet considers balance according to what is Raid (formerly dungeon) meta? And should they balance professions around that? I remember Anet doing a Elementalist FGS nerf after months of people complaining about stacking in dungeons and the synergy with that skill in particular. But I've never really felt that they pay any lip service to what players find optimal. It seems to me that Anet aims for three things in balance: functional (does it work as intended), damage potential (they do often talk about how much damage, synergy certain skills have), and fun (is it interactive, does it feel fun to play with).

    I rarely hear them go "These are the skills and synergies players have found in raids. We will tone this down, buff this up". But beyond all that, should Anet do some serious social engineering when it comes to how players form groups and participate in raids to increase player satisfaction? I personally feel that last question goes well beyond can we shift the meta, because somewhere in the process of social engineering, we'll find the answer to that part too.

  • Sykper.6583Sykper.6583 Member ✭✭✭

    Ahem, so back to what I was saying, hopefully a little more in-depth this time.

    Currently we have a meta game that relies on achieving the highest group DPS possible, while still accounting for mandatory mechanics on a per fight basis. Mandatory mechanics I would define as mechanics a raid cannot actually ignore to progress effectively or at all. Vale Guardian Condition DPS Requirement could technically be one said mechanic if you wanted to go in with a group of all Power-based damage builds, though there are competitive condition DPS build so this is sort of moot. Matthias's shield to reflect projectiles is a better example, someone will have to bring reflect which can slightly impact performance, but that can't be helped. Provided all the mechanics are met, DPS matters next, and that DPS is reliant on Skill and Build.

    For DPS, I will assume everyone can understand that Skill plays a major factor in how your build performs, but that's a different discussion that I don't believe has relevance on raid meta flexibility. I don't want to go into that field as we can talk about it all day. Instead let's talk builds and meta, sorry for the buildup to this I wanted to set the ground level here.

    There are a couple kinds of buffs in the game, the degree of their application and who can apply them is staggeringly different. Warriors have a great potential for might generation and buffs like might are pretty abundant across builds, mainly because fire fields which are a common thing in raids can apply this as well. 'Boons' in this regard I believe have a great balance, but if Warriors were only brought for might they wouldn't be brought at all, we would get Tempests- Oh sorry, I mean Weavers now instead. Instead, what Warriors bring to the table is something else entirely, the unique class Banner buffs that can't be used by anyone else.

    This unique buff reinforces the meta, which can be problematic for new raiders who might want to bring something else to raids but can't fill that slot.

    "But Sykper without that buff the Warrior would have a hard time getting into groups due to being completely undertuned in Power (Seriously why did they nerf it MORE?), and close but not quite competitive in DPS with other condition builds! Well I mean really just Thief but still! Plus, if we add that banner buff to other professions everyone starts feeling less unique."

    Let's excuse DPS balance for one second and consider that you have a point about kitten-generalization. Alacrity was supposed to be the Chronomancer specific deal but it was suddenly, and I would say POORLY implemented, on Rev. It removes a bit of the theme from the profession having those unique buffs, but I would argue that the theme isn't necessarily tied to what they provide in terms of a buff and effect, it is the playstyle, the kind of damage they do, the rotation, the other effects that make a Chronomancer feel really good. Between their Area of control and support coupled with their insane capability to 'tank' through manipulation of these elements makes them excellent for support and CC. Quickness is a 'boon' that is a bit more difficult to keep uptime on COMPARED to might, and they push it out like hotcakes.

    In fact, I did like their attempt to make Alacrity a thing for other professions, but again they did it so poorly I'm still paying for the hole in my wall after ramming my head through it in a vain attempt to get the thought out of my head. I think we could use this Unique Buff system to our advantage, and create the system going forward for adjusting DPS balance as well. Finally getting to the deal I've been thinking of...let's go:

    Completely rework Alacrity, Grace of the Land, and Banners to unique buffs shared across 3 professions (and valid builds mind you) that can stack so that a single profession providing that one type cannot do it fully alone.

    This is where we get really intense, brace yourselves or if you are already getting your pitchforks, too bad I got Endure Pain, the old one!

    **Alacrity is now a unique effect where across the board it lasts longer. It does NOTHING for the first two stacks of it though, but it caps out at THREE stacks and applies the effect. ** This is balanced so that normal chronomancers could still technically pull off the original impact of their Alacrity (some skills might apply two stacks of Alacrity at a high duration at once), or maybe slightly nerfed. You will now see Revenant and another profession (undecided) can also apply long duration stacks of Alacrity.

    What does this mean? Alacrity hasn't really been stripped from Chronomancer entirely and they are still a beast with how they handle bosses with tanking, CC, boons and so forth. However depending on balance the accessibility for other builds and professions can rely on the group attaining the alacrity, meaning for example we could still have our Chronotanks which are really solid in other aspects, but other comps could play with Alacrity relying on at least two other people in that group, meaning 4 people at least would require some skillful gameplay to pull off the Alacrity. And naturally as you stack more revs and this other profession Alacrity becomes that much easier to attain 100% for.

    Grace of the Land no longer applies a unique buff called Grace of the Land but applies a unique buff called 'Fervor' which stacks just like GotL and HAS a different effect, it unique buff can be stacked by Druids, Scourges, Warrior Banner of Strength only, and someone else.

    Hold the phone as I get to it. Fervor is now a 5 stack buff that increases power and condition damage by 30 for each stack, up to 150. Druids can easily reach 5 stacks alone, Scourges have access to it, Warrior Banner of Strength can only passively apply two stacks at 100% and one other profession can have easy access to it. ...I don't know the math on whether or not 150 power and condition damage is better than 10% raw damage so you can throw those numbers at me all day if you want. All I know is that I just butchered Warriors and I think I can literally hear them coming over now, and my Endure Pain is gonna wear off. I should probably hurry up.

    Banners have been reworked. Banner of Strength passively applies Fervor at a consistently 2 stacks, Banner of Discipline applies a unique stacking buff called 'Keen' which increases Precision and Ferocity by 30 for each stack up to 5, Discipline can only reach 2 stacks again. Banner of Defense and Banner of Tactics I wasn't clever enough to give the same changes to (this is a DPS discussion but I imagine the rework would hit all the banners) and Battle Standard would double the duration of any Fervor or Keen applied to allies in its Range from all sources.

    Keen is also applied by Engineers and someone else. I've effectively made Warrior in a unique spot where they've lost roughly 60% of their effect from their banners. However, what you need to understand is that from a meta standpoint, Warrior banners already impacted 10 targets and they have access to TWO of the unique buffs that are technically at least accessible to half the professions in the game. Warriors are your icing on the cake to round off the last few stacks. You might not NEED warriors at all if you can make unique raid comps that can pull off losing out on two persistent Fervor and Keen elsewhere, or you just take the one to fill in the gap.

    Also, with this change I also have another bit of news for Druids, because of these changes you lose 10 allied targets with Grace, back down to 5 with you!

    I think that's it, I've not fully figured out which professions need which ones, maybe there needs to be more circumstances like the Warrior where a profession can do two unique buffs with a certain build. But provide some feedback, or kill me with more kitten-generalization complaints I don't quite think this is. I'm simply setting up a system where you could still bring Warrior, Ranger, Mesmer in to reach a similar effect like before, but depending on how balance goes we might see less of these around.

    Plus-side, Druid, Warrior and Chronomancer get Personal DPS buffs! Haven't figured that one out yet.

    Thank you for reading!

  • Swiftwynd.1685Swiftwynd.1685 Member ✭✭✭

    Wait, some people think scourge support isnt already viable at healing? They are top tier in group survivability lol. They just lack any strong direct offensive support outside of might stacking.

    I play all healers and support roles, and nothing, absolutely nothing, gets inexperienced players through hard content like a full minstrels with leadership runes support scourge.

    Solid heal per second, high barrier per second, dastest rate of conditions cleansed per second.

    But the true power is the aoe 12 sec recharge 600 radius revive and pull of transfusion plus the revive trait. Nothing in this game comes remotely close to the consistently availablr buttsaving of a support scourge.

    Other than no updraft gorse or kc, its prefectly fine to run it for less experienced groups. Live players deal more damage than dead ones.

  • Grimheart.2853Grimheart.2853 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sykper.6583 said:
    Ahem, so back to what I was saying, hopefully a little more in-depth this time.

    Currently we have a meta game that relies on achieving the highest group DPS possible, while still accounting for mandatory mechanics on a per fight basis. Mandatory mechanics I would define as mechanics a raid cannot actually ignore to progress effectively or at all. Vale Guardian Condition DPS Requirement could technically be one said mechanic if you wanted to go in with a group of all Power-based damage builds, though there are competitive condition DPS build so this is sort of moot. Matthias's shield to reflect projectiles is a better example, someone will have to bring reflect which can slightly impact performance, but that can't be helped. Provided all the mechanics are met, DPS matters next, and that DPS is reliant on Skill and Build.

    For DPS, I will assume everyone can understand that Skill plays a major factor in how your build performs, but that's a different discussion that I don't believe has relevance on raid meta flexibility. I don't want to go into that field as we can talk about it all day. Instead let's talk builds and meta, sorry for the buildup to this I wanted to set the ground level here.

    There are a couple kinds of buffs in the game, the degree of their application and who can apply them is staggeringly different. Warriors have a great potential for might generation and buffs like might are pretty abundant across builds, mainly because fire fields which are a common thing in raids can apply this as well. 'Boons' in this regard I believe have a great balance, but if Warriors were only brought for might they wouldn't be brought at all, we would get Tempests- Oh sorry, I mean Weavers now instead. Instead, what Warriors bring to the table is something else entirely, the unique class Banner buffs that can't be used by anyone else.

    This unique buff reinforces the meta, which can be problematic for new raiders who might want to bring something else to raids but can't fill that slot.

    "But Sykper without that buff the Warrior would have a hard time getting into groups due to being completely undertuned in Power (Seriously why did they nerf it MORE?), and close but not quite competitive in DPS with other condition builds! Well I mean really just Thief but still! Plus, if we add that banner buff to other professions everyone starts feeling less unique."

    Let's excuse DPS balance for one second and consider that you have a point about kitten-generalization. Alacrity was supposed to be the Chronomancer specific deal but it was suddenly, and I would say POORLY implemented, on Rev. It removes a bit of the theme from the profession having those unique buffs, but I would argue that the theme isn't necessarily tied to what they provide in terms of a buff and effect, it is the playstyle, the kind of damage they do, the rotation, the other effects that make a Chronomancer feel really good. Between their Area of control and support coupled with their insane capability to 'tank' through manipulation of these elements makes them excellent for support and CC. Quickness is a 'boon' that is a bit more difficult to keep uptime on COMPARED to might, and they push it out like hotcakes.

    In fact, I did like their attempt to make Alacrity a thing for other professions, but again they did it so poorly I'm still paying for the hole in my wall after ramming my head through it in a vain attempt to get the thought out of my head. I think we could use this Unique Buff system to our advantage, and create the system going forward for adjusting DPS balance as well. Finally getting to the deal I've been thinking of...let's go:

    Completely rework Alacrity, Grace of the Land, and Banners to unique buffs shared across 3 professions (and valid builds mind you) that can stack so that a single profession providing that one type cannot do it fully alone.

    This is where we get really intense, brace yourselves or if you are already getting your pitchforks, too bad I got Endure Pain, the old one!

    **Alacrity is now a unique effect where across the board it lasts longer. It does NOTHING for the first two stacks of it though, but it caps out at THREE stacks and applies the effect. ** This is balanced so that normal chronomancers could still technically pull off the original impact of their Alacrity (some skills might apply two stacks of Alacrity at a high duration at once), or maybe slightly nerfed. You will now see Revenant and another profession (undecided) can also apply long duration stacks of Alacrity.

    What does this mean? Alacrity hasn't really been stripped from Chronomancer entirely and they are still a beast with how they handle bosses with tanking, CC, boons and so forth. However depending on balance the accessibility for other builds and professions can rely on the group attaining the alacrity, meaning for example we could still have our Chronotanks which are really solid in other aspects, but other comps could play with Alacrity relying on at least two other people in that group, meaning 4 people at least would require some skillful gameplay to pull off the Alacrity. And naturally as you stack more revs and this other profession Alacrity becomes that much easier to attain 100% for.

    Grace of the Land no longer applies a unique buff called Grace of the Land but applies a unique buff called 'Fervor' which stacks just like GotL and HAS a different effect, it unique buff can be stacked by Druids, Scourges, Warrior Banner of Strength only, and someone else.

    Hold the phone as I get to it. Fervor is now a 5 stack buff that increases power and condition damage by 30 for each stack, up to 150. Druids can easily reach 5 stacks alone, Scourges have access to it, Warrior Banner of Strength can only passively apply two stacks at 100% and one other profession can have easy access to it. ...I don't know the math on whether or not 150 power and condition damage is better than 10% raw damage so you can throw those numbers at me all day if you want. All I know is that I just butchered Warriors and I think I can literally hear them coming over now, and my Endure Pain is gonna wear off. I should probably hurry up.

    Banners have been reworked. Banner of Strength passively applies Fervor at a consistently 2 stacks, Banner of Discipline applies a unique stacking buff called 'Keen' which increases Precision and Ferocity by 30 for each stack up to 5, Discipline can only reach 2 stacks again. Banner of Defense and Banner of Tactics I wasn't clever enough to give the same changes to (this is a DPS discussion but I imagine the rework would hit all the banners) and Battle Standard would double the duration of any Fervor or Keen applied to allies in its Range from all sources.

    Keen is also applied by Engineers and someone else. I've effectively made Warrior in a unique spot where they've lost roughly 60% of their effect from their banners. However, what you need to understand is that from a meta standpoint, Warrior banners already impacted 10 targets and they have access to TWO of the unique buffs that are technically at least accessible to half the professions in the game. Warriors are your icing on the cake to round off the last few stacks. You might not NEED warriors at all if you can make unique raid comps that can pull off losing out on two persistent Fervor and Keen elsewhere, or you just take the one to fill in the gap.

    Also, with this change I also have another bit of news for Druids, because of these changes you lose 10 allied targets with Grace, back down to 5 with you!

    I think that's it, I've not fully figured out which professions need which ones, maybe there needs to be more circumstances like the Warrior where a profession can do two unique buffs with a certain build. But provide some feedback, or kill me with more kitten-generalization complaints I don't quite think this is. I'm simply setting up a system where you could still bring Warrior, Ranger, Mesmer in to reach a similar effect like before, but depending on how balance goes we might see less of these around.

    Plus-side, Druid, Warrior and Chronomancer get Personal DPS buffs! Haven't figured that one out yet.

    Thank you for reading!

    So fervor is essentially another might. And why exactly do we need that?

    Same goes to that "keen" thing.

    We essentially go the alacrity route, just a little bit more inclusive, but still as narrow-minded as said route. There's already a set of boons that work across classes for flexibility in the first place, why make things more stiff by adding more excluding boons?

    The ideas of balance and role/group flexibility should distance themselves from alacrity-style ideas (and try to reduce the fallout od those already inplemented), not expand them.

  • Cuon Alpinus.7645Cuon Alpinus.7645 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 24, 2017

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    This doesn't increase flexibility so much as it forces scourge, firebrand and renegade.

    Also, there's zero reason to be giving GoTL to everyone. Like please, let's not go the route of homogenization when the entire purpose of specializations is to carve out niche's. It's already bad enough that rev's have access to alacrity.

    I hardly see how Renegade getting Alacrity is "already bad enough." I agree that other classes probably shouldn't get significant access to it, but 4 seconds of alacrity on a 13s cooldown that severely gimps your DPS rotation isn't anything worth complaining over.

    Permanently Embiggened

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cuon Alpinus.7645 said:

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    This doesn't increase flexibility so much as it forces scourge, firebrand and renegade.

    Also, there's zero reason to be giving GoTL to everyone. Like please, let's not go the route of homogenization when the entire purpose of specializations is to carve out niche's. It's already bad enough that rev's have access to alacrity.

    I hardly see how Renegade getting Alacrity is "already bad enough." I agree that other classes probably shouldn't get significant access to it, but 4 seconds of alacrity on a 13s cooldown that severely gimps your DPS rotation isn't anything worth complaining over.

    Icarus said the same thing about the sun. "It's not so bad", right before he flew into it.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.