Why SnowCrows is destroying Raiding - Page 4 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

Why SnowCrows is destroying Raiding

1246

Comments

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @paulelle.6813 said:
    Please share with us the "true" definition of "meta"

    Just like the Greek prefix implies, meta-gaming encompasses all the "gaming" that goes beyond actually playing the game.
    This includes min-maxing and theory crafting builds (do note, that testing those builds is not meta-gaming, as the tests are done in the game).

    Meta-gaming at its simplest level even includes just visiting Bulbapedia and thinking about which Pokémon you want to put on your team.

    Another example would be deciding what kind of build with which weapon you are going to do on a Dark Souls or Bloodborne run (just don't tell anybody you levelled dexterity).

    It doesn't actually have to be explicitly outside the game. Things you do specifically because you have knowledge that the character you play has would also fall inside it, for example when some character calls follow me, and you ignore them to see if you missed some loot is also meta gaming.

  • Ooops.8694Ooops.8694 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @paulelle.6813 said:
    "The Oxford English Dictionary cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917."
    "Meta is a common Greek prefix meaning "beyond" which often carries a sense of self-reference."
    Do you mean any of those origins?

    Yes, that's exactly the point. (And just typing "meta game" into google would most certainly told you the basics). It's about basing your decisions (classes, build, tactics, whatever) not only on ingame information but on things you know beyound the game itself. And it's obviously much older than computer games and known in game theory for a long time.

    Say there's a competitive game with a dozen of different classes, with differing strenghts/weaknesses and playstyle. One player tests all the classes, looks at all the stats and realizes that class A is really strong and easy to play too, so he choses class A. The other one thinks about the meta game, knowing that many players will chose class A and that those made up nearly 80% of the last tournament (time for a nerf i guess^^), So he choses class M instead, which is rather weak overall but strong vs class A. He can now concentrate purely on practicing and developing tactics against the classes that are a bad matchup for him, knowing the majority of the matches will be easy wins.

    If you look at some pvp build on metabattle you will still find this idea in comments like "good build overall because it's strong version the heavily played build X, Y..." or "strong build but weak against build X, which is much more common since the last patch, so...".

    Or from a raiding perspective:

    • Knowing not to play a phalanx strength warrior (which is a useful build by itself), because nearly every group brings 10-men might already. So the meta tells you to just bring banners for support while maximising your own dps.
    • Knowing that the boon chrono nowadays plays Seize the Moment for quickness. Not because the quickness/alacrity buffing SoI builds got useless suddenly, but because the meta 10-men setup evolved. It changed from a double chrono setup to one subgroup playing firebrand/renegade instead to a setup with one alacrigade (or two condition renegades) with Righteous Rebel for raid-wide alacrity with either a chrono or firebrand provinding quickness for their subgroup.
    • Or if i join a wing 4 pug run on my boonchrono, i should probably bring my dps gear/build for MO. Not because some website told me it's the best way to do it but because my knowledge of the playerbase tells me there will probably someone bringing his boonthief for quickness... And i will expect to being the tank at Deimos and plan for having some more thougness than the usual 1005. No, that's not what snowcrows' setup for Deimos tells me. That's knowing the meta or in this case knowing how most groups do the boss and that the most played handkite in pugs is a soulbeast build with 1380 thougness. (A build that you can find on the snowcrows website btw... allthough their own optimized composition is completely different)

    So no, the "Meta" is originally not at all about having the one most effective or easiest or whatever tactic. It's about knowing (beyond the useful builds in the game itself) how players usually do stuff, so you know what role you are expected to perform without having to discuss tactics/setups every single time you meet with others to kill a raidboss.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).
    Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of popularity. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.

    So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players think they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta. Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Westenev.5289Westenev.5289 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @yann.1946 said:

    @paulelle.6813 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    When we talk about M.E.T.A., it is always related to some precise situation/content, like Raid META (and each boss have its own META), Fract META (same, there is different META for each fract), OW META, WvW META, etc...

    The main point is that when we talk about Meta, we don't really talk about M.E.T.A. That acronym may sound nice, but that's not what Meta is. Sure, the as-high-as-possible effectiveness is one of the primary goals of builds that are made for high-end content, but:

    • it's not the only consideration. Often, efficiency can be sacrificed for ease of use, for example. And there's a matter of popularity. there have been cases when some more effective builds were not in meta, because they were for some reason not popular. There were also cases when much less effective builds (or even ones that were created as meme builds) ended up in meta because they happened to gain some popularity for other reasons than just efficiency.
    • second, meta is not something that is limited to high-end content. And in open world, for example, being "most effective" is of far less importance.

    In short, my point is that the "most effective tactics available" is something that appeared long after the word "meta" was a thing, and it encompasses only a small fraction of what meta is.

    (that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site not being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "most efficient" stuff is in minority on that site)

    Please share with us the "true" definition of "meta", because all you (and some others) are saying is that acronym is not the right definition, but you still don't tell us what "meta" really means for you

    Meta comes from meta gaming. Which is basically all gaming which uses the info that it is a game.
    Min maxing in rpgs is an example because the characters wouldn't necessarily learn these abilities, but the player would

    Most Effective Tactic Avalable.

  • sigur.9453sigur.9453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    After derailing this threat with the „what does meta actually mean“ debate....
    Could we derail further and stop calling damage dealers (ddˋs) damage per seconds (dps). Much appreciated!

  • @sigur.9453 said:
    After derailing this threat with the „what does meta actually mean“ debate....
    Could we derail further and stop calling damage dealers (ddˋs) damage per seconds (dps). Much appreciated!

    Also, could people stop calling druids "dudu" in lfg? ty

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Westenev.5289 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @paulelle.6813 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    When we talk about M.E.T.A., it is always related to some precise situation/content, like Raid META (and each boss have its own META), Fract META (same, there is different META for each fract), OW META, WvW META, etc...

    The main point is that when we talk about Meta, we don't really talk about M.E.T.A. That acronym may sound nice, but that's not what Meta is. Sure, the as-high-as-possible effectiveness is one of the primary goals of builds that are made for high-end content, but:

    • it's not the only consideration. Often, efficiency can be sacrificed for ease of use, for example. And there's a matter of popularity. there have been cases when some more effective builds were not in meta, because they were for some reason not popular. There were also cases when much less effective builds (or even ones that were created as meme builds) ended up in meta because they happened to gain some popularity for other reasons than just efficiency.
    • second, meta is not something that is limited to high-end content. And in open world, for example, being "most effective" is of far less importance.

    In short, my point is that the "most effective tactics available" is something that appeared long after the word "meta" was a thing, and it encompasses only a small fraction of what meta is.

    (that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site not being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "most efficient" stuff is in minority on that site)

    Please share with us the "true" definition of "meta", because all you (and some others) are saying is that acronym is not the right definition, but you still don't tell us what "meta" really means for you

    Meta comes from meta gaming. Which is basically all gaming which uses the info that it is a game.
    Min maxing in rpgs is an example because the characters wouldn't necessarily learn these abilities, but the player would

    Most Effective Tactic Avalable.

    Have you missed the posts mentioning that that is not the original meaning

  • Ooops.8694Ooops.8694 Member ✭✭✭

    @sigur.9453 said:
    After derailing this threat with the „what does meta actually mean“ debate....
    Could we derail further and stop calling damage dealers (ddˋs) damage per seconds (dps). Much appreciated!

    I actually tried that for some time, but coincidently HoT brought us raids and the DareDevil spec which constantly led to confusion.
    So in a way not calling damage dealers dd's was some kind of meta decision, looking beyond the easy acronym... :-D

  • With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).
    Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of popularity. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.

    So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players think they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta. Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer.

    That's the first time i heard that meta means "popularity". Honestly, it just feel that you have your own def of the word (which is not aven the same as @yann.1946 and @Fueki.4753 ).

    For Discretize and Snowcrows meta mean Most Effective Tactic Available, by their own words (wherter you like it or not, that's a fact) :
    "What does meta mean?
    There are many different interpretations for meta, but we consider urbandictionary's definition to be the most accurate one: meta is "a term used in MMO meaning the Most Effective Tactic Available. It's basically what works in a game regardless of what you wish would work."
    Many players are using certain compositions - non meta ones - on a daily basis, which does not elevate them to meta. It might work adequately for their goal - a wipe-less and safe clear - however, it is not the fastest or the most efficient way to play.

    The meta for fractals therefore not only encompasses what classes and builds are most effective but also how to play - in other words - what rotation should be used. Example skill rotations for every meta build can be found in their respective build pages."
    Source : https://discretize.eu/guides/meta-explained

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).
    Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of popularity. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.

    So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players think they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta. Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer.

    That's the first time i heard that meta means "popularity". Honestly, it just feel that you have your own def of the word (which is not aven the same as @yann.1946 and @Fueki.4753 ).

    For Discretize and Snowcrows meta mean Most Effective Tactic Available, by their own words (wherter you like it or not, that's a fact) :
    "What does meta mean?
    There are many different interpretations for meta, but we consider urbandictionary's definition to be the most accurate one: meta is "a term used in MMO meaning the Most Effective Tactic Available. It's basically what works in a game regardless of what you wish would work."
    Many players are using certain compositions - non meta ones - on a daily basis, which does not elevate them to meta. It might work adequately for their goal - a wipe-less and safe clear - however, it is not the fastest or the most efficient way to play.

    The meta for fractals therefore not only encompasses what classes and builds are most effective but also how to play - in other words - what rotation should be used. Example skill rotations for every meta build can be found in their respective build pages."
    Source : https://discretize.eu/guides/meta-explained

    No not everything would be meta under that definition.
    If you are interested in what where meta gaming comes from look up Matt coville meta gaming. Their it is in context of dnd.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Sites like snowcrows isn't destroying anything, it's "barely" providing information about efficient builds/comps. If anything "destroys" raiding, it's the player attitude and pretty much nothing else. In the past sites like that didn't exist (or at least weren't so popular) and yet other mmorpgs still developed their meta comps/builds which were spread ingame or on their respective forums.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

    Whether you like it or not, the posts you're disagreeing with are correct, metagaming isn't equivalent to that M.E.T.A acronim. That being said in most cases where it's used for gaming, that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one.

  • @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

    Whether you like it or not, the posts you're disagreeing with are correct, metagaming isn't equivalent to that M.E.T.A acronim. That being said in most cases where it's used for gaming, that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one.

    I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...

    And even when you look for the definition of metagaming, there is not a single answer.

  • @yann.1946 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).
    Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of popularity. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.

    So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players think they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta. Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer.

    That's the first time i heard that meta means "popularity". Honestly, it just feel that you have your own def of the word (which is not aven the same as @yann.1946 and @Fueki.4753 ).

    For Discretize and Snowcrows meta mean Most Effective Tactic Available, by their own words (wherter you like it or not, that's a fact) :
    "What does meta mean?
    There are many different interpretations for meta, but we consider urbandictionary's definition to be the most accurate one: meta is "a term used in MMO meaning the Most Effective Tactic Available. It's basically what works in a game regardless of what you wish would work."
    Many players are using certain compositions - non meta ones - on a daily basis, which does not elevate them to meta. It might work adequately for their goal - a wipe-less and safe clear - however, it is not the fastest or the most efficient way to play.

    The meta for fractals therefore not only encompasses what classes and builds are most effective but also how to play - in other words - what rotation should be used. Example skill rotations for every meta build can be found in their respective build pages."
    Source : https://discretize.eu/guides/meta-explained

    No not everything would be meta under that definition.
    If you are interested in what where meta gaming comes from look up Matt coville meta gaming. Their it is in context of dnd.

    So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...

    Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while not fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)

    Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Carcharoth Lucian.1378Carcharoth Lucian.1378 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...

    Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while not fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)

    Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

    Well, all the people i know IG use "meta" for "Most Effective Tactic Available". So maybe your def is false too (in GW2), or maybe it's mine. Or maybe, and most likely, we just don't talk about the same thing.. I guess i agree to disagree.

    Note that your definition of meta seems to not be the same as the one of @yann.1946 and @Fueki.4753, as they never even talk about popularity, but about the awareness of the player about rules that character doesn't know about.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...

    Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while not fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)

    Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

    Well, all the people i know IG use "meta" for "Most Effective Tactic Available". So maybe your def is false too (in GW2), or maybe it's mine. Or maybe, and most likely, we just don't talk about the same thing.. I guess i agree to disagree.

    Not exactly surprising:
    "that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one."

    ...which still doesn't make it correct.

    tbh I'm more interested about how this whole "what meta really means" debate is relevant to the thread and its opening claim.

  • Carcharoth Lucian.1378Carcharoth Lucian.1378 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    (that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site not being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "most efficient" stuff is in minority on that site)

    Btw, i'm curious about your claim that "most SC builds are not M.E.T.A." Can you prove it to me?
    Because i read the site (and the discord) and, for me, most of stuff there are M.E.T.A. (or really close to it aka "good" ones) + some off-M.E.T.A. builds (not the majority).

  • Carcharoth Lucian.1378Carcharoth Lucian.1378 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...

    Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while not fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)

    Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

    Well, all the people i know IG use "meta" for "Most Effective Tactic Available". So maybe your def is false too (in GW2), or maybe it's mine. Or maybe, and most likely, we just don't talk about the same thing.. I guess i agree to disagree.

    Not exactly surprising:
    "that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one."

    ...which still doesn't make it correct.

    If want to play with words then the "true definition" of "meta" is NOT metagaming but just means "beyond" in greek, so you're also incorrect (easy right?).
    As i said there are severals definitions for "meta" in gaming context and none of them are incorrects (if you choose to pick one and ignore the others, it's on you).

    Not really correct, what you did is take a direct translation of the word from greek, which isn't the same as it's actual meaning in the other language it's used in.

    You know that meta from greek is still use and revelant today (as prefix)? So the actual meaning is still the same...

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...

    Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while not fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)

    Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

    Well, all the people i know IG use "meta" for "Most Effective Tactic Available". So maybe your def is false too (in GW2), or maybe it's mine. Or maybe, and most likely, we just don't talk about the same thing.. I guess i agree to disagree.

    Not exactly surprising:
    "that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one."

    ...which still doesn't make it correct.

    If want to play with words then the "true definition" of "meta" is NOT metagaming but just means "beyond" in greek, so you're also incorrect (easy right?).
    As i said there are severals definitions for "meta" in gaming context and none of them are incorrects (if you choose to pick one and ignore the others, it's on you).

    Not really correct, what you did is take a direct translation of the word from greek, which isn't the same as it's actual meaning in the other language it's used in.

    You know that meta from greek is still use and revelant today (as prefix)? So the actual meaning is still the same...

    Read up on the actual meaning instead of a direct on-word translation instead of conveniently avoiding it because you don't want to prove yourself wrong.
    And I still lost interest the moment you admitted it's irrelevant, not sure what you're arguing here (but still, read the whole thing for the sake of proving yourself wrong).

  • @Sobx.1758 said:
    Read up on the actual meaning instead of a direct on-word translation instead of conveniently avoiding it because you don't want to prove yourself wrong.
    And I still lost interest the moment you admitted it's irrelevant, not sure what you're arguing here (but still, read the whole thing for the sake of proving yourself wrong).

    meta : "referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential."
    -meta (prefix) : "beyond,” “after,” or “behind"

    So no, "meta" is still not related to gaming by definition, but it can be applied to game context (and a lot of others contents^^).

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Read up on the actual meaning instead of a direct on-word translation instead of conveniently avoiding it because you don't want to prove yourself wrong.
    And I still lost interest the moment you admitted it's irrelevant, not sure what you're arguing here (but still, read the whole thing for the sake of proving yourself wrong).

    meta : "referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential."
    -meta (prefix) : "beyond,” “after,” or “behind"

    So no, "meta" is still not related to gaming by definition, but it can be applied to game context (and a lot of others contents^^).

    Yeah, "meta" translation itself is not, but the meta you're using in the context of this thread comes from the term metagaming and what it means and it's not m.e.t.a.
    Still irreleavant to the thread though.

  • Why dont you continue your metaphysic metadiscussion in another metathread, so that the rest can get back to topic.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Blumpf.2518 said:
    Why dont you continue your metaphysic metadiscussion in another metathread, so that the rest can get back to topic.

    I agree, so:
    Sites like snowcrows isn't destroying anything, it's "barely" providing information about efficient builds/comps. If anything "destroys" raiding, it's the player attitude and pretty much nothing else. In the past sites like that didn't exist (or at least weren't so popular) and yet other mmorpgs still developed their meta comps/builds which were spread ingame or on their respective forums.

  • @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Read up on the actual meaning instead of a direct on-word translation instead of conveniently avoiding it because you don't want to prove yourself wrong.
    And I still lost interest the moment you admitted it's irrelevant, not sure what you're arguing here (but still, read the whole thing for the sake of proving yourself wrong).

    meta : "referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential."
    -meta (prefix) : "beyond,” “after,” or “behind"

    So no, "meta" is still not related to gaming by definition, but it can be applied to game context (and a lot of others contents^^).

    Yeah, "meta" translation itself is not, but the meta you're using in the context of this thread comes from the term metagaming and what it means and it's not m.e.t.a.

    The meta we (i and some others here) are using in the context of this thread means m.e.t.a. and not metagaming. That's all.

    Still irreleavant to the thread though.

    Yep

  • @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    (that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site not being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "most efficient" stuff is in minority on that site)

    Btw, i'm curious about your claim that "most SC builds are not M.E.T.A." Can you prove it to me?
    Because i read the site (and the discord) and, for me, most of stuff there are M.E.T.A. (or really close to it aka "good" ones) + some off-M.E.T.A. builds (not the majority).

    For you. Just look at how they grade the stuff. It's clear they don't consider most of what they post to be "meta quality" (and some stuff they do mark as meta clearly has better substitutes). In fact, there's a surprisingly high number of builds that aren't marked as meta on even one boss (and some that get at best mediocre ratings everywhere).
    I am at the moment a bit too busy to do a run through every single build posted on that site, but even cursory glance reveals that there's at least one build per class (usually more) that should not be even there if they just kept to meta. And even more should be removed if they were to limit themselves only to the "most efficient" stuff. And that still ignores all of the less efficient variants of the main builds they also have.

    I looked at it and all the builds here are meta or at least good (which is really close to meta) at one boss (at least). If a build fall under that, they are indeed removed from the website (like the power core warrior build was when anet buffed the berserker spec).
    And what builds are better than the ones marked as meta? (they are maybe the new meta?).

    By the way, it is rather well known that their version of the "most efficient" tactics is quite different than what the most groups are running. A look at the benchmark table should also tell you something.

    I (and no one here) never said that the most efficient tactics was the most used ones. Of course, a lot of pug squads (if not all) don't use M.E.T.A. squad composition and prefer safer off-meta comp (like take 2 healers instead of one) and accept a lot of off-meta builds. I never see the 7 power chronos meta on xera for example, but that doesn't mean that this peculiar setup is not the "most efficient tactic available". It still is. Most people (myself included) just want to clear the content and have fun while doing it.

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    And you already got your answer severals times : No Snowcrows website is not destroying raiding, people and lack of new content are.

    Which people? I hope you don't mean players. Because if there's not enough players to keep the content afloat, it's not the players' fault, but the fault of the content.

    Well i was summarized the answers that op got (some are blaming the raiders community), but in fact i agree with you here (my phrase was not clear, that's my bad :( )

    And while more content might help, i'm afraid that raids to be "saved" would require way more resources than devs were ever capable of giving to them (and probably some changes that the current raiding community might not like all that much). Even if they kept the original team on raids, which would result in us having a few more wings now, without some deeper changes to the very nature of raids, it would only delay the inevitable.
    I do agree though that Snowcrows do not have anything to do with all of this.

    I also agree that the issue is more complex than just lack of content and lie in the game design (no incentive to get better) + the big lack of tutorials (in the whole game). That make gw2 raids really hard for most players and prevent them to do it (even if you consider training discord/guilds) as there is no stepping stones for it (strikes?).

  • Fangoth.4503Fangoth.4503 Member ✭✭
    edited October 15, 2020

    @Kuma.1503 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    This thread goes right back into why I believe sites like snowcrows need to list two different kinds of metas:

    1. The normal speed clear meta designed for players of peak experience who don't make mistakes. You could call this "the elite meta."
    2. And then a "safe meta" where the meta is designed for players who do make mistakes, that would gladly DPS a bit slower to be able to clear a raid. It is often that a normal speed clear meta build operating at 100% damage output, can sacrifice about 10% to 15% of that dps value, to literally "double or triple" it's own sustain value, simply by bringing 1 defensive utility + some trait swap to a defensive trait. And then of course the kinds of things can be done which the OP mentioned.

    ^ If this where to be done, LFGs could list as: "Elite" or "Safe" and players could have different standards within squads, but two different methods to be able to agree upon. It would make the communication of expectations a lot easier. People have said they wanted an easy mode for raids, well this would be the easiest way to achieve it, a community accepted alternative "Safe" meta that players can organize around, who want to play at that pace.

    How about you provide the builds for what you deem to be the “safe meta”.

    You don't have to think very hard to make such a build. Often times, all that needs to happen are a few trait swaps. Here are some examples I use on the classes that I play:

    Daredevil:

    • Invigorating Precision - ~10% DPS loss. Massive sustain increase
    • Haste - Stunbreak, Helps maintain quickness when supports aren't doing their job
    • Swap deadly arts for trickery. Higher Vigor uptime = more dodges. Lower steal CD = more dodges. More Ini = You can afford to use vault as a dodge in a pinch. Less reliance on condi uptime on boss.

    Weaver:

    • Master's Fortitude - Bigger Health buffer
    • Run marauder gear - If 11k hp is too squishy. Better to stay alive and deal ~10% less dps than to constantly go down.

    Renegade:

    • Swap Shiro for Jallis. Mostly for fights where stability is beneficial. Has better breakbar damage if group CC is lacking.
    • Consider running Heal ren over Alac ren.

    Scourge

    • A heal scourge will literally hard carry inexperienced groups. In a very "bad" group, you can run full Magi with mercy runes and you can literally pick up an entire raid over and over again. You can even pull downed bodies out of damaging AoE's. (My favorite build for carrying strikes through boneskinner)

    Reaper

    • Soul Eater - Even more sustain on an already tanky build.

    Holosmith

    • Elixir U - Stunbreak. Helps with boon uptime if supports aren't doing their job

    Scrapper

    • Run Power scrapper in place of a Holosmith if Healers are poor. Barrier helps them maintain scholar rune uptime which makes up for the dps loss.
    • Heal Scrapper - Very good healing and cleansing build on fights where condis are a problem such as Sloth.

    Firebrand

    • Run Saraph support FB in place of a DPS. Still dishes out respectable dps while pumping out good heals and boons.
    • Replace Balthazar runes with Firebrand runes for better boon uptime. Very helpful when running without an Alacrigade/Chrono.

    not sure if you realise but you need take even more sustain because with no dps you gonna reach enrage timer and get +200% damage iirc. i'd advise you to add up 2healscourge on top of the 2 initial healers. also at that point you can add druid running lingering light for more heal and you can replace boon player by whatever bc there is no reason for them to work their well off for people to waste boon as they can't do anything.

    it also mean that you can forgot about bosses wiping the group at enrage time (gors/sab maybe more not sure)
    loosing ~10% dps isn't true either. doubt any of the player will have a flawless rotation if they come any close to a rotation so i think it would be like the dps we sometime encounter in pug that fight their hardest to outdps the druid iboga.

    about: why pug refuses that? well its simple: by the time you do your wing 1 with these "easier strat" pugs can clean w1-7.

    if you want to do these strat go for it, gather 9 people that want to play the same way and go for it but i'd advise to keep it as a static because i doubt any pug stays more than 1 pull maybe 2 or 3 if you advertise it as training.

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2020

    @Fangoth.4503 said:

    @Kuma.1503 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    This thread goes right back into why I believe sites like snowcrows need to list two different kinds of metas:

    1. The normal speed clear meta designed for players of peak experience who don't make mistakes. You could call this "the elite meta."
    2. And then a "safe meta" where the meta is designed for players who do make mistakes, that would gladly DPS a bit slower to be able to clear a raid. It is often that a normal speed clear meta build operating at 100% damage output, can sacrifice about 10% to 15% of that dps value, to literally "double or triple" it's own sustain value, simply by bringing 1 defensive utility + some trait swap to a defensive trait. And then of course the kinds of things can be done which the OP mentioned.

    ^ If this where to be done, LFGs could list as: "Elite" or "Safe" and players could have different standards within squads, but two different methods to be able to agree upon. It would make the communication of expectations a lot easier. People have said they wanted an easy mode for raids, well this would be the easiest way to achieve it, a community accepted alternative "Safe" meta that players can organize around, who want to play at that pace.

    How about you provide the builds for what you deem to be the “safe meta”.

    You don't have to think very hard to make such a build. Often times, all that needs to happen are a few trait swaps. Here are some examples I use on the classes that I play:

    Daredevil:

    • Invigorating Precision - ~10% DPS loss. Massive sustain increase
    • Haste - Stunbreak, Helps maintain quickness when supports aren't doing their job
    • Swap deadly arts for trickery. Higher Vigor uptime = more dodges. Lower steal CD = more dodges. More Ini = You can afford to use vault as a dodge in a pinch. Less reliance on condi uptime on boss.

    Weaver:

    • Master's Fortitude - Bigger Health buffer
    • Run marauder gear - If 11k hp is too squishy. Better to stay alive and deal ~10% less dps than to constantly go down.

    Renegade:

    • Swap Shiro for Jallis. Mostly for fights where stability is beneficial. Has better breakbar damage if group CC is lacking.
    • Consider running Heal ren over Alac ren.

    Scourge

    • A heal scourge will literally hard carry inexperienced groups. In a very "bad" group, you can run full Magi with mercy runes and you can literally pick up an entire raid over and over again. You can even pull downed bodies out of damaging AoE's. (My favorite build for carrying strikes through boneskinner)

    Reaper

    • Soul Eater - Even more sustain on an already tanky build.

    Holosmith

    • Elixir U - Stunbreak. Helps with boon uptime if supports aren't doing their job

    Scrapper

    • Run Power scrapper in place of a Holosmith if Healers are poor. Barrier helps them maintain scholar rune uptime which makes up for the dps loss.
    • Heal Scrapper - Very good healing and cleansing build on fights where condis are a problem such as Sloth.

    Firebrand

    • Run Saraph support FB in place of a DPS. Still dishes out respectable dps while pumping out good heals and boons.
    • Replace Balthazar runes with Firebrand runes for better boon uptime. Very helpful when running without an Alacrigade/Chrono.

    not sure if you realise but you need take even more sustain because with no dps you gonna reach enrage timer

    Nah.

    DPS is so high nowadays, you can EASILY chop 10% - 15% off a normal meta group and not worry about enrage timer at all.

    Back when raids first released in HoT, yeah that was different. Not running absolute full DPS was a problem then.

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

    @Fangoth.4503 said:

    @Kuma.1503 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    This thread goes right back into why I believe sites like snowcrows need to list two different kinds of metas:

    1. The normal speed clear meta designed for players of peak experience who don't make mistakes. You could call this "the elite meta."
    2. And then a "safe meta" where the meta is designed for players who do make mistakes, that would gladly DPS a bit slower to be able to clear a raid. It is often that a normal speed clear meta build operating at 100% damage output, can sacrifice about 10% to 15% of that dps value, to literally "double or triple" it's own sustain value, simply by bringing 1 defensive utility + some trait swap to a defensive trait. And then of course the kinds of things can be done which the OP mentioned.

    ^ If this where to be done, LFGs could list as: "Elite" or "Safe" and players could have different standards within squads, but two different methods to be able to agree upon. It would make the communication of expectations a lot easier. People have said they wanted an easy mode for raids, well this would be the easiest way to achieve it, a community accepted alternative "Safe" meta that players can organize around, who want to play at that pace.

    How about you provide the builds for what you deem to be the “safe meta”.

    You don't have to think very hard to make such a build. Often times, all that needs to happen are a few trait swaps. Here are some examples I use on the classes that I play:

    Daredevil:

    • Invigorating Precision - ~10% DPS loss. Massive sustain increase
    • Haste - Stunbreak, Helps maintain quickness when supports aren't doing their job
    • Swap deadly arts for trickery. Higher Vigor uptime = more dodges. Lower steal CD = more dodges. More Ini = You can afford to use vault as a dodge in a pinch. Less reliance on condi uptime on boss.

    Weaver:

    • Master's Fortitude - Bigger Health buffer
    • Run marauder gear - If 11k hp is too squishy. Better to stay alive and deal ~10% less dps than to constantly go down.

    Renegade:

    • Swap Shiro for Jallis. Mostly for fights where stability is beneficial. Has better breakbar damage if group CC is lacking.
    • Consider running Heal ren over Alac ren.

    Scourge

    • A heal scourge will literally hard carry inexperienced groups. In a very "bad" group, you can run full Magi with mercy runes and you can literally pick up an entire raid over and over again. You can even pull downed bodies out of damaging AoE's. (My favorite build for carrying strikes through boneskinner)

    Reaper

    • Soul Eater - Even more sustain on an already tanky build.

    Holosmith

    • Elixir U - Stunbreak. Helps with boon uptime if supports aren't doing their job

    Scrapper

    • Run Power scrapper in place of a Holosmith if Healers are poor. Barrier helps them maintain scholar rune uptime which makes up for the dps loss.
    • Heal Scrapper - Very good healing and cleansing build on fights where condis are a problem such as Sloth.

    Firebrand

    • Run Saraph support FB in place of a DPS. Still dishes out respectable dps while pumping out good heals and boons.
    • Replace Balthazar runes with Firebrand runes for better boon uptime. Very helpful when running without an Alacrigade/Chrono.

    not sure if you realise but you need take even more sustain because with no dps you gonna reach enrage timer

    Nah.

    DPS is so high nowadays, you can EASILY chop 10% - 15% off a normal meta group and not worry about enrage timer at all.

    Back when raids first released in HoT, yeah that was different. Not running absolute full DPS was a problem then.

    I thought this was for new raiders and people that cant do raids with the normal classes atm.

    If they cant down them now, how are they supposed to do it with even less dps and more time to kitten up?

  • Fangoth.4503Fangoth.4503 Member ✭✭
    edited October 15, 2020

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

    @Fangoth.4503 said:

    @Kuma.1503 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    This thread goes right back into why I believe sites like snowcrows need to list two different kinds of metas:

    1. The normal speed clear meta designed for players of peak experience who don't make mistakes. You could call this "the elite meta."
    2. And then a "safe meta" where the meta is designed for players who do make mistakes, that would gladly DPS a bit slower to be able to clear a raid. It is often that a normal speed clear meta build operating at 100% damage output, can sacrifice about 10% to 15% of that dps value, to literally "double or triple" it's own sustain value, simply by bringing 1 defensive utility + some trait swap to a defensive trait. And then of course the kinds of things can be done which the OP mentioned.

    ^ If this where to be done, LFGs could list as: "Elite" or "Safe" and players could have different standards within squads, but two different methods to be able to agree upon. It would make the communication of expectations a lot easier. People have said they wanted an easy mode for raids, well this would be the easiest way to achieve it, a community accepted alternative "Safe" meta that players can organize around, who want to play at that pace.

    How about you provide the builds for what you deem to be the “safe meta”.

    You don't have to think very hard to make such a build. Often times, all that needs to happen are a few trait swaps. Here are some examples I use on the classes that I play:

    Daredevil:

    • Invigorating Precision - ~10% DPS loss. Massive sustain increase
    • Haste - Stunbreak, Helps maintain quickness when supports aren't doing their job
    • Swap deadly arts for trickery. Higher Vigor uptime = more dodges. Lower steal CD = more dodges. More Ini = You can afford to use vault as a dodge in a pinch. Less reliance on condi uptime on boss.

    Weaver:

    • Master's Fortitude - Bigger Health buffer
    • Run marauder gear - If 11k hp is too squishy. Better to stay alive and deal ~10% less dps than to constantly go down.

    Renegade:

    • Swap Shiro for Jallis. Mostly for fights where stability is beneficial. Has better breakbar damage if group CC is lacking.
    • Consider running Heal ren over Alac ren.

    Scourge

    • A heal scourge will literally hard carry inexperienced groups. In a very "bad" group, you can run full Magi with mercy runes and you can literally pick up an entire raid over and over again. You can even pull downed bodies out of damaging AoE's. (My favorite build for carrying strikes through boneskinner)

    Reaper

    • Soul Eater - Even more sustain on an already tanky build.

    Holosmith

    • Elixir U - Stunbreak. Helps with boon uptime if supports aren't doing their job

    Scrapper

    • Run Power scrapper in place of a Holosmith if Healers are poor. Barrier helps them maintain scholar rune uptime which makes up for the dps loss.
    • Heal Scrapper - Very good healing and cleansing build on fights where condis are a problem such as Sloth.

    Firebrand

    • Run Saraph support FB in place of a DPS. Still dishes out respectable dps while pumping out good heals and boons.
    • Replace Balthazar runes with Firebrand runes for better boon uptime. Very helpful when running without an Alacrigade/Chrono.

    not sure if you realise but you need take even more sustain because with no dps you gonna reach enrage timer

    Nah.

    DPS is so high nowadays, you can EASILY chop 10% - 15% off a normal meta group and not worry about enrage timer at all.

    Back when raids first released in HoT, yeah that was different. Not running absolute full DPS was a problem then.

    if you rely on player that know how to play yes but if you know how to play you don't need to remove 10%. take a new player or player that have no idea how to play raid they can be outdpsed by more experienced player auto attacking so they need that "10%"

    raid in a nutshell:
    high DPS = successfull at mechs => take close to 0 damage
    taking damage = failing at mechs => DPS close to inexistant
    and fyi it still happens to see "dps" player at 2-4k dps when other are at 20k+

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 15, 2020

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    I looked at it and all the builds here are meta or at least good (which is really close to meta) at one boss (at least). If a build fall under that, they are indeed removed from the website (like the power core warrior build was when anet buffed the berserker spec).

    if a build is marked as "good", it means they don't consider it meta. And what they do consider meta already is a bit wider than just M.E.T.A. (more on that further below). If you look at their valuations of things like power reaper or power spellbreaker, you will see that they consider those builds to be quite bad (and power reaper for example was there even before it was recently buffed - i don;t remember what its valuation was then, but it must have been even worse).
    And there's stuff like all healer builds apart from druid, which just don't get the "meta" evaluation almost by default - because SC considers running a second healer to be a subpar choice. Yet they still have those on site in case someone wants to be safer at the cost of effectiveness. That is also not a M.E.T.A. approach.

    And what builds are better than the ones marked as meta? (they are maybe the new meta?).

    If you have several dps builds marked as meta at one boss, but some are clearly better than the others, then at least some of those meta builds are not M.E.T.A.
    That's the point i am trying to pass to you. That even SC, that are quite stringent in their meta requirements, and often ignore builds that are still considered meta by the community at large, mark as meta a number of builds that are not "most efficient". Their "meta" requirement apparently lies not in being most efficient, but merely in being a cut above just "good".

    By the way, it is rather well known that their version of the "most efficient" tactics is quite different than what the most groups are running. A look at the benchmark table should also tell you something.

    I (and no one here) never said that the most efficient tactics was the most used ones. Of course, a lot of pug squads (if not all) don't use M.E.T.A. squad composition and prefer safer off-meta comp (like take 2 healers instead of one) and accept a lot of off-meta builds. I never see the 7 power chronos meta on xera for example, but that doesn't mean that this peculiar setup is not the "most efficient tactic available". It still is.

    So, why SC has far more dps builds than that marked as meta at Xera? "Most efficient" means exactly that. If you have several setups on boss that are considered meta, and one is just a sliver better, only that one can be m.e.t.a. By definition the others are no longer "most efficient", because they fall below that one. And so, if they are still marked as meta, it measn that this "meta" evaluation is not the same as "most efficient tactic available" acronym would suggest.
    (and some of the "meta" marked builds are not just "a sliver" worse, btw)

    So, to better phrase my sentence you quoted, so the meaning will be more understandable:
    It is rather well known that their version of the "most efficient" tactics is quite different than what the most groups are running. But the site doesn't concentrate on what SC themselves are running, but includes all those popular setups that in SC's eyes would fall below being "most efficient".

    Most people (myself included) just want to clear the content and have fun while doing it.

    Indeed. And SC knows that, and their evaluations of builds (even those they tag as meta - with the possible exception of healers) reflect that.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    I looked at it and all the builds here are meta or at least good (which is really close to meta) at one boss (at least). If a build fall under that, they are indeed removed from the website (like the power core warrior build was when anet buffed the berserker spec).

    if a build is marked as "good", it means they don't consider it meta. And what they do consider meta already is a bit wider than just M.E.T.A. (more on that further below). If you look at their valuations of things like power reaper or power spellbreaker, you will see that they consider those builds to be quite bad (and power reaper for example was there even before it was recently buffed - i don;t remember what its valuation was then, but it must have been even worse).
    And there's stuff like all healer builds apart from druid, which just don't get the "meta" evaluation almost by default - because SC considers running a second healer to be a subpar choice. Yet they still have those on site in case someone wants to be safer at the cost of effectiveness. That is also not a M.E.T.A. approach.

    And what builds are better than the ones marked as meta? (they are maybe the new meta?).

    If you have several dps builds marked as meta at one boss, but some are clearly better than the others, then at least some of those meta builds are not M.E.T.A.
    That's the point i am trying to pass to you. That even SC, that are quite stringent in their meta requirements, and often ignore builds that are still considered meta by the community at large, mark as meta a number of builds that are not "most efficient". Their "meta" requirement apparently lies not in being most efficient, but merely in being a cut above just "good".

    By the way, it is rather well known that their version of the "most efficient" tactics is quite different than what the most groups are running. A look at the benchmark table should also tell you something.

    I (and no one here) never said that the most efficient tactics was the most used ones. Of course, a lot of pug squads (if not all) don't use M.E.T.A. squad composition and prefer safer off-meta comp (like take 2 healers instead of one) and accept a lot of off-meta builds. I never see the 7 power chronos meta on xera for example, but that doesn't mean that this peculiar setup is not the "most efficient tactic available". It still is.

    So, why SC has far more dps builds than that marked as meta at Xera? "Most efficient" means exactly that. If you have several setups on boss that are considered meta, and one is just a sliver better, only that one can be m.e.t.a. By definition the others are no longer "most efficient", because they fall below that one. And so, if they are still marked as meta, it measn that this "meta" evaluation is not the same as "most efficient tactic available" acronym would suggest.
    (and some of the "meta" marked builds are not just "a sliver" worse, btw)

    So, to better phrase my sentence you quoted, so the meaning will be more understandable:
    It is rather well known that their version of the "most efficient" tactics is quite different than what the most groups are running. But the site doesn't concentrate on what SC themselves are running, but includes all those popular setups that in SC's eyes would fall below being "most efficient".

    Most people (myself included) just want to clear the content and have fun while doing it.

    Indeed. And SC knows that, and their evaluations of builds (even those they tag as meta - with the possible exception of healers) reflect that.

    I will correct myself then : SC website provide us M.E.T.A. builds + "good" builds (which are a bit less efficient than M.E.T.A.).

    (and some of the "meta" marked builds are not just "a sliver" worse, btw)

    Which ones?

  • @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:
    I looked at it and all the builds here are meta or at least good (which is really close to meta) at one boss (at least). If a build fall under that, they are indeed removed from the website (like the power core warrior build was when anet buffed the berserker spec).

    if a build is marked as "good", it means they don't consider it meta. And what they do consider meta already is a bit wider than just M.E.T.A. (more on that further below). If you look at their valuations of things like power reaper or power spellbreaker, you will see that they consider those builds to be quite bad (and power reaper for example was there even before it was recently buffed - i don;t remember what its valuation was then, but it must have been even worse).
    And there's stuff like all healer builds apart from druid, which just don't get the "meta" evaluation almost by default - because SC considers running a second healer to be a subpar choice. Yet they still have those on site in case someone wants to be safer at the cost of effectiveness. That is also not a M.E.T.A. approach.

    And what builds are better than the ones marked as meta? (they are maybe the new meta?).

    If you have several dps builds marked as meta at one boss, but some are clearly better than the others, then at least some of those meta builds are not M.E.T.A.
    That's the point i am trying to pass to you. That even SC, that are quite stringent in their meta requirements, and often ignore builds that are still considered meta by the community at large, mark as meta a number of builds that are not "most efficient". Their "meta" requirement apparently lies not in being most efficient, but merely in being a cut above just "good".

    By the way, it is rather well known that their version of the "most efficient" tactics is quite different than what the most groups are running. A look at the benchmark table should also tell you something.

    I (and no one here) never said that the most efficient tactics was the most used ones. Of course, a lot of pug squads (if not all) don't use M.E.T.A. squad composition and prefer safer off-meta comp (like take 2 healers instead of one) and accept a lot of off-meta builds. I never see the 7 power chronos meta on xera for example, but that doesn't mean that this peculiar setup is not the "most efficient tactic available". It still is.

    So, why SC has far more dps builds than that marked as meta at Xera? "Most efficient" means exactly that. If you have several setups on boss that are considered meta, and one is just a sliver better, only that one can be m.e.t.a. By definition the others are no longer "most efficient", because they fall below that one. And so, if they are still marked as meta, it measn that this "meta" evaluation is not the same as "most efficient tactic available" acronym would suggest.
    (and some of the "meta" marked builds are not just "a sliver" worse, btw)

    So, to better phrase my sentence you quoted, so the meaning will be more understandable:
    It is rather well known that their version of the "most efficient" tactics is quite different than what the most groups are running. But the site doesn't concentrate on what SC themselves are running, but includes all those popular setups that in SC's eyes would fall below being "most efficient".

    Most people (myself included) just want to clear the content and have fun while doing it.

    Indeed. And SC knows that, and their evaluations of builds (even those they tag as meta - with the possible exception of healers) reflect that.

    I think its important to point out that a number of builds listed as "meta" for specific bosses are "meta" because stacking that class lets you replace a support, usually stacking chronos or guardians to replace quickness, but sometimes to replace other classes. For example on cairn condi soulbeast is listed as meta because they stack them to share vulture stance for lifesteal and that removes the need to bring a healer.

  • Blumpf.2518Blumpf.2518 Member ✭✭
    edited October 15, 2020

    Youre all talking about "efficiency" or "effective" as if it was the same for everyone, but you dont realize that this can mean very diffrent things depending on who you ask.
    For snowcrows an "efficient" build is a build that does more DPS than other builds and helps them kill the boss as fast as possible. If thats your goal, the build is "effective" cause it will reach that goal.
    Now if you have a lfg raid and play an "efficient" snowcrows build, but your goal is not a new speedkill record, or worse, youre not able to kill the boss while playing that build, this build is now not "effective".

    "Efficiency" and "Effective" very much depends on the intention what you want to achieve. The normal LFG raiders goal is to kill as many bosses as possible in the time theyre playing. A raidwipe costs a lot of time, especially a wipe if the boss has low hitpoints. Two wipes with a snowcrows build easily cost you 10 Minutes of Raidtime and will probably lead to people leaving the raid, so that you have to find new people, which costs time again. And then a DPS focussed build is neither efficient nor effective.
    By playing a safer or more group supporting build you couldve prevented the wipes which wouldve saved time and wouldve prevent people from leaving the raid.
    In this situation the 95% of max possible DPS build that has more group support is more efficient and more effective. Often all thats required for that is changing some traits or skills. The equipment can be the same.

    Therefore, for the normal raiders who only want to kill some bosses, the dps focussed snowcrows builds are not the most effective builds in achieving that. In fact they will often prevent that cause the raid is so squishy that a lot of unneccesary wipes will happen.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 15, 2020

    Yes and no. Effectiveness and efficiency can be on a group by group basis but it can be applied across all as well. It’s most often applied overall as that’s when it makes the most sense to use it.

  • Seera.5916Seera.5916 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Blumpf.2518 said:
    Youre all talking about "efficiency" or "effective" as if it was the same for everyone, but you dont realize that this can mean very diffrent things depending on who you ask.
    For snowcrows an "efficient" build is a build that does more DPS than other builds and helps them kill the boss as fast as possible. If thats your goal, the build is "effective" cause it will reach that goal.
    Now if you have a lfg raid and play an "efficient" snowcrows build, but your goal is not a new speedkill record, or worse, youre not able to kill the boss while playing that build, this build is now not "effective".

    "Efficiency" and "Effective" very much depends on the intention what you want to achieve. The normal LFG raiders goal is to kill as many bosses as possible in the time theyre playing. A raidwipe costs a lot of time, especially a wipe if the boss has low hitpoints. Two wipes with a snowcrows build easily cost you 10 Minutes of Raidtime and will probably lead to people leaving the raid, so that you have to find new people, which costs time again. And then a DPS focussed build is neither efficient nor effective.
    By playing a safer or more group supporting build you couldve prevented the wipes which wouldve saved time and wouldve prevent people from leaving the raid.
    In this situation the 95% of max possible DPS build that has more group support is more efficient and more effective. Often all thats required for that is changing some traits or skills. The equipment can be the same.

    Therefore, for the normal raiders who only want to kill some bosses, the dps focussed snowcrows builds are not the most effective builds in achieving that. In fact they will often prevent that cause the raid is so squishy that a lot of unneccesary wipes will happen.

    Conversely: the best defense is a good offense.

    Higher DPS means a boss dies quicker. The quicker a boss dies, the less likely someone is to make a mistake that leads to a wipe.

    Players should strive to do the most DPS possible for them. IE: a person with low reflexes (either age related or disability) will have to choose a build that's not dependent on super fast reflexes.

    SnowCrows isn't harmful to raiding. They give a good starting point for people looking to do raids. They follow the "best defense is a good offense" approach and offer builds that focus on DPS.

    People and ANet are the reason raids are dying. People have to actually want to learn for any build site (or any offered help) to be effective. This is a portion of the raiding community. These players who do not care to improve gradually reduce the number of veterans who PUG or are willing to critique builds and provide help unsolicited. Players who rudely tell someone to go watch a video and refuse to help in any other fashion hurt raids as this makes new players less likely to try to ask for help again - they may not learn the best through watching a video. It also puts off players who want to try out of fear that that's who they'll run into. ANet not putting out raiding content in a consistent manner hurts raiding. Players get tired of waiting for new raids and will only do the same raid over and over again for so long before they move on.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 15, 2020

    @Blumpf.2518 said:
    Youre all talking about "efficiency" or "effective" as if it was the same for everyone, but you dont realize that this can mean very diffrent things depending on who you ask.

    You're complaining people are hung up by definitions for meta derailing the thread ... then you re-open with a discussion about the meaning of some pretty common words. Don't do that to yourself.

    If you want to stick to the topic, just discuss the points people have made to you that haven't addressed:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Blumpf.2518 said:
    Why dont you continue your metaphysic metadiscussion in another metathread, so that the rest can get back to topic.

    I agree, so:
    Sites like snowcrows isn't destroying anything, it's "barely" providing information about efficient builds/comps. If anything "destroys" raiding, it's the player attitude and pretty much nothing else. In the past sites like that didn't exist (or at least weren't so popular) and yet other mmorpgs still developed their meta comps/builds which were spread ingame or on their respective forums.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Fangoth.4503Fangoth.4503 Member ✭✭
    edited October 15, 2020

    @Blumpf.2518 said:
    Youre all talking about "efficiency" or "effective" as if it was the same for everyone, but you dont realize that this can mean very diffrent things depending on who you ask.
    For snowcrows an "efficient" build is a build that does more DPS than other builds and helps them kill the boss as fast as possible. If thats your goal, the build is "effective" cause it will reach that goal.
    Now if you have a lfg raid and play an "efficient" snowcrows build, but your goal is not a new speedkill record, or worse, youre not able to kill the boss while playing that build, this build is now not "effective".

    "Efficiency" and "Effective" very much depends on the intention what you want to achieve. The normal LFG raiders goal is to kill as many bosses as possible in the time theyre playing. A raidwipe costs a lot of time, especially a wipe if the boss has low hitpoints. Two wipes with a snowcrows build easily cost you 10 Minutes of Raidtime and will probably lead to people leaving the raid, so that you have to find new people, which costs time again. And then a DPS focussed build is neither efficient nor effective.
    By playing a safer or more group supporting build you couldve prevented the wipes which wouldve saved time and wouldve prevent people from leaving the raid.
    In this situation the 95% of max possible DPS build that has more group support is more efficient and more effective. Often all thats required for that is changing some traits or skills. The equipment can be the same.

    Therefore, for the normal raiders who only want to kill some bosses, the dps focussed snowcrows builds are not the most effective builds in achieving that. In fact they will often prevent that cause the raid is so squishy that a lot of unneccesary wipes will happen.

    you want to prove that SC build aren't adapted for LFG then go do your own LFG and impose these build and prove them wrong :). It's super simple you just have to click at proper spot like in: https://imgur.com/matFPGc
    It will be much more constructive than being here and claiming that everyone is stupid by not using your build idea or claiming that a guild is destroying raid when they instead play an important on improving the PUG lfg standards and quality.
    So far i see only speaking about "oh it would be so much better" with nothing to support what is said.
    Maybe having proof that these build are performing better by actually killing a boss with a team composed of these build would be a good start. If you manage to do so don't forget to record logs so you can share your great discovery to the rest of the community and let them evaluate if its better than what SC offers.
    don't forget to make a benchmark video (with log) too so player that plan on using this can train themselves :)

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    Sacrificing a utility slot to achieve some kind of 2% to 3% increase in DPS, rather than bringing a utility that literally doubles personal sustain is not efficient. It's a ballsy tactic that should only be used by players who can run the said given content perfectly without ever making mistakes.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    If you need to double personal sustain then it’s a player skill issue and it would be more efficient to work on that so you don’t need it. Running builds off SC hardly requires players to make no mistakes.

  • Raiding with pugs is not the only way to raid. The raiding community is great (Iots of toxic players out there, who cares...). Find a static group. Many raiding guilds are doing some training runs during the week, if you're not familiar with the class... they are eager to give you some feedback/advice.

    If you're comfortable with the group and know your class well enough, go ahead move onto Snowcrows... No one is forcing you to use them.

    PPL search for an epiSc for SH... yesterday we got it with Condi BS instead...

    I mean... the guilds are asking for more ppl... one of them would certainly fit your schedule!

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    Sacrificing a utility slot to achieve some kind of 2% to 3% increase in DPS, rather than bringing a utility that literally doubles personal sustain is not efficient. It's a ballsy tactic that should only be used by players who can run the said given content perfectly without ever making mistakes.

    Hint: most of the utilities that "literally double personal sustain" do not actually increase personal sustain in any impactful way. And i don't think any utility actually literally doubles personal sustain even in theory (much less in practice). On the other hand sometimes lacking even that sliver of a dps more can result in a party wipe.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    Sacrificing a utility slot to achieve some kind of 2% to 3% increase in DPS, rather than bringing a utility that literally doubles personal sustain is not efficient. It's a ballsy tactic that should only be used by players who can run the said given content perfectly without ever making mistakes.

    Hint: most of the utilities that "literally double personal sustain" do not actually increase personal sustain in any impactful way. And i don't think any utility actually literally doubles personal sustain even in theory (much less in practice). On the other hand sometimes lacking even that sliver of a dps more can result in a party wipe.

    Bologna.

    Take a utility like Dolyak Stance as example. It grants a -33% damage vs. power and condi that stacks rather than being overlapped by protection, removes all movement impairing condis, and is also a personal stun break. Dolyak Stance easily doubles sustain, not in terms of health bar or ability to consistently take damage to the face, but rather for when it matters. A lot of these "1shot mechanics" in raids are actually not 1shot mechanics at all, they are survivable. It's just that everyone is trying to run glass cannon DPS builds that make those mechanics look like 1shots. When players bring something like Dolyak Stance and save it only for the use of a "oh kitten button" they survive through those mechanics rather than wiping to them. And INB4 "well bring more healers likes snowcrows says" because no matter how many healers you have, healing only ever comes AFTER a hit is absorbed. So glass cannons with low health and low damage mitigation tooling will get 1shot by a single hit and there won't be time to heal them. <- People are seriously overlooking this fact. Players need to be able to take the hit to be able to get healed after the hit. That's what skills like Dolyak Stance are good at offering newer/casual players.

    Bringing something like Dolyak Stance is not only doubling personal sustain factor almost quite literally, but it is also removing 1shot mechanics that don't need to be 1shots. When players can survive the first hit they can be healed after, and that's what happens. Trying to bring Frost Trap for some kind of 2% 3% increase in persona DPS over Dolyak Stance is a silly notion.

    And you guys keep defending your side of this debacle with "Well DPS kills faster so that means less chances of mistakes happening". Again, bologna. In the case of taking Dolyak Stance for a 2% to 3% drop in personal DPS, you're looking at:

    • Pros - Dolyak Stance gonna grant you an "oh kitten button" to ensure you stay on your feet and aren't a drag to your team
    • Cons - Losing the 2% to 3% off top damage might add +10 seconds to your clear time. That 10s is not a large enough margin of time to worry about "mistakes being made because DPS was too slow" to justify losing Dolyak Stance. Having Dolyak Stance throughout the entire rest of the raid boss clear time before that last 10 seconds is clearly a quality of life safety net worth bringing for any player who isn't running with an elite crew who clears every raid boss perfectly.

    Just about every class/build has some utility skill like this, that when taken it allows them to negate most 1shot effects and/or avoid them completely, for some simple drop in 3% top DPS or lower. These kinds of utility skills are good for new or casual players to bring. Which those kinds of selections, they can at least survive and stay on their feet while not being a drag to their team, and **this gives them time to learn mechanics. **Again, some kind of 2% 3% drop in DPS is diminutive and might add +10s to the end of a raid clear time, but it allows those new players the ability to stay alive to get there to that last 10s.

    If I was PUGing, I'd much rather have a group of players with Dolyak Stances who stayed alive in a raid that took 40s longer, than a group of new/casual players who insisted on using full glass cannon DPS builds who weren't ready to be doing that who couldn't survive any of the phases and we had to keep restarting because of wipes.

  • @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    And INB4 "well bring more healers likes snowcrows says" because no matter how many healers you have, healing only ever comes AFTER a hit is absorbed. So glass cannons with low health and low damage mitigation tooling will get 1shot by a single hit and there won't be time to heal them. <- People are seriously overlooking this fact.

    If the squad need more damage mitigation, they can take an carry scourge along as second healer who will apply the barrier BEFORE a hit is absorbed (and for 10 people).

    When players bring something like Dolyak Stance and save it only for the use of a "oh kitten button" they survive through those mechanics rather than wiping to them.

    If they can "save it" that mean that they are able to identify and anticipate that mecanic and most likely avoid it even without the stance.
    A newby will most likely use it off-cooldown and won't save it for a specific time (need exp for that).

  • Blumpf.2518Blumpf.2518 Member ✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    Yesterday i watched a group doing Adina in a Stream. Boonthief, RenegadeHealAlac, Soulbeast, BS, 6x Dragonhunter.
    Speedkill setup with over 30k DPS for each damagedealer. They had 1 Pillarspawn each phase, so high was the DPS.
    Should have been an easy bosskill.
    But what happened? They wiped about 10 times with their speedkill setup before finally killing the boss and guess why?
    No Boon removal - Retaliation killed the dragonhunters within an instant.
    Low Heal - Damage to group could not be healed completely.
    Or people just walked into Adinas sandray attack. Their "skill" was only maxDPS based, but movement "skill" wasnt there.

    Switching a Dragonhunter for a 2nd healer, maybe a necro who does shields on 10 people and brings projectile blocking poison cloud and boon removal or a chrono who just keeps 3 swordclones on Adina that remove Boons and brings a focus for projectile reflect wouldve solved their problem. The DPS would still have been superhigh to still only have 1 Pillar per phase. But instead of first trying the boss with a safe setup they wasted so much time with their speedkill setup and had a lot of unneccessary wipes and that only because they chose DPS over more sustain.

    And thats what snowcrows is promoting, that DPS is better than everything else, which leads to situations like this.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    Take a utility like Dolyak Stance as example. It grants a -33% damage vs. power and condi that stacks rather than being overlapped by protection, removes all movement impairing condis, and is also a personal stun break. Dolyak Stance easily doubles sustain, not in terms of health bar or ability to consistently take damage to the face, but rather for when it matters. A lot of these "1shot mechanics" in raids are actually not 1shot mechanics at all, they are survivable. It's just that everyone is trying to run glass cannon DPS builds that make those mechanics look like 1shots. When players bring something like Dolyak Stance and save it only for the use of a "oh kitten button" they survive through those mechanics rather than wiping to them.

    Anyone capable of timing those utilities right to survive said mechanics is good enough to actually do those mechanics well and not suffer that damage at all. Consequently, if you need that signet to survive, you probably aren't skilled enough to utilize it well anyway.

    And INB4 "well bring more healers likes snowcrows says" because no matter how many healers you have, healing only ever comes AFTER a hit is absorbed. So glass cannons with low health and low damage mitigation tooling will get 1shot by a single hit and there won't be time to heal them. <- People are seriously overlooking this fact. Players need to be able to take the hit to be able to get healed after the hit. That's what skills like Dolyak Stance are good at offering newer/casual players.

    There aren't many such mechanics at all. Most damage you get is either pressure damage, something you can simply walk out of, or percentage-based damage that bypasses things like protection and dolyak stance damage reduction. Most of so-called oneshot damage is in that last category (and is often not a real oneshot - for example VG damage from greens mechanic is around 80% of your maximum hp). Hint: against that kind of damage, instead of damage reduction you're better investing in things like blocks/evades, or barriers (that generally are not counted in that hp percentage calculation). Additional points for that skill working for whole group (again, barriers, and for example guardian's Aegis). And, if you haven;t noticed, taking those types of utility is often quite much suggested for individual encounters.

    Bringing something like Dolyak Stance is not only doubling personal sustain factor almost quite literally, but it is also removing 1shot mechanics that don't need to be 1shots.

    In reality, it does neither. It just gives you a false sense of security.

    And you guys keep defending your side of this debacle with "Well DPS kills faster so that means less chances of mistakes happening". Again, bologna. In the case of taking Dolyak Stance for a 2% to 3% drop in personal DPS, you're looking at:

    • Pros - Dolyak Stance gonna grant you an "oh kitten button" to ensure you stay on your feet and aren't a drag to your team
    • Cons - Losing the 2% to 3% off top damage might add +10 seconds to your clear time. That 10s is not a large enough margin of time to worry about "mistakes being made because DPS was too slow" to justify losing Dolyak Stance.

    It's not about 10s more overall of boss fight. It's about for example wiping, because you lacked 1% damage to phase Gorse on third world eater (seen that one a lot). Or having to do an additional phase on KC. Or doing additional seals run on Dhuum final burn. And, as i saidl already, if you need that stance to survive, you will go down anyway.

    Just about every class/build has some utility skill like this, that when taken it allows them to negate most 1shot effects and/or avoid them completely, for some simple drop in 3% top DPS or lower. These kinds of utility skills are good for new or casual players to bring.

    The new or casual players aren't good enough to use those skills well, because that would require a good knowledge of the fight. Knowledge that can be utilized far better by doing mechanics well, and avoiding that damage in the first place.

    You are doing a lot of thinking based on pure theory, but you clearly lack enough raid experience to understand why in reality it doesn't work like that.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    @Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    And INB4 "well bring more healers likes snowcrows says" because no matter how many healers you have, healing only ever comes AFTER a hit is absorbed. So glass cannons with low health and low damage mitigation tooling will get 1shot by a single hit and there won't be time to heal them. <- People are seriously overlooking this fact.

    If the squad need more damage mitigation, they can take an carry scourge along as second healer who will apply the barrier BEFORE a hit is absorbed (and for 10 people).

    You guys are still missing the point here. You keep missing it missing it missing it. A Scourge + people who are also bringing personal damage mitigation like Dolyak Stance, just starts turning into hard defensive carry, where a group of trial new players could be pulled right through a raid boss into completion because that's how much defensive stature is in the group.

    You all are so stuck in the ideology of "there is only one correct way to do this!" well you know what? maybe there is only one correct way! but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways. And sometimes the way I'm mentioning is a lot easier for carrying my gf and her friend and someone's mom through a raid boss just one single time so they can get their achievements, than spending weeks & months of time training them to play snowcrows builds.

    When players bring something like Dolyak Stance and save it only for the use of a "oh kitten button" they survive through those mechanics rather than wiping to them.

    If they can "save it" that mean that they are able to identify and anticipate that mecanic and most likely avoid it even without the stance.

    Dude that's like saying "If you have a single dodge roll on your build, just one, and you know how to push the dodge roll, most likely you are able to identify any & all incoming attacks so you should be able to avoid all of them ever." Come on man. Having -33% damage that stacks with protection, and with your Scourge barriers, is enough face tanking padding for even your grandmother to come in and clear VG with you. And that's the very essence of the point I'm making.

    I didn't say that safe builds were BETTER than snowcrows or more efficient or effective. I only said that some people need safe builds and if more of them were in circulation and accepted by the community, we'd have a lot more participation from the community, whether you wanted to play with those players or not.

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    Take a utility like Dolyak Stance as example. It grants a -33% damage vs. power and condi that stacks rather than being overlapped by protection, removes all movement impairing condis, and is also a personal stun break. Dolyak Stance easily doubles sustain, not in terms of health bar or ability to consistently take damage to the face, but rather for when it matters. A lot of these "1shot mechanics" in raids are actually not 1shot mechanics at all, they are survivable. It's just that everyone is trying to run glass cannon DPS builds that make those mechanics look like 1shots. When players bring something like Dolyak Stance and save it only for the use of a "oh kitten button" they survive through those mechanics rather than wiping to them.

    Anyone capable of timing those utilities right to survive said mechanics is good enough to actually do those mechanics well and not suffer that damage at all. Consequently, if you need that signet to survive, you probably aren't skilled enough to utilize it well anyway.

    lol you guys crack me up, you really do. As if there weren't a difference between having 1 health and 100,000 health.

    And INB4 "well bring more healers likes snowcrows says" because no matter how many healers you have, healing only ever comes AFTER a hit is absorbed. So glass cannons with low health and low damage mitigation tooling will get 1shot by a single hit and there won't be time to heal them. <- People are seriously overlooking this fact. Players need to be able to take the hit to be able to get healed after the hit. That's what skills like Dolyak Stance are good at offering newer/casual players.

    There aren't many such mechanics at all. Most damage you get is either pressure damage, something you can simply walk out of, or percentage-based damage that bypasses things like protection and dolyak stance damage reduction. Most of so-called oneshot damage is in that last category (and is often not a real oneshot - for example VG damage from greens mechanic is around 80% of your maximum hp). Hint: against that kind of damage, instead of damage reduction you're better investing in things like blocks/evades, or barriers (that generally are not counted in that hp percentage calculation). Additional points for that skill working for whole group (again, barriers, and for example guardian's Aegis). And, if you haven;t noticed, taking those types of utility is often quite much suggested for individual encounters.

    Yup but that isn't always true and not everyone has extra blocks as utilities. You take what you get and you learn to put it to use. A lot of what you're saying is still coming from the standpoint of "A veteran who knows how to run the raids" and you guys just seriously are very very stuck in this mind frame.

    Look man, at one point of GW2, I had my gf playing, our friend Keri, Keri's 65 year old mom, and even Keri's friend Kate who is also a mom. I had this guild of moms & grandmothers playing the game with me who were simply never going to be able to play at the level required to make a snowcrow meta work. It wasn't going to happen. So as their organizer for these activities that they wanted to do, I had to find creative ways to pad them up so it was possible for them to go into a raid and survive long enough so they weren't getting bored and disheartened, while 5 vets pretty much carried them into their single time completions which is all they wanted.

    I know you'll come back at try to find some kind of an argument in this, but until you have had to perform such a task as this, I don't think you're really understanding the true pros & cons of a safe meta for players like that. Of course we tried to get them to learn normal builds first, it didn't work. Of course we tried to only slightly pad them up at first, doesn't work. Then we had to just configure sustainy styled builds for them, so that they only REALLY needed to focus on remembering a few important mechanics per boss to avoid. And then they were so tanky that the other mechanics mostly didn't matter if they were caught in them all so long as healing was continued to cycle. <- This made it possible for them to casually join and participate and clear the raids, without it needing to be a dedicated scheduled activity, which mothers and grandmothers and busy people in general usually aren't interested in.

    Bringing something like Dolyak Stance is not only doubling personal sustain factor almost quite literally, but it is also removing 1shot mechanics that don't need to be 1shots.

    In reality, it does neither. It just gives you a false sense of security.

    And you guys keep defending your side of this debacle with "Well DPS kills faster so that means less chances of mistakes happening". Again, bologna. In the case of taking Dolyak Stance for a 2% to 3% drop in personal DPS, you're looking at:

    • Pros - Dolyak Stance gonna grant you an "oh kitten button" to ensure you stay on your feet and aren't a drag to your team
    • Cons - Losing the 2% to 3% off top damage might add +10 seconds to your clear time. That 10s is not a large enough margin of time to worry about "mistakes being made because DPS was too slow" to justify losing Dolyak Stance.

    Just about every class/build has some utility skill like this, that when taken it allows them to negate most 1shot effects and/or avoid them completely, for some simple drop in 3% top DPS or lower. These kinds of utility skills are good for new or casual players to bring.

    The new or casual players aren't good enough to use those skills well, because that would require a good knowledge of the fight. Knowledge that can be utilized far better by doing mechanics well, and avoiding that damage in the first place.

    You are doing a lot of thinking based on pure theory, but you clearly lack enough raid experience to understand why in reality it doesn't work like that.

    You are still very very clearly misunderstanding a couple important things due to your years of snowcrow bandwagoning:

    1. Oh am I speaking from pure theory? lololol My friend, it's hardly theory. There are plenty of player names I could give to you right now, who will give testimony to the 4 mom crew that I carried through every mode in this game and the tribulation difficulty level that it was to do. Including getting them involved in spvp teams. I am not speaking from "theory" but rather years of experience doing exactly what I have been talking about in this thread, with real mothers & grandmothers, who have real children, who don't the time or interest to dedicate to invested levels of training. What I am explaining to you is true and works. You say that I was speaking from theory, but I have to ask you this: "Have you ever even tried what I have been explaining?" Maybe you are the one speaking from theory & assumption.
    2. You say that "I lack enough raid experience to understand anything" which is besides the point entirely. The point is that I wouldn't need raid experience to clear the raids in the way that Amanda, Keri, Kate and Clo had cleared them. And that is the ultimate point that you guys on that side of the debacle seem to be missing.

    Don't misunderstand the point of this argument.

    I did not say that these safe builds are better or more efficient or effective than what is listed on snowcrows.

    I simply said that what is listed on snowcrows doesn't work for everyone, and that there are better ways to aim at a successful clear for that demographic of players.

  • Seera.5916Seera.5916 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Blumpf.2518 said:
    Yesterday i watched a group doing Adina in a Stream. Boonthief, RenegadeHealAlac, Soulbeast, BS, 6x Dragonhunter.
    Speedkill setup with over 30k DPS for each damagedealer. They had 1 Pillarspawn each phase, so high was the DPS.
    Should have been an easy bosskill.
    But what happened? They wiped about 10 times with their speedkill setup before finally killing the boss and guess why?
    No Boon removal - Retaliation killed the dragonhunters within an instant.
    Low Heal - Damage to group could not be healed completely.
    Or people just walked into Adinas sandray attack. Their "skill" was only maxDPS based, but movement "skill" wasnt there.

    Switching a Dragonhunter for a 2nd healer, maybe a necro who does shields on 10 people and brings projectile blocking poison cloud and boon removal or a chrono who just keeps 3 swordclones on Adina that remove Boons and brings a focus for projectile reflect wouldve solved their problem. The DPS would still have been superhigh to still only have 1 Pillar per phase. But instead of first trying the boss with a safe setup they wasted so much time with their speedkill setup and had a lot of unneccessary wipes and that only because they chose DPS over more sustain.

    And thats what snowcrows is promoting, that DPS is better than everything else, which leads to situations like this.

    And the players you mentioned failing at the raid is not SnowCrows fault in the slightest.

    You could repeat the above with players on any combination of builds that can beat the content. If the players haven't fully learned the build yet, then obviously they're going to make mistakes that could lead to wipes.

    If the players didn't understand what the raid needed and didn't choose a combination of builds that would be able to do it, it's not SnowCrows fault.

    Based on what you described, they likely would have the same level of success on other builds.

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    Take a utility like Dolyak Stance as example. It grants a -33% damage vs. power and condi that stacks rather than being overlapped by protection, removes all movement impairing condis, and is also a personal stun break. Dolyak Stance easily doubles sustain, not in terms of health bar or ability to consistently take damage to the face, but rather for when it matters. A lot of these "1shot mechanics" in raids are actually not 1shot mechanics at all, they are survivable. It's just that everyone is trying to run glass cannon DPS builds that make those mechanics look like 1shots. When players bring something like Dolyak Stance and save it only for the use of a "oh kitten button" they survive through those mechanics rather than wiping to them.

    Anyone capable of timing those utilities right to survive said mechanics is good enough to actually do those mechanics well and not suffer that damage at all. Consequently, if you need that signet to survive, you probably aren't skilled enough to utilize it well anyway.

    lol you guys crack me up, you really do. As if there weren't a difference between having 1 health and 100,000 health.

    And INB4 "well bring more healers likes snowcrows says" because no matter how many healers you have, healing only ever comes AFTER a hit is absorbed. So glass cannons with low health and low damage mitigation tooling will get 1shot by a single hit and there won't be time to heal them. <- People are seriously overlooking this fact. Players need to be able to take the hit to be able to get healed after the hit. That's what skills like Dolyak Stance are good at offering newer/casual players.

    There aren't many such mechanics at all. Most damage you get is either pressure damage, something you can simply walk out of, or percentage-based damage that bypasses things like protection and dolyak stance damage reduction. Most of so-called oneshot damage is in that last category (and is often not a real oneshot - for example VG damage from greens mechanic is around 80% of your maximum hp). Hint: against that kind of damage, instead of damage reduction you're better investing in things like blocks/evades, or barriers (that generally are not counted in that hp percentage calculation). Additional points for that skill working for whole group (again, barriers, and for example guardian's Aegis). And, if you haven;t noticed, taking those types of utility is often quite much suggested for individual encounters.

    Yup but that isn't always true and not everyone has extra blocks as utilities. You take what you get and you learn to put it to use. A lot of what you're saying is still coming from the standpoint of "A veteran who knows how to run the raids" and you guys just seriously are very very stuck in this mind frame.

    Look man, at one point of GW2, I had my gf playing, our friend Keri, Keri's 65 year old mom, and even Keri's friend Kate who is also a mom. I had this guild of moms & grandmothers playing the game with me who were simply never going to be able to play at the level required to make a snowcrow meta work. It wasn't going to happen. So as their organizer for these activities that they wanted to do, I had to find creative ways to pad them up so it was possible for them to go into a raid and survive long enough so they weren't getting bored and disheartened, while 5 vets pretty much carried them into their single time completions which is all they wanted.

    I know you'll come back at try to find some kind of an argument in this, but until you have had to perform such a task as this, I don't think you're really understanding the true pros & cons of a safe meta for players like that. Of course we tried to get them to learn normal builds first, it didn't work. Of course we tried to only slightly pad them up at first, doesn't work. Then we had to just configure sustainy styled builds for them, so that they only REALLY needed to focus on remembering a few important mechanics per boss to avoid. And then they were so tanky that the other mechanics mostly didn't matter if they were caught in them all so long as healing was continued to cycle. <- This made it possible for them to casually join and participate and clear the raids, without it needing to be a dedicated scheduled activity, which mothers and grandmothers and busy people in general usually aren't interested in.

    Bringing something like Dolyak Stance is not only doubling personal sustain factor almost quite literally, but it is also removing 1shot mechanics that don't need to be 1shots.

    In reality, it does neither. It just gives you a false sense of security.

    And you guys keep defending your side of this debacle with "Well DPS kills faster so that means less chances of mistakes happening". Again, bologna. In the case of taking Dolyak Stance for a 2% to 3% drop in personal DPS, you're looking at:

    • Pros - Dolyak Stance gonna grant you an "oh kitten button" to ensure you stay on your feet and aren't a drag to your team
    • Cons - Losing the 2% to 3% off top damage might add +10 seconds to your clear time. That 10s is not a large enough margin of time to worry about "mistakes being made because DPS was too slow" to justify losing Dolyak Stance.

    Just about every class/build has some utility skill like this, that when taken it allows them to negate most 1shot effects and/or avoid them completely, for some simple drop in 3% top DPS or lower. These kinds of utility skills are good for new or casual players to bring.

    The new or casual players aren't good enough to use those skills well, because that would require a good knowledge of the fight. Knowledge that can be utilized far better by doing mechanics well, and avoiding that damage in the first place.

    You are doing a lot of thinking based on pure theory, but you clearly lack enough raid experience to understand why in reality it doesn't work like that.

    You are still very very clearly misunderstanding a couple important things due to your years of snowcrow bandwagoning:

    1. Oh am I speaking from pure theory? lololol My friend, it's hardly theory. There are plenty of player names I could give to you right now, who will give testimony to the 4 mom crew that I carried through every mode in this game and the tribulation difficulty level that it was to do. Including getting them involved in spvp teams. I am not speaking from "theory" but rather years of experience doing exactly what I have been talking about in this thread, with real mothers & grandmothers, who have real children, who don't the time or interest to dedicate to invested levels of training. What I am explaining to you is true and works. You say that I was speaking from theory, but I have to ask you this: "Have you ever even tried what I have been explaining?" Maybe you are the one speaking from theory & assumption.
    2. You say that "I lack enough raid experience to understand anything" which is besides the point entirely. The point is that I wouldn't need raid experience to clear the raids in the way that Amanda, Keri, Kate and Clo had cleared them. And that is the ultimate point that you guys on that side of the debacle seem to be missing.

    Don't misunderstand the point of this argument.

    I did not say that these safe builds are better or more efficient or effective than what is listed on snowcrows.

    I simply said that what is listed on snowcrows doesn't work for everyone, and that there are better ways to aim at a successful clear for that demographic of players.

    Ok so how would a 10 man mom team do?
    Thats why people are disagreeing with you this wont help raid particiation at all since you need 50% of the team to do 90% of the work.