Will there be a period, within the game's lifetime, where player health is evaluated in wvw? — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

Will there be a period, within the game's lifetime, where player health is evaluated in wvw?

Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited October 16, 2020 in WvW

I understand there is a lot going on. I understand that pve balance needs some stability. I understand that (some) damage nerfs came. I do understand that it is still possible to do things, like, well, for example, spam 1 skill, that also evades, for like 7,331 +7,498 + 7,146 + 7,656 + 6,945 + 7,496... in the matter of seconds. There are a lot of other examples, but that's just one that the game has to offer. And I definitely do not blame players for building their characters in a way that the game rules allow for. It is what it is...

Now I did watch some of the stream with CMC, where he mentioned "tankiness", so I'm assuming the team will probably go the "wreck survival items" type route. However, possible damage numbers are still extraordinarily high. The condition system is STILL not developed in a healthy way for wvw and spvp. And I don't think another round of nerfs would look good for Anet, like at all. And if the team just waves the nerf hand over "tankiness", without making some other adjustments, then you will be asking for another negative check mark from the community because... Not only will have players absorbed a round of some damage nerfs, but then they will be subjected to another round of survival nerfs... and then we end up back at square 1 essentially. That's not good, especially when there are major things that have never really been addressed in the first place, and we are almost nearing the decade mark for this game.

So my suggestions...

1- When a player enters wvw their base health numbers are greatly increased.
2- Spend time evaluating "tankiness" and damage numbers while player health numbers are increased.
3- Eventually, make the appropriate changes to "tankiness" based off a higher health values.
4- Relook at damage numbers to see what skills need a damage buff, and what skills still need a damage nerf, based off of higher health values.

Ty for reading!

Comments

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If they do that half will complain everyone is too tanky and the other half will complain when it is taken away.

    Could try it out in eotm I suppose and see what people say.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • i'm not fully sure what u mean - why exactly woudl there be a increased health for these dps-testings? that could leave them more time to put out damage and provide glassier builds more dmg. if that gets take away, you got no valid data from a possible scan from the +health/bulk time...?

    i don't watch their streams, but that they again adress battle stats, no big wonder. instead of working the problems, let us play frankenstein on the battle system once again. one day we'll successfully ruin it!

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    Some CC skills need something, making them like how CC skils worked in gw1 would be nice, imagine Drop the Hammer from Rev, If skill make a KD target takes a debuuf while on KD where it will take more damge from ground targeting skills, if terget doenst get KD it will loose stability (stab will be consumed wich is how stability is working right now, maybe some skills need to consume +1 stab on target????).

    A split from vunerability increasing condi and direct damage needs to happen as well. :\ , this way some classes should be more prominitend on debuffins melee defenses and other spec debeffing against certain conditions.
    Conditions could be stronger w/o being OP if Anet played with the debufer(this is what scourge should had been in 1st place rather aoe carry spammer) roles rather than create idiotic speks , this would game up as well team gameplay and would make the game more strategy based than everything spamming the same.

    Slayers [XD] NSP Guild
    Yao Chen Herald/Ventari
    Ying Wuxian Renegade/Demon

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    Yeah, how about no.

    We need real balance passes, and the Update that Was Promised© before we need these kinds of ideas.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020

    "game is built very offensively on purpose"

    "decision to not have healers"

    "DPS with just enough Support through Boons has become the one true god"

    "Bringing heavy healing to GW2, unlike anything you have seen before."

    "Berserk meta is going away."

    Rise of survival builds.

    Nerf Damage and Healing.

    Expected nerf to survival incoming.

    Back to square 1.

    yadayadayada...

    Why nerf damage and survival stuff when it takes us back to the EXACT SAME PLACES?

    Bunker type builds were here to add diversity, outside of DPS, to the game.

    Some players built their characters to be bunker so they wouldn't die in seconds on the battlefield.

    Now bunkers are a problem since the damage nerf.

    So now we nerf bunkers.

    This is a good way to tee off players 8 years in because there was zero purpose to go the nerf stuff route in the first place if it takes you back to similar spots.

    That's a bad look. Especially bad when REAL problems and issues are not addressed.

    Experiment with HEALTH values, then tailor damage and survival stuff around those values for the purposes of TTK.

    Not doing the previous sentence makes the balance effort from months ago and the proposed upcoming changes POINTLESS.

    Not good to do circular changes.

    When do we break the cycle?

    Let's look back at 2014 to understand the spirit of my post... From a player named MonMalthias

    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/balance/PvX-Balance-Iteration-Wrongdoing

    Read the old post?

    Notice we are still in the same spots?

  • KeyOrion.9506KeyOrion.9506 Member ✭✭✭

    Player health? Most of the early scouts in wvw use to run 8 to 14 hour shifts in WvW watching towers, keeps, and garrisons back in the day. I watched one tower for 14 hours, asked for a replacement, none was forthcoming. So I took off for the night. 5 minutes after I left, enemy showed up and took the tower. The only health hit I took was to my mental state. I don't do 14 hour shifts no more. And i don't scout out those locations unless i'm super tired, or super bored.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 26, 2020

    @Justine.6351 said:
    If they do that half will complain everyone is too tanky and the other half will complain when it is taken away.

    Could try it out in eotm I suppose and see what people say.

    Yes, that is the world we live in. At the same time, for any given issue one side will be right and the other side will be wrong.

    That is what has gone missing as MMO-developers moved from the older type of Community Management that was associated with the genre. If you do not manage your resources and only gather statistic- or mere opinion-based feedback you will also get tons of noise that may either be misleading, lack relevance or need to be vetted at a later stage anyway. In the past (and in line with what is taught at almost every secondary school in the western world) resources like forums were used to filter and sift feedback from mere opinion to argumentation towards some kind of objectivity and rationale.

    One player can feel like damage is too high. One player can feel like damage is too low. It is only until the damage is defined and exemplified that we can discuss the rationality of those two opinions. What something is, is obviously far more relevant than what someone feels.

    Developers have kind of made their own beds with this shift in how they staff and use communication over the MTX-era. Communication like many other things is now slimmed and organized around on what sells in the short and only that. These forums and this game are a prime example of these things.

    In the pursuit for short-term gains, developers have become politicians B)

    As for everything else in this thread, I pretty much agree with what Swagger said in the OP. I can see that there are some issues with certain mechanics related to tanking but overall I feel like the systemic balance between damage and tank (and as a result between different choices in gear and stats) is far better now and not at all favourable for tanky stat sets (like Soldier) or bursty stat sets (like Zerker). If you go down a bursty route there are still single abilities that shave 50-70% HP off a low-tanked character and 25-35% off a high-tanked character with combat effects being able to bring that 25-35% up towards 50% again. I have a hard time motivating that as "low damage" or too much tank. The lingering issues with tanking lie far more in differences between classes/builds ability to utilize 1-offensive-stat condition gear and still maintain peak damage output or how some condition damage is still far too bursty rather than the expected attrition that would warrant such associated tanks. The balance of support tanks is such a large topic in and of itself (with alot of pitfalls where nerfs could drive popularity etc.) so I am not going to venture into it here.