Jump to content
  • Sign Up

"high risk, high reward" vs "low risk, high reward"


zoopop.5630

Recommended Posts

To those who are trying to challenge themselves by playing something like Holo, Weaver and are seeing results only ending in 50-55% chance of winning, but are noticing that theirs other classes that can do the job 3x better you'll start rocketing back up with no issues, moment i made the switch winning 4-5 game before 1 lose...

learned from my last 30 games that theirs no such thing as "high skill, high reward", so don't kill yourself by playing something that requires high skills / high risk when theirs other classes with "low risk and high rewards" for just spamming simple aoe spells to the ground.

RIP 2017 seasons have been the worse i have ever seen in my time of playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King of low risk/high reward is definitely longbow/traps dragonhunter.I agree, now with all this condi/skill/aoe spam all around, it does not matter much how skillful you are, rather than what class/build do you play. And you should ask balancing team, why is that so.

In WvW, majority of condi classes with dire set are low risk/high reward. I know this is PvP, but dire set is just disgusting bad joke that promotes unhealthy gameplay and there is reason why it is not in PvP. It should be removed completely from the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cryorion.9532 said:King of low risk/high reward is definitely longbow/traps dragonhunter.I agree, now with all this condi/skill/aoe spam all around, it does not matter much how skillful you are, rather than what class/build do you play. And you should ask balancing team, why is that so.

In WvW, majority of condi classes with dire set are low risk/high reward. I know this is PvP, but dire set is just disgusting bad joke that promotes unhealthy gameplay and there is reason why it is not in PvP. It should be removed completely from the game.

I submit p/p thief as low risk, high reward for this meta. It really does well against scourges, which are the biggest threat at the moment, and is absurdly easy to play.

Personally, I really enjoy holosmith though. It comes through when you play it well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High risk/high reward doesn't exist in this game, in actuality the builds described that way are high risk/mediocre reward or even high risk/low reward. High risk/high reward is just a phrase used to make people feel better for playing a gimped class or spec. We all know that the meta is full of low risk builds. The lower the risk, the more reliable the results and thus you get rewarded more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ganathar.4956 said:High risk/high reward doesn't exist in this game, in actuality the builds described that way are high risk/mediocre reward or even high risk/low reward. High risk/high reward is just a phrase used to make people feel better for playing a kitten class or spec. We all know that the meta is full of low risk builds. The lower the risk, the more reliable the results and thus you get rewarded more.

This.

Anything that is "high risk" is by definition going to perform poorly in PvP. The entire point of buildcrafting in PvP is to maximize your chances of winning, while minimizing your chances of failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PvP : Only good for reward tracks and sometimes dailies.

In all seriousness though...pretty much yes. I mained engineer and necromancer (no PoF specs available) and it's pretty much a waste of time, whereas I barely have any experience with Dragonhunter, and still manage to fare better with that. Skill was barely a factor in this mode, and now it's even less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zoopop.5630 said:To those who are trying to challenge themselves by playing something like Holo, Weaver and are seeing results only ending in 50-55% chance of winning, but are noticing that theirs other classes that can do the job 3x better you'll start rocketing back up with no issues, moment i made the switch winning 4-5 game before 1 lose...

learned from my last 30 games that theirs no such thing as "high skill, high reward", so don't kill yourself by playing something that requires high skills / high risk when theirs other classes with "low risk and high rewards" for just spamming simple aoe spells to the ground.

RIP 2017 seasons have been the worse i have ever seen in my time of playing.

This is a common myth the “high risk” classes/elites/disciplines. It is just a... myth. What someone finds difficult someone else finds easy, and devs intentionally try to keep everything around the same skill level. That does not mean everything is equal; close but different.

And the concept that one class is more “complex” thus should get better results is never true. It does not even make sense from a design perspective. Why would you design classes that are inherently inferior to others?! It just does not make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@otto.5684 said:

@zoopop.5630 said:To those who are trying to challenge themselves by playing something like Holo, Weaver and are seeing results only ending in 50-55% chance of winning, but are noticing that theirs other classes that can do the job 3x better you'll start rocketing back up with no issues, moment i made the switch winning 4-5 game before 1 lose...

learned from my last 30 games that theirs no such thing as "high skill, high reward", so don't kill yourself by playing something that requires high skills / high risk when theirs other classes with "low risk and high rewards" for just spamming simple aoe spells to the ground.

RIP 2017 seasons have been the worse i have ever seen in my time of playing.

This is a common myth the “high risk” classes/elites/disciplines. It is just a... myth. What someone finds difficult someone else finds easy, and devs intentionally try to keep everything around the same skill level. That does not mean everything is equal; close but different.

And the concept that one class is more “complex” thus should get better results is never true. It does not even make sense from a design perspective. Why would you design classes that are inherently inferior to others?! It just does not make any sense.

There is one important aspect you ignore : personal Bias, it exists and it's rather apparent , it's found everywhere and not always applied consciously .Where a small buff should be applied...we then find a rather large one and same goes other way around with nerfs; if we look at the synergy of some specs you notice that it was all planned while in some other cases....let's say there is no synergy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...