Raids question about class diversity

My question is genuinely about the motives behind raids and class diversity, and is therefore mostly directed to ArenaNet itself, but I'm also interested in what the players think.

Is it really THAT complex to make raids the most optimal to encounter for team compositions consisting out of all 9 professions (and 1 dynamic as a bonus)? OR has this never been a motive for ArenaNet in the first place?

I don't think that making a team of all 9 professions optimal has ever been a motive, since it's a rather dumb thing. That's just another unnecessary restriction on player freedom to choose the class they want to play.

Yea, because now it's much better, where the optimal solution is "restricted" to just a few classes and builds ...

@"CptAurellian.9537" said:I don't think that making a team of all 9 professions optimal has ever been a motive, since it's a rather dumb thing. That's just another unnecessary restriction on player freedom to choose the class they want to play.

Exactly.

When 9 different professions would be the most optimal (e.g. by giving every profession a unique and strong buff for 10 players), it would be difficult to get a group together.Currently the lfg says "need 4 dps", but when having all 9 professions would be the most optimal you would see lots of lfgs like "need engi, guard, ele and rev".

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:Yea, because now it's much better, where the optimal solution is "restricted" to just a few classes and builds ...

Look at it the other way - if we had a "supercomp meta", you'd have exactly one "unrestricted" slot in the squad. Currently all of the dps slots are more or less flexible. Sure, there's always a single optimal comp, but it can depend on your group and skill, and on most bosses the loss of efficiency doesn't make-or-break the encounter. Heck, recently I'm the only one playing weaver at KC in my static and we still manage. Last time we even managed to 9-man him after the warrior in the group disconnected shortly after the start of the fight. So that's 4 slots without a strict requirement for a class and build, as opposed to only one.

Lol @ diversity in raids.

The best they could do is have a thief unlock a door.

If you want actual diversity you gotta raid WvW.

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:Yea, because now it's much better, where the optimal solution is "restricted" to just a few classes and builds ...

4 out of 10 slots are "restricted" if you want an optimal composition. That is not great, but there is no need to replace one stupid system (the current one) with another stupid system. If anything, all classes should become optional, so any class can be left out of the group without having a substantial negative impact.

@PvD diversity: The one where some classes get an insta-kick in your average raid?

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:Yea, because now it's much better, where the optimal solution is "restricted" to just a few classes and builds ...

The only way to avoid restricted classes in an optimal comp is by making sure all of them can do the same things with the same efficiency, which would erase all class uniqueness and make the game dull and boring, especially so if you want to have every single build as effective as the other.

@Chris McSwag.4683 said:

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:Yea, because now it's much better, where the

optimal

solution is "restricted" to just a few classes and builds ...

To some extent this will happen more and more with future elite specs.

Class ubiquity is something Anet was apparently proud of. Moving towards having every class be able to perform in roles is not something I see them doing effectively any time soon. The other modes in the game have plenty of room for diversity and for you to quite literally play the way you want, it's raids that are "at the wrong" here, insofar as it goes opposite to whatever previous designs Anet had for classes. This game simply isn't/shouldn't be fit for Raids (rather than the game having to change to accommodate a better raiding experience) precisely because classes are so unique, and also pugging/playing with whoever is online at a given time is mechanically prioritized over guilds and organized play (e.g LFG menu is Looking For Group rather than Looking For Guild with a guild list and such). With that said, the raid team along with balance team are already down to the skin of their teeth with how great are the encounters they made considering their severe limitations, asking for the whole class scheme to change would be akin to revising the whole game for niche content.

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:Yea, because now it's much better, where the optimal solution is "restricted" to just a few classes and builds ...

Well I disagree with you, I think balance is actually VERY good in PvE atm. Every single class has a place where it is best in slot and every class has numerous other fights where it is extremely desirable.

Sure you can say that you can't effectively play every single possible combination of gear, traits and skills in any encounter that you want with any group you want. But don't you also think it's a bit rude to assume that everyone else needs to play around you instead of you just being a team player yourself?

Or maybe you could try to create your own squad and set your own rules?

eh, the only problem with raid diversity at the moment is its history. class balance is very good right now, but because it was bad for so long, the meta is entrenched. neither chrono nor druid is needed for an optimal comp

it's not even about what's most effective in the first place (else there wouldn't be any KC groups with fewer than 5 weavers). it's just about player perception. and no amount of balance is going to change that

Its actually much better now, I can again play my necro in most encounters.

By definition, there's always going to be one "optimal" build for DPS. If any build is 0.0001% shy of that DPS, it's no longer "optimal." Since in the actual raid, no one is doing theoretically max damage, there's little sense in worrying about "optimal."

Instead, people (including ANet) should focus on (a) what's required to get the job done with less fuss and (b) what build suits the team, under current conditions. There will be plenty of circumstances in which a lower-DPS, more durable build is better for that team than any "optimal DPS." Optimal is appropriate for speedclearing or seller teams; it isn't necessarily 'best' for most of us.

In this context, there's a lot more diversity than is implied by a lot of threads. According to ANet, all sorts of teams are successful in significant numbers (not just novelty comps of 10 pistolier teefs).

Of course, humans exhibit signs of human nature all the time, so we shouldn't be surprised that many groups insist on specific builds or comps, even among PUGs. But that's not evidence that ANet decided to ignore classes or diversity; it's only evidence that parts of the community care more about that than is maybe necessary.

All professions and builds will never be equal in terms of viability - whether that be measure in direct damage, conditions, breaks, boon sharing, etc.

The true problem - and single biggest issue with raids since day one - is the huge disparity between the best and worst professions on a fight to fight basis - and, in the case of chronomancers, on EVERY SINGLE RAID fight currently in the game.

There should never be such a huge advantage to bringing one profession over another. As the most obvious example - when 100% alacrity, pared with quickness, uptime makes a massive difference across the board (not just with dps, but with heals and ccs as well), then it becomes almost mandatory to bring 2 chronomancers (or risk making the fight much rougher than it needs to be).

That is extremely poor game design.

Not sure what the solution is at this point, however - and we can DEFINITELY be assured that Anet doesnt really care. They have had more than 2 years to address this issue and seem either blind or willfully ignorant of the problem.

@Blaeys.3102 said:All professions and builds will never be equal in terms of viability - whether that be measure in direct damage, conditions, breaks, boon sharing, etc.

The true problem - and single biggest issue with raids since day one - is the huge disparity between the best and worst professions on a fight to fight basis - and, in the case of chronomancers, on EVERY SINGLE RAID fight currently in the game.

There should never be such a huge advantage to bringing one profession over another. As the most obvious example - when 100% alacrity, pared with quickness, uptime makes a massive difference across the board (not just with dps, but with heals and ccs as well), then it becomes almost mandatory to bring 2 chronomancers (or risk making the fight much rougher than it needs to be).

That is extremely poor game design.

Not sure what the solution is at this point, however - and we can DEFINITELY be assured that Anet doesnt really care. They have had more than 2 years to address this issue and seem either blind or willfully ignorant of the problem.

Or maybe they haven't fixed it yet because it's a very hard thing to fix. That said I believe they should completely move away from the trinity system by removing aggro mechanics based on toughness and aoe healing abilities, which would free up more spaces for non-druid players and allow players to use their kits more instead of just standing still and healing through damage in fights. In exchange I would give support players a set of enchantments that they put on individual targets to aid them. For example, an enchantment that causes your ally's next weapon skill to also stun the target. This would allow for more diversity in team comps and in my opinion would work much better with the core mechanics of the game.

Class diversity =/= All classes

Needing all 9 classes would be bad, needing one or two classes 100% and can't do without them though is also bad. Former isn't an issue, latter is. Rn practically every raid group wants a druid and at least 1, preferably two chronos. Other professions/specs can contend to replace their positions, but none of those potential replacements are really as good as those two meta-wise, even if they get very close. : /

@reikken.4961 said:it's not even about what's most effective in the first place (else there wouldn't be any KC groups with fewer than 5 weavers). it's just about player perception. and no amount of balance is going to change that

I have kicked several people from my group that complained I wasn't running the 6 weaver meta on that boss.

When you got one spec dealing 7k-10k dps more than the next highest spec on KC there is obviously an issue and you can not really blame the playerbase for complaining about such a huge gap. A big problem with some bosses right now is directly tied to boss hitbox size which is an issue I would rather see addressed way before we start crying for nerfs to a specific dps spec in raids.

@Vulf.3098 said:

@"reikken.4961" said:it's not even about what's most effective in the first place (else there wouldn't be any KC groups with fewer than 5 weavers). it's just about player perception. and no amount of balance is going to change that

Neither of these is an issue. It's perfectly fine to have one profession clearly outperforming all other on a single encounter. And it's perfectly fine to have some builds perform better in specific conditions like large hitboxes, target movement, need for cleave, etc. This is called "diversity", and it gives players in-game choices and the incentive to play more than one character.

Also the boss dps requirements are so relaxed that you can easily do it missing even as much as 7-10k dps per dps slot in the squad. It's fine, really.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Vulf.3098 said:

@"reikken.4961" said:it's not even about what's most effective in the first place (else there wouldn't be any KC groups with fewer than 5 weavers). it's just about player perception. and no amount of balance is going to change that

Single encounter? There are several bosses that large hit box shenanigans are abused by weavers.

@Vulf.3098 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Vulf.3098 said:

@"reikken.4961" said:it's not even about what's most effective in the first place (else there wouldn't be any KC groups with fewer than 5 weavers). it's just about player perception. and no amount of balance is going to change that

Mirages currently have significant advantage on more bosses than Weaver does (Matthias, Cairn, Desmina off the top of my head). Which is also fine, btw. Again, it is diversity and giving incentive to play different classes.

@"Feanor.2358" said:Mirages currently have significant advantage on more bosses than Weaver does (Matthias, Cairn, Desmina off the top of my head). Which is also fine, btw. Again, it is diversity and giving incentive to play different classes.

Swapping from 1 top power build because it is not good on a particular boss to the top condi build vice versa is not encouraging diversity at all. It is strictly encouraging people to follow a set meta that revolves around "stack this because of the huge damage it does over everything else" depending on what is the best of the best based on the fight. Yes dps that specialize at one particular thing on a boss encounter should do well over others but there should not be a massive numerical difference between something that does not which is what I was getting at here.

Diversity doesn't exist in "play what is needed" mode. You are pigeon holed in whatever the meta demands

@"JVJD.4912" said:Diversity doesn't exist in "play what is needed" mode. You are pigeon holed in whatever the meta demands

Of course but you can alleviate a lot of this by making gaps between things smaller.

@Vulf.3098 said:

@"JVJD.4912" said:Diversity doesn't exist in "play what is needed" mode. You are pigeon holed in whatever the meta demands

The requirements are low enough so you can do it with virtually any dps. Again, my in static I'm the only Weaver and I play it not because it's the top dps, but because it's my preferred class. Same as the rest of my teammates. But if you care about min-maxing, then surprise!, there are more classes to play like Renegade and Holosmith. Just check the optimal comps on the SC site. It's only the inexperienced pugs which are stuck in some stupid "bring the top golem dps or gtfo" state, and it's because they are inexperienced.