Jump to content
  • Sign Up

What Profession builds do you prefer to play?


Rhanoa.3960

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If I'm raiding you can bet it's meta. The meta is there for a reason.

If I'm just in open world generally I'll still run the meta with a few tweaks. I mean it's no fun to play a game if you're taking 5 years to kill the most basic enemy. Kill it so it doesn't have a chance to kill you, I say.


49 Characters|Necro|Raider|Fractaller|PvPer|SingerSo long Treeface o7"...Kormir? I know not of whom you speak."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fermi.2409 said:

Builds As Intended (How you Want to play)This is stupid and a condescending way to look at "meta" builds. Some/many people want their character to be as effective as possible, so that fits into "How you want to play"

That's a good point. I find being effective at my job is fun. Whether it be healing or damaging, I want to do it as effectively as possible. The meta just helps me see what classes and builds do that best.

EDIT: This is a repost. I don't know why my original comment was removed O.o


49 Characters|Necro|Raider|Fractaller|PvPer|SingerSo long Treeface o7"...Kormir? I know not of whom you speak."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what sort of content I'm doing, you can bet I will NOT be running meta. If I am running a meta build, it's purely by coincidence. I do not subscribe to the meta, never have, and never will. Cookie-cutter meta builds simply arn't fun. I play to enjoy the game, I enjoy making my own builds, I do not enjoy being told "you have to run this build with this rotation". Guild Wars attracted me because it was PLAY YOUR WAY. Even GW1 was play your way. There were so many skill options in GW1 even that quite honestly, the meta builds weren't always the best builds. I remember completely outclassing the meta elementalist builds with my personal build over and over again, until people finally stopped trying to get me to run them. Hell, I was soloing a lot of content that I shouldn't have been able to up until ArenaNet nerfed my build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Panda.1967 said:Cookie-cutter meta builds simply arn't fun. I play to enjoy the game, I enjoy making my own builds, I do not enjoy being told "you have to run this build with this rotation".

If you don't find meta builds fun, then mess around, go for it! But you can't objectively say that "the meta is not fun for anyone, full stop, end of story". As someone who enjoys running the meta I dislike it when people are told to run a certain build - outside of raiding. Inside of raiding it's a completely different story.

Guild Wars attracted me because it was PLAY YOUR WAY.

I'm playing the meta because I want to, so it is still playing my way.

That being said, I have nothing against those who want to play their own builds. I've made a power reaper build that focuses on shroud. Does it do enough damage to warrant me taking it into raids? Hell no, but no one can stop me from using it in open world.

.


49 Characters|Necro|Raider|Fractaller|PvPer|SingerSo long Treeface o7"...Kormir? I know not of whom you speak."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play more current HoT meta builds than vanilla ones, but with the new elite specs coming up, which I do not like (with a few exceptions), I started using my own head more than always relying on meta hypes. ;) My vanilla condi Necro with viper's armor is so much fun. :) However, due to the nature of (im)balance provided by the game, there is a reason why meta builds make the most sense in many cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't actually be sure, because I never look up the meta builds. But if I do it's because I've come to the same conclusion about what's best for the character. A big part of why I like RPGs is the customisation options. I like experimenting with builds and designing my own, and copying them from some website would ruin that for me.

For example my ranger has been using a condition build since day 1 (mostly shortbow and sword/torch) because I happen to like conditions. Sometimes that's popular and sometimes it's enough to get me instantly kicked from some groups. But then sometimes just playing a ranger is enough for some people to kick me. I play it either way, and I find people who don't care enough to kick me for doing it.

I had a weird moment recently when I was in Bitterfrost Frontier, thinking I could go all-out because it's a level 80 map so there's no low-level characters competing to tag mobs and I tend to assume everyone else at level 80 is as good/better than me, then I was told off for using "an optimised high DPS build" in open-world events, apparently making it hard for other people to tag anything. It was the same build I'd been using since HoT came out and I had no idea it was now considered high DPS, and especially that it's 'optimised' (whatever that means).

But also sometimes I want to play something I know for a fact is not the best possible build. Either because I find it fun (as with condi ranger) or because I want the extra challenge of trying to complete things with a weird build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually check out what the meta builds for a profession are, just to see what weapons and armor types are considered most efficient. Often I end up choosing to run with the recommended meta weapon/armor combination. I almost always end up picking different traits, utilities, sigils, runes and accessories than what the meta recommends though. I try to craft builds that account for my own personal strengths and weaknesses as a player. This tends to work well for me. Much better than just using a straight min/maxed meta build. It lets me play to the best of my personal ability, rather than to a mediocre level of someone else's best ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play how I want basically. I am a very anti-meta person because of the way the meta discriminates against weapon types. Dual pistols is my preferred weapon for Thief because I am a very theme based person, but I know it is not "meta". So instead of switching to the meta, I made my own guild/group in order to do the T4s and raids with what ever weapon I want because of my hatred for the weapon discrimination of the "meta".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to build meta, but I am not married to it. I will switch up my build to meet the needs of the group than follow the meta and be a sheep. An example is swapping to Zealous Scepter and dropping Radiance for Virtues for Permeating Wrath on my Guardian if there is no might stacker in the group (for those that don't know what these do, it basically lets me stack 25 might on myself since no one is providing it and 25 might is such a huge DPS increase that not having it is pretty bad). I will also drop trap cooldowns for stack vuln if there isn't someone to stack vuln as well. The build closely resembles the meta, but it has changes to meet the scenario. I have also played healer guard which is totally not meta (though it carries hard in 100cm because aegis/stab > Arkk) as well as playing burn Guardian in raids (more because I've been bored theses past few weeks).

People who refuse to change their builds to match the group/scenario are problematic whether it be meta players or PHIW players. Staying stuck to a build and refusing to change when needed is a problem. For raids, since most people run mirror comp, you should confirm to the meta. For fractals, the group makeup is never perfect so swaps to make things easier is fine, assume you actually fill a role and are not dead weight. For open world, run what you want, but please have at least one CC for break bars if you're doing meta events that need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Panda.1967 said:Doesn't matter what sort of content I'm doing, you can bet I will NOT be running meta. If I am running a meta build, it's purely by coincidence. I do not subscribe to the meta, never have, and never will. Cookie-cutter meta builds simply arn't fun. I play to enjoy the game, I enjoy making my own builds, I do not enjoy being told "you have to run this build with this rotation". Guild Wars attracted me because it was PLAY YOUR WAY. Even GW1 was play your way. There were so many skill options in GW1 even that quite honestly, the meta builds weren't always the best builds. I remember completely outclassing the meta elementalist builds with my personal build over and over again, until people finally stopped trying to get me to run them. kitten, I was soloing a lot of content that I shouldn't have been able to up until ArenaNet nerfed my build.

With the way Elementalist was set up in GW1, though, there were definitely builds that were situationally better than others. Air was usually support or spike damage, Fire usually nukes, Earth usually Nukes and utility like wards, and Water was mainly for CC, support, and spike damage. Arguably, if you were using your own homebrew build in GW1, it had to be relatively consistent with the meta for the game type or it was just silly. For example, Fire had the most consistent AoE DPS as well as skills like Immolate for single target DPS. While you definitely had a lot of variance in build-role dynamic, you were most effective when conforming (either wholly or in part) to meta builds. Just to clearly define meta builds, they are builds that are statistically shown to be most effective in a certain role with all variables and opportunities for variance in mind. Now, the combat system in GW1 is much different (and arguably better, more satisfying) than GW2, but GW2 build diversity is still somewhat similar in that what is good in a PvE scenario, teamplay scenario, or role-specific scenario changes.

With each mode in mind, there are builds that perform their roles (CC, DPS, bunker or tank) better than other builds would simply because traits and weapons are really limiting, even more so than the auxiliary combat systems in GW1. To clarify, you wouldn't use a Mace/Shield/Staff build on a Guardian if you were trying to maximize DPS just like you wouldn't use Sword traits if you're running a Hammer / Staff build. So essentially, when you say that "No matter what content I'm doing, I will NOT run a meta build," you're basically saying that you're willfully playing less smart, with less attention paid to synergy, which, in a closed and rigid auxiliary combat system like GW2 (because weapons are tied to skills as traits tied loosely to class mechanics and also weapons), means you are objectively playing sub-optimally because there is statistically less allowance for real depth, diversity, and variance. I'll never understand when people rally so much against meta builds, when they're pretty much the mathematical, logical default necessitated by the design of the modifiers available in the given system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lothefallen.7081 said:

@Panda.1967 said:Doesn't matter what sort of content I'm doing, you can bet I will NOT be running meta. If I am running a meta build, it's purely by coincidence. I do not subscribe to the meta, never have, and never will. Cookie-cutter meta builds simply arn't fun. I play to enjoy the game, I enjoy making my own builds, I do not enjoy being told "you have to run this build with this rotation". Guild Wars attracted me because it was PLAY YOUR WAY. Even GW1 was play your way. There were so many skill options in GW1 even that quite honestly, the meta builds weren't always the best builds. I remember completely outclassing the meta elementalist builds with my personal build over and over again, until people finally stopped trying to get me to run them. kitten, I was soloing a lot of content that I shouldn't have been able to up until ArenaNet nerfed my build.

With the way Elementalist was set up in GW1, though, there were definitely builds that were situationally better than others. Air was usually support or spike damage, Fire usually nukes, Earth usually Nukes and utility like wards, and Water was mainly for CC, support, and spike damage. Arguably, if you were using your own homebrew build in GW1, it had to be relatively consistent with the meta for the game type or it was just silly. For example, Fire had the most consistent AoE DPS as well as skills like Immolate for single target DPS. While you definitely had a lot of variance in build-role dynamic, you were most effective when conforming (either wholly or in part) to meta builds. Just to clearly define meta builds, they are builds that are statistically shown to be most effective in a certain role with all variables and opportunities for variance in mind. Now, the combat system in GW1 is much different (and arguably better, more satisfying) than GW2, but GW2 build diversity is still somewhat similar in that what is good in a PvE scenario, teamplay scenario, or role-specific scenario changes.

With each mode in mind, there are builds that perform their roles (CC, DPS, bunker or tank) better than other builds would simply because traits and weapons are really limiting, even more so than the auxiliary combat systems in GW1. To clarify, you wouldn't use a Mace/Shield/Staff build on a Guardian if you were trying to maximize DPS just like you wouldn't use Sword traits if you're running a Hammer / Staff build. So essentially, when you say that "No matter what content I'm doing, I will NOT run a meta build," you're basically saying that you're willfully playing less smart, with less attention paid to synergy, which, in a closed and rigid auxiliary combat system like GW2 (because weapons are tied to skills as traits tied loosely to class mechanics and also weapons), means you are objectively playing sub-optimally because there is statistically less allowance for real depth, diversity, and variance.
I'll never understand when people rally so much against meta builds, when they're pretty much the mathematical, logical default necessitated by the design of the modifiers available in the given system.
I can't answer for the person you are quoting, but I can at least tell you why I am against the meta. I hate the weapon discrimination it causes. I am a very aesthetic/theme based player, and the meta is very ani-that because it only takes in numbers. It doesn't take in what the person is feeling. I'll give you an example for myself. I can't play with the D/D or the staff on my Thief. Every time I have tried I loose interest and start hating my thief. Only P/P really interests me, and it is the reason I started playing the Thief.

What weapons I am using greatly effects my enjoyment of the game, so what would you have people like me do when the current "meta" weapons make me hate the game if I have to play with those weapon sets? Just bear with it and hate my time playing the game making it more like work? I don't think so with that. Just sticking to the open world is also not acceptable because I also want to see the raids and T4s with the weapons and class I enjoy. Not what the "meta" says I need to play, so my solution is making my own group to run it that excludes "meta" people who think they can boss me around and tell me how to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't answer for the person you are quoting, but I can at least tell you why I am against the meta. I hate the weapon discrimination it causes.

"Weapon discrimination"? You mean the fact that some weapons are objectively better then other weapons at completing certain tasks? That's not discrimination. Being against "the meta" instead of just ambivalent and running your own stuff because your preferred weapons aren't as good as some other ones is kind ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fermi.2409 said:

I can't answer for the person you are quoting, but I can at least tell you why I am against the meta. I hate the weapon discrimination it causes.

"Weapon discrimination"? You mean the fact that some weapons are objectively better then other weapons at completing certain tasks? That's not discrimination. Being against "the meta" instead of just ambivalent and running your own stuff because your preferred weapons aren't as good as some other ones is kind ridiculous

I disagree with your view that is not weapon discrimination, but I doubt we will see eye to eye ever on it. As for the other, I don't think it is ridiculous at all to do both. I can do my own thing and still be against the meta at the same time because I still hold onto some hope that A-net will balance everything properly so there is no meta anymore. It will just be bring what you want to play instead of what we have now. I am more then happy to go back and forth with you on this if you want, but just know you will not change my mind on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...