A different approach to nerfs — Guild Wars 2 Forums

A different approach to nerfs

Nopesarenotforme.5190Nopesarenotforme.5190 Member ✭✭
edited August 21, 2018 in Aug 2018: Systems Team

Is this new team going to take a different approach to balancing?
I really don't think that its healthy for the game to nerf professions to the ground, and make people that have different tastes mad, and general functions in the game.
the approach that is nerf itself seems to me like more of a problem creator than a solver.

Tagged:
<1

Comments

  • Mbelch.9028Mbelch.9028 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    I think this is well put.

    Will there be any re-assessment of nonfunctioning classes/specs in PvP/WvW? For example Core Ele is just vastly outgunned right now. Would love to see an elevation of classes/specs that are vastly out of the meta.

  • @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Yet, Necro was significantly over performing in WvW and the nerf brought it more into balance.

    As a side note: my understanding of the original intent of the game was ALL professions would be capable of being 'DPS' professions .

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Tails.9372Tails.9372 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 21, 2018

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

    What's the point of this? I don't see any reason why two different professions shouldn't be able to fit a similar role as long as there is a noticeable difference in regards to their gameplay.

    @Robert Gee.9246 said:
    Nerfs do not necessarily reduce build diversity.

    But in some cases they are without actually providing any positive results in return.

  • Arheundel.6451Arheundel.6451 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates more build diversity.

    In addition to keeping build diversity alive on a single profession we try to ensure build and role diversity across all professions.
    Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

    The problem is that the community will always gravitate towards the profession perceived as the "most effective" for a particular role, at any given time we always had max 2 professions deemed meta for a given role, what are your thoughts about this issue?

    -A wise man once said- "Fight cheese with cheese or be cheesed in return, mind not those who will accuse you of being a cheese as they like cheese themselves"

  • Nopesarenotforme.5190Nopesarenotforme.5190 Member ✭✭
    edited August 21, 2018

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Yet, Necro was significantly over performing in WvW and the nerf brought it more into balance.

    As a side note: my understanding of the original intent of the game was ALL professions would be capable of being 'DPS' professions .

    This was meant to be on the PVE necromancer but the point was that Anet should decide what's the line that they shouldn't cross so that there won't be professions that over perform nor professions that under perform.

  • Ghotistyx.6942Ghotistyx.6942 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 21, 2018

    @Tails.9372 said:
    What's the point of this? I don't see any reason why two different professions shouldn't be able to fit a similar role as long as there is a noticeable difference in regards to their gameplay.

    That's what Irenio is saying. By nerfing one over-performing profession, that allows other professions to share that same space. If the dominant profession's performance is too oppressive, there's no reason to use the underperforming professions. If the difference is 1%, then their performance is basically equal. If the difference is 20%, then the outlier(s) need to be brought closer to average. Sometimes that means buffing the lower, other times it means nerfing the higher.

    Fishsticks

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Yet, Necro was significantly over performing in WvW and the nerf brought it more into balance.

    As a side note: my understanding of the original intent of the game was ALL professions would be capable of being 'DPS' professions .

    This was meant to be on the PVE necromancer but the point was that Anet should decide what's the line that they shouldn't cross so that there won't be professions that over perform nor professions that under perform.

    I understand it was to be PvE necromancer.

    But if you look at ben's response here:
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/52284/will-there-be-continued-skill-splits-for-the-three-main-modes#latest

    There really isn't a 'WvW vs PvE vs sPvP" necromancer.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates more build diversity.

    In addition to keeping build diversity alive on a single profession we try to ensure build and role diversity across all professions.
    Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

    The problem is that the community will always gravitate towards the profession perceived as the "most effective" for a particular role, at any given time we always had max 2 professions deemed meta for a given role, what are your thoughts about this issue?

    It is certainly an issue. -_-
    We try to keep professions within a close range of each other for particular roles. We don't always succeed, but we keep honing in on it.
    The goal is NOT to make them perfectly equal because then you'd take them based on the next most useful secondary thing they do. Instead we try to keep them at different levels of utility for damage, support, sustain, survivability, etc, so they are less comparable with notable tradeoffs.

  • Nopesarenotforme.5190Nopesarenotforme.5190 Member ✭✭
    edited August 21, 2018

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates more build diversity.

    In addition to keeping build diversity alive on a single profession we try to ensure build and role diversity across all professions.
    Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

    The problem is that the community will always gravitate towards the profession perceived as the "most effective" for a particular role, at any given time we always had max 2 professions deemed meta for a given role, what are your thoughts about this issue?

    Instead we try to keep them at different levels of utility for damage, support, sustain, survivability, etc, so they are less comparable with notable tradeoffs.

    This sounds very promising, but I guess that those changes are yet to come because right now: staff weaver gets nerfed in damage - but lacks survivability, druid dominates the healing role because of it being the best - bringing the most utility compared to other healers so they aren't needed, Reaper and scourge lack dps but have survivabilty, but it isn't needed from the fact that a support chrono can grant aegis on demand and many buffs that makes him the meta and so on...

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Autumn.8043 said:
    Is that why we didn't have any form of compensation for the gutting of Epidemic and are now bottom of the barrel in PvE across all our specializations and builds? I'm really enjoying my new found build diversity as a Necromancer..

    Tune in to teapot's streams.

  • Ithilwen.1529Ithilwen.1529 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 21, 2018

    @Robert Gee.9246 said:
    Balance isn't always a zero-sum game. Just because there is a nerf to something doesn't mean there needs to be a corresponding buff. If that were the case we'd also have to nerf something every time we buffed something. :s

    Nerfs do not necessarily reduce build diversity. We've used nerfs in the past to reduce the power of skills/traits that were crowding out other options because they were too strong.

    @Robert Gee.9246

    Yes, however I've seen the team pushing Mesmer toward unusable options. After the glamour nerf, the Mesmer found she had few if any strong builds left. It remained so for well over a year. A similar issue happened with the removal of clone death.

    Moa is a prominent example of balance literally pushing a particular play out of the game.

    I don't believe the balance team should attempt to direct play style or push the use of particular builds. The purpose of balance is to maintain fairness, only that.

    Mesmerizing Girl

  • Autumn.8043Autumn.8043 Member ✭✭
    edited August 21, 2018

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Autumn.8043 said:
    Is that why we didn't have any form of compensation for the gutting of Epidemic and are now bottom of the barrel in PvE across all our specializations and builds? I'm really enjoying my new found build diversity as a Necromancer..

    Tune in to teapot's streams.

    Still doesn't defeat my point! In any semi organized group everything Necromancer brings is pointless.. Why would my group need the res potential if no one goes down. I'm not talking about random pug adventures, any self informed player would already know Necromancer has it's uses in carrying pugs. I'm basing my points on an organized group who know what they are doing. Let's not even get in to the territory of Necro DPS and the fact that if that particular player is anywhere near the top than the other DPS are doing something highly wrong which again.. doesn't happen in an organized group.

  • Ok I Did It.2854Ok I Did It.2854 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 21, 2018

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    Unfortunately it feels like that the nerfs are not to control, its like full destruction of a class to the point where its not used in meta's anymore, this has been the case many times over, you just have to look at the current make up or some teams for certain content, this game really isn't a play how you want, its sometimes feels more like a play not the Anet balance team want you to play.

    I love playing Necro, but even I know that "technically" it could be used, but if I want to play with anyone in game outside my close friends I better be dropping that Necro and rolling a way higher DPS class, this is not balance.

    Yet we have other classes that are massively over powered and most game modes, yet we never seem to hear anything from the balance team about them classes, think any class that can burst you down from max health to dead from an invis, or classes that if they cannot burst you down, have the ability to stealth out completely heal up and come back for round 2, while all your skills are on cool down, this is not balance, this is a play x class or don't bother.

    I ultimately feel that things wont change, and you will allow "certain" classes to rain supreme in this game, while others continue to get beaten into the dirt, until they are hardly used anymore, it feels that when certain classes get complained about you move in to cripple them classes fast, yet ignore other completely over powered classes/builds.

    Don't say what you mean, it will get you in trouble.

  • Jojo.6590Jojo.6590 Member ✭✭✭

    Please take into consideration the points made by players that play (main) the profession in question for a nerf and/ or buff, not the mob mentality(i.e people whom don't have a full understanding of how a class functions). Someone who plays (mains) a class should (hopefully) have a better understanding of whats broken then someone who does not. Of course an outside perspective is still always useful. A great example of this is Mesmer, its still considered unbalanced in certain aspects, these areas have been mentioned repetitively by people that play (main) Mesmer, yet a majority of the changes that have been made have focused on band wagon complaints (given some of the complaints are just while others of course are not) this is not allowing for the profession to be balanced properly.
    Thank you for your hard work, we know this is no easy task!

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    And they should all have a second health bar too....right?

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ok I Did It.2854 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    Unfortunately it feels like that the nerfs are not to control, its like full destruction of a class to the point where its not used in meta's anymore, this has been the case many times over, you just have to look at the current make up or some teams for certain content, this game really isn't a play how you want, its sometimes feels more like a play not the Anet balance team want you to play.

    Hyperbole like this does not add to your point or the conversation.

    Acting like any of the nerfs that hit necro, mesmer or ele was the "full destruction of the class" is just a meme. It's powered by a weak emotional reaction to the lessening of your power-fantasy.

    I ultimately feel that things wont change, and you will allow "certain" classes to rain supreme in this game, while others continue to get beaten into the dirt

    Again with the meme.

    Good players adapt to change.

  • @Autumn.8043 said:
    Is that why we didn't have any form of compensation for the gutting of Epidemic and are now bottom of the barrel in PvE across all our specializations and builds? I'm really enjoying my new found build diversity as a Necromancer..

    I found that necro's are most effective when they are used for storage, ran out of bank space? Make a necro. I hope the next expansion focuses and hones this ability, though not too much since we don't want people crying for nerfs.

  • Nebilim.5127Nebilim.5127 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 21, 2018

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates more build diversity.

    In addition to keeping build diversity alive on a single profession we try to ensure build and role diversity across all professions.
    Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

    @Robert Gee.9246 said:
    Balance isn't always a zero-sum game. Just because there is a nerf to something doesn't mean there needs to be a corresponding buff. If that were the case we'd also have to nerf something every time we buffed something. :s

    Nerfs do not necessarily reduce build diversity. We've used nerfs in the past to reduce the power of skills/traits that were crowding out other options because they were too strong.

    Talking about PvE.

    This is only true when the other options are useful. For instance, by nerfing scourge dps(dhuumfire, etc) and barely buffing anything else,you left it in a state where underperform against every other classes and even itself in terms of support,damage and utility. Sure it gives barriers more than anyone else, but why would i want barriers when the others give so much raw healing/support/boons for less cost? Then shouldn't we nerf those classes as stated by the dilemma? Well sure we could do that, but that would end up just ends up in this "power slope" where they just become unfun to play, the same way power creep can become an issue.

    Weaker traits, weaker builds should absolutely be buffed with bigger hands out. No more 5% axe necro buff memes.Heavy handing is how many classes like mesmer, thief and warr ended up getting their multiple amazing builds with their own niche uses. It is okay to overstate numbers against PvE enemies, they do not complain unlike PvP :P. I'm not saying you should power creep, but i'm saying you should not be so reserved to leave so many weapons in the dirt and without any real use for long. I never thought that axe offhand warrior would be used but here we are, they are part of its power spec. Imagine if hammer got the treatment? Would be so easy to make it unique, just give bigger stuns, make the best weapon to remove breakbar. Then warriors could choose between doing more damage or helping with breakbars.

    We gotta remember, we are playing a game to have fun, buffs=fun. Would you rather nerf the weapon i use the most, leaving the player upset with its change or give another weapon a different opportunity for him to look at? If the new stuff is too powerful, then nerf it accordingly, it had a chance to step up. Players will give feedback, there is no much feedback when you remove choices.

    I would like to again reiterate that this is only valid for PvE where enemies don't complain if something is broken. I do very much agree with the sentiment towards PvP, it is a place where everything should be threaded very carefully and slowly.

  • @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    And they should all have a second health bar too....right?

    yes and then give necros evades, blocks and invulns to compensate :)

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Autumn.8043 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Autumn.8043 said:
    Is that why we didn't have any form of compensation for the gutting of Epidemic and are now bottom of the barrel in PvE across all our specializations and builds? I'm really enjoying my new found build diversity as a Necromancer..

    Tune in to teapot's streams.

    Still doesn't defeat my point! In any semi organized group everything Necromancer brings is pointless.. Why would my group need the res potential if no one goes down. I'm not talking about random pug adventures, any self informed player would already know Necromancer has it's uses in carrying pugs. I'm basing my points on an organized group who know what they are doing. Let's not even get in to the territory of Necro DPS and the fact that if that particular player is anywhere near the top than the other DPS are doing something highly wrong which again.. doesn't happen in an organized group.

    Also watch teatime.

  • Ithilwen.1529Ithilwen.1529 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates more build diversity.

    In addition to keeping build diversity alive on a single profession we try to ensure build and role diversity across all professions.
    Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

    The problem is that the community will always gravitate towards the profession perceived as the "most effective" for a particular role, at any given time we always had max 2 professions deemed meta for a given role, what are your thoughts about this issue?

    It is certainly an issue. -_-
    We try to keep professions within a close range of each other for particular roles. We don't always succeed, but we keep honing in on it.
    The goal is NOT to make them perfectly equal because then you'd take them based on the next most useful secondary thing they do. Instead we try to keep them at different levels of utility for damage, support, sustain, survivability, etc, so they are less comparable with notable tradeoffs.

    I perceive a cycle of making one profession or another the top at various times. Is this deliberate? How much does office politics play into this?

    Overall I see the balance team attempting to lead the game to particular play styles and/or playing specific classes. I think this is a serious error. The balance team should not be promoting any particular skill, playstyle or class. I'd consider this the ROOT of the many of the balance issues we've seen.

    Mesmerizing Girl

  • @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates more build diversity.

    In addition to keeping build diversity alive on a single profession we try to ensure build and role diversity across all professions.
    Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

    Nerfing a dominant build is fine. If a buff makes a class too OP it should be nerfed but, there should be a baseline where every class is viable and makes the community have a hard time determining what is meta. With more elite specializations it makes it hard to keep having the excuse that "Someone has to be on the bottom". Every profession should have at least 1 build viable in each game mode. A good goal is for metas being at most 10% more efficient than the lowest builds.

    As for the casual and semi-casual player, most non-hardcore players only master 1 or 2 professions. That being said if you're like me and main Necromancer, then you get frustrated that your chosen profession is consistently on the bottom of the meta. Other than for a short time right after each expansion (Chillamancer for HoT and Scourge builds for PoF) Necro is constantly underperforming. It's a major disconnect if ANET's attitude is either "what problem? Metas don't mean anything" or even worse "learn another profession, for build diversity's sake". Personally, all I want is to be able to earn a set of that sweet Dhuum armor... for my Necromancer. Having to learn a meta-profession, which I don't play and won't play as well as Necro, makes that almost unachievable doing that in PUGs.

    Build the game for the casual player who only plays 1 or 2 classes. Build so that all these casual players have a decent shot at everything (and I mean everything) the game offers. Then you'll find that there's balance.

  • **** @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Necromancer suffered, yes. But keep in mind that we had a time when it was the best and easiest comp to run 4 necs in fracs. The best dhuum strast was to run necs with epi. reaper and scourge were very successful in pvp. nec is a staple damage dealer in wvw since release. Right now is one of the best balance experiences the game had in pve sicne release. Ele isn't the must have, thief is top damage dealer on single target (not that good in fracs), renegade is a mess to play (top large hitbox, still not many people pull it of), etc. I would consider some buffs to tempest (people loved the old scepter/dagger- horn builds) to be slightly below thief/ranger and we are gucci in that department.
    Thief for example had a time (around 9months) when you got flamed and isnulted to play it on competitive level. After HoT. Together with warrior. Belive me, THAT was insane.

  • @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    There are convictions that only buffs are good for the playerbase. That has its gounds in the thinking that people don't like ton be "worse" off than before. They prefer to be better and better and "roflstomp" enemies. If nerfs comes around they aren't happy because they have to work more then before.
    Still, in my opinion, nerfs are very important, escpecially in a competitive enviroment. I still stand to the point, that the best meta we ever had, was the one we had prior to the trait revamp 2015.

    Otherwise some consideration on power creep. Between me and some friend we are pretty much at the same page that ranger has a very good synergy between traits and traitlines. Still, having one trait for example giving a trait 6sec fury, 20sec cd reduction on survival skill and 2 condi removal is insane (wilderness knowledge). Together with the passive heal trait it removes 4 conditions together with granting other bonuses like imonilize, etc. Meanwhile thief has a trait that reduces 1 conditon and trick skill cd for 20% - which is still lower that withdraw had at the first place. The on heal traits are extremely powerful on some classes, while being terribly bad on others.

    On the herold revamp: Its not done yet with that, youlooked into devestation adept line? the best thing you can pick when running staff/hammer is a downstate stun. That is beyond bad except in giving bad players a small amount of being usefull. 2 of 3 traits are used for dual wielding (giving damage, so you have to pick flat out ferocity vs flat damage multiplier. In my whole existance as rev I never saw anyone using the ferocity trait. I have 2100 hours on my rev alone.

  • Opopanax.1803Opopanax.1803 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Thanks for this thread! I love that this is happening and that we may see so!e things change.

    Top on my list, make underused weapons useful. Having weapons, but not having them do enough dmg or have enough utility, or both is sad.

    If warrior OH mace had ground targeting like gs 3, it would probably see some play.

    Necro MH dagger can't compete with dps

    Engineer mh pistol needs help, especially the auto

    Warrior rifle needs help, it's better out by longbow even in power builds.

    Ranger short bow needs a bit more kiting utility, maybe a cripple added somewhere.

    Just something to make these weapons more useful and at least not an obvious choice NOT to choose.

  • Hoodie.1045Hoodie.1045 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 22, 2018

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates more build diversity.

    Nerfing a dominant build doesn't create more build variety. You can nerf Holosmith as much as you want, but that won't make players want to play core engineer or Scrapper. As a core engineer main, all you have to do to improve the profession is to change numbers: the bleed damage on Tranquilizer Dart, the confusion stacks on Pry Bar, the cast time and cripple duration on Box of Nails, the chill duration on Freeze Grenade etc.

    Build variety can also be created if you rework certain traits to not make them so mandatory. The Grenadier trait is what hinders the Grenade Kit the most. Not only does it affect the kit greatly with the increased projectile velocity (something that no other profession has), but also with the increased explosion radius. Just make the projectile velocity and explosion radius baseline and change it so that it reduces the cooldown on grenade skills by 20% and it increases the range from 900 to 1,200.

    Iron Blooded could also be changed so that it decreases power and condition damage by 10% while using the Elixir Gun and improves its condition damage/duration by 10%. In general, engineer needs more traits that benefit kits instead of being general traits that the Holosmith benefits from the most, giving it a lot of sustain and being able to do a lot of damage at the same time.

    Karras

  • Senteliks.2360Senteliks.2360 Member ✭✭
    edited August 22, 2018

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Necromancers suffer from ... What game are you playing for real. In almost every match I played Necros were doing among the best in terms of everything. Where as Revenant almost non existent-ed

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Senteliks.2360 said:

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Necromancers suffer from ... What game are you playing for real. In almost every match I played Necros were doing among the best in terms of everything. Where as Revenant almost non existent-ed

    PvP folk ranting at PvE folk.

    Ultimately, the only things that matter in regard of dps for PvP is:

    • Burst potential for power builds. (not sustain damage): That's why pmesmers or DE feel to strong at the moment in this gamemode.
    • Conditions output for condi builds. (not condition damage): That's why Scourge felt oppressive and overwhelming in the early days of PoF.

    Whereas in PvE you look at the optimal sustained dps. So to enligthen you, in PvE, the revenant potential sustain dps is 20 to 30% that of the necromancer.

    The point is that in PvP, you wouldn't even feel the difference if a necromancer had the same potential dps than a revenant which is why the elementalist have been in a bad spot in PvP since age despite often being objectively the top potential sustain dps.

    You just can't critic the concerns of a PvE player as a PvP player because you don't fight the same things and you don't need the same things to fight.

    Now, the problem of our dev's philosophy to only play around with numbers for balance is that some mechanisms are more efficient in a gamemode than in another which mean that some professions can end up overperforming in a gamemode despite being at the bottom of the bottom in another gamemode. Objectively, at some point someone should step in and propose to remove those mechanisms that induce imbalance from the game instead of trying to keep them preciously and tweek numbers in vain.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Akrasia.5469 said:
    As for the casual and semi-casual player, most non-hardcore players only master 1 or 2 professions. That being said if you're like me and main Necromancer, then you get frustrated that your chosen profession is consistently on the bottom of the meta. Other than for a short time right after each expansion (Chillamancer for HoT and Scourge builds for PoF) Necro is constantly underperforming. It's a major disconnect if ANET's attitude is either "what problem? Metas don't mean anything" or even worse "learn another profession, for build diversity's sake". Personally, all I want is to be able to earn a set of that sweet Dhuum armor... for my Necromancer. Having to learn a meta-profession, which I don't play and won't play as well as Necro, makes that almost unachievable doing that in PUGs.

    Build the game for the casual player who only plays 1 or 2 classes. Build so that all these casual players have a decent shot at everything (and I mean everything) the game offers. Then you'll find that there's balance.

    Playing 1-2 classes is perfectly fine. Playing "special" "fun" builds to then complain about how they're not as effective as optimized builds is not. By all means playing these builds is great, but you will never be able to randomly select traits and have them perform as well as something optimized. That said as close as possible should be the goal.

    A lot of casual players will rant about "balance issues" when the reality is their problems are nothing but L2P issues. This can be seen very clearly in PvP, where build and skill are the ONLY things that matter and players still call every single class OP and UP, even when high-end balance is pretty good. The ONLY feedback the dev team should take from this is "x can be frustrating to play against" and "the counterplay to Y may not be obvious".

    You say "necro is bottom of the barrel" yet... sorry but between PoF release and LAST BALANCE PATCH, necro was meta and used for almost all difficult encounters in raids. It was META and frankly OVERPOWERED in all three gamemodes for more than 6 months. That's why it got repetitive nerfs. Even right now, dhuum cm is frequently done with scourge squads. Sab and VG are still very fast and very easy with scourge squads. I agree necro can use a buff to compensate for epi, but pretending necro has been bottom of the barrel for these last years is cherry picking the one thing necro is bad at (DPS without epi) while ignoring the fact that necro was oppresive almost everywhere else (solo play necro is amazing, pvp oppresively OP for the longest time, WvW plain required AND very much busted for the longest time, ...).

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    Shouldn't nerfs come hand in hand with compensating buffs to keep build diversity alive?

    Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates more build diversity.

    In addition to keeping build diversity alive on a single profession we try to ensure build and role diversity across all professions.
    Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

    The problem is that the community will always gravitate towards the profession perceived as the "most effective" for a particular role, at any given time we always had max 2 professions deemed meta for a given role, what are your thoughts about this issue?

    It is certainly an issue. -_-
    We try to keep professions within a close range of each other for particular roles. We don't always succeed, but we keep honing in on it.
    The goal is NOT to make them perfectly equal because then you'd take them based on the next most useful secondary thing they do. Instead we try to keep them at different levels of utility for damage, support, sustain, survivability, etc, so they are less comparable with notable tradeoffs.

    I'm glad at least anet grasps balance better than almost all posts here...

    I see a lot of the "Buffs are fun, nerfs are not fun" going around. Frankly that's just fooling yourself. Buffs are fun to read and go "omagod, my class is super broken now yay!!!". Blanket buffs strictly lead to powercreep and powercreep is fun short term - you feel you can do more without improving at the game. Yay! It's also nice to allow players to progress through content without improving. Yay some more! But the long term effects are quite bad for all three gamemodes.

    For PvP it results in skillspam that is vastly more difficult to understand for newer players. All skills nowadays are on shorter CDs AND do a lot more than before HoT. And this doesn't help "the casual player" at all. It screws them over. The same is true for WvW. Where before we had smart timings to use buffs, we now expect permanent uptimes. And to counter these? A lot more boon corrupt. If you can't counter the boonuptime and heal spam, you have a melee meta in which both gank and range classes have no place. If you can counter the boonuptime, it becomes nearly impossible to push as this relies on being able to strip 10+ boons rather than 2-5. And with the cooldowns becoming a lot lower, this happens a lot more frequently.

    For PvE, it trivializes content making it LESS repeatable and over time much less fun. Sure it's great if they blanket buff your class and suddenly you can clear every raid boss. But how fun is it that everyone can always just ignore boss mechanics because of powercreep. When was the last time someone did VG greens? I can't remember. When was the last time we did a proper VG tanking strat? Haha just stack mid we can meme and rotate or even stack between two platforms at the last phase. The moment my pug group wants to do updrafts on gorseval I alt F4 because I know they won't manage - but truthfully no updrafts used to require a high dps comp and good players. Not... literally any pug group in the game if you delay your CC a little bit. Powercreep doesn't "improve" these encounters. It takes away their uniqueness and turns them into DPS golems.

    High end PvP, wvw and pve all suffered from powercreep AND the inbalance that followed. Frankly, this game needs a lot more nerfs. I don't care about how it makes you feel the first 5 minutes after reading a patch. I don't care about all the tears and vials of salt becauase OMAGOD ANET MY WEAVURRR!!! And I say that as someone with 5k+ hours and 10+ staves on my main ele. I care about healthy, fun gameplay on long term. About GW2 being an actually good game, not about keeping casuals happy through gimmicks.

    I'd like to see more "smiter's boon"-style nerfs and reworks during the "big" balance changes we get as frequently as we do now, followed by shaving and helping out during the weeks / months after. You can do more extreme changes to balancing IF and only IF you're also willing to go back and fix your mistakes. If a mistake makes a class or playstyle non-functional for several months without even heavily impacting the meta otherwise; then balancing is much too slow.

    PS. PVE chrono needs some nerfs.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 22, 2018

    @Dadnir.5038 said:
    Objectively, at some point someone should step in and propose to remove those mechanisms that induce imbalance from the game instead of trying to keep them preciously and tweek numbers in vain.

    Yeah. Number tweaks cannot solve the major power difference between builds especially when an elite spec is over-performing in one mode (Scourge is meta in PVP) while under-performing in another (Scourge in Raids). This is a very hard problem to fix, and I'm not sure it can be fixed by tweaking only numbers.

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Akrasia.5469 said:
    As for the casual and semi-casual player, most non-hardcore players only master 1 or 2 professions. That being said if you're like me and main Necromancer, then you get frustrated that your chosen profession is consistently on the bottom of the meta. Other than for a short time right after each expansion (Chillamancer for HoT and Scourge builds for PoF) Necro is constantly underperforming. It's a major disconnect if ANET's attitude is either "what problem? Metas don't mean anything" or even worse "learn another profession, for build diversity's sake". Personally, all I want is to be able to earn a set of that sweet Dhuum armor... for my Necromancer. Having to learn a meta-profession, which I don't play and won't play as well as Necro, makes that almost unachievable doing that in PUGs.

    I may have a couple of each class and I may not be a "Necro main" but I have played a LOT of necro over the past couple of years. I've played it in PvE, in PvP to gold 1 and a ton in WvW. It's one of my go to classes.
    Every time before it got nerfed I knew it was busted. When I was abusing the kitten out of the chillmancer build to solo farm the centaur camp in Lake Doric, when I was soloing fractals, when I was turning around 10 man squads in WvW by myself, I knew it was going to get nerfed.
    I didn't say "finally the numbers I deserve" because I play all classes and I understand how they perform under similar circumstances. I knew I was an outlier.
    It's never been at the bottom of the pile (Revenant has that distinction), because it's always done strong damage and easily mitigates some of the biggest damage spikes in the game thanks to it's second health bar.

    The chillmancer build was flat out busted until it was nerfed (btw it's still a beast). Scourge and Dhuumfire was absolutely silly when PoF shipped. Scourge was overly oppressive in WvW for a solid 8 months. Epidemic is still one of the most game changing abilities in GW2. Minionmancers are pretty much unkillable in instanced PvE content.
    The list goes on.

    So really the question is:
    Why do "Necro mains" misrepresent the situation so consistently? Why say the class is at the bottom of the pile when it clearly isn't?
    Because Snowcrows doesn't favor your class for their speed clears?

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 22, 2018

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    Totally agree. The problem is not nerfing but over nerfing. Like: berserker, Druid, DH, chrono, scrapper, condi reaper and many more. All these where over performing at some point, but the over excessive nerfs have killed these builds viability in PvP. Yes, nerfing is surely needed, but without a baseline performance it becames a rotation of which builds are currently out performing. This is why we only have a handful of meta builds at any point. What used to work a 18 month ago is probably useless now.

    Seriously, I cannot think of any build that used to be meta 2 years ago that is meta now (or at least resembles what it used to be back then. Looking at you power herald, which has very little resemblance of what it was).

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @otto.5684 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    Seriously, I cannot think of any build that used to be meta 2 years ago that is meta now (or at least resembles what it used to be back then. Looking at you power herald, which has very little resemblance of what it was).

    In raids :
    Chrono
    druid
    BS

    "But my chrono builds changed!!!!" yeah totally, so much. Your role is completely different. You'd never rely on SoI and wells either!
    "But my druid does completely different things now!!" uhu you tell yourself that bae.
    "But my warrior has base power builds now!" I agree those are new, and good, and BS did change to some extent including its rotations. Yet the gear and playstyle have been viable AND meta for more than 3 years due to the strength of banners.

    In WvW :
    support chrono
    The only thing it doesn't do anymore is blinkstomp. Meta changes completely but chrono's like "too much utility to go out of style".

    In PvP :
    I agree. Some HoT specs are still playable but their playstyle is often different than before. That said before targetted druid nerfs and to a lesser extent even now, bunker druid has been staple for more than 2 years.

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Etheri.5406 I was talking PvP. PvE is different.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @otto.5684 said:
    @Etheri.5406 I was talking PvP. PvE is different.

    But it isn't balanced differently.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @otto.5684 said:
    @Etheri.5406 I was talking PvP. PvE is different.

    Up until druid got more excessive nerfs, it was played in PvP the exact way it was during entire HoT. But I agree with your notion for PvP overall.

    Here's what anet kitten up :

    First they take a full year to "balance" HoT meta, more than 8 months before it reaches an "acceptable" state imo. Then a few months before PoF, they finally nerf everything screwing balance again. Good - they should have done that MUCH sooner. Except a few months later they add PoF with more insane powercreep... Making things just out of proportion. And even now those specs are way better than any HoT specs.

    I don't mind the nerfs to zerker during HoT. I don't mind the nerfs to druid during HoT. Even DH. All of those were FINE. Ok the nerfs to zerker for pvp / wvw were maybe pretty harsh - but still. The problem was they then add ... even more insane classes right after.
    That also tells me there's a certain level of sales $$$$$ motivation involved. Everyone needs their new spec to be le new le awesome, so they need to be clear powercreep for all situations. Take spellbreaker which in pvp and wvw is now just... better. Not just for utility, also for damage and everything else. Spellbreaker is a ... condi spec I guess? xD

    And why does it take a year to bring down those PoF specs if they're clearly willing to gut specs for the sake of balance? No idea.

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @otto.5684 said:
    @Etheri.5406 I was talking PvP. PvE is different.

    But it isn't balanced differently.

    My post was how over nerfing is a constant removal of viable builds from the meta in PvP. Take DH as an example. At lunch was ridiculous. Very high damage and tons of aoe CC. Anet shaved LB damage, multiple times. Lowered sustainability by nerfing healing of the wings of resolve and heal trap. Nerfed Spear of Justice. Nerfed the CC then out right remove and put slow of all things.Then came PoF with a major wave of power creep.

    To be clear, DH needed much of these nerfs. The end result though, DH now can barely scratch the bottom of viability in PvP.

    This is not a DH exclusive story. Take any meta build 2 years ago and it followed mostly the same path.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Robert Gee.9246 said:
    Balance isn't always a zero-sum game. Just because there is a nerf to something doesn't mean there needs to be a corresponding buff. If that were the case we'd also have to nerf something every time we buffed something. :s

    Nerfs do not necessarily reduce build diversity. We've used nerfs in the past to reduce the power of skills/traits that were crowding out other options because they were too strong.

    Tell that to necromancers in PvE. While it's true that sometimes nerfs are necessary, when you nerf the only thing that makes a profession useful without compensating on other areas, of course there will be fallout.
    Look at elementalist, it was overdominant in terms of aoe damage for years, you nerf that, now people are reporting having their elementalists kicked out of raids and other stuff, when they're still strong as hell, but they're not the strongest, and still pay the same price in survivability.

    @Senteliks.2360 said:

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Necromancers suffer from ... What game are you playing for real. In almost every match I played Necros were doing among the best in terms of everything. Where as Revenant almost non existent-ed

    Necro suffers from pve players playing at knowing pvp. The meta should have shifted to deal with the new threat of necro and spellbreaker removing boons. Instead people went to cry foul.
    And the balance team nerfed the only thing that wasn't a problem. The damage from scourge's skills, they didn't change how shades work, which is the problem, they nerfed the damage.
    For pvp and wvw, scourge remains a threat, but for pve it's useless, especially after they nerfed the last thing they had to be useful, the epidemic gimmick.
    Just because most people can't play vs a scourge (which is actually easy tbh) doesn't mean it's strong, just that the majority of people playing pvp can't create a build that isn't posted on a website, and adapt to a shift on the meta.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Robert Gee.9246 said:
    Balance isn't always a zero-sum game. Just because there is a nerf to something doesn't mean there needs to be a corresponding buff. If that were the case we'd also have to nerf something every time we buffed something. :s

    Nerfs do not necessarily reduce build diversity. We've used nerfs in the past to reduce the power of skills/traits that were crowding out other options because they were too strong.

    Tell that to necromancers in PvE. While it's true that sometimes nerfs are necessary, when you nerf the only thing that makes a profession useful without compensating on other areas, of course there will be fallout.
    Look at elementalist, it was overdominant in terms of aoe damage for years, you nerf that, now people are reporting having their elementalists kicked out of raids and other stuff, when they're still strong as hell, but they're not the strongest, and still pay the same price in survivability.

    @Senteliks.2360 said:

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Necromancers suffer from ... What game are you playing for real. In almost every match I played Necros were doing among the best in terms of everything. Where as Revenant almost non existent-ed

    Necro suffers from pve players playing at knowing pvp. The meta should have shifted to deal with the new threat of necro and spellbreaker removing boons. Instead people went to cry foul.
    And the balance team nerfed the only thing that wasn't a problem. The damage from scourge's skills, they didn't change how shades work, which is the problem, they nerfed the damage.
    For pvp and wvw, scourge remains a threat, but for pve it's useless, especially after they nerfed the last thing they had to be useful, the epidemic gimmick.
    Just because most people can't play vs a scourge (which is actually easy tbh) doesn't mean it's strong, just that the majority of people playing pvp can't create a build that isn't posted on a website, and adapt to a shift on the meta.

    Almost everything you said is wrong and I agree with the balance team.

    Until this recent EPI NERF - scourge was META and #1 on all bosses where you could use EPI. It's also one of the safest DPS options. The 1 second dhuumfire ICD has almost NO IMPACT on scourges theorethical DPS. So it's mostly the changing of scepter skills there. On bosses where you can epi, necro is far from a bad pick.

    Your analysis as to what is and isn't strong about necro in pvp and wvw is plain false.

    Yes - sometimes the balance team overnerfs. I agree scourge and weaver can both use a minor bump in DPS. Yet both classes were TOP CHOICES for epi / power (burst / cleave) bosses for MONTHS before that. They were outcrowding all the other choices all the time, such as thief / deadeye. And if this changes for 2 months, suddenly you pretend it's "always been like this". Necro overperformed in EVERY AREA OF THE GAME for over half a year and they still ranted on a daily basis.

    And the epi nerf was GOOD for long term balance. It lowers the difference between epi and non-epi bosses. Same for weaver and diminishing the difference between hitbox sizes and their DPS output. Sure, it's currently slightly too weak but at least they can accurately buff it making it more balanced between the two outlying cases.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Robert Gee.9246 said:
    Balance isn't always a zero-sum game. Just because there is a nerf to something doesn't mean there needs to be a corresponding buff. If that were the case we'd also have to nerf something every time we buffed something. :s

    Nerfs do not necessarily reduce build diversity. We've used nerfs in the past to reduce the power of skills/traits that were crowding out other options because they were too strong.

    Tell that to necromancers in PvE. While it's true that sometimes nerfs are necessary, when you nerf the only thing that makes a profession useful without compensating on other areas, of course there will be fallout.
    Look at elementalist, it was overdominant in terms of aoe damage for years, you nerf that, now people are reporting having their elementalists kicked out of raids and other stuff, when they're still strong as hell, but they're not the strongest, and still pay the same price in survivability.

    @Senteliks.2360 said:

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Necromancers suffer from ... What game are you playing for real. In almost every match I played Necros were doing among the best in terms of everything. Where as Revenant almost non existent-ed

    Necro suffers from pve players playing at knowing pvp. The meta should have shifted to deal with the new threat of necro and spellbreaker removing boons. Instead people went to cry foul.
    And the balance team nerfed the only thing that wasn't a problem. The damage from scourge's skills, they didn't change how shades work, which is the problem, they nerfed the damage.
    For pvp and wvw, scourge remains a threat, but for pve it's useless, especially after they nerfed the last thing they had to be useful, the epidemic gimmick.
    Just because most people can't play vs a scourge (which is actually easy tbh) doesn't mean it's strong, just that the majority of people playing pvp can't create a build that isn't posted on a website, and adapt to a shift on the meta.

    Almost everything you said is wrong and I agree with the balance team.

    Until this recent EPI NERF - scourge was META and #1 on all bosses where you could use EPI. It's also one of the safest DPS options. The 1 second dhuumfire ICD has almost NO IMPACT on scourges theorethical DPS. So it's mostly the changing of scepter skills there. On bosses where you can epi, necro is far from a bad pick.

    Your analysis as to what is and isn't strong about necro in pvp and wvw is plain false.

    Yes - sometimes the balance team overnerfs. I agree scourge and weaver can both use a minor bump in DPS. Yet both classes were TOP CHOICES for epi / power (burst / cleave) bosses for MONTHS before that. They were outcrowding all the other choices all the time, such as thief / deadeye. And if this changes for 2 months, suddenly you pretend it's "always been like this". Necro overperformed in EVERY AREA OF THE GAME for over half a year and they still ranted on a daily basis.

    And the epi nerf was GOOD for long term balance. It lowers the difference between epi and non-epi bosses. Same for weaver and diminishing the difference between hitbox sizes and their DPS output. Sure, it's currently slightly too weak but at least they can accurately buff it making it more balanced between the two outlying cases.

    Yeah, the epi nerf was necessary... I'm not talking about that... I'm talking to all the constant nerfs since PoF launch that never addressed the problem which is the shade mechanic, and the overabundance of boons.
    Epidemic was the last bit of driftwood that necros clung to after those successive nerfs. I'm not saying it was a healthy meta, i'm saying that after it was removed there's really nothing for necros to hang to in pvE.

    If you think necro overperformed in every area of the game, you're dellusional. I'm not even going to bother citing numbers from every single dps logger available. I'm not going to point you towards any of the many sources that would prove that necro fell out of use in PvE completely, and has been relevant in PvP only due to how the shades mechanic work.
    But, why bother, you're obviously in touch with some alternate reality where necro was a strong class all along and everyone else has just been playing a different game.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 23, 2018

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Robert Gee.9246 said:
    Balance isn't always a zero-sum game. Just because there is a nerf to something doesn't mean there needs to be a corresponding buff. If that were the case we'd also have to nerf something every time we buffed something. :s

    Nerfs do not necessarily reduce build diversity. We've used nerfs in the past to reduce the power of skills/traits that were crowding out other options because they were too strong.

    Tell that to necromancers in PvE. While it's true that sometimes nerfs are necessary, when you nerf the only thing that makes a profession useful without compensating on other areas, of course there will be fallout.
    Look at elementalist, it was overdominant in terms of aoe damage for years, you nerf that, now people are reporting having their elementalists kicked out of raids and other stuff, when they're still strong as hell, but they're not the strongest, and still pay the same price in survivability.

    @Senteliks.2360 said:

    @Nopesarenotforme.5190 said:

    @Irenio CalmonHuang.2048 said:
    Nerfs are something that must be done when things get out of line.
    If there are no nerfs then there is only power creep.

    But people can't change the meta themselves. The necromancer for example suffers from underperformance for a very long time while you have the renegade doing 38k dps.
    Shouldn't all the dps professions in the game be equal to each other more or less in the matter of performance? making all the professions do 35k dps + - sounds like a good balance to me.

    Necromancers suffer from ... What game are you playing for real. In almost every match I played Necros were doing among the best in terms of everything. Where as Revenant almost non existent-ed

    Necro suffers from pve players playing at knowing pvp. The meta should have shifted to deal with the new threat of necro and spellbreaker removing boons. Instead people went to cry foul.
    And the balance team nerfed the only thing that wasn't a problem. The damage from scourge's skills, they didn't change how shades work, which is the problem, they nerfed the damage.
    For pvp and wvw, scourge remains a threat, but for pve it's useless, especially after they nerfed the last thing they had to be useful, the epidemic gimmick.
    Just because most people can't play vs a scourge (which is actually easy tbh) doesn't mean it's strong, just that the majority of people playing pvp can't create a build that isn't posted on a website, and adapt to a shift on the meta.

    Almost everything you said is wrong and I agree with the balance team.

    Until this recent EPI NERF - scourge was META and #1 on all bosses where you could use EPI. It's also one of the safest DPS options. The 1 second dhuumfire ICD has almost NO IMPACT on scourges theorethical DPS. So it's mostly the changing of scepter skills there. On bosses where you can epi, necro is far from a bad pick.

    Your analysis as to what is and isn't strong about necro in pvp and wvw is plain false.

    Yes - sometimes the balance team overnerfs. I agree scourge and weaver can both use a minor bump in DPS. Yet both classes were TOP CHOICES for epi / power (burst / cleave) bosses for MONTHS before that. They were outcrowding all the other choices all the time, such as thief / deadeye. And if this changes for 2 months, suddenly you pretend it's "always been like this". Necro overperformed in EVERY AREA OF THE GAME for over half a year and they still ranted on a daily basis.

    And the epi nerf was GOOD for long term balance. It lowers the difference between epi and non-epi bosses. Same for weaver and diminishing the difference between hitbox sizes and their DPS output. Sure, it's currently slightly too weak but at least they can accurately buff it making it more balanced between the two outlying cases.

    Yeah, the epi nerf was necessary... I'm not talking about that... I'm talking to all the constant nerfs since PoF launch that never addressed the problem which is the shade mechanic, and the overabundance of boons.
    Epidemic was the last bit of driftwood that necros clung to after those successive nerfs. I'm not saying it was a healthy meta, i'm saying that after it was removed there's really nothing for necros to hang to in pvE.

    If you think necro overperformed in every area of the game, you're dellusional. I'm not even going to bother citing numbers from every single dps logger available. I'm not going to point you towards any of the many sources that would prove that necro fell out of use in PvE completely, and has been relevant in PvP only due to how the shades mechanic work.
    But, why bother, you're obviously in touch with some alternate reality where necro was a strong class all along and everyone else has just been playing a different game.

    Yet here I am, having cleared every raid CM on necro multiple times except cairn, but including multiple dhuum CM kills. I wonder if gw2raider lets us check the most popular DPS class for dhuum cm. I really wonder what it'll be :trollface:

    Necro in PvE still gives GOOD support for a DPS spec including barrier, condi clear and boonstrip while doing staple, easy DPS and having access to decent CC. Sorry but I don't see 7 weavers tanking all 3 guardians during VG splits or do SH without healers. Yet scourges don't struggle in the slightest.

    I see both scourge and reaper being played succesfully at 1700 rating and I can play scourge up to 1650 myself. Funny how its only relevant due to shades yet... there are reapers in top 100 EU right now.

    Shall I even talk about WvW? Hahahahaha

    "But my dps numbers are amazing at ignoring all the strengths necro has, plz look !!!!"

    Necro needs a minor bump in single target DPS, preferably at the cost of a higher skillceiling. Nothing else.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm not sure this is the place to have a fight over necromancer. Especially when both your arguments are inaccurate in a lot of ways. The necromancer's balance issue is, sadly, a lot more complexe than a problem of "numbers". And to add insult to injury, the necromancer's community is divided, even opposed, in their opinion about a lot of things, which is why the necromancer subforum is always in a constant state of uproar.

    If we want to come back into the thread, we could question the value of a trait that have both a positive effect and a negative effect on a character with a clear example:

    Awaken the pain: increasing might power by 10 and reducing might condi damage by 10.

    How come there is the only one profession with such trait? Will this kind of negative effect tied to some traits be generalized in the game? Is this some kind of new take at balance or is this just some kind of test?

  • This is why you don't take players balance suggestion literally and implement it to the last letter, because it's impossible. Here we have the case of tree people, with their arguments and contra arguments about Necro, that quite differ and each on it's own is entitled to believe he is right.

    This leaves now quite dilemma how to address the problem and try to please as many people as possible as developers in charge of balance team now does it? Because all tree perspectives have valid and invalid points.

    All I asked is what game are you playing because Necro may not be powerhouse, one to rule them all but they are doing beyond average in every mode. Unlike some other professions, Necro is definitely not suffering.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.