trade offs are failing

i'm wondering who does these since they seem to be all over the place. seems like they should be done by the new competitive balance team, or at least one small group of people so they aren't so disproportionate. imo the only trade off that is 100% good is berserker. anet pls don't set these trade offs in stone, you are straight up removing classes from content. at this rate a better balanced game will not matter.

What are "these"?Who are "they"?

What's so bad about removing classes from content though,? Especially if they were straight-up powercreeped in the first place? Trade offs should be from the very release of every e-pack. Good thing they're giving them to classes, bad thing is that it's kinda a bit too late after so many people had already quit. Even if they're bad one way or another, it's still better to have any kind of trade-off that'll keep to some degree powercreep.

@TrollingDemigod.3041 said:What's so bad about removing classes from content though,?

its too obvious.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@TrollingDemigod.3041 said:What's so bad about removing classes from content though,?

No, it's not. What's so bad about removing powercreeped speces from content? You'll need to put some effort into the game for once? _Oh, no. What a nightmare! _There are 9 classes, each have 2 elite speces and core, you have a lot of possible choices to use, yet you have problem when something get proper trade-off to reduce powercreep? The what?This is why e-speces should have trade-offs from the very release of x-packs, People got far too used to ez mode and now they're gonna complain whenever something clearly broken/unbalanced/cheese will be brought in line one way or another. Ridiculous.I'm so happy for upcoming balance changes.

@"Stand The Wall.6987" said:i'm wondering who does these since they seem to be all over the place. seems like they should be done by the new competitive balance team, or at least one small group of people so they aren't so disproportionate. imo the only trade off that is 100% good is berserker. anet pls don't set these trade offs in stone, you are straight up removing classes from content. at this rate a better balanced game will not matter.

Logically Especs should not even need trade offs.Core traitlines all should give you the feeling of " damn I really wish I had this " and trading that tree for espec IS the trade.some especs are stronger then others, and some classes have stronger core trees then others.But when they are really so dead set on providing trade for the espec, they should really think harder, one of them is not like the others.

@TrollingDemigod.3041 said:snips

I looked at that first line and then your name. kind of hard to take you seriously man.

@"Leonidrex.5649" said:Logically Especs should not even need trade offs.Core traitlines all should give you the feeling of " kitten I really wish I had this " and trading that tree for espec IS the trade.some especs are stronger then others, and some classes have stronger core trees then others.But when they are really so dead set on providing trade for the espec, they should really think harder, one of them is not like the others.

honestly if they're going to botch them this bad then I would rather especs don't get any trade offs at all. I think if they're done right then its the way to go.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:Yeah sucks when classes get actual trade off eh? But it's cool to talk $hit to players in past not happy about the trade off they got at the time lol gw2 community in a nut shell.

Sry just having PTSD with all the mirage losing a dodge and rangers losing a pet as trade off bickering going on. Just remember when swipe got its trade off etc etc it was justifiable to all non thief players but when comes for their class trade off its nooooooo classes dont need trade offs or somthing to that effect lol

Don't knock it til'you tried it. It might come this tuesday.

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:Sry just having PTSD with all the mirage losing a dodge and rangers losing a pet as trade off bickering going on. Just remember when swipe got its trade off etc etc it was justifiable to all non thief players but when comes for their class trade off its nooooooo classes dont need trade offs or somthing to that effect lol

I got you. I don't really main a class anymore. some trade offs are spec destroying while others are luke warm at best.

@"TheQuickFox.3826" said:What are "these"?Who are "they"?

deductions trade off is that its not as easy as other choices.

I would not call trade-offs failing. I would call them non-existent. In order for them to exist, it theoretically means different builds of a class, can play various power builds with equal performance (same for condi and support). The difference would be the builds offer various strengths and weakness. In reality, most classes barely have 2-3 viable builds, and rarely more than 2 competitive builds. If Anet added a "trade-off" effectively nerfing the meta build. They just nerfed the meta build. That is... it. The "trade-off" here is nothing more than beating around the bush.

Take the SlB change, locking pets. Is this really a "trade-off?" Does core ranger or druid have any competitive builds? And thus all this fancy "trade-off" talk is nothing more than a nerf to SlB. Nothing else here.

When every class has various competitive builds, with various strengths and weaknesses, let me know. Right now, this whole "trade-off" is nothing more than empty PR bull shit.

@"otto.5684" said:I would not call trade-offs failing. I would call them non-existent. In order for them to exist, it theoretically means different builds of a class, can play various power builds with equal performance (same for condi and support). The difference would be the builds offer various strengths and weakness. In reality, most classes barely have 2-3 viable builds, and rarely more than 2 competitive builds. If Anet added a "trade-off" effectively nerfing the meta build. They just nerfed the meta build. That is... it. The "trade-off" here is nothing more than beating around the bush.

Take the SlB change, locking pets. Is this really a "trade-off?" Does core ranger or druid have any competitive builds? And thus all this fancy "trade-off" talk is nothing more than a nerf to SlB. Nothing else here.

When every class has various competitive builds, with various strengths and weaknesses, let me know. Right now, this whole "trade-off" is nothing more than empty PR bull kitten.

The trade off for each spec does not account for whether its meta or not nor should it. After patch the team can now work on what changes are needed to help bring soulbeast into the meta all while keeping its trade off, same as every other spec.

Keep up with the trade offs so berserker can be a dwarf among goblins. MBGAgain

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@"otto.5684" said:I would not call trade-offs failing. I would call them non-existent. In order for them to exist, it theoretically means different builds of a class, can play various power builds with equal performance (same for condi and support). The difference would be the builds offer various strengths and weakness. In reality, most classes barely have 2-3 viable builds, and rarely more than 2 competitive builds. If Anet added a "trade-off" effectively nerfing the meta build. They just nerfed the meta build. That is... it. The "trade-off" here is nothing more than beating around the bush.

Take the SlB change, locking pets. Is this really a "trade-off?" Does core ranger or druid have any competitive builds? And thus all this fancy "trade-off" talk is nothing more than a nerf to SlB. Nothing else here.

When every class has various competitive builds, with various strengths and weaknesses, let me know. Right now, this whole "trade-off" is nothing more than empty PR bull kitten.

while looking at chrono or druid i lean towards them gutting the spec and leaving it unplayable since they put NO effort to try and fix them.I dislike ranger and soulbeast equally and it doesnt make much difference to me if ranger mains plays core or slb, but im fairly sure that ranger mains are going to be mighty upset that now they can only play ranger, expecially since the things that are wrong with ranger are not fixed, but slb got one of its kneecaps busted for the sake of an idea.To all people that are happy that soulbeast will be gone, that chrono is gone and druid is gone. Remember that your favourite espec from your favourite class will too be doomed for trade off. and when SPB loses its f1 entirely for fullcounter or some other stupid shenanigans come back to this moment and realise that in the end balance is what matters and removing entire spec from playability doesnt do that.

@otto.5684 said:snips

yeah lol... you've got a point. I think they are introducing trade offs (or spec nerfs, w/e) cuz every new spec is better then the last, or at least better then core in most respects. trade offs are the way to go imo but they're way to brutal or barely a feathers touch.

It is easy for @Psycoprophet.8107 to chill, his main class literally has no trade off on meta build xDAnd when you don't care for anything else than yourself and the one class you play everything is fine i guess, easy to be mouthy. We talk again when Warriors get some stupid shit makes them clunky or unplayable and is not needed to balance them compared to their core builds or other classes. I will hold your hand then too buddy dw.

In general funny how virtuous some forum lemmings parrot the classwide highly inconsistent political trade off agenda without overthinking it for a moment.

@"Leonidrex.5649" said:but im fairly sure that ranger mains are going to be mighty upset that now they can only play ranger, expecially since the things that are wrong with ranger are not fixed, but slb got one of its kneecaps busted for the sake of an idea.

Ranger main here, and that about sums it up.

Ranger has always started from behind, thanks to having a bunch of our personal stats shaved off and given to a pet that simply can't land hits. Every non-ranger who complains bitterly about pets being too good... that literally means that you move worse than a golem. Literally. Take a ranger into the Special Forces Arena, set the golem to walk in a circle, and watch the oh-so-mighty Gazelle try to land hits on it.

That has always been the uncompensated tradeoff for playing core ranger or druid - losing personal stats to an AI assistant that does NOT make up for those lost stats. At all. Soulbeast finally allowed rangers to recover those stats. If the end result was that merged stats are too OP, then I'm all for reducing merged stats. But taking away versatility from the supposedly "adapt to any situation" class... I'm convinced the systems/balance folks just do not like rangers, and that no dev ever really has.

@"otto.5684" said:Take the SlB change, locking pets. Is this really a "trade-off?" Does core ranger or druid have any competitive builds? And thus all this fancy "trade-off" talk is nothing more than a nerf to SlB. Nothing else here.

Yep.

Just merge all classes into one please. Balance solved.

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@"otto.5684" said:I would not call trade-offs failing. I would call them non-existent. In order for them to exist, it theoretically means different builds of a class, can play various power builds with equal performance (same for condi and support). The difference would be the builds offer various strengths and weakness. In reality, most classes barely have 2-3 viable builds, and rarely more than 2 competitive builds. If Anet added a "trade-off" effectively nerfing the meta build. They just nerfed the meta build. That is... it. The "trade-off" here is nothing more than beating around the bush.

Take the SlB change, locking pets. Is this really a "trade-off?" Does core ranger or druid have any competitive builds? And thus all this fancy "trade-off" talk is nothing more than a nerf to SlB. Nothing else here.

When every class has various competitive builds, with various strengths and weaknesses, let me know. Right now, this whole "trade-off" is nothing more than empty PR bull kitten.

I heard that before... never panned out. I believe in trends. I do not believe in PR. “The future will be much brighter!” Ya... sure buddy.

@voltaicbore.8012 said:

Ranger has always started from behind, thanks to having a bunch of our personal stats shaved off and given to a pet

What stats?

A lot of the "trade-offs" feel natural (reaper, scourge, berserker, Weaver, deadeye, dragonhunter, firebrand), a lot of them feel arbitrary (druid, Daredevil, renegade, herald, Chrono) and some feel nonsensical (mirage, scrapper). For the others I'm a bit torn. From a flavor standpoint, I kind of like the soulbeast trade-off where a ranger forms an extremely strong bond with one particular pet enabling the merging but this might just end up dumbing down gameplay by making the kit simpler. For Holo I like the over heat drawback but losing the elite toolbelt skill feels like less of a design choice and more of we don't have enough f skills to keep it. Spellbreaker losing higher tier bursts is somewhere between natural and arbitrary for me. Which leaves tempest which doesn't have an explicit trade-off as they can optionally ignore overloads but the extra long attunement cooldown does feel natural after the overload.

What's so bad about removing powercreeped speces from content?

so sad ppl actually agree with this. goes to show ppl don't actually want balance they just want whats killing them removed from the game.

Some trade offs are done well, some are not.

There's also different ways of having trade offs, you have very obvious ones like berserker where you take more damage and have 1 adrenaline bar (this part doesn't matter too much) or with daredevil where swipe is lower range which you will never stop hearing thieves complain about. Then there's the not so obvious trade offs like weaver, on paper it's not much of a drawback, till you start playing the thing and it raises the complexity of using it a lot where long drawn out fights can become very taxing...if it was in a balanced state instead of spamfiesta easy mode it's in now but try staff weaver and you'll see what I mean.

Other classes don't really have a trade off or it's a case of it adds so much by default that there isn't really a trade off. Good examples are Holosmith and Firebrand where the elite specs add such a powerful kit baseline that no-one would really consider it a trade off at all.

Then you have rev, rev is weird and complicated to describe because it's tied so closely to legends.