Jump to content
  • Sign Up

On roles and 'optimum' team comp.


Recommended Posts

What I was suggesting. Opinions evolve. And mine have changed across this thread. I openly admit to not understanding how to edit the balance myself.

Every raid does also want a warrior. Only for its banners. Which are stat bonuses, rather than flat damage bonus unique to the class.

If warrior was also producing 25 might on 10 man squads and preventing others from taking even part of its job, then I might be suggesting a nerf to warrior. But only in context. For me to suggest a warrior nerf.... It'd have to be so obviously good, that other classes are unable to unseat it, the way druid has been historically.

However, folks have persuaded me that druid presence is now mostly due to inertia. Fair enough.

Tldr. I get it you want to be right. But I don't know how to conceded the point any harder.

So the lesson I take from everyone's points is, 'play what you want and deal with the fallout yourself, the meta is 80% illusion anyways'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Cyninja.2954 said:One thing to note, once again:

Any negative change to support availability, no matter in what way, will make the raid composition more restrictive.

One of the reasons why having druid provide 10 man might/fury/spirits is good is: it allows for other supports to tag along. Same as with warrior banners which affect 10 players.

The solution is not to remove the ability to provide buffs to 10 people (aka an entire raid squad), it is to allow MORE classes to provide 10 people support as to open up raid spots (which the devs have been implementing more and more, see renegade 10 man alacrity and similar deisgn decisions. Showing that the devs understand this issue).

Back during HoT the raid composition was:

  • 2 chronos
  • 2 druids
  • 2 warriors
  • 4 dps

The reason was simple: boons were 5 mann capped, same as banners. Pretty much all raid meta improvement came from making abilities and boons reach 10 people, freeing up slots. If you change druid boons or spirits to 5 people, the net result would not be less druids in raids, it would be more.

This is a very interesting point you make, but I always wonder what you and anyone else reading this would rather choose (if you HAVE to choose):

  • A meta where all 9 classes have a spot in the 10-man squad with a quite specific/pigeon-holed role they performOR
  • An almost perfect balance where there is almost no real diversity between classes, so it doesn't really matter which class you take, they all do the job as fine as the other

I know they're both outer bounds of the spectrum, but what should ANet according to you (and anyone else) balance towards, because I've got a feeling they're not really sure themselves. You indeed give the examples of unique class buffs: Banners and Spirits (changed from 5 to 10 players), but ANet did quite the opposite with Alacrity being a unique mesmer buff before, and making it more available across the board now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:One thing to note, once again:

Any negative change to support availability, no matter in what way, will make the raid composition more restrictive.

One of the reasons why having druid provide 10 man might/fury/spirits is good is: it allows for other supports to tag along. Same as with warrior banners which affect 10 players.

The solution is not to remove the ability to provide buffs to 10 people (aka an entire raid squad), it is to allow MORE classes to provide 10 people support as to open up raid spots (which the devs have been implementing more and more, see renegade 10 man alacrity and similar deisgn decisions. Showing that the devs understand this issue).

Back during HoT the raid composition was:
  • 2 chronos
  • 2 druids
  • 2 warriors
  • 4 dps

The reason was simple: boons were 5 mann capped, same as banners. Pretty much all raid meta improvement came from making abilities and boons reach 10 people, freeing up slots. If you change druid boons or spirits to 5 people, the net result would not be less druids in raids, it would be more.

This is a very interesting point you make, but I always wonder what you and anyone else reading this would rather choose (if you HAVE to choose):
  • A meta where all 9 classes have a spot in the 10-man squad with a quite specific/pigeon-holed role they performOR
  • An almost perfect balance where there is almost no real diversity between classes, so it doesn't really matter which class you take, they all do the job as fine as the other

I know they're both outer bounds of the spectrum, but what should ANet according to you (and anyone else) balance
towards
, because I've got a feeling they're not really sure themselves. You indeed give the examples of unique class buffs: Banners and Spirits (changed from 5 to 10 players), but ANet did quite the opposite with Alacrity being a unique mesmer buff before, and making it more available across the board now.

Why not take it 1 step further mix the 9 classes down to 1 class and be done with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Linken.6345 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:One thing to note, once again:

Any negative change to support availability, no matter in what way, will make the raid composition more restrictive.

One of the reasons why having druid provide 10 man might/fury/spirits is good is: it allows for other supports to tag along. Same as with warrior banners which affect 10 players.

The solution is not to remove the ability to provide buffs to 10 people (aka an entire raid squad), it is to allow MORE classes to provide 10 people support as to open up raid spots (which the devs have been implementing more and more, see renegade 10 man alacrity and similar deisgn decisions. Showing that the devs understand this issue).

Back during HoT the raid composition was:
  • 2 chronos
  • 2 druids
  • 2 warriors
  • 4 dps

The reason was simple: boons were 5 mann capped, same as banners. Pretty much all raid meta improvement came from making abilities and boons reach 10 people, freeing up slots. If you change druid boons or spirits to 5 people, the net result would not be less druids in raids, it would be more.

This is a very interesting point you make, but I always wonder what you and anyone else reading this would rather choose (if you HAVE to choose):
  • A meta where all 9 classes have a spot in the 10-man squad with a quite specific/pigeon-holed role they performOR
  • An almost perfect balance where there is almost no real diversity between classes, so it doesn't really matter which class you take, they all do the job as fine as the other

I know they're both outer bounds of the spectrum, but what should ANet according to you (and anyone else) balance
towards
, because I've got a feeling they're not really sure themselves. You indeed give the examples of unique class buffs: Banners and Spirits (changed from 5 to 10 players), but ANet did quite the opposite with Alacrity being a unique mesmer buff before, and making it more available across the board now.

Why not take it 1 step further mix the 9 classes down to 1 class and be done with it?

I know they're both really outer-bound, but it's not called 'balancing' for nothing. You will never achieve perfect balance (and you probably don't even want to) because of numerous reasons: the sheer complexity of it being one of them. But I do think you should have at least a direction in mind: i.e. your goal should never be actively unbalancing the game.

And I also know the spectrum is never this 2 dimensional. But if you HAVE to choose between those two simplified balanced states, which one would you choose and why?(but if I read your sarcasm correctly you would rather go towards the first state than the latter, right? Why?)Edit: to add to my last question for: @Linken.6345: The latter was actually the design philosophy which ANet aimed for when they launched GW2 back in 2012: Every class is capable to heal, deal damage, tank, etc.: the specific role design came more or less with the launch of HoT after a lot of feedback from the community (so they said) steering towards that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:This is a very interesting point you make, but I always wonder what you and anyone else reading this would rather choose (if you HAVE to choose):

  • A meta where all 9 classes have a spot in the 10-man squad with a quite specific/pigeon-holed role they performOR
  • An almost perfect balance where there is almost no real diversity between classes, so it doesn't really matter which class you take, they all do the job as fine as the otherOr maybe instead of going for extremes, just go with more sensible, moderate choice, and make it so that every class can have a dps build (ideally both condi and power) that qualifies to be included into meta, and that for every other role there are at least 2-3 classes that can fulfill it well. And that those classes are not too heavily dependent on other specific classes, so it's easy to mix and match, instead of having to create a whole specific group around a single class or two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:This is a very interesting point you make, but I always wonder what you and anyone else reading this would rather choose (if you HAVE to choose):
  • A meta where all 9 classes have a spot in the 10-man squad with a quite specific/pigeon-holed role they performOR
  • An almost perfect balance where there is almost no real diversity between classes, so it doesn't really matter which class you take, they all do the job as fine as the otherOr maybe instead of going for extremes, just go with more sensible, moderate choice, and make it so that every class can have a dps build (ideally both condi and power) that qualifies to be included into meta, and that for every other role there are at least 2-3 classes that can fulfill it well. And that those classes are not too heavily dependent on other specific classes, so it's easy to mix and match, instead of having to create a whole specific group around a single class or two.

I thinks that's more or less reality as well at the moment (save for some odd ones out), and maybe we should be happy with what we have at the moment. But it's also a bit of a weird "balance" as well, don't you think? Why are there only a few classes (or 2-3 like you mentioned) allowed to do real good support/heal/other specific roles and (almost) all classes should be good at dealing DPS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:One thing to note, once again:

Any negative change to support availability, no matter in what way, will make the raid composition more restrictive.

One of the reasons why having druid provide 10 man might/fury/spirits is good is: it allows for other supports to tag along. Same as with warrior banners which affect 10 players.

The solution is not to remove the ability to provide buffs to 10 people (aka an entire raid squad), it is to allow MORE classes to provide 10 people support as to open up raid spots (which the devs have been implementing more and more, see renegade 10 man alacrity and similar deisgn decisions. Showing that the devs understand this issue).

Back during HoT the raid composition was:
  • 2 chronos
  • 2 druids
  • 2 warriors
  • 4 dps

The reason was simple: boons were 5 mann capped, same as banners. Pretty much all raid meta improvement came from making abilities and boons reach 10 people, freeing up slots. If you change druid boons or spirits to 5 people, the net result would not be less druids in raids, it would be more.

This is a very interesting point you make, but I always wonder what you and anyone else reading this would rather choose (if you HAVE to choose):
  • A meta where all 9 classes have a spot in the 10-man squad with a quite specific/pigeon-holed role they performOR
  • An almost perfect balance where there is almost no real diversity between classes, so it doesn't really matter which class you take, they all do the job as fine as the other

I know they're both outer bounds of the spectrum, but what should ANet according to you (and anyone else) balance
towards
, because I've got a feeling they're not really sure themselves. You indeed give the examples of unique class buffs: Banners and Spirits (changed from 5 to 10 players), but ANet did quite the opposite with Alacrity being a unique mesmer buff before, and making it more available across the board now.

Why not take it 1 step further mix the 9 classes down to 1 class and be done with it?

I know they're both really outer-bound, but it's not called 'balancing' for nothing. You will never achieve perfect balance (and you probably don't even want to) because of numerous reasons: the sheer complexity of it being one of them. But I do think you should have at least a direction in mind: i.e. your goal should
never
be actively unbalancing the game.

And I also know the spectrum is never this 2 dimensional. But if you HAVE to choose between those two simplified balanced states, which one would you choose and why?(but if I read your sarcasm correctly you would rather go towards the first state than the latter, right? Why?)Edit: to add to my last question for: @Linken.6345: The latter was actually the design philosophy which ANet aimed for when they launched GW2 back in 2012: Every class is capable to heal, deal damage, tank, etc.: the specific role design came more or less with the launch of HoT after a lot of feedback from the community (so they said) steering towards that direction.

Yes every class should be self suffiecent thats not the same as making them balanced in a group composition at all tho.Right now every class can survive by their own 10 skills just fine in the game anet nailed it down perfectly.

In groups or raids (dubble groups) thats not going to be the same beast at all. ( not the way they have been churning em out and I dont know if you can make em were 10 people do 10 diffrent things on 150 diffrent traitline compositions and be equaly good at everything tbh)

First clearly you dont remember the 1 mesmer 4 warrior meta in dungeons before hot release it was even worse then now.

And my sarcasm was towards option 2 not option 1

Since we dont have option 1 now all 9 classes dont have a pigoned holed hole to fit in.Were in the pve meta do necromancer or any of it elite specs fit in mate?If wer going by meta we would have nothing but what power chrono dps, power dhs, condi 40k weavers and mirrages. ( only fight I seen mirrages prefered is twins other then that you look for cdps or dps)Tanks only chrono and healers 1 druid +1 healer if needed.

If you want anet to buff more people to 10 man buffs like spotter (ranger), assassins presence (revenant) . life leech (necro buff that one damage vise obviously) pinpoint (engi)Empower allies (war)Elementalist could give 10 wide crit chance boost maybeMesmer 10 man chance to dubble strike your weapon get a mirror image.Guardian will need something else their buffs toughness.Thief I really have no idea.

If thats what you want then advocate for more 10 wide buffs so you only need 1 of each class. ( and Im all for that to happen but it wont unless the buffs are significant) Then you get the oh I want to play x class, check lfg all the groups in looking for group already have x class anet please buff my class since I cant play it.

But its not going to change that some classes do better at some bosses then others.If you want balance cut 8 out of 9 classes thats the only way to get balance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Linken.6345 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:One thing to note, once again:

Any negative change to support availability, no matter in what way, will make the raid composition more restrictive.

One of the reasons why having druid provide 10 man might/fury/spirits is good is: it allows for other supports to tag along. Same as with warrior banners which affect 10 players.

The solution is not to remove the ability to provide buffs to 10 people (aka an entire raid squad), it is to allow MORE classes to provide 10 people support as to open up raid spots (which the devs have been implementing more and more, see renegade 10 man alacrity and similar deisgn decisions. Showing that the devs understand this issue).

Back during HoT the raid composition was:
  • 2 chronos
  • 2 druids
  • 2 warriors
  • 4 dps

The reason was simple: boons were 5 mann capped, same as banners. Pretty much all raid meta improvement came from making abilities and boons reach 10 people, freeing up slots. If you change druid boons or spirits to 5 people, the net result would not be less druids in raids, it would be more.

This is a very interesting point you make, but I always wonder what you and anyone else reading this would rather choose (if you HAVE to choose):
  • A meta where all 9 classes have a spot in the 10-man squad with a quite specific/pigeon-holed role they performOR
  • An almost perfect balance where there is almost no real diversity between classes, so it doesn't really matter which class you take, they all do the job as fine as the other

I know they're both outer bounds of the spectrum, but what should ANet according to you (and anyone else) balance
towards
, because I've got a feeling they're not really sure themselves. You indeed give the examples of unique class buffs: Banners and Spirits (changed from 5 to 10 players), but ANet did quite the opposite with Alacrity being a unique mesmer buff before, and making it more available across the board now.

Why not take it 1 step further mix the 9 classes down to 1 class and be done with it?

I know they're both really outer-bound, but it's not called 'balancing' for nothing. You will never achieve perfect balance (and you probably don't even want to) because of numerous reasons: the sheer complexity of it being one of them. But I do think you should have at least a direction in mind: i.e. your goal should
never
be actively unbalancing the game.

And I also know the spectrum is never this 2 dimensional. But if you HAVE to choose between those two simplified balanced states, which one would you choose and why?(but if I read your sarcasm correctly you would rather go towards the first state than the latter, right? Why?)Edit: to add to my last question for: @Linken.6345: The latter was actually the design philosophy which ANet aimed for when they launched GW2 back in 2012: Every class is capable to heal, deal damage, tank, etc.: the specific role design came more or less with the launch of HoT after a lot of feedback from the community (so they said) steering towards that direction.

Yes every class should be self suffiecent thats not the same as making them balanced in a group composition at all tho.Right now every class can survive by their own 10 skills just fine in the game anet nailed it down perfectly.

In groups or raids (dubble groups) thats not going to be the same beast at all. ( not the way they have been churning em out and I dont know if you can make em were 10 people do 10 diffrent things on 150 diffrent traitline compositions and be equaly good at everything tbh)

First clearly you dont remember the 1 mesmer 4 warrior meta in dungeons before hot release it was even worse then now.I definitely can (or with thief for skips), I never said ANet did a good job at it, I actually think they did a terrible job at it, but it
was
their design philosophy.

And my sarcasm was towards option 2 not option 1oops, misread you there!

Since we dont have option 1 now all 9 classes dont have a pigoned holed hole to fit in.Were in the pve meta do necromancer or any of it elite specs fit in mate?I agree wholeheartedly: again, ANet isnt that great at balancing imho, I mean: the Necro is literally a meme in the PvE endgame and has been since launch! I'm a big advocate of starting to fix that issue urgently (being the fact that it's my primary since launch). But what makes it even worse, is that ANet doesnt even have a philosophy and/or general direction anymore, by the looks of it! I mean, take the Death Magic rework: it couldn't be more useless regarding the PvE endgame ... what were they thinking: what's their direction? What's their philosophy behind it? Where would it fit in a PvE endgame scenario? Just an example of course, since you mentioned the Necro!If wer going by meta we would have nothing but what power chrono dps, power dhs, condi 40k weavers and mirrages. ( only fight I seen mirrages prefered is twins other then that you look for cdps or dps)Tanks only chrono and healers 1 druid +1 healer if needed.

If you want anet to buff more people to 10 man buffs like spotter (ranger), assassins presence (revenant) . life leech (necro buff that one damage vise obviously) pinpoint (engi)Empower allies (war)Elementalist could give 10 wide crit chance boost maybeMesmer 10 man chance to dubble strike your weapon get a mirror image.Guardian will need something else their buffs toughness.Thief I really have no idea.Yea, could be a solution, you are a bit pigeon holed of course, if you want to raid with a certain class, you
have
to take that unique buff, but it's not like it's a very severe change from the builds you can choose from now (they are by design quite pigeon holed as well). So all in all, I think you got at least my vote there! Wondering what others think, though!

If thats what you want then advocate for more 10 wide buffs so you only need 1 of each class. ( and Im all for that to happen but it wont unless the buffs are significant) Then you get the oh I want to play x class, check lfg all the groups in looking for group already have x class anet please buff my class since I cant play it.Well, and there you mention indeed another issue that you'll probably see happening then! Might still be better than the alternative where you sometimes see where certain classes are literally kicked in advance or at least frowned upon, cause they're just not good enough!

But its not going to change that some classes do better at some bosses then others.If you want balance cut 8 out of 9 classes thats the only way to get balanceSure, that's the absolute extreme, you can still go for 9 different classes, they do the same (same numbers, same statistics, etc.), their look and feel just differ. Again, not really what anyone want, but you could at least go
towards
a more fully self-sufficient: every class can fulfil every role kind of balance (which is more towards the original second option I was proposing ... not really
my
favourite ... I think)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to adress some of the points raised and try to also touch on group composition without specifically quoting people.

I think when talking group composition and meta composition, people are forgetting (or unknowingly ignoring or not seeing) that there is multiple meta setups, only that most of them are unknown the further you follow the skill ladder down (less skilled players whould absolutely not use snowcrow meta builds but rather safer setups. Unfortunately we don't have a site for safe compositions but rather those require experienced raiders to pass along). Meta composition or balance is NOT needed for class participation accross the board. Unfortunately, some raiders are to inexperienced to understand which team composition they should be using for their raid comp.

What is needed for success in raids?:

  • access to mandatory boons/buffs (fury, might, alacrity, quickness, etc). The benefits here are to huge to not count some of the buffs as mandatory
  • access to enough sustain for the groups skill level (often manifested in 1 or 2 healers)
  • access to enough crowd control to be able to pass defiance bar checks on certain fights
  • access to specific skills for certain encounters (like pushes for SH or Samarog)
  • access to occasionally a tank type of class for high boss damage
  • access to enough damage to pass the dps checks

Those are THE essentials to pass all raid encounters. Everything else is gravy. Some of these points are covered by all classes (say damage checks. Every class has damage builds which are more than enough to finish ANY raid encounter, even condi druid on KC for example would work). Some of these points are only covered by specific classes or worse on others (boon availability and tank in form of access to regular damage ignore for example).

Most people do not distinguish between those different points when talking about balance, which is a mistake. Reducing access to essentials makes the raid composition more riggid, since now you are limiting the pool of classes who can be brought and might even require 2 of the same class (see past 2 warriors, 2 druid setups). Ideally we should have as many classes as possible (or class compositions as to not create full mirrors, which is more difficult obviously than mirroring class abilities) which can provide or fullfill these roles (currently visible in druid+chrono and Firebrigade composition). Firebrigade while stronger than druid+chrono (in part to encourage a meta shift) does not invalidate chrono+druid. The old comp is perfectly fine to clear fractals for example and some people still use it.

Balancing things like damage, healing power/group sustain, crowd control, etc. which are essentially available to all classes, does not reduce team compositions, it merely makes some a bit more difficult (I know someone who plays warrior as Quadim solo kite and Deimos Handkite for example, even though other classes are way easier for those roles). The roblem here is: many players simply argue balance for non essentials the same way as with the essentials.Is it unfortunate that we do not have perfect balance on non essentials? Sure. Is it an issue for access to raids per class, no. If a player is skilled enough, he can play any class in one of these roles, the skill gap between average players and top tier players is big enough to "get gud".

This does not even cover off meta compositions which would be of way more use to most raiders than snowcrow compositions. Think healing scourge or healing tempest which make a lot of content a lot easier, even if not ideal for a perfect setup.

To summarize, for raid balance we ideally want:

  • as least a restrictive balance for essentials as possible (most often now achieved via either easier access to boons, or via 10 player caps instead of 5)
  • as many classes which can perform the essential roles as good as possible (balance does not need to be perfect here, druid+chrono or Firebrigade both get the job done. There will always be a BEST setup, we just need more "good" setups)
  • as good a balance on the non essentials like damage as possible, but this is not actually of major significance even if people focus way to often on how well the top 1% of players perform.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"BrokenGlass.9356" said:Every raid does also want a warrior. Only for its banners. Which are stat bonuses, rather than flat damage bonus unique to the class.

If warrior was also producing 25 might on 10 man squads and preventing others from taking even part of its job, then I might be suggesting a nerf to warrior. But only in context. For me to suggest a warrior nerf.... It'd have to be so obviously good, that other classes are unable to unseat it, the way druid has been historically.

However, folks have persuaded me that druid presence is now mostly due to inertia. Fair enough.

Tldr. I get it you want to be right. But I don't know how to conceded the point any harder.

So the lesson I take from everyone's points is, 'play what you want and deal with the fallout yourself, the meta is 80% illusion anyways'.

About war, banners are by far the only reason (or in many cases even the main reason) to bring a war. The huge CC capability and the very competible damage output are often more then enough reason. That is also why you often will see people join as dps war (same build as banner war, just without banners).

About meta, meta carry different meaning depending on who you ask. But for many it is the "best" settup for clearing a fight as fast as possible. And by this diffenition there will naturally only by 1 settup pr. fight. And genrally only a few classes will be in that "best" settup for any given fight.

That said, atm there are alot of builds/classes that are NEAR meta, so they might preform 99.9999% as good as the meta settup and even more builds/classes will preform better then the meta for a specific player or specific group. This is why Cyninja mention that many groups will do better with a heal temp/scourge etc and why 2 war's in a group for many fights will be stronger then 1 war + 1 other dps (just do sama with 2 wars and get carryed during cc). All that said, this do not make the meta a lie or an illusion. It just mean that when a raider/player have a good enough understanding of a given fight and of the different builds that different classes can use then that player will often be able to ajust the groups classes/builds/tactics to preform better for a given group.

The big thing you need to understand is that the meta group is made in a specific way for a reason. And if you change 1 class (or build) then it will often mean that you need to change other things as well. So when you mention wanting to join a group as a might/banner war then you need to understand that this also mean that the group need to think, ok. What other changes do we need to make this work. It might including dropping the druid and bringing a might/heal giving tempest or FB or Ren or something. But its rarely just 1x joined, so now we dont need 1y and to make this kind of changes from the meta (or near meta settups) require that the commander (or group) have a really good understanding of ALL the classes/builds + mechanics of the fight. And this is why pugs often just fall back to 1 of the meta/near meta settups so they dont need to think to hard about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sigfodr.9576 said:

@"BrokenGlass.9356" said:Every raid does also want a warrior. Only for its banners. Which are stat bonuses, rather than flat damage bonus unique to the class.

If warrior was also producing 25 might on 10 man squads and preventing others from taking even part of its job, then I might be suggesting a nerf to warrior. But only in context. For me to suggest a warrior nerf.... It'd have to be so obviously good, that other classes are unable to unseat it, the way druid has been historically.

However, folks have persuaded me that druid presence is now mostly due to inertia. Fair enough.

Tldr. I get it you want to be right. But I don't know how to conceded the point any harder.

So the lesson I take from everyone's points is, 'play what you want and deal with the fallout yourself, the meta is 80% illusion anyways'.

About war
, banners are by far the only reason (or in many cases even the main reason) to bring a war. The huge CC capability and the very competible damage output are often more then enough reason. That is also why you often will see people join as dps war (same build as banner war, just without banners).

About meta
, meta carry different meaning depending on who you ask. But for many it is the "best" settup for clearing a fight as fast as possible. And by this diffenition there will naturally only by 1 settup pr. fight. And genrally only a few classes will be in that "best" settup for any given fight.

That said, atm there are alot of builds/classes that are NEAR meta, so they might preform 99.9999% as good as the meta settup and even more builds/classes will preform better then the meta for a specific player or specific group. This is why Cyninja mention that many groups will do better with a heal temp/scourge etc and why 2 war's in a group for many fights will be stronger then 1 war + 1 other dps (just do sama with 2 wars and get carryed during cc). All that said, this do not make the meta a lie or an illusion. It just mean that when a raider/player have a good enough understanding of a given fight and of the different builds that different classes can use then that player will often be able to ajust the groups classes/builds/tactics to preform better for a given group.According to Kitty's testing, there's lots of builds within 10-15% below the most potent ones and many of the alternative weapons don't fall too far below the most optimal weapon combo for a class (though there's still horrible options like necromancer's staff and warrior's rifle).

The big thing you need to understand is that the meta group is made in a specific way for a reason. And if you change 1 class (or build) then it will often mean that you need to change other things as well. So when you mention wanting to join a group as a might/banner war then you need to understand that this also mean that the group need to think, ok. What other changes do we need to make this work. It might including dropping the druid and bringing a might/heal giving tempest or FB or Ren or something. But its rarely just 1x joined, so now we dont need 1y and to make this kind of changes from the meta (or near meta settups) require that the commander (or group) have a really good understanding of ALL the classes/builds + mechanics of the fight. And this is why pugs often just fall back to 1 of the meta/near meta settups so they dont need to think to hard about it.This, most of all. Especially in LFG scene, majority of the peoples play 2-3 builds max. and they're usually unaware how other options than obvious druid+chrono work. Surprisingly few actually understand when stuff like boonthief are truly beneficial and Kitty's usually had to guide pugmanders and squads on how to organize when there's a boonthief around.And from what Kitty's been raiding with her guildies, making a squad comp work depends on how well the commander knows the classes. Someone who actually knows all classes and their real capabilities can make almost any comp work decently enough to clear raid bosses as long as there's enough support and dpsers who are skilled enough at their role.

It's also unfortunately common for people to think that "only chrono can tank due to all the evades and blocks! We need a CHRONOtank" when pretty much every support build can tank most of the bosses (though Deimos can get a bit annoying on necro and tempest). It's only a matter of understanding how to counteract boss mechanics and the skill to execute those methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:I thinks that's more or less reality as well at the moment (save for some odd ones out), and maybe we should be happy with what we have at the moment. But it's also a bit of a weird "balance" as well, don't you think? Why are there only a few classes (or 2-3 like you mentioned) allowed to do real good support/heal/other specific roles and (almost) all classes should be good at dealing DPS?Due to imbalance between roles - in short, way more players want to play dps than support, heal or tank. That's pretty much uniform in any MMORPG, and GW2 is no exception.Besides, good dps is useful also outside endgame instanced content. We don;t want classes that are only good for support, because those classes would have it harder in OW and/or story instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the thoughtful responses.

But, I'd like to go back to @Cyninja.2954 's original question.

I think they should balance towards every class being applicable to every role. But I don't think this means cookie cutter. Because buffing is so spread out across a spectrum of boons and possible unique buffs, and dps is unique to direct damage and various conditions.... And now healing is splt to include cleanse and barriers... It seems to me that the sub-splits created here mean that the optimum build for a class shouldn't be able to be that general.

A thief designed for buffing, should have an identifiable flavor. Covering some quantity of the boon, cleanse, heal, barrier, stealth spectrum. And the tools available to this theoretical thief, should be useful, and desirable based on raid content.

The idea here is that say, 3 classes can do alacrity extremely well. 2 others provide enough of it to limp by. The same would be true of quickness and might and so on. Allocating the significant raid buffs in a round, bassicly. So that the various support builds that provide x, are more varied, but... I'm OK with a quickbrand still being a quickbrand.

This is bassicly true already, but the scaling is WAY off. 2 of 9 professions can do quickness? (notice how I don't count boon thief... Which I play...) 2 of 9 can do alacrity? And.... One of them overlaps? 1 of 9 is capable of significant barrier? 9 of 9 capable of self sustain at the expense of dps.

This could perhaps be addressed with a carefully prebalanced set of elite specs. And it's probably how it will get done. (fingers crossed for elite specs in living story) The main thing I want to see is more classes able to do more roles. And red herring traits, that make a class only ever quite get to 80% of what your lunch-break-skill-builder-messing looks like it can do... They just don't feel good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:I'll point out that two PS Berzerkers spamming Decapitate while carrying a single banner and FGJ will provide the requisite Might and banners for the comp allowing the Druid to run Lingering Light for better healing. Maybe that won't be better for the speed clearing groups, but it may be better for other comps.If you need to run lingering light for healing, it's way better to just take a scourge or tempest as secondary healer. You definitely won't be thinking about optimizing dps and boon uptime in such situation anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:I'll point out that two PS Berzerkers spamming Decapitate while carrying a single banner and FGJ will provide the requisite Might and banners for the comp allowing the Druid to run Lingering Light for better healing. Maybe that won't be better for the speed clearing groups, but it may be better for other comps.If you need to run lingering light for healing, it's way better to just take a scourge or tempest as secondary healer. You definitely won't be thinking about optimizing dps and boon uptime in such situation anyway.

Well, like I said, might not be the best for a Speed Clear comp, but for generic comp maybe. As has been said in this thread already there are a fair number of non-meta comps that do just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else seeing new posters having huge empty space before thier posts? Just wondering if that's a bunch of admin, check to censor this text tags... Or what?

It seems that alternative team comps are completely viable. It's just that any time folks even admit they can work, they must insert a caveat for, 'but that's not the best way, so if you want to do that, it's on you'. Which is fair. Lots of salmon die going upstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BrokenGlass.9356 said:Anyone else seeing new posters having huge empty space before thier posts? Just wondering if that's a bunch of admin, check to censor this text tags... Or what?

It seems that alternative team comps are completely viable. It's just that any time folks even admit they can work, they must insert a caveat for, 'but that's not the best way, so if you want to do that, it's on you'. Which is fair. Lots of salmon die going upstream.

I see that when I log in from my mobile, but not from a PC.

I was mentioning two PS Zerkers with a single banner to cover the Might and banner buffs, though would also end up covering Fury. Would a Druid taking Lingering Light instead of Grace of the Land provide enough healing then as a single healer? Bear in mind there is room for one such warrior to take Shrug It Off, and for both Warrior's to take Soldier's Comfort to supplement party healing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@BrokenGlass.9356 said:Anyone else seeing new posters having huge empty space before thier posts? Just wondering if that's a bunch of
admin, check to censor this
text tags... Or what?

It seems that alternative team comps are completely viable. It's just that
any
time folks even admit they can work, they
must
insert a caveat for, 'but that's not the best way, so if you want to do that, it's on you'. Which is fair. Lots of salmon die going upstream.

I see that when I log in from my mobile, but not from a PC.

I was mentioning two PS Zerkers with a single banner to cover the Might and banner buffs, though would also end up covering Fury. Would a Druid taking Lingering Light instead of Grace of the Land provide enough healing then as a single healer? Bear in mind there is room for one such warrior to take Shrug It Off, and for both Warrior's to take Soldier's Comfort to supplement party healing.

I think it's doable. Depending on how tight your squad does mechanics. If you keep getting ported on Cairn, then... No, probably not. But if nobody does? Yeah. Single healer can definitely be a thing. You can even trim huge amounts of healing power off of it, in order to make it work right on the razors edge of functionality, and adding damage back in to bring up the total dps.

The thing I find most interesting about the new Tactics line in warrior, and it's potential effect on the optimum team comp... Is that if you compare the dps between druid, chrono, bannerslave comp (just the supports, excluding the dps guys all together) the firebregade with tactics warrior has much higher personal dps. Yes at the loss of frost and fire spirits... But, gains a lot of personal dps. I don't know if this will be worth it or not, I'm still gearing my warrior in diviner's and have yet to pitch it to my static.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BrokenGlass.9356 said:The thing I find most interesting about the new Tactics line in warrior, and it's potential effect on the optimum team comp... Is that if you compare the dps between druid, chrono, bannerslave comp (just the supports, excluding the dps guys all together) the firebregade with tactics warrior has much higher personal dps. Yes at the loss of frost and fire spirits... But, gains a lot of personal dps. I don't know if this will be worth it or not, I'm still gearing my warrior in diviner's and have yet to pitch it to my static.

Firebrigade do have higher dps then chrono/druid, but at the loss of alot of the healing (+ spirits). That is unless the FB go heal and then the damage is the same.

I understand that you really want to test out banner/might war, and thats cool. But why in the world do you even consider diviner? Your only boon really is might so just swap your runes to strength and replace some berserker gear with assassin and you are done. Fury? np, you will have either a QFB or a HFB anf then fury is 100% taken care off or a chrono and then you just barely need to help with fury and just taking for great justise will be more then enought. And then you dont loose 80% of your damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sigfodr.9576 said:

@BrokenGlass.9356 said:The thing I find most interesting about the new Tactics line in warrior, and it's potential effect on the optimum team comp... Is that if you compare the dps between druid, chrono, bannerslave comp (just the supports, excluding the dps guys all together) the firebregade with tactics warrior has much higher personal dps. Yes at the loss of frost and fire spirits... But, gains a lot of personal dps. I don't know if this will be worth it or not, I'm still gearing my warrior in diviner's and have yet to pitch it to my static.

Firebrigade do have higher dps then chrono/druid, but at the loss of alot of the healing (+ spirits). That is unless the FB go heal and then the damage is the same.

I understand that you really want to test out banner/might war, and thats cool. But why in the world do you even consider diviner? Your only boon really is might so just swap your runes to strength and replace some berserker gear with assassin and you are done. Fury? np, you will have either a QFB or a HFB anf then fury is 100% taken care off or a chrono and then you just barely need to help with fury and just taking for great justise will be more then enought. And then you dont loose 80% of your damage.

Diviner? Fury, vigor, resistance, and self quickness while not grouped. (swap a few traits) also, I like long swiftness. So, optimally perfect? It's probs not. But it's fun so far. I'm already set up in 90% berserker's gear now. Without some duration, the vigor and fury can fall off... I don't want that, bassicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BrokenGlass.9356 said:

@BrokenGlass.9356 said:The thing I find most interesting about the new Tactics line in warrior, and it's potential effect on the optimum team comp... Is that if you compare the dps between druid, chrono, bannerslave comp (just the supports, excluding the dps guys all together) the firebregade with tactics warrior has much higher personal dps. Yes at the loss of frost and fire spirits... But, gains a lot of personal dps. I don't know if this will be worth it or not, I'm still gearing my warrior in diviner's and have yet to pitch it to my static.

Firebrigade do have higher dps then chrono/druid, but at the loss of alot of the healing (+ spirits). That is unless the FB go heal and then the damage is the same.

I understand that you really want to test out banner/might war, and thats cool. But why in the world do you even consider diviner? Your only boon really is might so just swap your runes to strength and replace some berserker gear with assassin and you are done. Fury? np, you will have either a QFB or a HFB anf then fury is 100% taken care off or a chrono and then you just barely need to help with fury and just taking for great justise will be more then enought. And then you dont loose 80% of your damage.

Diviner? Fury, vigor, resistance, and self quickness while not grouped. (swap a few traits) also, I like long swiftness. So, optimally perfect? It's probs not. But it's fun so far. I'm already set up in 90% berserker's gear now. Without some duration, the vigor and fury can fall off... I don't want that, bassicly.

Shouldn't some food and sigils take care of that though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...