Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Dealing damage is not a raid mechanic


Recommended Posts

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

.... you do understand how those all raid boss averages are calculated or? Go think about that a bit.

Here's a hint: consider where mirage is seeing play and on how many bosses. Now consider where and on how many bosses other classes see play. Now consider what the top dps on some power bosses is.

For example, all bosses mirage sees play on he can perform near golem level damage levels. Consider say a power soulbeast at quadim1, who no matter how good he is, will not break 15-16k damage by simple design of the fight. Or worse yet, Xera with her huge break mid fight.

Your argument is faulty by simple reason that you decided to not take into account which values go into the all raid boss damage calculations. It would be of far more use if you actually had raid experience on each boss to draw your conclusions, or at least compared per boss values. All raid boss average damage is absolutely useless in this case as comparison, by simple rason that distribution of classes and possible damage per boss is completely out of wack.

You DO know, you can click on bosses individually right?Where differences go up to 100% even (including your own example Qadim ...). I was just giving an example with a big 'n', but if you want, you can do a whole rundown on every single boss, and the differences will probably surprise you. Take the difference between a Mirage and a Scourge on Cairn for instance: 50% more DPS!!! Or between Daredevil and Reaper on Vale Guardian: 36%. Or Gorseval where Weaver is doing about 45% more DPS than Soulbeast and Reaper ... etc. etc.! All significantly more than your claimed 10 to 15%

Go to the top right, remove 99, 90, 80 and 70th percentile. Add 30% percentile so you can see 60,50 and 30. Now take a look how much closer those values are on pretty much all bosses.

Now consider that this is from successful boss kills, which means that players performing on these classes fininshed the fight successfuly. Now factor for ease of use of some classes versus others, or personal preference. On that level, if you want to, you can play ANY class you want because the amount you can improve is huge.

You are of far greater value on a class you enjoy and practiced on than a class you are unfamiliar with. All classes work on this level of skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

.... you do understand how those all raid boss averages are calculated or? Go think about that a bit.

Here's a hint: consider where mirage is seeing play and on how many bosses. Now consider where and on how many bosses other classes see play. Now consider what the top dps on some power bosses is.

For example, all bosses mirage sees play on he can perform near golem level damage levels. Consider say a power soulbeast at quadim1, who no matter how good he is, will not break 15-16k damage by simple design of the fight. Or worse yet, Xera with her huge break mid fight.

Your argument is faulty by simple reason that you decided to not take into account which values go into the all raid boss damage calculations. It would be of far more use if you actually had raid experience on each boss to draw your conclusions, or at least compared per boss values. All raid boss average damage is absolutely useless in this case as comparison, by simple rason that distribution of classes and possible damage per boss is completely out of wack.

You DO know, you can click on bosses individually right?Where differences go up to 100% even (including your own example Qadim ...). I was just giving an example with a big 'n', but if you want, you can do a whole rundown on every single boss, and the differences will probably surprise you. Take the difference between a Mirage and a Scourge on Cairn for instance: 50% more DPS!!! Or between Daredevil and Reaper on Vale Guardian: 36%. Or Gorseval where Weaver is doing about 45% more DPS than Soulbeast and Reaper ... etc. etc.! All significantly more than your claimed 10 to 15%

Go to the top right, remove 99, 90, 80 and 70th percentile. Add 30% percentile so you can see 60,50 and 30. Now take a look how much closer those values are on pretty much all bosses.

That's exactly what I did! All the examples I just gave were on the 50th percentile!Please read!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

.... you do understand how those all raid boss averages are calculated or? Go think about that a bit.

Here's a hint: consider where mirage is seeing play and on how many bosses. Now consider where and on how many bosses other classes see play. Now consider what the top dps on some power bosses is.

For example, all bosses mirage sees play on he can perform near golem level damage levels. Consider say a power soulbeast at quadim1, who no matter how good he is, will not break 15-16k damage by simple design of the fight. Or worse yet, Xera with her huge break mid fight.

Your argument is faulty by simple reason that you decided to not take into account which values go into the all raid boss damage calculations. It would be of far more use if you actually had raid experience on each boss to draw your conclusions, or at least compared per boss values. All raid boss average damage is absolutely useless in this case as comparison, by simple rason that distribution of classes and possible damage per boss is completely out of wack.

You DO know, you can click on bosses individually right?Where differences go up to 100% even (including your own example Qadim ...). I was just giving an example with a big 'n', but if you want, you can do a whole rundown on every single boss, and the differences will probably surprise you. Take the difference between a Mirage and a Scourge on Cairn for instance: 50% more DPS!!! Or between Daredevil and Reaper on Vale Guardian: 36%. Or Gorseval where Weaver is doing about 45% more DPS than Soulbeast and Reaper ... etc. etc.! All significantly more than your claimed 10 to 15%

Go to the top right, remove 99, 90, 80 and 70th percentile. Add 30% percentile so you can see 60,50 and 30. Now take a look how much closer those values are on pretty much all bosses.

That's exactly what I did! All the examples I just gave were on the 50th percentile!Please read!

I did, maybe go to the site and actually remove the top percentile so the classes get sorted new. You'll see that most are within no more than 10% with maybe an outlier here or there for a very underperforming class.

All you did was look at the top and bottom performing 99th percentile without resorting the classes according to 50% percentile.

EDIT: and as to my point. That outlier, if he wanted to, could simply practice a little to get better at his class and perform above his group members. Hence, it makes no difference which class you play at that low a level since any one who actually puts in some work will rocket past all his buddies. Ergo: play which ever class you feel like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

.... you do understand how those all raid boss averages are calculated or? Go think about that a bit.

Here's a hint: consider where mirage is seeing play and on how many bosses. Now consider where and on how many bosses other classes see play. Now consider what the top dps on some power bosses is.

For example, all bosses mirage sees play on he can perform near golem level damage levels. Consider say a power soulbeast at quadim1, who no matter how good he is, will not break 15-16k damage by simple design of the fight. Or worse yet, Xera with her huge break mid fight.

Your argument is faulty by simple reason that you decided to not take into account which values go into the all raid boss damage calculations. It would be of far more use if you actually had raid experience on each boss to draw your conclusions, or at least compared per boss values. All raid boss average damage is absolutely useless in this case as comparison, by simple rason that distribution of classes and possible damage per boss is completely out of wack.

You DO know, you can click on bosses individually right?Where differences go up to 100% even (including your own example Qadim ...). I was just giving an example with a big 'n', but if you want, you can do a whole rundown on every single boss, and the differences will probably surprise you. Take the difference between a Mirage and a Scourge on Cairn for instance: 50% more DPS!!! Or between Daredevil and Reaper on Vale Guardian: 36%. Or Gorseval where Weaver is doing about 45% more DPS than Soulbeast and Reaper ... etc. etc.! All significantly more than your claimed 10 to 15%

Go to the top right, remove 99, 90, 80 and 70th percentile. Add 30% percentile so you can see 60,50 and 30. Now take a look how much closer those values are on pretty much all bosses.

That's exactly what I did! All the examples I just gave were on the 50th percentile!Please read!

I did, maybe go to the site and actually remove the top percentile so the classes get sorted new. You'll see that most are within no more than 10% with maybe an outlier here or there for a very underperforming class.

All you did was look at the top and bottom performing 99th percentile without resorting the classes according to 50% percentile.

You accusing me of something that I don't do! Again: the examples I gave are on the 50th percentile, only! Just do the math, and you'll see it for yourself as well. But let me give you another example and spell it out for you, cause math is hard, I know.Sloth: Dragonhunter, Firebrand and Weaver all do about 12.5k DPS (Weaver even 13,3k, but that's a low 'n' so I won't take that as an example!) on the 50th percentile. Your worst damage dealing profession is in this example the Necro: with its best dps build: Reaper, doing about 9.5K dps on the 50th percentile. So, in this case, the Guardian profession is doing 28,5% more DPS than the Necro's best DPS build in the 50th percentile!!! (And the Weaver is doing 40% more DPS, but like I said, the confidence level is too low on that one!)(And if you read REALLY carefully, you see the mistake I made on purpose here, cause the Mesmer (Chrono) is actually the worst damage dealer on this boss, I hope you can understand why I left that one out!)

And if you want more examples, just go through them all, I don't think you can find one boss (or maybe just one), where ALL professions are between 10% of each others DPS in the 50th percentile!!! I'd like to challenge you on that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

.... you do understand how those all raid boss averages are calculated or? Go think about that a bit.

Here's a hint: consider where mirage is seeing play and on how many bosses. Now consider where and on how many bosses other classes see play. Now consider what the top dps on some power bosses is.

For example, all bosses mirage sees play on he can perform near golem level damage levels. Consider say a power soulbeast at quadim1, who no matter how good he is, will not break 15-16k damage by simple design of the fight. Or worse yet, Xera with her huge break mid fight.

Your argument is faulty by simple reason that you decided to not take into account which values go into the all raid boss damage calculations. It would be of far more use if you actually had raid experience on each boss to draw your conclusions, or at least compared per boss values. All raid boss average damage is absolutely useless in this case as comparison, by simple rason that distribution of classes and possible damage per boss is completely out of wack.

You DO know, you can click on bosses individually right?Where differences go up to 100% even (including your own example Qadim ...). I was just giving an example with a big 'n', but if you want, you can do a whole rundown on every single boss, and the differences will probably surprise you. Take the difference between a Mirage and a Scourge on Cairn for instance: 50% more DPS!!! Or between Daredevil and Reaper on Vale Guardian: 36%. Or Gorseval where Weaver is doing about 45% more DPS than Soulbeast and Reaper ... etc. etc.! All significantly more than your claimed 10 to 15%

Go to the top right, remove 99, 90, 80 and 70th percentile. Add 30% percentile so you can see 60,50 and 30. Now take a look how much closer those values are on pretty much all bosses.

That's exactly what I did! All the examples I just gave were on the 50th percentile!Please read!

I did, maybe go to the site and actually remove the top percentile so the classes get sorted new. You'll see that most are within no more than 10% with maybe an outlier here or there for a very underperforming class.

All you did was look at the top and bottom performing 99th percentile without resorting the classes according to 50% percentile.

You accusing me of something that I don't do! Again: the examples I gave are on the 50th percentile, only! Just do the math, and you'll see it for yourself as well. But let me give you another example and spell it out for you, cause math is hard, I know.Sloth: Dragonhunter, Firebrand and Weaver all do about 12.5k DPS (Weaver even 13,3k, but that's a low 'n' so I won't take that as an example!) on
the 50th percentile
. Your worst damage dealing profession is in this example the Necro: with its
best
dps build: Reaper, doing about 9.5K dps on the 50th percentile. So, in this case, the Guardian profession is doing 28,5% more DPS than the Necro's best DPS build
in the 50th percentile!!!
(And the Weaver is doing 40% more DPS, but like I said, the confidence level is too low on that one!)(And if you read REALLY carefully, you see the mistake I made on purpose here, cause the Mesmer (Chrono) is actually the worst damage dealer on this boss, I hope you can understand why I left that one out!)

And if you want more examples, just go through them all, I don't think you can find one boss (or maybe just one), where ALL professions are between 10% of each others DPS in the
50th percentile
!!! I'd like to challenge you on that one!

https://gw2raidar.com/global_stats/area-16123

Sorted for 50th percentile and power dps. Reaper does 12.6k on my graph. Compared to 15.2k DH as top dps. That's 18% less.

So not sure where you are getting those 28%.

Even with an outlier of 20% between top performing and bottom performing class (which would be the biggest extrem). If that Reaper improved to 60th percentile, he'd be doing 15k damage. Pretty much on par with his DH buddy. Ergo, better to bring players who enjoy their class and improve on it. That is not factoring for ease of use classes or simple builds like shortbow condi ranger, power daredevil or dragon hunter.

So I remain with my statement. On this level, it makes no difference which class you chose to play. The main component for success is willigness to improve. Once you reach the top end, the performance difference drops to 10% maximum between classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

.... you do understand how those all raid boss averages are calculated or? Go think about that a bit.

Here's a hint: consider where mirage is seeing play and on how many bosses. Now consider where and on how many bosses other classes see play. Now consider what the top dps on some power bosses is.

For example, all bosses mirage sees play on he can perform near golem level damage levels. Consider say a power soulbeast at quadim1, who no matter how good he is, will not break 15-16k damage by simple design of the fight. Or worse yet, Xera with her huge break mid fight.

Your argument is faulty by simple reason that you decided to not take into account which values go into the all raid boss damage calculations. It would be of far more use if you actually had raid experience on each boss to draw your conclusions, or at least compared per boss values. All raid boss average damage is absolutely useless in this case as comparison, by simple rason that distribution of classes and possible damage per boss is completely out of wack.

You DO know, you can click on bosses individually right?Where differences go up to 100% even (including your own example Qadim ...). I was just giving an example with a big 'n', but if you want, you can do a whole rundown on every single boss, and the differences will probably surprise you. Take the difference between a Mirage and a Scourge on Cairn for instance: 50% more DPS!!! Or between Daredevil and Reaper on Vale Guardian: 36%. Or Gorseval where Weaver is doing about 45% more DPS than Soulbeast and Reaper ... etc. etc.! All significantly more than your claimed 10 to 15%

Go to the top right, remove 99, 90, 80 and 70th percentile. Add 30% percentile so you can see 60,50 and 30. Now take a look how much closer those values are on pretty much all bosses.

That's exactly what I did! All the examples I just gave were on the 50th percentile!Please read!

I did, maybe go to the site and actually remove the top percentile so the classes get sorted new. You'll see that most are within no more than 10% with maybe an outlier here or there for a very underperforming class.

All you did was look at the top and bottom performing 99th percentile without resorting the classes according to 50% percentile.

You accusing me of something that I don't do! Again: the examples I gave are on the 50th percentile, only! Just do the math, and you'll see it for yourself as well. But let me give you another example and spell it out for you, cause math is hard, I know.Sloth: Dragonhunter, Firebrand and Weaver all do about 12.5k DPS (Weaver even 13,3k, but that's a low 'n' so I won't take that as an example!) on
the 50th percentile
. Your worst damage dealing profession is in this example the Necro: with its
best
dps build: Reaper, doing about 9.5K dps on the 50th percentile. So, in this case, the Guardian profession is doing 28,5% more DPS than the Necro's best DPS build
in the 50th percentile!!!
(And the Weaver is doing 40% more DPS, but like I said, the confidence level is too low on that one!)(And if you read REALLY carefully, you see the mistake I made on purpose here, cause the Mesmer (Chrono) is actually the worst damage dealer on this boss, I hope you can understand why I left that one out!)

And if you want more examples, just go through them all, I don't think you can find one boss (or maybe just one), where ALL professions are between 10% of each others DPS in the
50th percentile
!!! I'd like to challenge you on that one!

Sorted for 50th percentile and power dps. Reaper does 12.6k on my graph. Compared to 15.2k DH as top dps. That's 18% less.

So not sure where you are getting those 28%.

Even with an outlier of 20% between top performing and bottom performing class (which would be the biggest extrem). If that Reaper improved to 60th percentile, he'd be doing 15k damage. Pretty much on par with his DH buddy. Ergo, better to bring players who enjoy their class and improve on it. That is not factoring for ease of use classes or simple builds like shortbow condi ranger, power daredevil or dragon hunter.

So I remain with my statement. On this level, it makes no difference which class you chose to play. The main component for success is willigness to improve. Once you reach the top end, the performance difference drops to 10% maximum between classes.

Ah, I see what you do there, you look at overall DPS instead of boss DPS! You have to look at the number between brackets. After all, killing the boss is your main objective, which in the end gives you your raid reward, not the adds or critters, for instance :)So, when you look at the DPS that really counts (boss DPS), the Reaper has to improve by 28% to get to the same level as a Dragonhunter on the 50th percentile (mediocre players!). I think that's a lot, and it shouldn't be that much either!Also, if you look at the difference between a 50th percentile mediocre reaper and a 99th percentile veteran/pro Reaper, there's an improvement of 85% !!! Whereas with a Dragonhunter this is only 69%. So, you could conclude that DH is easier to play (even as a mediocre player) than a Reaper as well: which is quite a shocking conclusion, cause the Necro (Reaper) normally has quite a different stigma stuck on its head, but hey, it's difficult to steer from ones age-old believes, right?! Ow, fun side fact: the always so difficult famed power Weaver has a difference of 78%, which is still lower than the Power Reaper!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now proven to be a faulty statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

.... you do understand how those all raid boss averages are calculated or? Go think about that a bit.

Here's a hint: consider where mirage is seeing play and on how many bosses. Now consider where and on how many bosses other classes see play. Now consider what the top dps on some power bosses is.

For example, all bosses mirage sees play on he can perform near golem level damage levels. Consider say a power soulbeast at quadim1, who no matter how good he is, will not break 15-16k damage by simple design of the fight. Or worse yet, Xera with her huge break mid fight.

Your argument is faulty by simple reason that you decided to not take into account which values go into the all raid boss damage calculations. It would be of far more use if you actually had raid experience on each boss to draw your conclusions, or at least compared per boss values. All raid boss average damage is absolutely useless in this case as comparison, by simple rason that distribution of classes and possible damage per boss is completely out of wack.

You DO know, you can click on bosses individually right?Where differences go up to 100% even (including your own example Qadim ...). I was just giving an example with a big 'n', but if you want, you can do a whole rundown on every single boss, and the differences will probably surprise you. Take the difference between a Mirage and a Scourge on Cairn for instance: 50% more DPS!!! Or between Daredevil and Reaper on Vale Guardian: 36%. Or Gorseval where Weaver is doing about 45% more DPS than Soulbeast and Reaper ... etc. etc.! All significantly more than your claimed 10 to 15%

Go to the top right, remove 99, 90, 80 and 70th percentile. Add 30% percentile so you can see 60,50 and 30. Now take a look how much closer those values are on pretty much all bosses.

That's exactly what I did! All the examples I just gave were on the 50th percentile!Please read!

I did, maybe go to the site and actually remove the top percentile so the classes get sorted new. You'll see that most are within no more than 10% with maybe an outlier here or there for a very underperforming class.

All you did was look at the top and bottom performing 99th percentile without resorting the classes according to 50% percentile.

You accusing me of something that I don't do! Again: the examples I gave are on the 50th percentile, only! Just do the math, and you'll see it for yourself as well. But let me give you another example and spell it out for you, cause math is hard, I know.Sloth: Dragonhunter, Firebrand and Weaver all do about 12.5k DPS (Weaver even 13,3k, but that's a low 'n' so I won't take that as an example!) on
the 50th percentile
. Your worst damage dealing profession is in this example the Necro: with its
best
dps build: Reaper, doing about 9.5K dps on the 50th percentile. So, in this case, the Guardian profession is doing 28,5% more DPS than the Necro's best DPS build
in the 50th percentile!!!
(And the Weaver is doing 40% more DPS, but like I said, the confidence level is too low on that one!)(And if you read REALLY carefully, you see the mistake I made on purpose here, cause the Mesmer (Chrono) is actually the worst damage dealer on this boss, I hope you can understand why I left that one out!)

And if you want more examples, just go through them all, I don't think you can find one boss (or maybe just one), where ALL professions are between 10% of each others DPS in the
50th percentile
!!! I'd like to challenge you on that one!

Sorted for 50th percentile and power dps. Reaper does 12.6k on my graph. Compared to 15.2k DH as top dps. That's 18% less.

So not sure where you are getting those 28%.

Even with an outlier of 20% between top performing and bottom performing class (which would be the biggest extrem). If that Reaper improved to 60th percentile, he'd be doing 15k damage. Pretty much on par with his DH buddy. Ergo, better to bring players who enjoy their class and improve on it. That is not factoring for ease of use classes or simple builds like shortbow condi ranger, power daredevil or dragon hunter.

So I remain with my statement. On this level, it makes no difference which class you chose to play. The main component for success is willigness to improve. Once you reach the top end, the performance difference drops to 10% maximum between classes.

Ah, I see what you do there, you look at overall DPS instead of boss DPS! You have to look at the number between brackets. After all, killing the
boss
is your main objective, which in the end gives you your raid reward, not the adds or critters, for instance :)So, when you look at the DPS that
really
counts (boss DPS), the Reaper has to improve by
28%
to get to the same level as a Dragonhunter on the 50th percentile (mediocre players!). I think that's a lot, and it shouldn't be that much either!Also, if you look at the difference between a 50th percentile mediocre reaper and a 99th percentile veteran/pro Reaper, there's an improvement of 85% !!! Whereas with a Dragonhunter this is only 69%. So, you could conclude that DH is easier to play (even as a mediocre player) than a Reaper as well: which is quite a shocking conclusion, cause the Necro (Reaper) normally has quite a different stigma stuck on its head, but hey, it's difficult to steer from ones age-old believes, right?! Ow, fun side fact: the always so difficult famed power Weaver has a difference of 78%, which is still lower than the Power Reaper!!!!!!

Actually, Reaper is one of the most difficult classes to reach top performance since they have a few animation skips which they need to do in order to optimize their damage. Which in turn means the rotation is even more important. I am surprised at the Reapers overall low performance though, spin to win guarantees a good low intro damage. The class is easy to play but hard to master.

As far as DH being probably easy, that's not a probably. That's a given considering DH and thief count as some of the easiest classes to play.

So okay, you have shown that between the highest and lowest there is occasionally a performance gap as far as maybe 30%, on values which we have no knowledge of how reliable they are with how many players data was used and the skill level of those players (EDIT: also using your values for boss damage, I get 9.5/12.5= 0.76, ergo the Reaper is producing 76% of the DH damage, which is 24% less, not 28.5%) . At the top end, where skill is identical and mostly a non issue, the gap is not more than 10%. That's still not applicable for all classes and in general not the correct overall statement and it certainly does not invalidate the statement that most classes do not suffer such a high disparity.

So once again, for the 4th time: on that level of play, any player could pick up any class and practice a little and outperform ANY of his raid members. Anything sub 60th percentile is not dictated by class but by basic player involvement and competence.

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

That statement can still hold true, even with the current data present.

Reaper damage is highly susceptible to taking damage, while other classes would die. The data is of only successful kills. You have no knowledge of how players on reaper would have performed on other classes when they are performing this poorly on damage, suggesting that they are taking a ton of damage too. Chances are very high that they would have been dead and the raid not a success, which would again not appear in this data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

I will be thinking that. If a inexpirianced player wants to improve his/her performance they can do that by switching to easier class. Your above percentil example doesnt count with one factor. Players thatvwould benefit from this change usualy dont swáp because they want to play tgeir character or they do but think that if it is easy thes dont have to learn to get to those numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

I will be thinking that. If a inexpirianced player wants to improve his/her performance they can do that by switching to easier class. Your above percentil example doesnt count with one factor. Players thatvwould benefit from this change usualy dont swáp because they want to play tgeir character or they do but think that if it is easy thes dont have to learn to get to those numbers.

But getting to those numbers is the most important thing to do as a DPS role! So why would you recommend the hardest class to be able to fulfil this role to an inexperienced player???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

I will be thinking that. If a inexpirianced player wants to improve his/her performance they can do that by switching to easier class. Your above percentil example doesnt count with one factor. Players thatvwould benefit from this change usualy dont swáp because they want to play tgeir character or they do but think that if it is easy thes dont have to learn to get to those numbers.

But getting to those numbers is the most important thing to do as a DPS role! So why would you recommend the hardest class to be able to fulfil this role to an inexperienced player???

I said I would recommend shortbow soulbeast and reaper to not that experianced players. The fact stays that if I do that they either dont listen or insult me instead of taking adivice. Players that actualy take this adivice are those that quickly swap from them back because they are actualy trying to improve and so these clases limit their potential quite soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

I will be thinking that. If a inexpirianced player wants to improve his/her performance they can do that by switching to easier class. Your above percentil example doesnt count with one factor. Players thatvwould benefit from this change usualy dont swáp because they want to play tgeir character or they do but think that if it is easy thes dont have to learn to get to those numbers.

But getting to those numbers is the most important thing to do as a DPS role! So why would you recommend the hardest class to be able to fulfil this role to an inexperienced player???

I said I would recommend shortbow soulbeast and reaper to not that experianced players. The fact stays that if I do that they either dont listen or insult me instead of taking adivice. Players that actualy take this adivice are those that quickly swap from them back because they are actualy trying to improve and so these clases limit their potential quite soon.

Maybe I don't understand you correct, cause first of all, in the matter of statistics, the Reaper and condi Soulbeast are each other opposites almost: Reaper has a big difference between 99th and 50th percentile, where the condi Soulbeast has quite a small one. In other words: beginner Soulbeast players are not that far away with their DPS output compared to veterans (99th percentile). Whereas for the Reaper this is completely different, there's quite a big gap there. It's actually even bigger than a Condi Weaver which has quite a forgiving rotation, but people tend to forget that.As an example, VG: The difference in DPS from a 99th percentile player compared to a 50th percentile player is:

  • for a Condi Soulbeast: 32%
  • for a Condi Weaver: 36%
  • for a Power Reaper: 41%

Or Gorseval:

  • Condi Weaver: 24%
  • Condi Soulbeast: 25%
  • Reaper: 34%
  • or other classes like Daredevil and Dragonhunter: both 28%

Knowing this, I still don't know why you still would recommend Reaper (I kinda understand the Soulbeast) to be beginner friendly. Because as you can see, it's quite hard to get to the full potential of that of a Reaper. It will take you a while to get into that 99th percentile.Your better off with a Daredevil, Condi weaver, Dragonhunter, for instance! And the good thing with classes like that, is that you can also stay on them as well, cause they are META!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

I will be thinking that. If a inexpirianced player wants to improve his/her performance they can do that by switching to easier class. Your above percentil example doesnt count with one factor. Players thatvwould benefit from this change usualy dont swáp because they want to play tgeir character or they do but think that if it is easy thes dont have to learn to get to those numbers.

But getting to those numbers is the most important thing to do as a DPS role! So why would you recommend the hardest class to be able to fulfil this role to an inexperienced player???

I said I would recommend shortbow soulbeast and reaper to not that experianced players. The fact stays that if I do that they either dont listen or insult me instead of taking adivice. Players that actualy take this adivice are those that quickly swap from them back because they are actualy trying to improve and so these clases limit their potential quite soon.

Maybe I don't understand you correct, cause first of all, in the matter of statistics, the Reaper and condi Soulbeast are each other opposites almost: Reaper has a big difference between 99th and 50th percentile, where the condi Soulbeast has quite a small one. In other words: beginner Soulbeast players are not that far away with their DPS output compared to veterans (99th percentile). Whereas for the Reaper this is completely different, there's quite a big gap there. It's actually even bigger than a Condi Weaver which has quite a forgiving rotation, but people tend to forget that.As an example,
: The difference in DPS from a 99th percentile player compared to a 50th percentile player is:
  • for a Condi Soulbeast:
    32%
  • for a Condi Weaver:
    36%
  • for a Power Reaper:
    41%

Or
:
  • Condi Weaver:
    24%
  • Condi Soulbeast:
    25%
  • Reaper:
    34%
  • or other classes like Daredevil and Dragonhunter: both
    28%

Knowing this, I still don't know why you still would recommend Reaper (I kinda understand the Soulbeast) to be beginner friendly. Because as you can see, it's quite hard to get to the full potential of that of a Reaper. It will take you a while to get into that 99th percentile.Your better off with a Daredevil, Condi weaver, Dragonhunter, for instance!
And the good thing with classes like that, is that you can also stay on them as well, cause they are META!

Because It has quite an easy rotation for a power dps. I totaly forgot about daredevil so I woukd recomend that.I think that most reaper players know that reaper is easy from many sources and so they dont even look that up. Not that many players know about double shortbow soulbeast and so they need to look that up first and then they start higher then reapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

I will be thinking that. If a inexpirianced player wants to improve his/her performance they can do that by switching to easier class. Your above percentil example doesnt count with one factor. Players thatvwould benefit from this change usualy dont swáp because they want to play tgeir character or they do but think that if it is easy thes dont have to learn to get to those numbers.

But getting to those numbers is the most important thing to do as a DPS role! So why would you recommend the hardest class to be able to fulfil this role to an inexperienced player???

I said I would recommend shortbow soulbeast and reaper to not that experianced players. The fact stays that if I do that they either dont listen or insult me instead of taking adivice. Players that actualy take this adivice are those that quickly swap from them back because they are actualy trying to improve and so these clases limit their potential quite soon.

Maybe I don't understand you correct, cause first of all, in the matter of statistics, the Reaper and condi Soulbeast are each other opposites almost: Reaper has a big difference between 99th and 50th percentile, where the condi Soulbeast has quite a small one. In other words: beginner Soulbeast players are not that far away with their DPS output compared to veterans (99th percentile). Whereas for the Reaper this is completely different, there's quite a big gap there. It's actually even bigger than a Condi Weaver which has quite a forgiving rotation, but people tend to forget that.As an example,
: The difference in DPS from a 99th percentile player compared to a 50th percentile player is:
  • for a Condi Soulbeast:
    32%
  • for a Condi Weaver:
    36%
  • for a Power Reaper:
    41%

Or
:
  • Condi Weaver:
    24%
  • Condi Soulbeast:
    25%
  • Reaper:
    34%
  • or other classes like Daredevil and Dragonhunter: both
    28%

Knowing this, I still don't know why you still would recommend Reaper (I kinda understand the Soulbeast) to be beginner friendly. Because as you can see, it's quite hard to get to the full potential of that of a Reaper. It will take you a while to get into that 99th percentile.Your better off with a Daredevil, Condi weaver, Dragonhunter, for instance!
And the good thing with classes like that, is that you can also stay on them as well, cause they are META!

Because It has quite an easy rotation for a power dps. I totaly forgot about daredevil so I woukd recomend that.I think that most reaper players know that reaper is easy from many sources and so they dont even look that up. Not that many players know about double shortbow soulbeast and so they need to look that up first and then they start higher then reapers.

Yea, and easiness is a really subjective thing. I assume (from what you write) that factors like not many different buttons to press and animation skips are things that you find easy in a rotation?! Whereas, I find it easy if a rotation is forgiving: in other words easy to pick up once you make a mistake without getting too big of a hit in your DPS. I mean, I don't know if you've tried to use Shroud to soak up damage (a real beginner's mistake) or have to camp in Axe, after you made a mistake in your rotation for the Reaper, but the DPS loss is huge! Whereas like I said, the Condi Weaver, you can pick up pretty much anywhere without a big DPS loss. Sure, it has more different buttons to press, but is far more forgiving!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

I will be thinking that. If a inexpirianced player wants to improve his/her performance they can do that by switching to easier class. Your above percentil example doesnt count with one factor. Players thatvwould benefit from this change usualy dont swáp because they want to play tgeir character or they do but think that if it is easy thes dont have to learn to get to those numbers.

But getting to those numbers is the most important thing to do as a DPS role! So why would you recommend the hardest class to be able to fulfil this role to an inexperienced player???

I said I would recommend shortbow soulbeast and reaper to not that experianced players. The fact stays that if I do that they either dont listen or insult me instead of taking adivice. Players that actualy take this adivice are those that quickly swap from them back because they are actualy trying to improve and so these clases limit their potential quite soon.

Maybe I don't understand you correct, cause first of all, in the matter of statistics, the Reaper and condi Soulbeast are each other opposites almost: Reaper has a big difference between 99th and 50th percentile, where the condi Soulbeast has quite a small one. In other words: beginner Soulbeast players are not that far away with their DPS output compared to veterans (99th percentile). Whereas for the Reaper this is completely different, there's quite a big gap there. It's actually even bigger than a Condi Weaver which has quite a forgiving rotation, but people tend to forget that.As an example,
: The difference in DPS from a 99th percentile player compared to a 50th percentile player is:
  • for a Condi Soulbeast:
    32%
  • for a Condi Weaver:
    36%
  • for a Power Reaper:
    41%

Or
:
  • Condi Weaver:
    24%
  • Condi Soulbeast:
    25%
  • Reaper:
    34%
  • or other classes like Daredevil and Dragonhunter: both
    28%

Knowing this, I still don't know why you still would recommend Reaper (I kinda understand the Soulbeast) to be beginner friendly. Because as you can see, it's quite hard to get to the full potential of that of a Reaper. It will take you a while to get into that 99th percentile.Your better off with a Daredevil, Condi weaver, Dragonhunter, for instance!
And the good thing with classes like that, is that you can also stay on them as well, cause they are META!

Because It has quite an easy rotation for a power dps. I totaly forgot about daredevil so I woukd recomend that.I think that most reaper players know that reaper is easy from many sources and so they dont even look that up. Not that many players know about double shortbow soulbeast and so they need to look that up first and then they start higher then reapers.

Yea, and easiness is a really subjective thing. I assume (from what you write) that factors like not many different buttons to press and animation skips are things that you find easy in a rotation?! Whereas, I find it easy if a rotation is forgiving: in other words easy to pick up once you make a mistake without getting too big of a hit in your DPS. I mean, I don't know if you've tried to use Shroud to soak up damage (a real beginner's mistake) or have to camp in Axe, after you made a mistake in your rotation for the Reaper, but the DPS loss is huge! Whereas like I said, the Condi Weaver, you can pick up pretty much anywhere without a big DPS loss. Sure, it has more different buttons to press, but is far more forgiving!

Yeah, and even daredevil "rotation" is not that easy. It might be hard for new ppl to play witjout endurance with a build where your most used skill is an animation lock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Because, if maxing out dps is necessary then it mean it is a raid mechanism. And ultimately it is a flawed path which can only lead to seeking more and more dps, making players discriminate professions which have inately less dps than other. It's a vicious circle that enforce a pure dps meta, brushing off other options.

It's ok in the case of other traditionnal mmo that follow the old trinity standard, but ANet chose to give it's professions the ability to fullfill all roles with less opening for traditionnal support and tanks, making PvE encounters oriented toward dps a design opening holes for profession/build's discrimination. It was the main reason players complained in the vanilla game and it's still for this reason that players continue to complain.

The main flaw here is in your point though is:
People are not talking about performing in the top 1% bracket, or even the top 20%. It's about decent dps to complete encounters. EVERY class on nearly EVERY specialization is capable of doing sufficient and decent dps to make any raid boss easy.

The problem is: many poor performing players are no where near the bare minimum of what their class could do.

Which leads me again to the recurring point and continous missunderstanding on the forums:
When experienced raiders talk about meta classes, top performance dps or optimization of meta setups, then that is something completely different than when the argument is about required or necessary dps.
95% of all GW2 players can only dream about getting near snowcrows benchmarks, even if they are active raiders and practice. Those meta and performance setups are basically a different galaxy for most players.

When we talk about required dps or good dps for raids (or on the flip side, bad dps), then this is in general aimed at the 60-70% benchmark or absolute bottom tier dps players (which do 2-4k or so). It makes literally NO difference which class you play if you are so bad that you do 2-4k dps. In that situation the player could roll any other class and underperform because with those values, it's not a class issue, it's a player issue. So any class argument is null and void at that level. People with this performance NEED to get a basic understanding of the game first, and that's somethign which requires work. Work some are not willing to put in or do not require they have to put in.

TL;DR:
There is a vast difference between underperforming in an experienced raid group which demands a top tier performance (and might want meta classes) and a training group which demands bare minimum for success. Unfortunately both complaints (bad dps) get mixed up way to often.

I would gladly accept your arguments if we were looking at the very close environment of the so called "experienced raiders". The point is that we are not. We've got someone that come onto the forum and basically say that people should do max dps because otherwise it hurt the group. In a game where there can be up to 30% difference between the maximum dps of 2 professions, this is just like saying that the profession with the lowest potential dps is trash for the content. Something that shouldn't happen.

The gap between most professions is not 30% (which would be around 10k or more at 30k benchmarks), but more like 10-15% at best.I hear this a lot from people, but it's just not true. There are actually huge differences between classes dps in real raid scenarios if you look at real statistics:
Don't look at the 90th and 99th percentile which cover the speedclearers, etc. Just look at the 50th percentile (or 30th if you want to) which covers the more casual raider, and you see that the differences between the different professions are quite high! I.e.: your best performing dps classes: Ele (Condi Weaver), Guardian (Firebrand) and Mesmer (Mirage) score about 16K dps across all raid bosses, whereas your worst dps professions: Ranger (Soulbeast as their
best
option) and Necro (Reaper as their
best
option) puts out about 11K dps. So the best performing DPS classes do about
45%
more damage than your worst classes in the hands of mediocre raiders across all raid bosses (so
not
the golem)!

Obviously. Clases are balanced vased on top performance. If you look at bad players then there will be huge diferences. Most of those players would improve alot by just switching to shortbow soulbeast or power reaper. But players that are bad would probably never have even idea about this diference...

And there we have it again that age-old stigma: "if you are a bad player, you should play Power Reaper", which is now
proven
to be a
faulty
statement, as you can easily conclude from my above post's example.And you know what, I would be VERY surprised if you would now say: "Sorry, I stand corrected".I actually got a feeling you're still going to think this statement is true, right?

I will be thinking that. If a inexpirianced player wants to improve his/her performance they can do that by switching to easier class. Your above percentil example doesnt count with one factor. Players thatvwould benefit from this change usualy dont swáp because they want to play tgeir character or they do but think that if it is easy thes dont have to learn to get to those numbers.

But getting to those numbers is the most important thing to do as a DPS role! So why would you recommend the hardest class to be able to fulfil this role to an inexperienced player???

I said I would recommend shortbow soulbeast and reaper to not that experianced players. The fact stays that if I do that they either dont listen or insult me instead of taking adivice. Players that actualy take this adivice are those that quickly swap from them back because they are actualy trying to improve and so these clases limit their potential quite soon.

Maybe I don't understand you correct, cause first of all, in the matter of statistics, the Reaper and condi Soulbeast are each other opposites almost: Reaper has a big difference between 99th and 50th percentile, where the condi Soulbeast has quite a small one. In other words: beginner Soulbeast players are not that far away with their DPS output compared to veterans (99th percentile). Whereas for the Reaper this is completely different, there's quite a big gap there. It's actually even bigger than a Condi Weaver which has quite a forgiving rotation, but people tend to forget that.As an example,
: The difference in DPS from a 99th percentile player compared to a 50th percentile player is:
  • for a Condi Soulbeast:
    32%
  • for a Condi Weaver:
    36%
  • for a Power Reaper:
    41%

Or
:
  • Condi Weaver:
    24%
  • Condi Soulbeast:
    25%
  • Reaper:
    34%
  • or other classes like Daredevil and Dragonhunter: both
    28%

Knowing this, I still don't know why you still would recommend Reaper (I kinda understand the Soulbeast) to be beginner friendly. Because as you can see, it's quite hard to get to the full potential of that of a Reaper. It will take you a while to get into that 99th percentile.Your better off with a Daredevil, Condi weaver, Dragonhunter, for instance!
And the good thing with classes like that, is that you can also stay on them as well, cause they are META!

Because It has quite an easy rotation for a power dps. I totaly forgot about daredevil so I woukd recomend that.I think that most reaper players know that reaper is easy from many sources and so they dont even look that up. Not that many players know about double shortbow soulbeast and so they need to look that up first and then they start higher then reapers.

Yea, and easiness is a really subjective thing. I assume (from what you write) that factors like not many different buttons to press and animation skips are things that you find easy in a rotation?! Whereas, I find it easy if a rotation is forgiving: in other words easy to pick up once you make a mistake without getting too big of a hit in your DPS. I mean, I don't know if you've tried to use Shroud to soak up damage (a real beginner's mistake) or have to camp in Axe, after you made a mistake in your rotation for the Reaper, but the DPS loss is huge! Whereas like I said, the Condi Weaver, you can pick up pretty much anywhere without a big DPS loss. Sure, it has more different buttons to press, but is far more forgiving!

Btw, if you really want an easy rotation that's both easy in forgiveness and different buttons to press: try Axe/Axe Berserker!!! (And you're even META as well)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sokeenoppa.5384 said:Why does players asume that its ok to pull bad dps numbers and still be accepted into groups without any proplem? When i say bad i dont mean a bit lower numbers than some1 who has killed boss multiple times already but just simply really low amount of dps.BECAUSE ITS THEIR OWN GAME THEY PAID FOR AND HOW YOU DARE FORCING THEM TO ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME ON A SEMI ACCEPTABLE LEVEL AND PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT IN GROUP CONTENT!!!!111oneone /s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol.We do Gors train and our new DHs deal about 6-8k, not knowing mechanics of the fight, nor have time to perfect their rotation. That's what trainings are for.And that's the fun of a raid training. As a trainer, you should know how to deal with every situation may come up including low dps squads, instead of complaining about new players doing low dps.

I find it even more ironic when people say training run, but ask for 25-100LI. Lol.We did Gors train, with 8 peeps have 0 LI, use 3 updrafts, below average low dps, yet still complete it the same time as a high exp squad try to slow cc and reset the fight 4-5 times at 2-3% boss health.

I agree with someone above. Post like this really does wonder to new raid players. #feelbadman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to training runs, it’s mostly expected that players to have taken the initiative to do preparations that could be done on their end such as looking over the mechanics (most YouTube guides do this in 5 min) as well as practice proper DPS rotation. Not doing this shows you’re unlikely to be willing to put in the effort and the trainer is better off finding someone else to train who is willing to put in the effort.

I suggest that those looking to join training groups to see what it expected of them. Most of the ones I see require you to at least have practiced proper DPS rotations. It’s not really enjoyable to do raid trainings and make no progress because people don’t know their rotations. You’re also less likely to learn the rotations from doing the training as you’re having to also focus on learning the mechanics.

As for the above poster, a high exp group wouldn’t slow CC unless their DPS was low. Nor would they generally reset the fight 4-5 times. I do gors 1-2 times a week and we generally beat it the first time. This isn’t a boss a highly experienced group struggles with. The boss is highly scripted with little RNG.

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...