Jump to content
  • Sign Up

[Suggestion] A Designated Stunbreak Slot


rng.1024

Recommended Posts

I got hit by this thought yesterday, and would like to hear your opinions on the subject.

You know how the bottom traitline in your hero panel is reserved for an Elite Specialization? What if we did exactly that for one of our utility skills, which would be a designated stunbreak slot?

This wouldn't mean you'd have to put a skill with stunbreak in it, however it would mean every profession and build would have access to just 1 active (not counting traits) stunbreak skill.

Why is this benefical? There are several good reasons for why this might help overall balance:

  • There will no longer be builds with several active stunbreaks. Obviously this is an advantage against someone who can't get the same value from slotting that many on their own profession, for whatever reason. It would also greatly increase the importance of when you use your stunbreak in a fight.
  • It allows the devs to internally balance every stunbreak for each profession. For example, do you use a stunbreak with a big effect and a cd of 60, or one with a small effect but available every 25 seconds? Forcing this choice on players would also mean outdated stunbreak skills would need to be looked at and brought in line.
  • We keep traited stunbreaks. These require sacrifices by choice, and can still be used to differentiate professions to f.ex make warriors more cc resilient. I would however suggest no more than 1 trait that can stunbreak per profession.
  • It requires no changes to anything else, and should be fairly straight-forward to implement with the current UI. Firebrands would still be able to stunbreak with their elite and f3, keeping them present as best in slot for support. Skills that stunbreak and give stability/block/aegis or group utility would now be more rewarding, and their cooldowns would need to reflect that. (Profession mechanics that inherently stunbreak would keep their functionality of course, and skills with charges would keep those.)

The way I see it, the benefits outweigh the downsides. Alot of the meta builds today have more than 1 stunbreak, which not only promotes spammy use of them, but also makes good use of CC as a setup less rewarding. To boot, all professions already have access to atleast 4 stunbreak skills, so with some decent variance in effect and cooldown your choice would determine how you play. For now I don't think implementing this would require a look at CC-skills in general, as I feel some professions should have more access to it than others - but in turn this would make them equally vulnerable should they be counter cc'ed.

As far as I can tell, this would be the easiest way to reign in the current meta while any subsequent balancing could be done on this premise (since most builds in use today have less than 2 stunbreaks) requiring less drastical changes to individual traits/skills of specific problematic builds instead of removing their flavour of play.

Would it hamper our freedom to play what we want? Yes, but so does choosing an elite spec, what profession you play and how the meta goes. It's a small price to pay for better balance. Also most meta builds that run 2 stunbreaks are already above average, forcing them to choose would at this point only bring them in line, and not to mention (since they now need to start using a non-stunbreak utility instead) shake up the metabuilds a little bit.

What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is mainly aimed at sPvP, however I genuinely believe this would be beneficial to implement also for WvW for 50v50 - here is why:

  1. This would mean positioning would matter way more than it does right now. Sticking on tag, following directions and skillfull execution will now play a dominant role in order to win.
  2. Support sacrificing self-sustain for group utility. This removes some of the tankyness of the meta, however puts both bursty and sustainy groups on a more equal footing resulting in longer fights instead of one being the obvious best choice against a certain composition - more variance accepted in public squads.
  3. Focusing targets will be more rewarding. Less spamming, smart use of CC and regrouping will keep you alive longer rather than a specific group comp.

Feel free to add/disagree to the points on this list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea isn't that bad but it would hamper build diversity.So it would be needed to be a competitive split only so PvE builds are not affected.I don't play in competitive modes often so I may not be the best option to judge the idea. It is to say though that CC would needed to be culled down otherwise it would result in a CC slugfest like a few years back.

Additionally as a side nite: Revenant would need to have a stunbreak on ventari to fulfill this rule (which I am all for tbh).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@InsaneQR.7412 said:The idea isn't that bad but it would hamper build diversity.So it would be needed to be a competitive split only so PvE builds are not affected.I don't play in competitive modes often so I may not be the best option to judge the idea. It is to say though that CC would needed to be culled down otherwise it would result in a CC slugfest like a few years back.

Additionally as a side nite: Revenant would need to have a stunbreak on ventari to fulfill this rule (which I am all for tbh).

I wholeheartedly agree on PvE being unaffected by this limitation.

We already see it can be done by how the game handles you going to and from WvW to PvE with an Elite Spec equipped in only 1 mode.

As for Ventari, I believe the reason for a lacking stunbreak is intentional in the sense of you getting great support at the cost of personal defense when swapping there, while at the same time encouraging you to trait for stunbreaks on legend swap in order to limit all-rounder options. Besides, since you have to choose another legend and you'll have access to that stunbreak every 10 seconds I don't necessarily feel it's an urgent issue. But I definitely get your reasoning, and I doubt it would hurt the viability of support Revenants (which I welcome in any mode!)

When it comes to culling CC, you have to remember stability coverage is already best in slot for 99% of group scenarios, meaning stability uptime would remain unchanged and therefore you CC/Stab application remains the same - it just affects when you use your personal stunbreak and encourages careful play whenever it is on cooldown. That coupled with the direction of reduced damage on hard cc skills ought to further soften the hit of losing additional stunbreaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I''m not sure that I agree.

Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dadnir.5038 said:I''m not sure that I agree.

Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

This is the result of the e-spec balance. Back in the Core days each profession had flavour, weak matchups and unique strengths.

If we balance by giving everyone equal access to everything we all might as well all play the same profession. However this game is so much more than that, we have other ways to mitigate damage, some without even using skills.

Let's use your example of a meta necromancer vs let's say a meta warrior:By reducing the warriors available stunbreaks by 50%, your f.ex fear efficacy goes up to 200% because you can now twice as effectively lock him down with it.

The entire point of this change is to increase the impact of player skill rather than outequipping number of stunbreaks. Good players already avoid hard cc-attempts in order to save their stunbreak in case they get outnumbered later. While I get for many this will be be annoying, it will lead to more balanced matches and player ratings, and at the same time less frustrating losses.

A warrior has at worst 4 hard cc's

  • Full Counter (can be countered by stowing)
  • Bull's Charge (can be countered by dodging)
  • Shield Bash (can be countered by about face)
  • Disrupting Stab (can be countered by soft cc, about face or dodge)

Neither of these require a stunbreak unless you simply react to what is happening to you. This is not a good thing to implement balance around, because it punishes good players and reward bad ones, which is exactly what this change is aimed at correcting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rng.1024 said:

@"Dadnir.5038" said:I''m not sure that I agree.

Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

This is the result of the e-spec balance. Back in the Core days each profession had flavour, weak matchups and unique strengths.

If we balance by giving everyone equal access to everything we all might as well all play the same profession. However this game is so much more than that, we have other ways to mitigate damage, some without even using skills.

Let's use your example of a meta necromancer vs let's say a meta warrior:By reducing the warriors available stunbreaks by 50%, your f.ex fear efficacy goes up to 200% because you can now twice as effectively lock him down with it.

The entire point of this change is to increase the impact of player skill rather than outequipping number of stunbreaks. Good players already avoid hard cc-attempts in order to save their stunbreak in case they get outnumbered later. While I get for many this will be be annoying, it will lead to more balanced matches and player ratings, and at the same time less frustrating losses.

A warrior has at worst 4 hard cc's
  • Full Counter (can be countered by stowing)
  • Bull's Charge (can be countered by dodging)
  • Shield Bash (can be countered by about face)
  • Disrupting Stab (can be countered by soft cc, about face or dodge)

Neither of these require a stunbreak unless you simply react to what is happening to you. This is not a good thing to implement balance around, because it punishes good players and reward bad ones, which is exactly what this change is aimed at correcting.

The issue of your example is that you are looking at what is meta now and not at what would be meta after your change. Your calculations also require the highly unlikely 1v1 situation.

The different professions just aren't equal in front of hard CC. Some profession almost only have breakstun to face hard CC while other overflow with way to deal with them. Your example which don't take into account the fact that the warrior can have a lot more CC packed into it's kit already put the necromancer into the rope.

If you want something like that why not first change how block and stability work? Make both of those dependant on toughness.

  • For block, when toughness is equal or superior to your foe's power, then you totally block the hit. When the toughness is inferior to your foe's power you take a part of the damage that "couldn't be blocked totally" and depend on the ratio power/toughness.
  • And you do the same with stability, you just change it so that it's now a boon that reduce the time you are disabled by a %age and based on how much power is put behind the CC, you still end up interrupted if you lack the toughness to counter it.
  • And since we are at it, let's also change dodge so that you have 50% chance to take a glancing blow while dodging. A dodge under the effect of weakness would see this %age go up to 100%.

Doesn't it make things a lot more "fair" with your change to stunbreak access? It would also allow ANet to give value to the "stun duration" stuff which exist in game, and even thread further on this path. Wouldn't it also tune down the survivability of glassy builds that can rely heavily on dodge and block? They could even revert stability to a boon that stack in duration instead of having the stacks consumed by CCs... etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@rng.1024 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:I''m not sure that I agree.

Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

This is the result of the e-spec balance. Back in the Core days each profession had flavour, weak matchups and unique strengths.

If we balance by giving everyone equal access to everything we all might as well all play the same profession. However this game is so much more than that, we have other ways to mitigate damage, some without even using skills.

Let's use your example of a meta necromancer vs let's say a meta warrior:By reducing the warriors available stunbreaks by 50%, your f.ex fear efficacy goes up to 200% because you can now twice as effectively lock him down with it.

The entire point of this change is to increase the impact of player skill rather than outequipping number of stunbreaks. Good players already avoid hard cc-attempts in order to save their stunbreak in case they get outnumbered later. While I get for many this will be be annoying, it will lead to more balanced matches and player ratings, and at the same time less frustrating losses.

A warrior has at worst 4 hard cc's
  • Full Counter (can be countered by stowing)
  • Bull's Charge (can be countered by dodging)
  • Shield Bash (can be countered by about face)
  • Disrupting Stab (can be countered by soft cc, about face or dodge)

Neither of these require a stunbreak unless you simply react to what is happening to you. This is not a good thing to implement balance around, because it punishes good players and reward bad ones, which is exactly what this change is aimed at correcting.

The issue of your example is that you are looking at what is meta now and not at what would be meta after your change. Your calculations also require the highly unlikely 1v1 situation.

The different professions just aren't equal in front of hard CC. Some profession almost only have breakstun to face hard CC while other overflow with way to deal with them. Your example which don't take into account the fact that the warrior can have a lot more CC packed into it's kit already put the necromancer into the rope.

If you want something like that why not first change how block and stability work? Make both of those dependant on toughness.
  • For block, when toughness is equal or superior to your foe's power, then you totally block the hit. When the toughness is inferior to your foe's power you take a part of the damage that "couldn't be blocked totally" and depend on the ratio power/toughness.
  • And you do the same with stability, you just change it so that it's now a boon that reduce the time you are disabled by a %age and based on how much power is put behind the CC, you still end up interrupted if you lack the toughness to counter it.
  • And since we are at it, let's also change dodge so that you have 50% chance to take a glancing blow while dodging. A dodge under the effect of weakness would see this %age go up to 100%.

Doesn't it make things a lot more "fair" with your change to stunbreak access? It would also allow ANet to give value to the "stun duration" stuff which exist in game, and even thread further on this path. Wouldn't it also tune down the survivability of glassy builds that can rely heavily on dodge and block? They could even revert stability to a boon that stack in duration instead of having the stacks consumed by CCs... etc.

@rng.1024 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:I''m not sure that I agree.

Fondamentally the core of the idea is good but in practice it leave some professions (to name one, the necromancer) in an even more dire spot than it already is. The thing is that all professions aren't equal in front of a hard CC, not all professions have the same ability to block them via block, stability or invulnerability. If you take the less equal professions their ability to recover from a CC you just condemn them.

If every profession had as much access to block, stability and invuln frame, then i'd agree with your idea, but that's not the case. This would just make some professions much more effective than other, just because those profession excel at nullifying the incoming effects while other professions defense philosophy tend to do the opposite.

This is the result of the e-spec balance. Back in the Core days each profession had flavour, weak matchups and unique strengths.

If we balance by giving everyone equal access to everything we all might as well all play the same profession. However this game is so much more than that, we have other ways to mitigate damage, some without even using skills.

Let's use your example of a meta necromancer vs let's say a meta warrior:By reducing the warriors available stunbreaks by 50%, your f.ex fear efficacy goes up to 200% because you can now twice as effectively lock him down with it.

The entire point of this change is to increase the impact of player skill rather than outequipping number of stunbreaks. Good players already avoid hard cc-attempts in order to save their stunbreak in case they get outnumbered later. While I get for many this will be be annoying, it will lead to more balanced matches and player ratings, and at the same time less frustrating losses.

A warrior has at worst 4 hard cc's
  • Full Counter (can be countered by stowing)
  • Bull's Charge (can be countered by dodging)
  • Shield Bash (can be countered by about face)
  • Disrupting Stab (can be countered by soft cc, about face or dodge)

Neither of these require a stunbreak unless you simply react to what is happening to you. This is not a good thing to implement balance around, because it punishes good players and reward bad ones, which is exactly what this change is aimed at correcting.

The issue of your example is that you are looking at what is meta now and not at what would be meta after your change. Your calculations also require the highly unlikely 1v1 situation.

The different professions just aren't equal in front of hard CC. Some profession almost only have breakstun to face hard CC while other overflow with way to deal with them. Your example which don't take into account the fact that the warrior can have a lot more CC packed into it's kit already put the necromancer into the rope.

If you want something like that why not first change how block and stability work? Make both of those dependant on toughness.
  • For block, when toughness is equal or superior to your foe's power, then you totally block the hit. When the toughness is inferior to your foe's power you take a part of the damage that "couldn't be blocked totally" and depend on the ratio power/toughness.
  • And you do the same with stability, you just change it so that it's now a boon that reduce the time you are disabled by a %age and based on how much power is put behind the CC, you still end up interrupted if you lack the toughness to counter it.
  • And since we are at it, let's also change dodge so that you have 50% chance to take a glancing blow while dodging. A dodge under the effect of weakness would see this %age go up to 100%.

Doesn't it make things a lot more "fair" with your change to stunbreak access? It would also allow ANet to give value to the "stun duration" stuff which exist in game, and even thread further on this path. Wouldn't it also tune down the survivability of glassy builds that can rely heavily on dodge and block? They could even revert stability to a boon that stack in duration instead of having the stacks consumed by CCs... etc.

The reason I use meta as an example, is because those builds are far more likely to be running multiple stunbreaks. This in turn can lead to alot of carrying by build, which would be a lot harder to do with access to only one stunbreak.

Of course a warrior can have more cc in it's kit, after all it's by design meant to force your big cooldowns with Rampage f.ex. However I can focus on 1v1 simply because the stunbreak access reduction goes across the board - both parties lose that defence, and it becomes way more important to save it until you get 1v2'd than it currently is, especially if you run several of them. Landing a successful CC should be way more rewarding than it currently is, driving up the skill floor required to win duels instead of running something blatantly harder to counter.

I also pick 1v1 as an example because you should get punished for running into a 1v4 no matter what - the only reason it's doable now for some is because of an overflow of ways to deal with incoming cc.

I don't really agree with the rest of your changes I have to admit, not only because they require a big amount of work to implement (takes a long time), but mostly because you want to take more power from reactional gameplay and put it into stats which will only serve to dumb down the game and it's pace just to make life easier for those that struggle and less rewarding for those that put in the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:Before i throw my feedback, let's get this straight:

The idea is that one slot becomes stunbreak slot and any skill you put there will stunbreak.In return all utility skills that were stunbreaks lose that feature.

Is this correct?

More like every skill that has stunbreak functionality today would retain it, however you could only equip them in a certain slot.

In other words you have all the same stunbreaks you had before, but they can only be equipped in a specific slot. Those that weren't stunbreaks will remain non-stunbreaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rng.1024 said:

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:Before i throw my feedback, let's get this straight:

The idea is that one slot becomes stunbreak slot and any skill you put there will stunbreak.In return all utility skills that were stunbreaks lose that feature.

Is this correct?

More like every skill that has stunbreak functionality today would retain it, however you could only equip them in a certain slot.

In other words you have all the same stunbreaks you had before, but they can only be equipped in a specific slot. Those that weren't stunbreaks will remain non-stunbreaking.

Id prefer it to work in a way that skills that are not in that slot lose their stunbreak, so i can still equip shake it off as condi cleanse and balanced stance as stunbreak/stability for safer stomps etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RedShark.9548 said:

@rng.1024 said:

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:Before i throw my feedback, let's get this straight:

The idea is that one slot becomes stunbreak slot and any skill you put there will stunbreak.In return all utility skills that were stunbreaks lose that feature.

Is this correct?

More like every skill that has stunbreak functionality today would retain it, however you could only equip them in a certain slot.

In other words you have all the same stunbreaks you had before, but they can only be equipped in a specific slot. Those that weren't stunbreaks will remain non-stunbreaking.

Id prefer it to work in a way that skills that are not in that slot lose their stunbreak, so i can still equip shake it off as condi cleanse and balanced stance as stunbreak/stability for safer stomps etc.

It's an interesting concept, however I don't know how easy it would be to implement. I'm not in favour of losing the associated predictability of skills that stunbreak, however this would diminish the impact on build variance which is always a good thing ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:Or you could, you know... slot a stunbreak.

I've never understood what peoples obsession with avoiding compromise is. That's sort of how an stat, build and class based MMO work. People run around on their marauders/berserkers/vipers/whatnot in full dps builds and then when you suggest they could slot something defensive so that they dont instantly die they're foaming at the mouth and throwing meta left and right.

Never said otherwise? I want less stunbreaks, not more per cooldown.

Meta is meta for that exact reason, it's all about out-resourcing what you're up against. Given, like I stated earlier, most builds seem to run 1 stunbreak (and maybe 1 traited), having a discussion of a bad build with no stunbreaks against something decent is a waste of time and energy in my opinion.

That being said, this would affect both tanky and bursty playstyles alike - of course I'm of the opinion one should slot one when playing competitively atleast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@reikken.4961 said:would require a massive rework on CC and stabilitysome builds can slot 6+ stuns long enough to warrant a stun break. And some classes have so much stability that they hardly need stun breaks. And then some classes are just ragdolls without their stun breaks.

If you can show some outlier examples (in your opinion), then I'd be happy to discuss options ^^

Also we're not removing stunbreaks, you get 1 and everyone else gets one. This game has never been balanced around how much cc vs amount of stunbreaks someone has, however we have seen better balance in the past despite that. I want us to get closer to that without gutting lower performing options, yet tone down those that overperform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:Well after explanation i stand against this idea. As a necro main i know what it means to get dogpiled by enemy cc. Limiting my utility stunbreakers to just one (said slot) would make this even worse, given there is no mechanic tu curb enemy cc spammage vs my necro (all 5 can go gang-ho on my rear end with their ccs).

How many stunbreaks do you run as of right now?

Yeah necro life is hard, however kiting, line of sight and non-teleport spots make a world of difference. It's exactly the philosophy of being able to run in 1v5 on point I want to adress, as I feel nobody should be able to do so unpunished and therefore, hopefully, play it a little bit safer in the future.

Look at it the other way though, a clutch AoE fear or stun on point can now become much more of a game changer as you burn through all of their stunbreaks leaving them wide open for your teams cc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rng.1024 said:

@reikken.4961 said:would require a
massive
rework on CC and stabilitysome builds can slot 6+ stuns long enough to warrant a stun break. And some classes have so much stability that they hardly need stun breaks. And then some classes are just ragdolls without their stun breaks.

If you can show some outlier examples (in your opinion), then I'd be happy to discuss options ^^

On scourge (in pvp), I run 3 or 4 on-demand stunbreaks. because otherwise I just get destroyed, with no blocks or evadesWarrior can run 6 long duration disables (2+ second stun/knockdown), not even counting rampage, plus another 3 shorter CCs (daze, knockback)

Also, warrior, firebrand, holosmith, weaver, etc. can all run very high stability uptime and get by with only one stun break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sigmoid.7082 said:The other issue with this is sometimes you take the skill because of the other parts of the a unity, not the stun break. This would limit the flexibility in those choices massively.

This!

This is one of my major problems with Stunbreaks as a mechanic, I often times run skills that are stunbreaks because of their secondary utility..The most common skill in this regard is Quickening Zephyr which I mostly use for the Quickness and Superspeed.. ergo most of the time it's wasted as a stunbreak or on CD when I need to use it as such.

This annoys me quite a lot as there are a number of stun break skills which have good uses aside from being a stun break so it forces you to either take and use the skill for those uses and waste the stunbreak or you waste the skill almost entirely and use it almost exclusively as a stun break.

The only skills that really work in this regard are signets and defensive skills.. signets having passives to give benefits for not activating them and defensive skills being things like evades, blinks or blocks which you would only really use when your about to be hit anyway and that's where stuns are most effective in the first place.I'm not going to waste a lightning reflexes to break a stun if i'm not about to get hit by something right.. but I am going to use quickning zephyr constantly to increase my attack speed and mobility..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No from me, the existing restricted slots (heal and elite) already break build diversity, and the game would be better without them. You can't sacrifice diversity for balance, alot of games have tried it and they tend to meet a bitter end because boredom is a death knell.

When a game is unbalanced, people get upset, but keep playing. When a game is boring, they log off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hannelore.8153 said:No from me, the existing restricted slots (heal and elite) already break build diversity, and the game would be better without them. You can't sacrifice diversity for balance, alot of games have tried it and they tend to meet a bitter end because boredom is a death knell.

When a game is unbalanced, people get upset, but keep playing. When a game is boring, they log off.

That's a fair point, and you may as well be completely right. However that leaves the illusion should they choose to keep diversity, as some skills will have to be nerfed to uselessness in competitive modes in order to have players stop using them which is still unfortunate.

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...