Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Raids are not balanced when there is a 9-10k Difference between professions.


Josiah.2967

Recommended Posts

@"lare.5129" said:About raid : raid it not like dungeons for some reasons.. Ofc we can discus that this is no ok, but it is.Bosses have enrage time. It is smell fail. Some achievements also depend form time. This is not good...

So we can't take normal chill roleplay people to raid and get success..

So how we can fix that raid issue ? we have different ways..1)make armor stats less dependable from player total dps.2)make raid boses more dependable from mechanic, and more more less dependable from dps3) nerf raid, by cut 50-80% hp for all time, or one day per week ?Probably Dhuum cm will be more fun if cut 90% from him.

4) make 1 +2 +3

You know, when they released the first wing there were players raids that have gone to the length of doing at least val guardian without any gear to show that armor stats aren't even needed in the "dps check".

That said, I agree on the 2nd point, the possible mechanics skips throught high dps is probably part of the reason the "dps centric" balance arguments fuel the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

That could be my last answer, because you are clearly not willing to take my arguments into consideration, probably you just want Scourge to have “everything” because you prefer it. While I’m trying to find a balance so that most necromancer can have something to enjoy and all elite specs can have their place in the game (without suggesting big reworks that would let a lot of people unhappy for loosing what they used to enjoy).

What I said before shows that Scourge is not more difficult, it is more difficult in certain aspects and less difficult in other aspects.

Your comment also contains wrong assumptions about me, only wrong assumptions. I’ll clarify: I rarely play Scourge healer (for reasons that I don’t want to explain), and I have tried to play Scourge condition multiple times (I know it and it is well equipped).

10 seconds in shroud and 10 seconds out of it, for me, is a lot of time in shroud. Also, that proportion is not even right.

I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you have something else to argue, you can search the answer in my previous comments. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand them, if you really want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Black Storm.6974 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

That could be my last answer, because you are clearly not willing to take my arguments into consideration, probably you just want Scourge to have “everything” because you prefer it. While I’m trying to find a balance so that most necromancer can have something to enjoy and all elite specs can have their place in the game (without suggesting big reworks that would let a lot of people unhappy for loosing what they used to enjoy).

What I said before shows that Scourge is not more difficult, it is more difficult in certain aspects and less difficult in other aspects.

Your comment also contains wrong assumptions about me, only wrong assumptions. I’ll clarify: I rarely play Scourge healer (for reasons that I don’t want to explain), and I have tried to play Scourge condition multiple times (I know it and it is well equipped).

10 seconds in shroud and 10 seconds out of it, for me, is a lot of time in shroud. Also, that proportion is not even right.

I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you have something else to argue, you can search the answer in my previous comments. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand them, if you really want to.

Calling the kettle black I see. The issue you're not looking at is just how easy it is to use. Are you willing to sacrifice reaper's shroud for this higher damage? Are you willing to sacrifice this element of them to get it? Because that's what you'd need to do. And its not even like I don't agree that reaper should be buffed. I do, I don't agree on the idea that it should be better than scourge at condi specifically.

Also, the ranged argument isn't a good one either. You're in the safest zone in the group. I know that seems counter intuitive but its true. Melee range is the safest because its where all the healers are and focus, its where the buffs are and are focus. Ranged, its rarely there. And Range also has to move much more. Of course this is a flaw of Arena net's balance in general. But even I, as a scourge more frequently stick to melee range than long range because I'd have a massive dps loss. Even if I had all the buffs available to me, at least a minor dps loss since torch is a part of the rotation. So your argument is flawed just out the gate.

Scourge also doesn't have the support to really offset the conflicts of its damage either. Barrier and the minor cleans the Condi build brings is nice, but its fluff. And fluff I could live without on the DPS build. Condi scourge should be stronger than condi reaper and should be comparable to power reaper. This isn't controversial and its only controversial for you because you feel reaper gets the short end of the stick when that's not true at all. That's core necromancer.

Reaper is a tank. its designed like a tank, it moves like a tank, it hits like a tank. The issue is the way arena net designed raids and armor. Because of this tanking is much easier to achieve than it should be and specs like Chronomancer far out pace it because they not only tank but provide support. Reaper can't achieve this because of its fundamental design flaws and the flaws of the systems of the game. If you have a positive solution to this I'm all ears. But the idea that Reaper should be the DPS spec for everything isn't a solution. Its just pushing out scourge from one of its fundamental roles.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

You should really read over your own statement there, because this is your feelings. And you don't seem to be able to reflect on that. I DON'T want to be forced onto reaper if I want to place DPS. You DON'T want to be forced onto scourge. Never in my statements did I suggest reaper shouldn't be comparable. You have. And you claim its bad design. But its not. Nuance to gameplay isn't bad design. There is engagement with scourge you can't get on Engineer, reaper, elementalist, ranger and so on. And there's engagement you can get on those as well. YOU don't like it. YOU don't want it to be viable. YOU want to push players out of a spec they enjoy because YOU'RE salty over scourge's preference.

I'd be willing to fight with you for the reaper in to aid it, but you need to stop attacking my favorite way to play the game first and stop trying to bury what the other half of the necromancer community wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't
scream
DPS spec more if it tried.

As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

That could be my last answer, because you are clearly not willing to take my arguments into consideration, probably you just want Scourge to have “everything” because you prefer it. While I’m trying to find a balance so that most necromancer can have something to enjoy and all elite specs can have their place in the game (without suggesting big reworks that would let a lot of people unhappy for loosing what they used to enjoy).

What I said before shows that Scourge is not more difficult, it is more difficult in certain aspects and less difficult in other aspects.

Your comment also contains wrong assumptions about me, only wrong assumptions. I’ll clarify: I rarely play Scourge healer (for reasons that I don’t want to explain), and I have tried to play Scourge condition multiple times (I know it and it is well equipped).

10 seconds in shroud and 10 seconds out of it, for me, is a lot of time in shroud. Also, that proportion is not even right.

I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you have something else to argue, you can search the answer in my previous comments. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand them, if you really want to.

Calling the kettle black I see. The issue you're not looking at is just how easy it is to use. Are you willing to sacrifice reaper's shroud for this higher damage? Are you willing to sacrifice this element of them to get it? Because that's what you'd need to do. And its not even like I don't agree that reaper should be buffed. I do, I don't agree on the idea that it should be better than scourge at condi specifically.

Also, the ranged argument isn't a good one either. You're in the safest zone in the group. I know that seems counter intuitive but its true. Melee range is the safest because its where all the healers are and focus, its where the buffs are and are focus. Ranged, its rarely there. And Range also has to move much more. Of course this is a flaw of Arena net's balance in general. But even I, as a scourge more frequently stick to melee range than long range because I'd have a massive dps loss. Even if I had all the buffs available to me, at least a minor dps loss since torch is a part of the rotation. So your argument is flawed just out the gate.

Scourge also doesn't have the support to really offset the conflicts of its damage either. Barrier and the minor cleans the Condi build brings is nice, but its fluff. And fluff I could live without on the DPS build. Condi scourge should be stronger than condi reaper and should be comparable to power reaper. This isn't controversial and its only controversial for you because you feel reaper gets the short end of the stick when that's not true at all. That's core necromancer.

Reaper is a tank. its designed like a tank, it moves like a tank, it hits like a tank. The issue is the way arena net designed raids and armor. Because of this tanking is much easier to achieve than it should be and specs like Chronomancer far out pace it because they not only tank but provide support. Reaper can't achieve this because of its fundamental design flaws and the flaws of the systems of the game. If you have a positive solution to this I'm all ears. But the idea that Reaper should be the DPS spec for everything isn't a solution. Its just pushing out scourge from one of its fundamental roles.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

You should really read over your own statement there, because this is your feelings. And you don't seem to be able to reflect on that. I DON'T want to be forced onto reaper if I want to place DPS. You DON'T want to be forced onto scourge. Never in my statements did I suggest reaper shouldn't be comparable. You have. And you claim its bad design. But its not. Nuance to gameplay isn't bad design. There is engagement with scourge you can't get on Engineer, reaper, elementalist, ranger and so on. And there's engagement you can get on those as well. YOU don't like it. YOU don't want it to be viable. YOU want to push players out of a spec they enjoy because YOU'RE salty over scourge's preference.

I'd be willing to fight with you for the reaper in to aid it, but you need to stop attacking my favorite way to play the game first and stop trying to bury what the other half of the necromancer community wants.

There is only one thing I need to say, everything else is explained in my previous comments.

The ranged advantage of Scourge was a part of my argument not mainly focused on raids.

Edit:

I’ll answer here to the comment below. I don’t want to make a new comment.

What you said below is mostly correct, but you are the one that mentioned a Reaper “tankiness” which is only an advantage outside of Raids (more precisely “where there is not allies support”). I “know” you think it is the opposite, you don’t need to repeat that.

I have then mentioned one thing that let Scourge play safer in many situations. My intention was not to compare everything about Scourge and Reaper, but helping “you” to notice that there are already compensations for the lack of Shroud.

I’m not shifting any argument (starting to talk about that little detail you mentioned was not my intention and in fact I’m not even going to make a new comment) and honestly I‘m not playing any “game” with you.

I have already said where you can look for my “answers” to your arguments: my previous comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Black Storm.6974 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

Scourge having support is a valid reason for keeping its DPS lower than Reaper. It is a clear advantage over Reaper, especially for Raids and other group contents.

Scourge is glassier than Reaper when playing solo, but in raids not having Shroud is an advantage (offensively, defensively and difficulty wise) for it (see my arguments about how easily Reaper can loose a lot of DPS if taking damage). Scourge is also already much better than Reaper at doing ranged DPS.

That extra ranged DPS also let Scourge be safer, while Reaper have to risk melee all the time to keep a high DPS. That necessity to stay melee bring another type of difficulty that Reaper have to face more than Scourge.

You are asking that extra damage because of Raids, where Scourge clearly already has big advantages over Reaper.

Scourge is necromancer and necromancer is not only Scourge. There are also many necromancer that hate Scourge.

Letting one spec be mainly for DPS and the other mainly for support can be called balance. Letting Scourge be the best at both things can be called imbalance.

There are plenty of other specs which do both support and damage. Ranger and elementalist both do, mesmer does. This isn't unique at all. And it's not like reaper doesn't have more dps in places. It does. Its power DPS. But reaper is much more bulky in raids. You only don't think so because you're playing a healer scourge which is wearing much bulkier gear. So your perspective is warped extremely heavily.

If you're spending a lot of time in shroud you're probably doing the reaper's rotation wrong. Its 10 in 10 out. I've used reaper quite a bit in raids and it is absolutely more tanky than condi scourge. I've used both power and condi reaper. It outpaces scourge in power damage and falls behind in condi. As it should be.

But it's not like the reaper can't provide support either. It can. I've taken Signet of vampirism as an experiment before. Worked just fine as damage support and healing. Which made reaper even tankier which they were already ridiculous.

Scourge requires pacing. If you don't pace out your skills as a condi scourge your dps drops far below that of the reaper. What you're arguing is that scourge shouldn't be rewarded for their more difficult play patter because of an internalized bias against ot based on nothing.

And it's not even like I didn't make a suggestion in my above post to remove the support elements on demonic lore by replacing the condi conversation and barrier application so it can be focused purely on dps, I did. But if reaper was better at condi than scourge, I'd just stop using necromancer. I'd learn mesmer or just continue on my engineer.

Now neither spec is particularly glassy. But I do want a glassy necromancer spec. One that sacrifices health like the necromancer is supposed to do. But the closest we got to that is condi builds which only does that when something has gone wrong with their rotation.

That could be my last answer, because you are clearly not willing to take my arguments into consideration, probably you just want Scourge to have “everything” because you prefer it. While I’m trying to find a balance so that most necromancer can have something to enjoy and all elite specs can have their place in the game (without suggesting big reworks that would let a lot of people unhappy for loosing what they used to enjoy).

What I said before shows that Scourge is not more difficult, it is more difficult in certain aspects and less difficult in other aspects.

Your comment also contains wrong assumptions about me, only wrong assumptions. I’ll clarify: I rarely play Scourge healer (for reasons that I don’t want to explain), and I have tried to play Scourge condition multiple times (I know it and it is well equipped).

10 seconds in shroud and 10 seconds out of it, for me, is a lot of time in shroud. Also, that proportion is not even right.

I don’t want to repeat myself, so if you have something else to argue, you can search the answer in my previous comments. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand them, if you really want to.

Calling the kettle black I see. The issue you're not looking at is just how easy it is to use. Are you willing to sacrifice reaper's shroud for this higher damage? Are you willing to sacrifice this element of them to get it? Because that's what you'd need to do. And its not even like I don't agree that reaper should be buffed. I do, I don't agree on the idea that it should be better than scourge at condi specifically.

Also, the ranged argument isn't a good one either. You're in the safest zone in the group. I know that seems counter intuitive but its true. Melee range is the safest because its where all the healers are and focus, its where the buffs are and are focus. Ranged, its rarely there. And Range also has to move much more. Of course this is a flaw of Arena net's balance in general. But even I, as a scourge more frequently stick to melee range than long range because I'd have a massive dps loss. Even if I had all the buffs available to me, at least a minor dps loss since torch is a part of the rotation. So your argument is flawed just out the gate.

Scourge also doesn't have the support to really offset the conflicts of its damage either. Barrier and the minor cleans the Condi build brings is nice, but its fluff. And fluff I could live without on the DPS build. Condi scourge should be stronger than condi reaper and should be comparable to power reaper. This isn't controversial and its only controversial for you because you feel reaper gets the short end of the stick when that's not true at all. That's core necromancer.

Reaper is a tank. its designed like a tank, it moves like a tank, it hits like a tank. The issue is the way arena net designed raids and armor. Because of this tanking is much easier to achieve than it should be and specs like Chronomancer far out pace it because they not only tank but provide support. Reaper can't achieve this because of its fundamental design flaws and the flaws of the systems of the game. If you have a positive solution to this I'm all ears. But the idea that Reaper should be the DPS spec for everything isn't a solution. Its just pushing out scourge from one of its fundamental roles.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

You should really read over your own statement there, because this is your feelings. And you don't seem to be able to reflect on that. I DON'T want to be forced onto reaper if I want to place DPS. You DON'T want to be forced onto scourge. Never in my statements did I suggest reaper shouldn't be comparable. You have. And you claim its bad design. But its not. Nuance to gameplay isn't bad design. There is engagement with scourge you can't get on Engineer, reaper, elementalist, ranger and so on. And there's engagement you can get on those as well. YOU don't like it. YOU don't want it to be viable. YOU want to push players out of a spec they enjoy because YOU'RE salty over scourge's preference.

I'd be willing to fight with you for the reaper in to aid it, but you need to stop attacking my favorite way to play the game first and stop trying to bury what the other half of the necromancer community wants.

There is only one thing I need to say, everything else is explained in my previous comments.

The ranged advantage of Scourge was a part of my argument not mainly focused on raids.

And reaper does far more damage in open world. You're shifting your argument, which I can play that game too. So here's the thing. If you're making that argument, reaper out DPS scourge in open world and dungeons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't
scream
DPS spec more if it tried.

As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

Well, to start we SHOULDN'T look at quickbrand because what other specs do is not relevant to Necro. We also SHOULDN'T consider what other MMO's do either because GW2 is fundamentally different from most of those MMO's in how it's designed and how classes are derived from that design.

My point here is simple ... there is a theme for an espec and whatever that theme is will determine what tools it gets. If the theme is 'tank', then that's the sort of tools it will get (even though I disagree that would be considered a class theme ... but that's neither her nor there). From where I sit, Scourge theme was never aligned with a DPS focused toolset, so the arguments that are presented to claim it should be a DPS focused toolset because of reasons that are NOT theme-based don't make sense. In fact, we have seen Scourge continually nerfed in that DPS area ... so that should be a strong indicator of what Anet wants for this espec and how it aligns with Scourge theme.

Anyways, we are off a little on topic. The fact is that these gaps don't prevent people from raiding with the exception of those that don't learn how to do so. If there is a reason to reduce the gaps, whatever they are, they are certainly not going to be justified based on a game mechanics argument, since the game already accommodates for these gaps with the raid design itself. When I realized that, I thought it was genius because chasing meta is a nonsense activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't
scream
DPS spec more if it tried.

As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

Well, to start we SHOULDN'T look at quickbrand because what other specs do is not relevant to Necro. We also SHOULDN'T consider what other MMO's do either because GW2 is fundamentally different from most of those MMO's in how it's designed and how classes are derived from that design.

My point here is simple ... there is a theme for an espec and whatever that theme is will determine what tools it gets. If the theme is 'tank', then that's the sort of tools it will get (even though I disagree that would be considered a class theme ... but that's neither her nor there). From where I sit, Scourge theme was never aligned with a DPS focused toolset, so the arguments that are presented to claim it should be a DPS focused toolset because of reasons that are NOT theme-based don't make sense. In fact, we have seen Scourge continually nerfed in that DPS area ... so that should be a strong indicator of what Anet wants for this espec and how it aligns with Scourge theme.

Anyways, we are off a little on topic. The fact is that these gaps don't prevent people from raiding with the exception of those that don't learn how to do so. If there is a reason to reduce the gaps, whatever they are, they are certainly not going to be justified based on a game mechanics argument, since the game already accommodates for these gaps with the raid design itself. When I realized that, I thought it was genius because chasing meta is a nonsense activity.

The argument is that a spec can't be a support and a DPS at the same time and that it shouldn't be. I fundamentally disagree with that idea and other specs can be pointed to as examples when a claim like that is made. As for the comparisons to other MMOs, I'm not using them because I think its fun. I'm pointing out what is different and what is similar. Reaper was designed to be a tank and as such with this logic it shouldn't be allowed to have high DPS if we're to use our friend's logic. Look at chronomancer. One of the DPS specs that is extremely high yet it is one of the strongest support. Why we need to isolate necromancer from everything else makes no sense. Necromancer doesn't exist in a separate space but exists within the same game. The Support a Condi scourge provides to a group is minor in comparison to other high damage Support specs and this isn't up for debate, that's just facts.

What our friend here wants is to sacrifice the scourge for the reaper, which is a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other, both can exist as DPS and both can exist in their different respective spaces. Its not a one or the other choice. We can and should be able to play both as they are. He even said we shouldn't force players to play something they don't want to play. Well, I don't want to play reaper as a DPS. I want to play scourge as a DPS. This shouldn't be a controversial statement yet you both have attempted to make it so.

And what Arena net intended for the scourge was both a support spec and a high DPS spec. Scourge has been nerfed mostly in other areas of the game where its was over preforming in the 3 pillars of the game. Control, Damage and support. I've long suggested these roles on the scourge should be better defined and I've even stated in this post that follows along with that philosophy. But removing part of the scourge's identity is not the answer to the issues the necromancer faces. Scourge was designed as the primary condition damage spec for necromancer. This is a fact. Demonic Lore, sadistic searing and Fell Beacon are all evidence of this fact. Looking further into it, sand sage was designed with this in mind as well.

Look. I want reaper to be good. I do. But I will not let people throw scourge under the bus because they have this false notion that there isn't room for both as different forms of DPS. Reaper has just as many flawed designs as the scourge. More so in fact because its build on the ideas put in place by death shroud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't
scream
DPS spec more if it tried.

As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

Well, to start we SHOULDN'T look at quickbrand because what other specs do is not relevant to Necro. We also SHOULDN'T consider what other MMO's do either because GW2 is fundamentally different from most of those MMO's in how it's designed and how classes are derived from that design.

My point here is simple ... there is a theme for an espec and whatever that theme is will determine what tools it gets. If the theme is 'tank', then that's the sort of tools it will get (even though I disagree that would be considered a class theme ... but that's neither her nor there). From where I sit, Scourge theme was never aligned with a DPS focused toolset, so the arguments that are presented to claim it should be a DPS focused toolset because of reasons that are NOT theme-based don't make sense. In fact, we have seen Scourge continually nerfed in that DPS area ... so that should be a strong indicator of what Anet wants for this espec and how it aligns with Scourge theme.

Anyways, we are off a little on topic. The fact is that these gaps don't prevent people from raiding with the exception of those that don't learn how to do so. If there is a reason to reduce the gaps, whatever they are, they are certainly not going to be justified based on a game mechanics argument, since the game already accommodates for these gaps with the raid design itself. When I realized that, I thought it was genius because chasing meta is a nonsense activity.

The argument is that a spec can't be a support and a DPS at the same time and that it shouldn't be. I fundamentally disagree with that idea and other specs can be pointed to as examples when a claim like that is made. As for the comparisons to other MMOs, I'm not using them because I think its fun. I'm pointing out what is different and what is similar. Reaper was designed to be a tank and as such with this logic it shouldn't be allowed to have high DPS if we're to use our friend's logic. Look at chronomancer. One of the DPS specs that is extremely high yet it is one of the strongest support. Why we need to isolate necromancer from everything else makes no sense. Necromancer doesn't exist in a separate space but exists within the same game. The Support a Condi scourge provides to a group is minor in comparison to other high damage Support specs and this isn't up for debate, that's just facts.

What our friend here wants is to sacrifice the scourge for the reaper, which is a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other, both can exist as DPS and both can exist in their different respective spaces. Its not a one or the other choice. We can and should be able to play both as they are. He even said we shouldn't force players to play something they don't want to play. Well, I don't want to play reaper as a DPS. I want to play scourge as a DPS. This shouldn't be a controversial statement yet you both have attempted to make it so.

And what Arena net intended for the scourge was both a support spec and a high DPS spec. Scourge has been nerfed mostly in other areas of the game where its was over preforming in the 3 pillars of the game. Control, Damage and support. I've long suggested these roles on the scourge should be better defined and I've even stated in this post that follows along with that philosophy. But removing part of the scourge's identity is not the answer to the issues the necromancer faces. Scourge was designed as the primary condition damage spec for necromancer. This is a fact. Demonic Lore, sadistic searing and Fell Beacon are all evidence of this fact. Looking further into it, sand sage was designed with this in mind as well.

Look. I want reaper to be good. I do. But I will not let people throw scourge under the bus because they have this false notion that there isn't room for both as different forms of DPS. Reaper has just as many flawed designs as the scourge. More so in fact because its build on the ideas put in place by death shroud.

I’m not a friend of anyone here, and from what I understand of Obtena.7952 I don’t think he agree with me (maybe only partially).

What you are mentioning in your comment do not correspond to what I said, nor to what I think or want. I’d be grateful if you would stop “trying to” (it could not be your intention) alterate people perception of what I’m saying.

Anyway, I don’t want Scourge damage to be nerfed, but I also don’t think there is anything (I thought you was “asking for” more damage) you should be rewarded for when playing Scourge (not something that you don’t currently have) over Reaper.

Also, you and other people see flaws in Reaper design (many people asked to change it radically), but that is your point of view. These things you perceive as flaws, are not flaws for me and many other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

Whether or not it functions in practice doesn't negate the original intent. Since then Anet has moved away form that idea, but because of this has neglected one of the core designs of the reaper. And as such the top line for reaper is a bit all over the place now. Contradicting itself between its defense and damage. Of course Reaper always had this problem, but scourge wasn't the only thing nerfed into the ground. Reaper was too. Their chill application and damage were made laughable before PoF and their buffs are only a recent occurrence.

Tank typically falls under control. Which the reaper is quite good at now, and with the removal of Crippling on the shades they're arguably better than scourge in some situations. I've spoken with the devs over the years on occasions back during and before reaper was released. They never wanted reaper or necromancer in general to be a high damage class. Of course the community didn't agree with their approach and as such what we can surmise from this is, yes, this was there intention but things are changing and Arena net is slow to correct.

Currently scourge is in shambles. It needs some major buffs and reworks. As much as people like to say scourge was Over powered, it really wasn't. It had an over powered aspect to it and everything around the problem was gutted which has left it a shell of its former self. Sand Savant was the problem in combination with the AoE crippling. This was overwhelming, and because of this we get to keep sand savant but lose everything else in the process. Yes the scourge has flawed design but that's because arena net refused to listen to the Scourge players when we were pointing out what the problem is. THey listened to what everyone else thought the problem was without ever touching the spec.

Scourge was always meant to be about damage, control and supporting allies. Its built into its design. I agree these themes crossed the streams a bit too much. But out right denying that Damage was never in the scourge's theming is just mistaken. Especially given the trait design and its chosen weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Black Storm.6974 said:

@Black Storm.6974 said:I don’t want Scourge to have higher dps.

Scourge is the support spec of the Necromancer, and I don’t want it to be also our best DPS choice.

Scourge (in its condition version) is harder than Reaper (which is not really simple as some people claim it to be) to play well and I really hope it can be simplified, to make its difficulty more similar to the difficulty of our other elite spec.

Reapers and Scourges are both Necromancers, and it is generally not fun choosing a profession and seeing it become drastically different, and then even feeling forced by others to play the part of it that you hate (both for support and DPS).

It would make more sense, to me, having Reaper being the best DPS choice and Scourge the best support choice.

The scourge being so different from reaper and core is what makes it so much fun. Reaper is just awful to play for us GW1 necromancer mains. Same with core necro

I’m playing GW2, necromancer is something different here and a lot of people love it. I enjoyed core necromancer and I find Reaper incredibly fun to play (as many other people). I enjoy playing support Scourge too, anyway.

I can’t play Scourge condition, but I’m not here asking for “imbalance”. Scourge is the support spec of necromancer, and making it its best DPS spec would be a terrible idea.

Why? Its glassier than Reaped and more difficult to use.

Do you have a real reason other than you don't think it should be? Scourge having support isn't a reason.

To be fair, 'glassier' and 'more difficult aren't good reasons either. The tools a class (or espec) gets is based on it's theme determined by Anet, not some notion of performance or 'filling a role' gap.

I think we can see that Scourge isn't a primarily DPS spec; if the numbers were stripped away and we focused on what it's toolset did when it was released, it become very clear what it was meant to do. Reaper ... that couldn't
scream
DPS spec more if it tried.

As normal, the core class design has made a direct link between sustain and DPS ... anyone that thinks we just peg another X DPS to anything Necro to make it 'raid-worthy' simply doesn't understand the class they play or the approach Anet uses to develop the Necro family of specs. This link makes Necro's unique in this manner.

Reaper screamed tank when it was released. Its traits actually did suggest tank at first. It was damage reduction from chill originally, not damage increase, you have the entire top line which is dedicated to tanking. you have the middle line which is minor damage and control and the bottom line which is about pursuit. The original design was off DPS at best. It was designed to be a primary control.

Looking at scourge, it was a mixed bag. It had support but also dedication to DPS. To assume that one is more of a DPS than the other just doesn't reflect on the traits. Just because tanking as it is traditionally doesn't work in GW2 doesn't mean that wasn't the design space reaper was supposed to fill. A tank shouldn't have high DPS, but again this isn't other MMOs which I don't agree that one should be better than the other.

But we could also look at quickbrand which is a high DPS and support spec. Which far outpaces either reaper or scourge in both aspects. Not a good argument against my points. Sorry.

Well, to start we SHOULDN'T look at quickbrand because what other specs do is not relevant to Necro. We also SHOULDN'T consider what other MMO's do either because GW2 is fundamentally different from most of those MMO's in how it's designed and how classes are derived from that design.

My point here is simple ... there is a theme for an espec and whatever that theme is will determine what tools it gets. If the theme is 'tank', then that's the sort of tools it will get (even though I disagree that would be considered a class theme ... but that's neither her nor there). From where I sit, Scourge theme was never aligned with a DPS focused toolset, so the arguments that are presented to claim it should be a DPS focused toolset because of reasons that are NOT theme-based don't make sense. In fact, we have seen Scourge continually nerfed in that DPS area ... so that should be a strong indicator of what Anet wants for this espec and how it aligns with Scourge theme.

Anyways, we are off a little on topic. The fact is that these gaps don't prevent people from raiding with the exception of those that don't learn how to do so. If there is a reason to reduce the gaps, whatever they are, they are certainly not going to be justified based on a game mechanics argument, since the game already accommodates for these gaps with the raid design itself. When I realized that, I thought it was genius because chasing meta is a nonsense activity.

The argument is that a spec can't be a support and a DPS at the same time and that it shouldn't be. I fundamentally disagree with that idea and other specs can be pointed to as examples when a claim like that is made. As for the comparisons to other MMOs, I'm not using them because I think its fun. I'm pointing out what is different and what is similar. Reaper was designed to be a tank and as such with this logic it shouldn't be allowed to have high DPS if we're to use our friend's logic. Look at chronomancer. One of the DPS specs that is extremely high yet it is one of the strongest support. Why we need to isolate necromancer from everything else makes no sense. Necromancer doesn't exist in a separate space but exists within the same game. The Support a Condi scourge provides to a group is minor in comparison to other high damage Support specs and this isn't up for debate, that's just facts.

What our friend here wants is to sacrifice the scourge for the reaper, which is a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other, both can exist as DPS and both can exist in their different respective spaces. Its not a one or the other choice. We can and should be able to play both as they are. He even said we shouldn't force players to play something they don't want to play. Well, I don't want to play reaper as a DPS. I want to play scourge as a DPS. This shouldn't be a controversial statement yet you both have attempted to make it so.

And what Arena net intended for the scourge was both a support spec and a high DPS spec. Scourge has been nerfed mostly in other areas of the game where its was over preforming in the 3 pillars of the game. Control, Damage and support. I've long suggested these roles on the scourge should be better defined and I've even stated in this post that follows along with that philosophy. But removing part of the scourge's identity is not the answer to the issues the necromancer faces. Scourge was designed as the primary condition damage spec for necromancer. This is a fact. Demonic Lore, sadistic searing and Fell Beacon are all evidence of this fact. Looking further into it, sand sage was designed with this in mind as well.

Look. I want reaper to be good. I do. But I will not let people throw scourge under the bus because they have this false notion that there isn't room for both as different forms of DPS. Reaper has just as many flawed designs as the scourge. More so in fact because its build on the ideas put in place by death shroud.

I’m not a friend of anyone here, and from what I understand of Obtena.7952 I don’t think he agree with me (maybe only partially).

What you are mentioning in your comment do not correspond to what I said, nor to what I think or want. I’d be grateful if you would stop “trying to” (it could not be your intention) alterate people perception of what I’m saying.

Anyway, I don’t want Scourge damage to be nerfed, but I also don’t think there is anything (I thought you was “asking for” more damage) you should be rewarded for when playing Scourge (not something that you don’t currently have) over Reaper.

Also, you and other people see flaws in Reaper design (many people asked to change it radically), but that is your point of view. These things you perceive as flaws, are not flaws for me and many other people.

I have no, and have never have had an interest in changing the reaper's core design. I have had interest in changing the core necromancer's design, but that's quite different. The reaper's flaws are something you've pointed out yourself. One of it being it can't be healed while in shroud. But this goes beyond just that and I've written entire essays on why the shroud mechanic was a bad idea and how it absolutely cripples the necromancer's current and future design space but I'm not going to get into that. I've also only been referring to what you have said. I've even quoted you.

You don't want their damage to be nerfed sure, but what you do want is them pushed out of the meta. By making the gap between reaper and scourge strong enough in these raiding situations, you are effectively pushing the DPS scourge out of the meta entirely. Condi Scourge has one major outstanding role. Epidemic. And that isn't unique to them. IF reaper were to surpass them in condi damage they would be pushed out. And we go back to one of the least interesting and least engaging reaper builds I've ever had the misfortune of running once again.

Also I was calling you friend to be polite. I'm not looking to breed hostility with you. Just trying to bridge your understanding with my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

Whether or not it functions in practice doesn't negate the original intent. Since then Anet has moved away form that idea, but because of this has neglected one of the core designs of the reaper. And as such the top line for reaper is a bit all over the place now. Contradicting itself between its defense and damage. Of course Reaper always had this problem, but scourge wasn't the only thing nerfed into the ground. Reaper was too. Their chill application and damage were made laughable before PoF and their buffs are only a recent occurrence.

Tank typically falls under control. Which the reaper is quite good at now, and with the removal of Crippling on the shades they're arguably better than scourge in some situations. I've spoken with the devs over the years on occasions back during and before reaper was released. They never wanted reaper or necromancer in general to be a high damage class. Of course the community didn't agree with their approach and as such what we can surmise from this is, yes, this was there intention but things are changing and Arena net is slow to correct.

Currently scourge is in shambles. It needs some major buffs and reworks. As much as people like to say scourge was Over powered, it really wasn't. It had an over powered aspect to it and everything around the problem was gutted which has left it a shell of its former self. Sand Savant was the problem in combination with the AoE crippling. This was overwhelming, and because of this we get to keep sand savant but lose everything else in the process. Yes the scourge has flawed design but that's because arena net refused to listen to the Scourge players when we were pointing out what the problem is. THey listened to what everyone else thought the problem was without ever touching the spec.

Scourge was always meant to be about damage, control and supporting allies. Its built into its design. I agree these themes crossed the streams a bit too much. But out right denying that Damage was never in the scourge's theming is just mistaken. Especially given the trait design and its chosen weapon.

I won't assume what the original intents of the various especs are ... and I think you do yourself a bad favour in doing that yourself. I'm not denying anything; I'm simply looking at the actions Anet has taken to change the class over time; Scourge has lost DPS and Reaper has gained DPS. If that's not indicative of the direction Anet wants for the specs, then nothing will be.

I do think one thing here that we should all acknowledge ... the 'contradiction' between defense and damage is the fundamental theme of the necro and that's always going to regulate necro in that special place where Anet can't just pile on damage to it without an equally significant consequence to its defense. We already saw that happen when they changed the decay rate on life force while in Reaper shroud. This will always be a thing unless Anet decides to 'break' the link between Necro's defense and damage for a future Espec. Most people don't understand this and I don't blame them because it's predominantly a necro thing that maybe shouldn't exist. I've always been of the opinion that a 'second-life' mechanic is not a good one and rubs people the wrong way. Interestingly enough, something similar also happens with Berserker, but that's a different discussion.

To be frank, I don't think Anet listens to players as much as you claim; they have already indicated they take data from actual gameplay. There is probably a balance between player feedback and game data/analysis ... but when most of the player feedback provided is like THIS thread, you can't be surprised if they lean more towards game data over player feedback. Honestly, the premise that necro's don't get teamed in instanced PVE because there is a 9-10K DPS gap is absurd and no level of sensationalism will make a compelling reason to change it. Why it's absurd? Because guaranteed Anet has game data suggesting the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

Whether or not it functions in practice doesn't negate the original intent. Since then Anet has moved away form that idea, but because of this has neglected one of the core designs of the reaper. And as such the top line for reaper is a bit all over the place now. Contradicting itself between its defense and damage. Of course Reaper always had this problem, but scourge wasn't the only thing nerfed into the ground. Reaper was too. Their chill application and damage were made laughable before PoF and their buffs are only a recent occurrence.

Tank typically falls under control. Which the reaper is quite good at now, and with the removal of Crippling on the shades they're arguably better than scourge in some situations. I've spoken with the devs over the years on occasions back during and before reaper was released. They never wanted reaper or necromancer in general to be a high damage class. Of course the community didn't agree with their approach and as such what we can surmise from this is, yes, this was there intention but things are changing and Arena net is slow to correct.

Currently scourge is in shambles. It needs some major buffs and reworks. As much as people like to say scourge was Over powered, it really wasn't. It had an over powered aspect to it and everything around the problem was gutted which has left it a shell of its former self. Sand Savant was the problem in combination with the AoE crippling. This was overwhelming, and because of this we get to keep sand savant but lose everything else in the process. Yes the scourge has flawed design but that's because arena net refused to listen to the Scourge players when we were pointing out what the problem is. THey listened to what everyone else thought the problem was without ever touching the spec.

Scourge was always meant to be about damage, control and supporting allies. Its built into its design. I agree these themes crossed the streams a bit too much. But out right denying that Damage was never in the scourge's theming is just mistaken. Especially given the trait design and its chosen weapon.

I won't assume what the original intents of the various especs are ... and I think you do yourself a bad favour in doing that yourself. I'm not denying anything; I'm simply looking at the actions Anet has taken to change the class over time; Scourge has lost DPS and Reaper has gained DPS. If that's not indicative of the direction Anet wants for the specs, then nothing will be.

I do think one thing here that we should all acknowledge ... the 'contradiction' between defense and damage is the fundamental theme of the necro and that's always going to regulate necro in that special place where Anet can't just pile on damage to it without an equally significant consequence to its defense. We already saw that happen when they changed the decay rate on life force while in Reaper shroud. This will always be a thing unless Anet decides to 'break' the link between Necro's defense and damage for a future Espec. Most people don't understand this and I don't blame them because it's predominantly a necro thing that maybe shouldn't exist. I've always been of the opinion that a 'second-life' mechanic is not a good one and rubs people the wrong way. Interestingly enough, something similar also happens with Berserker, but that's a different discussion.

To be frank, I don't think Anet listens to players as much as you claim; they have already indicated they take data from actual gameplay. There is probably a balance between player feedback and game data/analysis ... but when most of the player feedback provided is like THIS thread, you can't be surprised if they lean more towards game data over player feedback. Honestly, the premise that necro's don't get teamed in instanced PVE because there is a 9-10K DPS gap is absurd and no level of sensationalism will make a compelling reason to change it. Why it's absurd? Because guaranteed Anet has game data suggesting the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

Scourge hasn't lost all that much damage in PvE. Only in PvP and WvW. They lost a quite a bit once the bug was fixed but they haven't gone and just changed the damage of the scourge in PvE. They're still comparable. Plus considering they've adjusted the numbers across the board and have done poorly implemented balance with scourge overall there PvP and WvW balance isn't honestly a great example or a great indicator. If we take your logic into this we could then assume that chronomancer and mirage are not meant to be DPS either since they've lost far more than the scourge has in terms of DPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wondered why ANet chose to strip the whole shroud mechanic for Scourge but still not allow it to go full DPS. You still HAVE to go for defence (in the form of barrier). Necromancers are just really not allowed to go FULL offensive. And I really got the feeling that ANet just made a mistake in doing this. I really don't believe it's a 100% deliberate design choice from them. It just happened that way ... Or at least, that's what I believe ... Anyway, imo they should either fix that with te next e-spec, or do this with the Scourge, already. It already has lost its shroud mechanic, why not at least give the player a choice to be able to go full offensive!

And it doesn't HAVE to be that complex: I was always thinking of changing or altering the Sadistic Searing trait in the lines of stripping barrier (or making it only 5% effective or something) from your F3 and F5 abilities and change it to (party-wide?) dps instead. You can make it even sound interesting, that your barrier from F3 and F5 now changes to thorns barrier which will increase outgoing damage instead of decreasing incoming damage. Whereas within the code, it just adds dps to skills until the barrier is eaten away. And for the fun of it, you could just turn the health-globe upside down, where the thorns barrier is at the bottom of your health globe instead of the top.Really, just spit-balling here of course, it doesnt have to be complex imo, just keep it simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hold On ... there is a big difference between reaper having some tanky skills/design and designing a spec to BE a tank. This game does not have that designation as a foundation in it's design, so people should be REALLY careful about imposing ideas they have as baggage from other MMO's onto how they perceive this one to work or should work. I'm of the belief that Scourge is being nerfed not because it performs in certain pillars people's imposed 'role' categories ... but because its theme determines the importance of certain abilities and skills over others .. hence, the nerf of Scourge DPS over time. Honestly, no one should be concluding performance is a primary driving factor in class changes unless Anet tells us otherwise because we have WAY to much evidence to suggest that's not true.

People don't need to throw Scourge under the bus for DPS ... Anet HAS ALREADY done that. It's not about 'if there is room' for Scourge to be DPS ... it's about if the theme supports it. I would say that based on Anet's direction for the spec, it doesn't.

Really, people overthink this do themselves a big disservice with these role designations. There is a theme, Anet works out some traits and skills and a weapon that aligns to that theme. If that theme happens to be 'tanky', 'support', 'control' or 'DPS', that's most likely because its an easy common way for MMO players to wrap words around the spec to describe it; no one should assume that's how Anet works, especially considering the actual content is not 'hard coded' for the need of those roles in the first place. I mean, that's part of the fundamental philosophy of this game; There aren't specific roles to fill in a team to be successful. Other games LIVE by that system ... this one only has a mere suggestion it's a possibility to play that way. It's not imposed on the players like other games.

Whether or not it functions in practice doesn't negate the original intent. Since then Anet has moved away form that idea, but because of this has neglected one of the core designs of the reaper. And as such the top line for reaper is a bit all over the place now. Contradicting itself between its defense and damage. Of course Reaper always had this problem, but scourge wasn't the only thing nerfed into the ground. Reaper was too. Their chill application and damage were made laughable before PoF and their buffs are only a recent occurrence.

Tank typically falls under control. Which the reaper is quite good at now, and with the removal of Crippling on the shades they're arguably better than scourge in some situations. I've spoken with the devs over the years on occasions back during and before reaper was released. They never wanted reaper or necromancer in general to be a high damage class. Of course the community didn't agree with their approach and as such what we can surmise from this is, yes, this was there intention but things are changing and Arena net is slow to correct.

Currently scourge is in shambles. It needs some major buffs and reworks. As much as people like to say scourge was Over powered, it really wasn't. It had an over powered aspect to it and everything around the problem was gutted which has left it a shell of its former self. Sand Savant was the problem in combination with the AoE crippling. This was overwhelming, and because of this we get to keep sand savant but lose everything else in the process. Yes the scourge has flawed design but that's because arena net refused to listen to the Scourge players when we were pointing out what the problem is. THey listened to what everyone else thought the problem was without ever touching the spec.

Scourge was always meant to be about damage, control and supporting allies. Its built into its design. I agree these themes crossed the streams a bit too much. But out right denying that Damage was never in the scourge's theming is just mistaken. Especially given the trait design and its chosen weapon.

I won't assume what the original intents of the various especs are ... and I think you do yourself a bad favour in doing that yourself. I'm not denying anything; I'm simply looking at the actions Anet has taken to change the class over time; Scourge has lost DPS and Reaper has gained DPS. If that's not indicative of the direction Anet wants for the specs, then nothing will be.

I do think one thing here that we should all acknowledge ... the 'contradiction' between defense and damage is the fundamental theme of the necro and that's always going to regulate necro in that special place where Anet can't just pile on damage to it without an equally significant consequence to its defense. We already saw that happen when they changed the decay rate on life force while in Reaper shroud. This will always be a thing unless Anet decides to 'break' the link between Necro's defense and damage for a future Espec. Most people don't understand this and I don't blame them because it's predominantly a necro thing that maybe shouldn't exist. I've always been of the opinion that a 'second-life' mechanic is not a good one and rubs people the wrong way. Interestingly enough, something similar also happens with Berserker, but that's a different discussion.

To be frank, I don't think Anet listens to players as much as you claim; they have already indicated they take data from actual gameplay. There is probably a balance between player feedback and game data/analysis ... but when most of the player feedback provided is like THIS thread, you can't be surprised if they lean more towards game data over player feedback. Honestly, the premise that necro's don't get teamed in instanced PVE because there is a 9-10K DPS gap is absurd and no level of sensationalism will make a compelling reason to change it. Why it's absurd? Because guaranteed Anet has game data suggesting the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

Scourge hasn't lost all that much damage in PvE. Only in PvP and WvW. They lost a quite a bit once the bug was fixed but they haven't gone and just changed the damage of the scourge in PvE. They're still comparable. Plus considering they've adjusted the numbers across the board and have done poorly implemented balance with scourge overall there PvP and WvW balance isn't honestly a great example or a great indicator. If we take your logic into this we could then assume that chronomancer and mirage are not meant to be DPS either since they've lost far more than the scourge has in terms of DPS.

If you take my logic ... you don't talk like class X is meant to be 'DPS' to begin with or try to compare especs to each other because those things don't make sense to do. I believe that's a role-based description imposed by players to try to understand classes they play. I believe that's an over complication of the actual concept for how classes are designed. I don't believe Anet is trying to target a 'role' for any class; I believe they simply decide that certain things are appropriate for the theme of the class they are designing and that class gets those tools. An even bolder belief I hold is that the tools Anet gives a spec aren't even strictly aligned with the game content ... For example, when we get traits that don't appear useful and other weird things that look specialized to a fraction of the content we have.

Basically, I believe Anet offers flavours ... players can decide where those flavours are appropriate. I don't believe Anet sits there and says "oh, players need a healer for raids ... here is a druid" because that's not inline with the philosophy of the game in the first place and the content design doesn't require it to succeed.

I really don't think how much was lost or gained by Scourge or Reaper is relevant in the discussion at all. The changes made to these especs are indicative of the direction Anet wants them to take, PERIOD. There should be NO debate about that; if those changes aren't what Anet wanted the specs to do, they wouldn't make those changes. You can deny all this if you prefer and still believe there is some balance thing going on that relates performance to skill values that no one understands and there are these templates being used to define class roles that players impose ... but I just don't see it through how the game is executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:I always wondered why ANet chose to strip the whole shroud mechanic for Scourge but still not allow it to go full DPS. You still HAVE to go for defence (in the form of barrier). Necromancers are just really not allowed to go FULL offensive. And I really got the feeling that ANet just made a mistake in doing this. I really don't believe it's a 100% deliberate design choice from them. It just happened that way ... Or at least, that's what I believe ... Anyway, imo they should either fix that with te next e-spec, or do this with the Scourge, already. It already has lost its shroud mechanic, why not at least give the player a choice to be able to go full offensive!

Yeah I also feel like there should be a trait, that removes barrier from all skills, but adds extra damage in form of burning for example (skills that would apply barrier, loose all their barrier value and inflict 2 stacks of burning for 2 seconds. Burn damage is increased by 20%)

Something like that. And this might even be underfunded, as you basically loose all supportive barriers, it would need to bump up the scourge dps by 2-4k)

And it doesn't HAVE to be that complex: I was always thinking of changing or altering the Sadistic Searing trait in the lines of stripping barrier (or making it only 5% effective or something) from your F3 and F5 abilities and change it to (party-wide?) dps instead. You can make it even sound interesting, that your barrier from F3 and F5 now changes to thorns barrier which will increase outgoing damage instead of decreasing incoming damage. Whereas within the code, it just adds dps to skills until the barrier is eaten away. And for the fun of it, you could just turn the health-globe upside down, where the thorns barrier is at the bottom of your health globe instead of the top.Really, just spit-balling here of course, it doesnt have to be complex imo, just keep it simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scourge was probably designed to be mainly a support spec. It wasn’t designed without Shroud to give more DPS to necromancer.

ArenaNet could give more DPS to any necromancer Elite Spec if they wanted to. Scourge has nothing that make it more appropriate to get that.

Probably, necromancer elite specs are simply not designed to get that.

Since people ask so much for that extra DPS, and since we already got a support spec, maybe the next elite spec will be designed to have a lot of DPS (both power and condition). They can do that if they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:I always wondered why ANet chose to strip the whole shroud mechanic for Scourge but still not allow it to go full DPS. You still HAVE to go for defence (in the form of barrier). Necromancers are just really not allowed to go FULL offensive. And I really got the feeling that ANet just made a mistake in doing this. I really don't believe it's a 100% deliberate design choice from them. It just happened that way ... Or at least, that's what I believe ... Anyway, imo they should either fix that with te next e-spec, or do this with the Scourge, already. It already has lost its shroud mechanic, why not at least give the player a choice to be able to go full offensive!

If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because the shade mechanism like the shroud is still the main defensive mechanism of the necromancer's scourge e-spec.

From my point of view, the "dps issue" of the necromancer come from the fact that the shroud is pushed toward the spot of being a dps stance while naturally being a defensive stance. The "out of shroud" stance on the other hand is kept mild in favor of the shroud stance despite it being lacking defensively. The necromancer is in an awkward spot where it rely to much on the shroud to do to many things.

Had ANet favored the "out of shroud" stance for damage scourge would have had no more dps issue than the core and it's skills could have been simply support/control skills. However, since the "in shroud" stance is favored, a lot of damage potential would have been lost if ANet didn't supply the skills with damage sources. And it's what led scourge to this absurd state where he is stuck right now (huge lighting red circles, traits exceptions and horrible QoL on it's gameplay).

NB.: They likely won't fix anything with the next e-spec because core traits are preventing the necromancer to move on with e-spec. The main mechanism of the next e-spec will continue to stay defensive due to the unholy sanctuary shackle and the fact that core is almost void of active defense skills. And the "in shroud" damage traits will continue to clash with the inherent defensive nature of the shroud, leaving the necromancer unable to escape the fate of being in this "mild" state damage wise and defensive wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Scourges channel their life force into the desert sands to summon biddable shades that damage enemies and create shields for their allies. They use punishment skills to torment their enemies, and wield torches to light the path to their destruction."

Idk. Sounds like Arena net designed scourge to be both a support and a damage spec. Like reaper is designed to be a control and damage spec. I say control because I do consider tanks to be a form of control.

But actually I do have a damage spec design for a necromancer. I could also design the vampire spec I promised over a year ago which probably would be more popular than my Diabolist.

Personally, I'd like to see demonic lore remove the condi cleans from Nefarious Favor and the barrier from sand cascade in favor of damaging conditions. I don't want scourge's support build to be hurt, rather I'd like to see its damage build strengthened just a touch. Perhaps some extra torment and burning. I'm not a 100% on that. Desert shroud should not be changed. The fact that the shades provide some defense is honestly fine. Guardian's, Mesmer's, engineer's elementalist's, revenant's mechanics respectively all provide then with defense. Defense on damage specs only seems controversial on necromancer and no one else which is major hypocrisy.

On the reaper's side and core necromancer how I would buff them, and I would buff them, I'd give them both access to utility and healing skills in shroud. The healing skill wouldn't heal you but their active or passive would still work. This would actually be a decent boost to reaper especially since they would have the damage boost from signet of suffering as well as no waste from their wells. Of course a reaper with access to spectral grasp in shroud and signet of suffering with dhuumfire sounds like someone's personal hell. But I'd probably enjoy the build quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Lily.1935" said:Idk. Sounds like Arena net designed scourge to be both a support and a damage spec.It is designed as should. You a welcome on open world, and you aslo con do solo LS with scourge. Don't try do merge design and toxic raid 1% burble with any design. This is better say "scourge not have enough dps exploits for toxic burble".If you take 5 power dps scourges and can't do some t2 fractal. Yes, something not good. But of toxic comm not accept you in raid wiht p scourge build - this is only raid problem, not scourge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lare.5129 said:

@"Lily.1935" said:Idk. Sounds like Arena net designed scourge to be both a support and a damage spec.It is designed as should. You a welcome on open world, and you aslo con do solo LS with scourge. Don't try do merge design and toxic raid 1% burble with any design. This is better say "scourge not have enough dps exploits for toxic burble".If you take 5 power dps scourges and can't do some t2 fractal. Yes, something not good. But of toxic comm not accept you in raid wiht p scourge build - this is only raid problem, not scourge.

Wasn't talking about power damage specifically. People have been arguing that scourge is a primary support design which is just not the case. Not in its trait design and not in their description and introduction to the elite spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:Arena net also said scourge would provide a lot of boons to allies.currently 2x-4x might, no very cool, but we can't predict future .. may be in exp3 scourge also will have alacrity and quickness ?? but now not no boon xDoh we have stabiltity weil for 5 ppl for few seconds, may be they mean this ?

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...