Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Why SnowCrows is destroying Raiding


Blumpf.2518

Recommended Posts

@"paulelle.6813" said:"The Oxford English Dictionary cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917.""Meta is a common Greek prefix meaning "beyond" which often carries a sense of self-reference."Do you mean any of those origins?Yes, that's exactly the point. (And just typing "meta game" into google would most certainly told you the basics). It's about basing your decisions (classes, build, tactics, whatever) not only on ingame information but on things you know beyound the game itself. And it's obviously much older than computer games and known in game theory for a long time.

Say there's a competitive game with a dozen of different classes, with differing strenghts/weaknesses and playstyle. One player tests all the classes, looks at all the stats and realizes that class A is really strong and easy to play too, so he choses class A. The other one thinks about the meta game, knowing that many players will chose class A and that those made up nearly 80% of the last tournament (time for a nerf i guess^^), So he choses class M instead, which is rather weak overall but strong vs class A. He can now concentrate purely on practicing and developing tactics against the classes that are a bad matchup for him, knowing the majority of the matches will be easy wins.

If you look at some pvp build on metabattle you will still find this idea in comments like "good build overall because it's strong version the heavily played build X, Y..." or "strong build but weak against build X, which is much more common since the last patch, so...".

Or from a raiding perspective:

  • Knowing not to play a phalanx strength warrior (which is a useful build by itself), because nearly every group brings 10-men might already. So the meta tells you to just bring banners for support while maximising your own dps.
  • Knowing that the boon chrono nowadays plays Seize the Moment for quickness. Not because the quickness/alacrity buffing SoI builds got useless suddenly, but because the meta 10-men setup evolved. It changed from a double chrono setup to one subgroup playing firebrand/renegade instead to a setup with one alacrigade (or two condition renegades) with Righteous Rebel for raid-wide alacrity with either a chrono or firebrand provinding quickness for their subgroup.
  • Or if i join a wing 4 pug run on my boonchrono, i should probably bring my dps gear/build for MO. Not because some website told me it's the best way to do it but because my knowledge of the playerbase tells me there will probably someone bringing his boonthief for quickness... And i will expect to being the tank at Deimos and plan for having some more thougness than the usual 1005. No, that's not what snowcrows' setup for Deimos tells me. That's knowing the meta or in this case knowing how most groups do the boss and that the most played handkite in pugs is a soulbeast build with 1380 thougness. (A build that you can find on the snowcrows website btw... allthough their own optimized composition is completely different)

So no, the "Meta" is originally not at all about having the one most effective or easiest or whatever tactic. It's about knowing (beyond the useful builds in the game itself) how players usually do stuff, so you know what role you are expected to perform without having to discuss tactics/setups every single time you meet with others to kill a raidboss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of popularity. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.

So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players think they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta. Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yann.1946 said:

@"Carcharoth Lucian.1378" said:When we talk about M.E.T.A., it is always related to some precise situation/content, like Raid META (and each boss have its own META), Fract META (same, there is different META for each fract), OW META, WvW META, etc...The main point is that when we talk about Meta, we don't really talk about M.E.T.A. That acronym may sound nice, but that's not what Meta is. Sure, the as-high-as-possible effectiveness is one of the primary goals of builds that are made for high-end content, but:
  • it's not the only consideration. Often, efficiency
    can
    be sacrificed for ease of use, for example. And there's a matter of popularity. there have been cases when some more effective builds were not in meta, because they were for some reason not popular. There were also cases when much less effective builds (or even ones that were created as meme builds) ended up in meta because they happened to gain some popularity for other reasons than just efficiency.
  • second, meta is not something that is limited to high-end content. And in open world, for example, being "most effective" is of far less importance.

In short, my point is that the "most effective tactics available" is something that appeared long after the word "meta" was a thing, and it encompasses only a small fraction of what meta is.

(that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site
not
being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "most efficient" stuff is in minority on that site)

Please share with us the "true" definition of "meta", because all you (and some others) are saying is that acronym is not the right definition, but you still don't tell us what "meta" really means for you

Meta comes from meta gaming. Which is basically all gaming which uses the info that it is a game.Min maxing in rpgs is an example because the characters wouldn't necessarily learn these abilities, but the player would

Most Effective Tactic Avalable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Westenev.5289 said:

@"Carcharoth Lucian.1378" said:When we talk about M.E.T.A., it is always related to some precise situation/content, like Raid META (and each boss have its own META), Fract META (same, there is different META for each fract), OW META, WvW META, etc...The main point is that when we talk about Meta, we don't really talk about M.E.T.A. That acronym may sound nice, but that's not what Meta is. Sure, the as-high-as-possible effectiveness is one of the primary goals of builds that are made for high-end content, but:
  • it's not the only consideration. Often, efficiency
    can
    be sacrificed for ease of use, for example. And there's a matter of popularity. there have been cases when some more effective builds were not in meta, because they were for some reason not popular. There were also cases when much less effective builds (or even ones that were created as meme builds) ended up in meta because they happened to gain some popularity for other reasons than just efficiency.
  • second, meta is not something that is limited to high-end content. And in open world, for example, being "most effective" is of far less importance.

In short, my point is that the "most effective tactics available" is something that appeared long after the word "meta" was a thing, and it encompasses only a small fraction of what meta is.

(that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site
not
being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "most efficient" stuff is in minority on that site)

Please share with us the "true" definition of "meta", because all you (and some others) are saying is that acronym is not the right definition, but you still don't tell us what "meta" really means for you

Meta comes from meta gaming. Which is basically all gaming which uses the info that it is a game.Min maxing in rpgs is an example because the characters wouldn't necessarily learn these abilities, but the player would

Most Effective Tactic Avalable.

Have you missed the posts mentioning that that is not the original meaning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sigur.9453 said:After derailing this threat with the „what does meta actually mean“ debate....Could we derail further and stop calling damage dealers (ddˋs) damage per seconds (dps). Much appreciated!I actually tried that for some time, but coincidently HoT brought us raids and the DareDevil spec which constantly led to confusion.So in a way not calling damage dealers dd's was some kind of meta decision, looking beyond the easy acronym... :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

@"Astralporing.1957" said:That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of popularity. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.

So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players think they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta. Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer.

That's the first time i heard that meta means "popularity". Honestly, it just feel that you have your own def of the word (which is not aven the same as @yann.1946 and @Fueki.4753 ).

For Discretize and Snowcrows meta mean Most Effective Tactic Available, by their own words (wherter you like it or not, that's a fact) :"What does meta mean?There are many different interpretations for meta, but we consider urbandictionary's definition to be the most accurate one: meta is "a term used in MMO meaning the Most Effective Tactic Available. It's basically what works in a game regardless of what you wish would work."Many players are using certain compositions - non meta ones - on a daily basis, which does not elevate them to meta. It might work adequately for their goal - a wipe-less and safe clear - however, it is not the fastest or the most efficient way to play.

The meta for fractals therefore not only encompasses what classes and builds are most effective but also how to play - in other words - what rotation should be used. Example skill rotations for every meta build can be found in their respective build pages."Source : https://discretize.eu/guides/meta-explained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

@"Astralporing.1957" said:That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of
popularity
. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.

So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players
think
they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta.
Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer.

That's the first time i heard that meta means "
popularity
". Honestly, it just feel that you have your
own
def of the word (which is not aven the same as @yann.1946 and @Fueki.4753 ).

For Discretize and Snowcrows meta mean Most Effective Tactic Available, by their own words (wherter you like it or not, that's a fact) :"What does meta mean?There are many different interpretations for meta, but we consider urbandictionary's definition to be the most accurate one: meta is "a term used in MMO meaning the Most Effective Tactic Available. It's basically what works in a game regardless of what you wish would work."Many players are using certain compositions - non meta ones - on a daily basis, which does not elevate them to meta. It might work adequately for their goal - a wipe-less and safe clear - however, it is not the fastest or the most efficient way to play.

The meta for fractals therefore not only encompasses what classes and builds are most effective but also how to play - in other words - what rotation should be used. Example skill rotations for every meta build can be found in their respective build pages."Source :

No not everything would be meta under that definition.If you are interested in what where meta gaming comes from look up Matt coville meta gaming. Their it is in context of dnd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sites like snowcrows isn't destroying anything, it's "barely" providing information about efficient builds/comps. If anything "destroys" raiding, it's the player attitude and pretty much nothing else. In the past sites like that didn't exist (or at least weren't so popular) and yet other mmorpgs still developed their meta comps/builds which were spread ingame or on their respective forums.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

Whether you like it or not, the posts you're disagreeing with are correct, metagaming isn't equivalent to that M.E.T.A acronim. That being said in most cases where it's used for gaming, that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

Whether you like it or not, the posts you're disagreeing with are correct, metagaming isn't equivalent to that M.E.T.A acronim. That being said in most cases where it's used for gaming, that acronim is more-or-less enough of a
simplified
explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one.

I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...

And even when you look for the definition of metagaming, there is not a single answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?

@"Astralporing.1957" said:That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of
popularity
. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.

So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players
think
they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta.
Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer.

That's the first time i heard that meta means "
popularity
". Honestly, it just feel that you have your
own
def of the word (which is not aven the same as @yann.1946 and @Fueki.4753 ).

For Discretize and Snowcrows meta mean Most Effective Tactic Available, by their own words (wherter you like it or not, that's a fact) :"What does meta mean?There are many different interpretations for meta, but we consider urbandictionary's definition to be the most accurate one: meta is "a term used in MMO meaning the Most Effective Tactic Available. It's basically what works in a game regardless of what you wish would work."Many players are using certain compositions - non meta ones - on a daily basis, which does not elevate them to meta. It might work adequately for their goal - a wipe-less and safe clear - however, it is not the fastest or the most efficient way to play.

The meta for fractals therefore not only encompasses what classes and builds are most effective but also how to play - in other words - what rotation should be used. Example skill rotations for every meta build can be found in their respective build pages."Source :

No not everything would be meta under that definition.If you are interested in what where meta gaming comes from look up Matt coville meta gaming. Their it is in context of dnd.

So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while not fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while
not
fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

Well, all the people i know IG use "meta" for "Most Effective Tactic Available". So maybe your def is false too (in GW2), or maybe it's mine. Or maybe, and most likely, we just don't talk about the same thing.. I guess i agree to disagree.

Note that your definition of meta seems to not be the same as the one of @yann.1946 and @Fueki.4753, as they never even talk about popularity, but about the awareness of the player about rules that character doesn't know about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while
not
fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

Well, all the people i know IG use "meta" for "Most Effective Tactic Available". So maybe your def is false too (in GW2), or maybe it's mine. Or maybe, and most likely, we just don't talk about the same thing.. I guess i agree to disagree.

Not exactly surprising:"that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one."

...which still doesn't make it correct.

tbh I'm more interested about how this whole "what meta really means" debate is relevant to the thread and its opening claim.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Astralporing.1957" said:(that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site not being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "most efficient" stuff is in minority on that site)

Btw, i'm curious about your claim that "most SC builds are not M.E.T.A." Can you prove it to me?Because i read the site (and the discord) and, for me, most of stuff there are M.E.T.A. (or really close to it aka "good" ones) + some off-M.E.T.A. builds (not the majority).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while
not
fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

Well, all the people i know IG use "meta" for "Most Effective Tactic Available". So maybe your def is false too (in GW2), or maybe it's mine. Or maybe, and most likely, we just don't talk about the same thing.. I guess i agree to disagree.

Not exactly surprising:"that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one."

...which still doesn't make it correct.

If want to play with words then the "true definition" of "meta" is NOT metagaming but just means "beyond" in greek, so you're also incorrect (easy right?).As i said there are severals definitions for "meta" in gaming context and none of them are incorrects (if you choose to pick one and ignore the others, it's on you).

Not really correct, what you did is take a direct translation of the word from greek, which isn't the same as it's actual meaning in the other language it's used in.

You know that meta from greek is still use and revelant today (as prefix)? So the actual meaning is still the same...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:I just said that meta in this game = M.E.T.A acronim. They said that for them meta = metagaming. I never said that metagaming was META acronym only...Sure, you said that. Doesn't make it any more true. There are ton of builds that are considered meta while
not
fulfilling the M.E.T.A. meaning.@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:So, what is a meta build for you and with this def? I will look at the video of Matt coville later (it is quite long)Meta builds are builds that the community uses and accepts being used by others. For example, double shortbow condi soulbeast is still meta, even though it is not the most effective of dps builds, condi dps builds, or even condi soulbeast builds. It is meta, because it is widely used, recognized and accepted.

Well, all the people i know IG use "meta" for "Most Effective Tactic Available". So maybe your def is false too (in GW2), or maybe it's mine. Or maybe, and most likely, we just don't talk about the same thing.. I guess i agree to disagree.

Not exactly surprising:"that acronim is more-or-less enough of a simplified explanation to give an idea to a player what it's about -and that's also why possibly more people atm know that as the "true definition" even if it's not one."

...which still doesn't make it correct.

If want to play with words then the "true definition" of "meta" is NOT metagaming but just means "beyond" in greek, so you're also incorrect (easy right?).As i said there are severals definitions for "meta" in gaming context and none of them are incorrects (if you choose to pick one and ignore the others, it's on you).

Not really correct, what you did is take a direct translation of the word from greek, which isn't the same as it's actual meaning in the other language it's used in.

You know that meta from greek is still use and revelant today (as prefix)? So the actual meaning is still the same...

Read up on the actual meaning instead of a direct on-word translation instead of conveniently avoiding it because you don't want to prove yourself wrong.And I still lost interest the moment you admitted it's irrelevant, not sure what you're arguing here (but still, read the whole thing for the sake of proving yourself wrong).

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sobx.1758" said:Read up on the actual meaning instead of a direct on-word translation instead of conveniently avoiding it because you don't want to prove yourself wrong.And I still lost interest the moment you admitted it's irrelevant, not sure what you're arguing here (but still, read the whole thing for the sake of proving yourself wrong).

meta : "referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential."-meta (prefix) : "beyond,” “after,” or “behind"

So no, "meta" is still not related to gaming by definition, but it can be applied to game context (and a lot of others contents^^).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:Read up on the actual meaning instead of a direct on-word translation instead of conveniently avoiding it because you don't want to prove yourself wrong.And I still lost interest the moment you admitted it's irrelevant, not sure what you're arguing here (but still, read the whole thing for the sake of proving yourself wrong).

meta : "referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential."-meta (prefix) : "beyond,” “after,” or “behind"

So no, "meta" is still not related to gaming by definition, but it can be applied to game context (and a lot of others contents^^).

Yeah, "meta" translation itself is not, but the meta you're using in the context of this thread comes from the term metagaming and what it means and it's not m.e.t.a.Still irreleavant to the thread though.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Blumpf.2518" said:Why dont you continue your metaphysic metadiscussion in another metathread, so that the rest can get back to topic.

I agree, so:Sites like snowcrows isn't destroying anything, it's "barely" providing information about efficient builds/comps. If anything "destroys" raiding, it's the player attitude and pretty much nothing else. In the past sites like that didn't exist (or at least weren't so popular) and yet other mmorpgs still developed their meta comps/builds which were spread ingame or on their respective forums.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:Read up on the actual meaning instead of a direct on-word translation instead of conveniently avoiding it because you don't want to prove yourself wrong.And I still lost interest the moment you admitted it's irrelevant, not sure what you're arguing here (but still, read the whole thing for the sake of proving yourself wrong).

meta : "referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential."-meta (prefix) : "beyond,” “after,” or “behind"

So no, "meta" is still not related to gaming by definition, but it can be applied to game context (and a lot of others contents^^).

Yeah, "meta" translation itself is not, but the meta you're using in the context of this thread comes from the term metagaming and what it means and it's not m.e.t.a.

The meta we (i and some others here) are using in the context of this thread means m.e.t.a. and not metagaming. That's all.

Still irreleavant to the thread though.

Yep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:(that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site
not
being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "
most efficient
" stuff is in
minority on that site
)

Btw, i'm curious about your claim that "most SC builds are not M.E.T.A." Can you prove it to me?Because i read the site (and the discord) and, for me, most of stuff there are M.E.T.A. (or really close to it aka "good" ones) + some off-M.E.T.A. builds (not the majority).For you. Just look at how they grade the stuff. It's clear they don't consider most of what they post to be "meta quality" (and some stuff they do mark as meta clearly has better substitutes). In fact, there's a surprisingly high number of builds that aren't marked as meta on even
one
boss (and some that get at best mediocre ratings everywhere).I am at the moment a bit too busy to do a run through every single build posted on that site, but even cursory glance reveals that there's at least one build per class (usually more) that should not be even there if they just kept to meta. And even more should be removed if they were to limit themselves only to the "most efficient" stuff. And that still ignores all of the less efficient variants of the main builds they also have.

I looked at it and all the builds here are meta or at least good (which is really close to meta) at one boss (at least). If a build fall under that, they are indeed removed from the website (like the power core warrior build was when anet buffed the berserker spec).And what builds are better than the ones marked as meta? (they are maybe the new meta?).

By the way, it is rather well known that their version of the "most efficient" tactics is quite different than what the most groups are running. A look at the benchmark table should also tell you something.

I (and no one here) never said that the most efficient tactics was the most used ones. Of course, a lot of pug squads (if not all) don't use M.E.T.A. squad composition and prefer safer off-meta comp (like take 2 healers instead of one) and accept a lot of off-meta builds. I never see the 7 power chronos meta on xera for example, but that doesn't mean that this peculiar setup is not the "most efficient tactic available". It still is. Most people (myself included) just want to clear the content and have fun while doing it.

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:And you already got your answer severals times : No Snowcrows website is not destroying raiding, people and lack of new content are.Which people? I hope you don't mean players. Because if there's not enough players to keep the content afloat, it's not the players' fault, but the fault of the content.

Well i was summarized the answers that op got (some are blaming the raiders community), but in fact i agree with you here (my phrase was not clear, that's my bad :( )

And while more content might help, i'm afraid that raids to be "saved" would require way more resources than devs were ever capable of giving to them (and probably some changes that the current raiding community might not like all that much). Even if they kept the original team on raids, which would result in us having a few more wings now, without some deeper changes to the very nature of raids, it would only delay the inevitable.I do agree though that Snowcrows do not have anything to do with all of this.

I also agree that the issue is more complex than just lack of content and lie in the game design (no incentive to get better) + the big lack of tutorials (in the whole game). That make gw2 raids really hard for most players and prevent them to do it (even if you consider training discord/guilds) as there is no stepping stones for it (strikes?).

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...